Darwinism and World War One
by Lita Cosner
© iStockphoto/kamisok
The evolutionary ideas of Charles Darwin (1809–1882) destructively influenced
many of the Western world’s leaders in the early 20th century.
In particular, intellectuals in Germany were among the earliest to embrace Darwinism
enthusiastically, and to apply its concept of the survival of the fittest to human
society. That is, they applied the subtitle of On the Origin of Species by Means
of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life (1859). The most infamous result of this was the Holocaust,1 but social Darwinism was also a major influence
in the events leading up to World War One.
In the decades leading up to World War One, intellectuals embraced Darwinism and
its ethical implications as a welcome alternative to Christian belief and ethics.
Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919), the most famous German Darwinist of the time, and
notorious forger of embryo diagrams,2
believed that evolution would “bring forth a complete revolution in the entire
world view of humanity.”3
He argued that Darwinism required the abandonment of Christian morals.
Until the advent of Darwinism, the sanctity of human life was taken for granted
in European law and thought. But many German intellectuals began to argue that some
had a greater right to life than others, namely, those who are deemed more valuable
to society. This inequality was mainly based on race, but the Darwinists argued
that there were inferior individuals within a race as well. For instance, zoologist
and politician Karl Vogt (1817–1895) argued that a mentally handicapped child
was closer in value to an ape than to his own parents.4 It should thus not be surprising that the world’s
first eugenics5 society
was founded in Germany, promoting the concept founded by Darwin’s cousin Francis
Galton (1822–1911).6
While the belief in German superiority led the Nazis to exterminate ‘undesirable’
individuals, during WW1 German Darwinists used the same idea to justify war on states
which they deemed inferior.
German social Darwinists were enamoured with the vision of the “master race”,
which in their mind was the Nordic or Germanic race. Eugenicist Alfred Ploetz (1860–1940)
coined the term “racial hygiene” (Rassenhygiene), and later
welcomed the Nazis as the ones who would put this into practice. While the belief
in German superiority led the Nazis to exterminate “undesirable” individuals,
during WW1 German Darwinists used the same idea to justify war on states which they
deemed inferior. They believed that the destiny of the master race was to dominate
or eliminate “inferior” races, and the most obvious way to accomplish
this was through war. In their view, all races and states were in competition for
survival, and those who would not wage war would perish.7 In other words “war is inevitable and peace
is merely an armistice in the continuous battle between races and groups for survival.”8
The concept of Lebensraum or “living space” was one of the
justifications for the Germans in both World Wars to take over their neighbouring
countries. While Germany was not actually overcrowded, they believed that since
one side or the other was always advancing, “without war, inferior or decaying
races would easily choke the growth of healthy budding elements, and a universal
decadence would follow.”9
Max Weber emphasized this racial competition:
“Our descendants will not hold us responsible primarily for the kind of economic
organization that we pass on to them, but rather for the extent of elbow-room [Ellbogenraum],
that we obtain through struggle and leave behind”10
Because of the view of war as an evolutionary instrument, the German leaders regarded
war as a desirable option, even though they could not be sure of a victory.
Interestingly, German Darwinists were divided about whether war was beneficial for
the master race. Some were pacifists, including Haeckel, because they believed that
war would kill off mainly the best members of the master race, but anthropologist
Otto Ammon (1842–1916) believed that war was the only way to test which nation
was stronger and to grant victory to the fittest opponent.11 Of course, there was the problem of undesirable
individuals in the German population as well; Ploetz suggested sending them to the
front lines so they would be killed before those who were deemed to be more fit.12
Because of this view of war as an evolutionary instrument, the German leaders regarded
war as a desirable option, even though they could not be sure of a victory. There
was also a fatalistic element; they believed that it was their destiny and that
they were fulfilling their “preordained role in the development of the world.”13
Some argue that because Darwin did not directly apply the principles of social Darwinism,
the term, and its connection to evolutionary thought, is invalid. But Darwin himself
said that killing in the animal kingdom was a way for evolution to progress:
“It may be difficult, but we ought to admire the savage instinctive hatred
of the queen-bee, which urges her to instantly destroy the young queens her daughters
as soon as born, or to perish herself in the combat; for undoubtedly this is for
the good of the community; and maternal love and maternal hatred, though the latter
fortunately is most rare, is all the same to the inexorable principle of natural
selection.”14
Darwin simply was reluctant to apply this principle to humans, but the German social
Darwinists did not share his disinclination. While there were other factors that
caused World War 1, the German leadership’s universal belief in social Darwinism
and its anti-Christian ethical system justified their militarism and made it into
a moral good.
Related articles
Further reading
References and notes
- Weikart, R., From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics,
Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA, 2004; reviewed at creation.com/weikart. Dr Richard Weikart is
professor of modern European history at California State University, Stanislaus.
Return to text.
- Grigg, R., Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for
evolution and apostle of deceit, Creation 18(2):33–36,
1996; creation.com/Haeckel; Fraud rediscovered, Creation 20(2):49–51,
1998; creation.com/fraud. Return to text.
- Weikart, R., Darwinism and death: devaluing human
life in Germany 1859–1920, Journal of the History of Ideas 63(2):323–344,
2002; p. 325. Return to text.
- Weikart, ref. 3, p. 333. Return to text.
- Greek: εὐ– (eu–) meaning
“well” and γένος (genos) meaning
“kind” or “offspring”. Return to text.
- Grigg, R., Eugenics … death of
the defenceless: The legacy of Darwin’s cousin Galton, Creation
28(1):18–22, 2005; creation.com/eugenics.
Return to text.
- Hamilton, R. and Herwig, H., “World wars: definitions
and causes”, in: Hamilton, R. and Herwig, H., eds., The Origins of World War
One, p. 26, Cambridge University Press, 2003. Return to text.
- Weikart, R., The origins of social Darwinism in Germany: 1859–1895,
Journal of the History of Ideas 54(3): 469–489;
p. 485. Return to text.
- Evans, R., The Coming of the Third Reich, p. 35,
Penguin, 2005. Return to text.
- Weikart, ref. 8, p. 482. Return to text.
- Weikart, ref. 8, p. 482. Return to text.
- Evans, ref. 9, p. 35. Return to text.
- Herwig, H., “Germany” in: The Origins of
World War One, Ref. 7; p. 186. Return to text.
- Quoted from Weikart, ref. 3, pp. 331–332. See also
Muehlenberg, B., “Darwin and eugenics: Darwin was
indeed a ‘Social Darwinist’”, creation.com/darwin-and-eugenics,
18 March 2009. Return to text.
| “One little bit doesn’t make a difference.” It’s a good job CMI didn’t think like that. We had to start somewhere producing information, one word and one article at a time. Similarly, please don’t think your small donation doesn’t help. They can add together to bring a shower of blessings.  | | |
|
