What Do You Think of Hitler and National Socialism?

[Moody]

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.

[Prince Eugen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.



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!


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.


Sir Oswald Mosley and his wife Diana

[Telperion]

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]

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]

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?