In my last post, I talked about getting some documents from my father. Another one that I got was a Nazi published pamphlet called “I
m Lande der Mormonen” or “In the land of the Mormons” It is written by Alfred C. Rees, the East German Mission President before the war (1). What makes my copy unique is it has a note hand written by Rees to an Elder Roy Heindorf, thanking him for helping write the article.
The translation of his hand written note is
To Elder Roy Heindorf
With pleasurable memories of your intelligent humble cooperation which helped make this article possible
Sincerely
A. C. Rees
The rest of the page is translated (2) as follows
“Of the strange folk community of Mormons, Europe has long had a very disoriented perception. Who knew the Mormon State of Utah is one of the healthiest and most modern state in the US even today? In the following, Mr Alfred C. Rees, the representative of the Mormon church in Germany, paints for our readers a portrait of Mormonism today, a church which views the New Germany with sympathy and friendship”
In a Sunstone article entitled “The Fuhrer’s New Clothes: Helmuth Hübener and the Mormons in the Third Reich” (3), some background on the pamphlet is given:
“In their eagerness to coexist with the [Nazi] government, American officials of the German Church resorted to public relation efforts . . . Probably the clearest example of this tendency is an article by West German Mission President Alfred C. Rees entitled ‘In the Land of the Mormons.’ The article appeared in a special issue of the Nazi Party organ Der Volkische Beobachter dated April 14 1937. In the Editor’s Preface to the article, President Rees is called ‘the representative of the Church in Germany,’ who ‘paints for our readers a portrait of Mormonism today, a church which views the New Germany with sympathy and friendship.’ Whether President Rees originally wrote the article in German or not, the language of the piece abounds in such loaded terms as Volk and Rasse (race), and a picture of Brigham Young bears the caption, ‘Fuhrer der historischen Mormonenpioniere.’ But the significance of these linguistic gaffes is magnified by hindsight. More disturbing is the way President Rees blatantly parallels Mormonism with Nazism. As Rees warms to his topic, Mormonism begins to sound like a fulfillment of Nazi teachings, providing ‘the practical realization of the German ideal: “the common good takes precedence over the individual good.”‘ Rees concluded by assuring his readers that ‘Mormons are people who put this healthy doctrine into action.’ Reading articles such as this, it would have been easy for a German Saint to mistakenly conclude that the seal of official Church approval had been placed on the Nazi regime.”
Steve Carter, in the International Journal of Mormon Studies (4) makes similar observations about the article
Rees, in his article entitled, “In the Land of the Mormons,” favorably compared Mormonism and Nazism and emphasized doctrinal similarities. He also suggested that common experience gave Mormonism a unique understanding of the “new Germany,” especially its grievances resulting from World War I. Rees asserted “to a student of Mormonism, recent developments in Germany present a most impressive study.” He mentioned J. Reuben Clark, no doubt, reminding the Nazis of Clark’s efforts to relieve the financial situation in Germany as president of the Foreign Bondholders’ Association. Rees concluded that Mormons exhibited the “application of the German ideal: Community welfare before personal welfare,” an allusion to Point 24 of the Nazi Party program of putting “common interests before self-interest
And here is the photo of the “Fuhrer”, Brigham Young.
I have read before about the church and its some would say “too close relationship” with the Nazis, but to hold this Nazi propaganda pamphlet in my hand, and see it signed by A. C. Rees made it seem all too real. What do you think about the church’s relationship with the pre-WW2 Nazi party?
(1) for an interesting history of the two mission Presidents being called to the same German mission , see Gospel Tangents here
(2) Thanks to google translate and a friend who went on his mission to Germany.
(3) Alan F. Keele and Douglas F. Tobler, Sunstone, v. 5, no. 6, pp. 20-29
(4) The Rise of the Nazi Dictatorship and its Relationship with the Mormon Church in Germany, 1933–1939 – Steve Carter March 3, 2015, IJMS
Wheat & Tares 
Kissing up to the prevalent political powers has been Church strategy for a long time, an approach legitimized somewhat by the 12th article of faith. There are always differing perspectives on historical events, but the Church‘s treatment of Helmuth Hübner and other members who were active in Nazi resistance is disturbing is hindsight, but was not surprising at the time. For what it‘s worth, our church was not alone. The big state catholic and protestant churches also actively curried favor with Nazi government, in an environment where anti-semtisim was not uncommon within the churches and political dissent was not tolerated.
I have 3 very different thoughts:
1 – Would kids like history a bit better if we didn’t whitewash it? I hated history until I had a college history class and enjoyed the readings and lectures. Now a good % of my books and TV watching is all about history.
2 – What interesting documents! The perspective is really interesting.
3 – Looking back history can look very different than when you are in it. So I do cut the church leaders a bit of slack on some of what they did. I think I recall reading Armand Mauss (sociologist that turned his professional training lens to the church) said that most any organization is going to have “survive as an organization” at the very top of it’s list or it won’t survive. It does bring me back to the thought that there is a personal responsibility to do what one feels is God’s directive and completely abdicating all moral decisions to anyone else can get you into trouble.
Thanks Bishop Bill. That is some interesting stuff. I find the common belief in eugenics between early Mormon leaders and Hitler to be the most disturbing link. Even my hero BH Roberts had some things to say on the topic. Here is some additional reading for those interested. https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/08/02/eugenics/
We have a very elderly German sister in our ward who was in the Nazi Youth as a young child, and whilst she fully accepts her homeland’s responsibility for it’s crimes, still feels there was an overlap between Nazism and mormonism. Sometimes I think she sees this as evidence of evil’s ability to cloak itself in the garb of good, and sometimes she sees that as an overlap that disturbs her. It’s been very interesting knowing her for the past thirty years and seeing the process of her life. She does have some remembrance of these events, but prefers not to focus on them.
Thanks for the link! I hadn’t seen the actual articles by Alfred c. Rees. What strange bedfellows! It’s hard for me to fathom how Alfred thought this was a good idea. Talk about the ends justifying the means!
I use to think “the ends justifying the means” was an interesting thought to think about. I have come to see this justification used mainly being used as an excuse to do bad things. I have found myself shutter if I think I am using this logic in any way
Our victim mentality and history might predispose us to appeasement rather than courage, but it can’t excuse us from our actions. We can’t erase our response to Nazi power juxtaposed against that of Helmut, Karl and Rudi.
Perhaps we haven’t learned the lesson of appeasement from WWII, perhaps we haven’t read “While England Slept”, and perhaps we don’t have faith that if (gulp) we were to actually stand for the principles that the Lord restored, he would stand with us and fight our battles as he promised countless times in the scriptures. Perhaps we don’t believe that if we were to die on our hill, God could restore it again.
In the end, preserving and protecting the church means living by its principles in word, deed and politics. Not serving two masters. Standing for truth and letting the consequences follow. Protecting an organization that compromises itself for self preservation is not protecting the restored gospel, but only a echo of itself.
Today, the church has received criticism for appeasing and symbolically aligning with the Trump administration by hosting 45, schlepping the MoTab to sing at the inaguration when most other performers would not, praying at a Trump Pence rally in UT (recently released RS Gen President Julie B. Beck), remaining silent during the election cycle during horrendous insults to minorities, women, and other persecuted religions, etc.
I can’t help but think about how deluded we are that our political tricks and mental gymnastics that “respecting the office” comes before standing against abuses of power toward the people- actually means something.
Fast breaking news flash- there is no honor among thieves. Singer Jackie Evancho (America’s Got Talent runner up) agreed to sing at the inaguration when almost no other pop star would. Months into the administration, she tried calling in the favor and sought an audience with Trump to discuss an important issue to her – bathroom protections for non-cisgender persons. Well, well, well. Can you guess what happened? She never even got a response. Completely snubbed.
Do we really think that WE somehow earned political capital by sacrificing our reputation and name and hurting several of our own members and potential members, for him? Do we really think we can call up the White House about our position on something and be treated any differently than Jackie? That should we come under attack like Muslim Americans or Standing Rock, we would have a loyal friend who owes us a favor? Riiiiiight.
J Reuben Clark, a member of the first presidency and a prominent government official is the key to understanding this chapter of history. He had enormous influence on many Mormon’s political position, And it is a surprising position in light of contemporary Mormon political support.
Perhaps over simplified, I think Pres. Clark was a strong supporter of the US Govt and the military in WWI. He hated Franklin Roosevelt and became more of an isolationist and pacifist in the decade leading up to WWII. He loved and defended Asian people in the US at a time when racial hatred of them was strong. He opposed fighting WWII and in aiding England. It was not our concern. I recall some rumors from older relatives that claimed Roosevelt coordinated the attack on Pearl Harbor because he wanted the US in WWII and without that level of provocation, he could not get the level of support of the American people needed to prevail. Roosevelt won the voye in Utah as he did in most places but he did not prevail in some southern Utah counties. The region of the country where Roosevelt was least popular was upper rural New England and people in Utah who thought like people there hated him.
It is easy to look back at WWII and think it was inevitable that we would prevail. But the people who lived through it did not see it that way. Germany could have and should have won that war, looking at the strength of their military. Hitler had to make several mistakes for them to lose and if he had listened to his generals he would have prevailed. A terrifying thought experiment is to pretend that the Germans had made a different decision at various points, what would have happened? Not let the British army slip away a t Dunkirk. Invaded England. Not invaded Russia until England was in the bag. Cut off the aid to Russia from America flowing through the Suez canal. Not wasted his best army in Stalingrad. And the big tuna, not chased his Jewish scientists away (including Einstein) and developed nuclear weapons and rocketry first.
So how does Mormonism survive in a nuclear armed Nazi Europe if they had become the new reality? The church leaders had no way (except revelation) to know who would win. And it seemed one of the best informed of the apostles was preaching American isolationism which would have made Nazi victory all but certain. In this context the actions of our leaders made sense. Even today, how many Mormons supported Trump in the primary election and how many supported him in the general election? Does this surprise anyone?
It feels creepy to see this cozy relationship between Nazis and the Church. I mean where is the prophetic insight? Where is personal integrity? It does not pass the smell test for me.
As a long time non-Mormon student of Mormon history and as a US Army counter intelligence agent in Germany in the “denazification” process at the end of the war (1945 to 1948), I am surprised and delighted at the serious way this Group has discussed a rather embarrassing chapter in Mormon history in Germany. It would be interesting to make a comparison with the Church’s friendship with the dictators of the German Democratic Republic In Yotie Jeanne to build a temple there.
I caution against presentism.
I think the Saints in Germany did the best they could under the circumstances. Trying to get along and trying t0 fit in are very human desires. None of us can understand what they faced, but it is so easy to judge them.
Fuehrer simply means leader or guide, that’s all — so yes, in German, Brigham Young was the fuehrer of the Mormon pioneers. From wikipedia:
The word Führer in the sense of “guide” remains common in German, and it is used in numerous compound words such as Oppositionsführer (Leader of the Opposition). However, because of its strong association with Hitler, the isolated word usually comes with stigma and negative connotations when used with the meaning of “leader”, especially in political contexts.
It is easy to think one-dimensionally about Hitler and Nazi Germany because of the egregious evil of the holocaust they brought to the world. As someone pointed out above, the people who lived in Germany in that era need to be heard to really understand that era.
I will provide a few quotes from a book Elder F. Enzio Busche wrote titled “Yearning for the Living God”. Elder Busche was born in German in 1930, Hilter came into power in 1933.
“Because I was so young when Hitler came to power, his regime had a tremendous impact on my life. Just like most everyone else my age, I was a member of the Hitler Youth. At that time, of course, we had no way of knowing that our organization’s namesake would earn the reputation of being one of the most evil individuals to have ever walked on earth. To the contrary, we had tremendous enthusiasm for being a part of what we perceived as an idealistic dream. I often smile when I read things today from people who do not know better and who write that German boys were forced against their will to become members of the Hitler Youth program. At birth, we were enrolled. That was just part of the system. When we turned ten years old, we were not asked, we simply became members of that organization. It did not seem like we were being forced because we wanted to be members.
It was impressed upon us that we were to be good children and do good things. There was no talk of hate and crimes against people or doing bad things. As a nine-year-old, I could not wait to become ten because I could then put on the uniform and become part of something much bigger. We were taught were going to help save the decadent world. We were educated to believe that we would bring fulfillment of the dreams of mankind; we would bring goodness, righteousness, honesty, and dignity to the declining cultures of the world. Even the future of Germany, we were told, rested on our young capable shoulders.”
“Youth were invited to participate in collecting “fast offerings” on the first Sunday of each month. The entire population was supposed to fast and give the equivalent in money to the collecting youth.”
“From my vantage point today, I can see that the general population of the United States, and even Europe, has come to understand very little about the terrible time of Hitler’s Germany and the Second World War. It is painful to hear people discussing and debating that period without understanding at least the reality that many of us knew or were part of in the Germany of those days. How Did You Not Understand? ”
“I am not saying that the system was good. What I want to carefully explain is that the system had expressed a moral goal that was very successfully portrayed to the population. Everything that happened, we were told, was in pursuit of achieving that moral goal. My father, together with most German people, believed in the basic premise of Hitler’s alternative to the chaos that had occurred in Germany’s past. There had been inflation, prostitution, starvation, terrorism, and anarchy. My father told me that there was a time when there were 30,000 prostitutes in the city of Berlin alone. Corruption was devastating German society. When the new system began, there was a growing hope and a vision of purpose. There was meaning and an understanding of the need for order and discipline.
It is not easy to talk about this, knowing what I know now, but that helps explain the background of our society in that time. We believed what we heard. The magic of the music and the uniforms, the philosophy and talks—all were very powerful and convincing.”
” Until 1944, the German people more or less stood behind the government and were ready to sacrifice anything, even to the point of giving their lives. When I look back on this with my current understanding, it seems unbelievable that so many could have been this naïve and uneducated in the political realities of the world.
It was during the last six months of the war that I heard people raise questions; however, they were asked more out of frustration and fear for the coming final disaster than to find out the truth. Only after the final collapse did the complete reality sink in. In the ashes of our destroyed country came the awareness of the real tragedy: the awareness that Germany was the villain, the aggressor, the barbarian, the cruel slaughterer.
When people say now that Germans knew what was happening, it is because they simply were not there and cannot understand how a dictatorship functions. There was no alternative view possible because the radio broadcasts came from the government. The newspapers came from the government. All information came from one source. I must, therefore, leave questions about the involvement of the general population open, although I am now, of course, painfully aware of terrible atrocities done by Nazis in the name of Germany.
With the defeat came the reports about the concentration camps. The horror stories of criminal acts done by our own people were first met with disbelief. Finally, a feeling of indescribable shame came as reports were openly documented over and over again. With it came the awareness of betrayal—that the best of our feelings and desires had been trampled on and misused. We had been had.”
I whole-heatedly hope you will read this book. Not only about Elder Busche’s experience as a youth growing up in Nazi Germany, but more importantly about his conversion experience.
Quick Poll. Give this comment a thumbs up if you read my posts (or listened to the podcast/video) on J. Reuben Clark & the Alfred C. Rees on the Nazi Propaganda. Give this comment a thumbs down if you didn’t read or listen to it. I’m just curious.
“And here is the photo of the “Fuhrer”, Brigham Young.”
From my two years of high school German, I remember “führer” means “leader”. Another common translation is “guide”. I was curious to see if there was another word choice the author of the pamphlet could have chosen. Google Translate gives the primary translation of “leader” as “Führer” but provides 19 more choices. Ignoring Der Leader and Der Chef, I compared the frequency of use of the other words in German books from 1800 to 2000 using Google Ngram. Only the term Kopf was used more frequently than “Führer” before 1930. Kopf is better translated as head (and can also mean mind, brains). But like the English word “head”, Kopt can also mean “leader”. In frequency, “Führer” overtook “Kopf” in 1930 till about 1977. In 1920 the word “Führer” was used about three times more frequently than the next most popular word “Leiter”.
Ngram doesn’t provide context for word choices, but we have the English scriptures at lds.org from which the German versions were translated using identical context. In the English texts, I found the word “leader” used 41 times in the Book of Mormon, 6 times in the Doctrine and Covenants, and 0 times in the Pearl of Great Price. In the German texts, I found the word “Führer” was used 38 times in the Book of Mormon, 5 times in the Doctrine and Covenants, and 0 times in the Pearl of Great Price. In every case, the English word for leader was translated into “Fuhrer”. Discrepancies in counts are due to plurals and in a couple of instances, “Führer” was also used to translate the English word “guide.” The word “Leiter” is not used in the German translations of the LDS scriptures.
I also searched for the word “Führer” in German language Twitter and found 15 uses in the past two hours, all in the context of “leader” or “guide”. In only two cases did the word refer to Hitler.
It appears to me the word “Fuhrer” is pretty commonly used by Germans as “leader,” so the use of the word “Führer” to describe Brigham Young as leader of the historical Mormon pioneers was most likely innocuous and shouldn’t necessarily be imputed as an attempt by the pamphlet’s author as a Mormon tie-in to Hitler or Nazis.
That’s an atheist perspective on the church, though. What happened to “no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing?”
Interested to swap or buy this pamphlet bishop Bill. I have original Times and Seasons, first issue after martyrdom which describes the events of Carthage. Would consider a trade.