This is why I say you can’t be a National Socialist if you’re a Slav or Med. Hitler hated Slavs (and presumably Meds too, why would he hate Slavs but love Meds?) and wanted to subjugate them to Germanic rule.
From Mein Kampf:
For the organization of a Russian state formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the state-forming efficacity of the German element in an inferior race. Numerous mighty empires on earth have been created in this way. Lower nations led by Germanic organizers and overlords have more than once grown to be mighty state formations and have endured as long as the racial nucleus of the creative state race maintained itself. For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata. Today it can be regarded as almost totally exterminated and extinguished.
It has been replaced by the Jew. Impossible as it is for the Russian by himself to shake off the yoke of the Jew by his own resources, it is equally impossible for the Jew to maintain the mighty empire forever. He himself is no element of organization, but a ferment of decomposition. The Persian empire in the east is ripe for collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state.
It doesn’t get clearer than that. He’s saying Slavs are incapable of statecraft or ruling themselves because they’re racially inferior, so they must be governed by Germans. This fits in perfectly with his plans for Lebensraum, stealing land from Slavs and awarding it to Germans.
Hitler also said the following in 1930:
“Your errors in the domain of foreign policy are explained by your ignorance of racial factors. For example, you are enthusiastic about the Hindu independence movement … you know the Anglo-Saxons have the mission to govern the people they have subdued, precisely in the name of their superiority. The Nordic race is called to dominate the world, and this right must guide our foreign policy. It’s why we cannot envision any rapprochement with Russia, which is a Slavic-Tatar body surmounted by a Jewish head. I knew Slavs from my home country. In the era where a Germanic head ruled the Slavic body, entente was possible, Bismarck outlined this rapprochement before. But today, it would be a crime.“
“Mister Hitler agreed with me on the primacy of Germany’s interests in the matter of foreign policy. In his eyes, an entente with England corresponded with this imperative, the goal was the Nordic domination of Europe, and through America Nordic-Germanic domination of the world.“
“National Socialism would mean little if it was limited to Germany alone and did not seal the domination of the world by the white race for 1000 or 2000 years. That doesn’t mean the exploitation of other races. To put it simply, the inferior races are called to realize other destinies than the superior races. We want to assure the domination of the world in concert with the Anglo-Saxons.“
Once again he declares the Slavs an inferior race and that entente with Russia was only desirable if a “Germanic head ruled the Slavic body”. He is laying out his desire for conquest there, quite clearly, not only of Slavic lands but of the whole world in the name of Nordic supremacy.
Hitler put Alfred Rosenberg, chief Nazi ideologist, in charge of Eastern policy. Rosenberg was a big proponent of Lebensraum too and pursued that end in the East:
On 8 May 1941, instructions were prepared for all Reich Commissars in the Occupied Eastern Territories (1030-PS). The last paragraph of these instructions reads as follows:
“From the point of view of cultural policy, the German Reich is in a position to promote and direct national culture and science in many fields. It will be necessary that in some territories an uprooting and resettlement of various racial stocks [Voelkerschaften] will have to be effected.” (1030-PS)
In his “Instructions for a Reich Commissar in the Baltic Countries and White Russia” (officially referred to together as the “Ostland”), Rosenberg directs that the Ostland be transformed into a part of the Greater German Reich by Germanizing racially possible elements, colonizing Germanic races, and banishing undesirable elements. (1029-PS)
In a speech delivered by Rosenberg on 20 June 1941 he stated that the job of feeding Germans was the top of Germany’s claim on the East; that there was no obligation to feed also the Russian peoples; that this was a harsh necessity bare of any feeling; that a very extensive evacuation would be necessary; and that the future would hold many hard years in store for the Russians. (1058-PS)
In his journal, the “National Socialist Monatshefte” for May 1932, he wrote:
“The understanding that the German nation, if it is not to perish in the truest sense of the word, needs ground and soil for itself and its future generations, and the second sober perception that this soil can no more be conquered in Africa, but in Europe and first of all in the East-these organically determine the German foreign policy for centuries.” (2777-PS)
Here’s what Hitler said about Lebensraum:
“Struggle and more struggle. I see struggle as the lot of all living beings. No one can avoid struggle, if he does not want to be defeated. It is an eternal problem: how to bring the numbers of Germans into accordance with their territory. We need to secure necessary space. No sophisticated cleverness will help here. It can only be resolved with the sword. A people that cannot summon the strength to fight must abdicate [its place in the world].” – Volker Ullrich, Hitler: Downfall 1939-45
Obtaining new land-space “can only be resolved with the sword.” He’s preaching violent conquest there.
More from Mein Kampf:
If the National Socialist movement wants to be recognized by history as having a great mission for our people, it will have to painfully recognize the real truth of our situation in the world. It must courageously fight against the aimlessness and incompetence that has hitherto guided our German nation in foreign policy. Then, without respect for ‘tradition’ or preconceptions, it must find the courage to organize our national forces and set them on a path that will lead them away from the present restricted living space and toward new land and soil. Thus will the movement save us from the danger of perishing from this Earth or of serving others as a slave nation. (Chapter 14)
He’s saying explicitly there that he will build up the German military and “set them on a path….away from the present restricted living space toward new soil”. That’s an appeal for violent conquest. He goes further, suggesting that this living space should not be conquered in Africa but in Europe itself (same thing Rosenberg said, quoted earlier):
Today we’re all convinced of the need to reckon with France, but this would be broadly ineffective if it were the sole aim of our foreign policy. It can and will have significance only if it serves as area cover in the struggle for an enlargement of our peoples’ living space in Europe. Colonial acquisitions won’t solve that problem. This will happen only by the winning of settlement territory for our people, such as will extend the area of the Motherland and thereby not only keep the new settlers in the closest communion with the land of their origin, but will guarantee to this region the advantages that arise from a unified expanse.
Thus he wanted a contiguous land-empire similar to the one Russia has erected in the past. He goes on to say that Germans shouldn’t concern themselves with the “smaller nations” and run them over as he pleased on Germany’s path towards becoming a “world power” again. He says increased land-space is essential to reestablishing Germany as a leading world power:
The folkish movement mustn’t be an advocate for other nations, but rather a protagonist for itself. Otherwise it would be superfluous and, above all, would have no right to clamor about the past. For then it would be acting the same as before. The old German policy was unjustly determined by dynastic considerations, and future policy mustn’t follow the sentimentality of cosmopolitan folkishness. We must especially not be security police for the well-known ‘poor, small nations,’ but rather soldiers of ourselves.
We National Socialists must go still further: The right to land and soil becomes a duty when a great nation seems destined to go under, unless its land is extended. And that’s particularly true when the nation at hand is not some little group of Negroes but the Germanic mother of all life, which has given cultural shape to the modern world. Germany will either be a world power, or not at all. But in order to become a world power, it needs that size which gives it the necessary importance today, and gives life to its citizens. (Chapter 14)
In Chapter Two of Mein Kampf, Hitler declares the Poles an inferior alien race and says it was a mistake to try to Germanize them:
Not only in Austria, however, but also in Germany, these so-called national circles were, and still are, influenced by similarly false ideas. A Polish policy, involving a Germanization of the East, was demanded by many and was unfortunately based on the same false reasoning. Here again it was believed that a Germanization of the Polish element could occur by a purely linguistic union. The result would have been catastrophic: A foreign people expressing their foreign thoughts in the German language, thus compromising the dignity and nobility of our own nation by their inferiority.
In “Hitler’s War and the War Path,” David Irving quotes Hitler at a meeting with generals stressing the same point:
A few days later, on May 23, Hitler delivered a four-hour speech to his Commanders in Chief in his cavernous study. He stood at a lectern and addressed altogether a dozen officers seated in three rows: Raeder, Milch, Brauchitsch, and Keitel formed the front row (Goring was away), and their chiefs of staff and adjutants the two other rows. Hitler stated once again that Danzig was not his ultimate objective — that would be to secure Lebensraum in the east to feed Germany’s eighty million inhabitants. ‘If fate forces us to fight in the west,’ Hitler told them, ‘it will be just as well if first we possess more in the east.’ This was why he had decided to ‘take on Poland at the first suitable opportunity.’
That refutes the usual pro-Nazi claim that Hitler’s war aims were limited to taking back “lost territories” from World War I: “Danzig was not his ultimate objective-that would be to secure Lebensraum in the east to feed Germany’s eighty million inhabitants.” Irving reveals another damning statement from Hitler that he wanted short, quick wars in the West to be followed by a larger one in the East:
Only the existing Reichswehr with its professional officers could satisfy his main need; according to another general, Maximilian von Weichs, who took shorthand notes of the speech, Hitler added: ‘The new army must be capable of all manner of defence within five years; and of all manner of attack within eight.’ Since the western powers would probably not permit Germany to win Lebensraum, short sharp wars might be necessary in the west, ‘and after them, wars in the east.’
Danzig, like the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, was merely a token issue he wielded tactically to kickstart the broader war aim of Eastern conquest. In the same book Irving says Hitler was planning a “United States of Europe” under German domination and planned to carve out territory in the East that would “last a hundred years”. He was readying the German economy for war during these years:
contemplating Germany’s economic position in 1936, Hitler chafed that so little had been accomplished to make the country self-sufficient – a basic prerequisite for war. In April he put Hermann Goring in charge of raw materials and foreign currency questions. Aboard his yacht Grille at Kiel he told Goebbels in May of his vision of a United States of Europe under German leadership.
‘The Fuhrer,’ wrote Goebbels, sees a conflict coming in the Far East. Japan will thrash Russia. And then our great hour will come. Then we shall have to carve off enough territory to last us a hundred years.’ Hitler announced that he had to resolve once and for all Germany’s economic problems by enlarging her Lebensraum and thus her sources of raw materials and food. In detail, Hitler stated these two demands: ‘First: in four years the German army must be ready for action; and second, in four years the German economy must be ready for war.’
All of that fits like a glove with Hitler’s own statements in Mein Kampf and elsewhere. Lebensraum was not Hitler’s invention, but a popular idea among the German intelligentsia and political circles going back decades:
Lebensraum (living space) is a German concept of expansionism and Völkisch nationalism, the philosophy and policies of which were common to German politics from the 1890s to the 1940s. First popularized around 1901,[2] Lebensraum became a geopolitical goal of Imperial Germany in World War I (1914–1918), as the core element of the Septemberprogramm of territorial expansion.[3] The most extreme form of this ideology was supported by the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany. Lebensraum was a leading motivation of Nazi Germany to initiate World War II, and it would continue this policy until the end of World War II.[4]
Hans Grimm’s book Volk ohne Raum (“A People without Space”) was cited by the Nazis as inspiration.
Martin Bormann, head of the Nazi Party Chancellery, allegedly said this in a letter when justifying the Third Reich’s Eastern Policy:
The Slavs are to work for us [Germans]. Insofar as we do not need them, they may die. Therefore, compulsory vaccination and German health service are superfluous. THE FERTILITY OF THE SLAVS IS UNDESIRABLE. THEY MAY USE CONTRACEPTIVES OR PRACTICE… ABORTION, THE MORE THE BETTER. Education is dangerous. It is enough if they can count up to 100. At best an education which produces useful coolies for us is admissible. Every educated person is a future enemy. Religion we leave to them as a means of diversion. As for food, they will not get any more than is necessary. We are the masters; we come first.
Alfred Rosenberg testified at Nuremberg that he received this Bormann letter and wrote a letter back to Hitler agreeing with the spirit of it. Here it is:
Now, you remember this memorandum that you received through your assistant, Leibbrandt, from your subordinate, Markull? You can answer that “yes” or “no,” by the way; that is all I want to know right now-whether or not you remember it. Will you wait just a minute?
ROSENBERG: Yes, I received this report from Dr. Leibbrandt, and I would like to make the following explanation.
MR. DODD: Just before you do that-you will have an opportunity; I won’t shut you up on any explanations or even attempt to-I have one or two things I would like to ask you about it, and then if you feel the need to explain them or anything else I feel sure the Tribunal will permit you to do so.
You had written a letter in answer to the Bormann letter, hadn’t you?
ROSENBERG: Yes, that is correct.
MR. DODD: And you had agreed with these-if I may use the term-shocking suggestions of Bormann? In your letter you had agreed with these shocking suggestions of Bormann? “Yes” or “no”?
ROSENBERG: I wrote an appeasing letter so that I could bring about a pause in the constant pressure under which I was kept, and I would dike to anticipate and say that my activity, and the decrees which I issued after this letter, did not change in any way; but, on the contrary, decrees were issued setting up a school system and for the further continuation of health control. I will discuss it further in my reply.
MR. DODD: You wrote this letter to the Fuehrer; you did not write it to Bormann, did you? Your answer went to Hitler?
ROSENBERG: I wrote my reply to the Fuehrer, yes.
MR. DODD: And you were appeasing the Fuehrer as well, were you, when you mouthed back the phrases such as are repeated in this letter about the use of contraceptives and abortion?
ROSENBERG: No; besides…
MR. DODD: Wait until I finish. I was saying, in your letter to the Fuehrer you wrote back those horrid suggestions of Bormann, didn’t you-those nasty, horrid suggestions of Bormann, I might say? You wrote them to Hitler?
ROSENBERG: I wrote a letter to the Fuehrer, but did not use the wording of Bormann’s letter. I wrote appealingly to the Fuehrer that I was not doing any more than could and had to be done. I wanted to ward off an attack from headquarters for I knew it would come because I did more for the Eastern peoples than for the German people-that I was demanding more doctors than the German people had for their sick, that I was doing more in my capacity as Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories for the health problem and thereby for the Eastern people than German doctors could do for the German people. The attack had reached such proportions that Koch finally accused me of promoting a policy of immigration. That was the reason why the conflict arose shortly thereafter and was brought to the Fuehrer.
MR. DODD: Just so there will be no doubt about this-I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding and nobody else does-are you telling us that you did not write back almost word for word what Bormann wrote to you?
ROSENBERG: I do not have the letter here verbatim.
MR. DODD: But you have the Markull memorandum here, which says that the Minister not only raises no objections against Bormann’s principles or even his phraseology. Now surely one of your subordinates would not be impertinent enough to write you a memorandum like that unless it was perfectly true that you had done so?
ROSENBERG: I welcomed very much that my collaborators always had the courage to contradict me and give me their opinion, even concerning something I myself requested. Dr. Leibbrandt came and said to me, “Herr Reich Minister, that certainly is not in accord with what we are all doing here.” I said, “Dr. Leibbrandt, please calm yourself. I have written an appeasing explanation. Nothing will be changed. Later I will also speak to the Fuehrer personally about these matters.”
MR. DODD: Your subordinate was not afraid to tell you that you had written such a letter in which you agreed word for word with Bormann. I have no trouble with you on that score. That is all I am trying to get you to tell this Tribunal, because it is true that you did write back expressing these word-for-word sentences.
ROSENBERG: That is not correct. The author-I rather say Dr. Leibbrandt-when he gave me this memorandum, read it through in a hurry saying, “There seems to be a gentleman who believes that I cannot do anything else but what I consider right.” But in this case I am facing a serious conflict, and I will maintain my position as I consider it right. That may be seen in the documents covering a period of 3 years which I read yesterday. May I give my opinion now on this document?
MR. DODD: Answer this question: Who were you appeasing, Hitler or Bormann? Or both of them?
ROSENBERG: First, I concurred with my collaborator, Dr. Leibbrandt, in the idea that ministerial decrees in that sense would never be released by me. Second, I regulated by a decree the school system in the Ukraine including a 4 year elementary school, trade school, and professional colleges.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. That is not an answer to the question. You said that you wrote an appeasing answer. The question is whom were you trying to appease. Was it Hitler or was it Bormann or was it both?
ROSENBERG: Yes, both of them; yes.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, would this be a convenient time to break off?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Bormann was apparently relaying the actual opinions of Hitler on this matter. This page quotes Hitler saying more or less the same thing, citing Table Talks, that they had to encourage abortions among the Slavs so that Germans could triumph in their colonization process and they had to keep them dumb and poorly educated to discourage their births:
The chief [Hitler] said that in some paper he had recently found a proposal to ban the distribution and use of abortifacients in the occupied eastern territories. If some idiot should actually try to put such a ban into practice in the occupied eastern territories, he would shoot him up personally. With the abundance of children among the local population, it would only be good for us IF THE GIRLS AND WOMEN HERE HAD AS MANY ABORTIONS AS POSSIBLE. WE MUST THEREFORE NOT ONLY PERMIT, BUT DOWNRIGHT ENCOURAGE A BRISK TRADE IN CONTRACEPTIVES IN THE EASTERN TERRITORIES, since we could not have the slightest interest in an increase in the non-German population. But one would have to get the Jews to help in order to force such things into motion.
As far as the hygiene of the subjugated population was concerned, we could have have no interest in imparting our knowledge to them and thereby giving them a basis for a tremendous increase in population. For an enormous increase in population. He [Hitler] therefore forbade the carrying out of our kind of cleanliness campaigns for these areas. The compulsory vaccination in these areas should only apply to Germans. German doctors should only be used for the treatment of Germans in the German settlements. It would also be nonsense to provide the subjugated peoples with our knowledge in the field of dentistry.
Hitler even says there he would “have to get the Jews to help” in order to expedite the abortion of Slavic babies. It’s not clear what he meant by that.
David Irving also reports on these colonization plans in Hitler’s War:
By mid-October 1941, despite the foul weather, Hitler was still bred widi optimism. On the thirteenth he began laying the foundations for a Nazi version of a united Europe. Hewel wrote, ‘Reich foreign minister visits the Fuhrer; first thoughts on a European manifesto. Probably in the economic sphere first of all, and probably at the beginning of the winter. Fuhrer is in very best and relaxed mood.’ Over dinner he revealed that he had been thinking of calling together the economic experts of Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, and Finland. ‘All those who have a feeling for Europe can join in this work,’ he said, meaning the colonization of the east. When Todt and Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel dined with Hitler on October 17, they were brimming with everything they had just seen in the east.
Again Hitler dreamed aloud of the vast construction projects whereby he would open up the east. ‘Above all we must lay roads,’ Koeppen wrote that night, describing the dinner conversation: He told Dr. Todt he must expand his original projects considerably. For this purpose he will be able to make use of the three million prisoners for the next twenty years. The major roads — the Fuhrer spoke today not only of the highway to the Crimea but also of one to the Caucasus and of two or three through the more northern territories — must be laid across the areas of greatest scenic beauty. Where the big rivers are crossed, German cities must arise, as centers of the Wehrmacht, police, administration, and Party authorities.
Along these roads will lie the German farmsteads, and soon the monotonous steppe, with its Asiatic appearance, will look very different indeed. In ten years four million Germans will have settled there, and in twenty years at least ten million. They will come not only from the Reich but above all from America, and from Scandinavia, Holland, and Flanders too. And the rest of Europe shall play its part in this opening up of the Russian wastes as well. . . The Fuhrer then reverted to the theme that ‘contrary to what some people think’ no education or welfare is to be laid on for the native population. Knowledge of the road signs will suffice, there will be no call for German schoolmasters there.
By ‘freedom’ the Ukrainians understood that instead of twice they now had to wash only once a month — the Germans with their scrubbing brushes would soon make themselves unpopular there. He as Fuhrer would set up his new administration there after ice cool calculations: what the Slavs might think about it would not put him out one bit. Nobody who ate German bread today got worked up about the fact that in the twelfth century the granaries east of the Elbe were regained by the sword. Here in the east we were repeating a process for a second time not unlike the conquest of America. For climatic reasons alone we could not venture further south than the Crimea — he did not mention the Caucasus at this point — even now hundreds of our mountain troops on Crete had malaria! The Fuhrer kept repeating that he wished he was ten or fifteen years younger so he could live through the rest of this process.
A continuation of that discussion at Nuremberg in reference to Ukraine policy quotes another German official Kreisleiter Knuth:
Then, in the next paragraph, he says that every visitor and every member of the local civil administration can confirm this from his own observations, and they show particularly clearly how well the soil is prepared for the Bormann letter. Then he goes on to quote statements that have been made by saying, “To be exact, we are here among negroes; the population is just dirty and lazy,” and so on.
And then, passing on, he says:
“I may add that Kreisleiter Knuth, whom the Gauleiter still retains in spite of the gravest accusations against his professional integrity, declared, in conversations on the Kiev question, that Kiev ought to be depopulated through epidemics. Altogether it would be best if the superfluous part of the population starved to death.”
So that guy said Ukrainians are equivalent to negroes and should be killed via epidemics or starvation. Erich Koch, the party official in charge of Ukraine, vehemently despised the Ukrainians. David Irving reports in his book Hitler’s War the following:
«Throughout the spring of 1943 a squabble raged between Alfred Rosenberg, the endlessly verbose minister for the eastern territories, and Gauleiter Erich Koch, Reich Commissar in the Ukraine. Rosenberg – supported by Ribbentrop, Zeitzler, and Goebbels – wanted to win the subject peoples’ support in the fight against Stalin, and he complained that Koch’s brutal methods and pasha lifestyle were incompatible with this. At Christmas, he had sent a special plane to Rostov to collect two hundred pounds of caviar. Yet Hitler, Bormann, and – more circumspectly – Himmler, DEFENDED KOCH. Rosenberg might theorise about the future cultural life of the Ukraine, but Koch’s harsh duty was to squeeze every ton of grain and every slave labourer he could out of the region. The idea of harnessing Russians voluntarily to the war against Stalin WAS A CHIMERA, SAID HITLER. ‘I have always felt there are only a handful of men who can really keep their heads in a major crisis, without being waylaid by some phantom hope or other. The saying that drowning men clutch at straws is only too true.’ When Ribbentrop identified himself with General Vlasov’s idea for a Russian army of liberation, Hitler rapped his knuckles. ‘There will be no such political operations. They will only result in our people fraternising with the Russians.’ Field Marshals Kluge and Küchler were also rebuffed when they supported the Vlasov project. Millions of leaflets dropped over enemy lines announced that the Wehrmacht was fighting only Stalin and not the Russian people, and they spoke of a ‘National Committee’ in Smolensk as though it were the Russian government being groomed for the post-Stalin era. TO HITLER THIS IDEA WAS MADNESS; AS HE ANGRILY TOLD ZEITZLER, TO LET THE UKRAINIANS SET UP THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO THROWING AWAY THE NAZIS’ ENTIRE WAR AIM. The Russians would start off as a satellite state such as Poland had been in World War I, and Germany would end up confronting an entirely independent state all over again. On May 19 Hitler brought Rosenberg and Koch face to face. Rosenberg firmly repeated that Koch’s policies were supplying the enemy with thousands of partisans. Koch justified his methods. Hitler adjudged that both were right, THOUGH KOCH WAS RIGHTER. As for the partisan argument, if Rosenberg were right, there would be fewest partisans where the ‘particularly crafty generals’ spoke in the most honeyed tones; this was not the case. Nor could slave labour be procured except by Koch’s methods. ‘Only feebleminded generals imagine we can win any manpower by blandishments.’ As for Koch’s executions in the Ukraine, challenged Hitler: ‘How many of our compatriots are losing their lives in air raids here at home?’»
«The German invaders had been driven out BY THE DISAPPOINTED, DECEIVED, AND ANGRY UKRAINIANS THEMSELVES. ‘If the rest of this war and its victorious conclusion should ever see these territories vouchsafed to us again,’ a gauleiter wrote, ‘then there must be a radical change in our attitude to and treatment of the native population. Erich Koch had achieved the seemingly impossible: he had converted the forty million Ukrainians who had greeted the German invaders as their liberators into a sullen, seething people, and driven them as partisans into the forests and swamplands of the north Ukraine. The same gauleiter – Alfred Frauenfeld, governor of the Crimea – pointed out that Hitler should have found the moral courage to replace Koch. Koch had proclaimed the inferiority of the Slavs with such raucous insistence that ‘even a disaster policy deliberately planned and paid for by the enemy could hardly have done more harm.’ Koch had stormed, for example: ‘If I find a Ukrainian fit to sit at my table, I must shoot him!’ He had dispensed with Ukrainian doctors – without reflecting that epidemics were no respecters of the German occupation forces – and had deported the able-bodied to Germany in a manner reminiscent of ‘Arab slave traders.’ When Hitler had instituted medals for bravery and hard work, Koch had waited nearly a year before unwillingly issuing any to the Ukrainians.» — «he [Hitler] admired such Party faithfuls as [Erich] Koch, Sauckel, and Ley – gauleiters who had in their time converted Communist Gaue into Nazi Party strongholds.»
In his diaries, Goebbels quotes Hitler saying Poles are less than animals:
“The Führer’s verdict on the Poles is scathing. More animals than men, completely dull and amorphous. Next to them a slaughtering class, which is at least the product of the lower classes mixed with an Aryan master class. The filth of the Poles is unimaginable. Their judgment is also nil. Even Lipski believed that a nervous crisis would break out in our country in 8 days during the war. Poor madman! The Führer does not want assimilation with the Poles. They are to be squeezed into their reduced state and left entirely to themselves.” – Joseph Goebbels Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, diary entry October 10, 1939
Goebbels said that Hitler viewed the Poles as “more animals than human” and his tone on them was “annihilatory”. Rosenberg recalled Hitler saying they were “dreadful material”.
Also in his diaries, Goebbels labels the Russians primitive and racially inferior animals:
The incidents that Sepp Dietrich related to me about the Russian people in the occupied areas are simply hair-raising. They are not a people, but a conglomeration of animals. The greatest danger threatening us in the East is the stolid dullness of this mass. That applies both to the civilian population and to the soldiers. The soldiers won’t surrender, as is the fashion in western Europe, when completely surrounded, but continue to fight until they are beaten to death. Bolshevism has merely accentuated this racial propensity of the Russian people. In other words, we are facing an adversary about whom we must be careful. The human mind cannot possibly imagine what it would mean if this opponent were to pour into western Europe like a flood.
… Stalin issued [a program of] thirty points to his army. These points are about as naive as ean be imagined. But I suppose he knows how to treat his Russian people. They are as primitive as the language he uses to talk to them.
Goebbels admits in his diaries that German troops devoured all the food in Ukraine:
As regards food, we are not to expect too much in the immediate future. German troops have devoured everything there. There are no cattle left and there is a dearth of horses and other draft animals, so that the plows must again be drawn by human beings. It is not hard to imagine what the results will be. As one can see here, it isn’t sufficient to possess land, one must also be in a position to work it.
This statement is also attributed to Bormann in relation to Polish policy:
‘Once again the Führer underlined that Poles could only have one master, and that was the German. There cannot and should not be two masters. For that reason, all members of the Polish intelligentsia were to be killed. That sounded harsh, but it was a law of life. The Führer has decided that Poland will be a huge reservoir of labour for us, from which he can draw the people we need for menial jobs. We have to get them from somewhere.’ – note of Martin Bormann from the meeting Dr. Hans Frank with Adolf Hitler, Berlin 2 October 1940 (quoted in Hitler: Volume II: Downfall 1939-45, Volker Ullrich)
More on Germany’s Polish policy of extermination: Education in Poland under German Occupation. – Imgur
Himmler allegedly said this in a speech:
From Himmler’s speech at a meeting of SS gruppenfuhrers in Poznan on October 4, 1943. the Nuremberg trials, a collection of documents. [Document PS-1919, USA-170]
Only one principle must surely exist for an SS member: we must be honest, decent, and loyal to members of our own race and to no one else.
I am not in the least interested in the fate of a Russian or a Czech. We will take from other Nations the blood of our type that they can give us. If necessary, we will take their children away from them and bring them up in our environment. Whether other peoples live in contentment or starve to death is of interest to me only in so far as we need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise, it does not interest me.
If ten thousand Russian women fall from exhaustion while digging anti-tank ditches, it will only interest me to the extent that this anti-tank ditch is ready for Germany. It is clear that we will never be cruel or inhumane, because this is not necessary. We Germans are the only people in the world who treat animals decently, so we will treat these people-animals decently, but we will commit a crime against our own race if we take care of them and instill them with ideals so that our sons and grandchildren will find them even more difficult to cope with. When one of you comes to me and says:
“I can’t dig an anti-tank ditch with children or women. This is inhumane, they die from it” – I will have to answer: “You are a murderer in relation to your own race, because if the anti-tank ditch is not dug, German soldiers will die, and they are the sons of German mothers. They are our blood.”
This is exactly what I would like to impress on the SS, and I believe I have instilled as one of the most sacred laws of the future: our people and our race are the object of our care and our duties, we must care and think about them, we must work and fight for them, and for nothing else. We don’t care about anything else.
This coincides with a recorded speech from Himmler in which he alludes to kidnapping Slavic children who had “Aryan” features.
Himmler also hated Slavs and called them inferior. Statements from him suggest that he planned to settle Germans in Russian/Ukrainian and Baltic lands. He said he didn’t want to Germanize the Slavs but to remove and replace them with actual Germans.
This from Peter Longerich’s biography of Himmler:
In a speech on 16 September 1942 to the SS and police leaders from the Russia South area Himmler set out how he saw the settlement of the eastern territories. In the next twenty years the annexed Polish territories, the General Government, the Baltic States, White Ruthenia, Ingria (the area around Leningrad), and the Crimea WERE TO BE SETTLED BY ‘TEUTONS’. In the remaining occupied Soviet territories bases would be established on the main transport routes so that ‘settlement enclaves’ would arise—first of all ‘from the Don to the Volga’, but later ‘as far as the Urals’. ‘This Germanic east reaching to the Urals must’, according to Himmler’s vision, ‘be a seedbed for Germanic blood, so that in 400–500 years [ . . . ] instead of 120 millions there will be 500–600 million Teutons.’ The indigenous population would be sifted according to those of ‘inferior’ race and those ‘of good race’.
What lay at the heart of the settlement of the east he had summed up succinctly in the summer of 1942 as the maxim of the ‘ethnopolitical monthly’ Deutsche Arbeit (‘German Work’) in the words: ‘Our task does not consist in Germanizing the east in the traditional sense, that means by teaching the German language and German laws to the people who live there, BUT RATHER TO ENSURE THAT ONLY PEOPLE OF ACTUAL GERMAN AND GERMANIC BLOOD LIVE THERE.’
This from Table Talks:
SPECIAL GUESTS : REICH MINISTER DR. TODT AND GAULEITER SAUCKEL Expectations as regards the Eastern Territories—The Ukraine in twenty years’ time—Bread is won by the sword—God only recognises power. In comparison with the beauties accumulated in Central Germany, the new territories in the East seem to us like a desert. Flanders, too, is only a plain—but of what beauty! This Russian desert, we shall populate it. The immense spaces of the Eastern Front will have been the field of the greatest battles in history. We’ll give this country a past. We’ll take away its character of an Asiatic steppe, we’ll Européanise it. With this object, we have undertaken the construction of roads that will lead to the southernmost point of the Crimea and to the Caucasus. These roads will be studded along their whole length with German towns, and around these towns our colonists will settle. As for the two or three million men whom we need to accomplish this task, we’ll find them quicker than we think. They’ll come from Germany, Scandinavia, the Western countries and America. I shall no longer be here to see all that, but in twenty years the Ukraine will already be a home for twenty million inhabitants besides the natives. In three hundred years, the country will be one of the loveliest gardens in the world. As for the natives, we’ll have to screen them carefully. The Jew, that destroyer, we shall drive out.
As far as the population is concerned, I get a better impression in White Russia than in the Ukraine. We shan’t settle in the Russian towns, and we’ll let them fall to pieces without intervening. And, above all, no remorse on this subject! We’re not going to play at children’s nurses; we’re absolutely without obligations as far as these people are concerned. To struggle against the hovels, chase away the fleas, provide German teachers, bring out newspapers—very little of that for us! We’ll confine ourselves, perhaps, to setting up a radio transmitter, under our control. For the rest, let them know just enough to understand our highway signs, so that they won’t get themselves run over by our vehicles! For them the word “liberty” means the right to wash on feastdays. If we arrive bringing soft soap, we’ll obtain no sympathy. These are views that will have to be completely readjusted. There’s only one duty: to Germanise this country by the immigration of Germans, and to look upon the natives as Redskins. If these people had defeated us, Heaven have mercy! But we don’t hate them. That sentiment is unknown to us. We are guided only by reason. They, on the other hand, have an inferiority complex. They have a real hatred towards a conqueror whose crushing superiority they can feel. The intelligentsia? We have too many of them at home.
Mussolini also sought to carry out his own version of Lebensraum. He called it: Spacio Vitale.
Another element of Mussolini’s fascism was the idea of ‘spazio vitale’ which translates to ‘vital space’. It is the belief that Italy required more space to operate. It further related to fascism as, the territory that Mussolini identified was where the Roman Empire had previously controlled. This concept of ‘vital space’ relates to another important aspect of fascism – racism superiority. While Mussolini did not necessarily support the racial policies and practise of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, he did assert that some people were superior over others. For instance, he argued that it was justified for superior people to rule over inferior people.
While he was pro-Semitic and had a Jewish mistress, he clearly didn’t feel the same love for Slavs stating:
“When dealing with such a race as Slavic—inferior and barbarian—we must not pursue the carrot, but the stick policy… We should not be afraid of new victims… The Italian border should run across the Brenner Pass, Monte Nevoso and the Dinaric Alps… I would say we can easily sacrifice 500,000 barbaric Slavs for 50,000 Italians…”
So Mussolini too wanted to destroy Slavs and steal their land.
The idea behind Mussolini’s foreign policy was that of spazio vitale (vital space), a concept in Fascism that was analogous to Lebensraum in German National Socialism.[70] The concept of spazio vitale was first announced in 1919, when the entire Mediterranean, especially so-called Julian March, was redefined to make it appear a unified region that had belonged to Italy from the times of the ancient Roman province of Italia,[7][8] and was claimed as Italy’s exclusive sphere of influence. The right to colonize the neighboring Slovene ethnic areas and the Mediterranean, being inhabited by what were alleged to be less developed peoples, was justified on the grounds that Italy was allegedly suffering from overpopulation.[9]
Borrowing the idea first developed by Enrico Corradini before 1914 of the natural conflict between “plutocratic” nations like Britain and “proletarian” nations like Italy, Mussolini claimed that Italy’s principal problem was that “plutocratic” countries like Britain were blocking Italy from achieving the necessary spazio vitale that would let the Italian economy grow.[10 Mussolini equated a nation’s potential for economic growth with territorial size, thus in his view the problem of poverty in Italy could only be solved by winning the necessary spazio vitale.[11]
Italian foreign minister under Mussolini, Galeazzo Ciano, quotes in his memoir another fascist politician Aldo Vidussoni calling for the annihilation of Slovenes:
“Mussolini today repeats his praise of my speech, but shows me a clipping from the Resto del Carlino [daily newspaper of Bologna], and criticizes my Fascist salute, which was not according to regulations. Is there nothing really better to think about? Vidussoni comes to see me. After having spoken about a few casual things, he makes some political allusions and announces savage plans against the Slovenes. He wants to kill them all. I take the liberty of observing that there are a million of them. “That does not matter,” he answers firmly; “we must imitate the Ascari [Negro soldiers from Italian colonies] and exterminate them!”“
Ciano was: “an Italian diplomat and politician who served as Foreign Minister in the government of his father-in-law, Benito Mussolini, from 1936 until 1943. During this period, he was widely seen as Mussolini’s most probable successor as head of government.”
So Mussolini, coveting Slavic and Balkan lands for his own “living space,” tactically declared the Slavs “inferior and barbarian” so he could usurp their land. Complete lunatic.
And it wasn’t all talk. Fascist Italy invaded Yugoslavia, Albania and Greece had a network of concentration camps where they herded prisoners of war in occupied Balkans countries:
The Province of Ljubljana saw the deportation of 25,000 people, which equaled 7.5% of its total population. The operation, one of the most drastic in Europe, filled up Italian concentration camps on the island of Rab, in Gonars, Monigo (Treviso), Renicci d’Anghiari, Chiesanuova, as well as other concentration camps that were located elsewhere.
On 25 February 1942, only two days after the Italian Fascist regime established the Gonars concentration camp the first transport of 5,343 internees (1,643 of whom were children) arrived at the Rab concentration camp which was already overpopulated at the time, from the Province of Ljubljana itself as well as another Italian concentration camp in Monigo (near Treviso).
The Italian violence against the Slovene civilian population easily matched the German violence against Serbs,[16] with frequent summary executions of Slovenes committed on the orders of Mussolini and other Fascist officials.[17] For every major military operation, General M. Roatta issued additional special instructions, including one that the orders must be “carried out most energetically and without any false compassion”.[18]
One of Roatta’s soldiers wrote home on 1 July 1942: “We have destroyed everything from top to bottom without sparing the innocent. We kill entire families every night, beating them to death or shooting them.”[19]
None of this sits particularly well with me. What about you? The homicidal contempt for and attempted exploitation and removal of Slavs to make way for German and Italian imperiums is a crime. How can Fascios/NatSocs claim to be “pro-White” while supporting policies that are distinctly anti-White? When these things are trotted out, the fascio brigade usually falls back on the cooked up fake narrative that Hitler was trying to save the Slavs from Communism, which is a load of rubbish. That was rhetorical spin to justify the real agenda: murderous Lebensraum.
Minutes from a July 1941 secret meeting involving Hitler and the rest of the German top brass (Bormann, Goering, Rosenberg, etc.) lays out clearly that the “liberator” narrative was little more than public-facing propaganda and that the real agenda was to occupy, dominate and exploit these territories for exclusive German racial and economic benefit:
Top Secret
Führer’s Headquarters, July 16, 1941A conference attended by Reichsleiter Rosenberg, Reich Minister Lammers, Field Marshal Keitel, the Reichsmarschall [Göring], and me was held today by order of the Führer at 3:00 p.m. in his quarters. The conference began at 3.00 p.m. and, including a break for coffee, lasted until about 8.00 p.m.
By way of introduction the Führer emphasized that he wished first of all to make some basic statements. Various measures were now necessary; this was confirmed, among other events, by an assertion made in an impudent Vichy newspaper that the war against the Soviet Union was Europe’s war and that therefore it had to be conducted for Europe as a whole. Apparently the Vichy paper meant to say by these hints that it ought not to be the Germans alone who benefited from this war, but that all European states ought to benefit from it.
It was essential that we should not proclaim our aims before the whole world; also, this was not necessary, but the chief thing was that we ourselves should know what we wanted. In no case should our own way be made more difficult by superfluous declarations. Such declarations were superfluous because we could do everything wherever we had the power, and what was beyond our power we would not be able to do anyway.
What we told the world about the motives for our measures ought to be conditioned, therefore, by tactical reasons. We ought to proceed here in exactly the same way as we did in the cases of Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium. In these cases too we said nothing about our aims, and if we were clever we would continue in the same way.
We shall then emphasize again that we were forced to occupy, administer and secure a certain area; it was in the interest of the inhabitants that we should provide order, food, traffic, etc., hence our measures. It should not be recognizable that thereby a final settlement is being initiated! We can nevertheless take all necessary measures—shooting, resettling, etc.—and we shall take them.
But we do not want to make any people into enemies prematurely and unnecessarily. Therefore we shall act as though we wanted to exercise a mandate only. It must be clear to us, however, that we shall never withdraw from these areas.
Accordingly we should act:
1. To do nothing which may obstruct the final settlement, but to prepare for it only in secret;
2. To emphasize that we are liberators.In particular:
The Crimea has to be evacuated by all foreigners and to be settled by Germans only.
In the same way the former Austrian part of Galicia will become Reich territory.
Our relations with Romania are presently good, but one does not know what our relations will be at any future time. This we have to consider and we have to draw our frontiers accordingly. One ought not to be dependent on the good will of other people; we have to arrange our relations with Romania in accordance with this principle.
In principle we have now to face the task of cutting up the giant cake according to our needs, in order to be able: first, to dominate it; second, to administer it; and third, to exploit it.
Hitler helped bring Communism to Poland and the Baltics by signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact, giving Stalin the green light to move into Poland and the Baltic states. Without that deal, it’s unlikely that Stalin makes those moves as soon as he did. The German and Soviet militaries held a joint victory parade in the Polish city of Brest.
During that pact, Hitler and Stalin ceased criticizing each other publicly, in fact there was mutual friendliness between the two:
Between 1939 and 1941, as the Soviet Union presented Nazi Germany in its own internal propaganda as a friendly state, Soviet society ceased to criticize German policies and began to publish Nazi speeches. People in public meetings occasionally misspoke, praising “Comrade Hitler” or calling for “the triumph of international fascism.” Swastikas began to appear on buildings or even on posters of Soviet leaders. A similar level of ideological confusion is evident in Russia today.
Both Stalin and Hitler knew that their internal propaganda machines would have to work hard to change current public opinion within their nations and also to change the negative perceptions that each country had been cultivating about the other.
According to historian Roger Moorhouse: [T]he tone of public and cultural life in the Soviet Union shifted after the signing of the pact. From one day to the next, the newspapers stopped criticizing Nazi Germany and instead began lauding German achievements. As Kravencho (a factory director) noted . . . “The Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries instantly discovered the wonders of German Kultur. Visiting Moscow on business, I learned that several exhibits of Nazi art, Nazi economic achievements and Nazi military glory were on view or in the process of organization. In fact, everything Germanic was in vogue.”
In Germany, people were equally surprised. As in the Soviet Union, official propaganda reversed itself quickly after its years of attacks on Soviet communism. According to Moorhouse: Public discourse was uniformly positive about the pact, with German newspapers immediately altering the tone with which they reported Soviet current affairs or Russian culture. Where reporters and editors had once been unable to resist inserting—at the very least—a derogatory adjective or a critical aside, they now reported events with scrupulous evenhandedness. On the morning of the pact’s announcement, the newspapers seemed desperate to make the case for the new arrangement. Every title carried almost verbatim reports and commentaries, scripted under Goebbels’s supervision, rejoicing at the restoration of the “traditional friendship between the Russian and the German peoples.” In the Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, [German Foreign Minister] Ribbentrop congratulated himself by lauding his achievement as “one of the most important turning points in the history of our two peoples.” Even the in-house newspaper of the SS, Das Schwarze Korps, toed the optimistic line, reminding its readers, in a gallop through Russian and Soviet history, that the empire of the tsars had originally been a Germanic state, that it had twice “saved” Prussia, and that it had “paid dearly” for its enmity with Germany in World War I. Echoing Ribbentrop, the newspaper concluded that the two countries had always flourished when they were friends and so looked forward to a new era of collaboration.
He did all that, then broke the pact with a sneak attack on Stalin, marching in as if the “saviour” of the East from the very Bolshevism he helped bring there. They weren’t saving the Slavs from Bolshevism (the same Slavs they repeatedly called subhumans), they were moving the Slavs out of the way for a German imperium, conscripting and duping other Europeans who didn’t like Communism to help them carve out the path for exclusively German living space.
Hitler himself had admiration for Stalin, calling him a genius:
Hitler’s view of the Soviet economic system apparently also changed from skepticism to admiration. In a table talk on July 22, 1942, Hitler vehemently defended the Soviet economic system and even the so-called “Stachanow System,” which it was “exceedingly stupid” to ridicule: “One has to have unqualified respect for Stalin. In his way, the guy is quite a genius! His ideals such as Genghis Khan and so forth he knows very well, and his economic planning is so all-encompassing that it is only exceeded by our own Four-Year Plan. I have no doubts whatsoever that there have been no unemployed in the USSR, as opposed to capitalist countries such as the USA.”
Hitler’s admiration for the Soviet system is also confirmed in the notes of Wilhelm Scheidt, who—as adjutant to Hitler’s “representative for military history” Walther Scherff and a member of the Führer Headquarters group—had close contact with Hitler and sometimes even took part in briefings. Scheidt writes that Hitler underwent a “conversion to Bolshevism.” From Hitler’s remarks, he says, the following reactions could be derived: “Firstly, Hitler was enough of a materialist to be the first to recognise the enormous armament achievements of the USSR in the context of her strong, generous and all-encompassing economic organisation.”
Scheidt writes that in view of such impressions Hitler had recognised and expressed “the inner relationship of his system with the so heatedly opposed Bolshevism,” whereby he had to admit that “this system of the enemy was developed far more completely and straightforwardly. His enemy became his secret example.”
David Irving reports on this too in Hitler’s War, quoting Hitler telling his aides that Stalin had “enormous achievements” and was the “greatest living statesman”:
The next day, Papen also raised Stalin’s future with Hitler, and the Fiihrer repeated what he had told Goebbels a month before — that once the Wehrmacht had occupied a certain forward line in Russia, it might be possible to find common ground with the Red dictator, who was after all a man of enormous achievements. As another diplomat — Hasso von Etzdorf — noted: ‘ [Hitler] sees two possibilities as to Stalin’s fate; either he gets bumped off by his own people, or he tries to make peace with us. Because, he says, Stalin as the greatest living statesman must realise that at sixty-six you can’t begin your life’s work all over again if it will take a lifetime to complete it; so he’ll try to salvage what he can, with our acquiescence. And in this we should meet him halfway. If Stalin could only decide to seek expansion for Russia toward the south, the Persian Gulf, as he [Hitler] recommended to him once [November 1940], then peaceful co-existence between Russia and Germany would be conceivable.’
Many more Hitler statements of admiration for Stalin are quoted here.
So much for “he hated Communism”. He secretly loved it and implemented his own variant of communist central planning in Germany. Mises explained the “German pattern of socialism” like this:
The German pattern of socialism (Zwangswirtschaft) [“compulsory economy”] is characterized by the fact that it maintains, although only nominally, some institutions of capitalism. Labor is, of course, no longer a “commodity”; the labor market has been solemnly abolished; the government fixes wage rates and assigns every worker the place where he must work. Private ownership has been nominally untouched. In fact, however, the former entrepreneurs have been reduced to the status of shop managers (Betriebsfuehrer). The government tells them what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and from whom to sell. Business may remonstrate against inconvenient injunctions, but the final decision rests with the authorities.
In Vampire Economy, a German businessman is quoted saying that he and others began studying Marxism to understand the National Socialist economic system:
You have no idea how far State control goes and how much power the Nazi representatives have over our work. The worst of it is that they are so ignorant. In this respect they certainly differ from the former Social-Democratic officials. These Nazi radicals think of nothing except “distributing the wealth.” Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system. – Vampire Economy, Pg. 6
By 1936, the German economy was thrust into a fully planned system of centralized control:
In this confidential memorandum from August 1936, Hitler explains why he believed it was necessary from an ideological-military standpoint for the German economy to achieve autarky [self-sufficiency] within four years. His comments became the basis of the so-called Four-Year Plan, which began in October of that year. Under the direction of Hermann Göring, the new plan for economic management aimed, in particular, to centralize the mobilization of labor, restrict imports, impose wage and price controls, and allocate and synthesize raw materials.
Four year plans, price and wage controls, state direction of labour, state direction of resource allocation, etc. Does all that sound like an anti-communist system to you?
Hitler was an expert tactician and double-speaker, that which he denounced in public he admired in private. Is this an admirable trustworthy person or a ruthless schemer?
The idea that Hitler was an anti-communist crusader is a convenient propaganda myth that he crafted to win support for Barbarossa. He duped morons to sign up for this war to help him get Lebensraum, feeding them bullshit that he was going to eliminate Communism. How can an avowed socialist eliminate communism when it’s the same damn thing? How can someone who implemented a near-communist command and control war economy be a true “anti-communist”? According to a historian, at least 55% of Hitler’s SA recruits were former members of Germany’s communist party:
In relation to the passage of militants from the KPD to the NSDAP, historian Timothy Scott Brown collected very interesting data in his book “Weimar Radicals: Nazis and Communists between Authenticity and Performance” (Berghahn, 2009), noting on page 136 that in what as regards the SA, “it is known that a significant part of the new recruits previously belonged to the KPD.”
Scott exposes the estimates collected by Rudolf Diels, first head of the Gestapo -the political police of the Third Reich-, in his memoirs, “Lucifer Ante Portas: Von Severing bis Heydrich” (1950), pointing out that in Berlin 70% of the new recruits to the SA from January 1933 were former Communists. The most striking fact of those indicated by Diels is that in some cases, entire Rot Front units moved to the SA.
…the social democrat Albert Grzesinski, head of the Berlin Police between 1930 and 1932, pointed out that 30% of the members of the SA in Berlin were ex-communists as early as 1932.
According to the historian, the SA themselves calculated at 55% the number of their militants who came from the communist ranks. Brown also points out that both the Gestapo files and the reports from the KPD intelligence apparatus confirm the considerable presence of former communists in the SA. In some cases, former communist militants held relevant positions in the repressive apparatus of the nazi regime.
“we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.”
There it is in black and white. Hitler merely swapped out the “international” rhetoric of Marxist Socialism and made it “national,” then wrapped the swastika around it and affixed Germanic Nordicist racial ideas to it: Germanic Racial Marxism. Hitler himself said in Mein Kampf that if you take away the Nordicist racial stuff, the ideology goes back to being plain Marxism:
Goebbels said the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith “was very slight” and that he’d “rather go down with Bolshevism than capitalism“. Ribbentrop called Soviet Bolshevism “a form of National Socialism“. What’s going on here, big guy?
Mussolini was a fervent Marxist who cobbled together fascism as a slight revision of Marx:
“It was inevitable that I should become a Socialist ultra, a Blanquist, indeed a communist. I carried about a medallion with Marx’s head on it in my pocket. I think I regarded it as a sort of talisman… [Marx] had a profound critical intelligence and was in some sense even a prophet.” – Mussolini
His entire political history was that of a radical Marxist socialist revolutionary:
“By 1912, Mussolini was in the leadership circle of Italy’s Socialist Party and editing their newspaper Avanti! He was very effective at the job, doubling circulation and personally becoming a widely read radical socialist journalist. One is that he was caught up in the nationalist fervour surrounding the war. Another is that he was mindful of Marx’s aphorism that social revolution usually follows war and thus saw it as an enabler for what he wanted politically.”
“But speaking for himself at the time, Mussolini was clear on his ideology: “I am and shall remain a socialist and my convictions will never change! They are bred into my very bones.” And looking at the early fascist program, one can see massive overlaps with a socialist agenda circa early 20th century. Among other things, there was to be a minimum wage, an eight-hour workday, a progressive tax on capital, expropriation of uncultivated lands, and universal suffrage.”
Fascists are proud of this:
“Let me tell you this, none of them had sympathy for traditionalism, let alone cried about returning to the past, figures such as: Sergio Panunzio, who saw Fascism as the highest realization of Marxism; Nicola Bombacci, who believed that the actions of Mussolini were in line with the Marxist-Leninist dialectic. Bombacci would aid Fascist thought by bringing mainstream Communists into the fold, individuals such as Giovanni Bitelli, Federico Giannini, Dino Fiorelli, Mario Guarnieri, Bruno Ricci, Sigfrido Barghini and Alibrando Giovannetti. Oh, and let us not forget how Giovanni Gentile, the main philosopher of Fascism, believed that––not only did fascist doctrine achieve the only feasible form of Socialism––but Fascist Philosophy had become a form of Practical Marxism.” – fascist source
“Giovanni Gentile does not reject Marx, but rather builds upon Marx by pointing out that Marx was actually just a “confused idealist”, and that Fascism is in actuality just “a better Marxism”. In other words, Fascism is not “Anti-Marxism”, but more accurately “Post-Marxism”. It is a “superior Marxism” or “practical Marxism” in praxis because it’s built upon a coherent ontology unlike the vulgar materialism of Marxists that follow figures such as Engels and Lenin.” – fascist source
He implemented a command economy of total state control over private business:
Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. – source
He never strayed far from his mission to socialize the entire economy, calling for even more strict nationalizations in his 1943 Verona Manifesto:
On February 12, 1944, Mussolini’s cabinet approved a bill of “socialization” that spoke about the “Mussolinian conception on subjects such as; much higher social justice, a more equitable distribution of wealth and the participation of labor in the state life.” Mussolini claimed that Italian capitalists had betrayed him after they had gained immensely from fascism, and that he now regretted his alliance with them and rediscovered his old socialist influences. He claimed that he had intended to carry out a large-scale nationalization of property in 1939–1940 but that the outbreak of war had forced him to postpone it, and promised that in the future, all industrial firms with over 100 employees would be nationalized. Mussolini even reached out to ex-communist Nicola Bombacci, a former student of Vladimir Lenin, to help him in spreading the image that Fascism was a progressive movement.
Fascist Italy was among the first Western states to recognize the brutal regime of Lenin in Soviet Russia. He signed a robust friendship and trade pact with the Soviets in 1933, the Italo-Soviet pact. Are these the beliefs and actions of an “anti-communist” or a crypto-communist larping as something else?
Fascists are therefore little more than Marxist socialists wrapped up in a flag and patriotic sentiment. Thus fascists can never truly be “anti-communists” because they’re just a variant of Communism. The Hitler-Stalin fight is an example of socialist infighting, like the Mensheviks vs Bolsheviks, Stalin vs Trotsky, etc. Moreover, Mussolini did not even like the fact that Hitler attacked Stalin and pleaded with him to make a peace deal:
Earlier in April 1943, Mussolini had begged Hitler to make a separate peace with Stalin and send German troops to the west to guard against an expected Allied invasion of Italy. Mussolini feared that with the losses in Tunisia and North Africa, the next logical step for Dwight Eisenhower’s armies would be to come across the Mediterranean and attack the Italian peninsula.
Mussolini did not view the Soviets as a big enemy for obvious reasons: they were fellow brother socialists. Rather he viewed the “Western plutocracies” as the great oppressors of his “proletarian nation” trying to make its way in the world. Mussolini was channeling Lenin with all that sentiment about Italy being an oppressed victim of the bigger powers, striving to break free from the chains of bondage by erecting its own empire and colonization of Slavic lands for Italian expansion. As I quoted earlier:
Borrowing the idea first developed by Enrico Corradini before 1914 of the natural conflict between “plutocratic” nations like Britain and “proletarian” nations like Italy, Mussolini claimed that Italy’s principal problem was that “plutocratic” countries like Britain were blocking Italy from achieving the necessary spazio vitale that would let the Italian economy grow.[10 Mussolini equated a nation’s potential for economic growth with territorial size, thus in his view the problem of poverty in Italy could only be solved by winning the necessary spazio vitale.[11]
Mussolini was first and foremost a radical economic socialist who hated capitalism and democracy above all. So Stalin’s socialist autocracy was much more to his liking. Stalin’s socialist autocracy was also more to Hitler’s liking, as he expressed privately.
My conclusion here is that German National Socialism is not congruent with a pan-European outlook or a pro-White worldview. It was Germanic ethnic imperialism with a strong anti-Slavic bent, not traditional nationalism. It can’t call itself a “pro-White” philosophy if a key component of it is hatred of fellow Europeans and a drive to conquer them. It’s impossible to reconcile the venomous and homicidal enmity towards Slavs with being pro-White. Furthermore, the fascist and natsoc claim to being “anti-Communism” crusaders was cynical and hollow self-serving propaganda born of an internecine brother war between fellow socialists over resources, territory and power, no different than the religious brother wars between Sunnis and Shias or Catholics and Protestants.
If you enjoyed this content, consider making a small contribution or becoming a member.
