Essays

Hitler and the Slavs in Historical Perspective

hitler_1by James Harting

Adolf Hitler: German Chancellor or Pan-Aryan Leader?

CONTEMPORARY National Socialists view Adolf Hitler as the symbolic leader of the whole of the Aryan race. I, personally, believe that this conception of Hitler is correct and I embrace it enthusiastically. In Mein Kampf and elsewhere, Hitler spoke repeatedly about the fundamental, trans-national unity of the Aryan race, and specifically about the pan-Aryan nature of the struggle against international Jewry.

Such statements apart, however, it must be said that Hitler did not consider himself as any kind of a world leader of Aryandom. Rather, he saw himself as the political leader of the German nation, and perhaps more generally the symbolic leader of all of the Germanic peoples.

But the onset of the War in 1939 transformed Hitler’s role as an historical figure to a degree, and the defeat of 1945 changed it even more radically and irreversibly. The world of today is not the world of pre-War Europe.

Increasingly as the War went on, Hitler found himself as the de facto head of all of the Aryan peoples of Europe, and not just of the Germans or of the Germanics. Indeed, from the historical perspective that we now enjoy, we can see that despite being at war with Great Britain, it was Hitler who had the best long term interests of the British people at heart, and not the drunken Jewish cat’s paw Winston Churchill, who proved to be the true gravedigger of the British Empire.

By the end of the War, Hitler had come to realize that his historical role had expanded far beyond that of simply being the chancellor of the German Reich. In his Political Testament, written immediately before his death, he spoke of himself in the role of the defender of the “European children of the Aryan nations.”

Hitler and the Slavs: Theory

The ethnic or racial struggle between the Germans and the Slavs in Eastern Europe has deep historical roots that go back many centuries before the birth of Adolf Hitler. For good or for ill, as leader of the German Reich, Hitler was heir to this conflict.

Historically, Hitler’s view of the Slavic peoples was contentious and adversarial. It is not difficult to find hostile and aggressive remarks concerning the Slavs in both Hitler’s formal writings as well as in his informal discussions. In Mein Kampf, he ascribes his youthful awakening as a folkish nationalist to the ethnic struggles that he himself experienced between the Slavic Czechs and the Germans within the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Hitler’s mature attitude towards the Slavs, however, especially after 1938 or 1939, evolved and became nuanced. He recognized, for example, that there were large segments of the Czech and Slovenian Slavic peoples that were racially valuable, and he eagerly anticipated incorporating them into his postwar Greater Germanic Reich. In other words, he felt that not all Slavs were created equal.

Hitler and the Slavic Peoples: The Historical Record

Words and theories are all very well and fine, and should by no means be undervalued. But in the world of facts it is actions alone that count, not intentions.

James Murphy is responsible for a very bad translation of Mein Kampf — to which, ironically, he wrote a fine introduction. In it, he comments on the evolution of Hitler’s thought over the years:

“Why doesn’t Hitler revise Mein Kampf? The answer, as I think, which would immediately come into the mind of any impartial critic is that Mein Kampf is an historical document which bears the imprint of its own time. To revise it would involve taking it out of its historical context. Moreover Hitler has declared that his acts and public statements constitute a partial revision of his book, and are to be taken as such.” (p. 10)

To understand Hitler’s thinking on the Slavs after it matured we need to look at the actions he took and the policies he enacted during the War.

What emerges from such an examination is that Hitler treated the various Slavic nations depending on their attitude towards Germany; those that were friendly towards Germany, he treated as friends; those who were hostile to Germany, he treated as enemies. Is there anyone, anywhere who finds this policy unreasonable?

Poland: In 1936, National Socialist Germany and the Japanese Empire signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, in which they pledged to support each other against communist aggression by the Soviet Union. Other nations were invited to join, including Poland. Some Eastern European countries with large Slavic populations did come aboard, including Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia and Hungary — but Poland declined. Hitler later made repeated entreaties to the Poles to join him in a common front against the USSR, but to no avail. Poland, goaded on by the Jews, the British, and the French, instead chose to adopt an anti-German stance. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind!

Slovakia: After the break-up of the artificial state of Czechoslovakia, Hitler granted the Slovaks complete national independence, for the first time in their history. The Slovak Republic (Slovenska republika) under Jozef Tiso lasted from 1939-1945.

The Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia: The Czech-populated territory of the former Czechoslovakia was re-organized as this Reich’s Protectorate. In it, the Czech people essentially sat out the Second World War, unmolested. The menfolk were not required to fight in the War, their economy prospered and the Czech capital, Prague, was spared the ravages of war.

Croatia: Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany granted the Croatians national independence, like the Slovaks. The independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna Drvara Hrvatska or NDH) existed from 1941-1945.

The Waffen-SS: As the war progressed, large numbers of Slavic volunteers were recruited into military formations under the auspices of the SS. Most notable among them was the 14th Waffen-Grenadier Division of the SS. This outstanding combat unit was made up entirely of Ukrainians: that is, of Slavs. Other units were formed by Russians, Croatians, and other Slavic peoples, as well as of non-Slavic Eastern Europeans. Had Hitler won the war, these volunteer Slavic formations would have formed the nucleus of new armies for their respective peoples.

Adolf Hitler looks out over the city of Prague in this postage stamp from the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
Adolf Hitler looks out over the city of Prague in this postage stamp from the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

In summary: it is naïve and misleading to characterize Hitler as “anti-Slavic” because of statements he made at the beginning of his political career, or based on the incomplete and sometimes unreliable notes made of his informal conversations (the so-called Table Talks). The policies towards the Slavic peoples which he enacted after 1933 (and especially during the War), show that he was willing to work with those Slavs who were friendly towards Germany, and to treat them with the same respect he accorded other Aryans.

Into the Future

Today, our Race is faced with a worldwide existential threat. We can ill-afford the intra-Aryan ethnic tensions and rivalries that characterized pre-1939 Europe. Only the National Socialism of Adolf Hitler is strategically and ideologically equipped to ensure the survival of our respective Aryan peoples, and to lead them to victory. German and Slav, Celt and Mediterranean: all must come together in a spirit of racial solidarity. We must move beyond the ethnic troubles of the past, and unite around the Swastika banner.

In this connection, White brothers and sisters the world over need to see Adolf Hitler as more than a German political leader of a bygone era, but rather as the champion of Aryan destiny. His eternal message of racial salvation transcends the barriers of time and space, and exceeds the narrow historical limitations into which he was born.

***

Source: Stormfront

For Further Reading

Previous post

Mau Mau Oaths and Ceremonies

Next post

Vice President Spiro Agnew on Jewish Power

14 Comments

  1. Cezary Zbikowski
    February 28, 2015 at 4:45 pm — Reply

    Hello.
    I follow you and read your articles for years and in most cases you are dead on and right on many issues, but sometimes propaganda sneaks in between the words and the article looses a lot of value as it reflects manipulated truth. There is no such thing as Aryan race, it has never been anything like that. Arya was a cast of noble and educated people who were able to use Sanskrit and understood knowledge of Veda.The word “arya” is probably one of most miscued, misunderstood and misinterpreted words in recent times. The truth is the world was used in ancient India to denote people of certain social background rather than a particular race. It is used in Sanskrit both as a noun and as an adjective to denote a person, quality, character and social status rather than a race. When it is used as a noun to refer a person, it means a person of noble birth or character, master, lord, preceptor, teacher, owner, or any person belonging to the three upper castes. When it is used as an adjective to denote a quality or character, it means worthy, respectable,honourable, noble and high. When it is used to denote social status it means a person of noble descent or someone who belongs to the three upper castes namely Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaisya castes. If you study languages well you will know that it has nothing to do with Germans or English. All Slavic languages even today have high level of resemblance to Sanskrit. The genetic studies absolutely exclude Germans and other Nordic people from that region.

  2. Cezary Zbikowski
    February 28, 2015 at 5:06 pm — Reply

    Here is an additional information. Polish family Boreyco had a Swastica in its Coat of Arms in XIII century…way before formation of Germany and birth of National Socialist Party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boreyko_coat_of_arms

  3. March 2, 2015 at 9:34 pm — Reply

    Solid piece by James Harting. I’ve always tried to illustrate the same thing when talking to others regarding Hitler and the Slavs. People must look at the actual policies put into place and the actions taken by Hitler during the 6 years of that terrible conflict. In Mein Kampf he did express feelings of dislike towards the Slavic peoples, mostly because the Austria in which he grew up was mult-culturalized to a large degree. But, as Harting points out, his thinking matured and he did find some racial commonality with the Slavic sub-race, and allowed them to fight with the Germans in the Waffen SS.

    • Cezary Zbikowski
      March 3, 2015 at 2:20 pm — Reply

      Sub-race? This is exactly what I am talking about. If Slavs are sub-race then who is master race? Germans, English, French, Greeks, Italians, Jews or maybe Chinese?……because all of them claim their superiority. If so many consider themselves superior they all wrong because it is illogical. You can’t have so many different people superior. No group is superior. One may be better in doing one thing and other doing other thing. If we use this kind of logic then we can easily say that black man is superior to white man, because a black man is much better prepared to withstand tropical climate and vice versa…is it illogical bs. How can anyone call other group sub-race?
      In fact Slavs are race with very specific genetic formation, with specific and unique languages (without Latin roots) that directly originate form Sanskrit. It is the largest ethnic group of Europe and the third largest ethnic group of this world. Anyone who gives himself the right to call such an important group of people a sub-race is out of reason and a dangerous person.
      The same like Arabs…..(I know that religion makes them little crazy, but judo – american coalition has a lot do to with their crazy behavior), they are huge ethnic group with grate and very old history, people who achieved a lot in the past. Calling them sub-race or treat them like garbage just causes more problems. I think it is the time to forget about the Prussian propaganda and start seeing and treating things and people the way they really are.

      • March 3, 2015 at 2:33 pm — Reply

        Cezary:

        He didn’t mean “sub” as in lesser or lower, he meant “sub” as in subcategory. Thus, Slavs are a subcategory of European, just as Volkswagens are a subcategory of automobiles. No value judgement was implied.

        • Cezary Zbikowski
          March 3, 2015 at 9:44 pm — Reply

          Cleared and fixed……

          PS. Mr.Strom, let me have the opportunity to thank you for what you have been doing for years. I read most (if not all) of your articles and I enjoyed every one of them.

          CZ.

          • March 3, 2015 at 9:54 pm

            Thank you very much, sir!

      • March 3, 2015 at 4:22 pm — Reply

        Mr. Strom is correct, I did not mean “sub-race” to imply inferiority of any sort. I was simply saying Slavs are a sub-grouping (perhaps that’s a better term) of the Indo-European race, just like the Latin, Germanic, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and Baltic sub-groups.

  4. Franklin Ryckaert
    March 3, 2015 at 5:27 am — Reply

    @ Cezary Zbikowski

    The Sanskrit word Ārya does indeed mean “noble” and is also used for members of the three upper castes in India, but it was originally an ethnic name used as selfdesignation by the ancestors of the undivided Indo-Iranians in the steppes of Central Asia. The name Iran is a contraction of Middle Persian Iranshahr from Old Persian Āryānām Khshathram meaning Kingdom of the Aryans. The Persian king Darius calls himself an “Aryan” in one of his inscriptions.

    It is wrong to use this Indo-Iranian ethnic name for other branches of the Indo-European family. There is indeed a close relationship between the Indo-Iranian and the Balto-Slavic languages. Many words in Lithuanian and Sanskrit are almost the same. The haplogroup R1a is frequent among Slavs and uppercaste Indians, but rare in Western Europe.

    Hitler’s attitude towards Slavs was one of contempt. He wanted to colonize Eastern Europe for Germans up unto the Urals, in the process partly murdering, partly expelling and partly enslaving the local Slavic population. That he ultimately accepted Slavs as soldiers in his army was only born of necessity when he began losing the war. It didn’t mean he had changed his attitude towards Slavs. Hitler is therefore a bad example for pan-European cooperation based on mutual respect.

    For more information about the Nazi plans and actions in Eastern Europe, see :

    1) Generalplan Ost
    2) Hunger Plan
    3) Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles.

    • Marc
      June 28, 2017 at 9:47 am — Reply

      Thanks for reminding all the Hitler-worshippers here about these horrific crimes, actual and planned, of the Nazis against Eastern European peoples!

  5. May 28, 2015 at 2:53 am — Reply

    Adolf Hitler – German nationalist or Aryan racialist?:
    http://www.national-socialism.com/adolf-hitler-german-nationalist-or-aryan-racialist/

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler#Himmler_about_the_future_of_SS

    Himmler about the future of [the] SS

    In a personal conversation with Artur Silgailis, chief of staff of Inspection General the Latvian Legion, the Latvian Waffen-SS, Heinrich Himmler outlined his future intentions with the SS and the organization of Europe:

    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. [1]

    1. Silgailis, Artur: Latvian Legion. James Bender Publishing, 1986. p. 348 – 349.

  6. Aryan_Resister
    July 31, 2015 at 1:51 am — Reply

    @Franklin Ryckaert
    False.

  7. Dan Z
    September 18, 2016 at 11:03 pm — Reply

    re “He [Hitler] recognized, for example, that there were large segments of the Czech and Slovenian Slavic peoples that were racially valuable, and he eagerly anticipated incorporating them into his postwar Greater Germanic Reich. In other words, he felt that not all Slavs were created equal.”

    So Hitler regarded Czechs and Slovenians as valuable and more equal than other Slavs. Which Slavs did he regard as non-valuable and less equal than others? Was he right about regarding them so?

    Wow what a good dad Hitler was of all Aryan Europeans.

    re “Hitler treated the various Slavic nations depending on their attitude towards Germany; those that were friendly towards Germany, he treated as friends; those who were hostile to Germany, he treated as enemies. Is there anyone, anywhere who finds this policy unreasonable?”

    So Mr Harding finds it reasonable when a leader of a nation treats those who are friendly towards his nation as friends and those who are hostile as enemies. Accordingly, does Mr Harding find it reasonable that a Polish leader treated Hitler and his army as enemies?

    re “Hitler later made repeated entreaties to the Poles to join him in a common front against the USSR, but to no avail. Poland, goaded on by the Jews, the British, and the French, instead chose to adopt an anti-German stance. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind!”

    So Mr Harding considers it right the Poles reaped the wind for not following Hitler. Does Mr Harding consider it right the Germans reaped the wind for not following Churchill?

    Frankly, I find Mr Harding’s piece dull intellectually, divisive, anti-Slavic. For example, if I were Polish, I wouldn’t want to be in any kind of alliance with Mr Harding and those like him but with their foes.

  8. Marc
    June 28, 2017 at 9:37 am — Reply

    That is the one reason why the average Soviet Soldier fought till the very last cartrige against the Nazi invaders. The Russian people did NOT fought the Great Patriotic War for Communism, but against Hitler’s brutal policies against Slavic peoples as a whole! For example, in Poland, over 90 percent of Historical Libraries were deliberately and systematically destroyed by Nazi occupation forces, and countless historical munuments razed to the ground. Hitler, in his “table talks”, gloats openly about reducing Slavic people to total destitution, analphabetism and slavery, with actual mass extermination as ultimate goal. ALL of Russia’s large historical cities, for example, including Moscow, were scheduled to be RAZED to the ground, right after final Nazi victory over Russia!…
    So much for Hitler being a “champion for the White Race”!!

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.