The Darwinian core, and fundamentally anti-Christian character, of Nazism

A review of Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview by Jerry Bergman
Joshua Press, Ontario, 2012

Reviewed by


This work is a tour de force. It is the definitive book on the relationship of Darwinism and Nazism. It finds painstaking support from hundreds of references to studies in Nazism, the Third Reich, Darwin, eugenics, and related subjects. The authorities on Nazism cited in this work include Richard Breitman, Christopher R. Browning, John S. Conway, Joachim C. Fest, Ian Kershaw, Leon Poliakov, Bryan Mark Rigg, Paul Roland, William L. Shirer, Hugh R. Trevor-Roper, Richard Weikart, and many others.

Some unbelievers, obviously interested in attacking Christianity, have insinuated that Hitler and the top Nazis were devout Christians. This is very far from the case, as shown decisively by Bergman.

One common misconception about ‘social Darwinism’ is that it was some kind of intellectual fad. Perhaps this was so elsewhere, but not in Germany! There it was taken very seriously, as made so obvious by this book, and made into the central factor animating German political philosophy and action.

The history of Pan-Germanism, or Deutschtum, followed the same path. While it long predated Darwin, it also only became genocidally virulent when connected to, and synthesized with, Darwinism. The same was true of German racism and German anti-Semitism.

Many victims of Nazism

In contrast to the usual works on Nazism that focus primarily or entirely on Jews, Bergman considers other victims. The first victims of the gas chambers were not Jews: they were the ‘Darwinian unfit’ Germans, such as the mentally retarded (p. 258).

The Nazis also had genocidal plans for the Slavs. The Poles, and other Slavs, were Untermenschen (subhumans) who would live only as needed as helots for the Third Reich (pp. 44–45). The siege of Leningrad was planned to cause the starvation of the population (pp. 33, 215), whose surrender was not to be accepted even if offered. Martin Bormann (p. 166) pictured the German invasion of the USSR as a genocidal war against Slavs, and not just the military defeat of the Soviet Union and the elimination of Communism (p. 166). Himmler envisioned the initial phase of Operation Barbarossa, causing the death of 30 million Slavs (p. 188). Some 250,000 ‘racially desirable’ Slavic children were kidnapped and raised as Germans according to the Lebensborn program, and only a small fraction of these were reunited with their parents after Germany’s defeat. The Nazis ended up starving 3.6 million Soviet POWs to death (p. 167). Long-term Nazi plans had called for the replacement of the Slavic population in the conquered East, by German settlers, over a twenty-year period (p. 215).

Racism in perspective

While it is true that the Bible was sometimes interpreted to justify racism and slavery, Christianity, historically and in the main, has recognized the equality of races, at least in the spiritual and moral realm. For instance, the almost-universal practice of sending missionaries to non-white peoples was telling. It has implied an active belief that nonwhites, no less than whites, are loved by God, have a soul, are capable of understanding and living religious and moral truths, etc. [Even in the heady days of colonialism, the benevolent interpretation of the ‘white man’s burden’ implied that whites were obligated to use their advantages to help non-whites. Such attitudes also necessarily implied recognition of the fact that the disadvantages held by non-whites were neither innate nor immutable.]

It is incorrect to suppose that Darwin merely emulated the racist culture around him. As Professor David Hull has pointed out, Darwin was an independent thinker, not one who merely absorbed and echoed the attitudes of his society (p. 97). [Ironically, were Darwin merely an absorber and echoer of Victorian culture, he would not have promoted a view that denied creation.]

While it is correct that racism long predated Darwin, racism never expanded and flourished as much as it did in the 19th and 20th centuries—now elevated and legitimized by the imprimatur of scientific authority. Bergman quotes leading Harvard University evolutionist Stephan Jay Gould, who wrote that biological arguments for racism increased “by orders of magnitude” after the acceptance of evolutionary theory by most scientists (pp. 82–83) (figure 1). Considering the ultimate esteem that science and scientific progress held during the 19th and early 20th centuries, this takes on further significance.

Figure 1. With the oft-repeated progression shown here, it was not difficult to think in terms of ‘more evolutionarily advanced’ and ‘less evolutionary advanced’ human races. This kind of Darwinian thinking was honed to perfection by Hitler and the other Nazis.

Ernst Haeckel was the chief promoter of Darwinism in Germany. Soon after The Origin of Species had come out, he promptly translated it into German. Raised a Christian, he turned against his childhood faith, and especially scorned the Genesis account specifically for its teaching that all humans are descended from one set of parents (Adam and Eve, p. 112), as this implied equality of all peoples.

Some atheists have advanced the silly argument that Darwin was banned in Nazi Germany. The exact opposite is the case. After the Nazis came to power, they promoted the teaching of Darwinism in the classroom as never before in Germany (see Bergman’s Chapter 16, pp. 265 on).

Historian Daniel Gasman points out that in no other nation did the ideas of Darwin develop as seriously (p. 79). The proliferation of scientific literature devoted to this subject is telling. Before 1933, German scientists published 13 scientific journals devoted to racial hygiene and related topics. In the Nazi era, this exploded to nearly 150 scientific journals, many of which are still highly regarded today (p. 81). Moreover, Darwinian-based racism permeated all aspects of German life. This was so much so, that Professor Robert Lifton called the Nazi state a biocracy—that is, rule by biology (p. 106).

Luther, Darwin, and Nazi eliminationist anti-Semitism

As with racism, anti-Semitism has a long history. However, only the Nazis put it, alongside racism, in the framework of Darwinism, and elevated it to the point of an eliminationist philosophy backed by an active policy. Although the Nazis certainly used the teachings of Martin Luther when it served their purposes, it is manifestly incorrect to portray Luther as some kind of forerunner of Hitler.

Luther’s quarrels with the Jews were entirely religious in nature, and never even hinted at Darwinian or eliminationist anti-Semitism. Luther’s ugly religious polemics were a response to equally ugly Jewish attacks on Jesus Christ. Placed in historical context, the abusive tone of religious polemics was universal at the time. For instance, Luther called the pope the anti-Christ, and then-faithful Catholic King Henry VIII returned the favour by calling Luther ‘the worst wolf of hell’. Luther also exchanged scatological vitriol with King Henry’s Catholic adviser, Thomas More (author of Utopia).

A misunderstanding of Darwinism?

Nowadays, racism is generally scorned in academia (except when used for identity politics by groups esteemed by leftists). Yet Darwinism is held as firmly as ever, especially when used as a weapon against religion. Nevertheless, we are told that it is ignorant to think that Darwinism justifies, or even implies, racism.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this attitude means that all those German scientists had fundamentally misunderstood Darwinism. This is difficult to accept. To begin with, Germany had the highest level of education in the world at the time (p. 205). Bergman points out that in the early 20th century the Germans stood at the very pinnacle of science. Up to WWII, German scientists won the lion’s share of Nobel Prizes, and scientists, the world over, had to learn German in order to read the scientific literature (pp. 103–104).

Far from seeing Nazism as a misreading—much less misuse—of Darwin, German scientists enthusiastically supported the Nazis (p. 103), and there were only a handful of German intellectuals who dissented (pp. 128, 130). Nor was support for the Nazis a surrender to the inevitable. No scientist was forced to join the Nazi Party, yet more than 50% of biologists employed by the imperial institute did so (p. 125). Back in 1938, Austrian ethologist Konrad Lorenz joined the Nazi Party and dedicated his entire scientific effort to the furtherance of National Socialism (p. 125), which he publically supported wholeheartedly (p. 270). Decades later, in 1973, his willful Nazi past evidently overlooked, he (jointly) received the Nobel Prize for ‘discoveries concerning organization and elicitation of individual and social behaviour patterns’.

So who got Darwin ‘right’? Is it the modern thinkers, or was it the earlier thinkers? In either case, why should we blindly trust intellectuals—as when they incessantly say that molecules-to-man evolution is factual beyond dispute?

Thinking far beyond ‘might makes right’

Continuing the theme of the previous section, ‘Social Darwinism’ is commonly dismissed as a 19th century oversimplification—if not caricature—of Darwinism as ‘might makes right’ thinking, whether applied to racial politics, geopolitics, the battlefield, or the business world. After all, there are many different forms of Darwinian fitness in the natural world. There are numerous ways that an organism can be successful in passing its genes down to its offspring at the tacit expense of other organisms. For example, one organism may indeed possess Darwinian fitness through the ‘might makes right’ of being exceptionally skillful in fighting off attacks by predators. Another one, however, may acquire Darwinian fitness by an atypical ability of siring more offspring, thereby compensating for losses of conspecifics (and their genes) to predators’ appetites, and ensuring that its genes that encode prolific reproduction eventually become the norm in the population.

While ‘might makes right’ was most certainly a part of Darwinism as understood and applied by the Nazi Germans, and as consistently manifested, for instance, with contempt for the Christian teaching of compassion for the weak (e.g. p. 59), it was hardly limited to that. Clearly, the Nazis already understood Darwinian fitness in much broader, and modern, terms. For instance, Haeckel understood evolutionary fitness in human evolution not only in terms of physical and mental prowess, but also in terms of “symmetry of all parts and equal development” (p. 79). The biology textbooks in Nazi Germany anticipated what now is called ‘kin selection’. The sacrifice of one’s own life can enable the passing on of one’s genes through one’s kin (p. 278). This is often used by evolutionists to explain the existence of altruism in nature.

Ironically, far from having too narrow a concept of Darwinism as ‘might makes right’, the Nazis actually understood Darwinian fitness in terms that, by today’s standards, were too broad. For instance, German scientists believed that such human behaviours as criminality, divorce, hernias, ‘loving to sail on water’, etc., were all heritable traits subject to natural selection (p. 82)! The same held for the homeless (‘asocials’, p. 135). The Nazi belief that Jews, despite their intelligence, were inevitably afflicted with craftiness and immorality, meant that such traits were both heritable (pp. 69, 87).

Furthermore, the sophisticated Nazi understanding of Darwinian fitness was converted into practical action. For example, eugenics in Germany was extended to the sterilization of people with schizophrenia, feeblemindedness, epilepsy, blindness, physical deformities, severe addiction to alcohol or drugs, etc. (p. 84). This implied that these traits were heritable, and subject to natural selection—the latter which could (and should) be accelerated by systematically removing the trait-bearers from the human gene pool. On the other side of the coin, the infamous Lebensborn program (figure 2) included the supposition that such character traits as courage, loyalty, determination, sense of honor, etc., were heritable. Thus humans could (and should) deliberately be bred in order to make these traits more common among humans (p. 254).

Finally, the Germans very much practised what they preached. They not only used Darwinism as a ground for persecuting and destroying other peoples, they also used Darwinism to persecute their own people, as noted above—all in the name of evolutionary advancement. This was no rarity. Bergman (p. 100) cites an estimate of at least 275,000 people, mostly Germans, euthanized for ‘racial weaknesses’ in this manner.

Many doctors like Mengele

Joseph Mengele is by far the best known of the Nazi doctors. He was responsible for many of the ‘selections’ at the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp, and is known for his gruesome experiments on defenseless humans, including children. Bergman devotes a chapter to this man and his actions.

The well-earned notoriety of Mengele should not obscure the fact that he was merely the tip of the iceberg. There were very many ‘Mengeles’. At least 400 German doctors are known to have conducted heinous acts against human beings, but only 20 of these were ever tried for these crimes (p. 142). No German doctor was ‘following orders’. Pointedly, no doctor was forced to participate in euthanasia. In fact, Hitler’s original 1939 memo, in this regard, was an empowerment (Vollmacht), not an order (Befehl) (p. 139). The physicians’ participation in the Nazi Darwinian program was hardly accidental. Already in 1933, according to Professor Michael Kater, German physicians had been overrepresented in the Nazi Party and its adjunct organizations (p. 133). Were these physicians, in spite of all their training in biology and related fields, all ‘misunderstanding’ Darwin?

Darwin animated the Nazi leadership

Hitler’s personal interests found clear illustration by his personal library, which was captured by the Allies at the end of the war. Bergman comments,

“We know that Hitler read many books on eugenics, racism, and related topics because he tended to mark up the books he read, even adding his penciled notes to some.” (p. 38).

One striking feature of Bergman’s work is how frequently Darwin became the faith-killer among leading Nazis, who had earlier been raised as devout Christians. This was notably true of Joseph Mengele (pp. 149–150), Heinrich Himmler (p. 178), and Joseph Goebbels (pp. 191–192). Thus, in their young adulthood, these ‘Darwinized’ college students became easy prey for Nazi ideology and the personality cult of Hitler.

Hitler’s ‘pro-Christian’ statements

Detractors of Christianity commonly point to certain of Hitler’s pronouncements that were favourable to Christianity as proof that Hitler was friendly towards Christianity, if not an active Christian himself. What are we to make of this?

Figure 2. The Lebensborn program in action.

Politicians are prone to tell people what they want to hear, and what they say is commonly an act of posturing. Hitler was a good dissembler, and it is not surprising that some church leaders believed that Hitler was, at worst, benign towards Christianity (p. 67). Owing to the fact that the German church was strongly compromised by worldliness (for instance, generally accepting Darwinism), and most of German Christianity was based on culture rather than conviction, it is not surprising that much of the church believed Hitler in what they wanted to be true.

It is also hardly surprising that Hitler invoked Christian themes as he tried to paint himself as a saviour of the German people from their real or imagined misfortunes, and, later, also an anti-Bolshevik crusader. [In doing the latter, he conveniently forgot his earlier alliances with the Communists, notably with the Soviet Union in 1939–1941, as against Poland].

As the Third Reich was breathing its last in 1945, Hitler made many irrational statements. This included his insistence that he would still emerge victorious. His ‘pro-Christian’ statements at that time must be seen in this light (p. 303).

Hitler’s virulent anti-Christianity

Scholars, including George Constable, Ian Kershaw, and Allan Bullock, agree that Hitler largely hid his anti-Christianity for tactical reasons (pp. 13–14, 64). He could not afford to make war against the church while fighting other enemies. In addition, the ill-conceived actions of Joseph Goebbels and Julius Streicher must have served as a warning. Goebbels’ and Streicher’s frequent scurrilous attacks against Christianity had only provoked an angry backlash, even among nominal German Christians (pp. 198, 250).

Despite Hitler’s public posturing as neutral to friendly towards Christianity, he even then sometimes showed his true colours in his actions. He reportedly enjoyed anti-Christian literature, and made hostile public statements against the church and the clergy (e.g. p. 64, pp. 13–14). In one of his diaries, Goebbels characterized Hitler as “deeply religious but deeply anti-Christian” (p. 199).

Except for a brief period in early childhood, Hitler never was even outwardly religious. He increasingly identified with his agnostic father. And during later childhood, persistently refused his devout mother’s entreaties to attend church with her, even though he dearly loved her (p. 57). Even in his late childhood, as remembered by a childhood friend, Hitler enjoyed books on the Inquisition and other topics that seemed to discredit the church (p. 57).

To understand fully what Hitler really thought about Christianity, one has to examine what he said in private to trusted staff. Alan Bullock quotes Hitler as calling Christians “filthy reptiles” taking advantage of Germany’s weaknesses, and repeating Jewish-invented fairy tales (p. 303). Historian George Constable points out that Hitler said privately that he wanted eventually to stamp out Christianity in Germany, “root and branch” (pp. 13–14). Hitler himself once said, “I myself am a heathen to the core.” (p. 57). So much for the myth that Hitler was a Christian in any way, shape, or form.

What would have happened had Germany won WWII? Interestingly, Bergman calls attention to a lengthy item, dating from the Nuremberg Trials, documented by prosecutor William Donovan, found in the Cornell University archives. Called the Nazi Master Plan, it planned the eventual elimination of churches in Germany (p. 9).

Miscellaneous Interesting Information

This work includes an assortment of little-known facts. For instance, Hitler’s alleged Jewish ancestry has long been a subject of speculation. A genetic study has tentatively verified the fact of Hitler’s partial Jewish ancestry—as discussed in an article in the Jewish World (p. 53).

Soon after imposing the Nuremberg Laws, the Nazis confiscated the Jews’ firearms (p. 23).

Nowadays, at least reflecting the anti-Christian spirit of much of the West’s academia and media, we hear statements asserting that the church was essentially complicit, if only by its silence, in the unfolding Holocaust. Ironic to this, none other than Albert Einstein had praised the church, in 1940, for having stood up to the Nazis longer than any other institution in Germany, a fact that won Einstein’s newfound praise for the church (p. 70).


There is a wealth of evidence showing that Darwinism played a major, if not central, role in Nazi attitudes and actions. The same holds for evidence that, far from being Christians, Hitler and the other Nazis were very anti-Christian.

The Nazi German understanding of Darwin and Darwinism is very much at variance with modern conceptions of the same. Did the Nazis and all the intellectual heavyweights supporting them ‘misunderstand’ Darwinism, or did they—unlike modern academics—correctly face up to the full implications of the Darwinian position?

Reader’s comments

Mark E.
Just finished reading this very detailed and lengthy work. So depressing to discover the many parallels present in western society and government today. Evolutionary philosophy entrenched in our universities, leading evolutionary scientific communities acting as trusted advisers to government, tolerance legislation shutting down free and open discussion. ..we aren't far removed from fascist Germany! A must read to ensure that your eyes are open to how an entire country can be controlled and forced to believe a lie!
James T.
I notice there is a complete bias when it comes to evolutionists or atheists killing people. They would go so far as to state that Christians killed over a million people where atheist would say they killed 0 people.The fact that they believe that they killed 0 people just shows how much of hypocrites they are.
Shaun Doyle
Some inane commenters may go so far as to say that, but many would prefer to say that the atheistic/evolutionary beliefs of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had nothing to do with their genocidal evils, which is false. Each of the dictators was relatively doctrinaire in their Nazism or Marxism, both of which involved a heavy dose of Darwinism.
Dapo A.
Oh dear! I have never seen so much misinformation in so few words before. So are we to blame Darwin for the atrocities of the Nazis?
The main mechanism for evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is natural selection. Of cause this implies that man can manipulate evolution to his own advantage through artificial selection (e.g breeding) but no were in Darwin's work does he suggest that artificial selection should be applied to humans!
In fact Darwin did not know the mechanism by which traits are passed from generation to generation or even how to perfect artificial selection. This will be achieved by a Catholic friar, Mendel. So why is Mendel (who I think is German) not implicated in the ideologies of the Nazis biologists? After all genetics was just as much an inspiration to these mad men as evolution, if not more.
If there is one thing mankind should learn from its history, is to never give a person or persons with too much bigotry so much power again irrespective of whether they are atheists or not.
Shaun Doyle
Darwin wasn't gassing Nazis at Auschwitz, but his ideas formed a large part of the scientific justification for Nazi social policy.

As for Mendel, there is no personal or ideological connection between him and Social Darwinism like there is for Darwin. That Mendel's ideas were used to justify eugenics had nothing to do with Mendel himself, or even with his genetics. People retrofitted his work into social policies that were completely outside the purview of Mendel's work.
St Ferd III S.
Thank you for highlighting the multi-Phd Bergman and his book. I have read it and his other works which expose the Nazi-Evolution project. Weikart's work is also required reading for Christians in regards to Hitlerism and its Darwinian component.

I would like to point out that 5 million Catholics were gassed, along with 6 million Jews - the Catholic holocaust is the 'unknown holocaust' a term I first came across by a Jew historian Dimon.

Hitler viewed Christianity, as Bergman details, as nothing other than a Jewish project and he raged against the Jew Paul and the 'virus' of his theology which 'infected' Germany in the 8th century [according to Hitler, in actual fact it took 200 years from 800-1000 AD to convert the main German tribes].

The Evangelical church by 1937 was under Gestapo control. The Catholic church and its schools, newsletters, sermons and book printing was effectively out of business by 1939. In 1942 the Bible was replaced in Catholic liturgy with Mein Kampf and all Catholic statuary was taken down replaced by a photo of Hitler, and a sword upon the altar.

Nazism, Communism and Islam were / are intrinsically hostile to Christianity and desire its eradication. Fascist programs have no time for love, charity, or the Golden rule.

Bergman's book is required reading. Darwinism leads to Nazism and the gassing of 'inferiors'. In particular Hitler mentioned that Catholics need to be killed because they opposed 'science' namely Evolution.

The cult of Darwin today also muses about eliminating those who oppose 'science'.
Shaun Doyle
Most figures on the Holocaust death toll put the total at around 11 million, and Jews at around 6 million. That leaves 5 million non-Jews. And while it's true that many, if not most, of those non-Jews who were killed would have self-identified as Roman Catholics, not all of them were Roman Catholic. And while there were thousands who were killed specifically for their faith (not just Roman Catholics, but also Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, and even Marxists) because their faith lead them to stand against Nazism in principle, they were in the minority. Most people were killed simply because of their ethnicity (e.g. the Romani people), or because of their ethnicity and also being in the way of Nazis taking their land for Lebensraum ("living space") for the German people (e.g. Poles and Slavs). The Nazis were willing to butcher anyone they thought stood in the way of their dreams of Aryan superiority.
dean R.
Like those car ads that show spectacular scenery & all the comforts but leave out the bad warranty stories.

Francis Schaeffer (How should we then live) sought to reveal the concerns of building a society & where it might end up as it sees humanity through animal eyes.
R. M.
The article writer carefully omitted to say that Hitler was a devout roman catholic, that his church led him by the hand to power via Eugenio Pacelli papal nuncio in Berlin, later pope Pius XII and that after the war arranged his escape to Argentina where he lived his last 30 years. Surely Hitler was not a Christian but roman catholic which is quite another thing.
Shaun Doyle
Hitler was no more a Roman Catholic than he was a Protestant (see The Christian Nazi myth refuted). Hitler's brand of 'Christianity' (which was little more than a political tactic) was called Positive Christianity, which rejected the Old Testament and denied that Jesus was a Jew. It was Nazism dressed in Christian terminology devoid of practically all of Christianity's theological content.

Moreover, the evidence shows that the fact that Hitler committed suicide in the Führerbunker in Berlin on 30 April 1945 is beyond all reasonable doubt. There are a number of reliable books around that detail the circumstances of Hitler's last days in sufficient detail, we still have the eyewitness testimony of Hitler's valet Heinz Linge and one of his bodyguards Rochus Misch, and the investigation of numerous historians since 1945, and even official German inquiries into the matter in the decade following Hitler's death. They all conclude the same thing: Hitler committed suicide in Berlin in 1945. The stories that Hitler escaped can in large part be put down to the paranoia of Stalin and Soviet propaganda against the West. The Wikipedia article on Hitler's death is a good source page for the numerous studies that have been done on this issue.
Robert B.
Nazism = Darwinian. Nazism = anti-Christianism.

Its good to see Bergman calling it in plain words in opposition to what the world alludes.

I wonder though about Bergman's dubious claim that Einstein praised the German church. Why enlist Einstein to support a failing church?
Einstein is one of the idols of the secular world.

Let's be honest. Apart from a few individuals, the church in 20th century Europe compromised with the world and allowed Darwinism and its progeny Nazism to flourish.

Why doesn't Bergman call THAT?
What is the condition of the church in 21st century Europe?
It has compromised with the world. It is almost dead.

What is the state of the church outside Europe?
Is it taking the Laodicean road to WHEREVER too?
Dylan O.
Interesting article and a book I will be buying, thank you for drawing my attention to it. When debating on line I have conceded that Hitler was 'an occult nut job' and a Darwinist. I have always pointed out he could claim to be a Christian but was not consistent with the teaching of Jesus.
I do wander (given what it says in Revelation) if we are heading toward a type of Christian holocaust and if we are I am sure that Darwinian thinking will be a great justification for it. (feeble minded Christians unable to deal with the 'fact' there is not God or something similar)
Also with the position science finds its self in with being able to manipulate the gene pool never has creation v evolution been more important. From an evolutionists perspective they have the right to mess around with genetics because after all it is father time and dumb luck that got us here so why not? What harm can an intelligent agent acting on this random process do? Surely it can only bring good? From my Christian perspective we should never mess with the amazing design of life as the Creator is self evidently (from the complex design of life) in orders of magnitude more intelligent, powerful and creative than we are (and the Bible states that mixing things is an abomination)
The final destination (I believe) is that the evolutionist will want to promote the idea that we can evolve into 'gods' and they are already talking about the post human era and trans-humanism and are talking about immortality with out God. Any one who knows Genesis knows this to be the oldest lie in the book 'and ye will be like God'
Shaun Doyle
It should be noted that Hitler himself was no occultist. Hitler had this to say about Heinrich Himmler, Nazism's leading occultist:

"What nonsense! Here at last we have reached an age that has left all mysticism behind, and now he wants to start that all over again …"
[Speer, A., Inside the Third Reich, Simon & Schuster, New York, p. 94, 1997.]
Steven T.
From what I've seen of Nazi textbooks, they waxed rhapsodic about natural selection, but only as a means to preserve species from degeneration, not as a means to transform them. That seems to me a very creationist view of things (creationists typically credit this view of natural selection to Edward Blyth; is there such a thing as "social Blythianism?"). Of course, the Nazis were not willing to trust natural selection, but insisted on supplementing it with artificial selection. Or perhaps replacing it entirely: they seemed to fear the "inferior" traits of the people they hated would somehow replace the "superior" traits they wished to cultivate. Evidently, "superiority" and "fitness" (which is what evolutionary theory deals with) were not the same thing.

Evolutionary theory implies that variation exists in every population; there can be (as Darwin pointed out in The Descent of Man) no trait that is present in all members of one "race" but absent in all members of other "races." Thus there can be no racial essence on which one might base a claim of racial superiority or inferiority anyway.

Evolutionary theory is descriptive, not prescriptive; one cannot very well work to advance (or retard) the goals of a process that does not have goals. If the Nazis really thought that evolutionary theory prescribed a particular political program, that proves they misunderstood it. That is true no matter how many biologists saw an advantage to joining the NSDAP (nor do I think any of them understood evolutionary theory more clearly than the anti-eugenicist Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of the modern "neo-Darwinian" evolutionary synthesis).

Bergman's thesis is obviously wrong.
Shaun Doyle
Blyth? Seriously!? How many Germans would have ever heard of Blyth? Darwin was well known. And, in point of fact, Darwin was a Social Darwinist who gave Herbert Spencer's 'survival of the fittest' social philosophy and Francis Galton's eugenics (two key ingredients in the Nazi social agenda) the scientific imprimatur in the second edition of The Decent of Man. Whether Darwinism provides justification for Social Darwinism or not, Darwin clearly believed it did, at least in his later years.

And yes, we're aware of the old 'Darwinism doesn't imply social Darwinism' gambit. But again, your argument is not with us, but with those myriad of people who thought Darwin's ideas justified eugenics and the 'survival of the fittest' philosophy so prevalent between 1870 and 1945. I will let Stephen Jay Gould, hardly a friend of creationists, speak to the issue: "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory." Whether use or abuse, the horrific legacy of Social Darwinism—which includes all the atrocities of Nazism—and it's connection to it's namesake, are facts of history. Blyth had nothing to do with it.
John F. K.
I was born in the USA in 1945. I have watched the climate in this country turn from favorable toward Christianity to unfavorable in the university system, in public education, in politics, in most cinema productions, and in Washington DC. Many of the movers and shakers in the country are militant toward believing Christians. I find the atmosphere becoming frightening with animosity. We had a tall resort structure being built in our area. One day it was discovered that the foundation was flawed. The building was exploded into non-existence! I often wonder how the church's surrender to old earth evolution and Genesis 1-11 being unreal have contributed to what I think I am witnessing.
David C.
Excellent article. I will be sure to purchase this book in the future because I need the ammo; I know some skeptics who love to harp on religious conflict and violence.

I also have a question I am wondering if you will answer. In today's world, Darwinism is being used to justify radical forms of environmentalism. Some examples include the scientists who believe up to 90 percent of the human race needs to be exterminated to save the planet and certain animal rights movements like the Great Ape Project. Was there any of this radical environmental ideology that is justified by Darwinism present in Hitler and/or other Nazis?
Shaun Doyle
As a matter of fact, something like a radical environmentalism did manifest in Nazism to a certain degree—see How Green Were the Nazis? Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich (review) for more information. Nazi Germany was most likely the 'greenest' nation of its day. However, eugenics, anti-semitism, and the war effort became more pressing concerns, and inter-departmental politics stymied much concrete environmentalist action. It sounds like the G.K. Chesterton had the Nazis down on the Darwinian ethic on both counts:

"Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws."

Article comments are only available for 14 days from publication.