how hitler ideology was influenced by their scientific theory...
plz...
. right answer guys
Answers
Answer:
This is a reply to Robert J. Richards' essays, "Was Hitler a Darwinian?" and "The German Reception of Darwin's Theory, 1860-1945," accessed on October 12, 2011. Richards' essay, "Was Hitler a Darwinian?" and part of his essay, "The German Reception of Darwin's Theory, 1860-1945," attempt to refute my two book-length treatments dealing with the ideological connections between Darwinism and Nazism (From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany and Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress). In his zeal to disprove my position, he makes a number of serious historical mistakes. I will not have time to deal with every single error, but I will focus on the following crucial falsehoods to show that his main arguments are untenable:
1. Richards maintains, "Clearly, Hitler simply rejected an essential component of Darwinian theory, the origin of human beings from ape-like ancestors."
2. Richards accuses me of playing a "sly trick" by translating Entwicklung as evolution.
3. Richards claims that Hitler believed in fixed biological types, and thus rejected evolution altogether.
4. Richards argues that "Darwinian evolutionary theory held no special place within the community of biologists supportive of National Socialism . . . and officials in that party utterly rejected Darwinian theory."
5. Richards claims that Gobineau's racism and Hitler's notion of racial purity that flowed from Gobineau was antithetical to Darwinism.
6. Richards argues that Hitler's racial theory came from "one source in particular," i.e., H. S. Chamberlain, and since Chamberlain rejected Darwinian evolution, then Hitler's views were not Darwinian, either.
7. Richards states that I ignore many factors that gave rise to Nazism.
Before proceeding, I should note that I have already addressed most of these points extensively in my two books (and also in this response to Richards' earlier critique). Richards simply ignores most of my evidence, so I will have to restate some of it here. Those who want an even fuller refutation of Richards' position should consult my two books.