PDA

View Full Version : Hitler Was Wrong



ogenoct
Sunday, May 9th, 2004, 06:31 AM
I cannot respect Hitler because he was essentially anti-Aryan due to his irrational contempt for Slavs. This kind of thinking is counterproductive to a true pan-Aryan movement.

Constantin

Moody
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 05:32 PM
I can agree with your criticism of Hitler's stance on Slavs, although this was obviously due to a particularate Germanism [just as certain British nationalists are anti-Irish, and certain Irish nationalists are anti-British - see the Celtic forum here].
And of course, certain Slavs were/are guilty of anti-Germanism.
Yes, all these things are ultimately detrimental to Aryanism.

I suspect that all locales within Europe harbour certain harmful intra-European anti-isms.

However, where I do disagree with you is in the purist notion that such a particular defect vitiates the whole; this is not so.
ON BALANCE we must look at the totality of the National Socialist position and seek to work within its evolution.

From what I have seen of David Myatt's work, for example, [ably promoted on this site by rhadley], I believe that modern N-S thinking has overcome such defects.
That said, I for one say that we owe Adolf Hitler and his fellows a debt of gratitude for the stand they took and the examples they have given.

http://assoc.wanadoo.fr/mad.gabon/art/ernst.jpg

Vetinari
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 06:53 PM
I can agree with your criticism of Hitler's stance on Slavs, although this was obviously due to a particularate Germanism [just as certain British nationalists are anti-Irish, and certain Irish nationalists are anti-British - see the Celtic forum here].


Irish Nationalists are not anti-British. Any hostile feelings that the Irish have towards the British are solely due to Britain's colonial activities in Ireland.

Moody
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 07:19 PM
Irish Nationalists are not anti-British. Any hostile feelings that the Irish have towards the British are solely due to Britain's colonial activities in Ireland.

'Hostile' implies 'anti-'.

So by anti-ism of any kind I mean a certain hostility.
Irish hostility towards the British exists as you have admitted, and that can be summed up in some quarters as being anti-British.
A thread chosen at random from the Celtic realm;
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=3314

Likewise, British hostility to the Irish can be called in some extreme cases anti-Irish. They will cite IRA activity, for example, as their excuse, just as the Irish will talk of British Imperialism etc.,

But ultimately in all these cases [including the German/ Slav problem which is the substance of this thread] there lurks a subracial hostility which goes back to the ancient days of pre-historic Europe, and so predates the days of the German or British Empires.

http://www.jotake-lahaine.org/argazkiak/Ira/images/CIRA-mural_jpg.jpg

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 09:11 PM
I cannot respect Hitler

And thats perfectly fine. Im not NS nor do I believe that respecting Hitler is a requirement for being a true Folkish nationalist. Indeed, its really largely a German issue IMHO.

ogenoct
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 10:34 PM
ON BALANCE we must look at the totality of the National Socialist position and seek to work within its evolution.
I agree. That is why the ridiculous Hitler-cult has got to stop.

Constantin

Moody
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:54 PM
I agree. That is why the ridiculous Hitler-cult has got to stop.

Constantin

I think you go too far there; why is a 'Hitler-cult' ridiculous?
The reason you indicated earlier - that Hitler was anti-Slavic - is not reason enough.
Despite that admitted fault, Hitler's achievements were magnificent.
The way he built up the movement and eventually the Third Reich, the way he inspired millions with his oratory and his vision - all this is tremendous and the world still trembles before his example now.

There is also the added problem that the Judaic-West constantly tells us that Hitler is evil personified and only losers admire him ...
Paraphrasing Nietzsche, we say that everything that this Judaised establishment tells us is true, must NECESSARILY be a lie ... ergo

So I would like you to give a better reason for claiming that the Hitler-cult is "ridiculous".

The work of those who have taken Hitler as an Avatar - Savitri Devi, Miguel Serrano and others - is of the highest spiritual merit and cannot be dismissed as 'ridiculous'.

I know that I too have experienced great love in the presence of the Hitler-archetype.

Link to a piece by Serrano;

http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/wheel.html

http://www.libreopinion.com/erahitleriana/pictures/serrano3.jpg
M. Serrano

Vetinari
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 08:06 PM
'Hostile' implies 'anti-'.

So by anti-ism of any kind I mean a certain hostility.
Irish hostility towards the British exists as you have admitted, and that can be summed up in some quarters as being anti-British.
A thread chosen at random from the Celtic realm;
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=3314

Likewise, British hostility to the Irish can be called in some extreme cases anti-Irish. They will cite IRA activity, for example, as their excuse, just as the Irish will talk of British Imperialism etc.,

But ultimately in all these cases [including the German/ Slav problem which is the substance of this thread] there lurks a subracial hostility which goes back to the ancient days of pre-historic Europe, and so predates the days of the German or British Empires.

http://www.jotake-lahaine.org/argazkiak/Ira/images/CIRA-mural_jpg.jpg

But you seem to feel that anti-British sentiment amongst the Irish is the same as anti-Irish sentiment amongst the British. The cause of anti-British sentiment amongst the Irish has to do with Britain's military occupation of Northern Ireland. If that occupation were to end and Ireland was united you would see an end to most anti-British sentiment in Ireland.

Japetos
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 08:10 PM
I agree that "Hitler-cult" is ridiculous.Hitler was also anti-french.His dream was not Pan-European.He wanted Europe under a totally germanic control.
He was just a German chauvinist.He didn't respect the non-teutonic people.
Why must the non-teutonic people respect him in present days?

ogenoct
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 08:12 PM
I think you go too far there; why is a 'Hitler-cult' ridiculous?
The reason you indicated earlier - that Hitler was anti-Slavic - is not reason enough.
Despite that admitted fault, Hitler's achievements were magnificent.
The way he built up the movement and eventually the Third Reich, the way he inspired millions with his oratory and his vision - all this is tremendous and the world still trembles before his example now.

There is also the added problem that the Judaic-West constantly tells us that Hitler is evil personified and only losers admire him ...
Paraphrasing Nietzsche, we say that everything that this Judaised establishment tells us is true, must NECESSARILY be a lie ... ergo

So I would like you to give a better reason for claiming that the Hitler-cult is "ridiculous".

The work of those who have taken Hitler as an Avatar - Savitri Devi, Miguel Serrano and others - is of the highest spiritual merit and cannot be dismissed as 'ridiculous'.

I know that I too have experienced great love in the presence of the Hitler-archetype.

Link to a piece by Serrano;

http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/wheel.html

http://www.libreopinion.com/erahitleriana/pictures/serrano3.jpg
M. Serrano
The jews also villify Herr Stalin! So, according to Herr Nietzsche's logic, I am right after all when I admire the deeds of Stalin!

I still disagree with you about Herr Hitler. A man who had so much hatred for a HUGE percentage of the Aryan Race, cannot possibly be a role-model for pan-Europeans. I dare say that NS was great DESPITE of Hitler and not because of him.

By the way, I just bougt the German translations of Serrano's DAS GOLDENE BAND and HITLER - DER LETZTE AVATAR. I shall get back to you after reading them. I admit that the topic fascinates me.

Constantin

Moody
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 08:25 PM
Vetinari, I am claiming that the sometimes MUTUAL hostility between the British and the Irish goes back way beyond the recent 'troubles', and has its roots in an ancient cultural/subracial hostility between Teutons and Kelts.

And so I would argue that even if the IRA got what they wanted, there would still be a deep-seated hostility [in some quarters] between the British and English.

Of course I believe this has to be overcome, but not via old party politics, but by a higher synthesis which is Europa.

I say this hostility goes back at least to the days of the Roman Empire; the Keltic peoples were largely defeated and conquered by the Romans, while the Teutons were not. With the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West the Teutonic tribes flooded in and took over the administration of things; they disdained the Kelts as a vanquished people [and the Kelts resented the Teutons].

The conflicts between the Anglo-Saxons and the Kelts in Britain are rooted in this, I believe, and are therefore deep-seated.

I suspect that the conflicts between the Germans and the Slavs [and the Germans and the French] are similarly profound.

Having said that, I don't see why the French can't admire Hitler, Japetos - Nietzsche could admire Napoleon couldn't he?

http://www.safran-arts.com/42day/history/h4jul/23petain.jpg
Petain

Vetinari
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 08:47 PM
Vetinari, I am claiming that the sometimes MUTUAL hostility between the British and the Irish goes back way beyond the recent 'troubles', and has its roots in an ancient cultural/subracial hostility between Teutons and Kelts.

And so I would argue that even if the IRA got what they wanted, there would still be a deep-seated hostility [in some quarters] between the British and English.

Of course I believe this has to be overcome, but not via old party politics, but by a higher synthesis which is Europa.

I say this hostility goes back at least to the days of the Roman Empire; the Keltic peoples were largely defeated and conquered by the Romans, while the Teutons were not. With the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West the Teutonic tribes flooded in and took over the administration of things; they disdained the Kelts as a vanquished people [and the Kelts resented the Teutons].

The conflicts between the Anglo-Saxons and the Kelts in Britain are rooted in this, I believe, and are therefore deep-seated.

I suspect that the conflicts between the Germans and the Slavs [and the Germans and the French] are similarly profound.

Having said that, I don't see why the French can't admire Hitler, Japetos - Nietzsche could admire Napoleon couldn't he?

http://www.safran-arts.com/42day/history/h4jul/23petain.jpg
Petain

I think you will find that the Romans conquered many Germans. At the same time, the Romans never invaded Ireland. Also the Irish are not descended from the Celts of continental Europe. The Irish are actually more closely related to the Basques who are a non-Celtic people.

Moody
Thursday, May 13th, 2004, 04:07 PM
I think you will find that the Romans conquered many Germans. At the same time, the Romans never invaded Ireland. Also the Irish are not descended from the Celts of continental Europe. The Irish are actually more closely related to the Basques who are a non-Celtic people.

The Romans conquered the main Keltic power bases on the continent [south of the Rhine] and in Britain. After Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire that even penetrated as far as Ireland [St. Patrick (4th century) was son of the Roman Calphurnius].

The Teutons on the north of the Rhine remained unconquered and pagan.
They called the Kelts 'strangers', or 'foreigners' [cf., Anglo-Saxon 'wealas', hence 'welsh'].

As for the Basques - that is another example of intra-European hostility which is surely deep-rooted, going far beyond the ETA campaign; and that is my point.
The intra-European ethnic conflicts within Europe are of ancient tradition.

The Sinn Fein Oath makes this clear with its mention of the "Saxon" enemy [Saxon England ended in 1066 with the Norman Conquest].

To take some choice lines from the Oath;
"I swear by ... St. Patrick ... to fight until we die wading in the field of Red Gore of the Saxon tyrants and murderers ... these unbelievers ... will be driven like the swine they are into the seas ... clear these Heretics from our Lands ... extermination of Brutes ... these cursed foreign Tyrants ... Scotland also must be swept clean ..."

Notice it says "Lands" plural, and includes Scotland.
Such sentiments are seriously injurious to Aryan cohesion and should abhorred.

A link to the full Oath
http://www.nccg.org/288Art-SinnFein.html

http://sinnfein.ie/fosf/images/MandelaAdamsFront.jpg
Sinn Fein President Adams with Mandela

Telperion
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 12:22 AM
I would say Hitler's legacy was mixed:

Positive accomplishments;

- Restored to the German people their pride in themselves and their nation

- Crushed the communist presence within Germany.

- Rehabilitated the economy and substantially improved the infrastructure

- Directed peoples' attention to the Web of Jewish-linked financial and media interests that posed a threat to the racial and cultural integrity of all European countries

Negative aspects:

- Obviously a German chauvinist, who sought to dominate all of Europe solely for Germany's benefit. It's difficult to see why anyone who isn't German would support that.

- Led Europe into a gigantic war (which he must surely have known was bound to result from his expansionist policies), the consequence of which was not only Germany's total defeat and dismemberment, but the divison of Europe between American and Soviet spheres (thus supressing the continent's own cultural and political development).

- Frankly, had a very brutal occupation policy throughout Europe, and particularly in E. Europe, which provided ammunition to those who wish to smear anyone who supports any aspect of Hitler's policies.

- His ideas about Jews tended to be rather conspiratorial, whereas I prefer to explain the incompatibility of their interests and ours more through an examination of their micromotives and consequent macrobehaviour.

- Speaking personally, his regime was much more authoritarian than any I would care to live under.

On balance, there is much to be learned from studying Hitler's ideas and career. But, based on the negative aspects above, they should be studied with a critical eye. There are enough negative aspects that I don't view myself as a national socialist, even though I recognize the positive accomplishments noted above.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 03:52 AM
Excellent points guys. What is to disagree with? We should never again let a narrow ethnocentric view override the broader objectives.

cosmocreator
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 04:35 AM
I would say Hitler's legacy was mixed:

Positive accomplishments;

- Restored to the German people their pride in themselves and their nation

- Crushed the communist presence within Germany.



The person who started this thread has for his politics "Pan-Aryan Communist."

Moody
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 05:17 PM
Telperion; "I would say of Hitler's Negative aspects:
- Obviously a German chauvinist, who sought to dominate all of Europe solely for Germany's benefit. It's difficult to see why anyone who isn't German would support that".

Moody; Given the choice, what would you support; the hegemony of a Jew-Free N-S Aryan Germany, or the Judaised 'multiracial/multicultural democracy' of your own 'nation'?
And as I have pointed out above, there are many "chauvinisms" tolerated by European nationalists even today which are far worse [see the Sinn Fein Oath linked by me above].


"- Led Europe into a gigantic war (which he must surely have known was bound to result from his expansionist policies), the consequence of which was not only Germany's total defeat and dismemberment, but the divison of Europe between American and Soviet spheres (thus supressing the continent's own cultural and political development).

It takes two to tango; and war will always be the outcome while Jewish interests dominate the Western world [look what's happening even today]. Expansionism is the tendency of all healthy nations; the old Empires were trying to prevent German growth and health - see the Versailles Treaty and Reparations!


"- Frankly, had a very brutal occupation policy throughout Europe, and particularly in E. Europe, which provided ammunition to those who wish to smear anyone who supports any aspect of Hitler's policies".

Brutal policies in a brutal war against a brutal enemy who had infiltrated the occupied territories to carry out cowardly attacks.
In fact the German occupation forces in France were noted for their good behaviour - compare the Judaised USA armed forces in Iraq today!


"- His ideas about Jews tended to be rather conspiratorial, whereas I prefer to explain the incompatibility of their interests and ours more through an examination of their micromotives and consequent macrobehaviour".

I prefer the fact that Hitler actually DID something about the Jews and actually put his words into LAWS [see the Nuremberg Laws if in doubt].


"- Speaking personally, his regime was much more authoritarian than any I would care to live under".

Again - do you prefer multiracial 'freedom' to Aryan Order?

http://www.pzg.biz/German%20Order.gif

Telperion
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 06:25 PM
Moody; Given the choice, what would you support; the hegemony of a Jew-Free N-S Aryan Germany, or the Judaised 'multiracial/multicultural democracy' of your own 'nation'?
As for my own 'nation', I would definitely support Canadian world domination.;)

As far as the hegemony of N-S Germany versus that of the USA within Europe is concerned, I will put myself in hot water and say that while the Jew-free nature of N-S Germany makes its hegemony preferable in that sense, N-S German hegemony would not have been preferable in any other sense. Why should Danes or Frenchmen have to take orders from Berlin? I would rather prefer a cooperative approach between sovereign European nations to the hegemony of any nation over the rest of Europe.


And as I have pointed out above, there are many "chauvinisms" tolerated by European nationalists even today which are far worse [see the Sinn Fein Oath linked by me above].
You are of course correct about that.



Moody; It takes two to tango; and war will always be the outcome while Jewish interests dominate the Western world [look what's happening even today]. Expansionism is the tendency of all healthy nations; the old Empires were trying to prevent German growth and health - see the Versailles Treaty and Reparations!
Expansionism within Europe? Why not against non-European peoples abroad? It was his German expansionism at the expense of other European peoples I find objectionable.



Moody; Brutal policies in a brutal war against a brutal enemy who had infiltrated the occupied territories to carry out cowardly attacks.
In fact the German occupation forces in France were noted for their good behaviour - compare the Judaised USA armed forces in Iraq today!
Well, I've read a fair bit about the history of WWII, and I'm afraid I don't really agree with that assessment. For example, the Germans had a policy whereby for every German solider killed in France (during the occupation), ten French hostages would be rounded up at random and shot. In Denmark, it was only five hostages per German soldier. (My late great-uncle in Denmark personally knew five ordinary people in his town, not involved in any sort of partisan activities, who were shot by the Germans as a result of this policy.) In the East, it could be much more than ten civilians for one German soldier.

There was also comment by Hans Frank recorded by Albert Speer in his memoirs (if I recall the source correctly), in which Frank was reacting to the news that the German authorities in Bohemia (I believe acting under W. Funk's orders) had six Czechs shot as punishment for some sort of partisan activity, and put up posters all over Bohemia to advertise this fact and warn the Czechs to toe the line. Frank apparently laughed and said that if he put up posters all over Poland every time he had six Poles shot, there wouldn't be enough forests in all of Poland to make the paper for such posters.

Is this really justified? Perhaps I'm squeamish, but I don't think so. Much more important that what I think, however, is that these sorts of brutal policies provided ammunitation to those who supported any aspect of Hitler's ideas during and after the war. That wasn't the intention, of course, but it was the effect. These sorts of brutal policies from sixty years ago are held up to slander those who promote European nationalist ideas today - less brutality by Germany during the war would have equalled less ammuniation against us now.



Moody; I prefer the fact that Hitler actually DID something about the Jews and actually put his words into LAWS [see the Nuremberg Laws if in doubt].
That's a fair point.



Moody; Again - do you prefer multiracial 'freedom' to Aryan Order?
You'd have to clarify what you mean by 'Aryan Order'. If the question is do I prefer a multiracial fake 'democracy' to a racially-conscious but openly authoritarian regime, the answer is I prefer neither. I'd rather live in an all-European state that conducted its affairs as much as possible through a sort of decentralized local democracy (like the New England town hall meeting in colonial times).

cosmocreator
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 07:22 PM
Your point being?


Originally Posted by Telperion
- Crushed the communist presence within Germany.



Originally Posted by cosmocreator
The person who started this thread has for his politics "Pan-Aryan Communist."

The original poster would not care that Hitler crushed the communist because he is a communist.

ogenoct
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 10:23 PM
The original poster would not care that Hitler crushed the communist because he is a communist.
This statement is only partly true. I am opposed to the judaized internationalist-Trotskyite version of Communism - just as Hitler AND Stalin were!

Constantin

Moody
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 06:33 PM
To take Telperion's salient points;


"Why should Danes or Frenchmen have to take orders from Berlin? I would rather prefer a cooperative approach between sovereign European nations to the hegemony of any nation over the rest of Europe".

Moody; Why should Bavarians take orders from Berlin either?
Why should Mancunians take orders from London?
Why should Californians take orders from Washington?
Therein lies the problem in the construction of any large polity. A co-operative approach is ideal - but is it practicable?
As to German expansionism at the "expense" of other Europeans, - you are again referring to war-time exigencies.
Other than that, most European observers agreed that the Versailles Treaty had been made at the "expense" of Germany, and that Hitler was right to try to repair those wrongs.
Of course Hitler invaded France AFTER France had declared war on Germany.
Similarly, the activities of German armed forces were comensurate with the activities of other armed forces in what became Total War. Indeed, I believe that the worse behaved were the Soviets - apparently countless German women committed suicide rather than be raped by the Red Army.
The victors always write the history.
And sometimes post-war recollections are not always reliable; I'm not only thinking of the so-called Holocaust survivors, but of people like Albert Speer as well.
If the Axis had won the war, then no doubt Democracy would be smeared as a brutal form of regime - would you fall for that?
I am fairly satisfied by my own researches that on the whole, the German Army, which was superior man-for-man, behaved according to the codes of Aryan honour, given the circumstances.


"You'd have to clarify what you mean by 'Aryan Order'. If the question is do I prefer a multiracial fake 'democracy' to a racially-conscious but openly authoritarian regime, the answer is I prefer neither. I'd rather live in an all-European state that conducted its affairs as much as possible through a sort of decentralized local democracy (like the New England town hall meeting in colonial times)".

An Aryan Order is a polity based as far as possible on an Aryan [and therefore non-Semitic] ethos. Such a regime will necessarily be authoritarian in times of crisis [i.e., at a time when the Judaic principles are in the ascendant as they are and have been for some time].
I do not have much faith in 'democracy' as it is now practiced [when it no longer is based on a slave state].
Indeed, I believe that 'democracy' has led to all the abuses we see today, the chief being Jewish ascendancy, multiracialism, multiculturalism and liberalism in general.
Therefore, given the choice between that and an Aryan Order, I cannot understand that you would not choose the later in a thrice!
But I respect your honesty.

http://www.kimkimdir.gen.tr/foto/1937.jpg

http://cenocracy.topcities.com/swastika.gif

Prince Eugen
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 06:58 PM
I agree that "Hitler-cult" is ridiculous.Hitler was also anti-french.His dream was not Pan-European.He wanted Europe under a totally germanic control.
He was just a German chauvinist.He didn't respect the non-teutonic people.
Why must the non-teutonic people respect him in present days?
I respect Hitler because:
He saved his nation from communism and capitalism
He create a revolotionary movement
He built a strong German and respectfull state
For the first time at modern history nation was based at the Race
and until the end he remained a Man of His Destiny!
I disangree strongly with his anti slavic views !
By the way Hitler did say about Leon Degrelle ,a non German:If i WOULD HAVE A SON I WISH TO BE YOU?

Telperion
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 07:57 PM
In response to Moody Lawless, I think perhaps our disagreements over these issues are rooted in the issue of what is necessary versus what is ideal. If we consider

- hegemony and the pursuit of war
- harsh actions in war
- dictatorship in place of democracy

I would say that all of these actions could be justified by necessity, depending on the circumstances. My posts could probably itself be criticized for criticizing some of the things that Hitler did on the basis that they did not conform to what is 'ideal', while ignoring the issue of whether they were necessary. From that prespective, I would address these points as follows:

- hegemony and pursuit of war: Germany did face a problem in that all of the leading world powers actively sought to restrain its own rising power. From this standpoint, war was bound to result regardless of the specific foreign policy actions taken by Hitler. Having said that, one still might be skeptical of some of his particular policy choices - e.g. if the concern was attempts by France and England to constrain German power, why not invade France and blockade England to address this issue, instead of first invading Poland? One could say the invasion of Poland was unnecessary, in that he could have made alternative arrangements with the Polish regime (which was staunchly anti-communist) to forify the Eastern frontiers against the Soviets (and extend the arrangement to the Batic states with his allies Finland and Slovakia/Hungary/Romania to reinforce the Cordon Sanitaire). From this perspective, one could say Hitler was not responsible for leading Europe into war per se, but that some of his policy decisions in the war were still driven by German 'chauvinism' as opposed to necessity (and therefore were unjustified).

- harsh actions in war: There's no doubt 'war is hell', and some of the German harshness undoubtedly was necessary from their point of view (although repressive from the standpoint of civilians in occupied countries). The Soviet troops certainly were far more brutal, as always not least against their own people and each other as well as against their enemies. Even so, I doubt all the recollections of German harshness were post-war confabulations. In sum, I'd say (without going into extensive detail here) that some of the harsh German measures were justified by necessity, others were not (and in fairness I would say the same thing about the Allies' conduct).

- dictatorship in place of democracy - I can see room for a temporary dictatorship for periods of emergency, driven by necessity. The ancient Roman republic had an institutional dictatorship for precisely this purpose. If pressed, I'd say that although 'New England' style localized democracy is what I would prefer in an ideal world, in our own less than ideal world I could certainly tolerate living in a Roman-style republic, allowing for periods of dictatorship in war and other periods of crisis. From that standpoint, I would answer your question again by saying that in the short term, I would tolerate and prefer living under what you have termed an 'Aryan Order' for the period necessary to reverse the degeneracy of our own civilization. But, I would not tolerate (if I had a choice) living under such a dictatorship past the point of necessity, i.e. once an all-European state clensed of alien influences had been established. At that point, I would want a republic back, although still maintaining public institutions that strongly promoted the racial consciousness and community spirit (virtue) of the people. (My ideas on this are fairly heavily influenced by Machiavelli's 'Discourses'.)

My understanding (if accurate) is that Hitler favoured permanent dictatorship for more metaphysical reasons, but I simply do not agree that permanent dictatorship (divorced from necessity) is desirable. I have a skeptical view of human nature, and accordingly do not favour too great a concentration of political power in any one (necessarily flawed) individual or elite group of individuals, except in a temporally-limited manner under conditions of necessity (as defined above).

George
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 08:44 PM
The Jews started World War Two. Nazi Germany was more authoritarian than most people would like, but it had to be to survive. The Germans are a bit like that anyway.

As for all groups of White people holding hands and being happy together, it can never happen. We can and must cooperate as much as possible to defeat the non-Whites, but after that there will again be free competition.

The Germanic peoples are superior. They are the most Nordic, they are the master-race and it is their right and duty to hold sway over everyone else.

I think it's best for us to be honest with each other and not insult each other with lies. I am English and I hate Celts. I have much experience of them and they are an anachronism in the modern world. A deep, implacable, irrational hatred of the English is stamped into their soul, and no matter how many generations they live in England or that England gave them everything they have had for 30 generations, they will always hate us and be loyal only to their own kind. That said, until we have dealt with the non-Whites, I shall shake the hand of any Celtic patriot and mean it.

P.S. Cromwell, Spenser and Edward I knew how to deal with Celts. :)

Telperion
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 09:21 PM
I am English and I hate Celts...A deep, implacable, irrational hatred of the English is stamped into their soul,they will always hate us and be loyal only to their own kind.
No wonder I feel torn from within.

Telperion
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 12:23 AM
The Germanic peoples are superior. They are the most Nordic, they are the master-race and it is their right and duty to hold sway over everyone else.

It's precisely because Hitler believed this and acted on this belief, toward the occupied countries in E. Europe, that Germany was totally defeated in WWII. Once the Russian people understood what Hitler really thought of them, the German invasion of Russia was doomed, and so was N-S Germany.

The reason why should be obvious - it is simply not possible for a tiny fraction of the world's population to hold sway over everyone else through brute force when modern weapons and methods of war have spread everywhere. Surely that is the fundamental lesson to be learned from WWII.

Moody
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 04:59 PM
To respond to Telperion's points;

1) Hegemony and the pursuit of war:
Poland: the burning issue here for the Germans after Versaille was the Polish corridor. Try to imagine a similar affront to your own nation, and then you might appreciate how fired up the Germans were about this.
While the Third Reich was undoubtedly militaristic in ethos [as opposed to being say capitalistic or communistic], this must be seen in context as I keep saying. Because Hitler has been made into a universal bogeyman, there has been a warping of historical perspective. Young [non-German] Westerners almost assume that their own nations were then the same as they are now, and only "Nazi Germany" was the 'n*gger in the woodpile' [I used that phrase on purpose and you will see why].
Let's not forget that the USA still had state sanctioned racial segregation at the time; that the British Empire ruled millions of non-whites who had no say in the matter and that the Soviets had carried out political/class-based pogroms, and that Mussolini's Italy had already displayed a very militaristic ethos.
So the Third Reich was not overly repressive given that context and contemporary comparisons.
As to hegemony, the British Empire always sought a 'balance of power' in Europe; meaning that it tried to play one power off against another hoping to keep each power down below itself. This was a very dangerous policy as history had already shown. Hitler in Mein Kampf actually put forward a plan for German/British co-operation, claiming that German and British Empire interests did not clash. But the ruling class in Britain [most of them but not all, Sir Oswald] would hear nothing of this, being obsessed with 'balance of power'. In the latter concept you will find the roots of the two world wars.

http://www.doorstops.com/fake_frf.jpg

2) Harsh actions in war.
I think the distortion occurs here because after the war, the defeated German defendants were not allowed to use the standard "you too" defence at the rigged Nuremberg Trials.
That meant that all the "harsh actions" of hard-pressed German forces who were fighting to defend their homeland from invading American, British and Russian forces were emphasised, while the "harsh actions" of the Allies were ignored and considered 'not relevant'.
This is obviously a travesty of justice.
If you and I fight "all-in", and you defeat me, it is absurd for you then to condemn me for not observing Queensbury Rules - neither did you!
Germany DID occupy surrounding nations after war had been declared on her by the British Empire and by France, of course; what other strategy could she have followed?
Look how Russia/ USA/Britain OCCUPIED EUROPE after 1945 and even divided it into east and west!
You may get the general gist - I find that all the hyped-up allegations against Hitler's Germany are disingenuous to put it mildly!
They also detract from what good things that regime achieved [and that's the idea, no doubt].
Look how the USA/ Britain/ Russia/ Israel have hidden behind this facade of calling everybody else a "Nazi" while perpetrating crimes that the Fuhrer would NEVER have countenanced!

http://www.keinehaare.com/gfx/cover/german_british_friendship_-.jpg
German British Friendship

3) Dictatorship in place of Democracy;
I would wager that a "New England" type democracy relied on a very limited franchise [i.e., only the wealthy land-owners etc., had the vote], based on a peasant/ slave-owning state. Hitler himself admired this, of course.
However, once the franchise is widened and 'egalitarianism' is taken as a political dogma, then the road to the present perdition is fairly easy to chart. As someone once said; "how much democracy do you want"?
So democracy that is limited to a small elite may be acceptable - but then you are against the rule of elites!
You say that you are sceptical of 'human nature' [and that itself is another issue] when it comes to the rule of an elite or a dictatorship; but then you will allow the system where just ANY HUMAN, natural or not, can vote!
This is what Byron called a "dictatorship of blaggards"; it is the system that puts the likes of the Bush dynasty in power! Or else a crook like Clinton!
It is a system which is easily manipulated by International Finance which has reduced politics to economics!

There is another slur abroad that Hitler only admired the Germans and considered only they to be Aryans; this is untrue. Hitler expressed his admiration for the racial qualities of the Italians in many instances, and sought a North/South European Axis. Indeed, many say that he put too much into his alliance with Mussolini when it became clear that Benito was not up to the mark.

Also, Hitler NEVER sought "world domination"; this is another lie and it is based on no evidence whatsoever. He sought a united Germany and a revocation of Versailles. He, like many, saw Communism [in the form it had taken in Russia at the time] as a threat to civilisation, and wanted to effectively combat it. To that end he desired the defeat of the Soviets and the expansion of German farmers into the vast expanses of the east.
Importantly, he wanted the Reich FREE of Jewish influence.
He also wanted friendship with Britain and the USA as he felt [as I have already said] that there was no real clash of interests there.

So I say in conclusion that Hitler was broadly RIGHT, and that it was the Allied policy that was flawed. It was the Allied policy that lead to 50 million war dead and to the growth of Communism, the Middle East problem etc., etc., as the Britisher Oswald Mosley recognised before the war.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1060588456239_2003/08/13/14HITLER.jpg
Sir Oswald Mosley and his wife Diana

Telperion
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 06:18 PM
In reply to Moody Lawless:

1.) The 'balance of power' concept was indeed at the core of Britain's refusal to accept Germany's rising power. I believe that in 'Mein Kampf', Hitler suggested that a weak Germany was not in England's interests, because it left France too dominant in continental Europe. Accordingly, he suggested that Britain's 'balance of power' concept should lead Britain to support a German resurgence of strength to the point that it could effectively challenge France on the continent, although it would not lead it to support a resurgence of German strength so considerable that it would allow Germany to challenge the British Empire abroad and on the high seas. So, Hitler seems to have recognized how the b.o.p. concept of British foreign policy could serve Germany's interests up to a point, although it would place Britain in opposition to Germany beyond that point. One could suggest that this view was historically verified, in that Britain did nothing to hinder German re-armament, the re-militarization of the Rhineland, the anschluss of Austria, or even the absorption of the Sudetenland and Bohemia/Moravia - all of which were instrument in making Germany a strong continental power once again.

The British seem to have 'drawn the line' at Poland (with regard to their b.o.p. concept). I definitely understand the Germans' feelings about the Polish corridor issue, which was amongst other things an affront to their national pride. Had the British not clung to their b.o.p. concept, the German invasion of Poland would not have led to a general war.

Still, Hitler himself recognized in 'Mein Kampf' that countries do not have friendships with each other, only convergences or divergences of interests. Arguably, for Britain to have abandoned its b.o.p. concept would have been tantamount to abandoning its pretensions at being a dominant world power, and one can understand why most of the British elite (not simply those directly connected to Jewish-linked financial interests) were simply unwilling to do this voluntarily. As Hitler apparently knew that the b.o.p. was the centrepiece of foreign policy, and that Britain 'drew the line' at Poland, I would say that he made a calculated decision to risk war with Britain to futher Germany's interests since, from a realpolitik standpoint, Poland was the point beyond which Britain's and Germany's interests (as defined by each country at the time) diverged. Absent a different understanding of their interests by either Britain or Germany, then, war was probably bound to start between them eventually.

2.) I agree there was a great deal of hypocrisy by the Allies with regard to German activites in the war. In fact, if I recall correctly Admiral Doenitz got off relatively 'lightly' at Nuremburg (10 years) because, in response to allegations of German brutality on the high seas which he had personally authorized, he introduced evidence proving that the Allied high command authorized precisely the same sorts of measures against German ships. And of course the Allies engaged in calculated atrocities of their own, the firebombing of Dresden being the most obvious.

Parenthetically, I recently watched a documentary called 'The Fog of War' on Robert S. McNamara, who during WWII was attached to US Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay's group, and who helped plan the firebombing of Tokyo, knowing full well that it would kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. McNamara openly admitted that had the US lost the war, both he and LeMay would have been rightly condemned as war criminals for authorizing this action.

So I'll admit that wartime atrocities are not a reason for singling the Germans out for condemnation - though they still count as 'negative aspects' in my view. (If you asked me what I thought of the Allied powers at the time, I'd certainly hold their own nasty actions against them.)

3.) By 'human nature', I mean that all humans are at least potentially flawed, in the sense of prone to lapses in judgment, selfishness, etc. - which seems a plausible assertion to me.

The points you have raised about the inherent flaws of a democracy with a broad franchise are valid. However, I don't see any easy answers to the issue of dictatorship versus democracy. Aristotle recognized in his 'Politics' that all 'ideal' forms of governance are inherently corruptible; thus a just monarchy can degenerate into an unjust tyranny, a wise aristocracy into a corrupt oligarchy, and a virtuous polity into a chaotic democracy. Your objections to a democracy with a broad franchise are indeed sound, and yet I could throw back valid objections about the corruptability of rule by a single individual or a small elite. Perhaps the system one would advocate comes down to a personal judgment call based on one's own preferences...in a less than perfect world (as opposed to my idealized 'New England' world), my own judgment is that a Roman republican model is the 'best' form of government, though only so long as civic virtue or public spiritedness can be maintained amongst the populace.


In any case, on the bright side, at least I acknowledge that Hitler made significant positive achievements, which is more than one can say for most (brainwashed) individuals today.

BlutUndEhre
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 02:43 AM
I cannot respect Hitler because he was essentially anti-Aryan due to his irrational contempt for Slavs. This kind of thinking is counterproductive to a true pan-Aryan movement.

Constantin

Why is the dude in your picture holding a commie flag? I was under the impression that NS was opposed to Bolshevism.

Moody
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 05:31 PM
Why is the dude in your picture holding a commie flag? I was under the impression that NS was opposed to Bolshevism.

Ogenoct is not N-S, of course, but he presents a friendly challenge to NS; one which is not abusive, but is measured and thought-provoking.

He seems to be suggesting that his own 'bolshevism' is more worthy than NS because Hitler's anti-Slav sentiments were anti-Aryan [because Slavs are Aryans according to ogenoct].

What do you think of his contention?

The Dagda
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 06:47 PM
Ogenoct is not N-S, of course, but he presents a friendly challenge to NS; one which is not abusive, but is measured and thought-provoking.

He seems to be suggesting that his own 'bolshevism' is more worthy than NS because Hitler's anti-Slav sentiments were anti-Aryan [because Slavs are Aryans according to ogenoct].

What do you think of his contention?

Hitler was the founder of what we call National Socialist ideology and he was
anti-slav, so we could argue that anti-slavism is an integral part of National Socialism. However, Hitler was Germanic and we must take into account the
view held by many Germans toward the Slavs.
Of course you don't have to be German to follow National Socialism, so it's just a matter of where you come from, what the history of your nation is and
who the enemies of your nation are.
I am loyal to true National Socialism as set out in the teachings of Adolf Hitler.
There are others who call themselves National Socialist, who take their influence from the United States and others still who take theirs from aisa (NSJAP).In my opinion National Socialism is like any other political ideology, it
can be adapted to suit your individual nation.
I'm sure there is a Jewish version out there calling itself by a different name.

Moody
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 07:06 PM
Yes, you make some good points.

1
Essentially we are saying that any nationalistic doctrine will reflect the prejudices of that particular nation.

We might say that this is a good thing as it is an honest expression of nationalism.

So even if we widened the national group from say Germans to 'Europeans', then we would still have a set of prejudices.

There must always be an Other against which we draw our boundaries.

So if we take what many will feel is an 'enlightened' N-S stance, taking into our 'national group' all Latins, Slavs etc., as well as Germanics, then we meet the next exception.
So, we find ourselves being asked; 'what of Turks?', for example.

And when we go to a wider more spiritual grouping, such as 'Aryan', we then are met with the usual 'what is Aryan?' questions.

2
But there is another point; Adolf Hitler's ideology was not based totally on making exclusions; indeed, its main thrust was to gather up a divided people.
A people of a common race and culture who for whatever reason had been broken up and dispersed.
THAT to me is actually the main thrust of what we find in the original doctrine of N-S.
If we translate that into a British version, for example, then we would demand the unification of all people in the world of British race and culture.

3
Going back to the notion of extending the 'nation', from the German up to the European, and then to the Aryan, there is a trade-off.
While anti-Slavism and other intra-European hatreds may be subsumed, there is the added problem of a lack of focus.
It is almost as if a 'liberalism' creeps in along with a sense of abstraction.

The Dagda
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 07:51 PM
2
But there is another point; Adolf Hitler's ideology was not based totally on making exclusions; indeed, its main thrust was to gather up a divided people.
A people of a common race and culture who for whatever reason had been broken up and dispersed.
THAT to me is actually the main thrust of what we find in the original doctrine of N-S.
If we translate that into a British version, for example, then we would demand the unification of all people in the world of British race and culture.

3
Going back to the notion of extending the 'nation', from the German up to the European, and then to the Aryan, there is a trade-off.
While anti-Slavism and other intra-European hatreds may be subsumed, there is the added problem of a lack of focus.
It is almost as if a 'liberalism' creeps in along with a sense of abstraction.

Regarding your first point, what do you mean by "demand the unification"?
If you are talking about encouraging them to return to Britain and making space for them at the expense of other races and cultures, then I probably
agree.
Regarding your second point, each nation has it's own problems, enemies, culture and history to focus on. I'm not talking about extending the "nation"
up to European or up to anything, all nations have an individual history.

BlutUndEhre
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 04:32 AM
Ogenoct is not N-S, of course, but he presents a friendly challenge to NS; one which is not abusive, but is measured and thought-provoking.

He seems to be suggesting that his own 'bolshevism' is more worthy than NS because Hitler's anti-Slav sentiments were anti-Aryan [because Slavs are Aryans according to ogenoct].

What do you think of his contention?



Personally, I think all people from Mother Europe should unite against the evil scum opposed to our sacred Movement. I don't think all of Hitler's choices were the correct ones, but for the most part were. One thing though, I don't think that all Europeans will stay united after the war is won. Besides, I'm no expert, but isn't Bolshevism a commie state? I definitely do not agree with the theory that the individual is nonexistent, just the State.

Stríbog
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 05:52 AM
Hitler wasn't the originator of NS; he wasn't a founding party member and rose to power through purging competitors like Roehm and the Strasser brothers. That would be like calling Stalin the founder of the USSR.

As I've said many times, the most glaring flaw within Hitler's policies was his treatment of Slavs. Germany's war against Britain and France was legitimate. The invasion of Belgium was legitimate. The invasion of Norway was debatable but justifiable, all things considered. The invasions of Denmark and Holland were less so. If the ethnic Germans were being mistreated, then reclaiming Danzig would have been understandable but partitioning Poland entirely was not. Of course, the Bolshevik question and Barbarossa raises the endless debate of Icebreaker. I don't believe Stalin had plans to attack, and I've seen much evidence to that effect, but I'm willing to listen to the arguments of Barbarossa apologists.

Moody
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 03:14 PM
Regarding your first point, what do you mean by "demand the unification"?
If you are talking about encouraging them to return to Britain and making space for them at the expense of other races and cultures, then I probably
agree.
Regarding your second point, each nation has it's own problems, enemies, culture and history to focus on. I'm not talking about extending the "nation"
up to European or up to anything, all nations have an individual history.

The 25 Points of the NSDAP are framed thus;

1. We demand the union of all Germans to form a Great Germany on the basis of the right of the self-determination enjoyed by all nations.
[Point 1 of the 25 Points]

This does not suggest a 'return', but rather a political union of all Germans. Just think of applying this to other groups, or else of creating higher forms [such as 'European', 'White' etc.,], to get an idea of what I am talking about.

Of course all nations have a peculiar history, but then so do the various locales WITHIN nations. North Germany and South Germany being quite distinct, for example. So there is always the possibility of this higher synthesis.

Adolf Hitler crystallised N-S; the fact that N-S is a living movement is proven by its ideological evolution.
However, I believe that this is guided by the Immortal Spirit of the Fuhrer.

The Dagda
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 03:41 PM
The 25 Points of the NSDAP are framed thus;

1. We demand the union of all Germans to form a Great Germany on the basis of the right of the self-determination enjoyed by all nations.
[Point 1 of the 25 Points]

This does not suggest a 'return', but rather a political union of all Germans. Just think of applying this to other groups, or else of creating higher forms [such as 'European', 'White' etc.,], to get an idea of what I am talking about.

Of course all nations have a peculiar history, but then so do the various locales WITHIN nations. North Germany and South Germany being quite distinct, for example. So there is always the possibility of this higher synthesis.

Adolf Hitler crystallised N-S; the fact that N-S is a living movement is proven by its ideological evolution.
However, I believe that this is guided by the Immortal Spirit of the Fuhrer.

Yes, that makes more sence now. However I don't like to confuse White Nationalism with National Socialism, as I believe many so called "NAZIS" do.
I think when you start talking in terms of the White race National Socialism
no longer applies, I believe in the ethnopluralism espoused by De Benoist.

Moody
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 03:45 PM
Yes, that makes more sence now. However I don't like to confuse White Nationalism with National Socialism, as I believe many so called "NAZIS" do.
I think when you start talking in terms of the White race National Socialism
no longer applies, I believe in the ethnopluralism espoused by De Benoist.

Interesting - would you like to start a new thread on the supposed distinction between National Socialism and White Nationalism?
Maybe listing the differences you perceive to see if others agree?

Nordgau
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 04:13 PM
Hitler wasn't the originator of NS; he wasn't a founding party member and rose to power through purging competitors like Roehm and the Strasser brothers. That would be like calling Stalin the founder of the USSR.

Stalin was the successor of others who already founded the USSR and Russian Bolshevism and gave to them their special form and character. Hitler was from the beginning motor and energy of National Socialism. The DAP would have become nothing, simply nothing if there would have been no Hitler, but if Drexler and Harrer and those few others would have played a game of their own. Of course he didn't create NS out of a vacuum, but adapted ideologically from various sources and origins - but the form and character, the special integral whole of National Socialism and not at least the fact that in the Germany of the twenties there really arose a "National Socialist movement" as real and effective political movement, isn't thinkable without Hitler.
Röhm and the Strassers always were secondary figures, compared to Hitler. Hitler was from the beginning the central star in the National Socialist cosmos, and the cosmos wouldn't have been the same without him; there may would have been other historical völkisch and nationalist groups and parties in the Germany of the twenties, but of different character and hardly the same influence on the historical process.

The Dagda
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 04:29 PM
Interesting - would you like to start a new thread on the supposed distinction between National Socialism and White Nationalism?
Maybe listing the differences you perceive to see if others agree?

I think the distinction between the two is very obvious to anyone who has
bothered to study the subject, I don't want to spend hours on the net arguing with people who can't be bothered to read a book. It is sufficient to
say that National Socialism has been warped by many people throughout the
years and that White Nationalism needed an ideology to link onto because as
a philosophy it is just racism.

The Dagda
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 04:56 PM
Stalin was the successor of others who already founded the USSR and Russian Bolshevism and gave to them their special form and character. Hitler was from the beginning motor and energy of National Socialism. The DAP would have become nothing, simply nothing if there would have been no Hitler, but if Drexler and Harrer and those few others would have played a game of their own. Of course he didn't create NS out of a vacuum, but adapted ideologically from various sources and origins - but the form and character, the special integral whole of National Socialism and not at least the fact that in the Germany of the twenties there really arose a "National Socialist movement" as real and effective political movement, isn't thinkable without Hitler.
Röhm and the Strassers always were secondary figures, compared to Hitler. Hitler was from the beginning the central star in the National Socialist cosmos, and the cosmos wouldn't have been the same without him; there may would have been other historical völkisch and nationalist groups and parties in the Germany of the twenties, but of different character and hardly the same influence on the historical process.

I agree, when people think of National Socialism they think of Adolf Hitler.
The concept was nothing new, Barres was in France with his anti-German Socialist Nationalism, but who has heard of Maurice Barres? Nobody, unless they studied Fascism.

ogenoct
Wednesday, June 23rd, 2004, 09:14 PM
Interesting - would you like to start a new thread on the supposed distinction between National Socialism and White Nationalism?
Maybe listing the differences you perceive to see if others agree?
National Socialism = Germanic ethnocentrism

White Nationalism = Pan-Aryanism

Constantin

ogenoct
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 03:16 AM
Norman Lowell (of IMPERIVM EVROPA) says:

Hitler was wrong

The Hero, that great political genius of the 20th century, was wrong. His only mistake throughout his short, but incredibly successful leadership of Germany and most of Europe, was that he was too ethnocentric.

His policy towards the Slavs, a cousin people within the great fold of the Europid race was all but shameful. When Ukrainians rushed to the German side against their Soviet oppressors they were curtly dismissed. This brought dismay and disillusionment not only within the Wermacht, but especially so within the SS. These elite fighting units had a pan-Aryan policy that included Bosnian and Herzegovina Muslim troops. Himmler’s secretary married the Ukrainian resistance hero, General Vlasov in Berlin, just a month before the war ended. More than a million volunteers from all over Europe, including the Latin countries, were enrolled within the Waffen SS.

And The Hero’s ethnocentric policy also benefited his greatest enemies: the Jews. For with the racial laws, whereby individuals had to prove their Aryan origin up to at least 1800, many Jews, unaware that they were in fact Jews, were branded as such. Thus we had blond giants suddenly transformed into Jews, becoming the best fighting men for the nascent Israel. It can be said that German Sabras saved Israel in the first crucial years of its history.

Had Germany emerged victorious, The Hero would have lived for another ten years at the most. He suffered from Parkinsons disease - and the British knew that, having been informed by Admiral Canaris of the Abwehr. The Fuhrer would have been succeeded by a new elite, certainly from within the ranks of the SS. Pan-Aryanism would have become the policy for a United Europe. The uncouth element of National Socialism would have been swept away by the Old Prussian Aristocracy, within the SS - and with them, would have been the best elements from all European countries - from England to Vladivostock.

It can be said that the right side, the side that represented values of aristocracy as against the mercantile, Jewish view of life, lost in that epic struggle that was WWII. And this primarily because of The Hero’s only mistake, a fatal mistake: ethnocentricity as against Pan-Aryanism.

A lesson that should be learnt, now more than ever. As the White Race diminishes in numbers, we can no longer afford the luxury of divisions and rivalries. We have to be as one: all the Patriotic Forces within the White World. We have to join together in the fight against our mortal enemies: those same enemies who threw the gauntlet against Rome two thousand years ago and who have vowed to destroy us.

And that is what we, of Imperium Europa here in Malta, must achieve. We must become that spark that will burst into a flame which will set Europe, and the whole White World, ablaze. This revolution, this resurgence, this restoration can occur nowhere else but here, in the sacred humus, the Sacred Island of Melita: the Spiritual Centre of the coming, inevitable, unstoppable: Imperium Europa.

Magna Europa est Patria Nostra!

Norman Lowell
Imperium Europa

Stríbog
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 04:02 AM
That is a brilliant article. I wish more people felt that way.

BlutUndEhre
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 08:35 AM
Norman Lowell (of IMPERIVM EVROPA) says:

Hitler was wrong

The Hero, that great political genius of the 20th century, was wrong. His only mistake throughout his short, but incredibly successful leadership of Germany and most of Europe, was that he was too ethnocentric.

His policy towards the Slavs, a cousin people within the great fold of the Europid race was all but shameful. When Ukrainians rushed to the German side against their Soviet oppressors they were curtly dismissed. This brought dismay and disillusionment not only within the Wermacht, but especially so within the SS. These elite fighting units had a pan-Aryan policy that included Bosnian and Herzegovina Muslim troops. Himmler’s secretary married the Ukrainian resistance hero, General Vlasov in Berlin, just a month before the war ended. More than a million volunteers from all over Europe, including the Latin countries, were enrolled within the Waffen SS.

And The Hero’s ethnocentric policy also benefited his greatest enemies: the Jews. For with the racial laws, whereby individuals had to prove their Aryan origin up to at least 1800, many Jews, unaware that they were in fact Jews, were branded as such. Thus we had blond giants suddenly transformed into Jews, becoming the best fighting men for the nascent Israel. It can be said that German Sabras saved Israel in the first crucial years of its history.

Had Germany emerged victorious, The Hero would have lived for another ten years at the most. He suffered from Parkinsons disease - and the British knew that, having been informed by Admiral Canaris of the Abwehr. The Fuhrer would have been succeeded by a new elite, certainly from within the ranks of the SS. Pan-Aryanism would have become the policy for a United Europe. The uncouth element of National Socialism would have been swept away by the Old Prussian Aristocracy, within the SS - and with them, would have been the best elements from all European countries - from England to Vladivostock.

It can be said that the right side, the side that represented values of aristocracy as against the mercantile, Jewish view of life, lost in that epic struggle that was WWII. And this primarily because of The Hero’s only mistake, a fatal mistake: ethnocentricity as against Pan-Aryanism.

A lesson that should be learnt, now more than ever. As the White Race diminishes in numbers, we can no longer afford the luxury of divisions and rivalries. We have to be as one: all the Patriotic Forces within the White World. We have to join together in the fight against our mortal enemies: those same enemies who threw the gauntlet against Rome two thousand years ago and who have vowed to destroy us.

And that is what we, of Imperium Europa here in Malta, must achieve. We must become that spark that will burst into a flame which will set Europe, and the whole White World, ablaze. This revolution, this resurgence, this restoration can occur nowhere else but here, in the sacred humus, the Sacred Island of Melita: the Spiritual Centre of the coming, inevitable, unstoppable: Imperium Europa.

Magna Europa est Patria Nostra!

Norman Lowell
Imperium Europa



I agree, we do need more Aryan Unity and less divisions.

BlutUndEhre
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 08:39 AM
Yes, Hitler did make a few mistakes, but we as National Socialists don't worship Hitler. We praise what he did for the fatherland and the Aryan race, his progress, though short, has become a major stepping stone for our Race. Besides, just like everything else in life, the mistakes he made are well documented and surely never to be repeated again.

BlutUndEhre
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 08:44 AM
Irish Nationalists are not anti-British. Any hostile feelings that the Irish have towards the British are solely due to Britain's colonial activities in Ireland.



He didn't say all Irish were anti-British, he said there is some anti-British sentiments amongst the Irish due to British colonialism and there is some anti-Irish sentiment amongst the Brits due to the IRA's terrorist tactics.

BlutUndEhre
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 08:45 PM
I agree that "Hitler-cult" is ridiculous.Hitler was also anti-french.His dream was not Pan-European.He wanted Europe under a totally germanic control.
He was just a German chauvinist.He didn't respect the non-teutonic people.
Why must the non-teutonic people respect him in present days?



Firstly, Hitler wasn't a German chauvenist- mostly because he wasn't German; he was Austrian. He wasn't for German superiority, but for Germanic Aryan superiority. Secondly, he had much respect for some non-Germanic peoples; such as the British. He actually didn't take his advisors' advice to bomb Britain because he had great respect for their empire and felt that someday they might incorporate them into the Reich (As inferiors as far as social classes go). And lastly, peoples of non-Germanic descent respect Hitler because he was a genius at what he did, he brought the Fatherland from post-WWI ruins and poverty to a beautiful, powerful world power. Everyone has to respect that. While his aims were not pro- European unity, but Germanic Aryan unity, his legacy is a large stepping stone to a larger, more powerful, more European movement.

Japetos
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 10:26 PM
Firstly, Hitler wasn't a German chauvenist- mostly because he wasn't German; he was Austrian. He wasn't for German superiority, but for Germanic Aryan superiority. Secondly, he had much respect for some non-Germanic peoples; such as the British. He actually didn't take his advisors' advice to bomb Britain because he had great respect for their empire and felt that someday they might incorporate them into the Reich (As inferiors as far as social classes go). And lastly, peoples of non-Germanic descent respect Hitler because he was a genius at what he did, he brought the Fatherland from post-WWI ruins and poverty to a beautiful, powerful world power. Everyone has to respect that. While his aims were not pro- European unity, but Germanic Aryan unity, his legacy is a large stepping stone to a larger, more powerful, more European movement.

Well,did Hitler feel himself German or Austrian?I think the 1st.He was a Germanic chauvinist.What's the difference for non-germanic people,if he was German or "Germanic" chauvinist?
Hitler respected the British people because he had believed they were mostly teutonic "cousins".
If Hitler was a genius,he would be the winner of WW2.

ogenoct
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 11:17 PM
Firstly, Hitler wasn't a German chauvenist- mostly because he wasn't German; he was Austrian. He wasn't for German superiority, but for Germanic Aryan superiority. Secondly, he had much respect for some non-Germanic peoples; such as the British.
Austrians are Germans. The British are Germanic people.

Constantin

Werewolf
Friday, June 25th, 2004, 12:29 AM
Hitler , was a great politic men in the 20 century ! he was the only politic men , which got it german nation to strengthen. wich politic men have this doing for his nation? nobody!! ok he had make many mistakes , a bush junior had make more mistakes ! and nobody stop bush

churchill and roosevelt had ever say , this is not a war against the NS or hitler , no this is a war against the german nation

and when i look today to the german politic mens , i must laugthing about they ! hitler say before he died " when i dies is this a end of the german nation " and he say the true , the german nation today is not a nation ! in a german politic been gay people , in a german politics gives comunist ( pds ),the german people live in a multi culture nation ( arabics , africans etc ) , it gives childs where the father is a arabic and the mother is germans , what is that?!

Stríbog
Friday, June 25th, 2004, 12:54 AM
Hitler never identified as anything but German. He regarded the entire "Austrian" construct as an abomination of the Habsburg rulers. He regarded the German-speaking provinces of Austria (Kärnten, Steuermark, Oberdonau or Oberoesterreich, Niederdonau or Niederoesterreich, Tirol, Wien, Salzburg, Vorarlberg and Bürgenland) as fundamentally German, and apparently so did the Austrians since they voted something like 98% for the Anschluß.

Hitler was a German chauvinist, though, any cursory glance at Mein Kampf or his speeches will show that. Hitler respected England specifically because of their Germanic origins. Hitler was much too soft on the UK, letting them slip away at Dunkerque, refusing to bomb English cities to the extent that war demanded, obsessively waiting for them to accept his peace offers, etc. Hitler was much too soft towards Britain and much too cruel towards Slavs. These two mistakes were what cost him the war. He had many good ideas, but in the end these errors dragged him down.

ogenoct
Friday, June 25th, 2004, 01:00 AM
Hitler was much too soft towards Britain and much too cruel towards Slavs. These two mistakes were what cost him the war. He had many good ideas, but in the end these errors dragged him down.
This is true, especially when one considers that many Slavs hailed the German Wehrmacht as liberators (e.g., the Ukrainians). But because of Hitler's and Himmler's Nordic superiority complex, these sources of sympathy from the side of the Slavs were not put to use by the Germans. Instead, the Germans installed an almost colonial policy in the conquered territories, subjecting the natives to tyranny and exploitation. If the Germans would have welcomed the Slavs in their ranks, the tide of the war against the Soviet Union might have turned. The British were nothing but traitors to their race, and Hitler should have seen that from the very beginning. If only Hitler would have listened to Ribbentrop...

Constantin

BlutUndEhre
Friday, June 25th, 2004, 04:56 AM
Well,did Hitler feel himself German or Austrian?I think the 1st.He was a Germanic chauvinist.What's the difference for non-germanic people,if he was German or "Germanic" chauvinist?
Hitler respected the British people because he had believed they were mostly teutonic "cousins".
If Hitler was a genius,he would be the winner of WW2.



Well, there is no difference if Hitler was a German or Germanic chauvenist, I just brought it up to set the facts straight- no problem. To address the second issue- he was a genius in the sense that not many people can not only run a country, but pick it up out of the gutter first. But he was human, and humans make mistakes; granted they were pretty massive mistakes costing him the war. But the fact remains the same, his political genius has and will remain in the northern section of the world's greatest political figures- at least within the range of the last couple of hundred years.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Friday, June 25th, 2004, 06:34 AM
How interesting it is that you bring up the the Ukrainians, ogenoct.

What would you consider the bolshevik orchestrated Ukrainian Famine of 1932-34, which was perpetrated by Dzhugashvili and his jewish henchman Lazar Kagonavich?

I refer everyone to http://ukr-ww2.onestop.net/index.html (http://ukr-ww2.onestop.net/index.html)for info about the Ukrainians in German and other Axis service. And, on the Famine: http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/Great_Famine/index.shtml (http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/Great_Famine/index.shtml)


But because of Hitler's and Himmler's Nordic superiority complex, these sources of sympathy from the side of the Slavs were not put to use by the Germans.
The Nordics were viewed as the program ideal, not as the standard. The political doctrine was pan-Germanism, which would have included the Nordic peoples and other Germanics.



SS-LEADER Heinrich Himmler SPEAKS on the White Race

A valuable insight into exactly how the Nazis viewed other European populations is afforded through the memoirs of Artur Silgailis, chief of staff of Inspection General the Latvian Legion, the Latvian Waffen-SS, in his book "Latvian Legion" (James Bender Publishing, 1986, pages 348-349.) In that book, Silgailis describes a conversation he had with Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS and the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany:

"He (Himmler) then singled out those nations which he regarded as belonging to the German family of nations and they were: the Germans, the Dutch, the Flemish, the Anglo-Saxons, the Scandinavians and the Baltic people. 'To combine all of these nations into one big family is the most important task at the present time' (Himmler said). 'This unification has to take place on the principle of equality and at that same time has to secure the identity of each nation and its economical independence, of course, adjusting the latter to the interests of the whole German living space. . . After the unification of all the German nations into one family, this family. . . has to take over the mission to include, in the family, all the Roman nations whose living space is favored by nature with a milder climate...I am convinced that after the unification, the Roman nations will be able to persevere as the Germans...This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race . . . it is only with such a unification of the White race that the Western culture could be saved from the Yellow race . . . At the present time, the Waffen-SS is leading in this respect because its organization is based on the principle of equality. The Waffen-SS comprises not only German, Roman and Slavic, but even Islamic units and at the same time has proven that every unit has maintained its national identity while fighting in close togetherness . . . I know quite well my Germans. The German always likes to think himself better but I would like to avert this. It is important that every Waffen-SS officer obeys the order of another officer of another nationality, as the officer of the other nationality obeys the order of the German officer."

This private discussion is illuminating, as it shatters a few myths which have arisen around Nazi Germany's racial policies namely that the Nazis viewed Germans as the only superior race, and that they regarded Latin or Slavic nations as inferior. Both these allegations are utterly false, as revealed here in Himmler's own words.

http://img67.photobucket.com/albums/v203/Freakin_Bad_Mofo/Animated/falcscop.gif

cosmocreator
Monday, June 28th, 2004, 05:48 AM
This Thread shows clearly how chauvenistic and hostile certain Slavs are towards Germany. It is also no surprise that a Bolshevik initiated this thread.

I realy must laugh when I see all these Posts, which were obviously written in an ideologicaly free sphere. all these shallow and stupid Generaliziations. "Hitler hated all Slavs"
Sure. And thats why he protected and helped slovakia to independence, and the slovaks were the only allie we had, which fought to us untill the bitter end.
And all this garbage of how "expansionist" Germany was. Oh yeah, the poor [EDITED...Poles]. that scum tried to convince France allready in 1934 to lead a War against us, joping to gain more territory, and this after having signed a friendship and cooperation treaty with us just 6 Months earlyer. Ohhh the pooooor [EDITED...Poles], the pooor opressed Slavs! I think I'm gona cry.
Germany was "Expansionist" oh dear. And the [EDITED...Poles] boasted in 1930 that they were able to cethnicly cleanse 1 Million Germans from their homes and drive them over the border. The poooooor Slavs - eeeevil Hitler hated them all, that eeevil chauvenist.

It's also laughable how everyone forgets who ruled in Russia. Never mind that judaic dictatorship with it's NKVD henchmen, that murdered more Slavs, than Hitler could have ever dreamed of, if he had such desires. Look at the Anti-German slav chauvenists come here with their apologetic version of History, telling us that Stalin never had the intention of invading Germany/Europe. Oh yes, only eeevil Hitler was "expansionistic". Never mind Finland, the Baltics, Bessarabia ect. ect. Cuddly lil Stalin had no bad intentions. And when he signed the pact with us, Chruzchev reports how he joyfully rubbed his hands and cheered "I tricked him, I tricked Hitler". Hahaha - oh sure - he was just jokeing, the lil darling from Georgia!
We are "expansionist" because we want our land back, which was stolen by megalomaniac [EDITED...Polish] Slavs and then the West declared War on us? We are "expansionist" because we lead a preemtive War to destroy the bolshevik Storm gathering at our borders with 35.000 Tanks and 12.000 Planes?

Sure, we are "chauvenists".

Never mind that all those poor Slavs wore the red Star on their Uniforms and had no good intentions towards us. Lets just forget the Ideology. Lets blend that out. No - No! Lets not talk about that, it would ruin the picture of eeeeeeevil Hitler!

The Führer was the greatest leader and European that ever graced the face of this Planet. And he was the greatest German that ever lived. And frankly I don't give a rats ass what some internet slav chauvenists and Bolsheviks think about him. You can all join the chorus of the Jews, commies and other assorted scum, and sing the kosher propaganda song of the NWO about the eeeeeevil Nazis and the bloody tyrnannt Hitler. You fit just great into the crowd.

And finaly let me add this: Hitler was way to soft. Because if he realy were out for the destruction of the "Slavs" you wouldn't be sitting here flapping your mouths about him, you wouldnt even be born. And I am sure such Slavs as the Croats or Slovaks have a different opinion on the subject than you. But then again, they werent such krypto-commies like you.
I wouldn't hesitate one single second in liquidating all of our enemys, specialy not you pan-slavic chauvenists and "national bolsheviks". Bolshevism is entierly JEWISH and no window dressing with "nationalism" will change anything about it. You are the ENEMY. We all know why you adore Stalin so much, because he enabled you "slavs" to rape Germany. It gives you a thrill knowing how soviet boots stomped over our soil and how mongoloid hands were able to rape and murder our woman and children. It gives you satisfaction and you probably cream your pants when you see that Red Rag fluttering over the Reichstag or the Swasticastandards being thrown into the dirt in front of the Lenin-Maousoleum. You need to make up this "Slav hatred" so you can justefy your "just War" and conquest. You are a bunch of hypocrites, thats all!
And please spare us the soap-opera of mellow "Aryan Unity", which we all know you dont give a damned about. The only ones Hitler truly hated were the Jews and their System of Plutocracy and Bolshevism.

HEIL HITLER!

HVH
Monday, July 12th, 2004, 01:13 AM
first off.... do not use the word europe...
that is a term used for the UN to unite all under zion rule....

to who ever says Der Führer-Messiah, wanted to rule "europe" under Germany etc....
The land was beening taken back, Germania - Germanic Emipre....
which Germany came from... so its not say Germanic empire is Germany.... the Empire was all of... well most of "europe" not all of russia, because those parts were of Mongol, which we leave to our brothers.

tho Germany was the the last awakened land... from the Empire...
everything of ours was going to be ours again.

and about the slavs.... who are not Aryan. slavs are a combined race... a hybrid... which still Aryan might have been in some but... you are no longer Aryan if you do not follow your soul-the truth, which ogenoct, who is not Aryan... you can keep saying you are but you are not... and will never be....

and who ever said about Ukranians being slavic, which isent true, tho some are.... they are from Germanic, along alot of Russians.... but still now like everywhere... russia was filled with Germanic, slavic, and Mongol(Who are family to Germanic) but it is really hard to explain to people who cannot comprehend it...

and again to who says about white people are Aryan... Aryan is a root-race... and 7 subraces come from it... which are not all "White" so to use white is just pointless now... white is pretty much jewish...
then how ogenoct says white nationalism = pan-aryanism
you are highly mistaken... so much... like... i dont even know how somone can think somthing so stupid....

Aryan dosent have a color, the sub races have color with there name, saying Germanic would be white, but here is the thing... like i said, using white is pointless now... because it has been "corrupted" and using it as a color for there name... like saying "oh yea those white people" etc

white nationalists are just... white nationalists... a jewish creation.... who try and say they are Aryan, which is wrong in so many reasons... spiritualy/mentaly etc

then saying National Socialism is Germanic ethnocentrism. is wrong NS is way more than just "politics" politics is only like... 5% of it... which will just wipe away when everything is correct.... NS is a child of Asatru, and along with all other Family cultures... all Family cultures are of the same... well they used to be, mainly all have been corrupted and lost... the Norse Gods are the Egyptian Gods, the Greek Gods, the Iranian Gods, the Arabian Gods, the Hebrew Gods and so on.... NS was just raised in the land that was chosen for that time, now the time is in Mid-East. NS stands for all of our family... and yea by the way Africans(blacks) are our family. not the n*ggers who have been corrupted... BUT! read what i said, the AFRICANS! they are our family....

when i say our... it dosent meen you people on here.

and now to "BlutundEhre" how you say NSists dont "worship" Der Führer, well you are using it in correct... worship as a Messiah, which he is.... but as i said it will be hard to explain if somone cannot comprehend it... by the meening of "worship"

and how you put "We praise what he did for the fatherland and the Aryan race" why do you put we? you are not a National Socialist, if you do not understand this... nor are you Aryan, and nor was the great fight just for Aryan. it was for all of our world, all of our people.

National Socialism is not just for "germany" it is for all family, Aryan.... races before Aryan, etc...

and lastly to japetos... "If Hitler was a genius,he would be the winner of WW2" Who said the war was over?

GermanBund
Saturday, May 6th, 2006, 03:43 AM
Well, as you can see by my political affliation, I'm a National Socialist. Not going to criticize any members here, but I do disagree with the title obviously. I might be classified as a "Hitler worshiper"...I guess. He did make mistakes, have said some things I don't totally agree with, but I do think as a "White/Aryan" person, he accomplished more for my race than any other single individual of my race. Nobody else has established a nation based on "race."

In regards to the Slavs, he only thought "Eastern Slavs" inferior. He had no problem with allying Germany with Southern/Balkan Slavs (Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia - the latter before they backed out and he had to invade them to protect his rear before invading Russia). Yugoslavia's betrayal to an alliance originally agreed to delayed the invasion of Russia which may have cost Hitler that victory. He believed the Eastern Slavs to be too mongrelized by Mongol/Asian invasions. Although, the SS "returned" the "racially valuable" elements of all the Eastern territories to the Fatherland. There certainly were and STILL ARE Aryans in Russia, Poland and the Czech Republic, but possibly, OVERALL, they may be too "contaminated" with non-Aryan blood. Just my opinion... In regards to Hitler being a "German chauvinist" - I'm going to start a new thread under the National Socialist category regarding whether Hitler and the National Socialist movement were "German Nationalists" or "Aryan Racialists." Personally, I believe them to be the latter. Who'd allow the forming of SS divisions from other nationalities if he was a German Nationalist? It may come down to a "definition" of Aryan. I'm more inclined to see "Aryan" as the "Nordic-type" over all... Oh, well...just my opinion on this post. :)

kultron
Saturday, June 3rd, 2006, 12:09 AM
Someone please tell me this: since when were a people of mixed Caucasoid and Mongoloid blood considered Aryan? I think someone may have penciled that one in...

Hitler had no reason to care even in the slightest bit about non-Germans. Slavs are not his people, they were his enemy, with the intent of destroying the German people, which they almost did were it not for the mercy of the Allies of the west.

Alexandra
Thursday, June 8th, 2006, 03:32 AM
In regards to the Slavs, he only thought "Eastern Slavs" inferior. He had no problem with allying Germany with Southern/Balkan Slavs (Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia
sorry, but since when Hungarians are Slavs???!!!

Anyway Hitler had to begin the war against the soviet union cause on other case soviet union would start the war against Reich little later. Actually Hitler had not much chances - nearly alone against the whole world not still that was the only thing he could do. If he did attack then s.u. would and then the war would be finished much sooner but with same result.

Siegmund
Thursday, June 8th, 2006, 04:34 AM
In regards to the Slavs, he only thought "Eastern Slavs" inferior. He had no problem with allying Germany with Southern/Balkan Slavs (Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia sorry, but since when Hungarians are Slavs???!!!
Not to mention the Romanians.

Alexandra
Thursday, June 8th, 2006, 04:41 AM
But Romanians are Romanians (slavs+dakchians if i'm not wrong) and Hungarians are Hungarians (Ugro-Finns + some german, slavic and other blood). These are two absolutely different folks... Or i just didnt understand what you mean, Siegmund.

Leofric
Thursday, June 8th, 2006, 05:06 AM
It was my understanding that the Romanians were mostly descended from Roman colonists, and that that's why Latin-Romance prevailed in Dacia while it was not used in most of the rest of the eastern portions of Rome's holdings.

I would call them Romance rather than Slavic. If I'm right, then I would guess that that's what Siegmund was getting at.

Siegmund
Thursday, June 8th, 2006, 05:40 AM
But Romanians are Romanians (slavs+dakchians if i'm not wrong) and Hungarians are Hungarians (Ugro-Finns + some german, slavic and other blood). These are two absolutely different folks... Or i just didnt understand what you mean, Siegmund.
I do think you may have misunderstood me a little: I was simply saying that, unlike the Bulgarians and (most of) the inhabitants of (the former) Yugoslavia, neither Romanians nor Hungarians are Slavs. And of course, Romanians and Hungarians are different from each other as well. :)

According to the Romanians themselves (http://anonym.to/?http://domino.kappa.ro/guvern/istoria-e.html), they are of primarily Roman stock, having assimilated various Slavic migrations from the 4th through 13th centuries. Their language comes from Latin, though it has many loan words from elsewhere.


Anyway Hitler had to begin the war against the soviet union cause on other case soviet union would start the war against Reich little later. Actually Hitler had not much chances - nearly alone against the whole world not still that was the only thing he could do. If he did attack then s.u. would and then the war would be finished much sooner but with same result.
Hitler's Soviet policy has been discussed quite a bit on the forum. This thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=182174) in particular covers a lot of ideological and historical territory, and is closely related to the present one.

Taras Bulba
Monday, June 12th, 2006, 07:24 PM
In regards to Hitler being a "German chauvinist" - I'm going to start a new thread under the National Socialist category regarding whether Hitler and the National Socialist movement were "German Nationalists" or "Aryan Racialists." Personally, I believe them to be the latter. Who'd allow the forming of SS divisions from other nationalities if he was a German Nationalist?

Hitler was first and foremost a German nationalist. The SS basically recruited foreigners(even volksdeutsche) into their units largely because they were outside the authority of the Wehrmacht(which could only recruit reichdeustche).

Concerning non-Germans in the Waffen-SS, this may interest some people here to read about how they were actually a few Ukrainians serving in the SS-Leibstandarte division.
http://ukr-ww2.onestop.net/lah.html