Why do historians denounce Hitler yet venerate Martin Luther whose nasty antisemitic diatribe inspired Nazism?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

Answer 1

Luther was clearly not a nice man. He was not in a position to massacre Jews but surely would have if he had had the chance. He did participate in and encourage the massacre of many peasants in the Peasant Revolt.

God rewarded him wirth chronic constipation (Verstopfung) about which he commented at even greater length than he did on his hatred of the Jews.

Answer 2

Thank you for pointing this out, more people ought to know this aspect of Martin Luther.

Many n***s were also inspired by the writings of Henry Ford.  Hitler had a picture of Ford hung up in his study, along with translations of Ford's anti-semitic book, The International Jew.  Ford even financed H., and was given a medal by the Germans in 1938.

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/...

Answer 3

Because Hitler didn't found a religion.  And that in mind, also look at the times.  In the 16th century, Christians were pretty much antisemitic (or anti-non Christian religions in general).  I mean, that's what the Inquisition was all about.

Answer 4

I have often asked myself that same question.  I could care less how long ago Martin Luther wrote the c**p.  The how, when and where of it doesn't seem to matter to me.  Wrong is Wrong.  Both were wrong in a big way.  Shame is Both of their legacies.  Hitler was very much conected to Darwinism...Darwin read Luther...Hitler read both.

Answer 5

Luther opposed Judaism as a religion.  Hitler opposed Jews as a race.  

Luther would have like to convert the Jews.  Hitler wanted to exterminate them.  That's a big difference, and one of the reasons I don't think it's fair to say that Luther inspired Nazism.  Also, the Holocaust was like four centuries after Luther was writing, so if his writings were such a major cause of the Holocaust, what took so long?  

Answer 6

You make an interesting point.  I'm a history teacher and a Lutheran with three years of catechism behind me, yet I didn't know this about Luther's writings.  Pardon my ignorance, and thanks for the info.  I do believe you.  Many Germans have shown Jewish hatred for the past thousand years.  The Crusades began in 1095 and continued for about 200 years.  It was very common at the outset of a Crusade for German knights and men at arms to slaughter local Jewish people before departing.

Hitler did not invent Jewish hatred.  (I don't use the term anti-Semitism because many Arabic people are Semites also.) What Hitler did was elevate Jewish hatred to a level which seemed unimaginable.  The fact that the German people followed his orders is as damning to the German participants as it is damning to Hitler himself.

I'd say the difference is that Luther did not order or practice organized annihilation of the Jewish people.

In the USA, newspaper editors may rail against Republicans in print, but they don't kill them en masse.

In fairness to the German people out there (and I am descended form Germans on both sides of my family), there are people of other nationalities - including Americans - who are prejudiced against Jewish people.

Also, not all historians venerate Luther, and I doubt any good historians would venerate his anti-Jewish stance.  There are things written by Luther that I do not agree with.  Luther believed in transubstantiation - the actual changing of communion wine to the blood of Christ rather than a symbolic change.  I believe that Zwingli disagreed with Luther on this.  I agree with Zwingli's point of view since I have a background in chemistry and hematology leading me to doubt the possibility of such an actual chemical/biologic transformation.  I tend to discount the magic in the bible as an element necessary for the early propagation of Christianity initially in a time of general ignorance.  People liked to believe in magic.  They did not know any better.

Luther was educated for his time, but his time (the 1500's) was one of scientific ignorance.

Answer 7

Because Hitler was the latest culprit and people have short memories. Martin Luther was hundreds of years before Hitler and it was popular in his day to be anti semitic. Hitlers henchmen used the Luther writings in propaganda to further their cause. There's no connection to Darwin. He was a scientist, not a philosopher. He wrote about what he saw.

Answer 8

Maybe because Luther didn't kill anybody?

BTW, while it's true that Luther became anti-Semetic, and that's certainly wrong, its NOT true that he inspired Nazism.  His writings were used as an EXCUSE by Hitler, but the real inspiration for Nazism was Darwin.

Answer 9

Social Darwinism is not FROM Darwin, it's from third parties misinterpreting his work for their own end. Social Darwinism is a false analogy.

Answer 10

Every evil repulsive nauseating justification for the hatred of Jews in the pages of Mein Kampf is contained within the writings of Martin Luther. I do not understand why a racist anti Jewish monster like Martin Luther receives such gushing praise and respect from historians of Western Civilization.

Answer 11

Very few n***s around, but plenty of Lutherans.

Scientific Darwinism was not the source of n***s bizarre extreme negative Eugenics.    Evolution explains how species came to be and does not deal with the question of what we should do to improve the species, which is not really a scientific question.