Nazism and darwin

Thought this would be of interest. In an effort to spin this as conspiracy worthy, I would question why would certain people decide to relate Darwinism to Nazism when the evidence doesn't really seem to exist that it was a real tool of the nazis.

We have touched on social darwinism in threads before, and this socio-political movement was not really caused by Darwinsim but rather hijacked Darwinism for its own purposes. Herbert Spencer was actually an advocate of Lamarckism and one of the first true 'social darwinists'.

So, anyway, here's something I found earlier. It focuses on the books that were banned by the Nazi party in Germany in the 30s. The info is available online from an Arizona university.

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

1. The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new German (H.G. Wells, Rolland).

2. The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism.

3. Pacifist literature.

4. Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic (Rathenau, Heinrich Mann).

5. All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud (Emil Ludwig).

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).

7. Books that advocate “art” which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist (Grosz, Dix, Bauhaus, Mendelsohn).

8. Writings on sexuality and sexual education which serve the egocentric pleasure of the individual and thus, completely destroy the principles of race and Volk (Hirschfeld).

9. The decadent, destructive and Volk-damaging writings of “Asphalt and Civilization” literati! (Graf, H. Mann, Stefan Zweig, Wassermann, Franz Blei). [transl. note: a derogatory term for writers dealing with upper middle class urban society].

10. Literature by Jewish authors, regardless of the field.

11. Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life’s goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life.

12. Nationalistic and patriotic kitsch in literature (P.O. Höcker!).

[Source for German text: pp. 143-144 of Strothmann, Dietrich. Nationalsozialistische Literaturpolitik: ein Beitrag zur Publizistik im Dritten Reich. Bonn: H. Bouvier, 1968. Translation by Dr. Roland Richter. Bold added.]

www.library.arizona.edu...

Seems Darwin was not a favourite of the nazi party. Quite interesting. I hope this really puts to bed many of the tenuous claims, you can see occassionally, that evolutionary theory was a real weapon for the nazis.

On the other hand we find this in another list...

According to the principles governing the compilation of this list, the following publications must be removed from public and commercial lending libraries:

a) All writings that ridicule and belittle the state and its institutions, or that attack or question its moral foundation.

b) All writings that attack or attempt to dissolve the order of the community of the Volk and its moral foundation, specifically those against the race and biological requirements of a healthy Volk (marriage, family, etc.).

c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.

www.library.arizona.edu...

So, should it all be a rather different association? Luther was mentioned by Hitler a few times in his anti-semetic rhetoric.

I don't really feel even christianity should be highlighted as a cause of Nazism, I think these guys just took what they could to motivate people to their own terrible aims.


Think I've used up my Godwin's allocation for a year here.

Hwyl Fawr.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by melatonin]

props mel
you get a way above next month

now, is it just me or is the exterminating of a large group of people based on their ethnic origin something that harkens to a horribly and grotesque version of dog breeding?

now, what does selectively artificial selection have to do with darwin

I'd be interested to heard what it is in Darwinism that annoyed the Nazis.

Was it the "accidental" nature of Evolution... that idea that stuff just happens... went against the ideas of Destiny and being Gods Chosen People?

The other word used there Monism, if I have googled correctly, is the idea that everything physical, energy, mental, spiritual, is made of a common substance... the idea that we are all made of the same stuff, deep down we are all the same... (I probably have that stuffed up). I can see that would go against that idea that Germans are separate and better than everyone else.

Originally posted by emjoi
I'd be interested to heard what it is in Darwinism that annoyed the Nazis.

I really do have no idea.

The other word used there Monism, if I have googled correctly, is the idea that everything physical, energy, mental, spiritual, is made of a common substance... the idea that we are all made of the same stuff, deep down we are all the same... (I probably have that stuffed up). I can see that would go against that idea that Germans are separate and better than everyone else.

Haeckel had his own version of monism that attempted to bring evolution and a Spinoza-style materialist 'pantheism' together. He had no time for metaphysics and christianity. But, yeah, in essence god = world

Part of one of his writings on monismhere.

Uhh, I am not sure about all of this. There is definitely a real link between social Darwinism and Nazism. Basically, Social Darwinism is the idea of "Survival of the fittest." This is something that Nazism certainly adhered to. So, to say that Nazis were anti-Darwinists...uh, that's a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

Social Darwinism in the most basic form is the idea that biological theories can be extended and applied to the social realm. The term was popularized in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter, and has generally been used by critics rather than advocates of what the term is supposed to represent (Bannister, 1979; Hodgson, 2004).

While the term has been applied to the claim that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the evolution of society, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of his theory. In terms introduced by Herbert Spencer and continued to have an impact until World War II Just as competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through "survival of the fittest", competition between individuals, groups, or nations drives social evolution in human societies. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century. Some claim that it supports racism on the lines set out by Arthur de Gobineau before Darwin published his theories, which directly contradict Darwin's own work. However, some academic critics hold that Social Darwinism is an constructed concept, because Darwin original wanted many of his findings to be translated into social policy, see Eugenics and The Decent of Man. The classification of Social Darwinism constitutes part of the reaction against abuses of the Nazi regime.

Yep,Yep.

I think the aspect of Darwinism that upset the Nazis was that it ia a natural progression man would have no control over.

Eugenics, controlled by man, however was great. Man could harness its own genetic destiny. A view that was widely held all over the world in the 20's and 30's. Get rid of the sick, the elderly, the minorities, anyone who was deemed less than human. The movement might have severley reshaped civilization if Hitler hadnt run too far with it and brought to light what an evil concept it really is. The actions of the Nazis were basically the bottom of the slippery slope that scientific consesus had put into the mainstream. Thanks again scientists! Its great when politics and science come together, isnt it?

It seems the Nazi's were on to something haha.
According to a recent news release, there will be no more natural blondes in 200 years. OOPs there goes the Aryan race profiling

Blonde to Die Out in 200 Years BBC News

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Eugenics, controlled by man, however was great. Man could harness its own genetic destiny. A view that was widely held all over the world in the 20's and 30's. Get rid of the sick, the elderly, the minorities, anyone who was deemed less than human.

This is another aspect of Social Darwinism... I don't think the Nazis were anti-Darwinists at all. :shk:

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
While the term has been applied to the claim that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the evolution of society, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of his theory

Social Darwinism is quite a misnomer. The likes of Spencer actually used Lamarckism in their ideas rather than Darwinism. As the wiki article mentions, the ideas were around well before Darwin's theory. It was more a case of hijacking Darwinism for the socio-political cause than Darwin motivating the creation of the cause.

If you want to make the link between Darwin's theory and Nazism, you'd need to explain why they banned his books and called it a 'false scientific enlightenment'.

It wouldn't surprise me that the Nazis held more to a Lamarkian tradition, like Haeckel and Spencer (as Haeckal was more Lamarkian than Darwinian as well).

Originally posted by melatonin
If you want to make the link between Darwin's theory and Nazism, you'd need to explain why they banned his books and called it a 'false scientific enlightenment'.

Well, supposedly the Nazis were heavily induced in the "occult arts" as well,not that I personally believe they were because I don't, but they banned occultic works. I mean, that was just the way they were I suppose. If you look at the people Hitler had killed, many were similar to him in beliefs and such.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 28-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

The Nazis practice of eugenics just reeks of Darwinism. I mean, it may very well be a misconception, but I don't really see how anyone can argue that the Nazis weren't believers in Darwin's theories. I personally don't have a problem with the theory of evolution, but let's not try to "innocentize" the theory by stating that there are not some "bad" people who do and have believed in it.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Here is a link presented by Georgetown detailing the Nazis' eugenics program...

Nazis and Eugenics

The next year, the National Socialists-Nazis-took control of Germany. On July 14, 1933, the new government issued its "Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases." This law was far more directive than the Weimar government's plan. People with so-called hereditary illnesses had to be sterilized, even if they objected. And the list of persons classified as hereditarily ill included those suffering from "congenital feeble-mindedness, schizophrenia, manic depression, hereditary epilepsy, Huntington's chorea, hereditary blindness, hereditary deafness, and serious physical deformities." People with chronic alcoholism could also be sterilized. The law established some 200 Genetic Health Courts at which teams of lawyers and doctors would subpoena medical records in order to choose candidates for sterilization. The Court proceedings were secret, and the decisions could rarely be reversed.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
It seems the Nazi's were on to something haha.
According to a recent news release, there will be no more natural blondes in 200 years. OOPs there goes the Aryan race profiling

Blonde to Die Out in 200 Years BBC News

Not quite. The BBC and several other news organizations were caught by this hoax. It's yet another example of poor fact checking by some news sources!
www.lockergnome.com...

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
The Nazis practice of eugenics just reeks of Darwinism. I mean, it may very well be a misconception, but I don't really see how anyone can argue that the Nazis weren't believers in Darwin's theories. I personally don't have a problem with the theory of evolution, but let's not try to "innocentize" the theory by stating that there are not some "bad" people who do and have believed in it.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

That's a misconception on your part, I believe.

Darwinism is about breeding, but it ALSO is about equality.

Any group that has a "there are two divisions of living things: our race and everything else (basically "humans-not-us are nonhuman')" attitude or a "there are two divisions of living things: humans and everything else" attitude is not a group that has a Darwinian philosophy. In fact, groups that ban Darwin included the Communists and various very strict religious sects.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
The Nazis practice of eugenics just reeks of Darwinism. I mean, it may very well be a misconception, but I don't really see how anyone can argue that the Nazis weren't believers in Darwin's theories. I personally don't have a problem with the theory of evolution, but let's not try to "innocentize" the theory by stating that there are not some "bad" people who do and have believed in it.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

That's a misconception on your part, I believe.

Darwinism is about breeding, but it ALSO is about equality.

Any group that has a "there are two divisions of living things: our race and everything else (basically "humans-not-us are nonhuman')" attitude or a "there are two divisions of living things: humans and everything else" attitude is not a group that has a Darwinian philosophy. In fact, groups that ban Darwin included the Communists and various very strict religious sects.

Maybe the book burning can be explained away as it was only to keep the books out of the common mans hands, or only to rally the people behind the cause.

Ive cataloged many Nazi published books at my job so it couldnt have been as wide a policy as "burn everything we see." Theyre great books. They all have a page dedicated to Hitler and they all have these official Nazi seals stamped into them showing they passed the approval process before being published.

Very similar to us having to get things notarized.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
The Nazis practice of eugenics just reeks of Darwinism. I mean, it may very well be a misconception, but I don't really see how anyone can argue that the Nazis weren't believers in Darwin's theories. I personally don't have a problem with the theory of evolution, but let's not try to "innocentize" the theory by stating that there are not some "bad" people who do and have believed in it.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

But the theory isn't 'innocent' or 'guilty'. It's just science. Like religious ideas, it depends what you do with them. We don't blame atomic theory for Hiroshima.

Which was another major aim of my post. So cheers for pushing it in the right direction

We know that the Nazis used Luther's anti-semitism to support their policies (he used 'on jews and their lies'), we can also see that they held christianity in high regard (more as a tool rather than a philosophy). Whereas, they seemed to have no time for 'primitive Darwinism', calling it a 'false scientific enlightenment'.

In Mein Kampf, hitler states:

And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. Mein Kampf, p. 174

Now, I wouldn't claim that Chrisitianity motivated Nazis, it was just a tool for their overall aims, they used all kinds of influences to achieve their end-point. We shouldn't attempt to besmirch christianity by linking it to Nazism, the Nazis couldn't have cared less about Jesus, the church, and being nice to your neighbours.

But, the evidence for Darwin having any input into Nazism seems quite suspect, their own policies and words suggest so. 'Reeking' of it, doesn't really show guilt, many countries were using eugenics (which actually came at a time [1900s] when Darwinism was being criticised rather harshly and falling out of favour), only one had a 'final solution'. So, equally, we shouldn't besmirch Darwinism by linking it to Nazism.


[edit on 28-2-2007 by melatonin]

The Nazi had a way with disreguarding anything and everything that tried to enlighten another path.

You get a way above vote from me.

Originally posted by Royal76
The Nazi had a way with disreguarding anything and everything that tried to enlighten another path.

Royal, it would seem so...