Ernst Haeckel |
| It is noteworthy that those who want to blame Christianity for the Holocaust will point to "theologians" and "pastors" who supported Hitler - they will not point to scientists, atheists, and socialists who also supported Hitler. Numerous Marxists changed their minds and embraced Hitler, especially after 1933, but never mind about that. Also, some will hunt through Hitler's speeches and book searching for every hint of Christian influence, but will ignore such phrases in Mein Kampf as "process of evolution" or "objective scientific truth." This is because (apart from their hostility to Christianity) the principles of scientific naturalism are so dear to their hearts that they do not want to even consider the fact that science can be abused and corrupted, transformed into pseudo-science, and then used to support such blatantly unscientific ideologies as National Socialism and Marxism. The perversion of science contributed immeasurably to the development of the Nazi Weltanschauung, and nowhere is this transformation of science into pseudo-science more clearly seen than in the writings of the once renowned but now largely forgotten German biologist Ernst Haeckel. A brief overview of his life and a more careful analysis of his thought are thus in order. For this section of the essay I have drawn heavily on Daniel Gasman's previously cited The Scientific Origins of National Socialism. With a mastery of his subject, as well as copious references to original sources, it reaches a level of scholarship which I would not even think of attempting to emulate. Those who are interested in a deeper analysis of how pseudo-science played a vital role in laying the intellectual foundations of the Third Reich are encouraged to read it. All quotes in this section, unless otherwise specified, are from this source. Turning now to a brief overview of Haeckel's life and thought, it is important to remember that we are not just discussing one individual. He was a major intellectual figure of his day, who not merely had a great influence, but was more importantly the most visible representative of deep and widespread intellectual and cultural trends. He articulated major currents, and two of Haeckel's books "immediately became best-sellers and quickly transformed Haeckel into one of the most renowned scientists and writers in Germany" [p. 8]. "Haeckel was able to attract students from all over Europe and the world to Jena, where he gained enormous fame as a teacher. Haeckel transformed the University of Jena into one of the most exciting centers in Germany for biological study" [p. 12]. "...Haeckel achieved an aura of respectability, authority, and veneration, within the community of German and world science" [p. 13]. One of his books, the Weltraetsel or Riddle of the Universe, was "one of the most widely read and known books in Germany. It quickly became Germany's most popular philosophical work and during the first year of its appearance it sold more than a hundred thousand copies. It went through ten editions by 1919, was translated into about twenty-five languages, and by 1933 almost half a million copies had been bought in Germany alone" [p. 14]. |
| Apart from success with the general public, there were also countless members of the scientific professions and prestigious members of the academic and intellectual community who became deeply attached to Haeckel and his ideas. Indeed, it is not really possible to understand Haeckel and the role which he played in German intellectual life without being aware of the magnetic hold which he exerted on his adherents. He was regarded by them as a singular religious and national prophet...His disciples took him to be one of the most influential figures in the intellectual history of the modern world. 'One must,' a typical statement ran, 'without being guilty of any exaggeration, maintain that during the most recent years and decades every person who has in some way taken part in human culture...has been compelled during his lifetime to take some position in regard to this individual, to his ideas, his strivings, and the cultural movement which derives from him' [p. 15]. One could go on and on, but the point has been made. We are not dealing with a lonely eccentric, as trivial and insignificant as he might seem from the vantage point of the 21st century - in his day he was considered to be an authority and was regarded with deep veneration by many. One man praised Haeckel in terms identical to those used by some describing their reaction to Hitler. Referring to his first meeting with Haeckel, the disciple wrote: 'At that moment I rediscovered my fatherland and my people, and with that I was relieved of all unclarity and anger, of the irony of Heinrich Heine, which is a sign of inner weakness. Rather, there arose the strong feeling of cheerfulness and happiness which is born out of a faith that is sure of itself. In this way Ernst Haeckel returned to me my faith in my people' [p. 17]. Haeckel's life can be described briefly. He was born in 1834 and died in 1919 - thus illustrating the deep continuity between the 19th and 20th centuries. This point should not have to be mentioned, but too many focus only on obvious differences and assume that the 1930's, with their motorcars and airplanes, were too far removed from the horse and buggy age, and hence fail to see the much deeper philosophical and psychological continuities. Haeckel studied and practiced medicine briefly, but returned to the university to study zoology. He became a zoologist, receiving his doctorate in zoology in 1861, and taught science at the University of Jena. He became a Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy in 1862, and was well-known for his academic research. He "achieved great popularity as the authoritative voice of modern science" [p. xiii], sort of like a Teutonic Carl Sagan, and came to be "taken as the virtually incontestable and exacting voice of science" [p. xlvi]. Passing over other references to the depth and seriousness of Haeckel's research in the field of biology, as well as praise from his peers attesting to his scientific brilliance, it is safe to conclude that Haeckel was not some wild-eyed fanatic or ignorant backwoods fundamentalist Christian, but one of the finest products of the scientific education and worldview of his time. |
| At first glance, all of this might seem to have little to do with the Holocaust, and this is recognized at the outset of Gasman's study: In virtually all studies of the history of ideas in the nineteenth century, Haeckel is seldom, if ever, separated from the general progressive, scientific, and modernistic tradition of European culture and his name is found to be synonymous with materialism, naturalism, mechanism, and of course, Darwinism. He has traditionally been thought to embody optimism, progress, liberalism, socialism, and tireless opposition to arbitrary state power. He is invariably accepted as the intellectual embodiment within Germany of the feeling of optimism and security, engendered by science and industrialism, which suffused bourgeois civilization before the cataclysm of 1914 [p. xxxviii]...On the surface, therefore, he remained a spokesman for progress, optimism, modernism, and science [p. 22]. For this reason, "In spite of the wealth of evidence that can be adduced to demonstrate the profound influence of Haeckel on National Socialist ideology, a number of authors continue to vociferously campaign against the idea that Haeckel could be a forerunner of Naziism" [p. xv]. If one wants to stop here one can assume that Haeckel could not have had anything to do with Hitler, and cheerfully resume one's hobby of attacking Jesus, the apostles, and Martin Luther. For those, however, who examine Haeckel's writings, a darker side quickly emerges. We find that the eminent professor and expert in biology was also an outspoken and enthusiastic advocate of racism, German superiority, imperialism, authoritarianism, and militarism, as well as other eccentric 19th-century ideas that have nothing to do with science and have been long since abandoned (such as spontaneous generation - life arising of itself from inanimate matter - and the belief in a world soul animating the cosmos). All of these and other ideas - including a scientific hostility to Jews and the belief that they should disappear - are well documented from original sources by Gasman. To examine the connection between these two seemingly irreconcilable extremes - science and bizarre right-wing ideology - it will be necessary to examine Haeckel's thought: his unique and creative interpretations of Darwinism (which went far beyond Darwin), and his hostility to Christianity. The union of science and bizarre left-wing ideology belongs with an examination of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. |
Darwin and Haeckel |
| Attempts to link Darwin to the Holocaust have not gotten very far - at least not in the eyes of the general public. There is too much of a gap between the sedate English scientist and the piles of naked corpses. Also, many attempts to link Darwin to the crimes of the Nazis have been I think motivated more by a desire to discredit Darwin than by a desire to understand the origins of the Holocaust. True, there are some disquieting elements in Darwin's thought. The subtitle of his book The Origin of Species has been eliminated from modern editions, and not surprisingly. It contains the heart-warming phrase "The Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." More significantly, the ethical implications of Darwin's theory are inescapable. If life on earth developed as Darwin suggested...but that was Haeckel's field of expertise, and it is Haeckel's interpretation of Darwinism that concerns us here rather than Darwinism itself. Darwin did not speculate much on the full implications of his theory in the area of human relationships (personal or political) and confined himself to defending and explaining his theory within the limits of conventional science. Others were not so cautious, however, and attempted to use the theory of evolution as the basis for far-reaching speculations in the fields of ethics, religion, and politics. One of these was Haeckel, and he took Darwinism to great extremes. Darwin had some knowledge of Haeckel - the latter was after all the preeminent defender and explainer of Darwin's theory in Germany. Although they did meet a few times and exchanged some letters, Haeckel was not a very important figure in Darwin's life. Darwin recognized Haeckel's efforts on behalf of evolution and in the Descent of Man credited Haeckel's contributions to the study of man's origin. But Darwin mentioned Haeckel only briefly in his Autobiography, and in general remained sceptical of what little he knew of Haeckel's broader theoretical speculations [p. 28]. The Origin of Species was translated into German in 1860, and Haeckel soon became engrossed in it: Darwin's ideas seemed completely to pervade his thinking and he began to make Darwinism the focal point of his entire scientific and professional life. His conversion to Darwinism did not, by any means, take the form of a painstaking intellectual process of discovery, nor of a conviction slowly arrived at. Rather, Haeckel's belief in the truth of evolution was realized in a virtual flash of immediate revelation and inspiration. He was later to remark that when he first read Darwin the 'scales fell from my eyes.' He related that he 'found in Darwin's great unified conception of nature and in his overwhelming foundation for the doctrine of evolution the solution of all the doubts which had bothered me since the beginning of my biological studies' [p. 6]. Haeckel also taught Darwin, and "presented Darwin as the most important and significant thinker of the nineteenth century...his talks were warmly greeted by his students and by the audiences at his public lectures...Haeckel wrote during this period that what he had to say about Darwin was being received with overwhelming enthusiasm" [p. 7]. Much of his previously mentioned stature as a scientist was connected with his aggressive public advocacy of the new theory - but he went much farther than Darwin. He "found in Darwinism a solution to his problems, and he set about elaborating what he considered to be the full scientific and social implications of Darwin's theory" [p. 7]. |
| ...from the very start his attachment to Darwinism was more than the acceptance of an interesting and possibly fruitful scientific theory. He immediately raised evolution and Darwinism to the status of a complete and final rendering of the nature of the cosmos. Through evolution he studied the world and everything in it including man and society as part of an organized and consistent whole. He therefore called his new evolutionary philosophy 'Monism,' and contrasted it with all of traditional thought, which he rather disdainfully labeled 'Dualism,' condemning the latter for making distinctions between matter and spirit, and for invidiously separating man from nature [pp. 6-7]. Haeckel quickly advanced beyond scientific theory and became "fundamentally committed to the dissemination of Darwinism as a social and political ideology" [p. 13]. Thus, during the last decades of the nineteenth century, at a time when even T.H. Huxley, the Darwinian stalwart, was turning aside from the possibility of a social science and an ethics based on evolutionary naturalism, Haeckel continued more seriously than ever to develop and advocate his own evolutionary social Darwinism, applying to society the laws that he perceived in biological and physical nature. He turned his attention increasingly in the 1880's and 1890's to the spelling out of the social, political, and religious interpretations of his conception of Darwinism. His main object came to be the elaboration of a Monistic religion having an evolutionary and naturalistic base...[p. 13]. Referring to Haeckel as "the self-appointed spokesman of Darwin and Darwinism in Germany" [p. xxxvii], Gasman goes on to explain: ...in no other country of Europe, or for that matter even in the United States, did the ideas of Darwinism develop as seriously as a total explanation of the world as in Germany. But Darwinism in Germany was a system of thought that was often transformed almost beyond recognition. Darwinismus was far from the biological ideas or underlying moral and philosophical views of Darwin himself. Professing a mystical belief in the forces of nature, insisting on the literal transfer of the laws of biology to the social realm, and calling for a religious reformation in German life, Haeckel and his immediate followers held to ideas which were remote from the familiar naturalism of Spencer, Darwin, and Huxley [pp. xxxvii-xxxviii]. All of this may still seem to be irrelevant to Auschwitz, but Gasman proceeds to fully document the way in which Haeckel transmuted Darwinism into racism, imperialism, militarism, authoritarianism, and antisemitism - all of this in a uniquely German context that could not have been duplicated in any other country. In the process Gasman is careful to disassociate Haeckel from Darwin, saying: ...the Darwinism which Haeckel urged was more akin to religion than to science. Although he considered himself to be a close follower of Darwin and, as we have seen, invoked Darwin's name in support of his own ideas and theories, there was, in fact, little similarity between them. Haeckel himself openly thought of evolution and science as the domain of religion and his work therefore assumed a character which was wholly foreign to the spirit of Darwin. Darwin's empiricism, his caution in the face of speculative theories, his general mechanical conception of the workings of nature, were all in striking contrast to Haeckel's biology [pp. 10-11]. That is my only serious point of disagreement with Gasman's profound analysis. While some of Haeckel's eccentric ideas were of his own devising, and did have nothing to do with Darwin, many of Haeckel's ideas were implicit in Darwin's theory, and Haeckel only followed logically some Darwinian presuppositions. It is entirely possible that Darwin deliberately avoided discussing the religious and social implications of evolution as he knew it would impede acceptance of his theory - but it is not Darwinism that concerns us here. It is German interpretations of and elaborations on Darwin that contributed greatly to the Holocaust. So, if Darwin considered the extermination of savage human races by superior civilized races to be just one more example of evolution in action, or if he considered Negroes to be closer than Caucasians to gorillas on the evolutionary scale, are not relevant to this discussion. One defender of Darwin pointed to some humane comments he made about the Indians while on his famous voyage on the Beagle, but to take some opinions that Darwin had before his evolutionary theory was formed, while he was by his own admission still under the influence of Christian teaching, and use them to defend him concerning his later views, is either obtuse or dishonest. But, it is necessary to return to the subject at hand and look more closely at how Haeckel transmuted a scientific theory into something much more, and how this relates to the Holocaust. |
Man the animal |
| The secularists wholly support the massive turning toward secularism and materialism that characterized much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but then when things went wrong, who do they blame? The Christians. After a century of intensifying secularism, people assert that revealed religion is a waste of time, that man is only an animal created by natural causes, that ethics and morality are one gigantic deception - then they behave accordingly, like beasts, and whose fault is that? The Christians'. If the theory of evolution is true, then it follows logically that man is really only an animal - more complex, more highly developed, but still only an animal. Therefore Haeckel "campaigned vigorously for the acceptance of the animal origin of man. Of course, ultimately, so too did Darwin. But the emphasis was different...(Haeckel) emphasized not how far man has travelled from his animal past, but how close he really was to his animal forebears" [p. 11]. For Haeckel and his Monist followers...the most important social consequence of Darwinism and evolutionary biology was its demonstration of the animal origin and nature of man...it was this incontestable fact which invalidated all traditional conceptions of his political and social possibilities [pp. 31-32]...One obvious implication which the Monists drew from their belief that man's physical and mental characteristics were only 'quantitatively' but 'not qualitatively' different from those of animals, was that man could lay no claim to a uniquely human soul. Any Socratic or Christian notions regarding the existence of a soul, however casually held, were regarded by them as highly dangerous and unscientific. 'Man is not distinguished from [the animals] by a special kind of a soul,' Haeckel maintained, 'or by any peculiar and exclusive psychic function, but only by a higher degree of psychic activity, a superior stage of development.' There was, therefore, no spiritual essence which was peculiar to man and any such assumption was a vain and erroneous humanist, Christian, or liberal illusion [pp. 32-33]. The implications of this were clear (to Haeckel and his followers at least). Since man was in all important respects an animal, the Monists argued, it follows that he had to adjust his life and his social ideals accordingly...throughout his career Haeckel always taught that 'civilization and the life of nations are governed by the same laws as prevail throughout nature and organic life.' It was fundamental to his position that the 'evolution of man has taken place according to the same "eternal immutable laws" as has the evolution of any other natural body.' Following the teachings of Haeckel directly, the Monists insisted that for man the 'same laws must be valid today which have regulated the life of other species for millions of years' [p. 34]. It was Haeckel himself who argued the point: the precepts of moral law, like everything else, 'rest on biological grounds and have been developed in a natural way.' Therefore, there could be no independent, intellectual, rational, or ethically moral order of the world - no Kantian imperatives - which could serve as an absolute guide to mankind. Rather, all values were completely relative and arose only in the context of changing evolutionary needs for survival...absolute morality had been only an ephemeral 'product of human poetry.' Success and survival of the species in the course of evolution was to be the sole and absolute determinant of morality and ethics [pp. 48-49]. ...in another influential and widely read book which also received the approbation of Haeckel, Von Darwin bis Nietzsche (1895), Tille, who acknowledged his debt to Haeckel, explained the impact which the discovery of biological evolution had made on ethics, and agreed with Haeckel that all absolute ethical values had been obliterated by the discovery of evolution. Tille argued that only the unimpeded laws of nature could be the source of morality [p. 150]. |
| These theories (in essence identical to those of Nietzsche's) had more practical applications, since Haeckel was not one to spin idle conjectures which had nothing to do with how we lived. Reasoning scientifically, he rejected the entire previous tradition of western civilization. This aspect of National Socialism was one of its most striking features - too few have considered that their repudiation of centuries of culture and tradition was not an arbitrary whim on the part of the Nazis or an eccentricity of Hitler's, but rather the result of a consistent and logically thought-out world view. Monism "meant liberation from western civilization" [p. 37]. "Haeckelian Monists advanced their general philosophical system and social Darwinism as a critique of the ideological foundations of Western European civilization" [p. 31]. Haeckel and his followers therefore sought, first of all, to discredit as scientifically untrue all the humanist characteristics which had come to be accepted as peculiar to man in traditional European culture. That man was a unique creature, that civilization represented a distinct triumph over the brutal conditions of an animal and primitive past, that man's spiritual worth was ultimately immeasurable, were all values and assumptions which were called into question by Haeckel and the Monists [p. 32]. ...in advocating the literal application of the laws of nature directly to society, the Monists believed that they had fathomed the deepest need of theoretical sociology, a scientifically established guide to action and to cultural and to social reorganization unhampered by any humanistic illusions. 'Until now,' a leading Monist wrote, 'those who spoke the most about the ideals of mankind, knew the least about the true nature of man.' Thus, the Monists maintained, it was extremely unfortunate that the Christian West had failed to recognize the actual nature of man and instead had inculcated in him deceptive values and beliefs. European civilization, with its inordinate emphasis on the inviolability of the human personality and on the existence of a human soul, had mistakenly protected the weak members of society and had cultivated a false and misleading humanitarianism. This had led, they felt, to the increasing enervation of the individual and to the decline of the natural strength of the most advanced European nations [p. 36] Consistently with this, "Haeckel was at the same time demanding the curtailment or even the elimination of the humanities...The new education based upon science would teach the Germans that the universalist assumptions of Western culture had been founded upon religious and metaphysical illusions" [pp. 38-39]. This had serious political implications. In the chapter devoted to Haeckelian philosophy and its relation to totalitarianism, we find the following relevant passage: |
| In the Monist ideology, radical racial nationalism was coupled with a profound and aggressive denial of the political and social assumptions of bourgeois liberalism. Such liberal tenets as civil rights, constitutionalism, the separation of the individual and the state, the free and unhindered discussion of political questions, and the desire for a solution to all social problems based upon the compromise of conflicting opinions and interests were all, in one way or another, denied by the Haeckelian Monists. The belief in the possibility of abstract justice, the rule of law, humane relations between individuals, and in the value of personal liberty, and the related convictions that central authority was a threat and that only those societies were truly free where individuals were completely at liberty to pursue a diversity of goals, interests, and activities - these ideas were seriously questioned and even denied outright by the Monists [p. 44]. Thus there was "an exact parallel between the laws of nature and those of society" [p. 148]. It is obvious that these ideas alone do not set up death camps. Other people have such views and would never dream of shoving Jews into the gas chambers - however, the analysis of Haeckel is far from complete. The next step ("A little leaven leavens the whole loaf" as Jesus said) is to reason that life is basically struggle. Quoting Haeckel's aforementioned Weltraetsel, Gasman explains that "the 'struggle for life' is the 'powerful natural force which has exerted supreme control over the entire course of organic evolution for millions of years.' For Haeckel, such laws also applied literally to the workings of society. Only the conceit of man allows him to disingenuously separate society from the necessities of evolution and nature" [p. xxi]. "(Haeckel) advocated an ethic of competition and struggle as the foundation of the laws of human society" [p. xlvi]. What brings these theories much closer to our goal of understanding the Holocaust is Haeckel's further research. This led him to the scientific conclusion that the struggle which is the basic law of life occurs not only between individual organisms or species - it also occurs on the racial and national level (since people are grouped in nations). The following passage is a quote from Haeckel's Weltraetsel: "The fate of those branches of the human family, those nations and races which struggle for existence and progress for thousands of years, is determined by the same 'eternal laws of iron' as the history of the whole organic world which has peopled the earth for millions of years" [p. xxii]. Another Monist author wrote that "that the 'entire history of human civilization is in the final analysis nothing else than the sometimes more, sometimes less, conscious and successful process of the adaptation of single races, tribes, and individuals to the existing and to the changing conditions of life' " [p. 49]. This is Gobineau's theory of the centrality of race, now made-up and ornamented with scientific language. Nietzsche also asserted, as we have seen, that "whole families, tribes, or peoples" may be of a "higher type" [Sect. 4][italics Nietzsche's]. In other words, the Darwinian struggle between individual organisms is elevated to the racial and national level. This was not just an abstract principle. Referring to Haeckel, Gasman writes: Early in his career he advanced the idea of international racial struggle as one of the fundamental characteristics of history. The laws of nature, he urged, taught that some races or nations were destined to surpass and to conquer and destroy others. 'In the struggle for life,' he wrote in the Naturliche Schoepfungsgeschichte, 'the more highly developed, the more favored and larger groups and forms, possess the positive inclination and the certain tendency to spread more at the expense of the lower, more backward, and smallest groups.' An examination of the contemporary world would reveal that 'while the European tribes spread over the whole globe, other tribes or species drew nearer to their complete extinction.' Under prevailing racial conditions, while the 'Indo-Germanic' species of men are spreading the 'net of their domain' over the world, the non-European tribes are destined to be subjected to them...Haeckel alluded to the 'American and Australian tribes' and to the 'Papuans and Hottentots' who were, under the inexorable laws of nature, 'fast approaching their complete extinction' [pp. 126-27]. Another Monist (Otto Ammon) asserted that "Racial struggle itself was a 'necessity for mankind.' Only when weak individuals and races perish is mankind as a whole able to reap the benefit" [p. 149]. Naturally, in the struggle between races, one race was superior to the rest - one doesn't have to think very hard to guess which one that might be. Coincidentally, it happened to be the same race of which Haeckel was a member. The previously mentioned "racial anthropologist" and social Darwinist Otto Ammon believed "that it was the Germans who possessed superior racial and biological characteristics and he appealed for a return to the values and attitudes of the primitive Germanic tribes, who had led lives of natural bravery unencumbered by the errors and weaknesses of Christian civilization" [p. 149]. |
| In general, the Haeckelian Monists readily assumed that nations were themselves representative of either lower or higher racial groups and that in the contemporary world it was the Germans who constituted the most advanced race. In the Naturliche Schoepfungsgeschichte, Haeckel had confidently written that it was the Germans who had 'deviated furthest from the common primary form of ape-like men,' and had, therefore, in modern times been able to 'outstrip all other branches [of mankind] in the career of civilization.' He stressed that in the modern world it was the Germans who were 'laying the foundation for a new period of higher mental development' [p. 41]. Gasman goes on to explain in this passage that one proof of German superiority was the fact that the Germans had been able to develop the theories of Haeckel. This meant that Haeckel was at the tip of the apex of human development - Hegel apparently had a similar estimation of himself as well. Hitler must also have considered himself to be the highest and finest product of humanity. The concept of German superiority is much too important to pass over lightly. Belief in the bible destroys such a theory. Paul said that God "has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth," but belief in the bible is unscientific. Belief in German superiority and the inferiority of other people is reasonable, logical, sensible, and scientific. After all, Haeckel believed in science and rejected religion; therefore, it followed logically that all of his opinions were scientific. Some might object that science is inherently limited to the physical plane and cannot attain to moral and ethical or spiritual knowledge, but their views are not acceptable to those who think that knowledge is by definition limited to their conceptions of it. Some more quotes might serve to demonstrate the logic involved here. For example: In organizing their new cultural revolution the Monists came out in opposition to all ideas, religious or secular, which expressed the essential equality of mankind. They argued that men, as primarily biological creatures, were naturally divided into separate, racially determined species. It was their belief that the varied races of mankind were endowed with differing hereditary characteristics not only of color, but also more importantly of intelligence, and that external physical characteristics were a sign of innate intellectual and moral capacity. For Haeckel, for example, 'woolly-haired' Negroes were 'incapable of a true inner culture and of a higher mental development,' and he noted that 'no woolly-haired nation has ever had an important "history".' Rather, the making of real history had to be attributed to the white races, and even more specifically to the Germanic ones. In fact, it was only among the white Germanic races that one could find those individuals who possess a 'symmetry of all parts, and that equal development, which we call the perfect type of human beauty.' ...For Haeckel, who recorded his support for the ideas of Gobineau, the 'lower' races of mankind were nearer to the animals than to the 'higher' races. The 'difference,' he wrote, 'between the reason of a Goethe, a Kant, a Lamarck, or a Darwin, and that of the lowest savage...is much greater than the graduated difference between the reason of the latter and that of the most "rational" mammals, the anthropoid apes.' Therefore, since racial difference was at the core of historical experience it was historically incorrect to think of mankind as one...And since the 'lower races (such as the Veddahs or Australian Negroes) are psychologically nearer to the mammals (apes and dogs) than to civilized Europeans, we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives' [pp. 39-40]. Haeckel's fantasies left him firmly convinced of the superiority of the Germans. He considered them to be superior not merely to Negroes and Australian Bushmen, but even to Europeans like the 'degenerate' Italians, who were morally and spiritually far inferior to the Germans [pp. 3-4]. Perhaps the best summary is found in the following passage: The importance of Haeckel's support for racism obviously transcended the meagre content of the ideas themselves. Haeckel, of course, was far from being the only popularizer of racial nationalism in Germany. Contemporaries, like Ludwig Schemann, the founder of the Gobineau Society, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, were even more active than Haeckel in disseminating racial propaganda. Haeckel, however, decisively contributed scientific authority to the cause of racism. By bringing biology and anthropology to its support, in works that were widely read and credited, he succeeded in investing the ideas of racial nationalism with academic respectability and scientific assurance. It was Haeckel, in other words, who was largely responsible for forging the bonds between academic science and racism in Germany in the later decades of the nineteenth century [p. 40]. |
| Still, in spite of these and yet more points of similarity between Haeckel's Monist social Darwinism and National Socialism, there is still a great difference between the savage ferocity of Hitler and the Nazis on the one hand, and 19th-century scientists and "philosophers" on the other. Certainly Hitler's experiences in the Great War gave him a hardness, a fearlessness, and an indifference to death utterly beyond the grasp of men of books. Also, the disasters of the war and the succeeding years of political and economic turmoil added a bitterness and an intensity that would otherwise have been lacking. Haeckel himself, for example, was much less vicious and evil than Hitler - Haeckel's solution to the Jewish problem was, as we shall see in a moment, assimilation, not extermination. He probably never thought of exterminating the Jews and might have been appalled if he could have had a vision of the camps - but maybe he would have thought that nature is like that, cold and pitiless in its extermination of the unfit. If he had disapproved, his disapproval would have been thoroughly inconsistent with his stated world view. Haeckel and others like him helped to prepare the way for the Holocaust. Hitler has an interesting comment on this in Mein Kampf. Speaking of Marx, he says "in reality that general concept had existed long before the time of Karl Marx. If it had not already existed as a widely diffused infection the amazing political progress of the Marxist teaching would never have been possible" [Vol. II Chap. 1]. This describes Hitler's own rise to power as well. Mosse has already been quoted to the effect that Hitler was the fulfillment of broad and deeply rooted tendencies that had been at work long before he came on the scene. Haeckel contributed greatly toward this. Some other aspects of Haeckel's thought merit comment. When it came to art, he shared Hitler's tastes and believed that art should follow nature, rejecting modern experiments. On the woman question too Haeckel and the Monists felt, like the Nazis, that the chief responsibility of woman was to bear and raise children - not because women were stupid, but because children were necessary to ensure the survival of the race. Haeckel's political authoritarianism also fit in well with Hitler's ideas. At the same time that the Monists voiced their belief in the efficacy of authoritarian political organization, they were explicitly critical of any doctrine which advocated unhindered personal liberty and freedom. All ideas about human freedom in the liberal or existential sense were anti-evolutionary, they maintained, and were thereby a threat to the well-being of the racial community. As far as the Monists were concerned freedom existed in direct proportion to state power. 'The freedom of all is secured not in the framework of a weak state, but much more in the framework of a strong state.' Freedom, in other words, meant submission to authority...Philosophically, Monist distrust of doctrines of political liberty and freedom rested on Haeckel's insistent denial of free will in man. Throughout his career he had strenuously argued that free will was a 'pure dogma based on an illusion' [p. 46]. This is identical to Wagner's Volkish idea that democracy diminished freedom while authoritarianism increased it. It is also identical to Nietzsche's position on free will. The extent to which Haeckelian Monism undergirded Nietzsche's thought might be an interesting area of research, were it not for the fact that it would require more time studying Nietzsche and Haeckel. The entire second chapter of Gasman's book ("The Political Assumptions of Monism") demonstrates convincingly that "the fundamental ideological presuppositions of Monism" were "identical with those of fascism and National Socialism" [p. 49]. |
| Haeckel was also a strong advocate of imperialism. It was his scientific opinion that Germany needed Lebensraum: Haeckel and the Monists were among the first to formulate a program of racial imperialism and Lebensraum for Germany. For them, historical progress was determined not only by the competition of individuals within society, but also by the conflict and struggle of divergent races and nations. At home, they argued, Germany could best gain internal security and stability for itself by fostering class harmony and by attempting to shift the struggle for existence to areas outside the country. Then once this was accomplished, a strong, united, and biologically superior nation would be free to engage in empire building on a grand scale and progressively subdue the less endowed, backward nations and races of the world for the benefit of the mother country. It was, in other words, the essential contribution of the Haeckelian Monists to bring scientific jargon once again to the support of political and social theory. Haeckel's vision of German imperialism took in the vast arena of the entire world...the 'lower' races of mankind were either already on their way to extinction or were, in general, incapable of civilization and were as a consequence very much in need of the leadership and organizing capacity of the Europeans. 'All attempts,' Haeckel wrote, 'to introduce civilization among [the African and Australian tribes] and many other tribes of the lowest human species, have hitherto been of no avail; it is impossible to implant human culture where the requisite soil, namely the perfecting of the brain, is wanting.' Such species of men cannot be 'ennobled by civilization' which rather only 'accelerates their distinction.' Haeckel thus concluded that since it 'would be easier to train the most intelligent domestic animals to a moral and civilized life' than the majority of natives, the interests, needs, and desires of primitive peoples did not have to be reckoned with too seriously and did not have to stand in the way of colonial expansion. Indeed for Haeckel the lives of natives hardly had the same 'value' as that of the white man and therefore colonies could be established and maintained principally according to the needs of the Europeans. In all imperialist ventures, therefore, Haeckel urged a policy of 'realism' based upon the teachings of biology and anthropology...' [pp. 126-7]. Many more quotes could be inserted here, but they are not necessary - the point is clear and simple. The strong take what they want, and the weak, the unfit, the inferior, are unworthy of consideration. Nature and the laws of biology after all are not democratic, they are aristocratic, and favor the best and the strongest. This relates to the concept of eugenics, another one of Haeckel's scientific contributions. In the struggle for survival, the strong should survive and the weak should perish. Artificially keeping invalids, the aged, or retarded people alive is contrary to nature - therefore Haeckel made some inspiring statements about the benefits of terminating sickly members of society using "a dose of some painless and rapid poison" [p. 95]. After all, referring to the death penalty for criminals, "the same benefit is done by destroying luxuriant weeds, for the prosperity of a well-cultivated garden" [p. 96]. People are compared to plants, weeds to be uprooted - and who has feelings of sorrow or pity when they uproot some weeds? |
Haeckel and the Volkish movement |
| The Volkish movement was a logical result of the idealistic philosophical romanticism mentioned by Gasman as one of the main influences on Haeckel. Hence it is not surprising that this alleged scientist had much in common with people such as Wagner. Approaching the questions of life from different perspectives, one being a composer and the other a scientist, they arrived at strikingly similar (though of course not identical) conclusions. Gasman describes German romanticism as "an all-embracing Weltanschauung capable of merging with many different social and political ideas...More than a literary movement, romanticism, in the writings of Schleiermacher, Fichte, Novalis, Goethe, and the Schlegels, was really an expression of German life and feeling" [p. xlii]. Reacting against the opinions of the French philosophes that human reason was paramount, the romantics were certain of the existence of higher truths beyond the reach of reason. Their appeal to faith and deeper emotions thus had a quasi-religious dimension - but the romantics accepted one of the key ideas of the philosophes and agreed that the bible and its teachings were not divinely inspired, and therefore subordinate to human reason. Even as they accepted the existence of higher truths beyond reason, they rejected divine revelation in scripture, making human reason in fact the best and highest guide, when allied with human feeling and human intuition. The German approach to these and other problems was deeply influenced by a hunger for national unity. "Thus, whereas for the French philosophes nationalism was subordinate to the universal human community, for the German intellectuals it was the other way around" [ibid.]. The natural desire for a united and independent nation (the result of centuries of disunity intensified by the humiliation of occupation by the French) merged with "the worship of nature and the religion and philosophy of pantheism" [ibid.]. Thus a vital spirit at work in the cosmos found its expression in and through great leaders and nation states, making the nation the individual's point of contact with the invisible reality behind the visible world. This process is seen in Fichte, who "developed his cultural romanticism into a form of nationalism" [p. xliii] - an extreme form of nationalism one might add. Having thus elevated the importance of nationality far beyond its proper place, the way was prepared for further abuses. This is in striking contrast to the 17th-century English Christian John Bunyan, who in his famous allegory Pilgrim's Progress described Vanity Fair as having a French row, a German row, and English row, and so on. To the serious Christian, a certain regard for one's nation and its well-being are natural enough, but certainly not of any religious or even quasi-religious significance. As to Haeckel and the Volkish movement, "Many of the important theoretical leaders of the Volkist movement were in one way or another connected either ideologically or personally with Haeckel" [p. xlvii], and it was Haeckel's "prophetic synthesis of romantically inclined Volkism with evolution and science - which provided an ideological basis for National Socialism" [p. xxxviii]. If one surveys the origins of the Volkish movement in Germany during the three or four decades prior to the First World War it is apparent that Haeckel played an influential, significant, indeed a decisive role in its genesis and subsequent development. An impressive number of the most influential Volkish writers, propagandists, and spokesmen were influenced by or involved in some way with either Haeckel or his Monist followers [p.147]. Repudiating western culture; seeing the nation as a vital entity in the great scheme of things; emphasizing the centrality of race (with the related emphasis on maintaining the purity of race); seeing the national state as an organic entity that was best able to thrive under strong leadership without harmful and weakening parliamentary and democratic diversions; in these key points Haeckel was essentially a Volkish thinker, with one difference - he supported his opinions with scientific arguments. By the clever trick of upgrading the evolutionary process from the level of individual organisms to the level of nations and races, making the nation "the sole effective unit in the social evolutionary process" [p. 42], he was able to take the romantic concept of the nation as the agent of the world spirit, and present it as the latest unassailable scientific truth. And since the nation was the agent of progress, the individual found his fulfillment as a member of the group. "Indeed, it was solely in the context of subordination to the organically constituted and centralized Volkish racial community that the individual German could realize his own individuality and effectively be able to assume an appropriate self-fulfilling social role" [p. 45]. |
| The Monists called for the supremacy of the racial community and the state over the individual and his subordination to the impersonal drive of the Volk towards greater power and strength to assure favorable conditions for its continued existence...[Haeckel] therefore urged the individual to dedicate and sacrifice himself to the state and to realize that only by complete subordination to it were 'welfare, true happiness, and satisfaction...to be found' [p. 44]. Mosse amply demonstrates the importance of Volkish ideas in paving the way for Hitler, and Gasman amply demonstrates (more effectively than this overview might indicate) the relationship of Haeckel to the Volkish movement. Yet, a little clarification is in order. Some of the Volkists, as was mentioned earlier, rejected modernity and longed for an idealized past. Others recognized the many problems of the modern era, but did not reject modernism as such, and only sought to alleviate its worst abuses. Not wanting to deny or escape from industrialism or the scientific revolution, they sought to harness these new developments as it were and bring them into the service of the Volkish ends. Fitting into the latter group, even being a leader in it, Haeckel was able to retain many basic Volkish ideas yet harmonize them with the modern era. This relates to one of the deepest enigmas of Hitler and National Socialism - their mastery of modern technology on the one hand, and their repudiation of the basic values of secular humanistic modernism on the other. The repudiation of certain aspects of modernism while at the same time embracing others and thoroughly and effectively incorporating them was a unique and singular characteristic that both Haeckel and Hitler had in common. |
Haeckel and the Jews |
| Being a scientist, Haeckel naturally had ideas about the Jews. He felt that the Jews were to blame for anti-Semitism and didn't believe that " 'that such a powerful, enduring, and great movement could have been possible without adequate cause' " [p. 157]. Naturally, "he considered anti-Semitism to be a 'national' and 'racial' problem rather than a religious one" [p. 158]. The solution to the problem was, he thought, assimilation. If the Jews disappeared the "problem" would be solved - and he asserted that assimilation "had to be demanded of the Jews, even compelled if necessary. 'It must be understood that the [German] people will no longer tolerate the strange ways of Jewish life, and their desire is to deprive the Jews of all that is specifically Jewish and to convert them to German habits and customs so that they will resemble the people among whom they live in all respects' " [ibid.]. He also felt that anti-Semitism was "healthy" because it encouraged assimilation - "...only by disappearing as a group could the Jews demonstrate their patriotism and at the same time serve the national interests of Germany" [ibid.]. And if the Jews refused to assimilate? Haeckel's opinions on this subject are not recorded, but it is doubtful that he would passively tolerate such a grievous threat to Germany's racial well-being. Here, as in other areas, Haeckel's science merely reflected prevailing social trends. In his attitude toward the Jews, Haeckel once again revealed the radical nature of his thinking and demonstrated agreement with the prevalent anti-Semitism of many of his Volkist colleagues. Haeckel was one of the most vociferous opponents of the Jews, and his importance for the history of anti-Semitism in Germany is that he did much to bring the Jewish question into the realm of biology. As in all questions the Jews were subjected by Haeckel to 'scientific' analysis and he, along with his other anti-Semitic contemporaries, discovered that the Jews possessed inborn racial characteristics which apparently were resistant to change. Haeckel made his anti-Semitism widely known and lent his authority to it in the Weltraetsel, where he asserted that Christ's merits derived from the fact that he was only half Jewish. Like his contemporaries Houston Stewart Chamberlain or Paul de Lagarde, Haeckel sought in the Weltraetsel to uphold the reality of an Aryan Christ. He therefore asserted that Christ's true father was a Roman officer who had seduced Mary. The proof of this was that Christ exhibited positive traits of personality which could not, according to Haeckel, have been Jewish. 'The characteristics which distinguish [Christ's] high and noble personality, and which give a distinct impress to his religion, are certainly not Semitical; they are rather features of the higher Arian [sic!] race' [p. 157]. Thus it was the rejection of Christianity and ignorance of its teachings and spirit that led to the development new and much more virulent strains of anti-Semitism. |
Haeckel and Christianity |
| Gasman devotes an entire chapter to this subject ("Monism and Christianity"). Haeckel felt that Christianity was against science. He and the Monists "expressed the idea that 'where faith commences, science ends,' and espoused a non-miraculous and empirical creation of the world. Science, they all explained, must overcome the 'irrational superstition' and false knowledge of mankind's religious past" [p. 56]. They imagined that they were "...'freeing the spirituality of mankind from the chains of dogmatic religion' " [p. 57], and felt that the Germans had to be rescued "from the 'chains of slavery' which had been imposed upon them by the 'priests' " [p. 59]. It may be recalled that in the section "Hitler's Christianity" Haeckel's use of religious language, including a frequent use of the term "God," was completely outside of the Christian context. In freeing Germans from the chains of slavery - believing in the bible - Haeckel brought them the glorious freedom to despise others and imagine their own superiority. Haeckel had much in common with Nietzsche here as he did elsewhere. Perhaps Nietzsche's reputation as a strikingly original and creative thinker is only partially deserved. Haeckel's disappointment with Christianity gave way in his writings to absolute hostility and downright hatred. His analysis was direct and uncomplicated. He viewed Christian culture as a deterioration from the more advanced level of development which civilization had reached in classical antiquity. For him, the coming of Christianity initiated the intellectual and spiritual decay of the civilized world. Until its advent the ancient world exhibited a positive and aggressive spirit that was the mark of fundamental social health; subsequently Christianity, with its otherworldly ascetic mentality, had weakened this spirit and destroyed the social fabric of civilization. Thus, for the past two thousand years European culture had been growing increasingly decadent [pp. 59-60]. It is highly likely that Nietzsche read Haeckel, and may even have been greatly influenced by him, though they could of course have arrived at the same conclusions independently. As to Christ, Haeckel's opinions were as follows: Christ was "noble" and "full of the love of humanity" but "intellectually retarded" and "below the level of classical culture" [p. 61] - if in fact he had even lived at all, which was uncertain, the gospel accounts of his life and teachings being "completely unreliable" [ibid.]. Haeckel had no empirically verifiable evidence for these opinions, but that was not necessary. He had long ago convinced himself that he was a scientist, ergo, his beliefs were scientific, and self-authenticating. Haeckel did have some nice things to say about Luther, seeing him as a "hero" who initiated the Reformation, and liberated Europe from "the iron hand of the Christian papacy" [pp. 61-62]. This is a good idea of how Luther is separated from his Christian message and praised for something other than the principles he most advocated. At any rate, having rejected the old religion Haeckel and the Monists proceeded to invent a new one. |
| In the place of the Christianity they denounced the Haeckelian Monists proposed that a new pantheistic religion of nature be created which would, they felt, more adequately serve and express the spiritual and national needs of the Germans [p.55]... Sharing the desire of other radical nationalists for a new Germanic faith, it was they who founded a non-Christian religious movement based on evolutionary Monism which became one of the most important sources for the religious program of Volkism and National Socialism [p. 56]...Consequently, the Monists campaigned vigorously for the abandonment of the Christian holidays. They pleaded rather for the establishment and acceptance of new 'Volk' holidays which would be based upon nature [p. 68]...evolutionary religion meant the final abandonment of Christianity and the total 'immersion of oneself in nature' [p. 66]. So great was their veneration for nature that we are presented with the ludicrous spectacle of someone contemplating an anthill or blossoming plants with "the deepest reverence" [p. 66], of Haeckel gazing into his microscope seeking more knowledge of life while " 'his entire countenance shines with happiness' " [p. 72]. This even led to such extremes as sun worship. In his Weltraetsel Haeckel pontificated that sun worship was superior to Christianity: 'Sun worship,' he wrote, seems to the modern scientist to be the best of all forms of theism, and the one which may be most easily reconciled with modern Monism'...in the light of pure reason, sun worship, as a form of naturalistic monotheism, seems to have a much better foundation than the anthropistic [sic!] worship of Christians and of other monotheists who conceive of their god in human form' [p. 69]. Hence one Monist wrote, " 'The sun is the mother of us all, and we must be grateful to it for everything that we are and do' " [ibid.]. So, when someone who wants to link Christianity directly to Hitler finds a quote from one of Hitler's lesser henchman that uses the word "god," and then uses that to show the religious character of national Socialism, he is in fact confirming the foundational element not of biblical Christianity but of 19th-century religious-science (that is, pseudo-science) in the Nazi ideology. When Robert Ley, Head of the German Labor Front, said "Our god is the wonderful law of creation, whose amazing unity of all things shows itself if [sic] wonderful flowers, in growing trees, in new born children, in the secrets of a mother, in the growth of our people, in work and accomplishment and creation" [www.nobeliefs.com/henchmen.htm], this confirms the importance of Haeckel and those like him in the formation of a climate receptive to the logical atrocities of National Socialism. That this sort of rubbish left people starved for meaning in life and hungering and thirsting for a fuhrer who would tell them what to believe should be obvious. Not all Germans were impressed with the Weltraetsel however: From the standpoint of scientific accuracy or up-to-date knowledge of science, the Weltraetsel had little to recommend it and its deficiencies were quickly noted by many scientists and professional philosophers. For example, Haeckel's close friend and colleague, the noted anatomist Carl Gegenbaur, broke off a friendship with Haeckel that had lasted for forty-seven years because of the nature of the book. He angrily told Haeckel: 'I don't approve of such stuff...One doesn't have such things printed.' Or, another typical example, the noted neo-Kantian philosopher, Friedrich Paulsen, also condemned the Weltraetsel in harsh language. 'I have read this book,' he wrote, 'with burning shame over the condition of the general and philosophical education of our people. It is painful that such a book was possible, that it could have been written, edited, sold, read, pondered, and believed by a people who possess a Kant, a Goethe, and a Schopenhauer'...Paulsen argued that 'Haeckel was not to be taken seriously as a philosopher...'[p.14]. It didn't occur to Paulsen that it was precisely the sickly diet of Kant, Goethe, and Schopenhauer that had left the German people unable to distinguish clearly between right and wrong. Thus we behold people who are far too intelligent to believe in the bible worshipping the sun instead; gazing with reverence at an anthill; arguing for racial superiority; repudiating all ethics and values that make us truly human; and paving the way for the most hideous explosion of evil the western world had ever experienced - which is then blamed on the Christians! Given these and other facts too numerous to mention, Gasman is only being reasonable in calling for "a fundamental revision of the way in which scholars have perceived the origin and nature of National Socialism" [p. xxv]. He more than adequately demonstrates that "it was Haeckel's Monism that played a determining role in the birth and development of National Socialist and fascist ideology" [p. xxvi]. The perversion of science played a much greater role in the formation of Nazi Germany than some who are wedded to science are willing to recognize. |
| This is not to say that we should be so simple-minded as to blame it all on Haeckel. Gasman is careful to emphasize that "certain key features" of National Socialism can be traced back to Haeckel [p. xxxiii], yet more than adequately demonstrates his assertions that conceptions of the origins of national Socialism need to be altered, and that "insights gained from the history of science...explain more successfully than any other theoretical framework the origin and nature of Nazi ideology" [p. xi]. Other aspects and sources of Nazism are "also important to bear in mind, but its ideological nature was most clearly apparent in the way that Haeckel had formulated his idiosyncratic Weltanschauung" [pp. xi-xii]. The anti-rational or irrational nature of Naziism has obscured the fact that its irrationality is in fact the logical outcome of definite and logically comprehensible presuppositions, and not something that just appeared out of thin air. This is one of the most terrible and little recognized aspects of the Holocaust and of national Socialism: the firm belief that the bizarre logical contortions of Hitler were true, a correct philosophy of life in accordance with Nature. Significantly, in analyzing the roots of Haeckel's thought, Gasman discerns "three streams of thought: German philosophical romantic idealism, scientific positivism and materialism, and Darwinism." He does not trace this profound rejection of Christianity back to Christianity. There is one more facet of this topic that speaks volumes about the 19th-century German Christianity that was later to submit so obsequiously to Hitler and even support him. That is the subject of Haeckel's church membership. Haeckel's parents were in his own words members of "the Free Evangelical Church then under the charge of Schleiermacher" [p.58]. In a description of his spiritual journey entitled My Church Departure, Haeckel described himself as being in his youth "a convinced and zealous adherent of that liberal form of Protestantism" [ibid.]. This feeble and shallow caricature of Christianity was unable to withstand the challenge of science, and (partly as a result of his university studies) Haeckel "reached 'the conviction that mystic faith-teachings of the Christian religion were completely irreconcilable with the certain results of scientific experience' " [ibid.]. What scientific proof he found demonstrating that Christ did not rise from the dead is not indicated. Yet, although Haeckel had long since abandoned any belief in Christianity, no matter how watered down, he still remained a member of the church and did not officially depart from it until he was nearly eighty. Writing about his departure from the church, he explained that he had not left the church earlier "solely 'out of regard for family and friends' to whom leaving would have 'brought heavy sorrow and injury' " [p.59]. First of all, since Haeckel was widely known for many years as an outspoken opponent of Christianity and one of the nation's foremost advocates of many teachings completely contrary to the bible, the leaders of the church of which he was a member (after having given him a chance to reconsider) should have informed him that he was welcome to visit the church at any time as a guest, but that he was no longer a member, and would not be allowed to partake of communion or have a voice in any internal affairs of the church. Allowing such a person to remain in the church reveals a complete ignorance of the nature and the purpose of the church. This is only to be expected of people who thought that Jesus swooned on the cross and then somehow regained consciousness in the tomb, crawled forth broken, bleeding, and barely alive, and founded a new religion. Secondly, his family and friends, if they had had the slightest understanding of biblical Christianity, would have realized that church membership was of absolutely no significance, meaning, or value for someone who lacked saving faith in Christ. Here is the real complicity of Christian in the Holocaust - in either abandoning the faith altogether, or holding to it in the abstract but failing to contend for it. |
Haeckel and Hitler |
| There are other intriguing aspects to The Scientific Origins of National Socialism that need to be passed over for the sake of brevity: the uniquely German background to Haeckel's creative interpretations of Darwinism; the flourishing of Monist organizations and publications in the Third Reich; the extent to which Monism lent itself to varying interpretations, including left-wing, liberal, and even Marxist ones; responses to those who try to defend Haeckel - anyone who has an interest in these subjects is encouraged to read Gasman's highly significant book themselves. One more aspect does need to be considered though - the possibility of a direct relationship between Haeckel's thought and Hitler's. Gasman contends that there is a connection; he asserts: "It has only relatively recently been observed that a relationship appears to exist between, on the one hand, the general outlook of Hitler and the framework in which he cast his ideas and, on the other hand, the social Darwinism of Haeckel and the Monists" [p. 159]. Seeking to examine this relationship, Gasman relies on the Table Talk (Tischgespraeche), and also on Hitler's Secret Book, a sequel to Mein Kampf written several years afterward and discovered in 1945. Both sources are, as far as I know, accepted by reputable historians, although someone (as has been said earlier in this essay) who wanted to prove Hitler's Christianity asserted that the extremely anti-Christian statements in the Table Talk were the result of Bormann's editing. Since, however, Gasman refers not merely to anti-Christian statements but also to statements on many other subjects, that objection is of limited force. More intensive probing into the ideological framework of Hitler's thinking, especially as intimately recorded in his Tischgespraeche, reveals a critical, general and also a specific relationship with the ideas of Haeckel. Indeed, rightly considered, a number of Hitler's conversations and the content of some of his writings emerge as an extended paraphrase and at times even plagiarism of Haeckel's Naturliche Schoepfungsgeschichte and the Weltraetsel [p. 160]...Hitler's views on history, politics, religion, Christianity, nature, eugenics, science, art, and evolution, however eclectic, and despite the plurality of their sources, coincide for the most part with those of Haeckel and are more than occasionally expressed in very much the same language. Naturally this is not to deny the influence on Hitler of many other writers and Volkish intellectuals, for it is apparent, that Hitler's views were far too heterogeneous a compilation to be limited to a single source. Yet, the evidence does seem to show parallels and affinities between Hitler and Haeckel that so far have not been satisfactorily explored and determined [p. 161]. It does seem reasonable that the young Hitler would have come across the Weltraetsel, which "was one of the most read and popular books in Germany during the first decade of the century" [ibid.]. That the book would have appealed to Hitler had he read it is self evident - it contains nothing to contradict the views he later came to hold, and much to confirm them. Gasman then refers to a quote from Rauschning - problems with this source have already been discussed, but it is entirely possible that some of the contents are genuine. Whatever the case, the argument does not rest on a quote from one source. It rests on a general affinity between Haeckel and Hitler that shows itself in numerous instances. For example: |
| In the Tischgespraeche, one of the words and concepts most frequently employed by Hitler was Wissenschaft, science. From the content of his conversations it is patently clear that he thought of himself as rooted in the rational and scientific tradition of modern European civilization and that he was certain that there was a basis in science for all of the beliefs and policies which he espoused [p. 162]. Does anyone want to object that this is the result of Bormann's editing? They are free to do so. A similar "scientific" emphasis is also evident in Mein Kampf (see for example Vol. I Chap. 11). But, there are more specific similarities between Haeckel and Hitler: Like the Monists, Hitler was concerned with preserving and maintaining the biological prowess of Germany: just as weaker animals were weeded out by natural selection or struggle so too must weaker human beings be eliminated. And he evoked the memory and tradition of the eugenic practices of the ancient Spartans in language virtually identical to Haeckel's [p. 163]. Referring to the struggle for existence, "the lower and weaker races were bound to die out, and here again Hitler appears to plagiarize Haeckel. One need only compare their definitions of racial difference...These nearly identical passages would appear to suggest that Haeckel's ideas and characteristic formulations did somehow reach and affect the mind and thinking of Hitler" [p. 164]. In many areas the thought of Haeckel was in agreement with that of Hitler: scientific objections to Christianity; belief in evolution disproving Christianity; replacing Christianity with a "religion of nature and science" [p. 168]; the negative effects of Christianity on civilization; the certainty that Jesus was not a Jew; a belief in eugenics, in eliminating the weak and the unfit; the animal nature of man; racial differences - it is or should be evident that "Both Hitler and Haeckel shared a common sense of mission in regard to man and to his relationship to nature" [p. 162]. "In the development of racism, racial eugenics, Germanic Christianity, nature worship, and anti-Semitism, Haeckel and the Monists were an important source and a major inspiration for many of the diverse streams of thought which came together later on under the banner of National Socialism" [p. 147]. |
| He also asserts: ...the content of the writings of Haeckel and the ideas of his followers - their general political, philosophical, scientific, and social orientation - were proto-Nazi in character, and that the Darwinist movement which he created, one of the most powerful forces in nineteenth- and twentieth-century German intellectual history, may be fully understood as a prelude to the doctrine of National Socialism [p. xxxviii]. |
Mein Kampf |
| After having looked at the ideas of Wagner, Nietzsche, and Haeckel, it seems appropriate to make some comments on Mein Kampf. The book is, to me at least, unreadable. I made a couple of efforts to get through it and gave up. Looking at a few chapters in connection with this essay, however, I found a number of interesting points. Vol. I chap. 11 ("Nation and Race") is especially significant. The parallels with Haeckel's general view of life and nature are clearly evident. Comments on Jews, art, and music are no doubt similar to and probably identical to those of Wagner (I have not pored over Wagner's scribblings). The assertion that the Jews have a stronger instinct of self-preservation than other races is identical to that expressed by Nietzsche, as is Hitler's idea that the Jews use democracy and parliamentarianism to bring about the rule of the stupid and incompetent majority at the expense of the strongest and best. This is also consistent not only with Nietzsche, but also with romantic Volkism (Wagner) and scientific Volkism (Haeckel). The last two are not incompatible as they might at first seem, because Haeckel's scientific Volkism was merely the same underlying world view as the former disguised in scientific language. Thus science, which is allegedly neutral and impartial, served in this instance only to fortify the personal biases of the scientist. A statement in the same chapter about Jesus showing his enmity to Jews as adversaries of humanity when he drove the Jews out of the temple reveals a complete ignorance of Christ's mission - not to mention getting the facts wrong. Christ drove out the sellers and the money changers, not "the Jews." Hitler also defines "sin" not in the biblical sense, but as rebellion against the "laws of nature." In spite of the fact that he tossed out a few rhetorical scraps every once in a while to deceive the simple-minded Christians, Hitler in this chapter, as in the whole book, as in his whole adult life, was a complete stranger to biblical concepts of sin and righteousness. The social Darwinist emphasis is strong: "higher species...struggle...selective improvements...if such a law did not direct the process of evolution...higher development of organic life...objective scientific truth...cold logic...(struggle) is one of the causes underlying the process of development...the weaker will have to submit...a new and rigorous selection takes place..." [www.stormfront.org/books/mein_kampf/mkv1ch11.html]. If there had been so many references to Christianity we would never hear the end of it - and these references to social Darwinism are not merely rhetorical, but fully consistent with Hitler's philosophy and actions. But, if Hitler's ideas are based on many principles identical to those of many secularists today - though of course Hitler went in a different direction - that is something many are reluctant to consider. Vol. II chap. 4 has many references to the "folkish philosophy" and the "folkish state." Needless to say there are no references to Paul's teachings about the role of government. These ideas are deeply rooted in the 19th century, and Mosse has laid some of them bare with thorough and detailed scholarship. |
TOP OF PAGE CONTINUE BACK TO OUTLINE |