Nazi’s National Reich Church Anything But Christian

The connection between Luther and Hitler is absurd. Luther didn’t lay the groundwork for Hitler.

Aside from ELCA, I've yet to see Lutheranism apologize for the book or complicity in the Holocaust. If one takes Luther's name, I think they own all of him, so to speak, and have a responsibility to condemn his evil.
DR. MARX: Apart from your weekly journal, and particularly after the Party came into power, were there any other publications in Germany which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way?

STREICHER: Anti-Semitic publications have existed in Germany for centuries. A book I had, written by Dr. Martin Luther, was, for instance, confiscated. Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book The Jews and Their Lies, Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them...
At the heart of the debate about Luther's influence is whether it is anachronistic to view his work as a precursor of the racial antisemitism of the Nazis. Some scholars see Luther's influence as limited, and the Nazis' use of his work as opportunistic.

The prevailing scholarly view[43] since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany's attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust. Four hundred years after it was written, the Nazi Party displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published.[44] Against this view, theologian Johannes Wallmann writes that the treatise had no continuity of influence in Germany, and was in fact largely ignored during the 18th and 19th centuries.[42] Hans Hillerbrand argues that to focus on Luther's role in the development of German antisemitism is to underestimate the "larger peculiarities of German history."[45]

Martin Brecht argues that there is a world of difference between Luther's belief in salvation, which depended on a faith in Jesus as the messiah — a belief Luther criticized the Jews for rejecting — and the Nazis' ideology of racial antisemitism.[46] Johannes Wallmann argues that Luther's writings against the Jews were largely ignored in the 18th and 19th centuries, and that there is no continuity between Luther's thought and Nazi ideology.[47] Uwe Siemon-Netto agrees, arguing that it was because the Nazis were already antisemites that they revived Luther's work.[48][49] Hans J. Hillerbrand states that the view that "Luther significantly encouraged the development of German anti-Semitism... puts far too much emphasis on Luther and not enough on the larger peculiarities of German history".[45][50] Other scholars argue that, even if his views were merely anti-Judaic, their violence lent a new element to the standard Christian suspicion of Judaism. Ronald Berger writes that Luther is credited with "Germanizing the Christian critique of Judaism and establishing anti-Semitism as a key element of German culture and national identity."[51] Paul Rose argues that he caused a "hysterical and demonizing mentality" about Jews to enter German thought and discourse, a mentality that might otherwise have been absent.[52]

The line of "anti-semitic descent" from Luther to Hitler is "easy to draw",[53] according to American historian Lucy Dawidowicz. In her The War Against the Jews, 1933–1945, she writes that both Luther and Hitler were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews, with Hitler asserting that the later Luther, the author of On the Jews and Their Lies was the real Luther.[53]

Dawidowicz writes that the similarities between Luther's anti-Jewish writings and modern antisemitism are no coincidence, because they derived from a common history of Judenhass, which can be traced to Haman's advice to Ahasuerus. Although modern German antisemitism also has its roots in German nationalism and Christian antisemitism, she argues that a foundation for this was laid by the Roman Catholic Church, "upon which Luther built".[53] Michael has argued that Luther scholars who try to tone down Luther's views on the Jews ignore the murderous implications of his antisemitism. Michael argues that there is a "strong parallel" between Luther's ideas and the antisemitism of most German Lutherans throughout the Holocaust.[54] Like the Nazis, Luther mythologized the Jews as evil, he writes. They could be saved only if they converted to Christianity, but their hostility to the idea made it inconceivable.[54]

Luther's sentiments were widely echoed in the Germany of the 1930s, particularly within the Nazi party. Hitler's Education Minister, Bernhard Rust, was quoted by the Völkischer Beobachter as saying that: "Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance ... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp [Schrot und Korn]".[55]

Hans Hinkel, leader of the Luther League's magazine Deutsche Kultur-Wacht, and of the Berlin chapter of the Kampfbund, paid tribute to Luther in his acceptance speech as head of both the Jewish section and the film department of Goebbel's Chamber of Culture and Propaganda Ministry. "Through his acts and his spiritual attitude, he began the fight which we will wage today; with Luther, the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun. To continue and complete his Protestantism, nationalism must make the picture of Luther, of a German fighter, live as an example 'above the barriers of confession' for all German blood comrades."[56]

According to Daniel Goldhagen, Bishop Martin Sasse, a leading Protestant churchman, published a compendium of Luther's writings shortly after Kristallnacht, for which Diarmaid MacCulloch, Professor of the History of the Church in the University of Oxford argued that Luther's writing was a "blueprint".[31] Sasse "applauded the burning of the synagogues and the coincidence of the day, writing in the introduction, "On November 10, 1938, on Luther's birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany." The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words "of the greatest antisemite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews."[57]

William Nichols, Professor of Religious Studies, recounts, "At his trial in Nuremberg after the Second World War, Julius Streicher, the notorious Nazi propagandist, editor of the scurrilous antisemitic weekly Der Stürmer, argued that if he should be standing there arraigned on such charges, so should Martin Luther. Reading such passages, it is hard not to agree with him. Luther's proposals read like a program for the Nazis."[58] It was Luther's expression "The Jews are our misfortune" that centuries later would be repeated by Heinrich von Treitschke and appear as motto on the front page of Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer.

Some scholars have attributed the Nazi "Final Solution" directly to Martin Luther.[59] Others dispute this point of view, pointedly taking issue with the thesis advanced by William Shirer and others.[60]

Luthertag

In the course of the Luthertag (Luther Day) festivities, the Nazis emphasized their connection to Luther as being both nationalist revolutionaries and the heirs of the German traditionalist past. An article in the Chemnitzer Tageblatt stated that "[t]he German Volk are united not only in loyalty and love for the Fatherland, but also once more in the old German beliefs of Luther [Lutherglauben]; a new epoch of strong, conscious religious life has dawned in Germany." Richard Steigmann-Gall writes in his 2003 book The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945:

The leadership of the Protestant League espoused a similar view. Fahrenhorst, who was on the planning committee of the Luthertag, called Luther "the first German spiritual Führer" who spoke to all Germans regardless of clan or confession. In a letter to Hitler, Fahrenhorst reminded him that his "Old Fighters" were mostly Protestants and that it was precisely in the Protestant regions of our Fatherland" in which Nazism found its greatest strength. Promising that the celebration of Luther's birthday would not turn into a confessional affair, Fahrenhorst invited Hitler to become the official patron of the Luthertag. In subsequent correspondence, Fahrenhorst again voiced the notion that reverence for Luther could somehow cross confessional boundaries: "Luther is truly not only the founder of a Christian confession; much more, his ideas had a fruitful impact on all Christianity in Germany." Precisely because of Luther's political as well as religious significance, the Luthertag would serve as a confession both "to church and Volk."[61]

Fahrenhorst's claim that the Nazis found their greatest strength in the Protestant areas of Germany has been corroborated by scholars who have studied the voting patterns of Germany from 1928–1933. Professor Richard (Dick) Geary, Professor of Modern History at the University of Nottingham in England and the author of Hitler and Nazism (Routledge 1993) wrote in History Today an article on who voted for the Nazis, in which he said that the Nazis gained disproportionately more votes from Protestant than Catholic areas of Germany.[62]

The Nuremberg trials were nothing but victors justice. If the allies were actually interested in justice, Winston Churchill, Eisenhower and others would have been prosecuted for crimes against humanity. After all, it was the British who first used bombs against civilians and it was the allies that carpet bombed German cities in the same manner as the Germans carpet bombed British cities. If Nuremberg stands for justice, why weren’t the Soviets prosecuted for their murder of Polish officers? If justice works one ways then it ought to work both ways. In reality, Nuremberg was nothing but a political show trial.

I’m not a Lutheran, I’m reformed. However I see no point in demanding various Lutheran denominations apologize for statements made by Luther 500 years ago. Just because National Socialists used several works of Luther to further their cause is not evidence that Luther had anything to do with the Jewish Holocaust. His writings have context and the National Socialists were never the sort of people who placed much value in context. The National Socialists invented an ideology around Luther, particularly that he was a nationalist. He was no such thing. While he hated the Jews, his was for religious reasons more than anything else. I see no reason for anyone to apologize for Luther because his writings have context. We shouldn’t apply modern sensibilities to artists, writers, theologians and thinkers of the past.

In reality, Nuremberg was nothing but a political show trial. ... I’m not a Lutheran, I’m reformed.

It seems to me I know enough from your comments to form an opinion. Thank you for being so candid about your beliefs.

I’m not sure you really know very much about what I believe. Certainly not based upon the fact that I’m reformed and believe Nuremberg was a show trial. I suppose you could surmise that I’m a conservative, since it was the conservative position in 1946 to view Nuremberg with great skepticism.

I’m not sure you really know very much about what I believe. Certainly not based upon the fact that I’m reformed and believe Nuremberg was a show trial.

I find that paragraph very troubling. To which reformed denomination do you attach yourself ?

What exactly is troubling about the paragraph?

I’m a member of the Free Reform Church (FRC) though at heart I’m a Reformed Presbyterian.

If one takes Luther's name,

Your historical ignorance is stunning, and compared to your regular ignorance, that's saying something. Your sources Wiki and even New Advent recognize that historical fact. Christians now known as 'Lutherans' were originally Evangelicals, Luther desired Christian. Luther's opponent Eck a Catholic, named those Christians Lutheran to discredit Lutherans.

Must have took time out from the persecutions of Jews to do it, but sometimes the Catholics got to do what Catholics do.

I've yet to see Lutheranism apologize for the book

Back on this tack again? 'Lutherans' have no part of Luther's AS. If they did, such a pious man as yourself would have covered this forum with your apologies for the Catholic church's AS relentless and ruthless as it was. The Lutheran Church established after Luther's death has had no part of AS, and no secular power to enforce it unlike the Catholics.

Nice to see you are still holding up the Nazi as a witness, as shown before, Catholics and Nazis had much in common when it came to handling Jews.

What exactly is troubling about the paragraph?

You didn't agree with him, you're not Catholic, you proposed a historical view of history, it is obvious you don't hate the Reformation, you think justice to be justice works both ways, you didn't use a Nazi's testimony to bolster your position, you don't think anti-semitism is the world's worse crime except when the Catholic church is the perpetrator, you don't think apologizing for something you had nothing to do with is the right thing to do anyway? Any or all of the above.

ping to 88.

What exactly is troubling about the paragraph?

The Nuremberg trials were nothing but victors justice.

The Nuremberg trials were justice for six million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust. The phrase used in your first sentence seems to me to indicate an affinity for the Nazi defendants and a vehement and deliberate assertion that they either did not commit war crimes, or they did not receive justice for those war crimes. I'm never shocked to see an affinity among Americans for the rebel cause in the American Civil War, but to see anyone support the Nazi war criminals is always disturbing. I was shocked when I saw similar comments on behalf of the Islamic terrorists that murdered Americans, which we see to this day in the push to grant them our constitutional rights rather than the justice they merit as enemy combatants and terrorist war criminals.

If the allies were actually interested in justice, Winston Churchill, Eisenhower and others would have been prosecuted for crimes against humanity. After all, it was the British who first used bombs against civilians and it was the allies that carpet bombed German cities in the same manner as the Germans carpet bombed British cities. If Nuremberg stands for justice, why weren’t the Soviets prosecuted for their murder of Polish officers? If justice works one ways then it ought to work both ways. In reality, Nuremberg was nothing but a political show trial.

I am shocked to read comments like this on FR. Not only as a veteran, but simply as an American, to read comments calling for Churchill and Eisenhower to be tried for war crimes for fighting (and defeating) the Nazis in WWII, especially in the context of the murder of six million Jews and millions of Gentiles, is truly troubling. It seems to me to be a very serious error in spirit and judgment.

I’m not a Lutheran, I’m reformed. However I see no point in demanding various Lutheran denominations apologize for statements made by Luther 500 years ago. Just because National Socialists used several works of Luther to further their cause is not evidence that Luther had anything to do with the Jewish Holocaust. His writings have context and the National Socialists were never the sort of people who placed much value in context. The National Socialists invented an ideology around Luther, particularly that he was a nationalist. He was no such thing. While he hated the Jews, his was for religious reasons more than anything else. I see no reason for anyone to apologize for Luther because his writings have context. We shouldn’t apply modern sensibilities to artists, writers, theologians and thinkers of the past.

It seems to me you present a religious exemption defense for Luther's hatred of the Jews. Islam does much the same. I dont see much difference between theological hatred and racial hatred, but history shows the fertilizer of religious hatred Luther laid in German soil made it easy to grow Nazis. It one regatds the Jews as "not a people" it is of little consequence what happens to them should they decline to join the religion "of Calvin," "of Luther," or "of Mohammed."

but history shows the fertilizer of religious hatred Luther laid in German soil made it easy to grow Nazis. It one regatds the Jews as "not a people" it is of little consequence what happens to them should they decline to join the religion "of Calvin," "of Luther," or "of Mohammed."

History shows that Catholic apologists are the ones spreading the 'fertilizer'. The major religion spreading 'hatred' and tolerating abuse of Jews in the 20 years leading up to WWII was the Catholic church. 19th century 'saints' like the Pius IX tolerated widespread AS up to and including child kidnapping. Pope Leo confined Jews to ghettos and confiscated their property. Damn Lutheran and Calvinist POPES.

As far as not recognizing Jews as people: Pius X "I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do... The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.." #67.

Luther was the pre-eminent German prophet who gave an imaginary spiritual cover for Germans (two thirds of them Lutheran) to murder six million Jews. The Nazis implemented every one of these recommendations of Luther.

These are Luther's words.

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

Fifth, I advise that safeconduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted).

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

* * *

But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's name? They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. for our knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that they are not secret after all and thus our conscience is encumbered with it before God.

* * *

Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now but that we have now given them their due reward.

* * *

I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated. "

Nuremberg was more than a trial concerning the murder of 5-6 million Jews and 5-6 million others. Only the 4th count, crimes against humanity, applied to the murder of Jews and others. The other three counts were 1. Crime against peace 2. waging an aggressive war and 3. war crimes. None of these have anything to do with the mass murder of civilians.

I don’t appreciate you insinuating that I have sympathy for the National Socialists. If it was up to me, all of the leaders would have been summarily shot without trial. If a trial must take place, it really should have been limited to crimes against humanity. In this case, one could plausibly argue that the millions of Jews and others who were murdered would have obtained justice.

The problem as far as I’m concerned is with the first three counts. To say that only the Nazi’s committed war crimes during WWII is absurd. The allies bombed civilians in a manner Hitler could have only dreamed of. American soldiers shot POW’s on occasion. Russian soldiers routinely raped German women. After the war over 10 million Germans were forcibly removed from historic German lands in the east and Sudetenland and resettled elsewhere. Over 1 million died in the forced relocations, which were organized by the victorious powers.

Let’s not pretend that only the Germans were guilty of war crimes or that American involvement in WWII or any war has been pristine. If the United States can charge National Socialists with war crimes, it makes perfect sense to apply the same standards to our actions during the war and shortly thereafter. From my perspective, Nuremberg only opened a giant can of hypocritical worms. Count 4 is the only legitimate one, otherwise all of the Nazi leaders should have been interrogated and then shot.

I note you have walked back some of your comments and no longer assert " The Nuremberg trials were nothing but victors justice." You do, it seems to me, still believe Eisenhower and Churchill (and presumably other Americans and British) should be also charged with war crimes. Is the sympathy for the Germans religious in nature or other ?

Under the precedent set at Nuremberg, Churchill, FDR, Truman, Stalin and any number of Generals could be found guilty of war crimes or waging aggressive war. As such, I find Nuremberg to be hypocritical and nothing more than victors justice. After all, if the precedents set at Nuremberg applied to everyone then Churchill would be guilty concerning the bombing of Dresden and other German cities and Truman would be guilty of dropping nukes in Japan.

If Nuremberg was limited simply to crimes against humanity (read: the systematic murder of civilians, Jews or otherwise) then it wouldn’t have been victors justice. However, obviously, Nuremberg wasn’t limited. We have to look at the entire trial, not just one count.

It seems to me you just walked back your walk back and still hold “As such, I find Nuremberg to be hypocritical and nothing more than victors justice.” It seems to me you write as an advocate for the Nazis and a prosecutor of the Americans and British who vanquished them. You neither answered my question as to why, nor mitigated the severe spiritual and secular error in such a position. I suppose it is indicative of our lost nation but cannot understand the motivation to hate America first and Germany last, given the Nazi war crimes.

In none of that are Jews to be murdered (a Catholic and Nazi innovation), nowhere are Jews forced to wear a patch identifying them as Jews (Catholics were the innovators on that one), in that the Jews lose their books (the Catholics and the Nazis burned them). The Jews couldn't teach because they didn't teach 'in accord with the law of the Lord' according to Luther, and as a result lost the right to teach, (same thing with the teachings of the Pope at the time and henceforth). Jews couldn't travel if these restrictions had been implemented. Under the Catholics AND the Nazis, Jews were restricted to ghettos. Jews would have to do manual labor, the only restriction that was of Luther alone. Catholics didn't care what Jews did outside of the usury practice that they and Luther decried. Nazis had them killed.

Significantly, the Nazis didn't implement Luther's plan, they like the Catholics before them burned their books, stole their property, confined them to ghettos made them wear a special mark on their clothes. Catholics killed Jews for being Jews, but they drew the line at trying to kill them all like the Nazis did.

Only a student of history wearing papal blinders and using a Nazi propagandist as a witness could accuse Luther of any innovation in dealing with Jews. The charge isn't credible.

I'v noticed that you have said nothing of the facts regarding the Catholic Church's systematic and ongoing AS. Why is that? Nor have I seen or read an apology. Here, we aren't talking about AS expressed 400+ years old, but in the past century. Again, why is that?

I’m not walking back anything. Nuremberg was victors justice. If we applied the same standards to the allies as we did to the National Socialists concerning war crimes then a number of people would have to be prosecuted. Churchill demanded the carpet and firebombing of German cities. In fact, the British were the first to attack civilian targets. FDR went along with this. Truman nuked Japan. Any number of generals supported the bombing and aided in planning and orchestrating the bombings. Stalin engaged in any number of war crimes, including the murder of Polish officers. Russian troops systematically raped German women.

All of the allies were responsible for the forced relocation of 12-15 million Germans. The expulsions removed Germans from historically German lands in the east, particularly east Prussia and the Sudetenland. Property was stolen, rights were denied. Over 1 million Germans died between the end of the war and 1947 due to the expulsions alone. That’s to say nothing of the million or two who died of starvation after the war when the allies refused to feed German civilians.

The issue for me isn’t that I support the Germans because I don’t. The issue is the hypocrisy. How can the United States charge National Socialist leaders with the very same war crimes our nation and our allies committed during the war? I advocate just shooting these people. If we were going to hold a trial, it should have been limited to the death camps and associated events. Everything else was rank hypocrisy and victors justice.

If you want an example of our “lost nation” it’s in the millions of people who can’t be bothered to think about Nuremberg. This isn’t a black and white issue, there’s more to the trial than the death camps. We have to look at the trial, the war and its aftermath from all angles. Refusal to do so is a good example of our failed education system. No one can think for themselves anymore.

As I'm not home, these won't be live links:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/03/catholic-theologian-john-ecks-anti.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Eck#Eck_and_the_Jews

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5420-eck-johann-maier-von

The first from a Reformation fan has excerpts from this Catholic hero's tract regarding Jews. The second Wiki entry appears to have been edited by a Catholic apologist as it admits(something unknown to most Catholics) that Eck wrote the tract/book, but doesn't excerpt it. The third from a Jewish source gives a reference to the book and places him as 'equally zealous' as Luther against the Jews. But he was a Catholic, so it must have been a misunderstanding.

One last thought on the expulsions, they were largely women, children and old men who were forced from their homes and sent to relocation camps elsewhere in Germany. Some of the relocation camps didn’t close until the late 50’s. To this day, these people are considered foreigners in Germany. Many of these folks were from the far eastern parts of Germany and were relocated to Bavaria and other parts of what was then West Germany (largely the American and British sectors). They were culturally different from the people around them and they were largely kept on the outside of the local German culture. They’re more assimilated today but the first couple of generations were very much foreigners in West Germany.