Heinrich Himmler's speech delivered at Poznan (Posen) on October 4, 1943, is one of the most chilling justifications for the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime during the Holocaust. In this speech, Himmler discusses the implementation of the "Final Solution," reflecting on the extermination of the Jews as a necessary duty for the German people. He emphasizes the need for secrecy and total commitment among the Nazi ranks, speaking candidly about the magnitude of the killings while framing it as a difficult but essential task for Europe's future. Himmler expresses pride in the actions taken, recounting significant numbers of Jews murdered and urging his fellow Nazi officials to view themselves as historical agents carrying out a divine-like mission. He states, “We had the moral right, we had the duty to our people, to kill this people that wanted to kill us” (Moral Life, p. 305). This assertion highlights Himmler's warped moral compass where he justifies heinous acts based on a perceived existential threat, suggesting a counter-ethical stance that prioritizes national survival over universal human rights.
Critically analyzing Himmler's speech from an ethical perspective exposes the stark deviation between his moral rationale and widely accepted ethical standards. Himmler's view can align with Thomas Hobbes' ideas on the nature of human existence and societal order, where individuals may justify immoral actions in the name of self-preservation and security. However, moral philosophers like C.S. Lewis and R.M. Bennett advocate for innate moral laws that guide human behavior, suggesting that actions cannot be justified merely through survival instincts. The glaring contradiction lies in the fact that while Himmler believed he was upholding a moral duty to his nation, he was partaking in genocide, which is unequivocally condemned across ethical frameworks. The moral life is characterized by principles such as respect for life and human dignity—principles that Himmler completely disregarded in favor of utilitarian outcomes beneficial only to his fell ideological community. The tragedy of Himmler’s moral reasoning illustrates how one can pervert ethical norms into a perverse ideology where the ends justify the means, leading to horrific consequences. In contrast, a broad societal consensus rejects these views, pointing toward the need for enduring moral absolutes rather than subjective interpretations that lead to violence and dehumanization. Thus, Himmler's self-justifications are starkly opposed to universal ethics, and this disparity invites rigorous examination of how moral reasoning can be distorted by extremist ideologies.