Index IntroductionLiterature ReviewBackground on Social Darwinism and EugenicsNazi EducationNazi PoliciesConclusionIntroductionIn 1859, Charles Darwin published his notions of natural selection and the theory of evolution in his influential book " On the "origin of species". Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was a scientific theory focused on explaining his observations of biological diversity and why different species of plants and animals look different. According to this theory, only the best-adapted living organisms will survive in their competitive environment and pass on their genes to the next generation, while unfit organisms will not. Shortly after Darwin's publication, the question arose of how these theories might apply to human populations (Wollmuth, 2017). This gave rise to “social Darwinism”, a vague set of ideologies in which Darwin's ideas on his theory of evolution and natural selection were applied to society, in order to justify certain political, social or economic views (AMNH , 2018). This brings me to the purpose of my essay, which is to analyze whether Social Darwinism played a role in influencing the ideologies of the Nazis before and during their reign in power in Germany. This is a controversial debate among historians, as their ideas often contradict or differ on the impact of Social Darwinism in shaping Nazi thought. This article will present arguments for and against this influence, before concluding that Social Darwinism did indeed play, to some extent, a role in the construction of Nazi ideology. The topics on which the research will focus are Hitler's speeches, Nazi education and Nazi policies. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Literature Review Some historians argue that the Nazis rejected every single aspect of Social Darwinism. For example, Richards (2013) finds that there is very little to no connection between Hitler and the Nazis with Social Darwinism. He argues that Hitler used the term “struggle for existence” only because he derived that language from his avowedly anti-Darwinian philosopher, Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Furthermore, he states that Hitler explicitly denied the descent of species, completely rejecting the idea that Aryan man descended from ape-like predecessors. He concludes by stating that “only those who are ideologically blind would still try to support the thesis in the face of clear contrary evidence (Richards, 2013, p.15). Similarly, Emily Wollmuth (2017) also supports the influence of Social Darwinism within Nazi ideology, however only to the extent that she believed some of their ideas were also based on eugenics. According to Wollmuth, while Darwin aims for the elimination of inferior species in nature over vast periods of time, and Social Darwinism supports this natural process, the Nazis used this idea of ​​the elimination of inferior races but achieved it through eugenic policies. Therefore, Wollmuth argues that the Nazis did not let nature decide on the "survival of the fittest", as Social Darwinism states, but rather came into conflict with it through eugenicist principles. Finally, historian Mike Hawkings (2009) focuses on Germany's economic policies during the Nazi regime and finds that many of their policies are influenced by Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinist ideologies of a free market and laissez-faire. Hawkings argues that the Nazis applied this philosophy tomicroeconomics, arguing that the poor and disadvantaged were not being helped by social programs as this went against nature itself. However, similar to Wollmuth, Hawkings also agrees that many of the Nazi economic policies could have been driven by eugenics rather than social Darwinism as he analyzes the artificial eugenics program and the law of sterilization. Historian Richard Weikart (2004) does not he completely agrees, and even argues that: “No matter how tortuous the road from Darwin to Hitler, clearly Social Darwinism paved the way for Nazi ideology, particularly the Nazi emphasis on expansion, war , racial struggle, and racial extermination” (Weikart, 2004, p.6). Weikart bases this on his conclusion about the Nazis' heavy reliance on their past and how this influenced their "struggle for existence" ideologies. He suggests that the Nazis looked back to their ancestors who they believed had undergone drastic selection pressure brought on by the Ice Age, which eliminated the weak and sickly, leaving only the best and brightest to promulgate the Nordic race. EugenicsAlthough Darwin never commented on the social implications of his theories, academics have been accused of misappropriating Darwin's scientific ideas and applying them to human society. An example of this can be the vast collection of ideologies grouped under the label “social Darwinism”. Social Darwinism is, therefore, a very controversial concept and does not have a widely accepted definition. In this article, however, “social Darwinism” will be defined by the following four characteristics distinguished by Richards (2013, p.45): the fittest will thrive in society while the weak will not. The distinction between “suitable” and “unsuitable” should be left to nature. There is struggle between human groups. Furthermore, it has a different meaning than other ideologies such as Darwinism or eugenics. One of the academics whose work played a role in the birth of this concept was the economist Thomas Malthus. He invented the term “struggle for existence” in his essay “On the Principle of Population” (1978) after explaining his “Malthusian theory,” in which he argued that because an increasing population would naturally outstrip its supplies of food, people would have to struggle to survive and this would consequently lead to the starvation of the weakest. Malthus' work also served to renew interest in the work of sociologist Herbert Spencer, who coined the term "survival of the fittest" in his book "Principles of Biology" (1864), a foundational thought within Social Darwinism . It is the idea that the strongest and fittest should survive and thrive in society, and that the weak should be allowed to die out (Burdett, 2014). Furthermore, the belief in human evolution is also attributed to Social Darwinism, as this emerged from Darwin's evolutionary theory. Around 1900, theories of evolution and the desire to “improve” the human race led to the birth of “eugenics” (Crook, 2007). This principle attempted to alter the evolutionary process by encouraging the artificial breeding of individuals with “desirable” traits and discouraging breeding among individuals with “undesirable” traits, in order to protect the fittest elements of society. In Germany, biologist Ernst Haeckel also believed that eugenics was an effective way to keep the “German race” pure. Haeckel popularized this principle by combining it with romantic ideas about the German Volk (the people who share the German heritage, language, and culture). In his book "The Enigma of the Universe" (1889), he divided humanity into races and classified each of them, with the "Aryans" (a racemyth from which many Northern Europeans believed they descended) at the top of the list, while Jews and Africans were placed at the bottom. By the late 1930s, groups such as the Nazi Party continued to invest in eugenics and still hoped to achieve a more perfect human race through this hereditary method. Hitler's speeches: it is argued that by analyzing Hitler's speeches, there is a direct relationship between his ideology and the influence of social Darwinism in the construction of this. According to Weikart, Hitler constantly placed emphasis on the evolution of the Nordic race, as he believed that the German race was best adapted to survive due to the multiple environmental stressors it had experienced. Weikart (2013) refers to Hitler's 1920 speech, “Why we are anti-Semites” at the Hofbräuhaus, where Hitler addressed the National Socialist German Workers' Party: “The Nordic race had developed its key traits, in particular its propensity for harsh work and his moral fiber, but also his physical prowess, due to the harsh climate of the north". Furthermore, in 1927, Hitler stated in a speech at the Circus Krone in Munich: “You are the product of this struggle. If your ancestors hadn't fought, you would be an animal today. They did not obtain their rights through peaceful debates with wild animals... but rather the land was acquired on the basis of the right of the strongest." As can be seen from the evidence, Social Darwinism is present in both discourses, as well as the ideas of survival of the fittest and the struggle for existence can be attributed to the Hitlerian ideology of the Nordic race. Furthermore, a few lines later, he continues: “the struggle of males for the female guarantees the right or possibility to reproduce only to the healthiest struggle is always a means to improve the health and resistance capacity of a species and, therefore, the cause of its superior evolution”. This quote seems to demonstrate how Hitler also believed in evolution, a key aspect of social Darwinism, since he underlined the his belief that the Nordic race was not created in a pristine and unchanging state. However, Richards also focuses on Hitler's speeches to determine his views on Social Darwinism and argues that Hitler did not believe in evolution. Richards (2013) analyzes his monologue from January 1942 during one of his Table Talks at Werwolf in which Hitler expressed reservations about human evolution: “Where do we get the right to believe that humanity was not already from its origins what it is Today? Never within a genus has evolution made such a large leap, as human beings would have had to do, if they had been transformed from an ape-like condition to what they are now.” This evidence implies that Hitler is quite contradictory about his beliefs, as it suggests the impossibility of humans having made such a progression by evolving from apes. Not only that, but Boyes goes further and claims that Hitler believes in creationism and not evolution since in the same speech he stated that "it was by the will of God that men were made of a certain bodily form, received their nature and their faculty.” Therefore, if Hitler believed that humans had been created since the beginning of time with a certain bodily form and by the will of God, he cannot believe that humans had evolved of Hitler were creationist rather than However, there seems to be a contradiction not only among historians but also on the part of Hitler himself, as he seems to have first recognized evolution as part of the Nordic race in 1927, but then denied it in 1942 when he instead supported the creationism. throughanalysis of Hitler's speeches, it can be said that the leader was influenced by the principles of social Darwinism, as he recognized concepts such as "survival of the fittest" and "struggle for existence". However, he also refuted other fundamental ideas of the ideology such as human evolution, implying not total but rather partial faith in the theory. Furthermore, due to the contradiction and uncertainty of Hitler's belief based on his speeches, this article will continue by examining Nazi education in order to determine whether aspects of Social Darwinism were present within it. Nazi EducationIt is disputed that when the Nazis took power in Germany, their education system involved the teaching of Social Darwinism, implying its influence within their ideology. For example, according to the manual published by the Ministry of Education in 1938, teaching the evolution of animals, including that of human races, was mandatory. The manual stated that evolution occurred through "selection and elimination" and stated: "The student must accept as self-evident this most essential and most important natural law of elimination (of the unfit) together with evolution and reproduction" ( Weikart, 2013, p.542). This demonstrates how not only the evolution and survival of the most suitable teachings were mandatory, but also how these views could not be questioned. Furthermore, Moch (2011) analyzes the biology textbook “The Laws of Nature” (1942) by Hermann, Wiehle, and Harm which paid extensive attention to human evolution. Two out of ten chapters were about evolution in general, and another was dedicated exclusively to human evolution. The first chapter states: “All living beings that succeed in the struggle for survival are not simply content with existence, but also seek to preserve their species. Here too we are dealing with a drive that corresponds to natural law. Without this impulse, the species would have disappeared long ago.” The quote not only underlines the importance of the social Darwinist principle of survival through struggle, but also speaks of the cruciality of the preservation of the species as a natural law, demonstrating how in Nazi Germany teachers and children were led to believe that this ideology was something innate . . However, this perspective was also challenged by the fact that views of Social Darwinism were not present in Nazi education. Richards (2013) examines the ideologies of famous German biologists during the Third Reich and finds that many rejected Social Darwinism or believed that it was not implemented in Social Darwinism. schools of the time. For example, in 1940, Konrad Lorenz was a professor at the University of Königsberg and complained that there were many “National Socialist Greater German Schools which in fact still reject evolutionary thinking and the theory of descent as such.” Lorenz's complaint should suggest that the theory of evolution had no official mandate in the educational system. Furthermore, evolution, according to the biologist Hildebrandt, had to be rejected because he argued that “the origin of species from amoeba to man cannot be explained with this mechanistic theory” (Richards, 2013, p.49), underlining the professional rejection of the theory of evolution. However, these criticisms should be interpreted in light of the limitations since these biologists seem to only reject the concept of evolution but do not take into account any criticism towards other ideologies of Social Darwinism. To conclude, contradictory evidence from both sides was analyzed regarding the influence of Social Darwinism on Nazi education. However,it would appear that the curricula published by the Ministry of Education and the textbooks used in schools in the Third Reich represent more convincing evidence as they are official documents used throughout the country. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Social Darwinism had an influence on Nazi education. However, the criticisms of professionals in the biological community towards evolution should not be dismissed as there appears to have been partial but not total faith in this ideology on the part of all Germans. Nazi Policies In The Origin of Species, Darwin mentions that the process of evolution is slow and should be guided by nature to obtain the most "fit" individuals. Furthermore, it suggests that this process should not be disrupted by humans due to our inability to understand the complexity of traits (Wollmuth, 2017). This belief is also attributed to Social Darwinism, which is believed to have influenced the Nazis in their policy-making during the Third Reich. According to Hawkings (2009), Nazi policies were influenced by social Darwinism in economics. For example, he argues that the Nazis opted for a “laissez-faire” economic policy, in which the free market would naturally divide the “fit” from the “unfit.” Hawkings states: 'The economy was regarded as an arena of competition in which only the... most efficient and competent firms would succeed' (2009, p.282). Furthermore, he quotes Hitler in a speech given on May 20, 1937 in Berchtesgaden to German citizens: “Business is rather brutal. You know, you notice one businessman who made it, but you don't notice the tens of thousands of others who failed. But it is in the nation's interest that its economy is managed only by capable people and not by public employees." This demonstrates the influence of Social Darwinism on the economic policies of the Nazis to be subjected to natural selection as they did not interfere with the process. Furthermore, within the same speech, Hitler's judgment of failed businessmen reflects the Nazis' imprudent intentions towards the unemployed as well. and also emphasizing the Social Darwinist beliefs of “survival of the fittest” and the “struggle for existence.” However, Pridham (2000) also focuses on Nazi policies to determine the influence of Social Darwinism, but finds that within racial policies, Nazis tend to use artificial selection rather than natural selection. He argues that the Nazis interfere with the natural process by creating laws to "accelerate" and make evolutionary change more effective. For example, the Nazi Sterilization Law of 1933 made sterilization compulsory for certain categories of people deemed to have hereditary diseases, and by 1945 approximately 360,000 men and women had been sterilized under this program. Prudham goes further by examining the euthanasia program applied to mentally handicapped people from 1939 to 1945. He states that by that time over 70,000 people had been "disinfected", a figure that would have been greatly increased by the unofficial euthanasia practices conducted in the camps. concentration. after 1941, often including people who were not ill but considered undesirable for racial reasons. Finally, the greatest expression of artificial selection was the persecution of the Untermenschen ("sub-peoples") which culminated in the mass murder of millions of Jews, half a million Sinti and Roma ("Gypsies") and millions of Russians and Poles. Individuals from these groups were taken prisoner in Nazi labor camps and worked to death on limited rations and in poor conditions. It is from this that Panyani discovers that forced labor and.