Print this post Print this post

Hitler vs. the Untermenschen:
Myth & Reality

Burdenoftheunfit4,795 words

Standard narratives of the Third Reich have long emphasized the concept of “subhumans” (Untermenschen) as central to National Socialist thought and policy on race. Here is a typical example from Wikipedia (as of 23 March 2016):

Untermensch . . . underman, sub-man, subhuman; plural: Untermenschen) is a term that became infamous when the Nazis used it to describe “inferior people” often referred to as “the masses from the East,” that is Jews, Roma, and Slavs (mainly ethnic Poles, Serbs, and later also Russians). The term was also applied to most Blacks, and persons of color, with some particular exceptions.

The concept of the “subhuman” clearly has a central place in the demonology of anti-Nazism, the claim that Adolf Hitler and National Socialism are uniquely evil in human history (unlike, say, communism).

Historians frequently refer to “Untermenschen” to explain the Third Reich’s racial policies, but, strikingly, almost never in the context of a quote from Hitler or some other National Socialist source. The simple reason for is that Hitler, and perhaps most other National Socialists, almost never used the term. In searching through thousands of pages of Hitler’s books, speeches, and private conversations (all now conveniently available in PDF format, typically available on websites maintained by faithful National Socialists), I have found exactly four mentions of Untermensch and its derivatives (especially Untermenschentum or subhumanity). In this article, I would like to put the Untermensch concept and its actual use by Hitler in its historical context, as free as possible from the baggage of the victors’ mythology of the Second World War. For as we know, though history is always written by the victors, that account is never disinterested.

The Underman: A Dysgenic, Not Ethnic, Concept

The very use of the word “subhuman,” with its evil connotations, as a translation for Untermensch is somewhat misleading. It was not Germans, but the American racial thinker and eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard, who perhaps made the most prominent early use of the term “Under-Man” in his 1922 book The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man. Stoddard’s underman does not refer to a particular ethnic group, but rather to the gradual degeneration of populations due to dysgenics as a result of the relaxation of selective pressures enabled by civilization. He used the following definition: “The Under-Man – the man who measures under the standards of capacity and adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives.”[1]

According to Stoddard, civilization paradoxically creates populations too stupid to have created that civilization and, ultimately, to maintain it. The result is an expansion in the less gifted and more anti-social elements of European nations, who are then rabble-roused into promoting revolutionary chaos and tyranny in great upheavals such as the French and Bolshevik Revolutions. This use of the term “underman,” which can also be contrasted with Nietzsche’s “superman,” is not meant to denigrate or justify domination of other peoples (e.g. Slavs), but rather to describe degenerative processes within a nation, including one’s own. At least three of the four recorded uses by Hitler of the terms underman/subhumanity correspond to this meaning.

Significantly, the German National Socialists were directly influenced by Stoddard. Alfred Rosenberg, a reputed leading National Socialist theorist (though one actually not always approved by Hitler), explicitly quotes Stoddard’s definition of the underman in his best-selling The Myth of the Twentieth Century. And here there is already an awkward fact in the mainstream anti-Nazi account. National Socialist killings are claimed to be motivated by the “underman” concept. It is then asserted or insinuated that all racial and eugenic thinking must logically lead to such atrocities (even a thinker as subtle as Raymond Aron made this claim). However, in point fact there was considerable debate within the Third Reich on racial policies, with the more pro-Slav and assimilationist positions often being espoused by top ideologues and racial thinkers.

Rosenberg himself as Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern territories was a consistent, if rather ineffectual, advocate for improving treatment of the Slavs and for a grand strategy of fostering the Soviet Union’s subject nations’ independence as allies against Moscow. Another conciliatory figure was Hans Günther. He was Germany’s top racial scientist and eugenicist, to the extent that he was known as Rassengünther and Rassenpapst (“race pope”).[2] For instance, Günther believed that four-fifths of Poles in the northern Danzig area were genetically close enough that they could be Germanized and assimilated.[3]

There is clearly possible overlap between Stoddard’s notion of the underman stemming from dysgenic civilization and the older notion of inequality between the races (i.e. if a foreign race becomes inferior through degeneration). Some Third Reich ideology and propaganda espoused this, positing that northwest European (Nordic) and Germanic races were uniquely idealistic and had superior state-building and culture-creating abilities.[4] Such ideas are debatable. The fact is however that despite the general postwar taboo on the examination of racial differences, geneticists have found that human beings cluster genetically along traditional racial (i.e. continental) and ethno-national lines. Furthermore, medical and psychometric studies have found average differences not only in physique and health, but also in temperament and intelligence between such groups.[5]

The notion of a “master race” (Herrenvolk) is also heavily emphasized in mainstream accounts of the Third Reich. In fact, Hitler never used the term “master race” in either his books, speeches, or recorded private Table Talk. The wider idea that more culturally advanced or biologically superior peoples had a right or even duty to dominate less gifted peoples was not a National Socialist innovation. On the contrary, this idea was widely shared across the world at the time, including by British imperialists, French Freemasons, American segregationists, Japanese warlords, and Jewish commissars.[6]

The Underman in Hitler’s Speeches

There is no mention of “subhumans” or “subhumanity” in Mein Kampf or in the unpublished Second Book. In Hitler’s numerous speeches –  most comprehensively gathered for the 1932-1945 period in Max Domarus’ monumental four-volume collection – I can find no more than three mentions in over 3,000 pages. And even here “subhumanity” (Untermenschentum) is used twice and “subhumans” only once. In each case, Hitler used the term more in a Stoddardian sense of the lower elements of a society being rabble-roused and led by communists, rather than in an ethnic sense targeting Slavs and Gypsies, let alone Jews.

Hitler first used is in a January 30, 1934 speech to the Reichstag, where Hitler used the term “subhumanity” (again, perhaps better rendered as “underhumanity”) to refer to a part of Germany which had become sensitive to Marxism:

Furthermore, the fact that a number of communist ideologists believe it necessary to turn back the tide of history and, in doing so, make use of a subhumanity (Untermenschentum) which mistakes the concept of political freedom for the idea of allowing criminal instincts free rein will similarly cause us little concern. We were able to deal with these elements when they were in power and we were in the opposition. In the future we will be even more certain of being able to deal with them because they are now in the opposition and we are in power.[7]

Hitler’s second mention of Untermenschentum is in an April 28, 1939 speech to the Reichstag attacking Franklin Roosevelt – again refers to communists’ ability to foment revolution by appealing to the lower elements of a Western European nation, this time Civil War Spain:

Entire populations of villages and cities were literally slaughtered under the silent, gracious patronage of humanitarian world apostles from the democracies of Western Europe and North America. In this victory parade, side by side with their Italian comrades, the volunteers of our German Legion will march in the rows of valiant Spanish soldiers. Shortly afterwards we hope to welcome them here in the homeland. The German Volk will then find out how, in this instance also, its valiant sons fought in the defense of the freedom of a most noble people and how, in the end, they contributed to the rescue of European civilization. For the victory of Bolshevist subhumanity (Untermenschentum) in Spain could only too easily have swept over Europe.[8]

In the third instance, in a November 8, 1941 speech in the Munich Löwenbräukeller on the anniversary of the Putsch, there is Hitler’s only confirmed public utterance of the word “Untermenschen”:

Time meanwhile has proved what we National Socialists maintained for many years: it [the Soviet Union] is truly a state in which the whole national intelligentsia has been slaughtered, and where only spiritless, forcibly proletarianized subhumans remain. Above them, there is the gigantic organization of the Jewish commissars, that is, established slaveowners. Frequently people wondered whether, in the long run, nationalist tendencies would not be victorious there. But they completely forgot that the bearers of a conscious nationalist view no longer existed. That, in the end, the man who temporarily became the ruler of this state, is nothing other than an instrument in the hands of this almighty Jewry. If Stalin is on stage and steps in front of the curtain, then Kaganovich and all those Jews stand behind him, Jews who, in ten-thousandfold ramifications, control this mighty empire.[9]

This use could be considered to be in line with that of the “subhumanity” appealed to by communists in Germany and Spain, the only difference being that the revolution that failed there had triumphed in Russia. Hitler could be seen as implying in a novel sense that the Soviet peoples are “subhuman,” but that is by no means explicit. Also noteworthy is that there is no suggestion that the Jews are “subhumans,” but rather than the Jews are cruelly ruling over the undermen as “slaveowners.”

Hitler on Jews: Deadly Rivals, Not “Subhumans”

Hitler’s third use of the term highlights a misleading if not outright false claim of the anti-Nazi narrative: That Hitler and National Socialists lumped less gifted populations together with Jews under the heading “subhumans.” In fact, Hitler had long been extraordinarily impressed by the tribal prowess of the Jews. As he recounts in a largely-ignored passage of Mein Kampf on his prolonged “profound anxiety” in converting to anti-Semitism:

As I critically reviewed the activities of the Jewish people throughout long periods of history I became anxious and asked myself whether for some inscrutable reasons beyond the comprehension of poor mortals such as ourselves, Destiny may not have irrevocably decreed that the final victory must go to this small nation? May it not be that this people which has lived only for the earth has been promised the earth as a recompense? is our right to struggle for our own self-preservation based on reality, or is it a merely subjective thing? Fate answered the question for me inasmuch as it led me to make a detached and exhaustive inquiry into the Marxist teaching and the activities of the Jewish people in connection with it.[10]

Hitler plainly did not consider Jews “subhumans” in anything like the sense he may have considered Gypsies or the lower elements of European nations, in particular Slavic ones, to be so, and his grounds for persecuting them were entirely different. Hitler did not advocate the elimination of Jewry on eugenic grounds, but on grounds of European self-defense against a corrupting and cruel alien domination.

It is interesting to think about why the mainstream narrative emphasizes the misleading idea that National Socialist anti-Semitism considered Jews “subhumans,” as opposed to being the perfidious and gifted leaders of the undermen. The effect of inaccurately lumping Jews and non-Jews who suffered under National Socialist rule together as “subhumans” is to create solidarity between the two groups, and lessening the international appeal of National Socialist anti-Semitism. It is no secret that the Poles and Russians were also among the most anti-Semitic peoples in the world at the time, having a long list of grievances against the Jews, from centuries of misanthropic business practices to a leading role in communist tyranny and mass murder.

If mainstream historiography were to acknowledge that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was based not on a concern about dysgenic “subhumans,” but about Jewish power and privilege, this could well bring people to think about Jewish privilege in the world today, most garishly visible in the United States[11] and France. Indeed, this would highlight the possibilities of multiracial alliances of those who consider themselves to be victims of Jewish power, especially between Europeans and Muslims.[12]

I cannot resist noting the similarity between Hitler’s assessment of Jews and communism, and that of Winston Churchill, as described in his famous 1920 newspaper article “Bolshevism versus Zionism”:

Some people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world. [. . .] In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort [by patriotic Russian Jews] rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. [. . .] This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

One has the distinct impression that Hitler and Churchill were in basic agreement about dysgenics, communism, and Jews, but merely differed in the sides they chose to serve. This incidentally has enormous implications for Churchill’s ethics, given that he claimed to be fighting so that “the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years”[13] (that’s right: Churchill fought for a thousand-year Reich) and to “keep England white!”[14] Either Churchill was monumentally insincere or he was incredibly short-sighted in making a Faustian pact with forces in America and Russia which would inevitably work to destroy the empire and race he claimed to hold dear.

Hitler’s Slavophobia

I can find only one mention of Untermenschen by Hitler that fits the mainstream narrative. In a conversation in the night of September 14–15, 1941, Hitler denounces judges for being too soft on violent German criminals, and compares the latter to Russian prisoners of wars:

Nearly two thousand people in Germany disappear every year without trace—victims, for the most part, of maniacs or sadists. It’s known that these latter are generally recidivists—but the lawyers take great care to inflict only very light penalties on them. And yet these subhuman creatures are the ferment that undermines the state! I make no distinction between them and the brutes who populate our Russian P.O.W. camps.[15]

This is a shocking comparison, Hitler not considering his opponents in war to be honorable fellow soldiers conscripted by an evil communist tyranny, but no better than the lowest German criminals. This line of thinking can easily be tied to the German mistreatment of Soviet P.O.W.s, ranging from killing to willful neglect, which led to the deaths of over 3 million.

There is then, as with all effective narratives, a grain of truth to the mainstream view. While it clearly caricatures racial thinking in the Third Reich and radically overemphasizes and misrepresents the concept of the underman, the fact is that in Hitler’s case this did underpin a callous and even murderous attitude in the Eastern territories. This is somewhat similar to the status of anti-Semitism in Third Reich cinema. Whereas films like The Eternal Jew and The Jew Süss are given enormous attention, actually out of the over 1,000 films produced in National Socialist Germany, only a half-dozen were primarily anti-Semitic. As some recent mainstream scholarship has emphasized, the German people’s support for National Socialism was not cultivated primarily by stoking jealousy and viciousness against a “powerless minority,” but by appealing to the highest idealism and sense of sacrifice in service of one’s people.[16]

Insofar as Hitler equated the races of the Soviet Union with communist ideology (by these races’ supposed vulnerability to Jewish-led communism), he contributed to murderous policies and to alienating nations which might have been allies against communism and Jewry, and hence to the defeat of the Third Reich.

UntermenschGiven the disputed translations and my insufficient knowledge of German, I cannot comment firmly on a central piece of evidence in the mainstream narrative’s case, namely the notorious 1942 SS pamphlet entitled Der Untermensch. The document seems to dehumanize Soviet peoples, or at least large swathes of them, equating them as part of a wider, almost mystical world-historical process: By definition, if humanity evolves upward, some are left behind, the underman, those who would, out of spite and selfishness, drag those who have risen back into the mud. Here too, incidentally, the Jews however are not considered “subhumans” but are rather their leaders.

The mainstream narrative does not recognize that Der Untermensch certainly does not sum up National Socialist views and public discourse on race. The SS itself could be far more nuanced and ecumenical.[17] Propaganda like Der Untermensch should also be seen in the wider context of an era of brutal revolutions and total wars. The Third Reich hardly had a monopoly in extreme propaganda meant to motivate the nation to sacrifice and to dehumanize an enemy whose defeat requires the harshest methods.[18]

In the racial theories of Stoddard, Rosenberg, and Günther, the underman concept was not incompatible with conciliatory or assimilationist policies towards the Slavs. Hitler however, along with his influential secretary Martin Bormann, took an extremely hard-line view, including statements explicitly contradicting Rosenberg and Günther.

Hitler’s harsh policies in the eastern territories were justified on the following grounds:

  • Realpolitik: Non-German nation-states are inherently unreliable or threatening, therefore their populations must not grow and their states should be destroyed. This was grounded in Hitler’s incredibly negative reaction to multiculturalism in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the unreliability of non-German units in First World War, combined with an inherently conflictual view of life and international relations, made up of perpetual competition between nation-states.
  • Nordicism: Non-German populations could not be assimilated into Germany without the risk that such miscegenation would be dysgenic, leading to quasi-permanent genetic damage. This was motivated by recent racial theories on the success of the West and the haunting fear that miscegenation with lesser stock had led to the decline of Ancient Greece and Rome.

Hitler’s plans for the East are among the most chilling of his private Table Talk (the veracity of which is rarely disputed): Repeatedly demanding the razing of Moscow and Saint Petersburg so as to permanently destroy any Russian state west of the Urals, that Slavs not be provided healthcare or education (lest they multiply and self-organize), that Germans be systematically segregated from the natives, and that Crimea in particular be ethnically cleansed to make way for German settlers. Hitler absurdly claimed the borders of “Europe” end where Slavdom begins, and argues the natives should be treated like America’s Red Amerindians or the British Empire’s Indians. Hitler conceded the eventuality of assimilating some Slavs, but urged this be extremely limited and discriminating (better safe than sorry, he presumably thought). He would occasionally claim the natives would anyway be better off under German rule, but this seems anything but a superficial reassurance, and in any event his preferred humane outcome seems to have been sterilization.

There is a kind of ruthless logic to Hitler’s approach. The mainstream narrative is correct in noting that racial and eugenic thinking can lead to such conclusions, but it is false in claiming this must inevitably be so (after all, any line of thinking, such as Christianity or Marxism, can be taken to violent conclusions). But there is no getting around the fact that genetic thinking inevitably leads to valuing some life over other life (or, at least, some genes over other genes), if the human race is to improve. (Even the most well-thinking liberal would, when pressed, acknowledge that the spread of disease-causing genes is a bad thing.)

Churchill incidentally made arguments similar to Hitler’s: Concerning the need for eugenics in England, the good that was the replacement of the Australian Aborigines by “the stronger race” that was the Anglo-Saxon Australians, and the refusal to provide food to starving Bengalis that had been “breeding like rabbits.” He once said during the war: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

It is also a fact that the European peoples have seen a staggering relative decline in numbers and power in the world, precisely due to the policies Hitler criticized: Of providing healthcare and development to Afro-Asiatic populations who were incapable of indigenously producing them, and thus enabling massive demographic explosions in the absence of any population control policy. Ethnic Europeans have declined from making up over a third of the world population 1900 to perhaps 10 percent today.  Africans, especially sub-Saharans, are expected to quadruple in number to over 4 billion this century. Muslims, with which there is some overlap with Africans, are expected to almost double in population by mid-century to over 2.75 billion. Meanwhile the sons of Europe, who in 1900 controlled virtually the entire world, will before 2100 be reduced to minorities in their own former homelands in both North America and Western Europe. These facts both highlight Hitler’s failings – hairsplitting between Germanics and Slavs appears uniquely petty in the wider context of European collapse – but also helps us understand his contempt for do-gooder colonialists (whom he even threatened to have put in concentration camps).

Hitler’s eastern policies were supremely blame-worthy, ultimately criminally irresponsible and mad. Here is a classic story of hubris and nemesis. One can ask: Why not even attempt to make Poland into an anti-communist buffer state? Why this unwillingness, in this war to the death, to maximize chances of victory by granting even the non-Russian peoples their own nation-states, given their obvious interest in the destruction of the Soviet “prison of nations”? At the risk of understating the human and moral catastrophe: C’est pire qu’un crime, c’est une faute.

But asking such questions can miss the point. Hindsight is always 20/20 and comfortable armchair-generals always know best, don’t they? We must learn from suffering. A world-historical figure like Hitler – who must be ranked in terms of impact with the likes of Alexander the Great, Jesus Christ, or Napoleon – does not achieve the successes that he does (astonishing up to 1941) by being “reasonable” and compromising with one’s ideals and goals. Rosenberg blamed Hitler’s tragic mistakes in this regard on his artistic penchant[19] for the passions, caught up in the intoxication of spectacular mass rallies and his stunning early triumphs. Hitler for his part could well have been speaking of himself in the following general statement: “I have long realized that actors and artists often have such fantastic ideas that one is compelled from time to time to shake an admonitory finger at them and bring them back to earth.”[20]


1. Lothrop Stoddard, The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923, republished by Forgotten Books, 2012), 23. Compare also with the McGruderian concept of “nigger tech”:

2. I am following the mainstream view here. This could well also be fabrication or caricature.

3, Martin Bormann, Hitler’s Table Talk (Ostara Publications, 2012), 202.

4. Guillaume Durocher, “Nordicism Today,” North American New Right, March 2, 2016,

5. Guillaume Durocher, “Some Recent Genetic Studies . . . & Hitler,” North American New Right, November 11, 2015,

6. Indeed, one could argue that many influential Jewish oligarchs such as George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, and Bernard-Henri Lévy have yet to abandon such claims to ethnic superiority and supremacy.

7. Max Domarus, Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations, 1932-1945 (Wauconda, Illinois: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1990), 420

8. Domarus, Hitler, 1580.

9. Domarus, Hitler, 2505.

10. Adolf Hitler (Murphy translation), Mein Kampf, 59.

11. To cite only some of the most visible markers: Complete ownership of Hollywood, ownership of much of television, ownership of elite print media, ownership of the two most culturally influential Internet companies (Google and Facebook), massive over-representation and sometimes even outnumbering of white gentiles in the Ivy League universities both as professors and students, circa 500% over-representation in the Senate, circa 2000% over-representation in Supreme Court, and providing between a one and two thirds of Democratic Party financing (including all seven of Hillary Clinton’s top contributors). Such preponderance is simply astonishing. What is truly insufferable is that not only are white gentiles often under-represented in key institutions but are portrayed by “anti-racist” Jews as the most privileged group in the country, responsible for the ills of blacks and other minorities. What’s more, white gentiles are not allowed to organize to defend their group interests, while the powerful Israel lobby in Washington ensures that U.S. foreign policy systematically supports the existing the Jewish ethno-state Israel, with its racist immigration policies, through murderous wars, billions in subsidies, and systematic vetoes at the United Nations. If one believes in karma, one can understand Jewish organizations’ perpetual and characteristic nervousness.

12. Such a strategy has achieved limited success in some cases (namely with Alain Soral’s organization Égalité et Réconciliation and the popular appeal of Dieudonné M’bala M’bala). This strategy, regardless of its ultimate success or failure, causes extreme alarm and agitation among Jewish groups. The strategy also embodies a rather poetic dialectic: These same Jewish groups have promoted non-European immigration and multiculturalism explicitly citing the idea that a multiethnic society is one in which a united Judeo-critical popular political movement would no longer be possible. What irony if the strategy were to succeed!

13. Churchill’s hope of a thousand-year British Empire was prominently mentioned in his iconic “This was their finest hour” speech of June 18, 1940. Of course, the British Empire would very rapidly unravel in the following years, under the debilitating cost of the Second World War and the postwar pressure and hegemony of the American Empire. While Churchill’s vain millennial imperialist ambitions are rarely mentioned, Hitler’s failure to create a “thousand-year Reich” is endlessly repeated.

14. The immigration policy Churchill advocated to his cabinet as postwar prime minister.

15. Borman, Table Talk, 13.

16. Claudia Koonz, The Nazi Conscience (2005): “Challenging conventional assumptions about Hitler, Koonz locates the source of his charisma not in his summons to hate, but in his appeal to the collective virtue of his people, the Volk.” There could be an element of projection in liberal-leftist propaganda against the Third Reich. Consider a show like Last Week Tonight, a non-stop stream of completely unselfconscious snobbery and intellectual intolerance against all whites who think a little differently or are considered “low-class,” an exercise meant only to flatter the young viewer and comfort him in the liberal-egalitarian world-view which has been ceaselessly pumped into his brain since childbirth. George Orwell’s “Two Minutes Hate” comes to mind. And the whole thing executed as a series of interruptions of more-or-less obscene non-sequiturs and mental flatulence.

17. For example, the SS Race Theory and Mate Selection Guidelines, a remarkable document, states:

If one examines the individual countries of Europe according to their racial composition, one initially notices that in almost all states the same races are represented. We find the Nordic race represented outside of Germany, in the Scandinavian lands, England and Holland and even in Russia, Italy, France, Spain and so on. We also find, however, East Baltic man in the various European countries. The overall racial evaluation of a folk does not come down to that. It is a matter of the STRENGTH OF THE PORTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL RACES in the respective folk. And there we determine: already just numerically the Reich marches far ahead of all other folks in respect to the Nordic portion. With natural right Germany can claim the leadership of the predominantly Nordic-Germanic folks.

18. Allied propaganda and media not only often spread absurd falsehoods – e.g. Germany’s supposed ambitions to conquer North America or ban Christianity – but frequently equated “Nazism,” “Prussian militarism,” and the German people as one and the same, which no doubt morally legitimized the extremely escalatory demand of unconditional surrender, and mass violence by firebombing, mass rape, and ethnic cleansing. Even a historian as serious as A. J. P. Taylor, for instance, wrote in a book near the end of the war on the Germans: “no other people has pursued extermination as a permanent policy from generation to generation for a thousand years,” really a shocking statement coming from an Anglo-Saxon (in fact, besides the Baltic Prussians, one struggles to know what Taylor is even referring to).  A. J. P. Taylor, The Course of German History (New York: Capricorn Books, 1962), 16. Taylor’s work more generally claims National Socialism is a natural or even inevitable growth of German history, a thesis worth pondering, but which had the effect of legitimizing the end-of-war mass violence against the German people. One wonders if Taylor’s later work to “normalize” Hitler’s foreign policy was partly motivated by a bad conscience.

19. Recall that the dissident émigré Thomas Mann could write of Hitler in 1939: “Ah, the artist! I spoke of moral self-flagellation. For must I not, however much it hurts, regard the man as an artist-phenomenon?”

20. Conversation on April 26, 1942. Bormann, Table Talk, 189.


If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Posted April 25, 2016 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    I have read extensively on the issues discussed herein, and I must commend Leon on his passionate defense of his beliefs.

    What put the issue to bed -so to speak- for me was reading the diplomatic dispatches pertaining to those times. If Leon reads Polish he may also read Polish newspapers dated between the wars.

    A most interesting book throwing light on those times is Witness to History by Michael Walsh. It is, I believe, available to read on-line. HdC

    • Leon
      Posted April 25, 2016 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

      What sources do you recommend for the dispatches? “Witness to History” appears to have been written by a fervent National Socialist. Are you sure it is reliable?

      Personally I would be quite interested to know the precise details of the pre-war diplomacy between Germany and Poland. To be completely honest, the descriptions I have read so far have been rather broad-reaching and vague. I do not say that Poland did not do wrong -in retrospect- but I can’t blame the Poles for wanting to defend their autonomy from the Germans, particularly after having so recently gained their independence from German imperialism.

      • Posted April 27, 2016 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

        A website I found most useful is entitled Therein go to the heading “How Wars are Made”.

        Two books that I found really informative as an introduction to those times:

        The German White Book. This contains translations of various letters, notes, references, etc. to substantiate the allegations made. The serious student would then seek out the original of the cited references to check for errors or deliberate misquotes.

        Witness to History. Again, this book also cites numerous references to support its assertions.

        You may, of course, dismiss these books as “Nazi Propaganda” without reading or, at least perusing them, by calling the authors various derogatory names and dismissing their work with distain.

        If, however, you are really interested in finding out what happened, you need to read these books and, if necessary, correct any errors you find by citing better sources.

        Good luck in your endeavors. HdC

        • Leon
          Posted April 30, 2016 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

          I appreciate you presenting sources for your side of the argument. However from what I’ve read, Michael Walsh strikes me as being someone emotionally committed to clearing the German regime of all blame, even at the cost of vilifying other Europeans, just like Walter below. The version of his book that I found online is full of passages denigrating the Polish people, in order to make Hitler’s aggressive expansionism appear more reasonable. The stance of the author on Poland is summarized in this passage:

          “Poland’s borders, thanks to the Versailles Treaty were far inside historical German territory. The Poles constantly subjected the artificially redrawn border to armed violations and skirmishes.”

          If nationalism means a belief in national self-determination, then I fail to see how such a clearly irredentist and supremacist position can be seen as acceptable. As I pointed out repeatedly to Walter, all of these “historically German” regions had ethnic Polish majorities at the time of the annexation by Poland, a country which did not even exist in any political form for two hundred years due to German occupation. More importantly, these large, ethnically-Polish regions constituted about a third of the Second Polish Republic’s territory, and perhaps even a majority of its ethnically-Polish territories.

          The author of this book repeatedly emphasizes that the Germans were doing right in invading Poland because these lands were “historically German” and therefore should have stayed so. I can understand how someone can arrive at this belief from a National Socialist perspective, if one understands that historical National Socialism was above-all a German supremacist ideology. But I fail to see how this attitude is consistent with Pan-European White nationalism, which holds that all nations have the right to self-determination.

  2. Posted March 26, 2016 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    Mea Culpa, I meant “prefer” and I used the word “subhuman” to much. Sorry. But still..

  3. Arindam
    Posted March 26, 2016 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    A most-interesting read.

    1)’ Here too, incidentally, the Jews however are not considered “subhumans” but are rather their leaders.’

    This view reminds me of something Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:

    ‘Psychologically considered, the Jewish people are a people endowed with the toughest vital energy, who, placed in impossible circumstances, voluntarily and out of the most profound prudence of self-preservation, take sides with all the instincts of decadence – not as mastered by them, but because they divined a power in these instincts with which one could prevail against “the world”. The Jews are the antithesis of decadents… with a non plus ultra of histrionic genius they have known how to place themselves at the head of all movements of decadence (as the Christianity of Paul ), in order to create something out of them which is stronger than any Yes-saying party of life….’ (Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, 24; italics Nietzsche’s.)

    Perhaps those who Nietzsche referred to as ‘decadents’ are what the German national socialists had in mind when they referred to ‘sub-humans’….

    [Ludwig Klages argued that Nietzsche was a Germanophobic philo-Semite; this should be borne in mind when reading his views regarding the Hebrews.]

    2) ‘Why not even attempt to make Poland into an anti-communist buffer state?’

    That attempt was made in the 1930s – insofar as Berlin’s diplomacy focussed on working with Warsaw rather than against it. It came to a cropper thanks to Poland’s unwillingness to compromise on Danzig – due to its mistaken belief that it could triumph over Germany with British and French backing: A.J.P. Taylor’s and David Hoggan’s works on the subject make that abundantly clear. Given this, it is not surprising that there wasn’t any appetite in Berlin for trying again.

  4. Jan L
    Posted March 26, 2016 at 4:25 am | Permalink

    Durocher is extremely interesting, as always.

  5. CharlesJ
    Posted March 25, 2016 at 11:11 pm | Permalink

    Excellent piece. We need this kind of historiography for a better assessment of the Third Reich (and, perhaps even more important, for exposing the falsities of the mainstream narrative). Nice “hidden” reference to Talleyrand in a piece already full of erudition.

  6. Roscommonguy
    Posted March 25, 2016 at 10:41 pm | Permalink

    Great essay.

  7. ofelas
    Posted March 25, 2016 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    “Indeed, this would highlight the possibilities of multiracial alliances of those who consider themselves to be victims of Jewish power, especially between Europeans and Muslims.”

    This really makes no sense at all. None. Europeans’ main grievance is precisely that “Jewish power” has opened the gates to a Muslim invasion of European. There is no European critique of Jewish power which doesn’t hinge on expressing European ill-will towards Europe’s increasingly vast Muslim population. So, given that Muslims want to be Europe, and don’t want to be confined to North Africa and the Middle East, how on earth would this be a basis for a strong European-Muslim alliance?

    Perhaps Durocher is imagining a scenario where Europe helps the Muslims re-take Palestine, in exchange for which Muslims agree to leave Europe. If Durocher thinks Muslims would ever accept that deal, then he’s an idiot and a naif. Muslims want Europe. That’s their top priority. I’m not sure why writers like Durocher can’t get this in their heads. The Muslims are the opposite of the Jews. The Jews will actually leave Europe in order to be in Palestine (i.e. Israel). The Muslims will not. The Muslims’ goal is conquest of Europe. The Jews’ goal is Zion. This isn’t that complicated.

  8. imb
    Posted March 25, 2016 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    “…and not a hiccup about the Millions of Russians who were murdered in German POW Camps.”

    And how were German POWs treated by the Soviets during the same time?:

    Germany invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941. The Soviets immediately began to execute German prisoners-of-war right after capture or a short interrogation. Even seriously wounded soldiers were not spared. Numerous high level orders to this effect are on record. The West German Military History Research Institute (Militaergeschichtliche Forschungsamt), which is not known for its pro-German bias, puts the percentage of captured German soldiers who died while in Soviet captivity in the years 1941-1942 at 90-95 percent. /5a

    Stalin refused to even discuss an agreement re treatment of POWs:

    During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

    “When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other ‘Slav submen’ POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin’s own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot].”

    Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

    “Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners’ postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: ‘There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans’.”

    Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.

  9. Walter
    Posted March 25, 2016 at 3:22 am | Permalink

    “…. them. And yet these subhuman creatures are the ferment that undermines the state! I make no distinction between them and the brutes who populate our Russian P.O.W. camps.[15]

    This is a shocking comparison, Hitler not considering his opponents in war to be honorable fellow soldiers conscripted by an evil communist tyranny, but no better than the lowest German criminals. This line of thinking can easily be tied to the German ….”

    The date this was said by Hitler was in September 1941, shortly after the beginning of the Russian campaign. I think he said it because even in the first few days of fighting German soldiers who fell in Russian hands were found later by their comrades with their eyes gouged out, tongue and genitals cut off, heels pieced, etc. As to the treatment of Russian POWs- I have my doubts about willful mistreatment of them; although it is possible, it is also possible that the massive amount of soldiers (must have approached millions quickly) who were taken prisoner in the first few weeks caused serious problems with supplying and maintaining them.
    My father was in Russia and he only spoke well of the Russian people, as did Leon Degrelle who commented on the general impression in the East, and therefore I have a hard time to believe this mainstream narrative of willful mistreatment, starvation and so on of SU POWs as a policy. I have learned to question every aspect of the narrative of the war. Hitler didn’t like the Slavs, but Rosenberg did, and I believe Göhring did (he had a Russian lover while in the SU in the 20s as part of the Reichswehr- Red Army cooperation). Hitler’s plans for a conquered Russia are not clear to me; information is scanty and quite often suspect. That he committed a major mistake by rejecting Russian offers to join in the fight against Bolshevism and by installing people like Koch who antagonized the Slavs is unfortunately true, but it seems also true ( I read it in Peter Kelist Auch Du Warst Dabei) that even in January 1945 several Red Army battallions defected to the German side upon entering Germany proper and in Yugoslavia. It must have been a struggle we can’t form a clear picture from yet.
    Further down in the text it is asked why Hitler disregarded Poland as a buffer state to the SU. He did offer the Poles just such a strategic partnership but was rebuffed by them ; instead, they thought they could have their empire from Sea to Sea in opposition to both the SU and Germany but with the help of Britain, and perhaps the US of Roosevelt.

    • Leon
      Posted March 25, 2016 at 7:47 am | Permalink

      “I think he said it because even in the first few days of fighting German soldiers who fell in Russian hands were found later by their comrades with their eyes gouged out, tongue and genitals cut off, heels pieced, etc.”


      “He did offer the Poles just such a strategic partnership but was rebuffed by them”

      What he offered them, was annexing their only access to the Baltic Sea, and biting a large chunk out of their southwest flank besides, leaving them a small hapless buffer state at German mercy. After over a century of mistreatment and arrogant imperialism by the Germans in the Poles’ own lands, can you wonder why they refused to place themselves back into their hands?

      • Walter
        Posted March 25, 2016 at 10:59 am | Permalink

        I will have to look where I read of the savagery encountered in the East from the beginning. It is from personal war memories, perhaps I just read it recently in Degrelle’s book. The date the quote from Hitler is from is from September 1941 which makes it likely that he spoke from the first impressions made.

        As to the Poles:
        The offer to form a strategic alliance with Poland is, I believe from late 1938.
        Hitler wanted to come to a final settlement with Poland and the outstanding differences regarding the common border with this country, including large swaths of German territories taken by, and given to Poland (a well-know example of the procedures used by the allies is that of Upper Silesia) as well as the status of Danzig. The whole situation was created through the unsound minds formulating the Dictate Peace of Versailles. You can read up about that, there is plenty of literature.
        The Korridor solution Hitler proposed included a plebiscite of the people living in that region. There were sixteen points to it, but the Polish ambassador in Berlin, Lipski, had instructions not to discuss them or accept their receipt, and there was no urging in London to do so either.
        The problems along the Polish border were not created by Hitler or Germany, they were real and unsolved. Hitler was the only politician suggesting a solution – a workable solution. Alone in summer of 1939 70000 Germans were counted as refugees from Poland due to the increase of Polish terroristic measures against Germans in particular, to give you an indicator of the reality of the crisis that was developing there.

        • Leon
          Posted March 25, 2016 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

          “I will have to look where I read of the savagery encountered in the East from the beginning. It is from personal war memories, perhaps I just read it recently in Degrelle’s book”

          I don’t dispute that the Soviets mistreated German POWs (you should see how they treated their own people), just that Russian soldiers systematically mutilated German soldiers in the way that you describe, and that that was the main cause of Hitler’s contempt for Russians.

          “Hitler wanted to come to a final settlement with Poland and the outstanding differences regarding the common border with this country, including large swaths of German territories taken by, and given to Poland (a well-know example of the procedures used by the allies is that of Upper Silesia) as well as the status of Danzig. The whole situation was created through the unsound minds formulating the Dictate Peace of Versailles. You can read up about that, there is plenty of literature.”

          Nearly all regions which constituted the Second Polish Republic had been “taken” from Germany (as well as Austria and Russia), since these three powers had previously carved up Polish lands between themselves, denying the Polish people sovereignty for over 120 years. The region of Upper Silesia was a majority-ethnic Polish/Slunzok region which had voted in a plebiscite in 1921 to join Poland, which Germany refused to acknowledge. The effect of Allied intervention there during the pre-War period was actually to force the Poles to give back some of the territory they’d won during the Silesian Uprising against Germany. It seems kind of hypocritical for Hitler to call for a plebiscite in the Polish Corridor, when he also refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the last plebiscite held on a disputed Polish-German territory. And since the Polish Corridor actually had a Polish majority since long before the war, I have to doubt that Hitler was actually calling for that.

          “Alone in summer of 1939 70000 Germans were counted as refugees from Poland due to the increase of Polish terroristic measures against Germans in particular, to give you an indicator of the reality of the crisis that was developing there.”

          I call German propaganda BS on that. Germans moved to Germany from Poland in the 1930s because Germany was a growing world power, and because they held the Poles in contempt. Nothing new there.

          • Walter
            Posted March 26, 2016 at 10:19 am | Permalink

            Hitler’s remark was made in September of 1941. That would have been just after the war with the SU had began and first impressions of the kind of fight that developed in the East. I think it does make sense, and, as, implied from the text by Mr. Durocher, it’s the only instance when Hitler used the term.
            The plebiscite in 1921 in Upper Silesia did result in a majority for Germany of just above 60 % , not Poland. In preparation for the plebiscite, the Poles were give free rain by the occupying French to exert pressure on the population to not to vote, and still they did not give into the pressure and voted to remain with Germany. Nonetheless, the coal-and mineral-rich Upper Silesia was given to the Poles. There you have the good people who wanted to make a world based on national self-determination, freedom, etc. the new guide lines. It would be in this context of defining borders along ethnic lines not relevant that this region once had been part of the kingdom of Poland (if it ever had). According to the Polish maps, Poland would have extended well into Western Germany and so the next war was to shift the borders further west, as has been extensively discussed and sated as Polish policy thereafter.
            Poland is the only country in Europe arguing with this caveman logics “it was once Polish, therefore it is Polish forever”. As such it has acted as the entry gate for foreign intervention and is the ultimate cause for the occupation of Europe by an extra-European power and all the consequences this brought.

          • Leon
            Posted March 26, 2016 at 3:27 pm | Permalink


            You have your facts wrong yet again. The whole of the region of Upper Silesia voted 60% in favor of remaining in Germany, yes, but it was not the whole of Upper Silesia which was accorded to Poland. In fact only about a third of the region, the most solidly ethnic Polish areas, were accorded to Poland after Allied intervention, despite the fact that Polish insurgents had by then taken control of most of Upper Silesia. Given that the population was over 50% Polish at the time of the plebiscite, and given their imperialisitc track record, it seems more plausible that the Germans were the ones exerting pressure on the populace in favour of voting for Germany than the reverse.

            “It would be in this context of defining borders along ethnic lines not relevant that this region once had been part of the kingdom of Poland (if it ever had).”

            As stated before (I guess you must have missed that) these regions had ethnic-Polish majorities. So the claim that:

            “According to the Polish maps, Poland would have extended well into Western Germany”

            is irrelevant. Before the war, no Polish leaders or politicians were advocating annexing non-Polish-speaking regions which had in the past been part of the Polish kingdom. The Upper Silesian and Greater Polish uprisings were waged in order to liberate Polish-speaking regions from an oppressive German establishment which did want, as a matter of well established fact, to eliminate Polish language and culture entirely in its domain.

            “and so the next war was to shift the borders further west, as has been extensively discussed and sated as Polish policy thereafter.”

            Sorry, it was Germans who were talking about waging wars to expand their territory, and quite openly too. Danzig and the Polish Corridor, as well as the small remainder of Upper Silesia were high on their list.

            “Poland is the only country in Europe arguing with this caveman logics “it was once Polish, therefore it is Polish forever”.”

            You have to be joking. Poland got just about all it aimed to get by the time the Germans invaded. After the war, the Poles were too busy rebuilding the country that Germans and Soviets had collectively destroyed to care about the lost territories, which I would remind were far larger than the collective territory that Germany lost in the East (not including Austria). By contrast, when I hear someone whining today that “this was ours, it should be ours forever, give it back”, despite the fact that none of their people even lives there anymore, it’s usually German nationalists who condone the German imperialism of the past.

            “As such it has acted as the entry gate for foreign intervention and is the ultimate cause for the occupation of Europe by an extra-European power and all the consequences this brought.”

            You’ve got to be kidding. Germany signed a deal with the USSR and attacked Poland. Poland called for help but got none. As a result, it had the privilege of being invaded, occupied and destroyed by two of the most repressive regimes of human history. If you’re too enamored with St. Hitler to look at the facts, then at least don’t call yourself a White nationalist. Call yourself a German supremacist or a devotee of Hitler and we’ll go our separate ways.

      • George Kerby
        Posted March 25, 2016 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

        For sources on the subject of Soviet treatment of Axis POW’s try the memoires of Leo Degrelle, Bruno Sutkus, Sepp Allerberger et al. Hitler certainly was aware of this situation.
        Of the 90,000 captured at Stalingrad in 1943 some 5000 (all the survivors) were repatriated in 1957
        It’s possible that Marshall Pilsudski would have seen an alliance or some other pact with Germany as possible. German rail and auto access to East Prussia would also have been considered. By 1939 Pilsudski was dead and the Polish government led by those who believed Poland possessed the military strength to be able to resist threats from east or west and egged on by the fantastic promises of France and Britain.
        Since 1919 Poland has since rewarded with chunks of land historically German; including that southwestern corner formerly known as Silesia, half of East Prussia and more besides.
        Should White Nationalism fracture on this line? Lets keep this going and see.

  10. hereandnow
    Posted March 25, 2016 at 3:04 am | Permalink

    For all the beauty and perfection of the Germans, Polish People and other Slavs , for some subhuman reason, were and seem to be, stubbornly unimpressed. What repulses them?
    The pendulum has swung. An old saint has reappeared. Will Adolph become the favorite name for boys amongst the West White Nordics?
    All the crocodile tears over Dresden, etc, etc…and not a hiccup about the Millions of Russians who were murdered in German POW Camps. Also, these Russian “brutes”, what % non Slav ?
    The 99.9% destruction of Warsaw was an unforeseeable accident?
    Sacrilege this = Germans and Jews seem to be attracted to each other. Both need golem.


    • Walter
      Posted March 25, 2016 at 11:25 am | Permalink

      Perhaps you are overlooking that being neighbors involves two sides? As far as I know, there were never any problems between German and Russians until the alliance Russia under the Czar entered with France and Britain before the First War, and then developing after the ascent of Bolshevism to power with Germany as its main aim of revolution. And then the problems were not between Russians and Germans but between Bolsheviks and Germans.
      Poles, as the direct neighbors of Germany in the east, are not particularly easy to live next to. It will help you to read up on their view of themselves, their neighbors, the territorial expansion Poland has, in the view of the Poles, their life as a newly-country in 1919 with their neighbors in all directions, etc.
      Consider this: Poland neither did nor does not extend to the gates of Hamburg, Kiev is not a Polish city, the well-planned complete elimination of all Germans in East Germany (I am speaking of the 14 million Germans from East Germany which the Poles drove away at gunpoint) is not a policy of a normal country.
      Warsaw was not destroyed to 99.9 %.

      • Leon
        Posted March 26, 2016 at 6:18 am | Permalink

        You are in such a desperate haste to clear the Germans of all wrongdoing that you are even willing to vilify and lie about other Europeans in order to support your narrative. Poles are not easy to live next to? Seriously? The Poles never asked Germans to invade their territory and become their colonial masters. After Poland regained independence from Russia in 1919 (against Germany’s wishes), the Germans chose to hold on to all territories with Polish majorities, including the region of Greater Poland, which was the historic center of the Polish state, as well as Upper Silesia, which also had a Polish majority. Now you can argue whether Poland’s military expansionism against Lithuania and Ukraine was justified, but the fact is that these regions actually HAD ethnic Polish majorities at the time. I don’t see how you can condemn the Poles for ‘expanding in all directions’, when Hitler himself had already used the exact same justification to annex Austria, and large chunks of Czechoslovakia, dividing the rest between a protectorate and a puppet state. As it says in old Polish novel: When Kali steals someone’s cow, it’s a good thing. When someone steals Kali’s cow, it’s bad. That seems to be your attitude here.

        “the well-planned complete elimination of all Germans in East Germany (I am speaking of the 14 million Germans from East Germany which the Poles drove away at gunpoint) is not a policy of a normal country.”

        You’re joking right? After being invaded and subjugated in a co-ordinated attack by both Germany and the Soviet Union (which the Germans planned), Poles had no ability to organize anything on that scale. They couldn’t even take their own capital city back, not even with the Germans already preparing to leave. It was the Red Army who drove the Germans out of the east, and it was the Soviet commissars who redrew the borders after the war. The Poles had about as much say in that as to whether their country would become an Eastern Bloc Soviet puppet state for the next fifty years. Thanks Hitler!

        • Walter
          Posted March 26, 2016 at 11:26 am | Permalink

          The Polish state was re-established on Nov. 5, 1916 as a kingdom by proclamation of the Central Powers. From a Polish point of view this was not satisfactory as it implied not the full independence Polish aspirations aimed for. Nonetheless, it has to be considered an important step towards a re-constituted Poland, considering that the previous Polish rebellions in Congess-Poland were unseccessful and led nowhere towards any Polish political entity.
          You wrote: “After Poland gained independence from Russia in 1919 (against Germany’s wishes)”. I don’t know what is in the Peace of Brest-Litowsk between Germany and Russia from 1918 as regards Poland, but in 1919 the war was over and Germany was not in position to influence Poland’s fate anymore one way or another.
          You are wandering off into the nether regions of Polish expansionism which makes a good part of Europe “Polish” because Polish hyper-Chauvinism says it is so, regardless of reality. Again: In the plebiscite in Upper Silesia in 1921 the Poles did not achieve a majority. The region was nonetheless given to Poland-I think because of the coal and mineral-wealth of the region, a step which both weakened Germany and strengthened Poland, entirely in line with a Versailles-type policy.
          East Germany is: East Prussia and Danzig, Silesia; Pomerania; East-Brandenburg, and included West Prussia and Pomerellen until 1919. These provinces were completely ethnically cleansed by the Poles with about 14 million people driven away at gunpoint. The Bierut decrees made it Polish Public Policy. Thee are facts.
          The problems along the German-Polish border were real and not created by Hitler or Germany. Hitler made constructive suggestions to their solution, Poland refused to even look at them (literally). Lipski (Polish ambassador in Berlin) said on August 31, 1939, Polish troops would soon march in Berlin.
          Poland is probably going to be the one country in Europe which will stand in the way of a common European response to the existential threat it faces through the logic of the situation created through the Second World War.

          • Leon
            Posted March 26, 2016 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

            “I don’t know what is in the Peace of Brest-Litowsk between Germany and Russia from 1918 as regards Poland, but in 1919 the war was over and Germany was not in position to influence Poland’s fate anymore one way or another.
            You are wandering off into the nether regions of Polish expansionism which makes a good part of Europe “Polish” because Polish hyper-Chauvinism says it is so, regardless of reality.”

            Fine, let’s remind ourselves of what happened so you don’t get confused. After the war Germany refused to allow any of the many majority-ethnic Polish regions under its control to join the new Polish state, even the large region of Greater Poland which had an ethnic-Polish majority, and which had not been part of Germany prior to the partitions. The only expansionism on the part of Poles against Germany that I can think of during the interwar period, were the Greater Polish and Upper Silesian Uprisings, both of which aimed liberate majority-Polish (read it again if you have to) regions from German rule. The Polish Corridor was also accorded to Poland on the grounds that it had a Polish majority (over 80% in 1910), and that it was vital for Poland to have access to the Baltic Sea if it were to survive economically. By demanding that Poland cede this region to the new Germany, Hitler was effectively asking the Poles to place themselves at the mercy of a regime with a well-establish Polonophonic record. Such a surprise they chose to take their chances with the Allies, isn’t it?

            ” These provinces were completely ethnically cleansed by the Poles with about 14 million people driven away at gunpoint. The Bierut decrees made it Polish Public Policy. Thee are facts.”

            The so-called “Bierut decrees” refer to the policies of Bolesław Bierut, a Polish Communist puppet leader and NKVD agent placed into power by the Soviets after they overran Poland, thanks in no small part to Hitler’s joint invasion of Poland with the Soviets. I reiterate, if you think that Poles had the manpower, energy, or organizational/political power to organize something on that scale, than you’re clearly not looking closely at the historical record. This confirms my suspicion that you are willing to play fast and loose with the truth in order to exonerate Hitler and German imperialists from wrongdoing.

          • Leon
            Posted March 26, 2016 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

            Sorry, I meant to write *Polonophobic (as in anti-Polish), not “Polonophonic”.

        • Spiritus Gladius
          Posted April 23, 2016 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

          You mean thank you Britain, US and France who goaded Poland into war with Germany. They promised to have the Poles back but instead abandoned Poland first to the Germans then to the Soviets. Hitler tried to resolve the Polish issue, and his requests were not extreme. Rydz Smigly wanted to act like some tough guy, taunting the Germans thinking Britain would attack Germany. He also condoned attacks and murders of ethnic Germans. The coward fled Poland after the Germans invaded.

      • Leon
        Posted March 26, 2016 at 6:34 am | Permalink

        Warsaw was almost completely leveled by the Germans during the war. It had to be entirely rebuilt after the war.

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4


    The Node


    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes


    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance


    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy


    The Path of Cinnabar


    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace


    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above