Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hitler, Evolution, and Christianity
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2 of 146 (214156)
06-04-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
06-04-2005 10:00 AM


robinrohan writes:
He seems to think the different "races" are like different species, with their own separate gene pool.
This idea, I claim, is central, not peripheral, to Nazi dogma....
There are two different issues here:
1. Where did Hitler's ideas come from?
2. How did Hitler use those ideas to control Germany?
Of course Hitler perverted science in his own mind. But "Nazi dogma" was used to win over the masses - the Nazis were elected, after all.
It has been mentioned that Hitler's speeches were full of references to Christianity. The references to "natural selection" seem to be mostly in Mein Kampf.
Almost nobody actually read Mein Kampf, but the speeches were everywhere - in newspapers, on the radio, etc.
So, it seems pretty clear that the German people were won over by the appeal to "God and country" rather than an appeal to science. On a vague philosophical level, there may have been some connection to science - perverted as it was. But on the level of "Nazi dogma", science had little or no significance.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 06-04-2005 10:00 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 06-04-2005 2:17 PM ringo has replied
 Message 28 by Siguiendo la verdad, posted 06-06-2005 1:22 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 5 of 146 (214211)
06-04-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by robinrohan
06-04-2005 2:17 PM


Re: "God and Country"--Nazi style
Hitler didn't just speak of the Volk, he spoke of "ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer" (one people, one nation, one leader).
The Volk were not seen as separate from the Reich. In your own quote, they are "rooted in the soil". When Hitler spoke of the Volk, it was as more in a nationalistic sense than a racial sense. The idea of Volk, after all, goes back way before Hitler - without a racial content. Purity of race was a secondary aspect of Hitler's Volk.
Similarly, the Volk were not seen as separate from their Fuehrer. The Volk were the body and the Fuehrer was their head - in much the same way that Christ is seen as the Head of the Church.
So "ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer" is clearly more of a political view than a racial one.
What sense does it make to speak of "Nazi dogma" except in the political sense? Very few Nazis knew much about, or understood, the philosophy of Nazism. "Nazi dogma" was used to exploit the nationalism of all the Volk and the racism of some of them.
(And, as I mentioned in the other thread, you seem to be making your conclusion first and then looking for evidence to back it up. If you start out that way, you are quite likely to find what you're looking for.)

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 06-04-2005 2:17 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 06-04-2005 3:14 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 7 of 146 (214227)
06-04-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by robinrohan
06-04-2005 3:14 PM


Re: "God and Country"--Nazi style
robinrohan writes:
...rooted in the soil yes, but look at the rest of the quote: "bound together by the bond of its common blood." He's talking about race.
I don't think so.
The concept of Volk, with it's "common blood", has more to do with family than with race.
Throughout much of its history, Germany was politically fragmented, but the German people still thought of themselves as ein Volk. In spite of political differences - which were largely beyond their control - the German Volk thought of themselves as united by language, culture and common ancestry.
And until Nazism took over, that Volk included Jews - e.g. Einstein. It was only when Jews became "politcally incorrect" - i.e. against Nazi dogma - that they were excluded from the Volk.
Hitler exploited the old concept of ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer for his political ends, but he superimposed racism on it.
The vast majority of Germans were nationalistic, and a minority were anti-Semitic. Hitler took the age-old nationalistic idea of Volk and added anti-Semitism to get the most bang for his buck. It was political cynicism more than racism.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 06-04-2005 3:14 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by robinrohan, posted 06-04-2005 4:34 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 10 of 146 (214268)
06-04-2005 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by robinrohan
06-04-2005 4:34 PM


Re: "God and Country"--Nazi style
robinrohan writes:
You are talking about a pre-Hitler, traditional definition of Volk, and I'm talking abut Nazi ideology.
The traditional definition of Volk is the one that Hitler used.
Using the word Volk to the German people was like using the word "flag" would be in the US. It is a word that triggers a certain response in people and it is not possible to get any other response.
Even if Hitler had been using the word in another sense, the German people would have heard it in the traditional sense. When Hitler talked about "common blood", the German people heard family, not race. Hitler knew that, even if his racism made him see it differently.
What I have been trying to say is that the concept of "Nazi dogma" is meaningless unless you consider the effect it had on the people. And the only way it could have an effect on the people was by appealing to traditional concepts. Racism was secondary to that.
Surely you are not suggesting that Hitler and Nazism were not "really" racist.
Hitler was really racist.
What I am saying is that racism was a small part of what made Nazism work, even if it was a large part of the rhetoric.
Notice again what I said: In Mein Kampf, Hitler went on and on about racism, but nobody read Mein Kampf - not even the inner circle of the Party. On the other hand, in his speeches to the public, Hitler appealed to Christianity and to traditional concepts like Volk.
If you want to discuss what went on in Hitler's mind, I'll leave you to it. I have been discussing how Hitler used what little rational sense he had to impose those ideas on the real world.
Since you used the term "Nazi dogma" in the OP, maybe you should clarify what you're looking for in this thread.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by robinrohan, posted 06-04-2005 4:34 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by robinrohan, posted 06-05-2005 2:19 PM ringo has replied
 Message 101 by robinrohan, posted 06-19-2005 10:36 AM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 12 of 146 (214278)
06-04-2005 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by MangyTiger
06-04-2005 7:31 PM


Re: Hitler and natural selection
MangyTiger writes:
The elite - namely the SS - were only allowed to marry after the women had been checked to have the correct physical characteristics, ancestry, ideology and so on.
On the other hand, German women in general were encouraged to breed prolificly. Apparently, there were levels of "superman" - an elite with scrupulous pedigrees and a lumpenproletariat (with more dubious parentage) to man the "anvil of the Reich".

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by MangyTiger, posted 06-04-2005 7:31 PM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by MangyTiger, posted 06-04-2005 8:31 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 15 of 146 (214486)
06-05-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Modulous
06-05-2005 6:27 AM


Re: Hitler and natural selection
Modulous writes:
Would Hitler have been OK if every superman had conceived children with Jews? I imagine he would have killed the Jews and their children.
There was a rule that anybody with Jewish ancestry in the past five generations would be "sent east". (The time frame was probably based on availability of records.)
Of course, as you point out, there can be discrepancies between actual biological ancestry and officially recorded ancestry. (Hitler's own father was born "illegitimate".)
As you said in Message 9, the Nazis' "selective breeding" program (as well as their "culling" program) was based on ancient agricultural practices.
There was a scientific revolution in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but Hitler's ideas on selective breeding were "sold" to the Volk in terms of German culture, not science.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2005 6:27 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by robinrohan, posted 12-14-2005 11:42 AM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 17 of 146 (214516)
06-05-2005 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by robinrohan
06-05-2005 2:19 PM


Re: "God and Country"--Nazi style
Fair enough. I just don't think it makes any sense to discuss Nazi ideology in isolation from its implementation.
The OP says:
quote:
This idea, I claim, is central, not peripheral, to Nazi dogma, and is a perversion of Darwinism.
In summary, my observations are:
1. Since you are making a "claim", you have already reached your conclusion.
2. Nazi "dogma" implies the implememtation of their ideas, not the ideas themselves.
3. As I have tried to show, in the implementation of those ideas, race was decidedly peripheral. Culture, religion, etc. were central.
4. In any case, Nazi ideas were a perversion of agricultural practices, not Darwinism.
So far, I would say, your claim fails.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by robinrohan, posted 06-05-2005 2:19 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by robinrohan, posted 06-05-2005 4:21 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 19 of 146 (214531)
06-05-2005 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by robinrohan
06-05-2005 4:21 PM


Quotes from Hitler
In the OP you quoted Hitler writing about natural selection. It is clear that Nazi practice was culling the "weak". Since the Nazi standards of weakness were completely arbitrary, it was a distinctly unnatural process. It is simply wrong to link that practice with Darwinism.
You also suggested that Hitler thought of race and species as being roughly equivalent. But in your own quote, Hitler refered to nature keeping the race and species strong. Either you misunderstand his meaning or his meaning is not as clear as you claim.
And, if Hitler thought that race and species were the same thing, why would he be concerned about interbreeding? Surely, if "lesser" races were separate species, they would not be capable of interbreeding and weakening the "Master Race".
Your quotes from Hitler only show that Hitler's thinking was muddled. The only reliable way to understand Nazi "dogma" is by how it was put into practice. That practice had nothing to do with Darwinism.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by robinrohan, posted 06-05-2005 4:21 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by robinrohan, posted 06-05-2005 5:46 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 21 of 146 (214539)
06-05-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by robinrohan
06-05-2005 5:46 PM


Re: Quotes from Hitler
robinrohan writes:
I'm not saying what he says makes sense.
I'm not trying to be argumentative - though I seem to be able to do that without trying - but you just finished saying in your last post that you're using quotes from Hitler to back yourself up.
If he doesn't make sense, how does it make sense to quote him?
My contention all along has been that you need to look at what Hitler said in public more than what he said in print, and you need to look at what he did more than what he said.
Reading Mein Kampf to learn about Nazism is like asking a cow about dairy farming.
I continue to "assert" that your OP claim is unfounded, because you base it on Hitler's words and Hitler was a loon.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by robinrohan, posted 06-05-2005 5:46 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by robinrohan, posted 06-05-2005 6:13 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 24 of 146 (214554)
06-05-2005 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by robinrohan
06-05-2005 6:13 PM


Re: Quotes from Hitler
Well, stricltly speaking, you made a claim, or assertion, in the OP. I have tried to show that your own quotes do not back up your claim.
I have tried to explain my understanding of the situation. If you call that an "assertion", then it will remain unsupported.
It seems to me that others have understood what you have not.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by robinrohan, posted 06-05-2005 6:13 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by robinrohan, posted 06-06-2005 3:39 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 32 of 146 (214754)
06-06-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by robinrohan
06-06-2005 3:39 PM


Re: Quotes from Hitler
Strictly speaking, I was trying to say that the German people heard the word Volk in a traditional sense. Hitler was an astute enough politician to know that and take advantage of it.
I drew the analogy of an American politician refering to the flag. If he says, "I love Old Glory", the audience says, "So do we." Their reaction is not based on whether or not his political views are the same as theirs. He could be adding under his breath, "... so I want an all-white America", but the audience doesn't hear that in his words.
My understanding - such as it is - of German history and culture comes from what I've read over the course of a lifetime. I think you'll find it tallies pretty well with mainstream views. I don't have any references handy and I don't propose to go fishing in the "Nazi cesspool" to get them for you.
Again, it is your claim that there is a link between Nazi dogma and Evolution. So far, all you have to back up that claim is a quote from a madman.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by robinrohan, posted 06-06-2005 3:39 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 06-06-2005 6:51 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 38 by robinrohan, posted 06-07-2005 3:55 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 48 of 146 (215204)
06-07-2005 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by robinrohan
06-07-2005 10:47 PM


Re: Hitler's Christianity
"Immaculate conception" refers to the virgin Mary being born without sin. I fail to see what that has to do with Jesus' parentage.
I presume that your source means "virgin birth" (and I wonder about the reliability of a source who doesn't know the difference). If Joseph wasn't Jesus' father, then Mary's parents would have been the only Jewish grandparents.
It is possible that Jesus rationalized away Jesus' Jewishness, as you suggest, but it doesn't quite ring true. Jesus' grandparents were Jewish. Having Jewish grandparents - or great-grandparents, for that matter - would certainly make you Jewish in Hitler's eyes.
Hitler's reference to Jesus "fighting" the Jews might refer to Jesus preaching against the scribes and Pharisees, driving the moneychangers from the temple, etc. It's a bit of a stretch to extend that to Hitler's activities against the Jews.
If that's what Hitler was thinking, it's just another indication that he wasn't thinking clearly.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by robinrohan, posted 06-07-2005 10:47 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by robinrohan, posted 06-07-2005 11:28 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 56 of 146 (215871)
06-10-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by robinrohan
06-10-2005 12:41 AM


Re: A theory about the 20th century
I'm still interested in the dichotomy between what Hitler thought - i.e. what he wrote in his books - and what he said in his public speeches. From what has been quoted here so far, it seems that Hitler used Christianity more than science when appealing to the masses.
I would suggest that in the 1920s and 1930s, Christianity was still king, not science. That is why Hitler appealed to Christianlty, not science, when speaking in public. There was more political weight in Christianity.
I would probably agree that today's fundamentalism is partially caused by a backlash to the "science-is-king" mentality. But I don't see how that relates to Hitler.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by robinrohan, posted 06-10-2005 12:41 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by robinrohan, posted 06-10-2005 11:36 AM ringo has not replied
 Message 135 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-14-2005 2:04 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 81 of 146 (217211)
06-15-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by robinrohan
06-15-2005 8:51 AM


Re: Secondary evidence
At the risk of beating a dead horse:
What difference does it make what a politician thinks? It's what he does that counts.
That's why I keep bringing up the discrepancy between what Hitler wrote (in books that nobody would ever read) and what he said in public, in his speeches. The evidence that we have seen in this thread, so far, is that he used Christianity to sway the masses.
Do the professional historians notice any discrepancy?

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by robinrohan, posted 06-15-2005 8:51 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by robinrohan, posted 06-15-2005 3:41 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 85 of 146 (217226)
06-15-2005 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by randman
06-15-2005 4:00 PM


randman,
Don't faint dead away when I agree with you on something:
Good point about the cultic and occultic influences. The rituals (Nuremberg rallies, etc.) probably had as much effect on the masses as the appeal to real religion.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by randman, posted 06-15-2005 4:00 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by randman, posted 06-15-2005 4:53 PM ringo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024