National Socialism: pro-White or anti-White?

[ogenoct]

In my opinion, historical National Socialism (or Hitlerism) was anti-White. After all, Nazi Germany allied itself with imperialist Japan (that threatened White interests in Australasia) and invaded Aryan Russia, intending to enslave and/or exterminate its White population.

Constantin

[Ahknaton]

Cut the flames people. There will be no fighting in the war room!

[kultron]

Of course it was anti-white. Any fool can tell you that. But the real question is, should it have been pro-white? No, never. Anyone who uses 'white' as a racial term in terms of serious politics is the real fool here.

[ironweed]

Not only was it 'anti-white' it was 'anti-European,' in the sense that it would have rendered the rest of Europe prostrate to Germany. And a few minor things, like the plan to wipe St. Petersburg completely off the map.

[Thomas777]

Not only was it 'anti-white' it was 'anti-European,' in the sense that it would have rendered the rest of Europe prostrate to Germany. And a few minor things, like the plan to wipe St. Petersburg completely off the map.

That is sort of like suggesting that Hamilton's vision of a national state and the ultimate conquest of the New World was 'anti-American'.

Ultimately, National Socialism aimed to achieve Imperium so as to maintain European military, economic, and political independence from the Soviet empire and the burgeoning American hegemon.

The sovereignty of European nation-states was not and is not a sacred and inviolable principle...the consolidation of the warring fiefdoms of into unitary, ordered administrative units represents intermediate progress towards the re-establishment of Imperium Europa, rather than an end in itself.

[Hakluyt]

Anti-white, anti-European, anti-Junker, anti-aristocracy (middle class prejudice of Hitler and close associates), anti-regionalist (taking away rights of local governments), anti-Nordic (forcing Nordic women to breed dysgenically with Germans) etc...

The sovereignty of European nation-states was not and is not a sacred and inviolable principle...the consolidation of the warring fiefdoms of into unitary, ordered administrative units represents intermediate progress towards the re-establishment of Imperium Europa, rather than an end in itself.
Re-establishment? When was it ever established?

Whatever ones fantastical vision for the future, Europe would not have progressed as it did without national/regional sovereignty. Its history would more have resembled that of China's if it had been trying to operate from a central bureaucracy, and its cultural output may have been cut by a factor of 10. National and regional sovereignty amounted to a kind of intellectual 'divsion of labour' that cannot take place in homogenising, centralised states.

[Thomas777]

Re-establishment? When was it ever established?
Rome.


Whatever ones fantastical vision for the future, Europe would not have progressed as it did without national/regional sovereignty. Its history would more have resembled that of China's if it had been trying to operate from a central bureaucracy, and its cultural output may have been cut by a factor of 10. National and regional sovereignty amounted to a kind of intellectual 'divsion of labour' that cannot take place in homogenising, centralised states.

Correct, and that is what distinguishes enlightened, European statecraft from Oriental despotism. If we accept the premise that national/regional sovereignty represents progress, it stands to reason that the ultimate consolidation of Europe into a common market, with a common military-political apparatus would represent the culmination of Continental power into the most effective and efficient structure conceivable. I don't think this is controversial.

[Hakluyt]

Rome.
But the concept of Europe only really came into being after the fall of Rome. The Levant was a more integral part of Rome than Britain or the Low Countries. 'Romania', as Gauls referred to their realm in the 5th century, carried strongly different connotations than 'Europa' a few centuries later, which was not used to describe an empire but a civilisation. A few centuries later half of Western Europe was dominated by Germanic culture which had never been part of the Roman imperium.

Correct, and that is what distinguishes enlightened, European statecraft from Oriental despotism. If we accept the premise that national/regional sovereignty represents progress, it stands to reason that the ultimate consolidation of Europe into a common market, with a common military-political apparatus would represent the culmination of Continental power into the most effective and efficient structure conceivable. I don't think this is controversial.
That's a perfectly tenable argument, but I don't see how it follows from what I said. I was arguing that division has lead to efficiency and increased cultural output. I simply think we should be thankful that people didn't feel this way about governance in the past. I also think there are more important things in life than economic and military efficiency.

[Vindex]

This is the problem of trying to view NS though the current lens of WN which is racial universalism where if it has kind of white skin it's in.

[MrRS]

It is neither.

[Eisenhans]

National Socialism was created by a German for the Germans. If it is to be put into practice in a non-white, or non-German nation for that matter, it will need to be re-created and put into a sub-category of National Socialism for it to be considered such.

[B-Pep]

NS doesn't believe in "white", the concept of "white" is a moronic, abstract one that has no real definition, and communists/jews use this to their advantage. Depending on how stupid the American you're talking to is, white can range from Lebanese to Slavs, or only Jews and Anglos.

NS believes in the right for all ethnic peoples of the world to control their own destiny free of jewish globalism, in the context of WWII they fought for complete Aryan victory and ultimately, freedom in Europe, the near east, and the far east.

[Starr]

In my opinion, historical National Socialism (or Hitlerism) was anti-White. After all, Nazi Germany allied itself with imperialist Japan (that threatened White interests in Australasia) and invaded Aryan Russia, intending to enslave and/or exterminate its White population.

Constantin


If we are talking solely about what you call "hitlerism" here than this is not something that can truly be called pro or anti white. We are talking here about German(white, obviously) nationalism that came into conflict with the interests of other European/white peoples.

[Insomniac]

Modern NS is pro-white

[Arminius]

Modern NS is pro-white

What is so good about being "pro-white"? Should a nation be pro-white or pro-German (in the case of Germany)? If a nation wants to survive as a sovereign entity for very long it must rigorously defend its own people, culture, language and boarders. This is something that, before WWII, was taken as a matter of course.

[Dragonair]

That, of course, depends on how one defines white. Htiler was not pro-white in the sense we know of today, but pro-German and a German nationalist/supermacist. If one sees whiteness as synonymous with Germanic and nordic, Hitler was pro-white. If one sees whiteness as synonymous with European or any wider defination, even if one is anti-semitic himself, Hitler was anti-white, as he was anti-slavic, and of some sort, anti-southern European (Hitler certainly did not see Spaniards as aryan).
As I take the relatively wide defination that includes eastern and southern European as whites, as I am a Mediterranean nationalist of sort, and of course as I am Jewish, Hitler was anti-white by my defination. It's weird that people don't understand that Hitler was "simply" a nordicist and Germanicist, and that his Germanicism was the motive for his anti-slavism.

[Iconoclastic]

Hitler certainly did not see Spaniards as aryan
I think your a jewish agitator and i would like to see a source with that statement.

[Dragonair]

I think your a jewish agitator and i would like to see a source with that statement.
Spanish people certainly do not fit into the nordic race, or into Germanic people. He did not "hate" them as with Jews, but they are clearly not a part of the race Hitler spoke about.

[Mike Jahn]

The Third Reich was pro-White, if you don't know this it is because you have never read the ideology of Alfred Rosenberg. Rosenberg respected the American racialists Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard and mentions them in his book The Myth of the Twentieth Century. A New York Times article I discovered a few years ago from 1936 was about Nazi scientists saying that the White race was in danger of losing its place in the world.

Just because Hitler went to war for Nationalistic reasons against other White nations does not mean that the Third Reich was anti-White. In 1942 Hitler was saddened that if Japan won the war Australia would be conquered by Asiatics and the White man would be driven out of Asia. Is that sentiment not pro-White?

[Kodos]

The Third Reich was pro-White, if you don't know this it is because you have never read the ideology of Alfred Rosenberg.

Who had no real power in the Eastern territories and thought their administration was apalling.

[Member 198]

In 1942 Hitler was saddened that if Japan won the war Australia would be conquered by Asiatics and the White man would be driven out of Asia.

Could we get a source for this?

[Mike Jahn]

Could we get a source for this?

It is in Hitler's Table Talk book.

[Lord Nengwen]

National Socialism is pro-White.

Sometimes they call the Whites 'Aryans' though.

[Maponus]

Considering the term "white power" is NS in origin.....

[Lord Nengwen]

Considering the term "white power" is NS in origin.....
Hey don't forget to put in a link!

White Power
Commander George Lincoln Rockwell (http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/rocwell/whitepower/)



:Bluvens:

[Vessper]

Extremly anti-White. It was the deadliest conflict in history for Whites. Millions of Whites died, soldiers and civiles, Russians, Germans, Polacks, both jewish and non-jewish. Also Hitler was an ally of Japan and Islam.

[Maponus]

Extremly anti-White. It was the deadliest conflict in history for Whites. Millions of Whites died, soldiers and civiles, Russians, Germans, Polacks, both jewish and non-jewish. Also Hitler was an ally of Japan and Islam.

Find a single proclamation by the NSDAP attacking the White race and I'll accept your historically perspective-less opinion.

[Mike Jahn]

Extremly anti-White. It was the deadliest conflict in history for Whites. Millions of Whites died, soldiers and civiles, Russians, Germans, Polacks, both jewish and non-jewish.

Britain and France declared war on Germany, no one forced them to do that.

[Vessper]

Britain and France declared war on Germany, no one forced them to do that.

Nazism was based on the superiority of the Aryans, and in that time, Aryan meant German. Thus, Britons and Frenchmen were not included in the "Aryan" category (Italians neither, though).
Now lots (and I mean entire organizations) of non-slav/jewish Whites are claiming to be "Nazis", even Spaniards and Portugueses. It's nonsense.

[Ravenheart]

Nazism was based on the superiority of the Aryans, and in that time, Aryan meant German. Thus, Britons and Frenchmen were not included in the "Aryan" category (Italians neither, though).

This is a simplification. Aryan was a racial category, German a national or ethnic one. National Socialist race theory claimed the German nation maintained a purer Aryan lineage than, for example, Poland and Italy, but this certainly did not imply a complete identification of Aryan and German as if no Aryans lived outside of Germany. It is, for example, well known a number of Polish children who were believed to be of Aryan stock were taken from Poland and raised as Germans. This was part of a broader policy of re-Aryanizing Germany. It is thus certainly not true that German and Aryan were identified, as if all Germans were pure Aryans and no non-German was an Aryan.

[Lord Nengwen]

Nazism was based on the superiority of the Aryans, and in that time, Aryan meant German. Thus, Britons and Frenchmen were not included in the "Aryan" category (Italians neither, though).
Now lots (and I mean entire organizations) of non-slav/jewish Whites are claiming to be "Nazis", even Spaniards and Portugueses. It's nonsense.

non-Germans were used in the Waffen SS!!! They were considered fellow Aryans!

Although at first membership in the Waffen-SS was open to "Aryans" only in accord with the racial policies of the Nazi state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany), in 1940 Hitler authorized the formation of Waffen-SS units composed largly or solely of foreign volunteers and conscripts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS_foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts), and by the end of the war ethnic non-Germans made up approximately 60% of the Waffen-SS.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS#cite_note-1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS
Also there was what was known as the George Washington Division that had I think 8 Americans in it who converted to NS and I think there is a threat about it around here somewhere (started by ogencet I think...)

[Vessper]

non-Germans were used in the Waffen SS!!! They were considered fellow Aryans!

So?
150.000 German-Jewish people were used in the Waffen SS to, there is a book about it, "Hitler Jewish Soldiers".
It was based on the superiority of the "German Aryan Race", if they used non-German people, even if they were considered fellows would have never been consider full Aryans, with the exception of some German Jews that were only part jewish and Hitler himself gave the "Deutschblütigkeitserklärung" (German Blood Certificate) in order to become full Aryans.

[Maponus]

Nazism was based on the superiority of the Aryans, and in that time, Aryan meant German. Thus, Britons and Frenchmen were not included in the "Aryan" category (Italians neither, though).
Now lots (and I mean entire organizations) of non-slav/jewish Whites are claiming to be "Nazis", even Spaniards and Portugueses. It's nonsense.

Aryan meant Northern European, British girlfreind of Hitler Unity Mitford and Lady Diana Mosley were welcomed as "perfect Aryans". Hitler worshipped the British Empire. Their were more non-Germans than Germans in the SS, which was in many ways a pan-European Army. However, Hitler considered Britons (who resolutely failed to respond to the call of aryanism) Aryans while Slavs and Latin peoples weren't, even though they were far more responsive to Third Reich recruitment drives! Compare the British Free Crops to the Muslim SS unit or the Russian Liberation Army and you'll see what stupidity it is too think that race is more important than political differences!

[redknight]

I've heard that Goebbels regarded the Japanese as being a kindred people, and that Hitler admired the samurai. There is even a Japanese Nazi party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Japanese_Workers_and_Welfare_Party, as well as Taiwanese Nazis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism_Association_(Taiwan) And eventhough Hitler was anti-slavic, there is also Russian neo-nazism. http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm And there was this guy. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/mar/22/usa.usgunviolence1 Incredibly, there were even some wehrmact soldiers of Jewish descent. http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righitpix.html So nazis have come from many diverse backgrounds, and not just ones you'd typicly think of as being "white" either.

[Mike Jahn]

The Nazis were pro-Nordic which means they believed in the superiority of Nordic people all over the world, it was not confined merely to Germany.

[ogenoct]

The Nazis were pro-Nordic which means they believed in the superiority of Nordic people all over the world, it was not confined merely to Germany.

Russians are mostly Nordic. The Nazis certainly did not think that Russians were superior. Hence, the Nazis were not only anti-White, they were also anti-Nordic.

[ogenoct]

NATIONAL AND SOCIALISM?

by Constantin von Hoffmeister


National Socialism was a semi-revolutionary socialist movement. "Modern" (wannabe or contemporary) National Socialism is reactionary and unconcerned with the plight of the working class. "Neo"-Nazis talk about race, and sometimes they even advocate inbreeding and, as a result, produce retarded and dysgenic offspring. This is not disappointing. It confirms the fact that National Socialism really is dead. Dead and buried and finished and cold like Hitler's corpse in hell. If the desire too create a labor state at all costs is not anymore the prime directive of "modern" National Socialism, then Fascism has crept into the last crevice of Robert Ley's body to distort what once was almost noble and forward-looking, to turn it into a jack-off club for zoo fetishists who have no inkling to despise the evils of materialism that some of their idols were willing to lay down their lives for to crush. In the end, most Nazis were idiots, tools of the imperialist system, pawns of the kikes. The German version of National Socialism was the brainchild of an Austrian kitsch-artiste whose flowery ideals of fountains and village idiots undermined the progressive elements that were working to create something truly new and beneficial for the folk under the banner of this philosophy.

Historical National Socialism (also known as Hitlerism) is, beyond any reasonable doubt, as dead as a doornail. Contemporary National Socialism (or even better, so as to distance itself from any unholy connections, Social Nationalism), if it wants to claim any kind of legitimacy, must divorce itself from the legacy of the Fuehrer and his despicable company. Historical National Socialism was not anti-capitalist. Big Business (Thyssen, IG Farben, etc.) fucked the political system in the ass all throughout the Third Reich. How can one claim to be anti-capitalist and at the same time admire the oh-so-beautiful and stylish Mercedes-Benz ads of the 1930s? Michael Kuehnen was wrong for his unquestionable belief that Hitler's intentions were noble. They were not, and history has proven it. For what it is worth, the SS-uniforms were indeed the most beautiful uniforms ever designed.

The successful economic policy of the Third Reich was in large part based on armament production which was shifted into high gear by the warmongering elite surrounding the silly mustached man. Why - o pray tell! - did Hitler decide to invade the Holy Land of the Rus if not to acquire the oil fields of the Caucasus and enough "Lebensraum" to bolster his magnanimous ideas of a "socialist" (haha!) revolution? The notion of socialist imperialism is a contradiction in itself. Hitler's quote that "National Socialism is not for export" clearly shows that he not once had any plans to foster equality in the lands that he "liberated" (conquered/colonized). It is impudent to suggest that Hitler and his chink buddy Himmler wanted to liberate the "oppressed" peoples of the Soviet Union. No such thing, sir! Stalingrad, thank the mighty Lords of Arya, was the victory of National Bolshevism over the impostor, the lie, the cancer! The destroyer of pan-Evropa was defeated. Nazi Germany was an aberration, a perversion of lofty ideals (e.g., the Black Front's). Its tenets were based on exploitation, not of Germany, but of the sacred lands of the East. Not the German people mattered in their peacetime bliss, but the burning cities of Dresden and Pforzheim bore the brunt of destruction let loose when enough cash and loot and slaves could be carried away in Tiger Tanks and steel-helmeted soldiers of European doom.

The Bhagavad-Gita bores the living daylights out of me. Also, that silly book stays remarkably silent on the question why unnecessary "noble" (I detest the inflationary use of this word!) acts should be emulated (hint: they should not) or even praised. What was "noble" (haha!) about the Nazis' invasion of Mother Russia? It only seems "moral" if you are a Germanic or Nordic or anti-Slavic chauvinist (all of which makes you a scumbag and traitor swine). When Aryans attack fellow Aryans in order to exploit and rape, the spirit of the Race has been violated. The Nazis' brutality in the Ukraine did not exhibit any lofty ideals. I am not opposed to the military spirit. On the contrary, I believe it to be the Prussian expression of racial collectivism. The problem with Hitler's military build-up is that it was eventually geared towards using brute force to violate Aryan integrity (in the universal sense). It is hence an oxymoron to be pro-Nazi and a citizen (in the metaphorical sense) of Holy Europe. Nietzsche was clever when he said, "I might not be a good German, but I am a good European."

[Mike Jahn]

Russians are mostly Nordic. The Nazis certainly did not think that Russians were superior. Hence, the Nazis were not only anti-White, they were also anti-Nordic.

Russians are not mostly Nordic, they are Finno-Ugrics in the north and Alpines/Asiatics in the south and to the east they are heavily Asiatic.

[Petyr Baelish]

Russians are not mostly Nordic, they are Finno-Ugrics in the north and Alpines/Asiatics in the south and to the east they are heavily Asiatic.

Ethnic Russians are mostly tall, blonde or brown haired, light or mixed eye leptorhine leptoprosopic mesocephals. The Nordic type is certainly not as derived in Russia as in Scandinavia, but generally speaking, Russians are far closer to the Nordic mean than the population of Germany, which is largely Alpine in character.

[Petyr Baelish]

Of course we have to be careful when we say 'untermensch' as Hitler never saw the Russians as being genetically inferior, merely that he felt they were intellectually challenged due to accepting Communism when it wasn't in their best interests (as defined by Nietzsche).

This is false. Hitler, and the Nazis in general, considered the Slavs, the Russians particularly, to be patently biologically inferior to Germans, and in approximately the same position in their racial pecking order as Negroes. In fact, one can make the argument that the Nazis considered Russians to be inferior to Negroes, since they had no plans to colonize Africa, but were certainly intent on colonizing Russia and exterminating most of the Slavic population while enslaving the rest.

[Petyr Baelish]

Hitler obviously loved and respected Russians and other Slavs. Just look what wonderful things he had to say about them in his Table Talk:

Bormann, Martin, comp. Hitler's Table Talk. 2nd ed. New York City: Enigma Books, 2000. p. 1.

By instinct, the Russian does not incline towards a higher form of society. Certain peoples can live in such a way that with them a collection of family units does not make a whole; and although Russia has set up a social system which, judged by Western standards, qualifies for the designation " State ", it is not, in fact, a system which is either congenial or natural to her.

Ibid., pp. 3-5.

In the eyes of the Russian, the principal support of civilisation is vodka. His ideal consists in never doing anything but the indispensable. Our conception of work (work, and then more of it!) is one that he submits to as if it were a real curse. It is doubtful whether anything at all can be done in Russia without the help of the Orthodox priest. It's the priest who has been able to reconcile the Russian to the fatal necessity of work —by promising him more happiness in another world. The Russian will never make up his mind to work except under compulsion from outside, for he is incapable of organising himself. And if, despite everything, he is apt to have organisation thrust upon him, that is thanks to the drop of Aryan blood in his veins. It's only because of this drop that the Russian people has created something and possesses an organised State. It takes energy to rule Russia. The corollary is that, the tougher a country's régime, the more appropriate it is that equity and justice should be practised there. The horse that is not kept constantly under control forgets in the wink of an eye the rudiments of training that have been inculcated into it. In the same way, with the Russian, there is an instinctive force that invariably leads him back to the state of nature. People sometimes quote the case of the horses that escaped from a ranch in America, and by some ten years later had formed huge herds of wild horses. It is so easy for an animal to go back to its origins ! For the Russian, the return to the state of nature is a return to primitive forms of life. The family exists, the female looks after her children, like the female of the hare, with all the feelings of a mother. But the Russian doesn't want anything more. His reaction against the constraint of the organised State (which is always a constraint, since it limits the liberty of the individual) is brutal and savage, like all feminine reactions. When he collapses and should yield, the Russian bursts into lamentations. This will to return to the state of nature is exhibited in his revolutions. For the Russian, the typical form of revolution is nihilism.

[…]

The beauties of the Crimea, which we shall make accessible by means of an autobahn—for us Germans, that will be our Riviera.

[…]

Better than the railway, which has something impersonal about it, it's the road that will bring peoples together. What progress in the direction of the New Europe! Just as the autobahn has caused the inner frontiers of Germany to disappear, so it will abolish the frontiers of the countries of Europe. To those who ask me whether it will be enough to reach the Urals as a frontier, I reply that for the present it is enough for the frontier to be drawn back as far as that. What matters is that Bolshevism must be exterminated. In case of necessity, we shall renew our advance wherever a new centre of resistance is formed. Moscow, as the centre of the doctrine, must disappear from the earth's surface, as soon as its riches have been brought to shelter. There's no question of our collaborating with the Muscovite proletariat. Anyhow, St. Petersburg, as a city, is incomparably more beautiful than Moscow. Probably the treasures of the Hermitage have not been stored at the Kremlin, as they were during the first World War, but in the country-houses—unless they've been shifted to the cities east of Moscow, or still further by river.


Ibid., pp. 15 -16

It should be possible for us to control this region to the East with two hundred and fifty thousand men plus a cadre Of good administrators. Let's learn from the English, who, with two hundred and fifty thousand men in all, including fifty thousand soldiers, govern four hundred million Indians. This space in Russia must always be dominated by Germans.

[…]

Nothing would be a worse mistake on our part than to seek to educate the masses [of Russia]. It is to our interest that the people should know just enough to recognise the signs on the roads. At present they can't read, and they ought to stay like that. But they must be allowed to live decently, of course, and that's also to our interest.

We'll take the southern part of the Ukraine, especially the Crimea, and make it an exclusively German colony. There'll be no harm in pushing out the population that's there now. The German colonist will be the soldier-peasant, and for that I'll take professional soldiers, whatever their line may have been previously.

[…]

The soil costs us nothing, we have only the house to build. The peasant's son will already have paid for it by his twelve years' service. During the last two years he will already be equipping himself for agriculture. One single condition will be imposed upon him: that he may not marry a townswoman, but a countrywoman who, as far as possible, will not have begun to live in a town with him. These soldier-peasants will be given arms, so that at the slightest danger they can be at their posts when we summon them. That's how the ancient Austria used to keep its Eastern peoples under control. By the same token, the soldier-peasant will make a perfect schoolteacher.

Ibid., p. 24

The sense of duty, as we understand it, is not known amongst the Russians. Why should we try to inculcate this notion into them?

The German colonist ought to live on handsome, spacious farms. The German services will be lodged in marvelous buildings, the governors in palaces.

[…]

Around the city, to a depth of thirty to forty kilometres, we shall have a belt of handsome villages connected by the best roads. What exists beyond that will be another world, in which we mean to let the Russians live as they like. It is merely necessary that we should rule them. In the event of a revolution, we shall only have to drop a few bombs on their cities, and the affair will be liquidated. Once a year we shall lead a troop of Kirghizes through the capital of the Reich, in order to strike their imaginations with the size of our monuments. What India was for England, the territories of Russia will be for us. If only I could make the German people understand what this space means for our future! Colonies are a precarious possession, but this ground is safely ours. Europe is not a geographic entity, it's a racial entity.

Ibid., p. 30

Nearly two thousand people in Germany disappear every year without trace—victims, for the most part, of maniacs or sadists. It's known that these latter are generally recidivists—but the lawyers take great care to inflict only very light penalties on them. And yet these subhuman creatures are the ferment that undermines the State! I make no distinction between them and the brutes who populate our Russian p.o.w. camps.

Ibid., p. 32

The struggle for the hegemony of the world will be decided in favour of Europe by the possession of the Russian space. Thus Europe will be an impregnable fortress, safe from all threat of blockade. All this opens up economic vistas which, one may think, will incline the most liberal of the Western democrats towards the New Order.

Ibid., pp. 33 -34

When one contemplates this primitive world, one is convinced that nothing will drag it out of its indolence unless one compels the people to work. The Slavs are a mass of born slaves, who feel the need of a master. As far as we are concerned, we may think that the Bolsheviks did us a great service. They began by distributing the land to the peasants, and we know what a frightful famine resulted. So they were obliged, of course, to re-establish a sort of feudal régime, to the benefit of the State. But there was this difference, that, whereas the old-style landlord knew something about farming, the political commissar, on the other hand, was entirely ignorant of such matters. So the Russians were just beginning to give their commissars appropriate instruction.

If the English were to be driven out of India, India would perish. Our role in Russia will be analogous to that of England in India.

Even in Hungary, National Socialism could not be exported. In the mass, the Hungarian is as lazy as the Russian. He's by nature a man of the steppe. From this point of view, Horthy is right in thinking that if he abandoned the system of great estates, production would rapidly decline.

It's the same in Spain. If the great domains disappeared there, famine would prevail.

The German peasant is moved by a liking for progress. He thinks of his children. The Ukrainian peasant has no notion of duty.

There is a peasantry comparable to ours in Holland, and also in Italy, where every inch of ground is zealously exploited—also, to a certain extent, in France.

The Russian space is our India. Like the English, we shall rule this empire with a handful of men.

It would be a mistake to claim to educate the native. All that we could give him would be a half-knowledge—just what's needed to conduct a revolution!

It's not a mere chance that the inventor of anarchism was a Russian. Unless other peoples, beginning with the Vikings, had imported some rudiments of organisation into Russian humanity, the Russians would still be living like rabbits. One cannot change rabbits into bees or ants. These insects have the faculty of living in a state of society—but rabbits haven't.

If left to himself, the Slav would never have emerged from the narrowest of family communities.

The Germanic race created the notion of the State. It incarnated this notion in reality, by compelling the individual to be a part of a whole. It's our duty continually to arouse the forces that slumber in our people's blood.

The Slav peoples are not destined to live a cleanly life. They know it, and we would be wrong to persuade them of the contrary. It was we who, in 1918, created the Baltic countries and the Ukraine. But nowadays we have no interest in maintaining Baltic States, any more than in creating an independent Ukraine. We must likewise prevent them from returning to Christianity. That would be a grave fault, for it would be giving them a form of organisation.

[Petyr Baelish]

Russians are not mostly Nordic

It depends on your definition of 'Nordic'. If we limit the term Nordic to the most quintessential representatives of the Hallstaat Nordic type, then Nordics are a minority in even the most Nordic districts of Sweden (the maximum provincial mean of pure Hallstaat Nordic types in Sweden is 44%). However, if we use something less exclusive, like Coon's definition - something along the lines of "tall Europid mesocephal with a leptoprosopic facial index, leptorhine nasal index, Europid morphological features, a large brain case, and mixed-light to pure light pigmentation" then the basic racial type of the Great Russian ethnic group is indeed Nordic. Here is what Russian anthropologists say on the subject:

The Baltic complex is localized in the lower tributaries of the Neman river, the Venta river, lower tributaries of the Dvina (Daugava) River, the basin of the Gaua River, on the coast of the Bay of Finland, in the area of the Lake Chud’ and the Narva River. For this complex, high stature, light hair and eyes, large dimensions of the head and the face, brachycephaly, intermediate horizontal facial profile, a strongly projecting nose and intermediate beard growth. The complex was also extrapolated by N. N. Cheboksarov and M. V. Vitov under the label “West Baltic” in Estonia, and was classed as part of the Atlanto-Baltic group of anthropological types.

Traits that are characteristic of the Atlanto-Baltic group are widespread over a large expanse of territory. They are present in the population of almost all of Northwest Europe: Finland (Kajava, 1925) Scandinavia (Bryn, 1932; Bryn, Schreiner 1930, Lundborg, Linder, 1926), Scotland, England and Ireland (Fleure, 1923), Iceland (Ribbing, 1921) and the Faerose Islands (Iorgensen, 1902). Deniker (Denkier, 1898) finds similar types in Northern Germany, and in a few areas of France. In Eastern Europe, the Atlanto-Baltic complex is strongest among groups of Western Estonians and Latvians. Among eastern groups of Estonians and Latvians, a gracile, mesocephalic variety of this type is found, which M. V. Vitov calls the “White Sea” type, and classifies as part of the White Sea-Baltic group of types. Without disagreeing with M. V. Vitov’s classification, it should nevertheless be pointed out that the White Sea type is more similar to varieties of the Atlanto-Baltic race than the East Baltic race. The mesocpehalic variant of the Baltic morphological complex inhabits Eastern Europe, particularly its northern reaches, and is widespread among Karelians, Russians of the Northwest, Pomors, and a few groups of Northern Komi Finns.

...

The Central East European complex is prevalent along the banks of the Oka river, the Upper tributaries of the Don, the Klyazma river, the middle and upper banks of the Volga, the Tsna river, the Vorksel’ river, the Khoper river and the Medveditsa river. In its morphology, it is quite similar to the gracile, mesocephalic, variant of the Baltic complex (the "White Sea type"), but is distinguished from it by darker hair and eye coloration. It has long been known in anthropological science under the name “Eastern European type.” Even Deniker identified it as a population element in the east of Europe (Deniker, 1898). M. Hesch identified it as a population element in the population of the Baltic region (Hesch, 1933), N. N. Cheboksarov, M. V. Vitov, (Vitov, Mark, Cheboksarov, 1959), R. J. Denisova (1958) and V. V. Bunak – among Polessje Belorussians, and among Mordva (Bunak, 1956), I – among Russians of the Volga-Oka region (Alekseeva 1956), and P. I. Zienkewicz – among Russians of the Vetluga region, , and to a certain extent, Maris and Udmurts (Zienkewicz, 1934, 1941a, 1941b). Along with the traits we have already described, a certain degree of “Lappinoidity” it often ascribed to this type. Among “Lappinoid” specialties one can count such features as decreased tretiarry hair cover, slight flatness of the face, and limited nasal protrusion. However, it should be noted that “Lappinoid” traits are not found in all groups belonging to this complex. For example, among Russians, who are the most typical representatives of this complex, facial flattening and decreased nasal protrusion are found only in peripheral Northern and Eastern areas. However, one of the traits of the “lappinoid complex”, decreased tretirarry hair cover is typical, almost witout exception, of all Russian groups.*[/b]

The gracile mesocephalic extremely depigmented type found among the Estonians, Karelians and Finns is Nordic by any save the most exclusive definition of the term. The Central Eastern European anthropological complex which includes almost all Great Russian territorial groups differs from this type only by its somewhat darker pigmentation. Therefore the basic anthropological type among the Great Russians can be said to be essentially Nordic. Coon was on the right track when he wrote this in 1939:

The Great Russians of a special area lying partly in the Tambov, Penza, and Saratov Governments, who form a mesocephalic nucleus in the country half way between Moscow and the mouth of the Volga, have been subjected to a detailed study,106 which shows them to be essentially Nordic. A mean stature of 169 cm., a cephalic index just under 79, and a head length of 192 mm., indicate an initial resemblance to Nordics or brunet Mediterraneans. The auricular height mean of about 130 mm. is greater than that of Scandinavian Nordics, however, as are the bizygomatic of 140 mm. and the bigonial of 109 mm., while the minimum frontal of 105 mm. is more nearly Nordic than the other lateral dimensions. The face height, 125 mm., yields a facial index on the borderline of mesoprosopy and leptoprosopy; the nasal index, about 65, is derived from a mean nose length of 55 mm. and a breadth of nearly 36 mm.

Half of these Great Russians have wavy hair, the other half straight; the head hair is dark brown (Fischer #4-5) in 30 per cent of the series studied, and almost never black; it is medium brown (Fischer #6-10) in about 50 per cent, and light brown in most of the rest. Rufosity is rare, but at the same time most of the blondism falls on the golden side. About 8 per cent have brown eyes, nearly 30 per cent light, and the rest mixed. Thus these tall, mesocephalic Great Russians are brown to dark brown-haired, and essentially mixed to light eyed. Their facial features conform in most cases to a Nordic standard; the nasal profile is straight or wavy in over 65 per cent of the group, convex in 25 per cent, and concave in the 10 per cent that is left.

Individually as well as collectively, most of these men look Nordic in either a complete or a partial sense; others, in the minority, with concave, up-tilted noses and wide faces, approximate the forest type of incipiently mongoloid trend. The facial dimensions, with their accent on the heaviness of the mandible, diverge from a western European Nordic standard, but conform to that of the eastern Nordic type found skeletally among Scythians and in the Minussinsk kurgans; they also conform to a brunet Mediterranean type which we shall see in other regions bordering the Black Sea. The high vault, and the prevalence of brown hair in combination with light eyes, suggests a major survival of the Corded element so lacking elsewhere in most of eastern Europe; since the Slavs elsewhere have to a large extent lost this element, it seems likely that the people in question are the descendants of earlier Iranian inhabitants as much as of Slavic immigrants.

The problem, of course, is that Coon only had access to limited data and only a few samples, most of them drawn from peripheral areas of ethnic Russian territory where the basic Russian anthropological type was altered by absorption of local Finnic elements. The results of the Russian Anthropological Expedition of 1959 show that the combination he describes - mesocephaly, relatively high stature and large cranial dimensions, light pigmentation and Europid morphology - is prevalent among vast swathes of ethnic Russian territory, where the majority of Great Russians happen to live. Even in peripheral areas this type is little-altered.

they are Finno-Ugrics in the north

Finno-Ugric is not an anthropological taxon. Western Finns and Estonians are among the most Nordic populations in the world, and are certainly the blondest.

and Alpines/Asiatics in the south

The only Great Russians that approximate Alpines morphologically and cranially are those of the Valdai region, but their pigmentation is almost as light as that of Scandinavians, and they do not they deviate to at all in the direction of Uralic or Mongoloid types, so 'Alpines/Asiatics' they most certainly are not.

and to the east they are heavily Asiatic.

Since I am assuming that you have only Great Russians, and not the Turkic ethnic groups of the Volga-Ural region and Siberia in mind, I would very much like to see some evidence for your claim.


* Excerpted and translated from Tatiana Ivanovna Alekseeva’s Etnogenez Vostochnykh Slavjan po Dannym Antropologii ( Ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs According to Anthropological Data), p. 230 – 232, Moscow 1972.

[Saqqara]

Pro-white of course- in the sense of promoting good genetics, which not every person with white skin has. What is eugenic for us, is thus pro-white. The people who worked against National Socialism, were the ones who were anti-white, ultimately. Their efforts have brought about our decline and downbreeding in every way imaginable.

If National Socialism had its way, today Europe would be free of genetic defects and nonwhite immigrants. It is of course in the best interest of the white race to evolve and improve itself.

[Apocales]

If Hitler had emphasized less on being pro- German and more on Pro- European, he might have had some allies like the British, French, and Dutch. For the people tha start neo-national socialist groups outside of Germany, they always ignore that NS was not for export. AKA create your own philosophy.

[Saqqara]

Nazism was based on the superiority of the Aryans, and in that time, Aryan meant German. Thus, Britons and Frenchmen were not included in the "Aryan" category (Italians neither, though).
Now lots (and I mean entire organizations) of non-slav/jewish Whites are claiming to be "Nazis", even Spaniards and Portugueses. It's nonsense.

You're wrong, Hitler said that the British and Americans (at that time) were of good Aryan descent and closely related to Germans. He also praised the Americans for their implementation of eugenic laws. It's all plainly there in Mein Kampf. :)

[Dagoth Ur]

Rosenberg's concept of National Socialism was pro-White; Hitler and Himmler's was exclusively pro-Germanic. But could Lebensraum in the East ever have been feasible?

I've posted this elsewhere but I've always thought the more prominent Nazis were very pragmatic when it came to the Slavs. In Czechoslovakia it was the Czechs that wielded most of the power, so apparently out of convenience they came to favor the Slovaks. A similar situation existed in Yugoslavia where the Serb aristocracy lorded over the Croats that would go on to fight alongside Germany. Most of the minorities in the Soviet Union were treated with more respect than the Russians that had made up most of the Bolshevik government. If it had been the other ways around I don't suppose they would've made any different considerations for the Czechs, Serbs or Russians.

Hitler even made repeated attempts to secure Piłsudski--leader of the same Poles that would later appear in German propaganda as the mortal enemy of the Reich--as an ally and as late as 1938 ceded Poland some predominantly Polish land from the Czechoslovak First Republic.

[Vessper]

You're wrong, Hitler said that the British and Americans (at that time) were of good Aryan descent and closely related to Germans. He also praised the Americans for their implementation of eugenic laws. It's all plainly there in Mein Kampf. :)

No, this was the order of superiority. English were granted some things but Germans were superior. Germans could have what anyone else couldn't. Also, the rest of the British were very inferior.

* Germans from Germany (Reichdeutsche) - Nordic Germans are said most favorable, but all German citizens are in the top category.
* Germans from outside, active ethnic Germans, honorary "Aryans" from axis European countries in Volksliste category 1 and 2 (see Volksdeutsche).
* Germans from outside, passive Germans and members of families, handicapped, political dissidents, common criminals in Volksliste category 3 and 4.
* Other Germanic peoples closely related to Germans (Norwegians, Finns, Danes, Swedes, English and Dutch) but treated as categories 1 and 2 in most privileges, especially pro-Nazi sympathizers. Until 1942, the Greeks were included in this category by virtue of their being descendants of the ancient Greeks.
* Italians (particularly from regions North of Rome, e.g. Tuscany, Lombardy, etc.), Spaniards (particularly Basques) and Portuguese were treated as category 1 and 2, especially pro-Nazi sympathizers (e.g. Fascist Italy and Francoist Spain diplomats). Some Southern Italians were treated as least (Suspicion of miscegenation with African and Semitic peoples), but within the same category. The Greeks are included in this category after 1943, due to their strong anti-Nazi resistance movement.
* Britons from the British islands. Includes Irish, Scots and Welsh.
* French people in France (except German speaking Alsatians, and pro-Nazi French supporters in categories 1 and 2).
* Highlanders (Goralenvolk): an attempt to split the Polish nation by using local collaborators.
* Hungarians, Estonians, and Finns (despite their non Indo-European origins), Baltic peoples (Lithuanians and Latvians) and Romanians.
* Poles, Czechs and Slovaks (from West Slavic group), and Croats, and Slovenes (from South Slavic group) were considered to be much more 'Europeanized' than their easterns counterparts).
* Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians (from East Slavic group), Serbs, Slavic Muslims, Bulgarians, Macedonians (from South Slavic group), mostly due to strong Nazi opposition.

[KerguelenExileDissident]

I am not a National Socialist but it can basically be viewed as being pro-white. There was a pan-european element to it as well. One needs to look at it in perspective to see.

Nazi Germany was a combination of both German Nationalist and Racialism, and it contained both.

At any rate it's much more pro-white than any other creed of it's day. Almost like a creed against time in a sense.

One might argue that Russian neo-nazis are anti-white because they are both Russian nationalists and pro-white.

It is sad to say that extreme nationalism and racialism goes hand in hand.

[ogenoct]

Still a draw.

[Burrhus]

Every National Socialist is necessarily, by definition, pro the race of his nation. If he is not the latter, then he is not the former.

Hitler was pro-white. Collaborating with another race to protect one's own is not being pro that other race. Hitler was not trying to help the Japanese race, he was trying to stop the jew race from harming the white race.

Would that he had succeeded.

Would that we shall succeed soon.

[Ken]

Not only was it 'anti-white' it was 'anti-European,' in the sense that it would have rendered the rest of Europe prostrate to Germany. And a few minor things, like the plan to wipe St. Petersburg completely off the map.

I'm inclined to agree with this statement. I don't really think Hitler gave two squirts of piss about anyone who wasn't German (not that I condemn that from a Nationalist POV) and Germans aren't the only "Whites", throw in the fact that scores of millions of White Europeans (Germans included) were killed in WWII, a war in which the German NS played a huge role in instigating, and I'm going to have to vote "anti White" on this one hands down.




Note to modern day White Nationalists(especially for the love of all that you consider Holy, SLAVICS): Drop the whole Hitler fetish thing, it makes you look foolish and it won't get you any numbers. If anything, it pushes anyone with a working brain away.


http://acceptancewithjoy.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/twocents.gif

[Monty]

Hitler was pro-white.

No, no, NO! Hitler was pro-German, not necessarily pro-white.http://www.stpixels.com/static/smileys/veryangry.gif

[Burrhus]

No, no, NO! Hitler was pro-German, not necessarily pro-white.http://www.stpixels.com/static/smileys/veryangry.gif

The choices in the poll were pro-white and anti-white. Hitler was not anti-white therefore he was pro-white.

One can be both pro-German and pro-white even if one is more the former. All ethnic groups within the white race are and ought to be more pro-their-ethnicity than pro-white, but they can still recognize that it is best for their ethnic group to be pro-white relative to non-white races (or jews, whether one considers them white or not).

[Ken]

The choices in the poll were pro-white and anti-white.

I respectfully disagree Burrhus under the grounds that Slavs are White. Hitler certainly wasn't pro-Slav, he wasn't too fond of them and that's putting it nicely.

Hitler was not anti-white therefore he was pro-white.


Again, see above statement.

[Burrhus]

I respectfully disagree Burrhus under the grounds that Slavs are White. Hitler certainly wasn't pro-Slav, he wasn't too fond of them and that's putting it nicely.



Again, see above statement.

Poll Options
National Socialism: pro-White or anti-White?
pro-White
anti-White

Please note the poll options given.

Being anti-Slav (or anti-German/French/Serb, etc.) is not equivalent to being anti-White. If it were, then every conflict between intra-race ethnic groups would be, by that logic, an anti-White conflict.

One could reasonably argue that all intra-racial conflicts (regardless of the particular race) are anti that-race but that would be stretching the concept to absurd limits. By that logic then, the British and American attacks on Germany were anti-White as were the Slav against Slav wars in the Balkans.

Do you wish to assert that all wars between White ethnic groups are anti-White?

[cerberus]

Burrhus
Do you wish to assert that all wars between White ethnic groups are anti-White?

It is fair to assert that wars between white peoples are not anti white in that they further the interests of one or both sides and the conflict revolves around political or material advancement.
As far as your view that Hitler has to be rehabilitated to serve the interests of the white race and to restore a wrong done to the white race or the man himself - poppycock.
I would point out that Hitler did the attacking of members of the white races and he declared war on the USA.

[Ken]

Being anti-Slav (or anti-German/French/Serb, etc.) is not equivalent to being anti-White. If it were, then every conflict between intra-race ethnic groups would be, by that logic, an anti-White conflict.

One could reasonably argue that all intra-racial conflicts (regardless of the particular race) are anti that-race but that would be stretching the concept to absurd limits. By that logic then, the British and American attacks on Germany were anti-White as were the Slav against Slav wars in the Balkans.

Do you wish to assert that all wars between White ethnic groups are anti-White?


I most certainly don't consider any of them to be pro White by any stretch of the imagination, that's for sure.

[Flying Drumhead Court-Martial]

Hahaha. A victory for Hitler would have been a victory for the white race. That's all there really is to it. The post-war era created by the victorious allies was anti-white every step of the way. Unless you think the modern age is some kind of aryan renaissance.