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 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 NS 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.
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: Hitler and the Slavs in Historical Perspective by James Harting, 2013