Why is Martin Luther never held in the same light as Hitler?

Question

He held many of the same beliefs, and his writtings greatly inspired anti-semitism!???

I mean, are ideas innocent? and do only actions count.?
'Cause Hitler killed two people (himself and maybe Geli Raubel), it was his ideas that had others kill in his name. And those ideas came from others so...

Answer 1

Although their writings might have held similar ideas, Hitler had more direct 'horrific' impact on people in the 20th and 21st centuries, so he is often used as a yardstick of evil.
The Reformation of Martin Luther wasn't really similar to the mechanized extermination of a speicific religous group and it didn't lead to a World War.
Protestantism is still a widely held, popular belief system whereas Germany's National Socialism...not so much.
So although you might feel like their ideas were similar, I would argue that the implementation of those ideas was different.
Good Luck!

Answer 2

It is, of course, not just Hitler's "ideas" that killed people. It was his OWN implementation of those ideas -- his direct orders!

As for Luther's ideas:
1) it is worth noting that his anti-Judaism/anti-Semitism, while certainly WRONG and dangerous, was not precisely the same as modern day "racial" anti-Semitism of the Nazis etc

2) as others have noticed, though Nazis and their apologists may have sometimes fastened on Luther's words, it is clear that Hitler & co., did NOT base their own beliefs or . When it comes down to it they were very ANTI-Christian, strongly "pagan"... (Nietzsche and Wagner for heavens sake!)

Thus Hitler tried to use and control the church to his advantage.. When it's leaders opposed him he was able, since it was a state church, to engineer their removal, replacing them with his own puppets. Many Christian leaders strongly opposed his views, and paid the price. (An interesting fact, sadly little known, is that the clergy was the ONLY professional group that were NOT strong Hitler supporters!)

3) BUT we should NOT try to make excuses. Though Luther was influenced by wild theories and stories of his day and did seem disappointed that Jews did not respond to his teaching as he expected, many defenses of his words ('late in life when he was sick', etc. ) are speculative at best


If you are willing and able to work through it, here is a very good article that takes a careful, balanced view -- trying to understand Luther's context (and differentiate it from the 20th century), but NOT letting him off the hook
http://www.theologian.org.uk/churchhistory/lutherandthejews.html

Answer 3

Perhaps he is not in Western revisionist history but Luthers doctrine did instigate mass revolution - the greatest difference between Luther and Hitl*r is that Luther created a revolution against his own religion (Catholocism) after attempting to embrace it and studying it with equal parts of reverance and intolerance. He is historically so very important because of the way he was able to spread his ideas (through print) and for how far reaching his influence was at the end of the Dark Ages. Luther was not trying to gain economically infact he felt the Church should open its coffers and give to the needy.Luther's (anti) jewish sentiment was NOT the the fore of that movement. Liberty from the Pope and the Catholic church were. Hitl*r on the other hand was not trying to question or change his own (his peoples) belief system he was attempting to eradicate another for economical gain. The Jews were an easy target because of their relatively small societies were spread over a very large land mass and they maintained an extremely strong economic base.

Answer 4

Because Luther never actually ordered the deaths of thousands. He was trying to reform the Catholic Church, not take over Europe.
The cultural and social beliefs of 500 years ago are not the same as now, and then Christians blamed Jews for the Crucifixion as part of the standard doctrine. I don't think you can say "inspired" when it is more likely the other way around.

Answer 5

Luther lived in a very primitive time. Many people back then had misguided beliefs. I was raised Lutheran and was never exposed to or taught these anti-Jewish writings of Luther's. People of that time still blamed the Jews for the Crucifixion of Jesus. That is not true of today's Christians. It's one thing voicing your opinion; it's another thing trying to perform a genocide of an entire race.

Answer 6

Elecricity didn't exist in Luther's day.

Answer 7

Because there is NO evidence that Martin Luther's work "The Jews and Their Lies" prompted anyone to burn a Synagogue or kill a Jew. On the other hand, the evidence is overwhelming of the atrocities that were committed by Hitler's direct orders and hate speech. One could make a better argument that the atmosphere created by Roman Catholic Church in Europe during the Middle Ages was a greater influence to Hitler than Martin Luther but if you read one of my former answers (listed below) you will find the real influence to Hitler's Anti Semitism.

Western Europe has always been anti-Semitic in its dealings with the Jews, especially during the Middle Ages. I can provide extensive cases of discrimination, force expulsion from countries and mass murders if you would like. Who was the first country in Europe to expel all the Jews from its land? Germany? France? Nope England under King Edward I in the 1200's.

But, Martin Luther inspired \ Hitler? You do realize there was over 400 years between the two people. There is also NO evidence that anyone has taken Martin Luther's words and put them into action. The assertion that Martin Luther's works were used by the Nazis was put forward by William L. Shirer author of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. What is ironic is the fact that no one talks about German Metaphysics and its influence on the Nazi's and their views on the "Untermensch." What I also find interesting is the fact that no one talks about Heinrich Heine and his prediction of the rise of German Nationalism over 100 years before the rise of National Socialism in German. His quote, "Christianity -- and that is its greatest merit -- has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered, the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. ... The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. ... Do not smile at my advice -- the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder ... comes rolling somewhat slowly, but .. its crash ... will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. ... At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead, and lions in farthest Africa will draw in their tails and slink away. ... A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll.
[Kossoff, pp. 125-126]"

You see that? Does he mention Martin Luther? Nope. He mentions Kant and Ficht by name, eluding to the German Philosophers. Lastly, I will leave you with an article on this very subject,
"Late in his life Luther wrote some very strong denunciations of the Jews which we cannot condone, but to evaluate them fairly we have to understand them in the context of his lifetime and of all of his writings. The claim popularized by certain historians, such as William Shirer, that Luther's views were similar to those of the Nazis entirely ignores the historical context of his comments.

Early in his career Luther wrote in defense of the Jews, and he held hopes that when the persecutions and false teachings which had been loaded upon them by Rome were taken away, the Jews would turn to Christ.

When this hope was disappointed and the Jews continued to reject Christ and to speak against him, Luther spoke strongly against them. His harshest remarks are in a tract written a few years before his death, "Against the Jews and their Lies." His opposition against the Jews was not racist as Hitler's was, but entirely religious. Luther did not believe the Jews had the right to propagandize against Christianity in Christian territory. In Luther's time religious rights were territorial. Lutherans did not have rights in Catholic lands or vice versa. Luther therefore advocated that those Jews who remained opposed to Christianity be forcibly expelled from Germany and be given their own territory in Palestine. He also proposed that wealth they had gained by lending money at interest, which he regarded as an immoral practice, should be confiscated for the support of the needy among them. In Luther's time usury and blasphemy were crimes punishable by law.

In the preface of these comments Luther says, "We must indeed with prayer and the fear of God before our eyes exercise a keen compassion towards them and seek to save some of them from the flames. Avenge ourselves we dare not."

Luther's language in this writing was very harsh, but in this he was a child of his time. The attacks against him by Roman writers were even sharper. We cannot defend the tone and many of the specifics of Luther's denunciation of the Jews, but it is unfair for historians to misrepresent them by detaching them from their context and times.

For an overview of this issue see the book Martin Luther and the Jewish People by Neelak Tjernagel published by Northwestern Publishing House."

It never ceases to amaze me that 21st Century people look at a 16th Century man with their modern day values and pass such judgment. But I really have to wonder, what your agenda is for asking this question.