This site was written using OpenOffice, running on Mandriva Linux.This website is owned, maintained, and © copyrighted by Michael Wong.
Last Updated: Sep 4, 2007. Read the Site FAQ!
Like many organizations with a vested interest in promoting the myth that Hitler was not a Christian, the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion (aka RJLR, an organization wholly dedicated to the relationship between religion and law; a relationship which should not exist and which is explicitly forbidden by the American first amendment) has made numerous attempts to shore up propagandistic Nuremberg-era claims to that effect. Their most recent attempt was an unusally bold appeal to authority: they simply dredged up the original Nuremberg-era documents!
It should hopefully be obvious to all rational observers that one cannot prove the validity of Nuremberg-era propaganda by simply quoting it! Does the term "circular logic" ring a bell? I suppose that for Christians who are accustomed to proving the validity of the Bible by quoting it, this sort of "logic" must be second nature. And the Rutgers legal students and professors merely compound this habit by studying law, because law is based upon authority. Not only is legislation justified only by appeals to the authority of a written constitution or the power of a government, but in law, unlike science and logic, you can base an argument entirely on someone else's opinion (they call it "legal precedent"). However, for those of us who wish to think logically, a more reasonable approach is warranted.
Unfortunately, in a legalistic nation, public opinion is not driven by logic. In a legalistic nation, the "authoritative source" of an argument is often considered just as important as its logical self-consistency (if not more so). Therefore, while it would be nice to refute appeals to authority by simply pointing out that they are fallacious, we must regretfully acknowledge that this is usually not enough to convince John Q. Public, hence the need to criticize the authority iself.
The prize jewel on the RJLR revival of Nuremberg propaganda is an OSS document ("The Nazi Master Plan, Annex 4", hereafter referred to as "the OSS document") which was prepared for use as evidence in the Nuremberg war crimes trials. Its accusations were designed to show that the Nazi regime was "persecuting the Christian churches in Germany and occupied Europe"1. Notice the use of language: "persecuting the Christian churches", as if there was some special hatred for Christianity in the Nazi regime. Need it even be said that if any religious or quasi-religious organizations could have been said to suffer special persecution under the Nazi regime, it was obviously the Jewish synagogues, not to mention the Communists? How could the virulently anti-Semitic American Christians of 1945 stand up and declare that the Nazis had a special grudge against Christians, while keeping a perfectly straight face?
Right from the outset, the document reveals the dishonesty of its intent. If its goal is to demonstrate the Nazis' attack on "religious liberties" by using the Christian churches as its prime example, it represents an astoundingly audacious slap in the face to all of the Jews and Communists who survived the horrors of the Holocaust! It can rightly be said that as potentially competitors for the "hearts and mind" of the public, virtually all public organizations suffered a loss of liberties under Nazism, but if we were to list all of those organizations in order, the indignities suffered by Christian churches would come near the end of the list, not the beginning! However, one must remember the context in which it was written: postwar America was strongly Christian and highly intolerant of both Jews and Communists. Its propagandists wished to distance themselves from the Nazis as much as possible, hence their desire to "prove" that the war was a battle of godless Nazis against God-fearing Christians.
The rabid anti-Semitism of the era is no secret, as demonstrated by countless incidents such as the infamous "Voyage of the Damned"2. While they might have recoiled at Hitler's "Final Solution", it seems likely that they did not find particular fault with his persecution of Marxist or Jewish practices, so they may have honestly felt that the Christian churches were the best example of restricting "religious liberties". In reading the document, I find that while Christian apologists would like to use it as proof of the Nazis' anti-Christian policies, it is nothing of the sort.
Before we begin, I should note that one can paraphrase the basic logic of the document as follows:
"Hitler tried to take control of the German Christian churches. Their freedoms were restricted, and they were arrested or killed if they spoke out against Nazi policies. Christian churches outside Germany were treated even more harshly. Therefore, the Nazis were actively persecuting Christian churches."
This is a obvious non sequitur. To persecute is to "pursue in a manner to injure, grieve, or afflict; to beset with cruelty or malignity; to harass; especially, to afflict, harass, punish, or put to death, for adherence to a particular religious creed or mode of worship."3 Take particular note of the phrase "for adherence to a particular religious creed". In other words, in order to show that the Nazis were persecuting the Christian churches, they would have had to show that they were mistreated for being Christian, not for resisting Nazi rule, opposing the Nazi party, or being foreigners. Therefore, examples of mistreatment which arose from refusal to accept Nazi hegemony or from vocal opposition to Nazi policies are a red herring.
Moreover, a finding of persecution requires that a particular group is being singled out, ie- they are being treated worse than the rest of the population. And here is where we run into the document's greatest flaw. Every indignity suffered by the Christian churches under Nazism was also suffered by the German population as a whole. Hitler wanted to control the activities of the German people. Their freedoms were restricted, and they were arrested or killed if they spoke out against Nazi policies. Does this mean that the Nazis were persecuting the German people?
The OSS document never even attempts to justify its leap in logic from general mistreatment to active persecution. In essence, it argues that B is true because A is true (punctuating the point with a long list of examples), even though A is not equivalent to B! Keep this in mind as we look through the document in more detail.
The OSS document levels the following accusations against the Nazis:
"Throughout the period of National Socialist rule, religious liberties in Germany and in the occupied areas were seriously impaired. The various Christian churches were systematically cut off from effective communication with the people. They were confined as far as possible to the performance of narrowly religious functions, and even within this narrow sphere were subjected to as many hindrances as the Nazis dared to impose."
These accusations are so mild in comparison to the Nazis' treatment of other public organizations that they seem almost sheepish. The Christian churches were not allowed free "communication", they were confined to "religious functions", and they were subject to various "hindrances"? How does this compare to being outlawed and imprisoned (or even killed) across the board (not just for defying the authorities), as was the case with all organizations of Communists, Jews, and free thinkers?
A movement is often defined by its leader, and Christian apologists have tried to perpetuate the "Adolf Hitler hated Christianity" myth for decades. Towards this end, they rely heavily on questionable sources such as "Hitler's Table Talk" or "The Voice of Destruction", even though they rely exclusively on uncorroborated hearsay accounts of private conversations supposedly held with Hitler. There are no audio/video recordings or manuscripts of these conversations (in the former case, the original manuscripts were destroyed after having been "edited" by Bormann), and their nature is highly suspect. Are we to seriously believe accounts so contradictory with all other sources such as Hitler's writings and public speeches, not to mention his conversations with men close to him such as Hess, Himmler, Goebbels, and Goring? Are we to seriously believe that Hitler would spill his secrets even after having been informed that his words were being documented for posterity?
The OSS document could not rely upon such questionable sources, and indeed, they were even forced to warn that such hearsay sources "are to be used with caution", eschewing any such unreliable sources in favour of Hitler's verifiable statements. They had little choice; their document was intended for use in a legal trial, and while law does not remotely approach the standards of science, it still demands a far higher standard of evidence than public rhetoric, which is the forum in which most Christian apologists operate. Without the aforementioned uncorroborated hearsay sourrces, the OSS was severely crippled in its goal to produce direct evidence for Hitler's anti-Christian attitudes; they could not produce a shred of evidence that Hitler bore any animosity towards Christianity, and some of their quotes even indicated the opposite. For example:
"It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God"4- Adolf Hitler.
A rather odd quote for someone who thinks belief in the Christian God is laughable, isnt it? They also acknowledged that Hitler's Mein Kampf was the premiere source of information on the Nazi agenda, yet they did not quote any of it! Small wonder: it contains quotes such as the following:
"The best characterization is provided by the
product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is
only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true
Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to
the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter
made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when
necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the
Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in
religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In
return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our
present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for
Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political
swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own
nation."
"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to
celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of
the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this
injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to
the constant and continuous original sin of racial
poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such
as He Himself created?"
"It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that
this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal
lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people
think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members
of the highest culture-race must remain in entirely unworthy
positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal
Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds
of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian
morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for
intellectual professions."
"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of
life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before
a higher god"
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty,
each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking
superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill
God's will, and not let God's word be
desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their
essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is
declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine
will."
See my discussion of Adolf Hitler's religion for more quotes. It is not difficult to determine what viewpoint Hitler was promoting. He believed that Jesus was an Aryan rather than a Jew and that the Aryan race was created by God in his image, while the other races evolved naturally. Therefore, he believed that it was a sin against God to intermarry, even going so far as to to describe "racial poisoning" as "original sin" and referring to blacks as "apes"! Clearly, the notion that Hitler himself can be used as evidence for the Nazi persecution of Christian churches is specious at best.
The OSS document is filled with obvious distortions, and it repeatedly glosses over painfully obvious objections. For example, it states that:
"Although the principal Christian churches of Germany had long been associated with conservative ways of thought, which means that they tended to agree with the National Socialists in their authoritarianism, in their attacks on Socialism and Communism, and in their campaign against the Versailles treaty, their doctrinal commitments could not be reconciled with the principle of racism, with a foreign policy of unlimited aggressive warfare, or with a domestic policy involving the complete subservience of Church to State."5
Notice how they claim that the "doctrinal commitments" of church forbid racism, even though European colonialism was characterized by incredible racism throughout its entire history and anti-Semitism was still such a worldwide problem in 1945 that postwar American Jews often changed their names to conceal their ethnicity and avoid persecution6! They also claim that the "doctrinal commitments" of church forbid "unlimited aggressive warfare", even though Christians have eagerly engaged in warfare for either church or state for nearly two thousand years. Both racism and warfare can be easily reconciled with Christian beliefs, and have been for many centuries. The real problem, which they try to present as one of a list, is the third item: complete subservience to the state. That offends church doctrine, and that was the real sticking point between the Nazis and the churches. But as previously stated, Nazi demands for complete subservience were a problem common to all German citizens regardless of religion, so it cannot be used as a legitimate example of special persecution directed against Christianity.
The OSS document also makes special note of the "radically anti-Christian position"7 of Alfred Rosenberg, but this is a distortion: Alfred Rosenberg believed that Jesus was a Nordic warrior whose legacy was distorted by his followers, and he seized upon Jesus' statement that he came to bring "not peace, but a sword"8 (not to mention his subsequent statement that we should treat followers of other religions as "enemies"). Rosenberg promoted a vision of "positive Christianity" in which he promoted his own view of Jesus' legacy (naturally, a Nordic-tinged version), but this hardly amounts to a "radically anti-Christian" position! Moreover, the document acknowledges that Rosenberg's "Myth of the Twentieth Century" is not as authoritative as Hitler's Mein Kampf (no surprise) as a description of the Nazi agenda, yet it conspicuously fails to note that Mein Kampf is filled with statements which make Hitler's personal Christianity painfully obvious! Were there pagans in the Nazi party? Undoubtedly. There were homosexuals too. But does this somehow change the party's agenda? Not at all.
Another obvious objection (lack of credible evidence) was quietly acknowledged and then glossed over by the document's authors:
"The Problem of Proof. The best evidence now available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself."9
By admitting that they have no evidence apart from their creative interpretations of Nazi actions, they are admitting that despite tens of thousands of secret documents and hundreds of tons of crated papers unearthed from various Nazi sites around Germany, they couldn't find a single official document sanctioning this mythical campaign of persecution against the Christian churches! Instead, they must be content with examining their behaviour, attempting to assign questionable motives to it, and ignoring less problematic explanations.
Another massive problem with the notion of organized anti-Christian persecution is the presence of practicing Christians within the Nazi party, and often in stratospherically high positions of power. Hess, Himler, Goebbels, and Göring were all Christians, and these men represented much of the Nazi party elite! The document acknowledges this, but in a deceptively worded manner:
"Some Nazi leaders or sympathizers, and some later collaborationists who were faithful Catholics or Protestants, such as von Epp, Buttman and von Papen, may have been left in ignorance of the real aim of Nazi church policy."10
Isn't it interesting that they would mention relatively low-ranking Nazis or Nazi sympathizers who were known to be Christian, but they would ignore men like Hess, Himmler, Goebbels, and Göring? Together, these men constituted Hitler's longtime confidante (not to mention his deputy fuehrer until his strange flight across the lines), his SS leader, his propaganda minister, and the leader of his Luftwaffe! This paragraph is technically not a lie, but it carefully glosses over damning portions of the truth. Its authors undoubtedly knew that revelations about the religious faith of the Nazi party elite would not be popular, but they were nevertheless forced to admit that some Nazis were Christian, while doggedly clinging to their belief that the Nazis opposed Christianity! Their only explanation for this glaring inconsistency is the preposterous claim that these men were kept in the dark but not molested in any way.
Perhaps the most glorious example of the OSS document's refusal to accept the truth is the following admission:
"the Nazi government ... abolished the right to pursue anti-religious and anti-Church propaganda. The Prussian government closed the so-called secular (weltliche) schools in which no religious instruction was given and re-established religious instruction in professional and vocational schools. All organizations of free-thinkers were forbidden."11
These actions are clearly anti-secular in nature, not anti-Christian. The Nazis made it illegal to speak out against religion or the Christian churches. They closed all secular schools, and introduced school prayer and religious instruction in all educational institutions. They outlawed all free thought organizations. This is blatant disproof of the document's central claims of anti-Christian persecution, yet its authors happily glossed over this problem without skipping a beat, and dismissed it nothing but a clever deception, designed to fool Christians into believing that the Nazis were with them.
In a similar vein, the OSS document acknowledges that Hitler made numerous pro-Christian statements, such as the following:
"... creating and ensuring the prerequisites for a really deep inner religiosity ... the struggle against a materialistic philosophy and for the creation of a true folk community serves the interests of the German nation as well as our Christian belief."12
It also acknowledges that despite the Nazi party's overt racism and militarism, German Catholics "hastened now to join"13, even though it had previously claimed that there were irreconcilable "doctrinal" incompatibilities between Christianity and Nazism! Yet again, no one points out that the Emperor has no clothes, and the authors of the document stubbornly soldier on toward their pre-ordained conclusion that the Nazis were anti-Christian.
Perhaps an even more fantastic refusal to accept reality comes later, when the document acknowledges that the German churches "derived their main financial support from state collected taxes"14, ie- they were officially funded by the state. But in yet another example of their amazing audacity, the authors actually tried to paint a picture of persecution despite this fact, by pointing out that the Nazis tried to tell them how to use the money, and that they restricted other forms of income!
The OSS document repeatedly attempts to prove that the Nazis were persecuting churches by demonstrating that the churches were subject to the same restrictions that applied to the rest of German society. In effect, through a perverse leap in logic, they conclude that the churches were being persecuted because they did not receive special exemptions from Nazi policies! For example:
"The Nazis believed that the Churches could be starved and strangled of all means of communication with the faithful beyond the Church building themselves, and terrorized in such a manner that no Churchman would dare to speak out openly against Nazi policies."15
Yes, the Nazis did not permit church associations outside the church, and they did not let churchmen speak out against them. But is this evidence of persecution, or is it evidence of special protection? Consider: the Nazis disbanded any and all associations which could act as competitors for the "hearts and minds" of the public, and the churches actually received a partial exemption from this rule: they could associate, but only within the confines of the church. This may have been only a partial exemption, but it was still an exemption! Communists, Jews, and free thought organizations did not receive such special treatment, did they? And was anyone anywhere in German society permitted to speak out against Nazi policies without fear? It is a clear and blatant deception to claim that the inability of churchmen to speak out against the Nazis was evidence of special persecution.
In another example of the OSS document's unapologetic leaps in logic, it boldly produces more "evidence" for its conclusion:
"... purging Reich, state and municipal administrations of officials appointed for their adherence to the Center or Bavarian People's parties. Former leaders of those parties, including priests, joined Communist and Social Democrat leaders in the concentration camps ..."16
They persecuted members of opposing political parties, even if they happened to be priests? Not to put too fine a point on it, but so what? These men were obviously persecuted for their political affiliations, not their religious faith! It is amazing that the authors of the OSS document could somehow maintain a perfectly straight face while pretending that the imprisonment of political opponents who happened to be Christian was an example of anti-Christian persecution. Yet again, its authors pretend that if Christians don't receive special exemptions from Nazi policies, they are being "persecuted".
The assault upon reason continues:
"A meeting of the Bavarian bishops adopted a solemn statement directed against the tendency of attributing to the state alone the right of educating, organizing and leading ideologically the German youth."17
The OSS document goes on to state that the Nazis began breaking up Catholic meetings shortly after this public act of defiance, without acknowledging that the motivation behind this action was obviously the bishops' open defiance of Nazi hegemony, and not the fact that they were Christians. If any organization had spoken out publicly against Nazi hegemony, they would have suffered for it, and probably through much more painful means than the mere breakup of public meetings.
In yet another fanciful leap in logic, the document's authors acknowledge that the Nazis treated the German Protestant churches differently than the foreign-controlled Roman Catholic church, and that they actually tried to assimilate it into their organization, or in their words, "capture and use the church organization for their own purposes."18 Sure enough, there were numerous Nazi-controlled churches, which Hitler tried to weld into the so-called "Faith Movement of German Christians". Reverend Joachim Hossenfelder called it "the Storm Troops of Jesus Christ", and it proclaimed that "In the person of the Fuhrer we behold the One sent from God who places Germany in the presence of the Lord of History." It is apparent that Hitler was no different from hundreds of other Christian cult leaders through history (such as the founder of the Mormons), who thought of themselves as new prophets, or modern Messiahs who would carry on Christ's work. At no point do they acknowledge that the Nazis did not attempt to assimilate Communist or free thought organizations into their fold, and that this is obviously evidence in favour of the Nazis' Christian leanings, not against them.
Indeed, the OSS document is awash with examples of these Nazi attempts to assimilate the German churches. The appointment of a Reich Bishop19 (Ludwig Muller) and a Reich Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs20 (Hanns Kerrl), and the passing of "a law for the safeguarding of the German Evangelical Church" are all explicitly mentioned, yet nowhere does the document acknowledge that this is curiously inconsistent with the notion that they wished to persecute Christianity. Had the authors completely forgotten the definition of persecution? Look to the Jews and the Communists for examples of real persecution; there was certainly no attempt to assimilate them into the Nazi party, was there?
The travesty continues, as the document acknowledges that in occupied territories such as Slovakia,
"where the Churches proved generally cooperative with the occupying authorities, they were officially favored. But in countries where the spirit of national resistance was widely supported by the local churches, the Nazis felt no compunction about persecuting them vigorously. The countries to suffer most in this respect were the General Government of Poland and occupied Norway."21
Need it even be said that this is yet more evidence for the Nazi policy of persecuting real or potential sources of political opposition, rather than a campaign of persecution against Christianity? How much more blatant does it need to be? Christian churches which co-operated were treated well, and Christian churches which supported active resistance were punished. How does this distinguish them from any other group within Nazi-controlled territory? How many times can the document's authors misrepresent a lack of special exemptions as "persecution"?
Unfortunately, the answer to that question is: "a lot of times". In fact, after laying out their clearly fallacious leap from point A to point B, the authors begin to exhaustively list examples of point A. The fact that point A does not lead to point B is quietly ignored, if it had ever occurred to them in the first place.
At one point, they try to paint a picture of Nazi suppression of religious education (amazingly enough, despite Nazi enactment of state-sponsored school prayer and religious indoctrination, not to mention forced closure of all secular schools and criminalization of anti-religious and anti-church propaganda), using examples such as the theological faculty of the University of Munich22. In this example, the Reich Minister for Public Instruction (Rust) appointed two professors which Cardinal Faulhaber categorically rejected. When he instructed his students to boycott their classes, Rust closed the faculty. Once again, punishment for acts of defiance is magically transformed into "anti-Christian persecution" in the eyes of the OSS. Other examples betray similar dishonesty; case 6723 describes the last "independent" theological school in Norway being closed, but it quietly acknowledges that it was only closed so that the Department of Church and Education could create an alternate theological program, designed to produce pro-Nazi clergymen.
The document's use of quotes is invariably misleading. It quotes the Nazi Minister for Public Instruction (Rust) declaring that "the exercise of denominational influences in the education of the young is from now on, and for all times, impossible. From that it follows as a consequence that denominational distinctions between German schools should be brought to an end as soon as possible."24 Notice that he speaks only of eliminating "denominational distinctions" in favour of a single unified religion. This is completely consistent with the Nazi "one faith" policy, yet it is misrepresented in the OSS document as an attempt to attack Christianity!
Throughout its tedious bulk, the OSS document consistently glosses over obvious objections, and it consistently misrepresents attacks on other specific denominations as attacks on Christianity as a whole. It claims that Hitler's attempt to create a unified German Christian sect with himself at its head (much like the way the Mormons' "Modern-day Prophets" set themselves at the head of their sect, or the way the Pope sets himself at the head of the Roman Catholic church) was actually an attempt to destroy Christianity (by that token, the Catholic and Mormon churches are both attempts to destroy Christianity). It misrepresents Nazi attempts to replace denominational religious texts with their own German Christian texts as attempts at "elimination of religious instruction" (again, if we employ that logic, the Catholic church is anti-Christian). It makes a point of mentioning that many hundreds of clergymen were imprisoned or killed, while quietly glossing over the fact that tens of thousands were not. In general, it consistently misrepresents Nazi mistreatment of the German people as special persecution of Christianity whenever Christians just happened to be ensnared by policies which applied to the entire population.
Moreover, the document admits that churches which were friendly to the Nazis were treated well in return, despite its claims of an organized program of anti-Christian persecution. It admits that there were Christians within the Nazi party (although it conspicuously fails to mention the presence of high-ranking Christians such as Himmler, Goebbels, and Göring), it admits that the Nazi party undertook numerous harsh and conspicuous anti-secular, pro-religious actions, it admits that it hasn't a shred of hard documentary evidence for the existence of this large-scale plan of persecution, and it admits that Hitler himself made pro-Christian statements! Yet it simply ignores all of these things, because its conclusion is obviously pre-ordained, and it really didn't matter to its authors whether the evidence added up. Perhaps most amazingly of all, almost every one of these inconsistencies is easily visible right in the text of the document itself, without even bothering to consult external sources! In a classic example of the slothful induction fallacy, the authors simply dismiss every one of the Nazis' pro-Christian actions as part of a propaganda campaign to pretend that they were pro-Christian, thus creating a theory which is carefully designed to be completely unfalsifiable no matter how much evidence is dredged up against it.
In conclusion, the OSS document is an excellent example of the sort of deceptive postwar propaganda which led to the creaton of many modern myths surrounding Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. Its methods are wholly illogical, its conclusions are unsupportable, and its self-contradictions are seemingly innumerable. And the most amazing thing of all is that in the year 2001, Rutgers law students would dredge this up, dust it off, and present it to the public as proof positive that Hitler wanted to exterminate Christianity! Their appeals to authority are not surprising (the legal profession relies heavily upon appeals to authority and seems blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are inherently illogical), but it is a sad statement nonetheless on the inability of Christian apologists to face the truth. Christianity can only move forward by confronting its past and vowing never to repeat it, and not by glossing over the truth.
1Office of Strategic Services (OSS), The Nazi Master Plan, Annex 4: The Persecution of the Christian Churches, issued July 6, 1945, page3 (cover).
2In 1939, the St. Louis sailed from Germany to the United States with more than a thousand Jews aboard, desperate to flee Nazi persecution (despite the popular misconception that "no one knew until the end of the war", it was already common knowledge that Jews faced certain death under the Nazi regime). But while the Statue of Liberty invites other countries to send "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses", the American government had other ideas. When Cuba rejected all but a handful of the Jewish refugees, the US Coast Guard set up a picket line to warn the St. Louis to stay away from American shores. Weeping passengers aboard the ship were so close to America that they could see the lights of Miami, but they were turned away. It is estimated that more than half of them eventually perished.
3Source: Webster's unabridged dictionary.
4The Nazi Master Plan, Annex 4, page 12.
5Ibid, page 12.
6If you examine the credits of movies made in the McCarthy era, you will notice something rather interesting: almost no Jewish names. Hollywood's Jewish contingent was still there, but they were afraid to reveal themselves.
7The Nazi Master Plan, Annex 4, page 13.
8Matthew 10:34.
9The Nazi Master Plan, Annex 4, page 16.
10Ibid, page 16.
11Ibid, page 19.
12Ibid, page 20.
13Ibid, page 20.
14Ibid, page 41.
15Ibid, page 16.
16Ibid, page 21.
17Ibid, page 22.
18Ibid, page 26.
19Ibid, page 29.
20Ibid, page 31.
21Ibid, page 34.
22Ibid, page 76.
23Ibid, page 77.
24Ibid, page 78.
Last updated: January 28, 2002
Continue to A Brief History of American Fundamentalism
Jump to:
This site was written using OpenOffice, running on Mandriva Linux.