How do you agree with the interpretation of Source 1 about the relationship between the Nazi Party and the Church?
In 1933, Germany’s inhabitants consisted of mostly Christians with one-third being Roman Catholic and two-thirds Protestant. The key difference between the two sources is that Source 1 asserts that the Catholic Church supported the actions of the Nazis in fear of the Nazis power and made no actions against the tragedy that befell the Jews. However, Source 2 is more convincing in its argument that there was some resistance to the Nazi regime and there was a strained relationship with some openly supporting the Nazi while other resisted (resulting in the church acting cautiously around the greater power). To an extent, Source 1 has …show more content…
Kershaw is highly critical towards the lack of involvement and action towards the persecution and pogrom of the Jews and how the fear of the Nazis turning on them caused this passivity or complicity to the actions committed. The reluctance to react is supported by the soon-to-be Pope at the time, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who stated that ‘the fight against the Jews would also become a fight against the Catholics’ and said that on behalf of the Catholics, they will not intervene. This fear is supported by the evidence of violence seen against the Catholic Church, for example, the murder of several leaders in the Night of the Long Knives in June 1934 such as Adalbet Probst or the arresting of pastors like Josef Fath. Moreover, the slow fear of the Nazi power could be seen, as even with the signing of the Concordat, which prevented any the Nazi member stopping any religious work or youth groups or Catholic schools, there were still attempts to control the Church. This was later seen in the late 1930s with the abolishment of church schools, banning of Christmas carols and plays and banning religious classes. This further forces the Church to comply in concern for further oppression.
However Source 1 is limited in its argument. It focuses on the lack of response and activity from the Catholic Church towards the anti-Semitic behaviour done by the Nazis and the policies of the Nazi State, which differs from Victoria Barnett …show more content…
Barnett has a more measured response, highlighting that there was some resistance contradicting Kershaw’s there was no means of action and how there was concern shown from the Catholic Church and even the Pope. She also suggests that there was a mixture of support, with those that opening supported the Nazi regime and those that rebelled. Barnett claims that their relationship was strained, with acts of resistance and acts of caution and suspicion from the Church. This is supported by the growth in anti-Nazi sentiment b individuals or groups ‘as the Nazi regime exerted greater pressure on them.’ For example, the reading of Mit brennender Sorge (“With burning concern”) , an encyclical of Pope Pius XI, which confiscating of copies by the Gestapo or the work of individuals like Cardinal Galen, who publically attacked the Nazi, revealing the secret killing of the handicapped and by his actions alone put an end to the euthanasia programme. There is further explanation seen to why the Church through to be targeted with the response of the Gestapo and the forceful reactions of the authority resulting in arresting and being sent for
In 1933, Germany’s inhabitants consisted of mostly Christians with one-third being Roman Catholic and two-thirds Protestant. The key difference between the two sources is that Source 1 asserts that the Catholic Church supported the actions of the Nazis in fear of the Nazis power and made no actions against the tragedy that befell the Jews. However, Source 2 is more convincing in its argument that there was some resistance to the Nazi regime and there was a strained relationship with some openly supporting the Nazi while other resisted (resulting in the church acting cautiously around the greater power). To an extent, Source 1 has …show more content…
Kershaw is highly critical towards the lack of involvement and action towards the persecution and pogrom of the Jews and how the fear of the Nazis turning on them caused this passivity or complicity to the actions committed. The reluctance to react is supported by the soon-to-be Pope at the time, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who stated that ‘the fight against the Jews would also become a fight against the Catholics’ and said that on behalf of the Catholics, they will not intervene. This fear is supported by the evidence of violence seen against the Catholic Church, for example, the murder of several leaders in the Night of the Long Knives in June 1934 such as Adalbet Probst or the arresting of pastors like Josef Fath. Moreover, the slow fear of the Nazi power could be seen, as even with the signing of the Concordat, which prevented any the Nazi member stopping any religious work or youth groups or Catholic schools, there were still attempts to control the Church. This was later seen in the late 1930s with the abolishment of church schools, banning of Christmas carols and plays and banning religious classes. This further forces the Church to comply in concern for further oppression.
However Source 1 is limited in its argument. It focuses on the lack of response and activity from the Catholic Church towards the anti-Semitic behaviour done by the Nazis and the policies of the Nazi State, which differs from Victoria Barnett …show more content…
Barnett has a more measured response, highlighting that there was some resistance contradicting Kershaw’s there was no means of action and how there was concern shown from the Catholic Church and even the Pope. She also suggests that there was a mixture of support, with those that opening supported the Nazi regime and those that rebelled. Barnett claims that their relationship was strained, with acts of resistance and acts of caution and suspicion from the Church. This is supported by the growth in anti-Nazi sentiment b individuals or groups ‘as the Nazi regime exerted greater pressure on them.’ For example, the reading of Mit brennender Sorge (“With burning concern”) , an encyclical of Pope Pius XI, which confiscating of copies by the Gestapo or the work of individuals like Cardinal Galen, who publically attacked the Nazi, revealing the secret killing of the handicapped and by his actions alone put an end to the euthanasia programme. There is further explanation seen to why the Church through to be targeted with the response of the Gestapo and the forceful reactions of the authority resulting in arresting and being sent for