8/18/2019 j24_2_17-20

1/4

BOOK

REVIEWS

17JOURNAL OF CREATION 24(2) 2010

 A review of

Hitler ’   s Ethic:

The Nazi Pursuit ofEvolutionary Progress

by Richard Weikart

Palgrave Macmillan,

New York, 2009

Hitler’s evolutionary ethic

Lael Weinberger 

In 2004, Richard Weikart garneredwidespread attention for his book, From Darwin to Hitler   (Palgrave

Macmillan). In that book, Weikarttraced the emergence of ‘scientificracism’ in the Darwinian tradition, particularly in Germany. He concludedthat the racist ideology and eugenic practices of the Nazis drew considerablyfrom supposedly scientic evolutionaryideas developed by Darwin’s followers.Weikart, professor of history at CaliforniaState University, Stanislaus, presentedthe book in careful, scholarly terms, but nonetheless drew criticism fromsome writers who feared that Weikart

was giving ammunition to critics ofDarwinian evolution. Then Weikartappeared in the pro-design documentary, Expelled   (2008), explaining howevolutionary thinking had been usedto justify the horrific racism of theHolocaust under the guise of science.The critics increased their volume,arguing that Weikart exaggerated therole that evolutionary thinking actually played in Nazi ideology.

 Now the critics have a new work

to reckon with,  Hitler ’s Ethic. Inthis scholarly book, Weikart makesa detailed investigation into the roleof evolution in Hitler’s own thinking.Weikart contends that evolution wasnot only a factor, but was a basiccomponent of Hitler’s ethic.

Hitler had an ethic?

It may seem surprising to someto think that Hitler was in fact driven by any form of ethics. “Most peoplesuppose that Hitler was a power-

hungry opportunist who simplyignored morality whenever it gotin his way”, Weikart acknowledges

(p. 1). Weikart disagrees with this popular perspective. He says insteadthat Hitler did have a coherent ethic towhich he consistently adhered. In fact,Weikart suggests in his introduction,Hitler believed that biologicaladvancement of humanity was thehighest good: “for Hitler the highestarbiter of morality and political policieswas the evolutionary advancement ofthe human species. In the nal analysis,Hitler based his morality on a racistform of evolutionary ethics” (p. 8).

Weikart deals with three pre-liminary issues before turning to theheart of the study. First, Weikart offersa brief review of possible sources thatrst exposed Hitler to ‘scientic’ racistideas. Ideas that certain races were morehighly evolved than others were widelycirculating in Germany and Austria inthe early twentieth century. So werecorollary ideas that higher races shouldcome to increasingly dominate orgain mastery over lower races in the

evolutionary struggle. Weikart coveredthese developments in detail in hisearlier book, so this is really just quick background information.

Second, Weikart provides a background review of Hitler as a‘moralist’. “It seems grotesque inretrospect”, Weikart writes, “but Hitler posed as a moral crusader” in his publicadvocacy. The question that Weikartis interested in is whether Hitler really believed that he was acting morally orwhether he was lying the whole time,

which brings him to consider, third,Hitler as a liar. Hitler was certainly aninveterate liar. So how do we knowwhen we can believe what Hitler says?Weikart suggests that we can still get agood idea of Hitler’s genuine beliefs bylooking for, rst, consistency betweenstatements and actions, and, second, basic consistency in his stated positionsover long periods of time. Weikartsuggests that we nd both kinds ofconsistency in Hitler’s adherence toevolutionary ethics.

Evolutionary progress

From this point, Weikart turns tothe heart of Hitler’s ethic. Hitler wasa faithful adherent, Weikart says, tothe “cult of evolutionary progress”.He rmly believed that the most basiclaw of nature was struggle. Throughstruggle, the ttest make themselvesknown as they survive and the less

t die. “Nature’s laws, especially thelaw of struggle, are supreme, Hitlerasserted” (p. 31). “Hitler embraced thesocial Darwinist idea of the strugglefor existence as a positive force, bringing progress and improvementto biological organisms, including thehuman species” (p. 36).

In Hitler’s own words:“History itself represents the progression of a people’s (Volks)struggle for life” (p. 36). “All

of nature is a powerful struggle between power and weakness,an eternal victory of the strongover the weak” (p. 37). “[I]n thelimitation of this living space( Lebensraum) lies the compulsionfor the struggle for life, and thestruggle for life, in turn, containsthe precondition for evolution”(p. 36). “The entire universeappears to be ruled only by thisone idea, that eternal selectiontakes place, in which the stronger

8/18/2019 j24_2_17-20

2/4

Book

Reviews

18 JOURNAL OF CREATION 24(2) 2010

in the end preserves its life and the

right to life, and the weaker falls”

(p. 39).

This translated into a might-

makes-right philosophy; as Hitler

succinctly put it, “The stronger is

right” (p. 26). Hitler, accordingto Weikart, “depicted the struggle

for existence between humans as a

 positive force, because it got rid of

the weak and sick, preserving only the

healthy, and thus producing ‘higher

evolution’ ( Ho herentwick lung )”

(p. 36).

Hitler’s speeches and writings

reveal frequent references to struggle,

survival of the fittest, natural

selection, and yes, evolution. Hitler’s

evolutionary philosophy has often been overlooked, Weikart suggests,

in part because the term he usedfor ‘evolution’ ( Entwicklung ) and

‘higher evolution’ ( Hoherentwicklung )

are often translated as simply

‘development’ in the standard English

edition of Mein Kampf  (p. 36).

While Hitler’s ideas were not

drawn directly from Darwin, they did

 build logically on Darwinian ideas

about struggle. Darwin wrote,

“Natural selection follows from

the struggle for existence … Had

he [man] never been subjected

to natural selection, assuredly

he would never have attained

to the rank of manhood … [I]t

may well be doubted whether themost favorable [circumstances]would have sufced [to producehuman evolution], had not the rateof increase been rapid, and theconsequent struggle for existence

severe to an extreme degree”( De sce nt of Man, quoted byWeikart, p. 34).

Hitler extrapolated further toconclude that the struggle could andshould be pursued violently againstwhat he considered lower races of men.“Darwin would no doubt have beenhorried by the way Hitler applied histheory to humanity”, Weikart writes, but Hitler did reflect concepts thatDarwin taught, “that humans haveattained their present rank via ‘rapid

multiplication’ causing a strugglefor existence”, and that “this ‘battlefor life’ is necessary to continueevolutionary progress” (p. 35).

Hitler’s philosophy of evolutionarystruggle and competi t ion wassummarized in a remarkable commentfrom his personal press secretary,Otto Dietrich:

“Among Hitler’s own justicationsfor his actions was his primitive philosophy of nature. Both in

 public speec hes and privateconversations he would repeatedlyrefer to this philosophy, his purpose being to convince his listeners thatthis philosophy represented thefinal truth about life. He took

such pr inciplesas the s trugglefor existence, thesurvival of the ttestand strongest, forthe law of natureand considered

them a ‘higherimperative’ whichshould also rule inthe community lifeof men. It followedfor him that mightwas r igh t , tha this own violentm e t h o d s w e r etherefore absolutelyin keeping with thelaws of nature”(pp. 40–41).

Struggle between races

For Hitler, the struggle amongmen was between competing races. AsHitler put it,

“[T]he folkish philosophy [i.e.Hitler’s own view] finds the

importance of mankind in its basicracial elements. … Thus, it by nomeans believes in an equality of theraces, but … feels itself obligated… to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demandthe subordination of the inferiorand weaker …” (p. 56).

Hitler was not original here.At the time, it was widely believed to be scientic fact that races differed intheir evolutionary progress. Weikartis careful to point out that the idea ofhigher and lower races was aroundwell before Darwin, but he also pointsout that Darwin and his late-nineteenthcentury admirers integrated racialtheories into evolutionary thought.(Standard histories and historiansof evolution, such as Peter Bowler,admit as much, so Weikart is hardly preaching a novel doctrine.1)

Racism became infused withevolutionary meaning by a host ofwriters, creating a “Darwinian vision

of racial inequality that viewed racesas having evolved in varying amountsfrom their simian ancestors” (p. 58).Weikart contends that Hitler’s racismt neatly into this tradition, merginghis devotion to the ‘law’ of struggleand survival of the ttest with his racist beliefs to create the racial policies ofthe Third Reich. Weikart points outthat Hitler came to use the word Volk  interchangeably with race, leadingsome to conclude that nationalism wasHitler’s basic value. But this misses

the fact that Hitler dened the nation(Volk ) in racial terms: “He … regularlyinsisted that the Volk   is defined byits blood, meaning its biological,hereditary qualities” (p. 61).

To highlight the fac t tha t biologically-conceived racial groupswere more important to Hitler and the Nazis than simple German nationalism,Weikart describes the varied attemptsthat Nazi planners made to integratecertain racial groups into Germansociety. The Scandinavians and Dutch

In this famous photograph, Nazi soldiers march Jews out of theWarsaw Ghetto. In his latest book, historian Richard Weikartexplores the perverted ethics that were used to justify the horrorsinflicted on millions by Hitler and his Nazi regime.

   P   h  o   t  o  g  r  a  p   h   f  r  o  m   w

   i   k   i  p  e   d   i  a .  o  r  g

8/18/2019 j24_2_17-20

3/4

Book

Reviews

19JOURNAL OF CREATION 24(2) 2010

were considered fellow Aryans, andHitler “expressed the desire” thatthey would populate “the Easternoccupied territories” (p. 67). TheInterior Ministry embarked on anambitious mission to screen Czechs

for their racial qualities in orderto allow those deemed sufficientlyAryan to be assimilated into theGerman community. Poles were to be scrutinized to determine whetherthey were “ethnically German” and“capable of re-Germanization”; thosewho did not qualify were given a lesserlegal status as “subjects of the GermanReich”, while “Jews and Gypsies weregiven no legal status whatsoever”(p. 68).

Hitler believed that social morality

was itself a function of race.2  TheJews were immoral, and this was animmutable biological characteristic.The Aryans were a moral people, andthis too was a biological characteristic.Hence the imperative to prevent adilution of Aryan blood—it woulddamage the progress of morality itself.What did Hitler mean by ‘morality’?Weikart says that Hitler seems to have been usually referring to traits such as“diligence, self-sacrice, loyalty, andso on” (p. 93)—perhaps, above all,the trait of altruism, the willingnessof the individual to sacrice for thegroup. Good Aryans were moral because they were willing to sacricefor the good of their racial comrades.Hitler once remarked to a friend thatthe true moral principle was not tolove your neighbor as yourself; itwas, “Love your racial comrade asyourself” (p. 27). Even when speakingof morality itself, Hitler’s moralvision implicitly held that the highest

good was advancing the race in the biological struggle for life.

Evolutionary policies

Hitler’s evolutionary ethic provideda rationale for a number of Nazi policies. When Hitler nally decidedto pursue the extermination of theJews, the step was justied in Hitler’seyes as the practical outworking ofan evolutionary ethic. The Aryan racehad to struggle for existence, and itwas for the evolutionary, progressive

good of humanity itself thatthe highest form eliminatea parasitic lower form to promote its own survival.

Understanding Hitler’sevolutionary ethic is helpful

for understanding some Nazi policies which otherwise mayappear conicting. The bestexample is the Nazi policy onreproduction. Some writershave viewed Hitler as asocial conservative because,they claim, he encouragedmarriage, praised largefamilies, and promoted adomestic role for women,while opposing abortionand homosexuality. But

this ‘traditional morality’interpretation is completelyinconsistent with eugenics policies the Third Reich pu rsued simu ltane ously.Weikart says the solution isto interpret both as equallylogical projects of Hitler’sevolutionary philosophy.

Traditional families were promoted in order to increase the Aryanrace. Abortion was discouraged onlyfor Aryans because it would decreasethe potential stock of healthy, strongracial ‘comrades’. The weak would be eliminated in the struggle of life.Abortion was evil when practiced byAryans because it was as likely toeliminate the strong as the weak, andmoreover, because the Aryans werealready reproducing at a lower rate(and thus were threatened by) many‘lower’ races. At the same time, though, Nazi policy approved of abortion andsterilization of many women with

undesirable traits. Some 400,000women with hereditary illnesses weresterilized by Nazi doctors in less thantwelve years (p. 153), and from 1934on, all women who fell within thescope of the sterilization law couldhave abortions. The Third Reich’s pro-natalism policy was not in tension withits eugenics policy; both were based onthe same evolutionary ethic.

Weikart does not devote muchdiscussion to the issue of homosexuality,other than noting that an evolutionary

emphasis on reproduction can helpexplain the anti-homosexuality policy. (This still leaves unanswered

questions about the curious positionof homosexuals in the early Nazileadership.3)

The territorial expansion ofGermany was also linked to Hitler’s philosophy of evolutionary progress.The Aryan race was, he believed, aboutto experience a population explosionthrough Hitler’s pro-natalist policies.Expanding the available living spaceof the German nation was for the goodof humanity, Hitler could reasonably

 believe, since it would help providefor the continued prosperity and ever-increasing dominance of the mostevolved race.

Conclusion

Understanding the evolutionary basis of Hitler’s ethic makes sense ofmuch that Hitler did. Actually, Weikartwarns at the beginning of the book thatfocusing on Hitler’s philosophy posesa danger of making Hitler appear moreconsistent than he really was (p. 10).

   P   h  o   t  o  g  r  a  p   h   f  r  o  m    D

  e  u   t  s  c   h  e  s   B  u  n   d  e  s  a  r  c   h   i  v ,  w   i   k   i  p  e   d   i  a .  o  r  g

“It seems grotesque in retrospect”, Richard Weikart writesin his study of Hitler ’s ethic, “but Hitler posed as a moralcrusader ” in his public advocacy.

8/18/2019 j24_2_17-20

4/4

Book

Reviews

20 JOURNAL OF CREATION 24(2) 2010

Hitler was neither a deep nor asystematic thinker. But he was not amadman in the sense that many peopleimagine him to be. He had a theoretical,ostensibly scientific rationale forhis racism, aggression, and German

nationalism. For historians of Hitler,the Holocaust, and the Third Reich,Weikart has provided a very helpfulstudy of the mind of Hitler.

For students of evolution and itsimpact on moral and social theory and practice, Weikart provides a rigorousargument that evolutionary ideasdid indeed make way for Hitler’sevil. Weikart is a careful historian,and in this book sticks closely to theoriginal sources: Hitler’s writingsand his contemporary’s recollections.

Weikart never opines on the validityand morality of Darwinian evolution.Also, Weikart never claims that beliefin Darwinian evolution necessarily leads to racism, eugenics, andholocaust. He does, however, presenta powerful argument that, as a matterof historical fact, ideas based onDarwinian evolution have been usedas a rationale to justify some of themost horric events of the twentiethcentury. With any attempt to findcauses and explanations for historical

events, there will always be room todebate details. But it seems certainthat no one can blithely dismiss therole of evolutionary thinking as trivialin the Nazi edice of evil. Modernday Darwinists may be uncomfortablewith this conclusion, but at one levelor another, serious scholars will havea hard time denying this.

References

1. Bowler, P.J.,  Evolution: The History of An

 Idea, rev. ed., University of California Press,Berkeley, CA, p. 88, 1989.

2. This belief was shared by many other social

Darwinists in the early 20th century, although

it should be noted that only one subset of these

were anti-Semitic.

3. The classic history of Nazism, William Shirer’s

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History

of Nazi Germany, Simon & Schuster, p. 38,

1960, describes Ernst Röhm (leader of the

Blackshirts) as “like so many of the early

 Nazis, a homosexual” (see also pp. 50, 120

and 225).

 A review of

The Undercover

Revolution: How Fiction

Changed Britain

by Iain H. Murray

The Banner of Truth Trust,

Edinburgh, UK, 2009

Britain’s decline—a novel approach?

Carl Wieland

Iloved Iain Murray’s biography of

Martyn Lloyd-Jones. So I couldn’tresist getting into this booklet—more

like a handful of brief essays—whensomeone sent it to me. Easy to down

at one sitting, I found it almost an oddlittle book by comparison. And there isa thread running through it that led to

some disquiet, as will be seen.The rst chapter deals with Robert

Louis Stevenson (of Treasure Island  fame), the second with the novelistThomas Hardy. The third, called “The

novelists multiply” details a number ofother writers of the period with links to

the rst two and each other. The namescovered at least briey include GeorgeBernard Shaw (writer of  Pygmalion,

from which the musical My Fair Lady was derived), the philosopher Bertrand

Russell and science fiction pioneerH.G. Wells.

The closing chapter, “Is Christianity

Fiction?” is really more of an appendix,with standard apologetic arguments for

the reality of the death and Resurrectionof the Lord Jesus.

Despite the subtitle’s promise, the book spent little time on the mechanicsof how “ction changed Britain”. The

following points seemed to be largelyassumed:

Everyone knows of Britain’s•

staggering post-Christian moral

decay.

The authors in question were•

immensely popular in the years

transitioning to the current decay,

and so would have greatly

inuenced the culture.

Murray’s compact text leaves a

fair few dots for the reader to connect.Most of it is taken up with how

these writers, who also mingled with

one another, were in a state of anti-

Christian rebellion and that their lives

showed the consequences of this.

Murray repeatedly concludes that

wilful rejection by these writers of

Christ’s claim on their lives was the

root cause of the moral decay and its

negative consequences that they each

experienced (and also, by extension, of

the moral decay they caused via their

 popular writings).

But in emphasizing this biblically

indisputable, almost self-evident, truth

(of wilful rejection emanating from

a rebellious and unregenerate heart),

it frequently comes across as if he

is deliberately seeking to downplay

the conclusions of those who have

 pinpointed the powerful inuence of

evolutionary thought in triggering

and nurturing these radical social

upheavals. Murray acknowledges