Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The unauthorized history of Hitler as a Darwinist

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Richard Weikart kindly writes to say,

I’m happy to announce that my article, “The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought,” has just appeared in German Studies Review (Oct. 2013 issue), one of the most important journals publishing on German history.

Here’s the Abstract:

Historians disagree about whether Nazis embraced Darwinian evolution. By examining Hitler’s ideology, the official biology curriculum, the writings of Nazi anthropologists, and Nazi periodicals, we find that Nazi racial theorists did indeed embrace human and racial evolution. They not only taught that humans had evolved from primates, but they believed the Aryan or Nordic race had evolved to a higher level than other races because of the harsh climatic conditions that influenced natural selection. They also claimed that Darwinism underpinned specific elements of Nazi racial ideology, including racial inequality, the necessity of the racial struggle for existence, and collectivism.

A bit from the Intro:

Many historians recognize that Hitler was a social Darwinist, and some even portray social Darwinism as a central element of Nazi ideology. Why, then, do some historians claim that Nazis did not believe in human evolution? George Mosse argued that human evolution was incompatible with Nazi ideology, because Nazis stressed the immutability of the German race. More recently Peter Bowler and Michael Ruse have argued that the Nazis rejected human evolution, because they upheld a fixed racial type and racial inequality.4 Nowhere is this irony more pronounced than in the work of Daniel Gasman, who claimed that Hitler built his ideology on the social Darwinist ideas of Ernst Haeckel, but simultaneously argued that Nazis rejected human evolution. How is it possible to embrace social Darwinism, while rejecting Darwinism and human evolution? Anne Harrington suggests that the Nazis liked some elements of Darwinism, especially the struggle for existence, but not human evolution. Robert Richards agrees, claiming that Nazi racial ideas “were rarely connected with specific evolutionary conceptions of the transmutation of species,” even though they bandied about the term “struggle for existence.” In another essay Richards went further, arguing that Hitler and the Nazis completely rejected biological evolution. The notion that the Nazis could embrace racial struggle without believing in evolution seems plausible at first, especially since Houston Stewart Chamberlain, a forerunner of Nazi racial ideology, embraced this position. However, the claim that the Nazis did not believe in the transmutation of species and human evolution runs aground once we examine Nazi racial ideology in detail. In this essay I examine the following evidence to demonstrate overwhelmingly that Nazi racial thinkers embraced human and racial evolution:

1) Hitler believed in human evolution.

2) The official Nazi school curriculum prominently featured biological evolution, including human evolution.

3) Nazi racial anthropologists, including SS anthropologists, uniformly endorsed human evolution and integrated evolution into their racial ideology.

4) Nazi periodicals, including those on racial ideology, embraced human evolution.

5) Nazi materials designed to inculcate the Nazi worldview among SS and military men promoted human evolution as an integral part of the Nazi worldview.

This should pretty much end the discussion but won’t because the issue isn’t about the massive evidence that Nazis were social Darwinists but about defending Darwin’s sacred name from the sacrilegious facts.

Note: Weikart explains how he first got involved with this matter here:

Actually, at first, he wasn’t interested. While living in Germany some years ago to improve his German, he was mainly interested in the nineteenth century. He doubted that he would uncover anything new about the Third Reich. For one thing, in his view, it was an overworked field. But then he discovered one neglected point:

[A]s I investigated the history of evolutionary ethics in pre-World War I Germany, I noticed—to my surprise—remarkable similarities between the ideas of those promoting evolutionary ethics and Hitler’s worldview. This discovery (which happened around 1995) led me to investigate Hitler’s worldview more closely, and this research convinced me that I had found something important to say about Hitler’s ideology.

One wonders if Weikart will ever be forgiven for documenting it all so carefully, in the faces of all those who want to explain it away.

Comments
@LarTaner:
Christianity and Lutherian views of Jews being critical non-Darwinian elements mixed in as well.
Have you read Weikert's paper? He actually puts the blame on intelligent design ideology:
"They saw eugenics and racial policy as a means to help the Nordic race evolve to even greater heights."
JWTruthInLove
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
It wasn’t Christianity that provided the rationale for mass murder and produced all those damning charts, diagrams, and photographs.
Martin Luther, etc., will be pleased to know this.LarTanner
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Interesting. So you think some Christians acted against "the fundamental non-negotiable tenants" of the Christian faith, although you must admit these same Christians would proudly proclaim themselves to have acted perfectly "consonant with" Christian faith. Fortunately, you know you have the right interpretation of the faith, right Barry? Phew. Thank goodness you happen to have it correct. Please, tell me more about "the fundamental non-negotiable tenants" of the theory of the origin of the diversity of Earth's species.LarTanner
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
LarTanner
Barry, can it possibly be that you don’t know what antisemitism is and where it comes from?
The issue has nothing to do with the origins of antisemitism, which can be traced all the way back to the pre-Christian era. On the table is the question of what ideology prompted the German anti-semite leaders to "bring science into the service of the Nazi vision," as they themselves put it. It wasn't Christianity that provided the rationale for mass murder and produced all those damning charts, diagrams, and photographs; it was Darwinist ideology--the same ideology that produced the anti-Christian eugenics movement in the United States.StephenB
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
LT: “can it possibly be that you don’t know what antisemitism is and where it comes from?” I do know what anti-Semitism is. I will not pretend to know what motivated everyone who has hated Jews over the centuries. Doubtless, they were motivate by a myriad of factors, including the rantings of some Christians. It is also true that evil men acting in the name of Christianity have persecuted Jews over the centuries. That does not prove that Christianity is a bad thing. It proves that the evil in the hearts of men can subvert any good thing. That which is done in the name of Christianity or by those who call themselves Christians does not define the fundamental non-negotiable tenants of the historic Christian faith. Those tenants were set forth in the sayings of Jesus and by the later writers of the New Testament. And it cannot be doubted that hatred of one’s fellow man (of which anti-Semitism partakes) is antithetical to those fundamental tenants of the historic Christian faith. For heaven’s sake man, Jesus was a Jew! "Anti-Semitic Christian" is very close to an oxymoron. Barry Arrington
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
No doctrine of the historic Christian faith supports what the Nazi’s did.
A scholarly type I follow has recently written a book to cover this topic: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hitlerschristianity.html Key points: - German "Christianity" in the 1930 era had degenerated into a psuedo-Christian cult where Jesus was considered an Aryan, not a Jew (!). - Bible was considered corrupted and large parts were ignored in favor of nationalistic/anti-Semitic views. So while there may be Hitler quotes claiming to be Christian, it's important to look at what he meant by "Christian". To use the same label without noting the differences is to use the same word for different meanings, which is inaccurate and logically fallacious.SirHamster
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Barry, can it possibly be that you don't know what antisemitism is and where it comes from? You should talk more with Robert Byers.LarTanner
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
LT: “We have words from Hitler . . .” Oh, well that settles it. Not. Hitler was possibly the most outrageous liar in history. Of course this does not mean everything he said was a lie. How do you sort out the difference? By judging whether his ACTIONS were consulate with his words. His actions demonstrate that he was telling the truth about his Darwinist racial views and he was lying about being motivated by Christian principles. Can it possibly be that you do not know the difference between Nazi propaganda and the actual truth about the Nazis? Can you be that supremely ignorant? It beggars belief. But if that’s what you are saying, I will reclassify you as “supremely ignorant” from “intentional liar.” Let me know.Barry Arrington
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
We have words from Hitler and the Nazis explaining how Christianity informs their mindset and validates their policies.LarTanner
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
LT: "Try to insult me . . ." LT, I am not insulting you. I am pointing out an obvious fact about you. It cannot possibly be the case that you do not know that Nazism is antithetical to the tenants of the historic Christian faith. It follows that your slander of the faith is not based on your ignorance but on your purpose intentionally to mislead and slander. Therefore, you are a liar and not an ignoramus. Simple logic.Barry Arrington
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
LT: “Do you think there’s an essential difference between the relationship of Nazism and Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the one hand, and Nazism and Christianity, on the other hand?”
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.
( Descent of Man,1874, p. 178). On the one hand, the Nazis' views on racial supremacy were no different from Darwin’s views expressed in the Descent of Man and are generally consonant with the views of most Darwinists from 1859 though the 1930's. It is no coincidence that one of Darwin's relatives was the leader of the worldwide eugenics movement. On the other hand, as KF has demonstrated, the Nazis' views generally were utterly antithetical to the central tenants of the historic Christian faith. So, is there a difference? Well, is there a difference between “generally consonant with” and “antithetical to”?Barry Arrington
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Try to insult me Barry, but know that no one takes seriously the rantings of your Bachmann-addled mind.LarTanner
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
No indictment at all. Nazism viewed itself and an embodiment of practical Christianity, and Nazi ideology synthesized many elements, just as Weikart says. Do you think there's an essential difference between the relationship of Nazism and Darwin's theory of evolution, on the one hand, and Nazism and Christianity, on the other hand?LarTanner
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
LarTanner: "Christianity . . . mixed in as well." No doctrine of the historic Christian faith supports what the Nazi's did. Charity would oblige me to classify you as an ignorant clueless bumpkin were this fact not so blindingly obvious. Sadly, therefore, I must classify you as a shameless liar.Barry Arrington
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
LT, From your choice of words, you evidently want to indict the Christian faith in general for Nazism. May I therefore beg to remind you of the key relevant foundational Christian ethical teachings?
Ac 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,[c] 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;[d] as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’[e] Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal [--> these two cover aggressive warfare and the like as carried out by the Nazis right there], You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
In short, all men per creation from a common ancestor are held to be brothers and sisters, and we are4 reminded that in loving neighbour as self, we ought not to harm that neighbour, where the Good Samaritan is forever the standard of neighbourliness. Whatever evils Hitler may have imbibed (whether via church leaders or otherwise), he did not gain this from the core moral teaching of the Christian faith. Where, that core moral teaching -- which holds authority over any given Church leader past or present -- has been repeatedly publicly taught, documented knowledge for the better part of 2,000 years. KFkairosfocus
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Page 552:
Nazi racial ideology—and the many policies based on it—were profoundly shaped by a Darwinian understanding of humanity. Certainly many non-Darwinian elements were synthesized with Darwinism: Aryan supremacy, antimiscegenation, antisemitism, and many more.
Christianity and Lutherian views of Jews being critical non-Darwinian elements mixed in as well.LarTanner
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7

Leave a Reply