Haeckel was a committed secularist. He despised religion and thought only scientific knowledge had  any value. He not only saw Darwinism as the correct explanation of the origin and development of life on earth, he evangelized for it. Many of his statements asserting the factual truth of Darwinism and attacking religion as false and opposed to science are identical in content and in spirit to those uttered by present-day champions of those same ideas. 

Unfortunately, Haeckel’s pursuit of disinterested and objective scientific truth was combined with a belief in German racial superiority. He saw blacks as inherently inferior, and imagined that the superior northern Europeans had through evolutionary struggle attained to the top of the evolutionary pyramid. 

Haeckel also advocated militarism and imperialism. He upgraded the evolutionary concept of survival of the fittest to the level of nations and of races. Thus, if one nation defeated a weaker one and seized its territory, this was only an illustration of the basic law that was the foundation of our earthly existence. If a stronger and superior race – in this case the white Europeans – subjugated weaker and inferior races, this was only natural, an example of evolution in action. 

Racism, imperialism, Aryan supremacy, militarism, political authoritarianism (democracy after all does not agree with the rule of the stronger that is the basis of existence in the evolutionary scenario) – Haeckel had some very important ideas in common with Hitler. The many parallels between the thought of the two men led Prof. Daniel Gasman to argue that Haeckel personally contributed greatly to the development of National Socialism [1]. 

His case is documented with ample evidence from Haeckel’s own writings, and has met with a significant amount of support. Yet, it has met with objections from different angles. Prof. Richard Weikart in his book From Darwin to Hitler agrees that some of Hitler’s words or writings sound as if they could have been taken directly from Haeckel, and sees a connection, but differs significantly from Gasman on two points. First, he points out that many people in Germany at that time held similar views, and asserts that Gasman oversimplifies the Hitler-Haeckel connection [2].

Secondly, Weikart disagrees with Gasman on the extent to which Haeckel’s beliefs were consistent with scientific Darwinism as Darwin himself taught it. Gasman stresses the many profound differences between Haeckel and Darwin and separates the two, claiming that Haeckel represented not Darwinism, but a German distortion of it. Weikart recognizes the existence of obvious differences between Darwin and his German admirers (of whom Haeckel was the most prominent), yet states that the Darwinian view of life as a purposeless and amoral struggle in which the death of the unfit was essential to progress did contribute significantly, in spite of differences and along with other factors, to the development of National Socialism in Germany. 

Prof. Robert Richards, a biographer and defender of Haeckel, objects to Gasman’s thesis because he (Richards) sees Haeckel as a legitimate Darwinist, and hence equates attempts to link Haeckel to Hitler as attacks on Darwin himself. His response is to defend Haeckel by asserting he was not a progenitor of National Socialism [3]. To do this, he focuses on two areas: (1) Haeckel’s lack of anti-Semitism (so he was different from Hitler), and (2) Nazi criticisms of Haeckel (so he could not have contributed to National Socialism). 

I think Richards’ defense of Haeckel is very weak. For one thing, in his debate with Gasman Richards does not (from what I have seen) deny Haeckel’s militarism, imperialism, and racism – not surprisingly, given Haeckel’s loud sermonizing on these subjects. Concerning anti-Semitism,  Gasman’s response is to me far more compelling than Richards’. Gasman presents statements in Haeckel’s own words showing him to have had in fact a negative view of Jews as a whole. Richard’s assertions that Haeckel (a) had nothing to do with traditional religious anti-Semitism and (b) had Jewish friends, are both easily answered. Modern secular racial anti-Semitism (such as that of Kant, Fichte, and many others including Haeckel) did not depend on religion. In fact, it was often involved with hostility to religion, seeing Judaism as false and Christianity as a Jewish invention. Secondly, some secular anti-Semites did believe that the Jews as a “race” had to go, but that some exceptional individuals could transcend their Jewish origins.

As to the rejection of Haeckel by some Nazis, Gasman points out that the Nazis were by no means in perfect harmony and disagreed on various aspects of their theory. Hitler himself could tolerate no contradiction and condemned those who only partly agreed with him. Gasman makes the telling observation that Stalin’s rejection of Trotsky can not be used to show that Trotsky had nothing to do with the development of Russian Communism. 

So, was Haeckel a legitimate Darwinist who had no connection to Hitler (Roberts); a pseudo-philosopher who was not a legitimate Darwinist but did have a connection to Hitler (Gasman); or someone different from Darwin to be sure, but still definitely linked to Darwin, who may not have influenced Hitler as an individual but was representative of a strong trend in German thought that facilitated the emergence of National Socialism (Weikart)? 

First of all, I don’t think Darwin should be removed from the debate as Roberts and Gasman try to do. If evolution is in fact the truth about how we got here, then isn’t it logical to base a world view and an ethic of pitiless and amoral struggle on it? Weikart amply documents that the underlying concept of Darwinism itself, apart from significant German cultural additions, contributed significantly, along with many other factors, to the establishment of a world view in which National Socialism could flourish. 

Defenders of Darwin have claimed that the idea of breeding animals to improve them was nothing new – but viewing people as animals to be improved by higher breeding was new. Can people be blamed for trying to improve the human species just as they would cows or horses, if Darwinism is true? This would require reproduction without love, on the basis of utility alone – but what does place does love have in a strictly evolutionary scenario? Can Darwin be completely exempted if people took his theory and used it in ways he did not himself intend? 

Darwin presented a new view of life in which people were essentially animals trapped in an impersonal  struggle in which the death of the weak and the unfit was essential to progress. This did encourage ideas that greatly facilitated the emergence and the acceptance of National Socialism. 

It should be stressed that certain essential ingredients of National Socialism were in circulation long before Darwin. Kant’s “philosophical” anti-Semitism that described the Jews as soulless people incapable of higher ideas; Schopenhauer’s view of people as animals struggling blindly in an impersonal universe and of the supremacy of will over intellect; Hegel’s ideas of the state, of war, and of great leaders; Fichte’s emphasis on the nation as the source of meaning in life; glorification of war; imperialism; hostility to democracy – these and other ideas were deeply embedded in German culture long before the publication of The Origin of Species. 

It would be foolish to blame Naziism on Darwinism alone – but it would be equally foolish to imagine that the concept of people as animals fighting for survival in an impersonal universe is not a dangerous and destructive one. It can easily be used, and was used in Germany, to make racism, imperialism, militarism, and authoritarianism seem not merely acceptable, but scientific and progressive as well.

[2]   Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (New York 2004).

[3]   Robert J.Richards, “Ernst Haeckel’s Alleged Anti-Semitism and Contributions to Nazi Biology”;  http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Haeckel–antiSemitism.pdf; accessed June 2008.

The present situation

Christianity is being attacked in America today as never before. On TV shows and in movies, in the news media, in academia, in best-selling books, etc., Christians are being increasingly portrayed as narrow-minded, intolerant, ignorant, hypocritical, and even evil. This goes beyond mere ridicule. The basic teachings of Christianity are being condemned to an extent previously unimagined in this country.

It is being increasingly said that Christianity has had a negative impact on America’s history and culture-not just because of abuses, but because of fundamental characteristics of the religion. It was the Christians, it is argued, who enslaved the blacks, exterminated the Indians, oppressed women, burdened people with guilt and denied them sexual freedom, and forced the gays to stay in the closet.

Christianity has even been blamed for pollution and the destruction of the environment. God’s commandment in Genesis to “subdue” the earth and “have dominion” over the creatures is said to be a license for ecological plundering and pillaging. Never mind that the destruction of the environment only emerged as a serious problem in the modern era, nearly two thousand years after Christ died and rose again. Never mind that those who make the most noise about the destruction of the environment continue to enjoy their wasteful and environmentally destructive modern lifestyles while they attack the Bible.

Part of this negative trend has been increasing attempts to link Christianity and the Bible to Adolf Hitler and the crimes of the Nazis. While it will seem incredible to some that the teachings of Christ and the Bible should be linked to Aryan supremacy, German militarism, the horrors of the death camps, and the extermination of six million Jews, such is sadly the case.

Christianity linked to Naziism

In the recent past, it was much more commonly assumed that Christianity had nothing to do with National Socialism. It was believed that Christianity was basically benevolent, while National Socialism was basically evil, that Hitler was as far removed from the Sermon on the Mount as it is humanly possible to get. The great majority of Americans would have assumed that the Jewish experience in America was the norm, the result of the Christian influence on American culture.

The cultural climate has changed in the last fifty years, however, and the growing power of secularism makes people less inclined to view Christianity so tolerantly. The well-known support of German Christians for Hitler; statements about God, Christianity, and the churches by Hitler and by leading Nazis, including strong opposition to atheism; Hitler’s Catholic upbringing and his Concordat with the Vatican; the fact that Hitler never officially withdrew from the Catholic Church; the official support for “positive Christianity” in the Nazi party platform; the supposed fact that Hitler came to power in an overwhelmingly Christian country; centuries of Christian anti-Semitism; verses in the New Testament that seem hostile to Jews; the massacres of the Canaanites in the Old Testament-all of these and even other arguments have been emphasized by those who see more and more evidence of connections between Hitler and Christianity.

Reputable scholars and historians have studied Hitler’s ideology more objectively. George Mosse’s The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich; Daniel Gasman’s The Scientific Origins of National Socialism; Peter Viereck’s Metapolitics: The Roots of the Nazi Mind; Richard Weikart’s From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany; Michael Mack’s German Idealism and the Jew: The Inner Anti-Semitism of Philosophy and German Jewish Responses; Paul Lawrence Rose’s Revolutionary Antisemitism in Germany from Kant to Wagner-these all show from different perspectives and with different emphases how the 19th century’s secular philosophies opened the door to the emergence of horrors unprecedented in the history of the human race. John Conway’s The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933-1945 does not deal with the origins of National Socialism, but it demonstrates that Hitler viewed Christianity as a rival for the allegiance of the German people and sought to eliminate its influence as much as possible, his devious political rhetoric notwithstanding.

The work of these and other authors too numerous to name have had a significant impact, but unfortunately there remain those who seem to relish attacking Christianity. Oblivious to historical realities and misinformed or even hopelessly ignorant of biblical teachings, they continue to try to link Christianity to Hitler. They have had an impact as well, and we should not underestimate them. Too few Christians understand the extent to which what they perceive as a beneficent religion of grace, peace, and forgiveness is increasingly associated by many with the cruelties of the Third Reich.

A Holocaust video checked out from the local library asserts that centuries of Christian anti-Semitism made Jews Hitler’s natural target (completely omitting all of 19th-century secular and racial anti-Semitism). A popular biography of Hitler agrees with a Holocaust scholar that Hitler was just carrying out the policies of the Roman Catholic Church when he slaughtered the Jews. An in-depth academic analysis of the Holocaust published by a prestigious university press and acclaimed by scholars from top American universities refers to the false and “venomous” anti-Jewish teachings of the New Testament and asserts that by demonizing the Jews Christianity played a significant role in laying the foundations for the Holocaust.[i]

The debate over what Hitler believed and where he got his ideas has not merely continued over the years, it has intensified. This is true to such an extent that Richard Evans, editor of the prestigious Journal of Contemporary History has written, “The relationship of German National Socialism to religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has recently moved to the forefront of historical inquiry.”[ii] Partly this is due to a natural human desire for deeper spiritual understanding that the countless secular books about Hitler have not satisfied and will never satisfy. Partly it is due to the fact that linking Hitler to Christianity is an increasingly common tactic in the culture wars. If Naziism can be convincingly blamed on Christian influence, then obviously Christians are potentially dangerous fanatics who deserve to be marginalized or even excluded from the political process as much as possible. This reasoning explains why some believe they are protecting American liberty and democracy by working to eliminate Christian influence. There are those who sincerely believe that they are defending democracy by attacking and marginalizing Christianity.

…

As groundless as such arguments are, they are effective with people who know little about history and nothing about Christianity. In more than one internet debate, I have been referred to Walker’s website for proof that Christianity leads to hatred, cruelty, and fascism. Such accusations have gone for far too long without a direct response. As was the case in Germany, the Christians in America have been too passive and inert while the forces of darkness grow in strength and intensity. The spread of such ideas will affect us directly and has already begun to affect us. We are mistaken if we think that because God has blessed America with liberty in the past, we are therefore guaranteed of this blessing forever.

[ii] Richard Evans, “Naziism, Christianity and Political Religion: A Debate,” Journal of Contemporary History 42, no. 1 (2007), p. 5

Introduction ……………………….……………………………Page 1

Part I: Christianity and National Socialism

Chapter 1.    The New Testament and the Jews  ……………..Page 14

The Hep riots … A great and terrible mystery … The biblical concept of Satan … The devilish nature of anti-Semitism … Original sin … Christian servants of the devil … What is a Christian? … Did Hitler or the Nazi Christians bear good fruit? … The Bible as the source of anti-Semitism … Paul’s teaching of salvation by grace through faith—an attack on Judaism? … The New Testament’s description of Jews … The crucifixion of Christ … Pontius Pilate and the guilt of the Gentiles … “His blood be on us” … Has God rejected the Jews? … Who are the children of the devil? … The Holocaust and the Old Testament … The massacres of the Canaanites … The Nuremberg racial laws … Hitler’s study notes on the Bible … The Christian way of holiness

Chapter 2.    Medieval Christian anti-Semitism ……………..Page 53

Introduction … An analogy … The Jewish experience in the Middle Ages … Christian limitations … Concepts of the Jews … Christian doctrinal criticisms of Judaism … Concepts of government … Moral doctrines … The restraints in practice … Government protection of Jews … The Crusades … The Church of Rome and the Jews … John Chrysostom … The apostles’ attitudes toward the Jews … Chrysostom’s motive … Martin Luther … Some misconceptions about Luther … Luther and the Nazis … Luther in perspective … A secular evaluation of Luther … Luther’s goal … Matthew Henry and Romans 11 … A glimpse ahead … Conclusion

Chapter 3.    Hitler’s secular and ungodly ideas ……………..Page 92

Hitler in the light of scripture … A blatant absence of Christian doctrines … Hitler’s unbiblical principles (i) … Hitler’s unbiblical principles (ii) … Hostility to Christianity in Mein Kampf … An honest liar … Hitler the Catholic? … Honest Adolf strikes again …  Christ in Mein Kampf … Hitler’s last will and testament … Hitler’s references to God … Hitler’s references to the Bible … Hitler’s expressions of support for Christianity and the German churches … The example of the trade unions … The Nazi party platform supported “positive” Christianity … Hitler’s policy toward the churches – words contradicted by deeds … A blueprint for the future … Nazi church policies in Austria … Nazi church policies in the Warthegau … Hitler linked to Christianity … A. Hatred and fear of Christianity … A bias revealed … B. A lack of information … C. Illogical arguments … D. Misstatements of fact … Hitler’s Table Talk … Quotes from Hitler’s followers … Nazi photos … Nazi artifacts … E. Ignorance of Christianity … Paul’s letter to the Galatians … What was Hitler?

Chapter 4.    The Christians in Nazi Germany ………….….Page 162

Judging by outward appearances … Modern Germany – a Christian nation? … How did Hitler deceive an entire nation? He didn’t. … A master of deceit … The churches’ responsibility for Hitler’s rise … Intimidation, violence, repression, and fear … A question of human nature … A few rare exceptions … Christian opposition to the euthanasia program … Hitler’s policy toward the churches … Alfred Rosenberg … Consolidation, rearmament, and war … Three lines of attack … 1. Administrative control … 2. The ideological challenge … 3. Persecution … The response of the churches … The Confessing Church … The Barmen Declaration … An ineffectual protest … The Germanic Christians … The culmination of apostasy … Wellhausen and Bultmann … The Catholics … The Concordat … The failure of the churches to speak out for the Jews … Martin Niemoller … A sermon by Niemoller … Dietrich Bonhoeffer … What should have been done? … Romans 13 – the authority of government and the sovereignty of God … A Christmas in Nazi Germany … Christians in other lands

Part II: The Origins of National Socialism

Chapter 5.   The philosophical background ………….……..Page 227

The mystery of Hitler … The need for a world view … An analogy … The role of technology … Some Russian history … Germany, Russia, China, Italy, and Japan … The roots of an ideology … Hitler’s world view … A well-behaved young man … Descartes and the “Enlightenment” … A few words about the French Revolution and Napoleon … The “Enlightenment” in Germany … A brief overview … Kant …German philosophy and anti-Semitism in Mein Kampf … Kant’s racism … Concluding thoughts on Kant … Hitler and Fichte … Hitler the intellectual? … Fichte and National Socialism … Fichte, the Jews, and Christianity … The danger of philosophy … Friedrich Ludwig Jahn … Hegel … Hegel’s philosophy … Hegel and the Jews …Schopenhauer … Schopenhauer’s anti-Semitism … Gobineau … The Folkish movement … Paul Lagarde … German romanticism … The

intensification of Folkish tendencies … Julius Langbehn … The Pan-German Association … The Folkish movement and Christianity

Chapter 6.   Wagner ………………….……………………….Page 304

A Folkish prophet … A problem of philosophy … The importance of racial purity … Racial unity and the need for a leader … Wagner’s socialism … Wagner and Christianity … Wagner and the Jews … Wagner and Hitler … Some clarification … Hitler’s youthful anti-Semitism

Chapter 7.   Chamberlain ……………………………………Page 334

A spiritual founder of National Socialism … Chamberlain on the Jews – a philosophical and scientific approach … Two key presuppositions … A secular history of the Jewish people … The Jewish idea … The influence of Judaism … The revelation of Christ?

Chapter 8.   Haeckel ……………………….…………………Page 362

Darwin, Haeckel, and Hitler … A barrier assaulted … Did Hitler believe Darwin’s theory? … Daniel Gasman’s third way … The marriage of science and philosophy … The practical implication’s of Haeckel’s ideas … Haeckel’s ethics … Euthanasia … Haeckel’s anti-Semitism … Haeckel’s idea of God … Haeckel’s unscientific ideas … A brief overview … Haeckel and Hitler … Did Haeckel influence Hitler? … Haeckel and Darwin

Chapter 9.  Nietzsche ………………………………….………Page 399

The quintessentially modern man … The Nazi philosopher? … Nietzsche’s Antichrist … Nietzsche and Christianity … Nietzsche and the Jews … Nietzsche’s view of Christ … Paul and the emergence of Christianity … The Jewish menace to civilization … More teachings of The Antichrist … On the Genealogy of Morals … Hitler’s Table Talk … Hitler, the atheistic theist … Concluding thoughts on Nietzsche

Conclusion ……………………………….…….………..……Page 434

Bibliography ………………………………………….……….Page 454

Index  …………………………………………………………..Page 462