134 Chapter 6
contestwhereinhe wouldaward10,000marksfor an essaythatcouldanswerthe ques-
tion^2 “Whatlessonscan be drawnfromthe principlesof the theoryof heredityin its
relationto the evolutionof internationalpoliticsandstatelegislation?”^3 WilhelmSchall-
meyer,a contributorto governistAlfredPloetz’s eugenicsjournal^4 and a physicianfrom
Munich,submittedthe winningentry.^5 His piecewasVerebungund Ausleseim Lebenslauf
der Völker(“Heredityand Selectionin the Life Coursesof Peoples”).^6
Themerefact thatKruppwasa wealthybusinessmanis ofteninaccuratelycitedas
proofthatNazieugenicsis compatiblewithcapitalism.Despitehis frequentadmissions
thatthe VolkishwriterswhoinspiredNazieugenicswereexplicitsocialists,Marxists,or
progressives,George L. Mosseinaccuratelypronouncesthat,in contrast to favoring
governism,“the usualattitude” amongGermany’s nineteenth-centuryeugenicists“was
to praisethe capitalistsystemas beneficialfor the processof naturalselection.... Capital-
ists themselvesrespondedfavorablyto Darwinism.” Mosseproceedsto cite Friedrich
Krupp’s essaycontestas a casein point.In purportingthatthe contest’s winnerwonon
accountof his pro-capitalistbias,MosseproclaimsthatDr. Schallmayer,the contest’s
winner,“rejectedsocialism.. .”^7
ProfessorAlfredKelly,thankfully,demonstratesthatSchallmeyer’s winningessay
wasactuallynot inclinedto promotefreeenterpriseovergovernism.In Kelly’s words,
Schallmeyer’s essayarguedthat “the statehad to takean activerole in preservingthe best
racialelements.For example,marriagelawsoughtto encouragethe raciallysuperior
upperclassesto marryearlierandhavemorechildren.”^8 I faultFrenchhistorianLéon
Poliakovfor contributingto the falseinterpretationthat HerbertSpencerinspiredgovern-
ist eugenicism.It particularlyticksme off thatPoliakovcitesRichardHofstadter’sSocial
Darwinismin AmericanThoughtin doingso. On the topicof the Kruppessaycontest,
though,Poliakovredeemshimselfsomewhatby beingmorecarefulwiththe truthon this
othertopic.PoliakovobservesthatSchallmayer’s essaywasone of the leastconsistently
racistof the entries.In advancing race-basedpolicies, writes Poliakov,Schallmayer
evincedsomerelative“moderation.. .” As an example,he “wasseverelycriticalof the
extravaganceof pan-Germanism” which,he “feared,mightleadto warswithharmful
eugenicresults.”^9
Sixtyessayswereenteredin the contest,^10 and,as AlfredKellywrites,“advocatesof
unrestrainedcapitalismwouldhavebeendisappointed” to readthem.^11 Poliakovelab-
orates,“all but oneor twoof the competitorsplaced theirhopesin Stateinterven-
tion.. .”^12
Kellycontinues,“Mostof the essayistsadvocated... statesocialism,callingfor a
regulatedeconomywithan expansionof workerprotectionlaws,sicknessandold-age
insurance,andotherformsof socialwelfare.” An overviewof the contentsof the essays
contradicts“the conventionalviewof SocialDarwinismas a bourgeoisdefenseof the
free-enterprisesystem.... Thisis an importantpointto keepin mindwhendrawing
parallelsbetweenSocialDarwinismand Nazism.” In Kelly’s estimate,any inferencethat
Naziismsprangfromfree-marketbionomicistthinkingis necessarily“problematic.”^13
Considerthe competition’s runner-up,LudwigWoltmann.To his credit,Mossedoes
mentionthatWoltmann,whowouldlaterbecomea majorplayerin the ThirdReich’s
eugenicspropaganda,wasa Marxist.^14 Besidesthat,Woltmannwasa “neo-Kantian.”^15
Mossedisclosesthatthis particularthinker“triedto effecta marriageof Marx... and
Kant” intoa coherentideologythatimploredthe Germanicpeopleto unite,as a mass,
againsta commonracialenemy.^16 Perhapsthis mightexplainWoltmann’s explicitlyex-
tremeanti-capitalism.In Poliakov’s words,Woltmannbelievedthatsavingthe Aryan
racerequired“a vastprogramme” of government-imposed“socialreforms.” Suchre-
formsincludedthe forcibleredistributionof landparcels“amongpeasantsof goodstock”