Hitler Pretended to Be a Prophet, but He Was Really an Evil Führer

Reichstag in Ruins after WWII

 
I’ve been a prophet in my life very often and was mostly laughed at.” 

So said Adolf Hitler to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939. Was Hitler a prophet, as he claimed, or was he a tyrant organizing the Holocaust? Was Hitler’s speech a prophecy, or a warning? For he followed the path of all dictators, using speech to guide his foolish supporters—a path that want-to-be tyrants still follow today. He laid out his conspiracy theory, blaming Jews, not himself, for the coming war, and urged his supporters to unify. None of this was secret. To organize Germany for conflict, Hitler told his country exactly what to expect. Did the world heed his warning? No, sadly, not really. Do we, today, remember his warning? Of course not. 

Given the strong support that German Christians gave to Nazism, it is no accident that Hitler called himself a prophet. We think that a prophet predicts the future. However, someone who shapes the future would not be a prophet, but a leader – maybe a führer. To carry out his schemes, Hitler shaped the future. He identified an enemy and told his supporters how to meet the threat. That enemy did not need to be real. A conspiracy theory would do just fine.

Hitler, the Harbinger of the Modern Christian Right, Gave His Inaugural Speech

    

The Conspiracy Theory

Anyway, to pursue his theme of prophecy, Hitler needed to identify an enemy. He continued:  

“At the time of my struggle for power, it was primarily the Jewish people who only accepted my prophecies with laughter.” 

Prophecies? More like warnings. Hitler was not predicting the future; he was shaping it. Indeed, in this terrifying oration, with world war only months in the future, Hitler bluntly announced – prophesized – his plan to murder Jews en masse. He said: 

“Today I want to be a prophet again: If international financial Jewry in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the peoples once again into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thus the victory of Judaism, but annihilation the Jewish race in Europe.” [italics added] 

As he spoke, Hitler blamed Judaism for the coming world war:

“I believe that if the Jewish international press and propaganda laws were to be stopped, the understanding between the peoples would be established very quickly. Only these elements are constantly hoping for a war. But I believe in a long peace.”

And, as Hitler continued to rant against Jews:

“International Jewry may hope to achieve satisfaction in their vindictiveness and greed for profit, but that they represent the monstrous slander that can be done to a great and peace-loving people.”

So, Hitler predicted the coming war (that was his prophecy) and blamed it on Jews. 


The Plan

Holocaust Memorial, Albania

Now, why would he speak so boldly? First, leaders need popular support. Hitler could not murder six million Jews by himself. He needed to inspire countless thousands of men to fire the rifles and run the gas chambers. Second, he needed tell his followers his goals and ambitions. Otherwise, how could they act on their leader’s behalf? They needed guidance! Hitler always knew that public speaking was a leader’s most potent tool, and he had mastered the art. After all, a dictator can only lead if enough people are willing to follow. Dictators do not only rule by spreading fear, but also by persuading. 

Truly, Hitler, who we today consider to personify evil, did not became a dictator by himself. Nor could he wreak evil by himself. No, he became Chancellor of Germany by winning an election and building a coalition. Once in power, he transformed German government into a personality cult. As he did so, he publicly announced the evil that he planned.  

So, when he spread his conspiracy theory (“international financial Jewry”) and blamed the victims for his own wickedness (“plunging the peoples once again into a world war”), Hitler used his speech to set the philosophical and political stage for genocide. Nazis needed enemies! Only in a twisted sense would we call this prophecy.  Hitler’s underlying argument, his implied enthymeme, was that he prophesized war and strove to make his prophecy come true.  

Adolf Hitler's Speech in the Berlin Sportpalast: God and Power

The Lesson Forgotten

Hamburg after WWII Bombing

Yet, expecting him to help the economy (for a while, he did!), Hitler’s short-sighted supporters worried little. Instead of being chastened, they were inspired. History teaches the result. Mass murder. A brutal war. Seven short years in the future, Germany would be reduced to a pile of smoking rubble. 

Now, Hitler did not really state a prophecy. What he in fact did was to lead his deluded followers. Indeed, in this speech Hitler called for the “disciplined and obedient popular community.” Germany and the world should have heard a warning.

Hitler was briefing his enthusiastic faction. Germany was no poverty-stricken nest of ignorance. No, Germany in 1939 was a center of religion, philosophy, art, and music. The great philosopher Martin Heidegger and the musician Herbert von Karajan threw their arts behind Hitler’s cause. Almost all religious leaders acquiesced; indeed, many threw themselves behind him. Religious martyrs like Dietrich Bonhoeffer were few. If Nazism could arise in Germany, it could arise anywhere. It could arise in the United States of America. Do not ever think that it cannot. Perhaps it is arising today. Are there similarities today? 

"Peace for Our Time?" Neville Chamberlain's Speech about Appeasement

Leaders need supporters, and leaders guide them by speaking to them. When they issue prophecies, we must hear warnings. When they state their seamy values, we must hear plans. When they say things that seem too awful to believe, we need to believe them all the more. Will people listen? Will people learn to listen?  

by William D. Harpine

_________

Research Notes:  

The prophets of Hebrew Scripture were not soothsayers so much as they were moral guides. They warned kings and citizens of impending danger, urging them to reform. This higher road of prophecy is the topic of James Darsey’s prize-winning book, The Prophetic Tradition and Radical Rhetoric in America.  

When people ignore clear warnings like Hitler’s, this may be due to a psychological or persuasion concept called the incredulity effect. When the speaker says something more extreme than the audience expects, people may mentally process it by thinking, maybe, “a great Christian leader like Hitler would never mean that.” They might even think, “he was being sarcastic,” “he is exaggerating,” “he is being metaphorical,” or whatever. Listeners can deny it at the moment they hear it: “a great Christian leader like Hitler would never say that.” Our sense of reality runs from us easily. 

Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of Reichstag:

No. 5 Army Film and Photo Section, Army Film and Photographic Unit

Charles Henry Hewitt, Imperial War Museum, public domain

Image of Holocaust Memorial, Albania:

Bdx, Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication., via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Hamburg, Crown Copyright, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Kamala Harris Said Trump Admired Hitler. Do Voters Care?

Kamala Harris

Wise speakers adapt to their audience: their listeners’ values, goals, fears, and ambitions. Effective public speaking begins with the audience. Always. Public speaking teachers have taught that for, literally, millennia. Why don’t politicians figure it out? Why doesn’t Kamala Harris figure it out?

Unfortunately, we see Kamala Harris repeating Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign mistakes. As we should recall, Clinton spent much of her campaign pointing out Trump’s association with and appeal to evil people. For example, she ran advertisements linking Trump’s agenda to the Ku Klux Klan’s agenda. That was pointless. Donald Trump’s supporters had long since made peace with the man’s deep moral flaws. After all, they had heard the Billy Bush tape, where Trump boasted about committing sexual assault: “I moved on her like a bi--h.” They knew that Trump’s crowd had chanted, “Hail, Trump” while flashing Nazi salutes. 

Clinton’s advertising campaign proved that Trump was evil. His supporters already knew that. Did they care?

Along the same lines as Hillary Clinton, at an October 24, 2024 campaign event in Clarkston, Georgia, Kamala Harris made a valid point that embodied a rhetorical mistake. She complained about Trump’s alleged admiration for Adolf Hitler. She said:

“In fact, just this week, America heard from John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general, who was Trump’s White House chief of staff, who said that, as president, Trump praised Hitler — take a moment to think about what that means — that Trump said, quote, ‘Hitler did some good things’ —

“AUDIENCE: Booo —

“THE VICE PRESIDENT: — and that Trump wished he had generals like Hitler’s, who would be loyal to Trump and not to America’s Constitution.”

Although I do not have a particularly high opinion of John Kelly, I do trust him to tell the truth on matters like this. But what political difference do his claims make? Not much. That is because conservative voters have quit agonizing about Trump’s moral flaws.

John Kelly's Speech about Frederica Wilson: How to Lose Credibility, and Fast


The social sciences help us understand why. Linguist George Lakoff explains that liberal voters gravitate toward candidates who express a “nurturing mother” metaphor, while conservative voters are looking for a “strong father.” Candidates like Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, or (although male) Joe Biden offered their supporters a nurturing mother metaphor: they offered a nation of justice, support, and goodness. Those qualities do not dominate conservative thinking.

Instead, Donald Trump offers power. He does not talk about bringing justice to immigrants: he talks about expelling them. He does not talk about fixing the immigration system; he talks about closing the border. He does not talk about reforming government; he talks about ripping it up. He calls the United States government “the Deep State.” That does not mean that all conservative voters prefer evil and disorder. That would not be true. What is true is that conservative voters want their leaders to protect them from real and imaginary dangers. That is why voters in North Dakota, more than a thousand miles from the Mexican border, treat immigration as issue number one.

So, Kamala Harris made Trump’s seeming admiration for Hitler into a central campaign point. Core Democratic voters, obviously, are offended. Conservatives, in contrast, ask, “so what?”

Do you want proof? According to recent polls, General Kelly’s revelations seem to have made little difference in this closely contested election. Some of Trump’s supporters, no doubt, think that a new Hitler would be great. The bulk of Trump’s supporters have found ways to rationalize Trump’s anti-American views, and there we are.

Trump’s voters simply rationalize his wickedness. That is why Kamala Harris cannot budge them by reminding them that Trump spreads evil ideas. They already know that. They have known that for years. “I’m not voting for a preacher,” they say, over and over, like a mantra. They complain that Kelly is a traitor, or that Democrats are big meanies. They can then swallow hard and accept that Trump admires Hitler.

What Trump’s supporters could never accept, however, would be that Trump is weak. (Do you remember when his crowd booed as Trump recommended vaccination?) If Harris wants to budge shaky Trump supporters, she needs to talk about his whining and equivocating. She needs to point out Trump’s weaknesses: his terrible presidential record on the economy, his griping about the election, his fear of electric boat batteries, and so forth. Those things show Trump to be weak. Trump’s supporters might care about those things.


Does Donald Trump Lead His Supporters, or Do His Supporters Lead Him? Oops, He Asked Them to Take a Vaccine.


People who value social justice already support Harris. People who fear Hitler’s reincarnation already support Harris. If she wants to pick up undecided voters, or to sway any of Trump’s less committed, supporters, Harris needs to focus on what they care about. What they care about is strength. And weak leaders terrify them. It is pointless for her to tell undecided voters that Trump is evil. She needs to show them that Trump is weak.

If a speaker wants to persuade people, it’s time to identify what the audience cares about. Nothing else matters.

The First Trump-Biden Debate: Do Coronavirus Masks Show Weakness?

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

by William D. Harpine

____________

PS: Is Trump another Hitler? Of course not. Hitler wrote his own book.

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, public domain

Hitler, the Harbinger of the Modern Christian Right, Gave His Inaugural Speech

When he gave his inaugural speech to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933, the day he assumed undisputed power as Führer of Germany, Adolf Hitler laid out a comprehensive economic, political, and religious program. As the founding member of the modern Christian Right, Hitler insisted that Germany could be saved, not by Marxism’s materialistic philosophy, but only by unselfishly sharing Christian values. His speech laid out a moral calling. It was a twisted moral calling, but his moral calling bore enough similarities to the Christian Right of today that it is worth a look. 

To be sure, Hitler’s version of Christian morality never mentioned mercy, forgiveness, salvation, or generosity. Instead, Hitler talked about Christianity as a social grouping. The nation could achieve unity and solidarity by working from a religious heritage. Christianity was, to Hitler, first and foremost, a movement that could correct the movement toward Marxism. Adherence to Christian groupings could, he explained, bring individual families into solidarity. Christianity could enhance national loyalty. Hitler’s Christianity was about unity as a common people. Other religions were rejected as incompatible with the unity that Christianity could provide. In contrast to Marxism, which was materialistic, Christianity could, Hitler explained, move the German people into a sense of commonality: “Volk,” as he said.

Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the Christian Right Showed Us What We Should Have Known All Along: There Are Two Different Christianities

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

From context, Hitler’s inaugural address promised to restore Christian virtue to correct what he called the damaging encroachments of democracy, liberalism, and Marxism, all of which he painted with the same brush. The speech laid out a strict dichotomy: atheism or Christianity (as Hitler defined Christianity), no other ground being conceivable. 


Marxism as the Disease?

To Hitler, Marxism was the disease that rotted the German public. Hitler’s thesis was to advocate the so-called Enabling Act, which effectively dissolved the German legislature and gave the chancellor’s cabinet almost unlimited political power. The law’s necessity lay in what Hitler said was the post-World War I Weimar Republic’s decision to adopt Marxist rule:

“In November 1918, the Marxist organizations seized the executive power by means of a Revolution. The monarchs were dethroned, the authorities of Reich and Länder removed from office, and thus a breach of the Constitution was committed.”

Indeed, steeped in religious symbolism, Hitler called Marxism “this demonical doctrine.”

Marxism, Hitler insisted, eroded German will by driving people toward material goods rather than encouraging loyalty to nation and family. Hitler laid out a stark contrast between the evils of Marxism, which he contrasted with the noble foundations of (his version of) Christian morality. He called those opposing views “irreconcilably opposite.” Indeed, he insisted that liberal philosophy of any kind inevitably led to “communist chaos:”

“Filled with the conviction that the causes of this collapse lie in internal damage to the body of our Volk, the Government of the National Revolution aims to eliminate the afflictions from our völkisch life which would, in future, continue to foil any real recovery. The disintegration of the nation into irreconcilably opposite Weltanschauungen which was systematically brought about by the false doctrines of Marxism means the destruction of the basis for any possible community life.

“The dissolution permeates all of the basic principles of social order. The completely opposite approaches of the individuals to the concepts of state, society, religion, morality, family, and economy rips open differences which will lead to a war of all against all. Starting with the liberalism of the past century, this development will end, as the laws of nature dictate, in Communist chaos.” [italics added]

Liberalism, communism, democracy, moral evil—in Hitler’s terms, these were all the same disease. Could Christianity cure that disease?


Christianity as the Cure?

Indeed, to resolve Marxism’s horrors, Hitler insisted that Christian moral values would permeate the Reich’s government. Christianity would, Hitler said, reinforce family loyalties while encouraging patriotism. Atheism would have no part. Indeed, his government would employ Christians exclusively:

“The advantages in personnel policy which might result from compromises with atheist organizations do not come close to offsetting the results which would become apparent in the general destruction of basic moral values.

“The National Government perceives in the two Christian confessions the most important factors for the preservation of our Volkstum. It will respect any contracts concluded between these Churches and the Länder.”

Thus, Hitler laid out a strict dichotomy between Christians and atheists, as the only two possibilities that the Reich could envision. (The “two Christian confessions” were, presumably, the Catholic and Protestant faiths.)

To implement his approach, Hitler did not support the separation of church and state, but, rather, an “honest coexistence:”

“The Government’s concern lies in an honest coexistence between Church and State; the fight against a materialist Weltanschauung and for a genuine Volksgemeinschaft equally serves both the interests of the German nation and the welfare of our Christian faith.” [italics added]

Hitler’s religious views extended to foreign policy towards the Vatican, the headquarters of the Roman Catholic faith. This was not merely a political convenience; no, on the contrary, the Christian faith must be, Hitler emphasized, the nation’s “unshakable foundation:”

“Similarly, the Reich Government, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the ethics and morality of the Volk, places great value on friendly relations with the Vatican and attempts to develop them.”

That is, although Christian sects had long squared off against one another, Hitler’s goal was religious unity. A conflict between Christian churches could only weaken his political control. It was not Hitler’s purpose to take sides in doctrinal disputes (about which he could not have cared less), but to use the Christian faith to survey common ground and encourage German nationalism.

Overall, like many American and European conservative speakers today, Hitler harshly attacked communism while offering the Christian faith as the exclusive saving alternative.

The Christian Right

The Christian Right of today continues to view Christianity as spiritual warfare. Instead of emphasizing moral social behavior, Christian Right leaders often talk about a war between Christians, defended by conservative leaders, and demonic forces, supposedly defended by liberals. For example, minister Paula White said this about Donald Trump:

“Let every demonic network that has aligned itself against the purpose, against the calling of President Trump, let it be broken, let it be torn down in the name of Jesus.” [italics added] 

Paula White Prayed against Trump's Enemies and Gave a Lesson in How to Shut Down Reasoned Debate

White unwittingly echoed Hitler’s definition of Christianity, making Christianity a force that protected people from liberal values. Similarly, Rev. Robert Jeffress prayed (on Twitter!) about warfare between liberals and Christianity:

“Thank God for a President like @realDonaldTrump who is intent on protecting our great country from anarchists who are trying to destroy it. As the Bible says, ‘Sin is lawlessness’ (1 John 3:4).”

If such views are popular today, is it any wonder that Germany, which was in 1933 still wracked by the Great Depression, found Hitler’s view so inspiring? Hitler roundly condemned communism, which, in the wake of Stalin’s purges, was renowned for violence and cruelty. Renouncing Marxist materialism, Hitler spoke for German unity based on nation, family, and the Christian faith. 

Conclusion

Avoiding doctrinal disputes, Hitler expressed profound acceptance of all versions of Christianity. That made perfect sense, as it was Christianity’s social power, not its teachings, that moved him to speak. 
Thus, Hitler found Germany’s salvation, not in physical power, but in a common religious perspective.

In his personal life, Hitler was no more active in religion than, for example, American presidents Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump, who were both darlings of the American Christian Right. Indeed, at no time in the speech did Hitler take a stand on such Christian values as compassion, forgiveness, mercy to foreigners, or the like. Instead, Hitler twisted Christian morality to become the salvation of a nation that faced, he said, great danger from Marxist wickedness.

So, Hitler’s speech was not about what Christianity was for. His speech was about what Christianity was against, and what it was against was Marxism. Similarly, Hitler downplayed the Enabling Act’s destruction of democratic checks and balances. Instead, he called Germans to national unity and moral recovery.

Conservatives have long called their opponents communists, regardless of any conflicting details. In 1933, this was absurd on its face. The Weimar Republic, although incompetent and ineffectual, was no more a Marxist organization than was Nazism. Although Hitler’s speech made only vague references to Judaism, it is remarkable that he found morality only in the Christian faith, ignoring the larger Judeo-Christian tradition. Of course, although the Holocaust would not adopt its full horrors for another eight years, Hitler had long before laid out his deep hatred of German Jews.

Unfortunately, false dichotomies can kill. Just over 12 years after this stirring speech, Hitler’s Reich collapsed in disgrace, its promises shattered by war. Hitler committed suicide, leaving Germany in a smoking ruin. His name today is a synonym for evil. 

Hitler’s rhetorical success sounds a stark warning for our own century. Germany in 1933 was industrialized, a center of religion, philosophy, education, music, and art. If Hitler could convince Germany to quash democracy with a single vote of the legislature, to make Christianity a unifying political force, to implement a stark dichotomy, a sort of spiritual warfare, between Christianity, on the one hand, and Marxism on the other, excluding all possible room in the middle—well, if that kind of rhetoric could work in Germany, it could work anywhere. It could work, once again, in western Europe. It could work in the United States of America. How slow we are, indeed, to remember history’s simplest lessons.

By William D. Harpine

_______________

P.S. Historical predecessors of the Christian Right are not hard to find. See this example.

_______________

Copyright © William D. Harpine

Adolf Hitler's Speech in the Berlin Sportpalast: God and Power

“Providence,” said Adol Hitler, Germany’s Christian Nationalist leader, “only gave to us what we deserved in the end.” 

On January 30, 1940, the anniversary of his appointment as Chancellor of Germany, Adolf Hitler gave a powerful defense of far-right conservative values. Those values resonate to a surprising degree in much conservative rhetoric today. Speaking in the enormous Berlin Sportpalast, Hitler ridiculed democratic ideals, while boasting that Heaven would stay on Germany’s side only if Germany remained resolute. Yet, as he spoke, World War II was already five months old, and Germany was destined to lie in ruins before Hitler’s leadership ended.

If there is a lesson in this, it is that people who follow strong, authoritarian leaders can expect to be filled with pride as they march to ruin. History has told that tale for centuries. Hitler’s spellbinding speech called his nation to glory and blamed their past failings on the enmity of others. Of course, Hitler was always the master of huge rallies. This rally speech showed every sign of careful, thoughtful preparation. Hitler laid out a value set that many people today still crave. Yet, as this speech proves, not everyone who calls on Providence is doing godly work. Likewise, when Donald Trump praised the vicious dictator Vladimir Putin for being a “strong leader,” was he saying anything much different?

Why Do Republicans Praise Vladimir Putin in Their Speeches?

Let us start with a brief bit of historical context. After losing World War I, Germany signed the oppressive Treaty of Versailles, which imposed enormous national debt and crushed the German economy. The Weimar Republic proved to be too ineffectual to cope with either the post-war calamity or the Great Depression that crushed the world-wide economy. After a free election, Hitler established a coalition government in 1933, promptly abolished all political parties except his own, and got to work. Unlike other world leaders who made a mess of the Great Depression, Hitler appointed excellent economists to government positions and got Germany back to work. Germany’s September 1939 attack on Poland set Europe ablaze with war, but also brought Hitler to the height of his popularity. This set the stage for his triumphant speech.


First, Hitler Ridiculed Democracy

In this speech, Hitler argued that democracy was weak and ineffectual. The Weimar Republic was, in the 1920s, famously unable to control inflation. The government finally imposed anti-inflation policies, which smashed the German economy just as the Great Depression swept across the world. Facing economic calamity, the German people were ready to turn to radical leaders. With that background of recent history, Hitler lost no time ridiculing democracy: 

“Today there is much talk about democratic ideals in the outside world. But not in Germany! For here in Germany we had more than enough time—fifteen years—to acquaint ourselves with these democratic ideals. And we ourselves had to pick up the legacy left behind by this democracy.”

In that brief passage, Hitler mocked “democratic ideals” that the rest of the world admired: “But not in Germany!” Germany had experimented with democracy Hitler said: “we had more than enough time—fifteen years—to acquaint ourselves with these democratic ideals.”

It is no accident that Hitler rejected, not just democratic institutions, but the very concept—the ideals—of democracy. He drew a stark contrast between the strong national socialist government, on the one hand, and the weak democratic nations on the other. Making no apologies for authoritarianism, Hitler implied that strength, not democracy, was essential for a proud, successful Germany.

Hitler's attack on democracy led him directly to the oppressive terms of the Treaty of Versailles. He complained that all 440 articles of that treaty “represented a burden, an obligation, an indictment, and an extortion of Germany. The League of Nations guaranteed this Versailles.” Indeed, Hitler said, the League of Nations “was not an association of free and equal nations.” Instead, Hitler insisted. As he ridiculed the League of Nations’ supposed democratic ideals, its true purpose was merely to force Germany to fulfill the Treaty’s oppressive terms. This, in turn, let Hitler drive a spike into democracy's heart:

“This was the age of democratic Germany! Now that foreign statesmen repeatedly act as though they could not possibly trust present-day Germany, one should remark that this cannot possibly be applied to the Germany back then. This former Germany was their own creation, their own work. They should have been able to place trust in it.”

Underlining what he called the weakness of democratic institutions, Hitler then narrated a lengthy list of the economic calamities that befell Germany after World War I. Those included inflation, unemployment, and general discouragement. That led him to call on spiritual power.


Second, Hitler Called on Providence

Hitler was a big advocate of the Lost Cause theory of warfare. In his view, foreign powers forced World War I on Germany, but Heaven blessed Germany with military victories only as long as the people remained strong:

“The year 1915 improved the situation of the Reich further still; 1916, 1917; year after year; battle after battle. At times, everything seemed on the verge of collapse when, as though by miracle, the Reich was rescued. Germany then afforded us with truly astounding proofs of its internal strength. Obviously, Providence had blessed it.”

Next, however, Hitler said that the German people “became ungrateful” and began to listen to false promises:

“In its ungratefulness, the German Volk turned against its own Reich, its own leadership. And it was then that Providence turned away from the German Volk.”

In other words, Hitler said that the German people literally deserved their World War I defeat because they became weak, because they turned down Heaven’s gift of strength. He continued:

“Since then, I have come to regard this catastrophe as something not wholly undeserved. I have never complained that Providence had somehow wronged us.

“On the contrary, I always supported this thesis: Providence only gave to us what we deserved in the end. The German nation was ungrateful. Therefore it was deprived of its recompense! This will not happen a second time in our history.” 

Hitler did not worship a god of kindness, wisdom, or mercy. He worshipped a god of strength. He called on Germany to worship a god of power. In Hitler's vision, this version of Providence had led the German people to fight during the Second World War: 

“At times, our enemies were already jubilantly hailing our destruction. Yet the Movement held its own with a heart filled with strength and joy. Time and time again, trusting in the necessity of our struggle, it leapt up once more to face the enemy and to carry the victory in the end.”

Hitler's message was clear. He had no use for the weakness of democratic values. He held the western democracies up to ridicule as hypocrites who oppressed the German people even as they proclaimed noble ideals. He told his massive audience that Heaven would be on their side only if they remained resolute. He raised the issue beyond personality—above personality—to the greatness of his nation: 

“I wish to draw attention not to my own person and my surroundings, but rather to the past and to the future. I wish to stand up in honor before the past and the future, and with me the German Volk shall honorably hold its own.”

Conclusion

Perhaps more than any other leader, Hitler understood the power of speech. So, yes, this powerful speech laid out a clash of values. Strength, not democracy. Unity in the face of opposition. Hitler worshipped a warrior God. Although not in so many words, he implicitly called Germany’s churches to support Germany's cause. It was not his cause, he said, but that of the German people who needed to regain the character that they had lost at the end of World War I.

We all know that none of that worked out. In a little more than five years, Germany’s great cities became smoking piles of rubble. Five million Germans lay dead. The Holocaust, which was one of the most horrifying events in human history, brought the German nation to disgrace. After Germany surrendered in 1945, however, the nation adopted a genuine representative democracy that soon made Germany into one of the richest and most respected nations in the world. 

Today, as right-wing movements gain power around the world, let us remember that they promise nothing new. Right-wing dictators of 2022 still call on churches to support their agendas. Certainly, Vladimir Putin often describes himself as a Christian leader. As they worship a god of strength, not one of mercy; as they attack democratic institutions; as they blame others for their mistakes; as they call power, not justice, the ultimate virtue, they are walking the same path as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin: a path that leads only to disaster. Hitler’s compelling speech appealed to pride and strength, but he swept wisdom aside.


Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

President Trump at the Values Voters Summit: The Donald, Defender of the Faith?

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

In his April 12, 1922 Munich speech, testifying of his “boundless love as a Christian and a man,” Adolf Hitler warped Christianity to support cruel public policies. Just like conservative American politicians today, Hitler identified himself with the group that has since become known as Christian nationalists. To persuade conservative Christians, Hitler talked about Jesus as a warrior, not a peacemaker; a fighter, not a man of love. Hitler didn’t just give his audience an excuse to be cruel; he said that Christianity required Germans to lash out. Hitler is gone, but those themes resonate today.


Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the Christian Right Showed Us There Are Two Different Christianities


Adolf Hitler was a public speaker of hypnotic power, one of the last great masters of the ancient art of elocution, who could captivate his audience with a stream of words. Alternately thoughtful and bombastic, pleading and demanding, Hitler planned and rehearsed every word, every phrase, every gesture, and every facial expression in meticulous detail. He used his powers to rally Germans to an evil cause and ultimately to destruction, leading conservative Christians to become his all-too-willing tools.

Eleven years before he became Chancellor of Germany, Hitler was already a major Nazi Party leader. Do Hitler’s Christian nationalist views echo in the United States today? I think they do. As we’ll see in a moment, Hitler cited Jesus’ life and actions to support his values. But Hitler’s framework was nationalism. Hitler stated his nationalist theme with these opening words, where he praised a historical German leader:

“Frederick the Great after the Seven Years War had, as a result of superhuman efforts, left Prussia without a penny of debt.”

Not just great efforts, not just human efforts, but “superhuman” efforts. It’s only one step from the superhuman to the supernatural. Would the audience think that Hitler planned to make superhuman efforts himself? Maybe so. Here is how Hitler introduced his twisted version of Christian theology a few minutes later:

“I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God’s truth! Was great not as sufferer but as fighter.” 

Hitler preached a violent, angry Christianity that provided strength and power. To Hitler, Jesus, his “Lord and Saviour,” was a “fighter.” Indeed, we will see that, by the speech’s end, Hitler transformed Christianity into a struggle to rescue downtrodden Germans. He didn’t do this by building them up, but by blaming their supposed enemies. 

Hitler was raised in the Catholic Church. However, he did not practice Christianity in adulthood. All the same, conservative Christians formed Hitler’s support base throughout his political career. Hitler, in turn, reached out to them, spoke in their terms, and placed himself in their ranks. Hitler depicted himself as a minority figure who, like Jesus, was fighting for an unpopular but noble cause. 

In turn, it appears that Hitler would have had no use for the Jesus who said, “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). The Jesus of Matthew’s Gospel was not a fighter. Likewise, Hitler seemed to leave no place for the Golden Rule: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.” That surprises me not at all. In my many years attending church in conservative areas, I have only heard one sermon (out of hundreds) about the ever-so-liberal Sermon on the Mount, and not even one about the Golden Rule. No, Hitler had no interest in submission. Indeed, he directly contradicted Matthew: 

“As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.”

Hitler wasn’t turning the other cheek, was he? Continuing, Hitler tied Christian duty to patriotism, and, in turn, patriotism to anger:

“For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people is plundered and exploited.”

That is, Hitler felt that the solution to German workers’ economic struggles was to blame Jews. Using the language of liberalism – “plundered and exploited” – Hitler’s rhetoric twisted the issue into a mass of unsupported denunciations. He told his audience that Christianity not only allowed but required that they crush Jews. By this point in the speech, Hitler had spun Christian mercy into its opposite. Yet, as he did so, he continued to speak words with which, apparently, many German churchgoers could identify.

Donald Trump at the Values Voters Summit: Was His Impeachment a Threat to Religion?


Thus began Hitler’s pseudo-theology of Christian nationalism. Throughout the speech, Hitler talked about a Jesus who was a fighter, not a healer. Hitler taught a theology of strength. According to Hitler, Jesus was an enemy of Jews, and that Jesus “summoned men to the fight against them.” Jesus, Hitler emphasized, started with a handful of followers – as did Hitler himself – and rose to prominence by power. Indeed, as this 1922 speech continued, Hitler praised Jesus for “His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.”

Hitler concluded his speech by creating a new moral theology. Hitler’s religion did not speak for peace or Christian love, but, instead, for a new faith of strength and power:

“That is the mightiest of things which our Movement must create: for these widespread, seeking and straying masses a new Faith which will not fail them in this hour of confusion, to which they can pledge themselves, on which they can build so that they may at least find once again a place which may bring calm to their hearts.”

And with that comment, Hitler left the stage. Christianity had now vanished from his speech. Having left Jesus behind, Hitler announced a new nationalist faith. No longer guided by Christian values, Hitler subordinated Christianity, with its teachings of tolerance and love, to a new religion of nationalist triumph. Millions of German Christians followed him to the bitter end.

Germany was one of the world’s greatest nations, a center of art, music, literature, philosophy, and religion. If Nazism could arise there, it could arise anywhere. It could arise in the United States. Don’t ever think it couldn’t. In eleven years, Hitler’s powerful but evil rhetoric converted his great nation into a land of violence and hatred. When he cited his supposed Christian faith, Hitler gave his audience an excuse to commit wrongful deeds. How could it be wrong, Hitler implied, to be cruel in Jesus’ name? 

Reverend Paula White Prayed Against Trump’s Enemies


Do you think that Hitler’s themes – a Christianity of power and struggle, whose rhetorical purpose is to promote national strength and vengeance, not mercy – resonate in the Christian Right of today? Or not? More important, is it even possible to fight for Christianity while forsaking its teachings? Please feel free to make comments below.

Technical note: "Elocution" has meant different things during different periods of rhetorical history. For more insight into the public speaking methods that Hitler was taught, interested readers might look at Gilbert Austin's book Chironomia, or the Art of Manual Rhetoric. It's fascinating, but it's also heavy-duty reading. François Delsarte may have been a more direct influence on Hitler or his mentors.