D. Misstatements of fact    Another flaw that runs throughout the entire site is inaccurate statements. Looking at one section of the site alone - "Hitler compared to God/Jesus/Christians" - we can see a number of statements that are contrary to fact. It would take too long to list all of them. Some of them are: "Hitler's beliefs and deeds resemble the actions of many acknowledged prominent Christians of the past and present." Perhaps Mr. Walker would like to inform us which other Christians advocated Aryan supremacy; the extermination of the Jews; racial purity as the secret of happiness; defilement of racial purity as the greatest sin. He can also tell us which prominent American Christians have seized power, established a dictatorship, put opponents in concentration camps, and embarked on mad campaigns of world conquest. "...the established Christian denominations supported wars, inquisitions, and exterminations of other faiths and even heretical sects of their own religion." The Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Quakers, Pentecostals, and other groups have supported inquisitions and exterminations and persecuted their own sects? Mr. Walker confuses the medieval Catholic church with all churches. It is true, Christians have supported wars, but so have many non-Christians. The bible does sanction just wars. It is because of war that we are not all speaking German or Japanese. "Throughout the history of Christianity, priests and religious leaders have excommunicated those who desecrated the image of the Lord. Hitler appears just like a medieval priest when he wrote: 'Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise'." What Methodists or Presbyterians or Pentecostals have ever excommunicated someone for "desecrating the image of the Lord"? Also, Hitler's "image of the Lord" was the Aryan, the highest type of humanity, and "desecration" was racial desecration. Expelling people from the church for violating its teachings - and people were expelled from the Communist Party as well - has nothing to do with Hitler's doctrines of racial purity. "Hitler insisted and declared the twenty-five points (of the party Platform) as unalterable."  Is that why Hitler abolished the army and replaced it with the SA? Insisted on the equality of Germany with other countries? Forbade political lies in the press? Appointed people on the basis of merit rather than party affiliation? Did not allow industrialists to profit from the war? If Hitler did insist on the points as unalterable, then Mr. Walker is making an accurate statement, but in presenting this statement as true, he is merely repeating one of Hitler's lies. Germany was "...the most devoutly Christian country in the world, a country that spawned Protestantism while still embracing Catholicism, a country where its Christian citizens and soldiers exterminated six million Jews." This makes it sound as if the entire population of Germany was killing Jews - and why did Hitler put the main killing centers in Poland, instead of in Germany? As to the myth of Germany being a Christian country, more will be said about that in the following chapter. For the present, it is sufficient to ask, if the entire German nation was so devout, why was the Communist Party (directly affiliated with Moscow) the third largest party in the Reichstag in 1932? Why did the Communist presidential candidate, Ernst Thaelmann, gain 13.2% of the votes in the March 1932 election? Bill Foster, the Communist candidate for the American presidential election in that same year received 0.3% of the vote. Who were all those devout German Christians that voted for an atheist?    Here is one example of one of a devout German, Rudolf Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz - it illustrates very well the strength and vitality of the church in Germany. In an article entitled "A Mass Murderer Repents" [http://theology.shu.edu/lectures/massmurder.htm], John Jay Hughes writes that Hoess did have a Catholic upbringing; however, he lost faith in priests when he felt that a priest had betrayed his confession: " 'My faith in the holy profession of priesthood was smashed and doubts began to stir within me,' Hoess wrote. 'After this incident I could no longer trust any priest.'8 He changed confessors and soon stopped going to confession altogether." According to the same article, he refused to take training for the priesthood and formally left the church in 1922. Not long after that he joined the Nazi Party.    In 1923 he was imprisoned for murder. "In the third year of this term he suffered a severe mental and physical breakdown. 'With all my power I tried to pull myself together, but I just couldn't fight it. I wanted to pray, but all I could manage was a sad, fearful mumbling. I had forgotten how to pray; I could no longer find the way to God.... I believed that God didn't want to help me any more because I had left him. My official withdrawal from the church in 1922 tortured me.' " He found faith in the Nazi ideology however, and stated in his prison memoirs "I believed that the National Socialist ideology [Weltanschauung] was the only one suited to the German people." The article summarizes this ideology as follows: Its racial component, however, was consistent and (in every sense of the word) simple. This theory was rooted not in revelation, like the Catholicism he learned from his father, but in nature. All of nature - plants, animals, humanity - was engaged in perpetual struggle. Only the strong survived. Humanity's strong races must dominate the weaker ones, therefore, and keep themselves racially pure. Admixture of blood with weaker races was fatal. "Most Christians rail against occultism." Christians reject occultism, but to say that "most" of them "rail" against it is untrue. I have been in many churches, bible studies, and conversations with Christians, and most of the time the subject of the occult never came up at all. The Chinese Communists object to America being the "world policeman." Americans who object to America's foreign policy are "just like Chinese Communists." The Reich Concordat with the Vatican established "the freedom and power of the Catholic Church in Germany." Hitler wanted "freedom of spiritual and educational power" for the Catholics, "as long as they did not come in conflict with the political will of the government." The Church was required to withdraw from politics and not interfere with Hitler in any way. They had freedom - on paper - as long as they were totally obedient to the government in every respect. The Catholic Centre Party was dissolved. This is freedom and power? Also, the Concordat was repeatedly broken by Hitler and the Vatican protested against violations numerous times. Is that why Catholic orphanages, kindergartens, seminaries, publishing houses, monasteries, and nunneries were closed - because they conflicted with the political will of the government?    Incidentally, the Anti-religious left wants the Christians to be confined to the churches and separated from politics - exactly like Hitler. And that is not a sarcastic, ironic, or rhetorical statement. It is a literal statement of fact. The Nazis and the Communists and the left-wing secular humanists (who dishonestly disguise themselves as moderates) felt and feel that Christians should be excluded from the political process - if not totally, then as much as possible. That way the anti-Christian forces can rule and impose their will on society without the trouble of anyone disagreeing with them. There is nothing that such people hate more than truthful disagreement. "Hitler stressed the importance of a strong, well-organized Evangelical church which would work in close cooperation with the state." It is true, Hitler did stress this - to omit the fact that after he came to power he advocated and practiced not "close cooperation" but total subordination of the church to the state, and to take his rhetoric at face value, is a significant distortion of the historical record. "It appears clear from Hitler's own writings that his anti-Semitism came directly from the community of Christians." This is followed by a quote from Mein Kampf referring to Dr. Karl Lueger's Christian Social Party (Karl Lueger was the mayor of Vienna during Hitler's youth). In the quote, Hitler states only that he became "acquainted" with Karl Lueger and the Christian Social party - it does not say that Hitler got his ideas from Lueger at all. It doesn't even say what Hitler thought, only that he "became acquainted." Here is the quote as Mr. Walker gives it, in full: I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party. Hitler became acquainted with an anti-Semitic Party, therefore he got his ideas from it? In fact, Hitler criticized Lueger's defective understanding of antisemitism. Mr. Walker didn't mention those criticisms. The following quote from an online biography of Hitler shows how Lueger's antisemitism, while very real, was different from Hitler's. Lueger's fairness, however, is hard to dispute. Even the eminent Austrian Jewish writer, Stefan Zweig, who was growing up in Vienna at the time, declared that Lueger's administration "was perfectly just .... The Jews who trembled at [his] triumph ... continued to live with the same rights and esteem as always." [http://www.smoter.com/lueger.htm] Hitler spoke well of Lueger and his Christian Democratic party in some respects, but criticized their deficient concept of antisemitism. These statements come from Vol. I chapt. 3 of Mein Kampf: The Christian Social movement...erred in its struggle against the Jews... ...If, in addition to its enlightened knowledge of the broad masses, the Christian Social Party had had a correct idea of the importance of the racial question... there would have resulted a movement which even then in my opinion might have successfully intervened in German destiny... ...It is obvious that combating Jewry on such a basis could provide the Jews with small cause for concern. If the worst came to the worst, a splash of baptismal water could always save the business and the Jew at the same time. With such a superficial motivation, a serious scientific [emphasis not in original] treatment of the whole problem was never achieved...Lacking was the conviction that this was a vital question for all humanity, with the fate of all non-Jewish peoples depending on its solution. Through this halfheartedness the anti-Semitic line of the Christian Social Party lost its value. It was a sham anti-Semitism which was almost worse than none at all; for it lulled people into security; they thought they had the foe by the ears, while in reality they themselves were being led by the nose.    Moreover, the "community of Christians" as the bible describes it is not a political party that consists of people running for office and advocating various social and economic reforms - though Christians may do that of course. The biblical concept of a community of faith has to do with a common salvation and a common hope through the spirit of Christ and the power of his blood to save from sin - subjects with which, from what I have seen, Karl Lueger and the "Christian" Social Democrats were not excessively preoccupied. Why did Hitler not break the Concordat between the Vatican and Germany? A case might be made that Hitler signed the Concordat in the first place, to help himself into power, but by no means does it explain why he kept it after winning power. His (sic - "With his") absolute power of the German state, Hitler could have, at any time, broke (sic - "broken") the Concordat if he was so against the Catholic religion. Why did he not do so, nor even consider it? Mr. Walker asks these questions in the section entitled "Hitler's table talk and other extraneous sources." The historical record presents numerous cases in which the Concordat was broken, from the very start. A few of them were given above.    Elsewhere Prof. Conway reports numerous protests by the Vatican through official channels, all of which were ignored. Finally, in 1936, "after repeated protests by Cardinal Bertram to the Reich Chancellery had all been ignored, an appeal was made for more forceful assistance from Rome" (Conway, p. 165). This led to the papal encyclical referred to earlier, that was secretly distributed and read in every Catholic Church in Germany in March, 1937. This encyclical referred directly to the persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany and to violations of the Concordat.    This could have led to an open break between the Vatican and the Nazi government, but both sides pulled back for obvious reasons. Hitler was urgently preparing for war, and a repetition of Bismarck's long and troublesome conflict with the Catholic Church would have been of no benefit, and even a serious detriment. The Catholic Church would also have suffered from a major clash with Hitler, including the devastation of the Church's properties and the possible loss of great numbers of Catholics who, if asked to choose between Hitler and the Pope, might have chosen the former (if only to avoid persecution).    To demonstrate the Nazi position, Prof. Conway quotes at length a speech from Rudolf Hess to a meeting of Nazi Gauleiters in 1938. He states that Christianity "cannot be destroyed or overcome by external measures" and warns that this would drive people into opposition to National Socialism. He suggests that the solution is to leave the churches alone with their rites and ceremonies, and "Men will be drawn more and more to National Socialism. They will...turn away from the Churches out of internal conviction more and more...." (Conway, p. 167)    The Catholics had three alternatives: to blindly submit to National Socialism in every respect; to openly defy Hitler; or to endure. Some chose the first and a very few the second. The Vatican opted for the third. This would explain (if not justify) the continuance of routine diplomatic courtesies, and attempts to avoid open hostility (such as continued birthday greetings to Hitler). It wasn't until after the end of the war that the Pope finally denounced Hitler. Speaking to the College of Cardinals in June 1945, Pius XII referred to (citing Prof. Conway again): the suppression of Catholic organizations and public and private Catholic schools; pressures put on Catholic civil servants; propaganda against the Church; the closing and confiscation of church institutions; the total elimination of Catholic publishing and press.    The Pope also referred to the "satanic spectre" of National Socialism and called it "arrogant apostasy from Jesus Christ, the denial of His doctrine and of his work of redemption, the cult of violence, the idolatry of race and blood...." (Conway p. 326) I myself am not a Catholic, and think this denunciation of Naziism would have been much more impressive if it had been issued long before. Nevertheless, it does show the official Catholic position on Hitler and National Socialism. It could not contradict more strongly Mr. Walker's statement that Hitler never broke the Concordat.    I don't know why Mr. Walker made that statement, and cannot say if he was wilfully misrepresenting the historical record, or if he just believed what he had heard elsewhere and did not verify it. I suspect the former, since he has spent a lot of time researching this, and attacking Christianity seems to be his mission in life.    The Catholics tried to bear a miserable situation and to avoid making it even worse. The Nazi government, on the other hand, realized the impossibility of destroying the church overnight, and resigned itself to doing everything in its power to limit the church to the confines of the church building, and eliminate its influence in the public arena, especially in the sphere of education. Some individual Nazis, such as Bormann or Himmler, were more extreme in their hatred of the church - Hitler's greater sense of political reality (supported by Rudolf Hess and others) restrained them somewhat for tactical reasons, as Prof. Conway demonstrates very well (using documents from government files, and not relying solely on Hitler's rhetoric).