When you open your mouth you can't help but reveal your stupidity or deception. You could use Heim and Picker's version of Table Talks, but you used a translation of Borman's which is well known to be unreliable even according to Picker. Kind of crazy you made your whole personality lying about Hitler, you could have been a cook or something idk.
For anyone actually interested in the background of this source here's Richard J. Evans on Hitler's Table Talks:
"One particularly controversial source is the so-called ‘table-talk’ in which the monologues to which Hitler subjected his lunch and dinner companions in 1941–42 are reported. In July 1941 Martin Bormann came up with the idea of recording these for posterity. Bormann entrusted the task to his adjutant Heinrich Heim, a Nazi lawyer. Hitler did not engage in casual conversation but treated his audience to monologues in which he expounded his ideas on a vast range of topics, and at the height of his power these words of wisdom surely demanded to be preserved, in the view of his acolytes.
Heim accompanied Bormann to these meals and listened attentively to what Hitler said, immediately dictating notes to a secretary after the meal was over, sometimes revising them later. Bormann read the resulting documents shortly afterwards, and made a few additions and corrections based on his own memory of the respective monologue, then Heim corrected the typed-up version before the fair copy was produced and archived.
During a break between 12 March and 1 August 1942 while Heim was away, his duties were carried out by Henry Picker, another legally trained Nazi official. Heim continued to write up the monologues until 7 September 1942. A few, less detailed, notes were taken on occasion in 1943–44, but they are a good deal less interesting. It was Picker who, after the war, first published an edition of what he called ‘Hitler’s Table-Talk’, which also included the Heim records, together with a variety of testimonies confirming their authenticity and explanatory notes by Picker himself.
These were, then, not based on shorthand transcripts taken by Hitler’s secretaries, as has sometimes been assumed, but written up after the event. How reliable are they? Obviously, they are not an exact record, and indeed Heim prefaced each of them with a phrase such as ‘The boss expressed himself among other things, in effect, as follows.’
Moreover, while Bormann was satisfied with Heim’s reports, he was far more critical of Picker’s, which contained numerous minor slips and even misdatings and mistranscriptions. However, there is no evidence that anyone, including Bormann, interpolated new material or inserted tendentious amendments in order to give readers a false impression of Hitler’s views. After all, by 1941 Hitler was regarded, not least by his staff and by Nazi fanatics like Martin Bormann, as a kind of God, and the actual reason for recording the ‘table-talk’ was to put down his thoughts as a kind of sacred text, a guide to the imagined Nazi future. Altering the record in any significant way would have been tantamount to sacrilege.
Of course, Hitler can hardly have expected his listeners not to repeat what he said to others, so his remarks were far from being private or confidential. But nothing in the ‘table-talk’ went in any way counter to Hitler’s known views as expounded in his speeches and directives, and the frequent repetitions and revisits to previously discussed topics reveal complete consistency in what Hitler said during the period of time covered. They add details to what is already known but contain no startling revelations. It does not follow from the fact that they were written up from memory that they did not more or less faithfully reproduce anything Hitler said, or distorted or misrepresented his thoughts."
Hitler hated Christianity, as did all the Germans he surrounded himself with. Nationalism rose up against and destroyed Christianity in Europe. America was founded by anti-Christians founding fathers as well.
So much here is devoted to showing (quite frankly) that it was simply two sets of authoritarianism that went against each other.
Religion is still an "identity" and one that can go where it pleases the zeitgeist. And more powerfully, it is an "excluder". Regardless of (any/some?) "liberal mindedness" such as "all god's children" or "mercy" etc. it is a tribal arrangement that per force must exclude.
"Exclusion" even with decent sentiments toward the "others" will not prevent its bloodthirst when circumstances come together.
You spent all this time writing and didn't stop to consider if Goebbels or Rosenberg were trust worthy sources? Good job wasting your time I guess. You also appear to be using Borman's version of table talks or one of the translations, which is notoriously unreliable and would have taken two seconds to discover had you not made up your mind before doing any research. I cannot stress enough how destructive to your argument and understanding of the subject using them as sources was.
Hitler clearly rejected that he was a pagan or polytheist and still clearly believed in God. Most likely the Christian God since that is what he grew up with, he respected Jesus Christ, and affirmed this throughout his life according to people who were more trust worthy than Goebbels or Borman. Perhaps Christian in a similar vain to George Washington. At worst a non trinitarian Christian but he remained Catholic his whole life and never condemned the Nicene Creed or even Jesus.
It's quite sad you've spent God knows how much time chasing a lie and that you will likely hold in spite of all evidence. The fact is it is the Allies who started the war, refused peace, killed more people, were either atheists or Satanists. Even if Hitler was not Christian, and no honest source can suggest that, he still acted more Christian than them. Here's a far better version of Hitler's religious views that you likely still won't understand: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
An appeal to an authority you don't believe in? How honest. No they don't, I'm proof right in front of you. Plus Irving, ZH, Goering, and numerous others who know more than you'll ever disagree.
Borman is Hitler's secretary, he's one of the writers of Table Talks and the more anti Christian writer, I did not claim he's the translator. Off the bat you choked by not knowing who he is while still acting high and mighty, incredible.
He's not a pagan in any sense, see his actual quotes not Borman's or Goebbel's.
No because it's an hour long and it sucks. Did you read the Wiki quote that cuts the filler and has his actual quotes and their misinterpretations? JK I know you didn't, if you did you'd know he did not reject his resurrection.
No way you said that lmao, Hitler is constantly demonized by politicians.
Irving affirms the authenticity of my sources, I just linked you a video about this. Irving's book on Goebbels uses the diaries exhaustively. Bormann edited and combined all the notes, yes, he didn't translate anything. There is no "other translations" because Bormann didn't translate anything.
To be clear, you believe Otto Wagener (along with the myriad of other people I cite) are all lying and working together to craft this conspiracy?
Irving says Goebbels is untrustworthy and that Hitler was at least pro Christian. Again a bad faith argument. I did not claim he translated anything, he's not the only secretary however. I felt I made this clear but maybe not, you should already know this though. To be even clearer yes, Weikart used Borman's notes and is therefore not a trustworthy account. This is stuff you should already know.
You dishonestly (if you have the knowledge to be so) quoted Wagener which you would know if you were not closed minded.
"The movement would complete the work which Christ had begun but could not finish." Which you portray as Hitler putting himself above Christ, same speech. "The movement's goal was to translate the ideals of Christ into deeds."
"Mary and Magdalene stood at the empty tomb. For they were seeking the dead man. But we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ! we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ!" Otto Wagener, I believe from the same speech.
So you believe Goebbels (and by extension Rosenberg via corroboration) is an authentic source but that Goebbels was lying in his personal diary?
And you think Bormann also fabricated a bunch of statements to inject into table talks?
How big does this conspiracy get? We're getting to the point where almost the whole inner circle is in on this.
As for Wagener, he demonstrates here how Hitler's public statements didn't align with what he believed and said elsewhere. The entire section quoted by Wagener is:
"“It is in this that the monstrous crime of these enemies of Christian socialism lies! With the basest hypocrisy they cany before them the cross—the instrument of that murder which, in their thoughts, they commit over and over—as a new divine sign of Christian awareness, and allow mankind to kneel to it. They even pretend to be preaching the teachings of Christ. But their lives and deeds are a constant blow against these teachings and their Creator and a defamation of God!
We are the first to exhume these teachings! Through us alone, and not until now, do these teachings celebrate their resurrection! Mary and Magdalene stood at the empty tomb. For they were seeking the dead man! But we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ!" p140 Memoirs Of A Confidant
Notice that the entire context is actually an attack on the bride of Christ broadly (the Church and it's teachings) and he asserts that "we are the first to exhume these teachings" so he is rejecting all of historic Christianity at the same time.
I'm quite familiar with everything on that wikiquote page.
Nowhere do I say Goebbels is an authentic source, in fact I've made it abundantly clear I reject that he is a reliable source.
It's a well known fact that Borman edited Hitler's Tabletalks to fit his narrative, it's even on wiki, wiki source even compares the possible lines. This is something you should have immediately found out when researching Tabletalks.
That's stretching it being an attack on the Church, even if so he has even more quotes on supporting the Church and ultimately never left the Catholic Church. Also you used it to argue Hitler believed himself as above Christ when that's clearly untrue and if you knew the quote you lied in your post.
You very clearly aren't, as I feared, you're dead in your ways and don't care to learn the truth, just to regurgitate tired old lies. Pity.
I looked at your list of quotes and saw many references to God: "the Lord, the Almighty, God's will, God's word" but there were many things I did not see.
Hitler referred specifically to Jesus twice in the quotes: once as "the great founder of the new doctrine," and once as "the founder of Christianity." He didn't even want to mention the name of Jesus. The words Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, do not appear anywhere in the quotes you use.
You don't seem to be aware of this, but Christianity is centered on Jesus: his divine nature, his virgin birth, his sinless life, sacrificial death, resurrection from the dead, ascension into heaven, and return as God manifest to judge the earth.
Of course, you can find not a particle of evidence to show that Hitler believed in such things - even to mention Hitler's name in that context is ridiculous.
If you think that Hitler believed there was a resurrection from the dead, and that we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ to be judged for our works, and that all human beings - without exception - were guilty of sin and could find forgiveness only through faith in Christ and spiritual cleansing by faith in his blood shed on the cross, you are invited to present your evidence.
Finally, you seem to be unaware of many biblical teachings, such as:
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth [burns] with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
Did you notice that? Murderers and liars will be cast into the lake of fire to be tormented forever and ever. That includes Adolf - and we know by words he wrote just before his suicide that he was completely unrepentant.
Then you should repent for lying, since you're replying to my comment with Hitler's quote on the resurrection.
"Mary and Magdalene stood at the empty tomb. For they were seeking the dead man. But we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ! we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ!"
In fact he repeatedly mentions Christ or his Christian savior. Also referring to God as Providence is not uncommon for oldish Christians, George Washington also only referred to him as such. To say nothing of his mention of God, with it clearly being a singularly God, which really leaves us with the Christian God, Allah but he doesn't say he's worshipping Allah, or the Gnostic God but he clearly believes God is active in the world.
So I assume you didn't read it, probably controlled f Jesus and didn't think to try anything else.
What would Hitler repent for except personal things or committing suicide in his final will and instructions? The Allies declared war and refused peace and were anti Christian and all things good (Stalin and Churchill were atheists FDR was a freemason), not Hitler. To say nothing of him getting dementia by 1945. Even then his last speech is praising Providence.
Because they aren't. Both are militant atheists, with Rosenberg not being particularly liked by Hitler. Goebbels was extremely disobedient to Hitler and edited his diary to justify his actions at times. For example the night of broken glass was Goebbels decisions without Hitler's approval, he went back to change I decided to we decided, according to Irving. That's kind of basic knowledge that neither man is trustworthy.
I actually spoke to the big J.C. just the other day, he said Hitler was a class act guy, one of God’s favorites. Safe to say you’re going to hell for writing this, bud.
Schopenhauer was not anti-christian, and Rosenberg was correct in suspecting that quote was not from Schopenhauer. His doctrine is christian, and he says so himself. Christs sacrifice was the ultimate negation of the will.
I've noticed over the years a growing, coordinated effort to malign Christianity by associating it with bad actors, sometimes even going so far as to portray Hitler as a Christian. These attacks have become more aggressive in recent times as anti-Christian rhetoric escalates. The opponents of Christianity increasingly rely on shame tactics, slander, and sweeping accusations like “Christo-Fascism” to discredit believers. These efforts are not grounded in reality; rather, they are part of a broader revisionist push to portray all Christians as morally suspect and beyond moral redemption.
Part of my work here is aimed at countering that noise.
It starts with good intentions—flags, prayers, national pride. But when a country begins to speak of itself in sacred terms, something deeper is happening.
That something is civil religion: the blending of patriotism and religious language, where a nation’s identity becomes a kind of faith.
In America, civil religion sounds like “In God We Trust,” “God bless America,” and pledging allegiance to “one nation under God.” These phrases aren’t bad in themselves. But over time, as the people drift further away from the doctrinal truths of the God to whom those epithets were directed, they can shift from symbolic gestures to sacred truths. The nation becomes more than a government—it becomes an object of worship.
And when that happens, danger follows.
We’ve seen this before. In Nazi Germany, Hitler was portrayed as a savior. Crosses were replaced with swastikas. Churches preached nationalist theology. The line between God and state vanished, and millions were led to believe they were on a holy mission—even as they committed unthinkable crimes.
Imperial Japan followed a similar path. The Emperor was declared divine. State Shinto became a national creed. To question the government wasn’t just disloyal—it was blasphemy. Pilots died in kamikaze missions with spiritual devotion. The nation had become god.
These weren’t ancient cultures—they were modern societies that blurred patriotism and faith until the two became indistinguishable. And the results were catastrophic.
In America today, civil religion still lives. On both sides of the political spectrum, movements sometimes carry religious fervor. Leaders are treated like prophets. Slogans become mantras. Disagreement is treated as betrayal.
The danger isn’t patriotism—it’s idolatry. Civil religion convinces people that their nation can do no wrong, that its cause is always just, and that dissent is sin. It replaces truth with tribal loyalty.
Real religion challenges power. Civil religion blesses it. Real religion speaks truth to kings. Civil religion crowns them.
The way forward isn’t cynicism—it’s clarity. We can love our country without worshiping it. We can be proud without being blind. And we can believe in justice, not because the flag says so, but because it’s true.
Because when nations become gods, they always demand sacrifices. And history shows—they rarely stop at one.
Christian pro Hitler stans remind me a lot of gays for Gaza.
Thanks for the proof Nazism cannot mix with Christianity
This is pure subversive bullshit
How?
He's using Borman's version of Table Talks, Goebbel's and Rosenberg's writings, and openly lying in parts.
When you say "Borman's VERSION of Table Talks" you reveal the fact you don't understand what these sources even are.
When you open your mouth you can't help but reveal your stupidity or deception. You could use Heim and Picker's version of Table Talks, but you used a translation of Borman's which is well known to be unreliable even according to Picker. Kind of crazy you made your whole personality lying about Hitler, you could have been a cook or something idk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Table_Talk
For anyone actually interested in the background of this source here's Richard J. Evans on Hitler's Table Talks:
"One particularly controversial source is the so-called ‘table-talk’ in which the monologues to which Hitler subjected his lunch and dinner companions in 1941–42 are reported. In July 1941 Martin Bormann came up with the idea of recording these for posterity. Bormann entrusted the task to his adjutant Heinrich Heim, a Nazi lawyer. Hitler did not engage in casual conversation but treated his audience to monologues in which he expounded his ideas on a vast range of topics, and at the height of his power these words of wisdom surely demanded to be preserved, in the view of his acolytes.
Heim accompanied Bormann to these meals and listened attentively to what Hitler said, immediately dictating notes to a secretary after the meal was over, sometimes revising them later. Bormann read the resulting documents shortly afterwards, and made a few additions and corrections based on his own memory of the respective monologue, then Heim corrected the typed-up version before the fair copy was produced and archived.
During a break between 12 March and 1 August 1942 while Heim was away, his duties were carried out by Henry Picker, another legally trained Nazi official. Heim continued to write up the monologues until 7 September 1942. A few, less detailed, notes were taken on occasion in 1943–44, but they are a good deal less interesting. It was Picker who, after the war, first published an edition of what he called ‘Hitler’s Table-Talk’, which also included the Heim records, together with a variety of testimonies confirming their authenticity and explanatory notes by Picker himself.
These were, then, not based on shorthand transcripts taken by Hitler’s secretaries, as has sometimes been assumed, but written up after the event. How reliable are they? Obviously, they are not an exact record, and indeed Heim prefaced each of them with a phrase such as ‘The boss expressed himself among other things, in effect, as follows.’
Moreover, while Bormann was satisfied with Heim’s reports, he was far more critical of Picker’s, which contained numerous minor slips and even misdatings and mistranscriptions. However, there is no evidence that anyone, including Bormann, interpolated new material or inserted tendentious amendments in order to give readers a false impression of Hitler’s views. After all, by 1941 Hitler was regarded, not least by his staff and by Nazi fanatics like Martin Bormann, as a kind of God, and the actual reason for recording the ‘table-talk’ was to put down his thoughts as a kind of sacred text, a guide to the imagined Nazi future. Altering the record in any significant way would have been tantamount to sacrilege.
Of course, Hitler can hardly have expected his listeners not to repeat what he said to others, so his remarks were far from being private or confidential. But nothing in the ‘table-talk’ went in any way counter to Hitler’s known views as expounded in his speeches and directives, and the frequent repetitions and revisits to previously discussed topics reveal complete consistency in what Hitler said during the period of time covered. They add details to what is already known but contain no startling revelations. It does not follow from the fact that they were written up from memory that they did not more or less faithfully reproduce anything Hitler said, or distorted or misrepresented his thoughts."
Christianity is anti-nationalism.
You're Indian.
cope
About not being Indian?
Hitler hated Christianity, as did all the Germans he surrounded himself with. Nationalism rose up against and destroyed Christianity in Europe. America was founded by anti-Christians founding fathers as well.
You cope by accusing others of being Indians.
LOL AD HOMINEM
Oh wow Gay protestant paraphernalia… what does this prove?
Well the problem is this is based on lies, the truth is Hitler was pro peace and Christian.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#1945
The exact page disproves the comment you made above it.
No it doesn't, if that's your take away you did not read it. Also lmao at OP the cuckhold.
So much here is devoted to showing (quite frankly) that it was simply two sets of authoritarianism that went against each other.
Religion is still an "identity" and one that can go where it pleases the zeitgeist. And more powerfully, it is an "excluder". Regardless of (any/some?) "liberal mindedness" such as "all god's children" or "mercy" etc. it is a tribal arrangement that per force must exclude.
"Exclusion" even with decent sentiments toward the "others" will not prevent its bloodthirst when circumstances come together.
The cope and seethe in the replies here is hilarious.
"NO IT'S ALL FAKE!!!"
LOL
Hitler hated Christianity. This is overwhelmingly demonstrated by the historical record, including this post.
And contemporary ethno-nationalists despise Christianity, for similar reasons, not least because it is Jewish in origin.
Patriotism can be good and consistent with Christianity. A cult of race cannot.
Prudent defense of national borders and control of immigration can be consistent with Christianity.
Getting all of this right is important.
You spent all this time writing and didn't stop to consider if Goebbels or Rosenberg were trust worthy sources? Good job wasting your time I guess. You also appear to be using Borman's version of table talks or one of the translations, which is notoriously unreliable and would have taken two seconds to discover had you not made up your mind before doing any research. I cannot stress enough how destructive to your argument and understanding of the subject using them as sources was.
Hitler clearly rejected that he was a pagan or polytheist and still clearly believed in God. Most likely the Christian God since that is what he grew up with, he respected Jesus Christ, and affirmed this throughout his life according to people who were more trust worthy than Goebbels or Borman. Perhaps Christian in a similar vain to George Washington. At worst a non trinitarian Christian but he remained Catholic his whole life and never condemned the Nicene Creed or even Jesus.
It's quite sad you've spent God knows how much time chasing a lie and that you will likely hold in spite of all evidence. The fact is it is the Allies who started the war, refused peace, killed more people, were either atheists or Satanists. Even if Hitler was not Christian, and no honest source can suggest that, he still acted more Christian than them. Here's a far better version of Hitler's religious views that you likely still won't understand: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Even revisionists believe my sources are authentic, and they also corroborate each other. https://youtu.be/O_xGDKh4Fwo
I use Weikart's tabletalk translation. Bormann didn't "translate" anything. You're calling a source unreliable you don't know anything about.
Hitler wasn't a pagan in a structured sense, but he was panentheistic/panthetistic in his deification of Nature and the Volk.
He denied the resurrection. Did you even read the thread?
I'd recommend against presuming what politicians say publicly is the truth, don't be naive.
An appeal to an authority you don't believe in? How honest. No they don't, I'm proof right in front of you. Plus Irving, ZH, Goering, and numerous others who know more than you'll ever disagree.
Borman is Hitler's secretary, he's one of the writers of Table Talks and the more anti Christian writer, I did not claim he's the translator. Off the bat you choked by not knowing who he is while still acting high and mighty, incredible.
He's not a pagan in any sense, see his actual quotes not Borman's or Goebbel's.
No because it's an hour long and it sucks. Did you read the Wiki quote that cuts the filler and has his actual quotes and their misinterpretations? JK I know you didn't, if you did you'd know he did not reject his resurrection.
No way you said that lmao, Hitler is constantly demonized by politicians.
Irving affirms the authenticity of my sources, I just linked you a video about this. Irving's book on Goebbels uses the diaries exhaustively. Bormann edited and combined all the notes, yes, he didn't translate anything. There is no "other translations" because Bormann didn't translate anything.
To be clear, you believe Otto Wagener (along with the myriad of other people I cite) are all lying and working together to craft this conspiracy?
Irving says Goebbels is untrustworthy and that Hitler was at least pro Christian. Again a bad faith argument. I did not claim he translated anything, he's not the only secretary however. I felt I made this clear but maybe not, you should already know this though. To be even clearer yes, Weikart used Borman's notes and is therefore not a trustworthy account. This is stuff you should already know.
You dishonestly (if you have the knowledge to be so) quoted Wagener which you would know if you were not closed minded.
"The movement would complete the work which Christ had begun but could not finish." Which you portray as Hitler putting himself above Christ, same speech. "The movement's goal was to translate the ideals of Christ into deeds."
"Mary and Magdalene stood at the empty tomb. For they were seeking the dead man. But we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ! we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ!" Otto Wagener, I believe from the same speech.
How much you could learn from merely clicking this link, but it would undo your world view: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
So you believe Goebbels (and by extension Rosenberg via corroboration) is an authentic source but that Goebbels was lying in his personal diary?
And you think Bormann also fabricated a bunch of statements to inject into table talks?
How big does this conspiracy get? We're getting to the point where almost the whole inner circle is in on this.
As for Wagener, he demonstrates here how Hitler's public statements didn't align with what he believed and said elsewhere. The entire section quoted by Wagener is:
"“It is in this that the monstrous crime of these enemies of Christian socialism lies! With the basest hypocrisy they cany before them the cross—the instrument of that murder which, in their thoughts, they commit over and over—as a new divine sign of Christian awareness, and allow mankind to kneel to it. They even pretend to be preaching the teachings of Christ. But their lives and deeds are a constant blow against these teachings and their Creator and a defamation of God!
We are the first to exhume these teachings! Through us alone, and not until now, do these teachings celebrate their resurrection! Mary and Magdalene stood at the empty tomb. For they were seeking the dead man! But we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ!" p140 Memoirs Of A Confidant
Notice that the entire context is actually an attack on the bride of Christ broadly (the Church and it's teachings) and he asserts that "we are the first to exhume these teachings" so he is rejecting all of historic Christianity at the same time.
I'm quite familiar with everything on that wikiquote page.
You're so unserious lmaooooooo
Nowhere do I say Goebbels is an authentic source, in fact I've made it abundantly clear I reject that he is a reliable source.
It's a well known fact that Borman edited Hitler's Tabletalks to fit his narrative, it's even on wiki, wiki source even compares the possible lines. This is something you should have immediately found out when researching Tabletalks.
That's stretching it being an attack on the Church, even if so he has even more quotes on supporting the Church and ultimately never left the Catholic Church. Also you used it to argue Hitler believed himself as above Christ when that's clearly untrue and if you knew the quote you lied in your post.
You very clearly aren't, as I feared, you're dead in your ways and don't care to learn the truth, just to regurgitate tired old lies. Pity.
"How much you could learn from merely clicking this link, but it would undo your world view: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler"
I looked at your list of quotes and saw many references to God: "the Lord, the Almighty, God's will, God's word" but there were many things I did not see.
Hitler referred specifically to Jesus twice in the quotes: once as "the great founder of the new doctrine," and once as "the founder of Christianity." He didn't even want to mention the name of Jesus. The words Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, do not appear anywhere in the quotes you use.
You don't seem to be aware of this, but Christianity is centered on Jesus: his divine nature, his virgin birth, his sinless life, sacrificial death, resurrection from the dead, ascension into heaven, and return as God manifest to judge the earth.
Of course, you can find not a particle of evidence to show that Hitler believed in such things - even to mention Hitler's name in that context is ridiculous.
If you think that Hitler believed there was a resurrection from the dead, and that we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ to be judged for our works, and that all human beings - without exception - were guilty of sin and could find forgiveness only through faith in Christ and spiritual cleansing by faith in his blood shed on the cross, you are invited to present your evidence.
Finally, you seem to be unaware of many biblical teachings, such as:
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth [burns] with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
Did you notice that? Murderers and liars will be cast into the lake of fire to be tormented forever and ever. That includes Adolf - and we know by words he wrote just before his suicide that he was completely unrepentant.
Then you should repent for lying, since you're replying to my comment with Hitler's quote on the resurrection.
"Mary and Magdalene stood at the empty tomb. For they were seeking the dead man. But we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ! we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ!"
In fact he repeatedly mentions Christ or his Christian savior. Also referring to God as Providence is not uncommon for oldish Christians, George Washington also only referred to him as such. To say nothing of his mention of God, with it clearly being a singularly God, which really leaves us with the Christian God, Allah but he doesn't say he's worshipping Allah, or the Gnostic God but he clearly believes God is active in the world.
So I assume you didn't read it, probably controlled f Jesus and didn't think to try anything else.
What would Hitler repent for except personal things or committing suicide in his final will and instructions? The Allies declared war and refused peace and were anti Christian and all things good (Stalin and Churchill were atheists FDR was a freemason), not Hitler. To say nothing of him getting dementia by 1945. Even then his last speech is praising Providence.
How on earth can you say Goebbels and Rosenberg are not reliable sources? Lmao
Because they aren't. Both are militant atheists, with Rosenberg not being particularly liked by Hitler. Goebbels was extremely disobedient to Hitler and edited his diary to justify his actions at times. For example the night of broken glass was Goebbels decisions without Hitler's approval, he went back to change I decided to we decided, according to Irving. That's kind of basic knowledge that neither man is trustworthy.
Thank you for putting this together.
Incredible projection by those insisting that you "clearly made up your mind before writing this" lol
Nice job
I finally got to the end of this.
Excellent work, beautiful collation of sources.
I decided to start reading this but then I started to say to myself, "Obviously true, but does all this really need to be said?"
But then I skipped to the comments.
Bullshit
you know this is bullshit
I actually spoke to the big J.C. just the other day, he said Hitler was a class act guy, one of God’s favorites. Safe to say you’re going to hell for writing this, bud.
Schopenhauer was not anti-christian, and Rosenberg was correct in suspecting that quote was not from Schopenhauer. His doctrine is christian, and he says so himself. Christs sacrifice was the ultimate negation of the will.
I've noticed over the years a growing, coordinated effort to malign Christianity by associating it with bad actors, sometimes even going so far as to portray Hitler as a Christian. These attacks have become more aggressive in recent times as anti-Christian rhetoric escalates. The opponents of Christianity increasingly rely on shame tactics, slander, and sweeping accusations like “Christo-Fascism” to discredit believers. These efforts are not grounded in reality; rather, they are part of a broader revisionist push to portray all Christians as morally suspect and beyond moral redemption.
Part of my work here is aimed at countering that noise.
A man of culture
It starts with good intentions—flags, prayers, national pride. But when a country begins to speak of itself in sacred terms, something deeper is happening.
That something is civil religion: the blending of patriotism and religious language, where a nation’s identity becomes a kind of faith.
In America, civil religion sounds like “In God We Trust,” “God bless America,” and pledging allegiance to “one nation under God.” These phrases aren’t bad in themselves. But over time, as the people drift further away from the doctrinal truths of the God to whom those epithets were directed, they can shift from symbolic gestures to sacred truths. The nation becomes more than a government—it becomes an object of worship.
And when that happens, danger follows.
We’ve seen this before. In Nazi Germany, Hitler was portrayed as a savior. Crosses were replaced with swastikas. Churches preached nationalist theology. The line between God and state vanished, and millions were led to believe they were on a holy mission—even as they committed unthinkable crimes.
Imperial Japan followed a similar path. The Emperor was declared divine. State Shinto became a national creed. To question the government wasn’t just disloyal—it was blasphemy. Pilots died in kamikaze missions with spiritual devotion. The nation had become god.
These weren’t ancient cultures—they were modern societies that blurred patriotism and faith until the two became indistinguishable. And the results were catastrophic.
In America today, civil religion still lives. On both sides of the political spectrum, movements sometimes carry religious fervor. Leaders are treated like prophets. Slogans become mantras. Disagreement is treated as betrayal.
The danger isn’t patriotism—it’s idolatry. Civil religion convinces people that their nation can do no wrong, that its cause is always just, and that dissent is sin. It replaces truth with tribal loyalty.
Real religion challenges power. Civil religion blesses it. Real religion speaks truth to kings. Civil religion crowns them.
The way forward isn’t cynicism—it’s clarity. We can love our country without worshiping it. We can be proud without being blind. And we can believe in justice, not because the flag says so, but because it’s true.
Because when nations become gods, they always demand sacrifices. And history shows—they rarely stop at one.
good.