Darwin’s theory became popular because it responded to the ideological needs of the
imperial powers of his time. Already Marx noted in 1862, “It is strange how Darwin
recognizes among beasts and plants his English society with its division of labour,
competition, opening of new markets, ‘inventions’ and Malthus’ struggle for life.
It is Hobbes’s bellum omnium contra omnes.”[19] Although for Marx Darwin’s biological theory presented a surprisingly accurate
description of the capitalist society of his time, for many of his contemporaries Darwin’s theory
provided rather a mandatory prescription of policies to be followed. This was especially the case for recently unified nations,
such as Germany and Italy, both aspiring to become colonial empires. These countries
were historical latecomers. It was only after unification in the second half of the nineteenth century that they
had the strength and the ambition to build a colonial empire. By that time, however,
apart from Africa, most of the territories of the globe were already occupied by the
older colonial powers. What arguments could they bring forward to claim their share?
The Christian faith? The established colonial powers had already done this before
them, and, in addition, this claim had in the meantime become obsolete. Or should
they provide support for their territorial claims by stressing their unique civilizing
mission? Could the white man’s burden not also be shared by Germany and Italy? The
other powers were not convinced. While complaining about the unbearable weight of
their burden, they were not in a hurry to share it with others. It was the new theory
of social Darwinism that provided them with a solution. Neither Germany nor Italy
needed new moral legitimation theories, such as the white man’s burden. These were,
according to them, merely hypocritical veils cast over the naked economic interests
of the old, established colonial powers. They only claimed a “rightful place under
the sun.” They just claimed their part of the cake. Their only legitimation was their newly acquired power and their
military strength, expressions of their racial superiority. This new social Darwinist
legitimation theory of the latecomers found a staunch defender in the German historian
Heinrich von Treitschke (1834–1896). Treitschke confirmed that “it was the highest
moral duty of the state to take care of its power.”[20] However, this was challenged by Friedrich Meinecke, because it “leads, first, to
suspending the definitive character of international treaties and, further, to inciting
the praising of the glory of war. . . . He [Treitschke] considers war the only remedy
for sick nations on the verge of sinking into egoistic individualism.”[21] Meinecke commented: “The new German theory says: ‘Our interest is our right,’ the
old, very old English theory is: ‘Lawfulness is our interest.’”[22]
