Subject: Armed Forces and Church
In reference to the conference between Brigadier General Reinecke and my expert party member, Chief Councillor to the Government Wemmer, of Wednesday the 11th of this month, I want to explain to you once more in order to confirm the arrangements made by my expert, the attitude of the party with regard to these questions.
In the last years, the party had to announce its position, time and time again, to the plan of establishing a State Church, or of a closer connection between the State and the Church. The party has repudiated these plans with all its force and for the following reasons. In the first place it would not be compatible for the doctrinal demands of National Socialism to unite the State with the churches as the outer organization of the religious communions which do not have as aim in all their fields the carrying out of the National Socialist principles. In the second place, considerations of a political nature oppose such an outer unity. At present, the churches, the Protestant as well as the Catholic one, are disunited internally, and partly externally too, seen from an organizational point of view, they do not form a unity any longer. A union of these churches with a State built on a strong close leadership and on any National Socialist principles is bound to fail. Such a union, furthermore, would result in constant arguing between Church and State. Furthermore, competence quarrels would arise constantly there, where measures have to be taken concerning either the State or the Church; in this case also one must always count with the difficulty that the Churches would refuse such decisions out of dogmatic reasons. Numerous examples of such an attitude can be found there, where out of historical reasons, there still is a union between State and Church, such as for instance in the case of the School. But even there where the State has recently tried to bring order in the affairs of the Church by making decisions such as for instance the setting up of a State's finance committee for the Church administration, experience has been made that one portion of the churches thought these decisions were necessary, but another portion thought, for dogmatic reasons, that this was an intolerable meddling with the church life. With such unfortunate circumstances, there is always a danger for the State that it has to execute its decisions forcibly if these are not being carried out; this particular condition must be prevented for several reasons.
For these reasons of doctrinal and political nature, the deputy of the Fuehrer has opposed the setting up of a State Church; he has also rejected the attempts to make use of the authority of the State for a different kind of union between the State and Church and to settle outer organizational matters which should be the task of the Church. The party, therefore, would regret very much if contrary to this attitude, the Armed Forces would continue with their plans to set up a private consistory for the Armed Forces, that is to say to create a private church for the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces Church would indeed be nothing else but a State Church within the Armed Forces. To supplement this I would like to bring out the following points:
1. A great portion of the ministers of both churches stand, in accordance with the attitude of the churches, in concealed and also open opposition to National Socialism and the State led by it. In these questions a different judgment of the case is presented as it would have been before or during the World War when the churches were in a more positive relationship to the State. Today, however, the churches and the ministers, should a crisis arise for this National Socialist State, would pass from concealed to open opposition. They will not in times of crisis support or help this state but at best leave it to its own fate. That they will even fight this State in these times in order to regain lost fields is clearly demonstrated by the Protestant beseeching prayer in reference to the Sudetenland crisis; I want to bring this incident to your attention once more. This high treasonlike beseeching prayer proves that the churches have only been waiting till the National Socialist State found itself, at least in their opinion, in a moment of uneasiness, to take up the fight against the State with their whole psychological influential means. In my opinion this fact deserves special attention, because this beseeching prayer clearly demonstrates in which spiritually extraordinary successful way these churches try to influence the individuals. I do not think that the ministers of these churches will be a support to the fighting troops, but that on the contrary, they will be to a great extent dangerous destroyers of the spiritual fighting strength in the decisive moment.
I want to emphasize that at that time this beseeching prayer was approved by most of the country's churches and that it was only later on, once these trying days were put to a good end, and often drawn out negotiations from the part of the Reich's church ministry had been ended, that some of the country's churches announced their disapproval; this disapproval, however, in the meantime was in part repudiated. A separate church from the Armed Forces even though it might free itself, as to its organization, from the other country's churches, will not be spared from this danger. The Armed Forces church would have to get its recruits from the other churches. Even if one would go as far, and this in my opinion is practically impossible, as to how the Armed Forces form their own ministery from youth on, this separation of an Armed Forces church from the rest of the churches will not be possible because their church faith ideas will remain the same because they are all based on dogmatic principles.
2. It is known to me that certain disputes arose when the Armed Forces tried to bring about a union between the Protestant and Catholic churches; furthermore, that certain organizational measures such as for instance the combining of the Church song book, the creation of a unified Church service etc. would be appropriate. But according to experiences which the party and the State encountered in these questions, the difficulties, instead of decreasing, on the contrary increase when these matters are taken in hand by authorities other than the church. But the party, by its logical attitude towards these matters, wanted to spare the State from these difficulties and arguments within the churches, that are always led back on dogmatic principles. It should remain up to the church if they can, want or do not, to accomplish these desirable organizational measures and unifications. The State or the party would furthermore oppose an inevitable development in this field by meddling in church matters; namely a development which would lead to leaving these affairs to forces which still want to be in connection with the Church.
The Fuehrer's Deputy has therefore considered it as his duty, after the basic decision to reject a union between State and Church had been made, to see to it that the basic ideological freedom of faith and conscience be also practically realized in all the State's decrees, decisions etc. Everywhere the church matters have been left up to the church, but also every religious constraint, wherever present, was removed. At the same time, those who wanted to busy themselves, with Church and religious matters in a correct carrying out of the basic faith and conscience freedom were given the possibility to do so.
The Fuehrer's Deputy would welcome it if the Armed Forces would act in these essential ideological decisions, after the same principles as the party and also now the State have laid out for themselves, instead of pursuing the plans for a creation of an Armed Forces Church or any other closer union between the Armed Forces and the church. I am convinced that in a short time there will be no more difficulties for the Armed Forces either, which difficulties had been brought about by the plan to create a separate Armed Forces Church. In fact the Armed Forces have already taken a position to these questions and basically also in the sense of accomplishing freedom of faith and conscience. It should be decisive, however, in this respect to note that these instructions are in many cases not always completely carried out. To assure a right execution of this principle of freedom of faith and conscience it would be in my opinion necessary to observe the following points:
(1) The orders stating that no constraint can be exercised in the attendance of church services during the free evening hours in army camps would really have to be complied with. The carrying out of these orders should not, as in reality it sometimes is, be left up to the discretion of some higher or lower ranking superiors. In most cases, no direct constraint is exercised but in some cases the non-assistance of church services is punished by extra duty etc. Such incidents should lead in the future to disciplinary action.