1

Postdoctoral Application

Dr. Geoffrey Roche

April 16th 2007

1.1 Project Title: ROME VS. ISRAEL

Nietzsche and the Nazi Cultural Revolution 1

1.2 Project Summary Europe! Happy land where for so long a time the arts, sciences, and philosophy have

flourished; you whose wisdom and power seem destined to command the rest of the

world! Do you never tire of the false dreams invented by the impostors in order to

deceive the brutish slaves of the Egyptians? [...] Leave to the stupid Hebrews, to the

frenzied imbeciles, and to the cowardly and degraded Asiatics these superstitions

which are as vile as they are mad....”

Baron d’Holbach L’esprit du Judaïsme (1750). 2

“Philosophers have merely interpreted Nietzsche, and in different ways, but the Nazis

have realized him.” The opinion is widespread…. is this right? What is it to ‘realize’

a philosopher?

Martin Schwab, Nietzsche’s Nazi Affinities3

The watchwords of the battle, written in characters which have remained legible

throughout human history, read: “Rome vs. Israel, Israel vs. Rome.” No battle has

been as momentous as this one. Nietzsche Genealogy of Morals4

1 At a conference with his generals in 1941, Hitler described the war with the Soviets as a

Weltanschauungskrieg; as “Kampf zweiter Weltanschauungen gegeneinander.” See Robert S. Wistrich

Hitler and the Holocaust. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2001. p.104. 2 [Baron d’Holbach] L’Esprit du Judaïsme ou examen raisonné de la loi de MOYSE, & de son

influence sur la Religion Chrétienne (‘Londres’ [probably false] 1750) p. 200-201. Quoted in Arthur

Hertzberg The French Enlightenment and the Jews p.310. 3 Martin Schwab Nietzsche’s “Nazi Affinities” (unpublished). 4 Friedrich Nietzsche The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of Morals (in one volume) trans. Francis

Golffing (New York: Anchor Books, 1956) p.185.

2

This project aims to contribute to, if not resolve, the ‘Nazism Question’ in Nietzsche

studies (alternately, the ‘Nietzsche Question’ in Nazism studies). It is the view of the

author that Nietzsche’s thought, if we are to critically engage with it as a philosophy,

rather than a dogmatically defended credo, should really be considered as if it were

taken as a guide to moral conduct. As such, whether the Nazis (or other totalitarian

groups) had taken Nietzschean principles to heart should be relevant to an appraisal

(or condemnation) of Nietzsche’s ethics.

1.3 Aims and Significance

The project, as I envision it, will be to go beyond the standard assumptions and

approaches of critical Nietzsche studies. The existing literature on the Nietzsche-

Nazism association is largely confined to a legalistic dialogue. That is, it is largely

concerned with a straightforward condemnation or defense of Nietzsche’s work. As

such, it is not so much a discussion of a question of ethics as a question of an author’s

purported guilt or innocence. Further, this discussion rarely discusses the actual

contents of Nazi literature (or philosophers sympathetic to Nazism, such as Max

Wundt and Erich Rothacker) or even acknowledges the existence of such an entity. 5

(One recent anthology on the subject, Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism? edited by

Jacob Golomb and Robert S. Wistrich, is a case in point. It only mentions Hitler’s

writings in passing, never quotes from them, and does not mention any other Nazi

text. This is despite the fact that a number of Nazis were enthusiastic interpreters and

readers of Nietzsche, including head Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg and Alfred

Baeumler, as well as non- Nazi fascists such as Mussolini.

Nietzsche scholarship concerning this question remains incomplete on this

question until there is a critical inquiry into the Nazi Weltanschauung, from the

highest members (Hitler, Goebbels, Goering, Himmler, Rosenberg) to the various

academics who were entrusted to interpret and disseminate Nazi ideology, down to

the institutional level. Two insightful papers are Greg Canada’s “Nietzsche and the

5Max Weinreich Hitler’s Professors: The part of Scholarship in Germany’s crimes against the Jewish

people. New Haven: Yale University Press/ YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, 1999, p.15.

3

Third Reich,” and Martin Schwab’s “Nietzsche’s Nazi Affinities,” yet neither paper is

currently published. 6

Discursive Formations: Culture, Morality, and Race in Germany 1800- 1945.

Rather than a focus, from the outset, of a purported causal connection between

Nietzsche and Nazism (which can all too easily run into a hermeneutic tar-pit),

The first part of the research would be a thorough textual and discursive analysis of

both the ideologies and movements that led to, fed into or inspired Nazism. This

analysis would take into consideration such philosophers as Fichte or Schelling,

ideologues and theorists such as Count Joseph Gobineau (1816-1882), Houston

Stewart Chamberlain (1885-1927), Wilhelm Marr, Richard Wagner, Charles Maurras

(1868- 1952) Ernst Jünger or Oswald Spengler, and semi- secret cultic societies, such

as the Volkish movement and the Thule movement. (Nietzsche had strong, usually

negative, opinions on many of the nationalistic and anti- Semitic groups, so the

picture will be no doubt be complex by the time it is complete). I will also briefly

discuss some of the central ideas in Nietzsche, with a clear Nazi resonance, that have

a far older heritage, in particular the goals of eradicating Jewish- Christian morality

on the European continent, and of returning to the more rustic, life- affirming

moralities of pre- Christian Europe. Baron D’Holbach, Claude- Adrien Helvétius and

the anonymous author of The Three Imposters (1716) 7 are some of the more extreme

exponents of such proto- Nietzschean ideals, yet similar ideas are to be found in the

works of such ‘moderates’ as Jean- Jacques Rousseau.

Of the texts associated with Nazism itself, and an analysis and retracing of the

basic doctrines, value assumptions and underlying premises concerning State,

Culture, Power, Gender, Strength, Health, Race, Socialism, Liberalism, Grosspolitik,

the celebration of warfare and militarism, Democracy, and so on. That is, The

Nietzsche- Nazism question will be answered only through approaching the

6 Greg Canada carefully notes the depth of the Nazi appropriation of Nietzsche, but nevertheless rejects

the association, noting serious disaffinities between Nietzsche and Nazism. Schwab takes an extremely

cautious approach, rejecting even Nietzsche’s call for the ‘destruction of the weak’ as being too

contingent. Instead, Schwab notes such fundamental similarities between Hitler and Nietzsche as the

insistence of the Will to Power, Value Naturalism, and notions of morally relevant gradients of Rank

and Hierarchy as core values. 7 http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/unknown/three_impostors.html

4

Nietzschean text as one discursive artifact among many. The project will be, that is,

an archeology of the Nietzschean oeuvre and its cross- textual context.

The question as to whether Nietzsche inspired Nazism, whether erroneously or not,

only deals with a small part of the problem. Another question could also be

legitimately asked: what were the ideological conditions that led to such wholesale

approval (from WWI on) of a thinker as anti- democratic, as flamboyantly dismissive

of traditional morality, as Nietzsche?

The Nietzsche qua Proto- Nazi

The origins of this study are in the suspicions of Adorno, Horkheimer, and Lester G.

Crocker, all of whom saw the same three- point continuum in the history of Nihilism:

Sade, Nietzsche, Nazism. Adorno and Horkheimer, in Dialectic of Enlightenment,

describe Sade and Nietzsche as both having pushed the Enlightenment, that is, the

“objective systematization of nature,” to the point where natural morality had simply

collapsed. As such, they had anticipated Nazism: “by raising the cult of strength to a

world- historical doctrine, German Fascism also took it to an absurd extreme…the

realization of Nietzsche’s assertions both refutes them and at the same time reveals

their truth, which— despite all his affirmation of life— was inimical to the spirit of

reality.”8

For Lester G. Crocker, on the other hand, the association of Sade, Nietzsche and

Nazism is in the surrender to Nature; that is, the collapse of Naturalism into Nihilism.

Accompanying these developments [denial in philosophy of validity of norms available to

reason] was the desire for a total integration of man in nature, with refusal of any

transcendence, even though it was admitted that his more complex physical organization

gave him certain special abilities and ways of living. The important thing, as La Mettrie,

d’Holbach, and others made clear, is that he is submitted to the same laws; everything is

response to need – mechanically, some added, like a tree or a machine. Man merely

carries out natural forces– without any freedom whatsoever- in all he does, whether he

loves or hates, helps or hurts, gives life or takes it…. [a] n unbroken line of thought leads

from such eighteenth-century views to Hitler’s Mein Kampf and the Nazi infamies ...

Nihilism is the rejection of the prevailing organization of instincts which is imposed

by any culture, and ipso facto of all moral restrictions to the id (a revolt against repression

of the instincts). Totalitarianism is a defense of culture based on the acceptance of the

8 Adorno and Horkheimer Dialectic of Enlightenment p.101.

5

truth of nihilism; it pretends to nothing more than a tyrannical and arbitrary imposition of

a superego and contemplates the remaking of the individual, through the pressures of total

conditioning, so that the id is inhibited and the ego enslaved. If the effort toward

humanistic self-control and voluntary co-operation does not succeed, culture is left with

no other way to defend itself (NC: 333-334, 395).

Most famously, Georg Lukács places Nietzsche squarely in the continuum of ‘anti-

rational’ thinkers, perceiving a genealogical line running from Schelling to Hitler,

with Spengler, H, S, Chamberlain, Alfred Rosenberg (the official Nazi philosopher),

and Nietzsche as points on that continuum. Others who have made this association are

Bertrand Russell, Crane Brinton (Nietzsche, 1948), and the former Nazi Hermann

Rauschning (The Revolution of Nazism, 1939). Finally, Stephen E. Aschheim (The

Nietzsche Legacy in Germany, 1890-1990) has perhaps done the most work in making

the case that Nietzsche was central to the formation of the Nazi worldview. 9

It should also be noted that Nazism was not the only Fascist movement that had

appropriated Nietzsche (or, as the case may be, was inspired by Nietzsche). A number

of Italian fascists were admirers and commentators on Nietzsche, in particular Benito

Mussolini, Filippo Marinetti, Gabriele D’Annunzio and Julius Evola. French-

language fascist thinkers (albeit restricted to the arena of ideas, rather than engaged

with concrete politics) inspired by Nietzsche were Henri Le Man, and members of the

Jeune Droit, Marcel Déat and Pierre Drieu La Rochelle. 10

The Nietzsche- Nazism association rejected

An even longer list of writers have vehemently opposed the Nietzsche- Nazism

association. Thomas Mann, Albert Camus, Georges Bataille, Karl Lowith, Walter

Kaufmann, Weaver Stantiello, and Ben Macintyre are all emphatic that the Nazism

association is basically in error. Firstly, as R.J. Hollingdale and Kaufmann have

argued, Nietzsche was fundamentally a-political; he stood for liberation of the

individual, and always dismissed politics of any stripe. As such, Hollingdale argues

that “the connection between The Untimely Meditations of 1873-76 and National

9 Stephen E. Aschheim The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany, 1890- 1990. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1992. 10 For discussion of these figures, see Roger Eatwell Fascism: A History. London: Vintage, 1995.

6

Socialism is invisible to the sober reader.”11 The Nazi appropriation of Nietzsche was

largely down to heavy bowdlerization, the argument goes; Nietzsche himself could

never have approved of a movement spawned by resentful Schlechtweggekommene –

his term of abuse for Jew- baiting misfits. Secondly, it is argued, Nietzsche’s text is

simply too ambiguous for any stable, unambiguous interpretation.

Nietzsche has too many things to say about the evils of democracy, of socialism,

or of anything not resembling Fascism for the first argument to hold. Citing the

Heidegger and Carl Schmitt cases, Strong notes that “we cannot simply say that

Nietzsche is a serious thinker, that there was no serious thought in Nazism, and that

therefore links between the two are excluded.”12

As for the second argument, the question as to whether Nietzsche’s text is self-

negating, or even (“let us suppose that”) fictional, has little relevance to the question

as to what the ideas within that text amount to. It is not, as Robert C. Solomon notes,

“as if Nietzsche were merely playing with language.” 13 (It is curious that such

defenses are only applied by Nietzsche scholars when discussing passages — on

women’s rights, warfare, or torture etc., — that contradict Judaeo- Christian

morality).

If these arguments against the association are compelling, the question remains:

why did the Nazis appropriate a thinker who was apparently so antagonistic to, among

other things, politics, the notion of German supremacy, and anti- Semitism?

11 R.J. Hollingdale “The hero as outsider,” in Bernd Magnus and Kathleen Higgins, eds., The

Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 71- 89, p.72. 12 Tracy B. Strong “Nietzsche’s Political Misappropriation,” in Bernd Magnus and Kathleen Higgins,

eds., The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996: 119-

148, p. 130. 13 Robert C. Solomon “Nietzsche ad hominem: Perspectivism, personality, and ressentiment

revisited.”p.185.

7

Nietzsche and Nazism: Ideological and Textual Similarities

Pope and Rabbi shall be no more

We want to be Pagans once again

No more creeping to churches

We are the joyous Hitler Youth

We do not need any Christian virtues

Our leader, Adolf Hitler, is our savior.

Hitler Youth song14

Adorno, Horkheimer and Crocker did not discuss either the Nietzschean text nor the

works of the Nazis in detail to support their contentions. Philosophers, too, have

avoided the Nazi canon, so the heavy work has been done largely by historians and

those, such as Robert S. Wistrich, who work between Nietzsche and Nazi scholarship.

For Wistrich, Nazism was to the core a “Nietzschean project”:

[…] Nietzsche’s relentless assault on Judaeo- Christian morality did provide one of

the deeper sources of inspiration for the Nazi revolution, It was, after all, Nietzsche

who had branded priestly Judaism and the teachings of the Gospels as the “slave-

revolt in morals […] it mattered little that few Nazis had actually read Nietzsche or

paid much attention to his contempt for the Germans and admiration for Jews. The

attraction lay in the prospect of transgression on a grand scale, the Nietzschean

smashing of those remaining taboos that still reined in the barbarian warrior- lust

lurking under an increasingly ‘civilized’ veneer. 15

Similarly, the historian William Shirir writes in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

that while Nietzsche was never anti-Semitic, Hitler basically saw what he wanted to

see in Nietzsche's writings: “Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar

and published his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself

14 Quoted in Carl Friedrich, “Anti-Semitism: Challenge to Christian Culture” in Jews in a Gentile

World: the Problem of Anti-Semitism, ed. Isacque Graeber and Stuart Henderson Britt (New York:

Macmillan, 1942) p.8; Quoted in Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin Why the Jews? (New York:

Touchstone/ Simon & Schuster, 1983) p.160. 15 Robert S. Wistrich Hitler and the Holocaust London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2001, pp.14-15.

8

staring in rapture at the bust of the great man.” Karl Dietrich Brachar, albeit noting

Nietzsche’s anti- Germanism and anti- anti Semitism, makes the following

observation: Nietzsche’s impassioned, brutalized catch- phrases about the will to power,

superman, the blond German beast, and the triumph of the strong over the weak,

however deeply rooted they may have been in a radical individualism, lent

themselves to any distortion.16

It should also be noted just how prevalent Nietzschean ideas were in Nazi Germany.

Although most of the literature concerns the ‘official’ Nietzscheanism of Rosenberg,

Rauschning et. al, and the pronouncements of Nietzsche’s importance from Hitler and

Speer,17 amongst others, the extent to which Nietzschean ideas were promoted at the

institutional level also requires analysis. Draconian forms of punishment, basic to

Nazi justice, were legitimated in Nietzschean terms. 18In his work on the Nazi medical

system, Robert Jay Lifton writes that Nazi doctors were inspired by Nietzsche’s

vision of “all- consuming sickness and cure,” in particular his injunction that belief in

the “magic power of extremes” and his declaration that “we have to be destroyers.”19

Likewise, Nietzsche’s aphorisms and texts were widely used in both regular education

and military training from World War I on: 150,000 copies of Zarathustra were sold

between 1914 and 1919 alone. Edited editions of Nietzsche (for example Heinrich

Hartl’s Nietzsche and National Socialism) were used in schools to foster values

considered appropriate for the ideal warrior. 20 The degree to which Nietzsche’s

authority was used to legitimate Nazi society (and German militarism before it) is

such that, if Greg Canada and others are to believe, Nazism is unintelligible without

an understanding of Nietzsche’s adopted role.

16 Karl Dietrich Bracher The German Dictatorship: The Origins, Structure and Consequences of

National Socialism trans. Jean Steinberg. London: Penguin, 1991, p.46. 17 Speer is reported to have said that “one cannot but love this great and magnificent man, if one knows

him as well as I do.” Cited in H.F. Peters Zarathustra’s Sister: The Case of Elizabeth and Friedrich

Nietzsche. New York: Crow Publishers, 1977, p. 222. 18 Canada p. 4. 19 Cited in Robert Jay Lifton The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide New

York: Basic Books, 2000. p.486. 20 See Greg Canada Nietzsche and the Third Reich (unpublished) p. 3.

9

Two questions, both central to the Nietzsche-Nazism project in particular, and to

value theory in general, may be raised here. Firstly, is it really the case that the Nazi

appropriation of Nietzschean brutality really a distortion? That it was (as suggested

by the subtitle of the Godfather of Fascism text)- abused by the Nazis? This seems

only plausible if we take any fixed, unambiguous reading of Nietzsche to be a

distortion, and consider Nietzsche’s central ethical claims to be less significant than

his often contradictory statements on Jews and German nationalism. Given the

number of explicit endorsements of violence and domination in Nietzsche, the burden

of proof should really fall on those who insist that any stable interpretation is

erroneous. 21 With regards to the Nazi eugenics program, for example, to what extent

was it any less humane that Nietzsche’s proposals to simply dispose of those deemed

unfit to live? Is it just a coincidence that Nazi doctors frequently cited Nietzsche in

legitimating their policies? In what sense is the Nazi concept of the Untermensch any

different to the sentiment expressed in aphorisms such as these?

The rights of a man arrogates to himself are related to the duties he imposes upon

himself, to the tasks to which he feels equal. The great majority of men have no right

to existence, but are a misfortune to higher men. 22

One must learn to sacrifice many and to take one’s cause seriously enough not to

spare men. 23

Concerning Nietzsche’s weltanschauung as a whole, in what sense could the

following passages possibly be misread as endorsements of meting terror upon

others? How (as not a few defenders have argued) are such passages taken ‘out of

context’?

…no act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically ‘unjust,’ since

life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive, [to counter the “radical

21 For a criticism of this approach, see Thomas Jovanovski “Postmodernism’s Self- Nullifying Reading

of Nietzsche,” Inquiry 44 (2001): 405- 432. 22 Nietzsche Will to Power §872 p.467 23 Ibid. §982. p.513.

10

life- will” with legal or moral systems]“can only bring about man’s utter

demoralization and, indirectly, a reign of nothingness.24 “we can imagine [the nobles] returning from an orgy of murder, arson, rape, and

torture, jubilant and at peace with themselves as though they had committed a

fraternity prank...”25

The second question that I would like to inquire into: to what extent does Nazi

discourse on power, health, culture, the State, the Jews etc. resemble, appropriate, or

distort the Nietzschean oeuvre? Insofar as most Nietzsche scholars have not looked

into Nazi literature to any great extent, this task remains to be done. Canada has noted

the rhetorical similarities in Mein Kampf to Nietzsche’s work, in particular the phrases

“lords of the earth,” “herd instinct” and “will to power.”26 One scholar, Robert Wicks,

has made the following observation: there is at least one passage in Mein Kampf

which is practically identical to a passage in Nietzsche. In a footnote to his Nietzsche:

Hitler also used arguments that might have come directly from Nietzsche. For

example, he referred to “The Jewish teachings of Marxism” which “reject the

aristocratic principle of nature and put in place of the eternal prerogative of force and

strength, the mass of numbers and their dead weight.” Mein Kampf, Volume I,

Chapter 2. See, in comparison, Nietzsche’s notebook entry from March- June 1888

(§53), which is almost identical in wording… I thank Geoffrey Roche for the

discussion that directed me to this passage. 27

24 Friedrich Nietzsche The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of Morals (in one volume). trans.

Francis Golffing. (New York: Anchor Books, 1956). p.208. 25 Friedrich Nietzsche Genealogy of Morals in The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of Morals

p.174. Indeed, there are passages in the Nachlass that are even more extreme: yet to see the light of day

in English language scholarship are Nietzsche’s suggestions of “public suicide festivals” and the use of

‘young boys’ (Knabenliebe) for the use of “Practicing the art of coitus. See Friedrich Nietzsche Idyllen

aus Messina/ Die fröhliche Wissenshaft/ Nachgelassene Fragmente Frühjahr 1881 bis Sommer 1882.

Nietzsche Werke Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. Giorgio Colli, Mazzino Montinari. Berlin and New

York: Walter de Gruyter, 1973. , pp.370, 374. 26 Canada p. 3. 27 Robert Wicks Nietzsche Oxford: Oneworld, 2002. Footnote 183, p.174.

11

Further, in terms similar to what Robert Nola calls Nietzsche’s “anti- Semitic

conspiracy theory,”28 Hitler holds that the Jews introduced Christianity specifically in

order to cause the ruin of stronger races through its unnatural morality. From the

Table Talk:

The Jew who fraudulently introduced Christianity into the ancient world – in order to ruin

it – re-opened the same breach in modern times, this time taking as his pretext the social

question…It is Jewry that always destroys this [natural] order. It constantly provokes the

weak against the strong, bestiality against intelligence, quantity against quality. It took

fourteen centuries for Christianity to reach the peak of savagery and stupidity. We would

therefore be wrong to sin by excess of confidence and proclaim our definite victory over

Bolshevism...[a] people that is rid of its Jews returns spontaneously to the natural order

(17 February 1942; TT: 314).

Finally, Hitler holds that the fall of Rome was due to the corrupting influence of

Christian morality. 29 On the 21st of October 1941, whilst discussing ‘Jewish

Christianity’ and ‘Jewish Bolshevism,’ Hitler compared the fall of Rome with latter-

day Bolshevism, the product, Hitler, believed, of Jewish influence.30 The following

transcript, made several months later, continues in the same vein:

But for the coming of Christianity, who knows how the history of Europe would have

developed? Rome would have conquered all Europe, and the onrush of the Huns would

have been broken on the legions. It was Christianity that brought about the fall of Rome – not the Germans or the Huns… One day ceremonies of thanksgiving will be sung to

Fascism and National Socialism for having preserved Europe from a repetition of the

triumph of the Underworld… (27th January 1942; TT: 253).

28 Robert Nola “Nietzsche as anti-Semitic Jewish conspiracy theorist” Croatian journal of philosophy,

2003, vol. 3, no7, pp. 35-62. 29This theory is historically questionable. For discussion, see Henry Chadwick “Envoi: On Taking

Leave of Antiquity” in John Boardman, Jasper Griffin, Oswyn Murray, eds, The Oxford History of the

Classical World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986) 807-828, p.826. 30 Werner Jochmann, ed. Adolf Hitler: Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944. Die

Aufzeichnungen Hienrich Heims (Hamburg, 1980) p.99; Aufzeichnungen des persönlichen Referenten

Rosenbergs Dr. Koeppen über Hitlers Tischgespräche 1941, Bundesarchiv R6/34a, Fols. 1-82 (Notes

of Dr Werner Koeppen, liaison of Alfred Rosenberg at FHQ, on Hitler’s ‚table talk’, 1941) pp.60-61.

Cited in Kershaw Hitler 1936-1945 p.488.

12

Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another

hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like

whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a

conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance… What is important

above all is that we should prevent a greater lie from replacing the lie that is disappearing.

The world of Judaeo-Bolshevism must collapse (27th February 1942, TT: 343-344).

The question for ethicists, again, is what does Nietzsche amount to as an ethicist, and

does the Nazi appropriation of Nietzschean principles —at every institutional level,

from the classroom to the medical establishment—suggest something quite obvious

about the nature of his thought? One need not demonstrate that Nietzsche’s ethics is

intrinsically homicidal (even though, in a number of places, it clearly is); we merely

need to show that Nietzsche the man, believing in nothing more than Nietzschean

ethics, could not consistently object to the hanging of Sophie Scholl, let alone the rest

of the Nazi atrocities. This is simply an outcome of the blanket rejection of the very

notion of crime that we find in Nietzsche. Even the opening pages of The Genealogy

of Morals show how redundantly straightforward dismissing Nietzsche should be: it

ought to be as simple as explaining why rape, murder, arson and torture are bad things

to do. The really interesting questions, in a sense, are psychological, rather than

philosophical: how is it that Nietzsche’s defenders manage to avoid the implications

of his thought? And what is the appeal of a philosopher who speaks approvingly of

rape and murder?

1.4 Project Plan

Specific thesis questions are as follows:

1). Did that doctrine which we find in Nietzsche’s works inspire the Nazis?

2). How faithful to this doctrine was the Nazi appropriation?

3). Does Nietzsche’s work provide the intellectual resources (his hatred of German

nationalism, or of anti- Semitism; his ideal of the ‘Good European’) to evade Nazi

13

appropriation? Or were such principles, to a point, inconsistent with his radical

counter- morality and his notion of Natural Aristocracy?

3). If Nazism was so receptive to Nazism, how was it that Nietzsche has had such a

strong following amongst thinkers and politicians from every other political

standpoint, including the founding Zionists?

4). Are those aspects of Nietzsche that resonated for the Nazis fundamental to

Nietzsche’s values and philosophy as a whole? Or are the disaffinities and

discontinuities (Nietzsche’s dislike of politics, or of the Volkish movement; his

celebration of the individual, and so on) sufficient to justify the claim that Nietzsche

was misappropriated?

5). A more fundamental question is this: Was Nazism a mere aberration of Occidental

thought? Or was it, as Adorno, Horkheimer, Camus, Lester G. Crocker and others, its

rational terminus? And what is Nietzsche’s role in this genealogy?

This possibility clashes with ideal of philosophy as in some sense fundamentally

connected with Enlightenment values. In the view of Kaufmann, it is Nietzsche’s

commitment to such values that preclude any Nazi association. Yet Nietzsche himself

perhaps shows the extent to which philosophy itself can endorse aggression and

domination. The stakes are high: to conclusively associate Nietzsche with Nazism

will essentially end this perhaps naïve conception of the history and historical role of

Occidental philosophy (just as Richard Popkin has shown the philosophical roots of

Western racism).

1.5 Relation with Previous Research.

My research on the Marquis de Sade was partly inspired by the assertion (found in

Camus, Adorno and Horkheimer, and Lester G. Crocker) that there is some doctrinal

commonality between Sade, Nietzsche and Nazism. Although I sought to clarify

what this association might be, and what it may entail, in my thesis, two of my

reviewers (Timo Airaksinen in Finland and Necati Polat, in Turkey) remained

unconvinced, and felt that the Sade- Nazism axis was not sufficiently well argued. As

14

my supervisors (Robert Wicks and Stefano Franchi) warned, this would require

another book. The envisioned project is that book.

1.5 Projected Outcomes

1.5.1 Research Papers

Besides papers on the specifics of the project outline, I would also like to inquire into

various Nazi- era German (sub) philosophers who have been, arguably, neglected in

the History of Ideas. In particular I would like to know more about Adrien Turel and

Oswald Spengler. Spengler’s lugubrious vision of all Western Civilization in a state

of collapse seems as relevant (if not accurate) now as when it was first written (the

recent Alfonso Cuarón film Children of Men comes to mind here). In particular, the

present situation in Iraq seems only intelligible in terms of a basically mythic world-

view, according to which the only alternative to invasions overseas is total collapse at

home.

1.5.2 Book Proposal.

Given the scope of the project, it should be possible to pitch the project as a

monograph roughly matching the project in both scope and depth. I had a fair degree

of success with the Sade thesis, having two publishers in the United States (Columbia

University Press and University of Virginia Press) awaiting a rewrite. (Working full-

time in English and Philosophy teaching is slowing this project down at present).

However, the requested revisions may be instructive: I had written a book on a

Continental theme, but was allegedly too brusque with the ‘continental’ approach.

That is, I had alienated the target readership. (This is the main reason behind the

rewrite: in particular, I was told that I would need to engage more closely with the

reading of Sade offered by such figures as Klossowski and Blanchot).

With regards to the Nietzsche/ Nazism project, a book that explicitly links

Nietzsche with Nazism is unlikely to be popular with Nietzsche scholars, and too

heavy or esoteric for most Nazi collectors. Given the extremely cautious approach of

the Wistrich anthology, I suspect that, as a monograph, the proposed text may well be

unpublishable, at least as a trade book, no matter how well researched or written.

What is required is an angle flamboyant or novel enough to hold the reader’s

attention. It has to be interesting enough to not appear to be a merely anti- Nietzsche

15

polemic (which it could too easily become). Another, perhaps dangerous, approach

may be to present Nazism in all its appalling splendor, with roots deep in European

culture and thought (rather than being reducible to the jack-booted thugs of popular

imagination). Without understanding the philosophical and pseudo-intellectual roots

of the movement, and its attractions to a number of intellectuals (and not merely

Heidegger), understanding how it came to death camps and genocide will remain

unintelligible. Hence the significance of Nietzsche, who, more than perhaps anyone

else, knew the power of reducing morality to aesthetics.

1.5.3 General Outcomes

I have three main goals, beyond the parameters of the project as stated. Firstly, I

would like to help close the gap between Nietzsche scholarship and that of 19th

Century and 20th Century History of Ideas, and of history in general. If one reads, for

example, The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche or any comparable general

introduction, one would never know that it is a fairly widespread belief amongst

scholars of Nazism that Nietzsche’s thought was a contributing factor. This is not to

say that they are correct; but the fact that their take on Nietzsche is not even

acknowledged shows a certain lacuna.

Secondly, I would like to remove Nietzsche from the almost exclusively

exculpatory treatments that typify Nietzsche scholarship. There is a fury and a

severity in Nietzsche’s text (in particular the Nachlass) that is simply missing from

the greater part of the secondary literature. To will Nietzsche’s vision, as he himself

asserted, would take someone that had gone far beyond ordinary humanity. Any

faithful reading of Nietzsche, as such, will acknowledge this horror.

Having said that, I would like to stress that the goal of the project is not to lay

blame, or to ‘charge’ Nietzsche’ with being ‘guilty’ of some crime. I am not

concerned with making a legal case against Nietzsche, but a critical evaluation of his

thought as a practical, livable possibility of action, whether on the individual or

national (or global) level. In this respect, the issue as to whether Nietzsche inspired

the Nazis is a distraction of the core ethical problem: what are the implications and

costs of reducing morality to ‘will to power,’ of rejecting Judeo- Christian morality,

of using aesthetics, as an ultimate arbiter of value, of rejecting the virtues of kindness

and asserting the ‘natural virtues’ of hardness and cruelty? For these are all central

ideas in Nietzsche, and were all too some extent adopted by the Nazis. No Nietzsche-

16

Nazism association need be demonstrated to take from Nazism a lesson about the

dangers of such ideals. Nietzsche and Nazism need never have existed; the problems

still remain: what do these ideas truly entail?

Thirdly, I would like to apply my work on Nietzsche (and Sade) to a critical

engagement with their modern equivalents, in particular contemporary post- moralists

Charles Pigden, Richard Joyce and the late Ian Hinckfuss. Like Nietzsche, all three

hold that normative ethics is fundamentally erroneous, and have sought to fill the gaps

in Nietzsche’s own reasoning.

1.6 Related Projects and Questions

The following, related topics will be engaged with alongside the main thesis

questions.

1.6.1 Philosophical practice in Europe in the time of the Nazis

Two issues related to the Nietzsche- Nazism project, that I would like to pursue. The

first is concerned with the sociology of philosophy; the other is more aligned to meta-

philosophical criticism.

a). To what extent did philosophers in Germany critically engage with Nazism?

And to what extent were they accepting? Further, was their attitude towards Nazism

philosophically grounded or articulated? For those philosophers within Nazi

Germany, and for other intellectuals attracted to fascistic modes of political

organization, what was the source of this attraction? And was this attraction due to or

inspired by their philosophical commitments and principles?

b). To what extent were the observations or theorizing of those outside Nazi

Germany (Camus, Hesse, Levinas, Adorno and Horkheimer) actually useful or

informed, concerning the nature of Nazism and its threat? To put it bluntly: was

philosophy of any use? (I note that one of the perhaps least philosophically

sophisticated critics of the Nazis, Sophie Scholl, was probably the most insightful).

17

Two related topics that could be discussed:

a). Nietzsche and Zionism. Nietzsche was a major influence on Ashkenazi Zionist

intellectuals, which is an interesting counter to the idea that the Nazis were the only

heirs (rightly or wrongly) of Nietzsche’s legacy. 31

b). Far Right Activists in late 20th Century Europe inspired by Nietzsche:

A number of far rightists have stated the influence of Nietzsche, in particular

Michael Kühnen of the National Socialist Action Front, and Alain de Benoist of the

New Right.

1.5 Working Bibliography

Adorno, Theodor. Minima Moralia. trans. E. F. N. Jephcott. London: Verso, 2000.

Adorno, Theodor W., Max Horkheimer Dialectic of Enlightenment trans. John

Cumming. London: Verso, 1997.

Annas, George J ; Michael A. Grodin, eds. “The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg

Andrews, R. “A Nazi Prophet and Philosopher: Erwin Guido Kolbenheyer.” Hibbert

Journal, 1944; 43: 21- 28.

Anschheim, Steven E. The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany, 1890-1990. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1975.

Arendt, Hannah. The Roots of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1951.

Bataille, Georges. “Nietzsche and the Fascists” (1937), in Visions of Excess: Selected

Writings (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1985): 185-186.

Bauman, Zygmunt. Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca, New York: Cornell

University Press, 2000.

Baumeister, Roy M. Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty. New York: A.W.H

Freeman/ Owl Book, 1999.

Beaumler, Alfred. Nietzsche de Philosoph und Politiker. Leipzig: Reklam, 1931.

Beehler, Rodger. “Moral Delusion,” Philosophy: The Journal of the Royal Institute of 31 For discussion of Nietzsche’s impact on Zionist thought, see David Ohana “Zarathustra in Jerusalem:

Nietzsche and the “New Hebrews.” “Special Issue: The Shaping of Israeli Identity: Myth, Memory and

Trauma” edited by Robert Wistrich and David Ohana. Israel Affairs Volume 1, Number 3, Spring

1995. http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/zarathustra_in_jerusalem.html. Retrieved April

16th 2007.

18

Philosophy 1981; 56: 313-332.

Bloch, Ernst. Erbschaft dieser Zeit. Zürich: Obrecht & Hebling, 1935.

Bergman, Peter. “Nietzsche, Heidegger and the Americanization of Defeat,”

International Studies in Philosophy, 1995; 27 (3): 73-84.

Bracher, Karl Dietrich. The German Dictatorship: The Origins, Structure and

Consequences of National Socialism. trans. Jean Steinberg. London: Penguin, 1970.

Bree, Germaine. Camus Brunswick New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1959.

Harvey, J. W. “Community Purpose and the Nazi Lesson.” Philosophy: The Journal

of the Royal Institute of Philosophy. 1944; 19: 195-215.

Chamberlain, Houston Stewart. The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. trans.

John Lees, introduction by Lord Redesdale. 2 Vols. New York: John Lane Co., 1914.

Camus, Albert. The Plague tans. Stuart Gilbert. London: Penguin, 1947.

——————. Resistance Rebellion and Death. Trans. Justin O’Brien. London:

Hamish Hamilton, 1961.

——————. The Collected Plays of Albert Camus: Caligula, Cross Purpose, The

Just, The Possessed. Trans. Stuart Gilbert. London: Hamish Hamilton; 1965.

——————. The Myth of Sisyphus. trans. Justin O’Brien. London: Penguin, 2000.

——————. The Rebel trans. Anthony Bower. New York: Vintage Books, 1984.

Canada, Greg. Nietzsche and the Third Reich (Unpublished). July 2001.

Cioran, E.M. On the Heights of Despair. trans. Ilinca- Zarifopol- Johnston. Chicago

&London: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Chamberlain, Houston Stewart. The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. London:

John Lane, the Bodley Head, 1910.

Chandler, Albert R. Rosenberg’s Nazi Myth. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968.

Viereck, Peter. Metapolitics: The Roots of the Nazi Mind. New York: Capricorn,

1965.

Cox, Philip N. “Heideggers “Schweigen” Technik, Nazi-Medizin und

Wissenschaftskultur,” Das Argument 1995; 209 (2-3): 297-302.

Cristaldi, Rosario Vittorio. “Un Vecchio Libello Nazista di Walter R. Otto,” Rivista di

Studi Crociani 1974; 11: 214-216

Crocker, Lester G. An Age of Crisis: Man and World in Eighteenth Century French

Thought. Baltimore: the Johns Hopkins Press, 1959.

——————. “Au Cœur de la pensée de Sade,” in Thèmes et figures du Siècle

des lumières: Mélanges offerts a Roland Mortier. ed. Raymond Trousson, 59-71.

19

Genève: Droz, 1980.

——————. Nature and Culture: Ethical Thought in the French

Enlightenment. Baltimore: the Johns Hopkins Press, 1963.

Cumming, Robert Denoon. Phenomenology and Deconstruction: Volume 4: Solitude

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.

David, Pascal. “‛Sur les’ Wege zur Aussprache ‘Der Heidegger. ’” Heidegger Studies

1989; 5: 173- 179.

Doramus, Max, ed. Hitler: Reden und Proklamationen, 1932-1945. Munich, 1962.

Eberan, Barbro. Luther? Friedrich der Grosse? Wagner? Nietzsche? Wer war an

Hitler schuld? Die Debatte um die Schuldfrage 1945-1949. Munich: Minerva,

1983.

Dorner, Klaus. “The Modernity of Nazi Euthanasia” in Contemporary Portrayals of

Auschwitz, Ed. Alan Rosenberg. Amherst: Humanity Books, 2000.

Fang, J. “Is Philosophy, As Is, ‘Bunk?’” Philosophia Mathematica 1990; 5(1-2):

142-150.

Forrest, Barbara. “The Philosopher’s Role in Holocaust Studies,” Teaching

Philosophy

Foucault, Michel. “Sade, Sergeant of Sex” an interview conducted by G. Dupont,

trans. Robert Hurley, in Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology: essential works of

Michel Foucault vol. 2 ed. James .D. Faubion, Paul Ranibow, 223-227. London:

Penguin, 1998.

Francis, Richard. “The Holocaust’s Ideological Perversion of Value” in Sander H.

Lee, ed. Inquiries into Values. Lewiston: Mellen Press, 1988.

Friedman, R.Z. “Freud’s Religion: Oedipus and Moses,” Religious Studies, 1998

34(2): 135-149.

Frings, Manfred S. “Is there room for Evil in Heidegger’s Thought?” Philosophy

Today 1988; 32: 79-92.

Galindo, Martha Zapata. Triumph des Willens zur Macht : Zur Nietzsche- Rezeption

im NS-Staat. Hamburg: Argument Verlag, 1995.

George, Leaman; Simon Gerd “Die Kant Studien im Dritten Reich” Kant Studien,

1994, 85 (4): 443- 469.

Glover, Jonathan. Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century. London:

Pimlico, 2001.

Golomb, Jacob, Robert S; Wistrich, eds. Nietzsche: Godfather of Fascism?

20

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.

Grange, Joseph. “Heidegger as Nazi- a Postmodern Scandal,” Philosophy East and

West 1991, 41 (1): 515-522.

Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. Hitler’s Willing Executioners. London: Abacus, 1996.

Habermas, Jürgen. Der Diskurs der Moderne. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1985.

Hartle, Heinrich. Nietzsche und der Nationalsozialismus, 2 Auflage (1939).

Hecht, Jennifer Michael. “Vacher de Lapouge and the Rise of Nazi Science” Journal

of the History of Ideas April 2000; 61(2): 285-304.

Heim, Michael. ‘Heidegger and Computers’ in The Question of Hermeneutics: Essays

in Honor of Joseph J. Kockelmans, ed. Timothy J. Stapleton. Dordrecht: Kluwer,

1994.

Herbstrith, Waltraud. Edith Stein: A Biography (San Francisco: Harper and Row,

1985).

Hesse, Hermann. If The War Goes On. trans. Ralph Manheim. London: Picador,

1970.

Himmler, Heinrich. Geheimreden 1933-1945 und andere Ansprachen Herausgegeben

von B.F. Smith and A.F. Peterson. Frankfurt/ Berlin/ Wein: Propylaeen Verlag/

Ullstein, 1974.

Hitler, Adolf. Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944 His Private Conversations introduced

by Hugh Trevor-Roper, trans. Norman Cameron, R. H. Stevens. London: Phoenix

Press, 2000.

——————. Mein Kampf trans. Ralph Manheim. London: Pimlico, 1995.

——————. Hitler’s Secret Book Introduction by Telford Taylor. New York/

Grove Press, 1961.

[d’Holbach, Baron] L’Esprit du Judaïsme ou examen raisonné de la loi de MOYSE,

& de son influence sur la Religion Chrétienne. ‘Londres’ [probably false] 1750.

Holborn, Hajo. “Origins and Political Character of Nazi Ideology” Political Science

Quarterly Volume 79, Issue 4 (Dec., 1964): 542-554.

Hossfeld, P. “Die Welt aus dem Blickwinkel des Philosophisch Erkennenden im

Gegensatz zur Welt aus dem Blickwinkel des Sittlich Handelnden.” Tijdschrift voor

Filosofie 1970; 32: 95-104.

Horkheimer, Max. Eclipse of Reason .New York: Continuum, 1974.

Hunt, Harry T. “‘Triumph of the Will”: Heidegger’s Nazism as Spiritual Pathology,”

Journal of Mind and Behaviour. 1998; 19(4): 379-414.

21

Jünger, Ernst. Der Arbeiter: Herrschaft und Gestalt. Hamburg: Hanseatische

Verlagsanstalt,1932.

Kershaw, Ian. Hitler 1936-1945 Nemesis. London: Penguin, 2001.

Klinger, Gerwin. “Zucht und Leistung- Arnold Gehlens Anthropologie des NS-

Führerstaates: ‘Ein wirksamer Faktor zur Politischen Aktivierung der

Philosophie.’” Kriterion 1997; 6- 7(11): 26-42

Koczyszky, Eva. “The Myth of the Superman: Nietzsche and National – Socialism”

Review of Penzo (1987). In Philosophisches Jahrbuch 1996, pp.434-435.

Koehler, Hansjürgen. Inside the Gestapo. London: Pallas Publishing Co. Ltd, 1940.

—————. Political Ideologies of the 20th Century. 3rd. Ed. (New York: Harper

Torchbooks, 1966).

Kohn, Hans. The Mind of Germany: the Education of a Nation. New York: Harper

&Row, 1960.

Lang, Berel. Act and Idea in Nazi Genocide. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1990.

—————. “Act and Idea in the Nazi Genocide,” Ethics, April 1990 101 (3): 666-

667.

Angebert, Jean- Michel. The Occult of the Third Reich trans. Lewis Sunberg. New

York: Macmillan, 1974.

Leaman, George. Heidegger im Kontext: Gesamtuberblick zum NS- Engagement der

Universitatsphilosophen. Hamburg: Argument-Verlag, 1993.

—————. “Philosophy: Alfred Rosenberg and the Military Application of the

Social Sciences,” Jahrbuch fur Soziologiegeschichte 1992; 241-260.

Levinas, Emmanuel. trans. Seán Hand “Reflections on the Philosophy of Hitlerism,”

Critical Inquiry 17 (Autumn 1990): 62-71.

Labarthe, Philippe Lacoue; Jean-Luc Nancy “The Nazi Myth,” Critical Inquiry 1989;

16 (2) 291- 312.

Lang, Berel. Heidegger’s Silence. Ithaca; Cornell University Press, 1996.

—————. “Heidegger’s Silence and the Jewish Question’ in Martin Heidegger

and the Holocaust, ed. Alan Milchman. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press,

1996.

Leaman, George. “Strategies of Deception: The Composition of Heidegger’s Silence”

in Martin Heidegger and the Holocaust, ed. Alan Milchman. Atlantic Highlands:

Humanities Press, 1996.

Leaman, George. “Deutsche Philosophen und das Amt Rosenberg” in Die besten

22

Geister der Nation, ed. Ilse Korotin. Vienna: Picus, 1994.

Leske, Monika. “The Position and Demagogy of Nazi Philosophy” (in German).

Deutsche Zeitschrift fur Philosophie, 1983; 31: 1293-1303.

Levi, Primo. The Drowned and the Saved. trans Raymond Rosenthal. London:

Abacus, 1988.

Lobsack, Wilhelm. “Nietzsche und der Totale Krieg, ” Der Deutschen im Osten 6, no.

5 (August 1943), 213.

Loewith, Karl. Von Hegel zu Nietzsche. Zürich: Europa Verlag, 1941.

Lukacs, Georg. The Destruction of Reason trans. Peter Palmer. Atlantic Highlands,

NJ: Humanities Press, 1952.

Mann, Thomas. Nietzsche’s Philosophy in Light of Contemporary Events

Washington DC, Library of Congress, 1948.

Marcus, John T. “The Consciousness of History” Ethics Vol. 73, Issue 1 (Oct., 1962)

28-41.

Marsden, Victor E, trans. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. trans. Florrisant, MO:

Liberty Bell Publications, 2004.

Miklowitz, Paul S. “Unreading Nietzsche: Nazi Piracy, Pyrrhic Irony, and the

Postmodern Turn” New Nietzsche Studies Fall- Winter 1996; 1 (1-2): 79-101.

Milchman, Alan; Alan Rosenberg. “Michel Foucault, Auschwitz, and the Destruction

of the Body” in Postmodernism and the Holocaust ed. Alan Milchman.

Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1998.

Mineau, Andre. “Totalitarianism and the Idea of Nation,” History of European Ideas

1992; 15 (1-3): 227-231.

Mlikotin, Ante. “The Rise of Nietzsche (And Metaphysics) in Contemporary

American Thought” (in Yugoslavian) Filozofska Istrazivanja 1987; 22: 895-903.

Moehling, Karl A. “Heidegger and the Nazis,” Listening: Journal of Religion and

Culture 1977; 12: 92-105.

Nash, Arnold S. The University and the Modern World: An Essay on the University

Education. New York: Macmillan, 1943.

Needler, Martin. “Hitler’s Anti-Semitism: A Political Appraisal.” Public Opinion

Quarterly Vol. 24 Issue 4 (Winter 1960): 665-669.

Nehamas, Alexander. “Nietzsche and ‛Hitler’” The Southern Journal of Philosophy,

1999 V.1 XXXVII, pp.1-18.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil. trans. R.J. Hollingdale with an

23

introduction by Michael Tanner. London: Penguin, 1999.

Nietzsche Werke: Kritische Gesamptausgabe. ed. Giorgio Colli, Mazzino Montinari.

Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1973.

——————. The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of Morals (in one

volume). trans. Francis Golffing. New York: Anchor Books, 1956.

——————. The Will to Power. trans. Walter Kaufman & R.J. Hollingdale

London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967.

——————. Thus Spake Zarathustra. trans. R .J. Hollingdale. London:

Penguin, 1969.

——————. Writings from the Late Notebooks. ed. Rüdiger Bittner, trans.

Kate Sturge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Nielsen, Kai. Ethics without God. New York: Prometheus Books, 1989.

Ofstad, Harald Our Contempt for Weakness: Nazi Norms and Values— and our own.

Gothenburg: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989.

Olafson, Frederick A. “Heidegger’s Thought and Nazism” Inquiry September 2000;

43 (3): 271-288.

Orozco, Teresa. “Die Kunst der Anspielung: Hans-Georg Gadamers philosphische

Interventionen im NS” Das Argument 1995; 209 (2-3):311-324.

Paskow, Alan. “Heidegger and Nazism,” Philosophy East and West 1991; 41 (4):

515-522.

Pike, Burton, trans. “Ruminations of a Slow- Witted Mind,” Critical Inquiry, 1990;

46-61.

Poliakov, Leon. The Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in

Europe

, trans. Edmund Howard. New York: Burr Books, 1974.

Polt, Richard. “Metaphysical Liberalism in Heidegger’s “Beitrage zur Philosophie”

Political Theory An International Journal of Political Philosophy 1997; 25(5): 655-

679.

Porter, Clifford F. “Eric Porter on Nazi Political Extremism” Journal of the History of

Ideas January 2002; 63 (1): 151-171.

Pound, Ezra. Guide to Kulchur. London: Peter Owen, 1966.

Proctor, Robert N. “The Nazi War on Cancer” Journal of the History of Biology

Winter 1999; 32(3): 561-563.

Rauschning, Hermann. The Revolution of Nihilism: Warning to the West. trans. E.W.

24

Dickes. New York: Alliance Book Corporation, 1939.

Ree, Jonathan; Christiane Gehron “Interveiw: Hans- Georg Gadamer” Radical

Philosophy 1995; 69:27-35.

Richard, Lionel. Le Nazisme et La Culture. Paris: Editions Complexe, 1988.

——————. Nazisme et Littérature. Paris : Editions Maspero, coll. « Cahiers

Libres », 1971.

Richter, Raoul. Nietzsches Stellung zu Entwicklungslehre und Rassetheorie, Politisch-

anthropologische Monatsschrift (1906).

Romer, Heinrich. “Nietzsche und das Rasseproblem,” Rasse: Monatsscrift für den

Nordischen Gedanken 7 (1940), 59.

Rosenberg, Alfred. The Myth of the Twentieth Century. [Der Mythos des 20

Jahrhunderts] An Evaluation of the Spiritual- Intellectual Confrontations of Our

Age. Trans. Vivian Bird. Torance, California: Noontide Press, 1982.

Rozenberg, Jacques J. “Biologie de la race ET psychopathologie: La dialectique

mythique de l’antisémitisme” Archives de Philosophie January- March 2001; 64 (1):

71-86.

Seifert, Josef (ed). Dietrich von Hildebrands Kampf gegen den Nationalsozialismus

Heidelberg: Carl-Winter University, 1998.

Schalow, Frank. “Heidegger on Free Speech” Philosophical Writings 1997; 4: 26-

38.

—————. Language and Deed: Rediscovering Politics through Heidegger’s

Encounter with German Idealism. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1998.

Shoham, Giora S. “German Socialism and Anti- Semitism: Social Character and the

Disruption of the Symbiosis between Germans and Jews.” Clio 1986; 15: 33- 320.

Schmidt, Dennis J. “The Baby and the Bath Water: On Heidegger and Political Life”

in Raffoul, Francois, ed. Heidegger and Practical Philosophy. New York: New

York University Press, 2002.: 159-172.

Scholl, Sophie et. al. Leaflets of the White Rose. Retrieved from

www.jlrweb.com/whiterose/leafoneeng.html

Schouwey, Jacques. “Philosophie et politique, un cas d’ambiguite: ‘L’affaire

Heidegger.” Freiburger Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und Theologie, 1989; 36(3):479-

487.

Siebers, Tobin. “Hitler and the Tyranny of the Aesthetic” Philosophy and Literature

April2000; 24 (1): 96-110.

25

Sollner, Alfons. “Sigmund Neumann’s “Permanent Revolution”: A Forgotten Classic

of Comparative Research into Modern Dictatorships” trans. Derek Paton. In The

Totalitarian Paradigm After the End of Communism, ed. Achim Siegel.

(Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1998).

Sluga, Hans. “Heidegger’s Crisis: Philosophy and Politics in Nazi Germany”

Philosophical Review, April 1993; 104 (2): 293-296.

Sluga, Hans. “Heidegger’s Crisis: Philosophy and Politics in Nazi Germany”

Australasian Journal of Philosophy June 1993 74 (2): 392-394.

Spiegelberg, Herbert. “A Defence of Human Equality.” Philosophical Review 1944;

53: 101-124.

Stroker, Elizabeth. “Edith Stein- Anlasse und Anfange einer philosophischen

Neubesinnung Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 1994; 48 (3):448-454.

Turel, Adrien. Technocratie Autarkie Genetokratie Berlin: Waldemar Hoffman

Verlag, 1934.

Theweleit, Klaus. Male Fantasies Vol. I: Women, Floods, Bodies. History (Theory

and History of Literature, Vol. 22). Trans. Stephen Conway in collaboration with

Erica Carter and Chris Turner. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.

——————. Male Fantasies Vol. II: Male Bodies: Psychoanalyzing the White

Terror. (Theory and History of Literature, Vol. 23). Trans. Stephen Conway in

collaboration with Erica Carter and Chris Turner. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press, 1989.

Tille, Alexander. Von Darwin bis Nietzsche: Ein Buch Entwicklungsethik .Leipzig:

C.G.Neumann,1895.

Vadja, Mihaly. “Power and Rule in the Nazi System,” Social Praxis: International

and Interdisciplinary Journal of Social Thought 1973; 1: 159-170.

Von Beyme, Klaus. “The Concept of Totalitarianism― A Reassessment After the

End of Communist Rule” in The Totalitarian Paradigm After the End of

Communism, ed. Achim Siegel. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1998.

Watson, James R. “The End of Philosophy, the Time of Auschwitz, and the Bound

Transcendence of Communities of Differences”, History of European Ideas 1995:

20 (1-3): 567- 573.

Wezler, Harald (ed). Nationalsozialismus und Moderne. Tubingen: Ed- Discord,

1993,.

Weizman, Leopoldine. “Heidegger etait- il Nazi?,” Etudes 1988; 368: 637-650.

26

Whitlock, Trevor. “Entertaining the Third Reich: Illusions of Wholeness in Nazi

Cinema” British Journal of Aesthetics January 1996; 38(1): 109-111.

Wolin, Richard. Heidegger’s Children: Hannah Arendt, Karl Lowith, Hans Jonas,

and Herbert Marcuse. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Zuckert, Catherine H. “Martin Heidegger: His Philosophy and His Politics,”

Political Theory, 1990; 18(1): 51- 79.