Bonhoeffer on Christ, the Church, and Resistance

[R7ehr]

Hitler said he was the man who tried to assassinate him, and that's what the official Gestapo and Army files say (Untersuchungsakten zum Attentat vom 20. Juli 1944).

General Walter Warlimont, Colonel Heinz Brandt, and Lieutenant Colonel Heinz Borchers all said...

And yet:

Of course, Nazi records connected Bonhoeffer to the assassination attempt, but I don't think they are reliable.

And both the Nazis and mainstream journalists conflated the resistance movement as a whole with the assassination attempt. Which was one of the most dramatic and interesting things they did.

So are Germans and their records to be believed or not?

[mike]

Can you actually PROVE to me that you aren't secretly corrupt? Probably not. But that's not because you are corrupt. Of course, in propaganda, all you have to do is introduce suspicion, no proof is needed.

Yes of course, I'm aware of that fallacy. However, when a claim really swims against the mainstream, shouldn't it provide at least some evidence, or at least a powerful counterargument?

I suspect the "mainstream" view is often the most interesting story, not the most factual one. Does the mainstream view show Bonhoeffer carrying a briefcase with a bomb to a meeting with Hitler on July 20, 1944? If so, how did he get out of the military prison in Tegel to do that, since he was arrested in April 1943? Wasn't Claus von Stauffenberg the officer who actually carried the briefcase bomb into Hitler’s conference room? Hitler said he was the man who tried to assassinate him, and that's what the official Gestapo and Army files say (Untersuchungsakten zum Attentat vom 20. Juli 1944).

General Walter Warlimont, Colonel Heinz Brandt, and Lieutenant Colonel Heinz Borchers all said that Stauffenberg placed his briefcase under the map table near Hitler, excused himself on a pretext, and left the room minutes before the explosion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_Stauffenberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot

Are there any letters, diaries, Abwehr records, Gestapo transcripts, or eyewitness testimony placing Bonhoeffer in the same room with Hitler at all, ever, or showing that they ever met? Hitler was paranoid, and pretty careful about who had access to him.

Bonhoeffer was definitely involved in the resistance movement (Abwehr), but that doesn't mean he was involved in the assassination plot. Bethge did say that Bonhoeffer knew of it. According to the second Wikipedia link, these were Stauffenberg's co-conspirators:

Untitled.jpg

I never heard it claimed that Bonhoeffer himself planted a bomb or that he ever met Hitler personally. Where does that idea come from?

Mark's argument itself seems to go this way: since there allegedly is no definitive evidence of Bonhoeffer's involvement in the conspiracy (at least none that he will accept), it couldn't have happened. Isn't there the possibility of a logical fallacy there as well?

Is he saying that it could not possibly have happened, or merely that there is no evidence that it did?

I think it would be difficult for Bonhoeffer to be actively involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Hitler while he was held in a military prison in Tegel. He was arrested about 15 months and 20 days before the assassination attempt. I suppose it's not impossible, but I'm having a hard time imagining how that could have happened.

Of course, Nazi records connected Bonhoeffer to the assassination attempt, but I don't think they are reliable.

And both the Nazis and mainstream journalists conflated the resistance movement as a whole with the assassination attempt. Which was one of the most dramatic and interesting things they did.

I think he does raise valid questions about whether it is really true that Bonhoeffer made exception to his pacifist ideals and joined the conspiracy to kill Hitler, but my point is that in the end, we still really don't know. Also, I am not sure why the word of those who knew Bonhoeffer at the time has less credibility than the speculations of an academic 70-80 years after the fact.

Are you talking about Bethge? He certainly said that Bonhoeffer was involved in the resistance movement, and that he knew about the assassination plot. Did Bethge go beyond that?

I am talking about Bethge, and yes, he did apparently go beyond that. Everything I know about what Bethge said I learned from Mark on that podcast episode, where Mark clearly says that Bethge's biography supported the idea that Bohoeffer was involved with the conspiracy (he obviously believed Bethge was wrong).

I have not read that book myself, but the following summary explains why Mark would say that about Bethge's account (bold mine):

Eberhard Bethge's biography Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography (originally published in 1967, revised edition 2000) strongly supports Dietrich Bonhoeffer's involvement in the conspiracy to assassinate Adolf Hitler. As Bonhoeffer's closest friend, student, and confidant—who later edited his Letters and Papers from Prison—Bethge drew on personal recollections, family correspondence, and resistance network documents to portray Bonhoeffer's shift from theological pacifism to active resistance.

Bethge describes Bonhoeffer's recruitment into the Abwehr (German military intelligence) in 1939, arranged by his brother-in-law Hans von Dohnanyi and Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. This role provided cover for anti-Nazi activities, including multiple assassination plots (e.g., Operation Flash in 1943, where a bomb was planted on Hitler's plane). Bethge emphasizes Bonhoeffer's ethical wrestling: he viewed the plots as a "boundary situation" requiring personal guilt and repentance, not moral justification, yet necessary to halt the Holocaust and war.

Bonhoeffer's travels abroad under Abwehr pretext allowed him to seek Allied support for a post-Hitler government, and he helped smuggle Jews to safety. Bethge recounts Bonhoeffer's arrest on April 5, 1943, on unrelated charges, followed by his 1944 implication in the July 20 Valkyrie plot (led by Claus von Stauffenberg). Executed on April 9, 1945, at Flossenbürg, Bonhoeffer's death stemmed directly from these ties. Bethge's account, based on firsthand knowledge (he was arrested post-July 20 but survived), counters postwar skepticism by affirming Bonhoeffer's peripheral but committed role, motivated by Christian love for the oppressed, especially Jews.

While some scholars (e.g., Mark Thiessen Nation in Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, 2013) question the depth of involvement, arguing Bonhoeffer remained a pacifist focused on diplomacy, Bethge's evidence—letters, ethics fragments, and witness testimonies—establishes it as historical fact. This portrayal rehabilitated Bonhoeffer's image from "Nazi sympathizer" or "traitor" to martyr, influencing global views of Christian resistance.

So the question remains whether a firsthand account is worth more than academic research 70-80 years after the fact. Obviously either or both can be wrong. But I did not hear Mark give any compelling reason during the podcast as to why Eberhard Bethge's telling of the story is unreliable and should not be believed. I'm not saying I can't be convinced. But I didn't hear that strong of a case.

[cooper]

So the question remains whether a firsthand account is worth more than academic research 70-80 years after the fact. Obviously either or both can be wrong. But I did not hear Mark give any compelling reason during the podcast as to why Eberhard Bethge's telling of the story is unreliable and should not be believed. I'm not saying I can't be convinced. But I didn't hear that strong of a case.

I agree with this assessment. I respect what I know of Mark, he's part of LMC now. But his hagiography of John Howard Yoder in his biography of Yoder makes me skeptical that his work on Bonhoeffer is also hagiographic.

[ohio jones]

I never heard it claimed that Bonhoeffer himself planted a bomb or that he ever met Hitler personally. Where does that idea come from?

The 2024 movie may or may not stop short of that; I haven't watched it. It does sensationalize the situation, though.

FILM SYNOPSIS
As the world teeters on the brink of annihilation, Dietrich Bonhoeffer is swept into the epicenter of a deadly plot to assassinate Hitler. With his faith and fate at stake, Bonhoeffer must choose between upholding his moral convictions or risking it all to save millions of Jews from genocide. Will his shift from preaching peace to plotting murder alter the course of history or cost him everything?

[mike]

I never heard it claimed that Bonhoeffer himself planted a bomb or that he ever met Hitler personally. Where does that idea come from?

The 2024 movie may or may not stop short of that; I haven't watched it. It does sensationalize the situation, though.

FILM SYNOPSIS
As the world teeters on the brink of annihilation, Dietrich Bonhoeffer is swept into the epicenter of a deadly plot to assassinate Hitler. With his faith and fate at stake, Bonhoeffer must choose between upholding his moral convictions or risking it all to save millions of Jews from genocide. Will his shift from preaching peace to plotting murder alter the course of history or cost him everything?

I was suspicious such a claim comes from a movie.

[Bootstrap]

FWIW, I made a mistake in my previous post. The word Abwehr can literally mean "defense", "resistance", etc., but it did not mean the resistance movement in World War II, it meant the German military intelligence and counter-espionage service, which Bonhoeffer joined.

He did this not only to avoid military service, but to work with members of military intelligence, including a few of their leaders, who were also involved in resistance against Hitler.

Complicated story ...

[Bootstrap]

I was suspicious such a claim comes from a movie.

More than one, I think. I'm pretty sure I have seen this claim in perhaps two others over the years.

[mike]

FWIW, I made a mistake in my previous post. The word Abwehr can literally mean "defense", "resistance", etc., but it did not mean the resistance movement in World War II, it meant the German military intelligence and counter-espionage service, which Bonhoeffer joined.

He did this not only to avoid military service, but to work with members of military intelligence, including a few of their leaders, who were also involved in resistance against Hitler.

Complicated story ...

And some of that was to get himself a way to smuggle Jews and the money needed to support them.

[Bootstrap]

I looked at the Bonhoeffer Society and found a review of this book.

https://bonhoeffersociety.org/bonhoeffe ... ve-hickey/

This part addresses some of the things I was thinking of:

Even more importantly this biographical section provides a closer look at what we actually know and do not know about Bonhoeffer’s time working for the Abwehr, and his remote connections to any conspiracies to stop Hitler, or assassinate him.

The more ill-informed of Bonhoeffer fans today may think any and all working for the Abwehr were resisters however Nation documents that of the 13,000 who worked at the Abwehr, only fifty were known to be connected to the resistance, barely four percent (p. 74). And of the known forty-two separate plots to kill Hitler, only five could have had any possible connection to Bonhoeffer. In taking time to review those five, Nation documents that there were only two of which Bonhoeffer may have been even aware. Drawing from Dramm’s Bonhoeffer and the Resistance, anyone who includes Bonhoeffer in these efforts “greatly exaggerates Bonhoeffer’s role and importance in the resistance.” Nation says “I believe this is Dramm’s way of saying there is not a shred of evidence that Bonhoeffer was linked in any way to these attempts of Hitler’s life” (p. 86).

This part agrees with Mike's point:

Perhaps it could be said that a person who only reads one book on a subject knows only a dangerous little about it. If this is the only book one reads on the matter of Bonhoeffer and pacifism, at least know that what is contained therein is contested strongly by Bonhoeffer scholars who are much closer to Bonhoeffer’s associations, students and his friends than the authors here. Particularly Clifford Green reviews this book expressing obvious agitation over what is conveniently left out of the book. But more so his angst is fuelled by how Nation builds his thesis by dismissing Bethge’s decades-later memories of informal conversations as unreliable, and even perhaps a deliberate attempt to give the world a Bonhoeffer different than the one he actually knew:

Perhaps Bethge desperately wanted his close friend to be perceived as a “Political” activist in the midst of the worst years of the Hitler regime. Bonhoeffer, so Bethge wants us to believe, was one of the Germans who directly tried to stop the massive slaughter that became the Holocaust of the Jews… (p.94)

For Nation, stunningly, Bethge is an unreliable source. Understandably, Green, who knew Bethge personally over several decades finds these insinuations outrageous. All that having been said, the first three chapters remain a generally informative and succinct, though a selective summary of the biographical unfolding of what transpired.

[ken_sylvania]

While some scholars (e.g., Mark Thiessen Nation in Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, 2013) question the depth of involvement, arguing Bonhoeffer remained a pacifist focused on diplomacy, Bethge's evidence—letters, ethics fragments, and witness testimonies—establishes it as historical fact. This portrayal rehabilitated Bonhoeffer's image from "Nazi sympathizer" or "traitor" to martyr, influencing global views of Christian resistance.

So the question remains whether a firsthand account is worth more than academic research 70-80 years after the fact. Obviously either or both can be wrong. But I did not hear Mark give any compelling reason during the podcast as to why Eberhard Bethge's telling of the story is unreliable and should not be believed. I'm not saying I can't be convinced. But I didn't hear that strong of a case.

What are "ethics fragments"?