I think you will agree with me that Hitler and his Nazi party stand out as one of most repugnant memories in annals of history. The question I raise is this: Were nations that condemned Nazis at Nuremberg trials justified in rendering justice? Now before you question my sanity, please read following lines patiently. If positive law philosophy and macroevolution (theory that holds to idea that all varieties of life forms emanated from a single cell or “common ancestor.”) are highest law by which to bring condemnation upon another human being or sovereign nation, then all sovereign nations have right to do good or do evil, and no other sovereign nation can hold other accountable for its perceived crimes. Follow me. This gets clearer.

As social Darwinism and nationalism merged in Germany during early twentieth century, concept of fostering a genetically superior race called Volk (the people) was established. The idea of Volk was extended to various biological analogies, shaped by contemporary beliefs of heredity, and designed to protect Germany from ‘racial inferiority.’ The German’s were trying to perfect eugenics, science that investigates methods involving betterment of genetic composition of human race. (In this case Aryan race.) One of their goals was to eliminate ‘inferior’ races and offspring and preserve ‘better’ progeny. (This method is perfectly consistent with macroevolution and central principle, survival of fittest.) Nazi Germany figured if they could win war and purge world of Jews and other undesirables, they could rule world as a “revived Roman Empire” to last a thousand years.