England was the first European country to kick out the Jews yet a few centuries later was a refuge for them and has remained so ever since. Anti-Semitism had dropped to very low levels in Germany, but came back from the Volkisch movement and blood-and-soil nationalism.
AHC: a German nationalist movement that’s inclusive of Jews?
- Thread starter fluttersky
- Start date
England was the first European country to kick out the Jews yet a few centuries later was a refuge for them and has remained so ever since. Anti-Semitism had dropped to very low levels in Germany, but came back from the Volkisch movement and blood-and-soil nationalism.
Oliver Cromwell was effectively a militant Lutheran, yet despite being bitterly prejudicial in his sectarianism, he was pro-Jewish and invited them to England, even while he was ethnically cleansing Catholics. It's very reasonable a German national leader could be similar.
So, a radical Germany could do this against Poles?
I think a Kaiser clearly against anti-Semitism could also work. The aforementioned timeline has a similar situation.
Hitler was raised Catholic but had abandoned Christianity before he became Fuhrer. He seems to have privately believed Christianity was a Jewish plot to pacify the Germanic race, so I don't think it's reasonable to brand him a Catholic.
What we can say though is that the share of Catholicism in a voting district was negatively correlated with NSDAP voting.
You could have a "progressive" German nationalism that sees German/Yiddish speaking Jews across Eastern Europe as islands of civilization enlightening the backwards Slavs and Magyars, and wants to bring them into the Reich.
Yeah, though I think necessity would be nice to the Hungarians, as breaking their power in Austria would be politically impossible with Slavic support.
It could work if in Germany because of how close the languages sound. Just don't lose a major & traumatic war enough to get a stab-in-the-back myth. Once movies with sound are made, then Germans could easily watch those)without the barrier of the written language) and Yiddish people would just be accepted as German.
What we can say is that the Axis and Axis occupied Catholic countries was very helpful in the implementation of the Holocaust, while the Lutheran ones wasn’t.
Like a third of Norwegian Jews being exterminated, for example? Regardless, what matters for this alternative history isn't the mindset of non-German Lutherans and Catholics, but German Lutherans and Catholics. And we know from our timeline that German Lutherans were much more likely to vote for the Nazis than German Catholics.
I feel like the graph says the opposite. While I don't know much about Norway, Prussian voters voted against the Nazis. I think the pictures actually support this.
If German antisemitism was caused by them being Lutheran, we should be able to look at other Lutheran groups and see a similar pattern. We don’t see that, we in fact see a increased tolerance toward Jews after they became Lutherans.
As for the voting pattern, maybe you should look at German election map in general, so let’s look at the map from 1898
It’s interesting how the black color follow the Catholic areas, it’s almost like there was a specific party which German Catholics voted for in 1898 which they also voted for in 1932.
Let be clear German Catholics voted for Zentrum, a party which represented Catholic interests, they did so from the start of the Kulturkampf and until the Nazi took over, and by the way the big lump in Hesse which voted Antisemiten, it’s not Lutheran areas it’s Reformed/Calvinist area.
Attachments
Philip
Donor
The map illustrates a divide between Catholic and Protestant regions. The Protestant regions, especially Prussia, had significant Reformed populations, not just Lutherans. The
Hohenzollern had been Calvinists since John Sigismund in the late XVI.
What it fails to explain is why there is that divide. A significant part of the correlation has to do with control of the Church. The Protestant Churches were accustomed to state domination. The Catholics were not. Part of Nazi policy was to control the Churches. That went over better in the Protestant areas.
Prussia was a polish land, fief.. Given more power as time went on.
The original Prussian were germanized - noting that original Prussian were more more ( Lithuanian, polish)
Power grants or waeewbra keeping and moving up..
Prussia in the long run did more for German unification than anyone since charlamagne. People hate Prussia for being the upstart.. I don't..
One can hate them for the flaws.. But hating Prussia because it was strong and ahead of the game is just crap history.
Also judging Prussia by modern standards is also hogwash. Peuah interwar was actually fairly democraric. Granted come the nazis, they pressed the buttons to push the imperialistic nationalism. Prussia was Germany just as much as Germany was Prussia.
Biggest Prussian problem was not outgrowing the old ways after ww 1. That said Noone else did either.
Second issue was less objection and their was to the nazis, problem being loyal or in a concentration camp yourself.
Damned if you do and damned if don't.
Hitler wasn't Prussian.. Not in name, rank, life or even by drinking in Bavaria (which also wasn't Prussian)
In a conversation about German nationalism and including the Jews in it, I see no reason why the Prussian if even remotely pushed wouldn't.
Who is pushing.. Many people who went on to do very bad things were encouraged to do so or high jacked or were promoted by a system that promoted the hate.
Prussia and the German empire were not perfect... They did bad things like every nation... But nazis no.
This is why in Lutheran Latvia and Estonia almost no Jews survived nazi occupation (in Estonia less than dozen survived) and most of them were killed by local collaborators (obviously i'm not saying that most of Latvians and Estonians were involved or that their Lutheranism was the cause, but you can see that Catholic antisemite and Lutheran philosemite is as true as 'antisemitism is ingrained in Lutheranism'.
Last edited:
Yes I know, but I didn’t think that nuances was really helpful, when discussing with people who claimed that German antisemitism was caused by Lutheranism.
I never claimed that at all. I was arguing against the idea that Catholicism drove Naziism.