Was Darwin Hitler's Muse?

[sandman67]

This is a pretty old argument that has been doing the rounds recently in the UK press (to my amazement....then you read who it is who thinks so).

Its the accusation that Darwins Origin of The Species, and in particular his Theory of Natural Selection, was the inspiration for the genocidal madness of the Holocaust and Hitler's foaming at the mouth racism. By default, Darwins work is also cited as the cause of Stalins purges and genocidal actions against the Unkraine, and Pol Pot's Year Zero insanity. Some even strech a bit further and throw Mao's utter disreguard for human lives as a result.

Now I expect that sort of intellectual dishonesty from the mouths of Baptist preachers and almost all US politicians, but when UK members of the clergy appear on prime time TV shows spouting it, and it goes unadressed or attracts a ripple of small applause, I sit up with a slack jaw.

When a colleage who works in corporate intelligence and prepares risk asessments for major clients repeats these claims, citing what even a basic check shows are heavily edited quotations from Darwin's works taken far out of context, and linking Darwin with eugenics programs in pre war Germany and similar ones in the USSR and Scandinavian countries (yep...that one surprised me too when I learned about it).... then I start to wonder whether Im the mad one or that education in general is much more compromised than I thought.

So.... would anyone like to support the proposal that Darwin's works inspired the genocides of the 20th Century and in particular those committed by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot?

I know I can be snarky when replying but I promise that I can keep my replies civil and informative, will debate properly, and wont let things descend to this level:



or

[STEVE G]

I suppose in that Darwins works explained the process of natural selection, then you can make a link to Hitlers eugenics but you can hardly hold it against him.
Darwin was merely explaining nature, not suggesting what anyone did with that knowledge.
I see that Sir Francis Galton, Darwins half-cousin did some work on the subject following on from his studies and actually coined the term eugenics.

[STEVE G]

I've just found this paragraph written by Hitler that illustrates that his plans were inspired by ideas far older than Darwins:

Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses.

[PeteC]

I think you can say that Darwin's findings apply to the human species as well, but people don't seem to like to talk about it. Specifically it also applies to the eventual extinction of groups/races within the human species who do not evolve for one reason or another.

Our recorded history is too short to actually have seen it, although there is reference concerning Neanderthal man, and we see it today with a place like Tibet, native American Indians and I guess with more thought, several other examples.

IMO extinction and evolution can be politically and militarily driven, or simply a case of a group or groups not keeping up with everyone else in terms of technology and education. In example, the powerful and inovative survive, others don't.

It wouldn't surprise me 5,000 years from now to see our three main races, Asian, Caucasian and Latin, but no cultural distinctions within them like there is now. 10,000 years only two, 20,000 years only one. If I had to bet, I would say that last one will be Asian with the others being absorbed.

As I ramble along I guess I'm talking more about cultural evolution/extinction than what Darwin was referring to in regards to us possibly losing our pinky finger due to disuse, and growing gills as the oceans enlarge. Pete

[PeteC]

PS...I didn't purposely leave out African, Middle eastern or Indian, just forgot. They're all good candidates though never to go further than they are now. The cradles of civilization may turn out to be the next victims in a long chain. Pete

[sandman67]

(loud elongated sigh of relief sound effect here....)

Ah thank god for that.... I was dreading opening the thread and finding some madass post that Darwin was linked to Hitler.

Hats off to Steve! Yaaayy....someone at last who sees the Dawin + Natural Selection = Hitler equation makes no sense. As Steve so rightly spotted, Hitler in fact based his racism on a madass mix of Catholic/Lutheran anti-semitism and esotericism cobbled togather with some young earth creationism mixed up with a bit of Norse paganism. He was a faithful Roman Catholic till the day he shot himself. Mine Kampf constantly refers to the race war as manifest destiny divinely given to the aryan peoples..... so how some faith heads maintain it was Darwin and atheism that made him what he was just makes me choke.

The real clue is in the name: NATURAL SELECTION..... racially specific genocide is as far from "natural" as you can get.

The real kicker.....

whilst Hitler and his evil regime never banned Darwins works, they did issue eductaional directives stating clearly that his and Haekels works (the man behind eugenics) should only be taught in a strictly limited manner that conformed with NSWP doctrine.

There is no evidence to show Hitler ever read Darwins works or agreed with his proposals. Hitler was a pretty ill educated ignorant little prat really.

On the contrary - read Churchills "My Early Life" (his memoirs pre WW2) and you will find that old Winston did read The Origin of the Species from cover to cover, and cited Darwin, Plato, etc as the reasons he was "agnostic"....

From November to May I read for four or five hours every day history and philosophy. Plato’s Republic it appeared he was for all practical purposes the same as Socrates; the Politics of Aristotle, edited by Dr. Welldon himself; Schopenhauer on Pessimism; Malthus on Population; Darwin’s Origin of Species: all interspersed with other books of lesser standing.

and a para or 2 later we have....

My various readings during the next two years led me to ask myself questions about religion. Hitherto I had dutifully accepted everything I had been told. Even in the holidays I always had to go once a week to Church, and at Harrow there were three services every Sunday, besides morning and evening prayers throughout the week. All this was very good. I accumulated in those years so fine a surplus in the Bank of Observance that I have been drawing confidently upon it ever since.

So there we go.

Do me a favour....next time you hear the Darwin = Hitler lie repeated, simply point out that in fact it was Darwin who inspired a young Churchill, and that the agnostic man who had read Darwin and thought it one of the greatest works in print was the one that saved us from the foaming at the mouth racist bigot who believed in god.

Mind you..... I read last week a drivel filled so called thesis written by a US based theology professor (at a Xtian university of course) who is now insisting that there was no link between Islam and 9/11!

Seems Intellectual and Honesty are two words that dont go together if you "have faith".

[charlesh]

Hah, hah s/m so that explains Churchill's role in WW I eg. Gallipoli/Dardanelles in Turkey not to mention the bombing of Dresden in WWII.
He obviously had read Darwin I suspect!

[sandman67]

dont forget the Lucitania incident Charles.... guess which lord of the Admiralty is the prime suspect for leaking the fact the ship was carrying arms to the German embassy....... hmmmmm.

Winny may be a war criminal (and despite admiring him I think he was one) but at least he didnt justify his actions with references to his invisible mate....

His boigraphy makes ripping Boys Own reading too.