apologies for the length of time on this - too many interests - but as I suspected its just not accurate; at all, really. my initial suspicion was that this was certainly far too simplistic and that appears to be the case.

"In order to sustain the thesis that Hitler was a Darwinian one would have to

ignore all the explicit statements of Hitler rejecting any theory like Darwin’s and draw

fanciful implications from vague words, errant phrases, and ambiguous sentences,

neglecting altogether more straight-forward, contextual interpretations of such

54

utterances. Only the ideologically blinded would still try to sustain the thesis in the face

of the contrary, manifest evidence. Yet, as I suggested at the beginning of this essay,

there is an obvious sense in which my own claims must be moot. Even if Hitler could

recite the Origin of Species by heart and referred to Darwin as his scientific hero, that

would not have the slightest bearing on the validity of Darwinian theory or the moral

standing of its author. The only reasonable answer to the question that gives this essay

its title is a very loud and unequivocal No!"

https://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was%20Hitler%20a%20Darwinian.pdf