…Your comment on Germany’s intentions in World War II for the Ukraine should make every pan-European reconsider any undue love for the Third Reich. I recall seeing a picture of a sign held by National Socialists at rally, reading “Der Russe muss sterben, damit wir leben.” “The Russian must die, that we might live.” This flies in the face of pan-Europeanism and white unity, and makes me wish fellow white nationalists would look to better models than such a divisive role model like Adolf Hitler.
Hitler was right on almost everything, and if Ukrainians of all people can see past his errors and give him serious thought, what’s your excuse? What’s anybody’s excuse?
My excuse is that I value the nations of Europe, and don’t support subtracting from them due to petty nationalisms. You’ve observed yourself, within the comments of this very article, that some of us hate Jews more than they love their race. The same situation can happen within the Ukraine. The most anti-Jewish leader in modern history is inspiring them to forget that the same man would have erased the Ukrainian nation from the Earth. What did the Ukraine do to deserve this from Germany?...
…I am not saying we cannot give Hitler “serious thought,” but given his wishes to do away with whole European nations, Hitler does not deserve the reputation he holds among some white nationalists. Part of that serious thought is recognizing vital flaws in his designs for a post-war Europe.
In this exchange (excerpts of the original reproduced above), I side 100% with Dan. The American “movement” is fossilized by rigid dogmas: certain European ethnies/subraces are “good” and “pure” and “white,” while others are cringing admixed swart subhumans; all great civilizations and accomplishments came from those “good” groups, etc. – and of course, the slavish worship of Saint Adolf is one of the most rigid dogmas of all.
Before the Hitler admirers have apoplexy over my blasphemy, let me say a few things in favor of the “man against time” (or whatever it was that crazed old hag said about Uncle Adolf). If forced to decide on a “good guy” vs. “bad guy” Manichean label for Hitler, I would choose “good guy.” The basic principles of national socialism are excellent (I myself am a national socialist, but not a Hitlerian) and Hitler’s domestic policies were sound. Of course, there are problems: much of Mein Kampf reads like the unbalanced ramblings straight from Ostara magazine (or from typical modern “movement” texts), and the “Fuhrer principle” put too much despotic power in the hands of one man (in On Genetic Interests, Salter rightfully critiques the defective political institutions of historically fascist regimes). But, that said, with respect to Germany itself, Hitler does deserve the high reputation he enjoys in the “movement.”
The basic problem occurs when we extend our analysis to the broader continental and global racial and civilizational spheres. While there was a dim undercurrent of a broader “White nationalism” in Hitler’s thought, he was, at essence, a German Imperialist, and a pan-Germanic Nordicist. For people who like that sort of thing (e.g., most of the American “movement”) that’s all well and good. But for pan-European activists such as myself (and, apparently, this “Dan” fellow as well), Hitler’s narrower racial focus was and remains a serious problem. It’s not a peripheral issue, but it is central to Hitler’s views on race, and central to his actions in the sphere of foreign policy.
Hitler’s foreign policy was as bad as his domestic policy was good. Yes, I know, the apologists will say, “but he had no choice.” That is not true. Reading Hitler’s War, by David Irving (who cannot be viewed as harboring any anti-Hitler bias), one can easily see that Adolf had several opportunities to change course – WWII was not inevitable had he given up his fixation on territorial expansion within Europe and had, for example, agreed to the British offer of overseas colonies and integration into the Western European colonial arrangement.
Then there is the “Icebreaker” argument: that Hitler’s invasion of the USSR forestalled Stalin’s offensive against Europe, and saved all of Europe from being submerged into the Bolshevik morass. To the extent this is true, it was serendipity: after all, Hitler had been planning a German colonization of the East from the start of his political career, two decades before Stalin began massing troops on the USSR’s western frontiers. Hitler’s idea to dispossess the Slavs and turn them into a helot race was a fundamental part of his grand racial-geopolitical vision – it wasn’t merely a reaction to Soviet troop buildups or derived from an altruistic desire to “save Europe.” One can point out as well that by dividing Poland with Stalin, Hitler brought the USSR closer to Western Europe, and, of course, starting WWII over the Polish Corridor wasn’t exactly part of any “grand plan” to forestall a Soviet invasion.
More fundamentally: were there any other ways to deal with the Soviet threat to Europe? Everyone knows that Yockey dedicated his book Imperium to Hitler, the “Hero” of the Second World War. I disagree with Yockey – there were no heroes in that war, only greater or lesser villains. But Yockey had something else to say in Imperium about another leader of that era, one considered by most in the “movement” to have been nothing more than a blustering buffoon:
The end of capitalism and nationalism was symbolized by the creation and the genius of Benito Mussolini, who proclaimed in the teeth of the apparent world-victory of 19th century ideas, the organization-will and Inner Imperative of the 20th century, the Resurgence of Authority, and Ethical Socialism. Precisely when the materialistic ideologists were playing logical exercises with international politics, and creating a stupid and useless “league of nations,” this herald of the Future defied the still born nonsense of Geneva, and re-embodied the will-to-power and heroism of Western man. Over the paeans of democracy,” Mussolini spoke of the corpse of democracy.
The Duce was aware that the lazy, hedonistic “Med” Italians were too inept and degenerate to impose their will on Europe by force, unlike the more dynamic and disciplined “Alpine-Nord” Germans. Thus, Benito chose a more political route, which most likely was the correct approach. He maintained diplomatic relations on good terms with the Western democracies - until the Ethiopia war - while beginning the process of trying (unsuccessfully) to build a Fascist International (e.g., the Montreux conferences).
Those conferences had their problems, but those problems could have been dealt with if Hitler had been willing to “play ball,” had Mussolini not been annoyed over Austria and if he didn't have the need to fear Hitler and German expansionism (which he did, one reason for his eventual alliance with Hitler), and had all involved understood the need for a more generalized definition for “fascism” (a topic for another day). The potential was there, it just needed proper leadership and it needed a spirit of cooperation instead of the usual rightist fractiousness. It needed, in the last analysis, someone willing and able to fuse the racial and socioeconomic aspects of fascism. Hitler alone could not do it, and Mussolini alone failed. Together, they may have succeeded.
An alliance between Fuhrer and Duce to build a Fascist Alliance in Europe, supporting groups like the Romanian Legionary Movement (with strong backing from Germany and Italy, Codreanu could have come to power, rather than be murdered by state authority), could have built a strong anti-communist alliance throughout Central and Eastern Europe - a blockade to Soviet expansionism. Perhaps, not fearing European German expansionism, Great Britain and France could have joined some sort of anti-communist alliance. If not, the situation may have evolved into a three-way Cold War of Fascism vs. Marxism vs. Liberal Democracy. Or, perhaps, other options, for better or worse, could have been on the table. But, instead, the absolute worst outcome happened: another world war that, after the damage done 1914-1918 in the first Great War, completely wrecked the White World.
It wasn’t like any of this couldn’t have been foreseen: in The Rising Tide of Color, Stoddard warned of the consequences of yet another round of fratricidal intra-European conflict. But Saint Adolf was intent on his hegemonic eastern expansion. Hitler cared for Germany and not for Europe; he cared for Germanics and not for Europeans. And because of that, ALL Europeans, including the Germanics, are suffering for it. For that, above all else, Hitler deserves to be critiqued and condemned.
That the “movement” cannot readjust its views on Hitler to incorporate the bad along with the good means that: (1) they can’t get over their fanboy man-crush on Hitler – the Cult of Saint Adolf, (2) they have incredibly bad judgment, and/or (3) they essentially agree with Hitler’s views on race and agree that the cost/benefit ratio of German expansionism and colonization at the expense of other Europeans was worth it.
Regardless, that’s not my view, and another reason I believe that the American “movement” has got to go.
It’s time for an objective racial-historical-political reevaluation of “the meaning of Hitler” – a man who was neither a demigod nor a monster, but an interesting, dynamic, world-historical leader who had profound effects on the course of White history, and the future that we face.
The Old Movement, decrepit and fossilized, adhering to rigid dogma with religious fervor, is incapable of such an assessment, as much as they are incapable of anything else. A New Movement, one would hope, would be different and better.