Nazis, Darwin And Evolution

[Cheerful Charlie]

In recent years, we have had some people such as Richard Weikart and Dinesh D'Souza writing books to blame Darwin and evolution for being the basis of Hitler's holocaust. Weikart's book is "From Darwin To Hitler". Feeding lurid lies to the creationist true believers. Some years ago, I ran across an odd little item about the status of evolution to Nazis Scientists. I had saved it to a hard disk and have just found it again on an old hard disk of mine. Did Nazi scientists think evolution was true and an inspiration for national Socialism? Emphatically no.
-------

Evolution Under Attack By Nazis in Germany
Source:The Science News-letter Volume 39 Number 4
Jan 25 1941, Page 54
Published by: Society for Science & the Public
JSTOR URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/3918195

Evolution Under Attack By Nazis In Germany

"Evolution is under violent attack in Germany, primatily
because Darwinian teachings deviate from the Nazi "party line"
states states Dr. Otto Haas of the American Museum of Natural
History. (Science, Jan. 10) Dr. Haas cites a German
"semi-scientific" publication entitle Natur und Kultur, in
which ten different authors make violent attacks on evolution,
especially with regard to the origin of man from apelike
ancestors.
Dr. Haas calls particular attention "to a fact most striking to
a scientific reader: nowhere are the conclusions derived from
the results of research; on the contrary, the former are tested
as to whether or not they agree with the nationalist socialist
racial theory ('Rassenlerhe'). If they do not they have to be
rejected...Its no less striking to see that the adversaries of
evolution reproach its advocates, alleging that the latter made
them politically suspect".
One author, H. Weinert, rejects all these arguments as
"pseudoscientfic objections against the descent of the human
descent", but even he apparently tries to bolster up his
scientific argument with an appeal the party line, "asserting
that, should the origin of man be questioned, the adversaries
of national socialist 'racial hygiene' tendencies should
cite the uncertainty of science.

Science News Letter, January 25, 1941
-----

Because of the crap of Weikart and D'Souza peddle , I think this little item needs to be spread around a bit.

There is also Heather Pringle's "The Master Plan - Himmler's Scholars And The Holocaust". Himmler, head of the SS started a 'scientific' organization, the Ahnenerbe to prove Nazi racial theories scientifically. When one of Himmler's favorite scientists wrote an article taking evolution as true, Himmler gave him a sharp dressing down. Evolution, the idea that man evolved from monkey's was not acceptable to National Socialism. Himmler, head of his Ahnenerbe, banned writings supporting evolution. Himmler and national Socialism's official scientific organization were officially creationists.

The rancid little idea that Darwin can be blamed for the Holocaust is still an article of faith to many anti-evolutionists and creationists.

I later tried to track down more about this letter I am posting here, but found nothing. Some place in Germany, there is probably a dust collection of microfiches with copies of Natur Und Kultur insome dusty stacks, but I had no luck finding out how to access to any of that.

 

[rousseau]

My understanding was that the Holocaust was primarily caused by a Eugenics movement, that arose from our new understanding of genetics. So based on that I think you could make a link with Darwin, but to say Darwin was to blame is a bit silly. The human race being a bunch of psychopathic dickheads is to blame.

Eugenics

Eugenics is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce human suffering by “breeding out” disease, disabilities and so-called undesirable characteristics from the human population

 

[rousseau]

And also in the early 20th century there was a big push to prove that we didn't originate in Africa, to confirm that whites were the master race. This is why we see some rejection of evolution - because it negates this conclusion. Likely the Nazi's wanted to accept some genetic theories, while rejecting others.

 

[skepticalbip]

One problem with many scholarly works is that they start with a premise and only look for supporting references from those of like mind. I don't have a clue how Nazis viewed evolution but there are scholarly works that seem to contradict the conclusion you present. Here's one... https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=dhp

I got that link by a quick google search. There seems to be several 'scholarly articles' that come to several different opinions on the matter.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

My understanding was that the Holocaust was primarily caused by a Eugenics movement, that arose from our new understanding of genetics. So based on that I think you could make a link with Darwin, but to say Darwin was to blame is a bit silly. The human race being a bunch of psychopathic dickheads is to blame.

Eugenics

Eugenics is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce human suffering by “breeding out” disease, disabilities and so-called undesirable characteristics from the human population

It had nothing to do with Darwin. Racialist thought in Germany goes way back to pre-revolutionary France.
See Hannah Arendt's essay Racialism Before Race. On to the nationalist reaction in Germany after Napoleon's defeat of the Germanys. Count Gobineau's books were later influential and Gobineau was pre-Darwin. Gobineaus did not like Darwin or evolution. Hitler was influence by Madison Grant's book, "The Passing Of The Great White Race". Grant's book was not based on evolution. Nordicism was not based on Darwin or evolution. Germany's official Nordic racism peddler Hans Gunther "Der Rassenpapst" The race pope write several books, available in English on the net. No mention of Darwin or evolution. Germany even had book burnings of Darwin's books because Darwin was judged un-Germanic.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

One problem with many scholarly works is that they start with a premise and only look for supporting references from those of like mind. I don't have a clue how Nazis viewed evolution but there are scholarly works that seem to contradict the conclusion you present. Here's one... https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=dhp

I got that link by a quick google search. There seems to be several 'scholarly articles' that come to several different opinions on the matter.

There has been quite a bit of nonsense written about Darwin and Nazis. Much of it nonsense. Racism and ultra-nationalism have long roots predating Darwin, which are the true path to the Holocaust.

For some interesting reading on that rancid little movement, see:

http://archive.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/heilprofessor.html
"Heil Professor!" by Phil Orenstein.

Finally, Nazis were far more influenced by Plato. Plato's eugenics program was well known to national Socialist writers, who wrote a lot of works extolling Plato. And in Hitlers unpublished second book, it is obvious that Hitler drew inspiration from ancient Sparta, not Darwin. Sparta's habit of examining new born children a killing sub-standard children was something Hitler approved of. Nothing like that can be found in Darwin.

It is worth noting that Madison Grant's racist book, published in 1916 in German, was a book that Hitler wrote an enthusiastic letter to Grant about, stating "Your book has become my Bible!". Grant was also a well known Eugenicist. But Madison Grant's works do not base his ideas on evolution, or Darwin. Hitler read Grant in 1925.

 

[J842P]

One problem with many scholarly works is that they start with a premise and only look for supporting references from those of like mind. I don't have a clue how Nazis viewed evolution but there are scholarly works that seem to contradict the conclusion you present. Here's one... https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=dhp

I got that link by a quick google search. There seems to be several 'scholarly articles' that come to several different opinions on the matter.

Well, people forget that although Darwin's book was a huge hit, and it permeated the culture, particularly common descent, his theoretical ideas about natural selection were more or less rejected shortly after in favor of various other theories. Genetics was developing indenpendantly, and there were various ideas about how life had evolved.

Two things can be true, apparently, Darwinian evolution was rejected officially by the Nazi party in favor of their own theories, and various ideas that Darwin introduced into the general consciousness were used by Nazis. That is what your link seems to discuss.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The idea of "nature red in tooth and law" predates Darwin by centuries. "Might makes right" is an idea that predates Darwin by centuries. This was a controversial subject in the times of Thomas Hobbes and others who debated this issue. The problem then is, any sort of law of nature red in tooth and claw sort of statement found in Nazi literature gets credited to Darwin by ignorant people who have no interest in the long, long history of that. The strong prevail and the weak go under.


Hannah Arendt - Race Before Racism

France, wasat the same time the first to elaborate definite class-thinking.
The Comte de Boulainvilliers, a French nobleman who wrote at
the beginning of the 18th century and whose works were published
afterhis death, interpreted the history of France as the history of
two different nations of which the one, of Germanic origin, had conquered
the older inhabitants, the "Gaules," had imposed upon them its law,
had taken their lands, andhad settled down as the ruling class, the"peerage"
whose supreme rights rested upon the"right of conquest"
and the "necessity of obedience always due to the strongest."
Engaged in his arguments against the rising political power
of the Tiers Etat and their spokesmen, the "nouveau corps"
formed by "gens de lettres et de lois,".....


Right of conquest has along, long history. and when one creates bad theories about the inferiority of your neighboring races thanks to crack pots like Gobineau and the the Nodicists, we have a dangerous ideology. Not at all based on evolution, or Darwin.

Wikipedia - Might Makes Right

The idea of "woe to the conquered" is vividly expressed in Homer, in the hawk parable from Hesiod's Works and Days, and in Livy, in which the equivalent Latin phrase "vae victis" is first recorded.

The idea, though not the wording, has been attributed to the History of the Peloponnesian War by the ancient historian Thucydides, who stated that "right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."^[4]
In the first chapter of Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus claims that "justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger", which Socrates then disputes.^[5] Callicles in Gorgias argues similarly that the strong should rule the weak, as a right owed to their superiority.^[6]

It is worth repeating Nazi philosophers and theorist has great respect for Plato.

 

[ronburgundy]

The fact that Nazis accepted the ideas of genes, eugenics, and even natural selection doesn't imply they accept the core idea of common descent. One can view genes as the mechanism by which traits are passed on and view eugenics as a way to build a superior race and race mixing as introducing harmful traits, and yet view the races as essential independent species and even as created by God, each with their own genetic code not meant to be intermixed.

One can even accept natural selection in the sense of conditions refining which genes strains within a race become dominant, without accepting speciation or common descent of races. That isn't to say such a view would be rational or logically consistent, or parsimonious, but just that psychologically one can carve off the ideas of genes and selection and import them into a pre-existing worldview of inherently and originally distinct racial groups.

And Darwin's white supremacist comments don't add any evidence for the hypothesis that Nazi's borrowed from him. White supremacy was the overwhelming dominant view in Christian Europe, which is where Darwin got the idea, not from evolutionary theory.

 

[Lion IRC]

The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

 

[crazyfingers]

The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

Any person with a brain accepts the theory of evolution. [removed]

Before Darwin ever existed slave owners used the bible to justify slavery.

 

[abaddon]

The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

It's two different things, 1) the fact of evolution and 2) the connivance of ideologues.

But anyway, who do you think the people are who "put the Nazis in power" and "let them stay in power"?

 

[bilby]

The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

No, you are wrong.

(You are even wrong in your belief that you said enough).

 

[Keith&Co.]

The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

Does anyone 'embrace' Darwinism except for creationists?
Evolutionary Theory includes a shitload of stuff not included in Darwin's writings. All kinds of discrete sciences keep popping up with consilience between vastly different subjects. The science even back then, with genetics, exceeded what Darwin, himself, found or suggested.

But the dishonest foes of the science want to pretend it's one man's invention, and a personality cult to accept it, so thry can try to find tyhe silver bullet to end it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

Demonstrate that claim is true.

 

[crazyfingers]

The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

Does anyone 'embrace' Darwinism except for creationists?
Evolutionary Theory includes a shitload of stuff not included in Darwin's writings. All kinds of discrete sciences keep popping up with consilience between vastly different subjects. The science even back then, with genetics, exceeded what Darwin, himself, found or suggested.

But the dishonest foes of the science want to pretend it's one man's invention, and a personality cult to accept it, so thry can try to find tyhe silver bullet to end it.

No kidding. Darwin had never heard genetics. Genes had not been discovered.

 

[Lion IRC]

The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

Demonstrate that claim is true.

People who embrace Darwinism voted in a party which supports Darwinism.
QED

Hitler gave them what they wanted, and what they thought was scientifically rational - the master race. The uberman. Übermensch
Nietzsche would have applauded them.

 

[bilby]

People who embrace Darwinism voted in a party which supports Darwinism.
QED

Hitler gave them what they wanted, and what they thought was scientifically rational - the master race. The uberman. Übermensch
Nietzsche would have applauded them.

Repeating an unsupported claim is not supporting that claim.

 

[skepticalbip]

People who embrace Darwinism voted in a party which supports Darwinism.
QED

Hitler gave them what they wanted, and what they thought was scientifically rational - the master race. The uberman. Übermensch
Nietzsche would have applauded them.

Repeating an unsupported claim is not supporting that claim.

Is that true even if it is repeated many, many times and very loudly??

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was Hitler a Darwinian.pdf

Was Hitler a Darwinian?
Robert J. Richards
The University of Chicago

What were the roots of Hitler's racism? Not Darwin. One of the best selling racist books in Germany was Houston Stewart Chamberlain's "Myth Of The 19th Century". Hitler was friends with Chamberlain and read his book, full of anti-Semitic racist crap. Chamberlain in his book explicitly rejected Darwin and evolution. Hitler in his writings and speeches never mentions evolution or Darwin, but he certainlty does mention Chamberlain. And Hitler's library did contain well thumbed books by other anti-semitic racists. None of the Darwinians.