AFFORDABLE HOUSTON CRIMINAL ATTORNEYS

Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust
by Jerry Bergman

© 1999 Answers in Genesis

First published in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13(2):101–111, 1999
All Rights Reserved.

Editor’s Note: Further back-ground on this topic may be found in Joe Keysor’s work on “Hitler, Germany, and the Holocaust”.

Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies.

Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’.

This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool.

The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory.

This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’.

Introduction

Of the many factors that produced the Nazi holocaust and World War II, one of the most important was Darwin’s notion that evolutionary progress occurs mainly as a result of the elimination of the weak in the struggle for survival.

Although it is no easy task to assess the conflicting motives of Hitler and his supporters, Darwinism-inspired eugenics clearly played a critical role. Darwinism justified and encouraged the Nazi views on both race and war.

If the Nazi party had fully embraced and consistently acted on the belief that all humans were descendants of Adam and Eve and equal before the creator God, as taught in both the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, the holocaust would never have occurred.

Expunging of the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the divine origin of humans from mainline German (liberal) theology and its schools, and replacing it with Darwinism, openly contributed to the acceptance of Social Darwinism that culminated in the tragedy of the holocaust.1 Darwin’s theory, as modified by Haeckel,2,3,4,5,6 Chamberlain7 and others, clearly contributed to the death of over nine million people in concentration camps, and about 40 million other humans in a war that cost about six trillion dollars.

Furthermore, the primary reason that Nazism reached to the extent of the holocaust was the widespread acceptance of Social Darwinism by the scientific and academic community.1,8,9,10

The very heart of Darwinism is the belief that evolution proceeds by the differential survival of the fittest or superior individuals.

This requires differences among a species, which in time become great enough so that those individuals that possess advantageous features — the fittest — are more apt to survive.

Although the process of raciation may begin with slight differences, differential survival rates in time produce distinct races by a process called speciation, meaning the development of a new species.

The egalitarian ideal that ‘all people are created equal’, which now dominates Western ideology, has not been universal among nations and cultures.

11 A major force that has argued against this view was the Social Darwinian eugenics movement, especially its crude ‘survival of the fittest’ worldview.

10,12 As Ludmerer noted, the idea that the hereditary quality of the race can be improved by selective breeding is as old as Plato’s Republic but:

‘ … modern eugenics thought arose only in the nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that century had multiple roots. The most important was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics — and it was he who created the term “eugenics” — were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.’ 13

Nazi governmental policy was openly influenced by Darwinism, the Zeitgeist of both science and educated society of the time.

10 This can be evaluated by an examination of extant documents, writings, and artefacts produced by Germany’s twentieth century Nazi movement and its many scientist supporters.

Keith concluded the Nazi treatment of Jews and other ‘races’, then believed ‘inferior’, was largely a result of their belief that Darwinism provided profound insight that could be used to significantly improve humankind.14 Tenenbaum noted that the political philosophy of Germany was built on the belief that critical for evolutionary progress were:

‘ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and

URGENT REPORT No. 2
By Citizen Hoang Minh Chinh of Socialist Republic of Vietnam
To: Secretary General Nong Duc Manh
Chief of State Tran Duc Luong
Prime Minister Phan Van Khai
National Assembly Chairman Nguyen Van An
Director of Public Security, Hanoi
People's Court of Hanoi
People's Court of Investigation of Hanoi
Also to:
Ms. Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights
International human rights organizations
Democracies' Congress and Government
National and International media
Vietnamese inside and outside Vietnam, and concerned people.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am Citizen Hoang Minh Chinh, born on 11-16-1922, former Secretary General of the Vietnam Democratic Party and former Head of the Vietnam Philosophy Institute.
I'd like to urgently report to you a serious event that happened at about 12:30 on Thursday 12-01-2005, in alley 26 of Ly Thuong Kiet Street, Hoan Kiem District, after my wife Le Thi Hong, my son-in-law, and I came back home from Hochiminh city on the 9:30 flight. To our surprise, we were immediately surrounded by dozens of waiting agitators who yelled loudly at us with slanders in dirty language, implying that I "had taken advantage of the trip to the United States for medical treatment, generously permitted by the party and the state, to make statements against them and behaved like a traitor to the country and the people and now I must be punished" The crowd, increasingly violent, began to attack us during our dozens of walks home with tomatoes, including efforts to hold my shirt and break water bottles on my head, cursing and threatening my relatives who were protecting me. The whole scene was continuously recorded by six cameras of various sizes already set up nearby.
After we entered our house, a niece-in-law of mine immediately locked the front door, leaving the crowd to remain in the yard to continue its crazy shouts and yelling. Some even demanded to come in and interrogate me against the defense of my relatives who had to stand the disturbances that lasted hours with physical brutalities against them and threats to break the door and hurt them. They kept calm and stood firm while providing the mob with polite explanation: "The old man was severely sick and is so exhausted by the trip that he is unable to answer your questions at this time. If he committed any crime, the state would punish him according to the law. It is an illegal act of you trying to enter our private house without our consent." The crowd continued yelling and shouting: "We don't need the law; the state did imprison him one year, yet, he went abroad to make wrong statements" In addition to about thirty elbowing people in the yard with cameras rolling, there were almost one hundred others standing closely against each other outside the iron gate, with a few of them even managing to climb over the fence and encouraging others to make so dirty utterances that can't be repeated on paper
In that critical situation, my wife called several police offices and authorities for help. All of them gave excuses to avoid responsibilities. Only the emergency police unit 113 responded, after several calls from my family, by sending over three policemen (two names could be seen above their breast pockets as Quoc, deputy, and Ngoc). They looked at the scene and, before leaving, said: "This is the consequence of what Mr. Chinh has done in America. We don't see any violence and there's nothing for us to intervene."
Around 2:30pm, the crazy crowd ordered us "to open the door in five minutes or it will be destroyed." My children continued to stand fast as some members of the mob successfully broke the window panes, jumped in and tried to force the door down while others used sticks to hit other windows and threw bottles of stinking shrimp paste inside my house. It was a scary horrible moment. Suddenly, they quietly told one another to 'retreat' as many of them shouted, "now we don't need to talk to that Hoang Minh Chinh, even if he invited us." They had apparently been ordered to leave, since they all disappeared within five minutes. My children waited some more time before opening the door.
According to some neighbors present at the scene, there were up to ten policemen in uniform waiting in the street. The event proved the police had allowed and encouraged violent brutalities against us and violations of the civil rights of my whole family.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
What has been described above was clearly part of some scheme.
1. During my stay in America for medical treatment, all newspapers in Vietnam, unanimously and at free will, carried articles of illegal fabrication, smearing, and slandering, from October 14 to 30, 2005, aimed at Citizen Hoang Minh Chinh. I did report all this in my request dated 10-31-2005 to sue the media before the Hanoi Court and Investigation Court. I have heard nothing from them since.
2. Aft