Strikingly absent from Hitler’s thinking immediately following the war, and indeed for some time thereafter, was any serious anxiety about Russian power or the Soviet Union. This is not surprising, given that Germany’s main enemy had been the western allies, and the fact that Russia had been defeated by 1917. Hitler was not even worried about communism as an external threat. The impact of the Baltic emigre and ferocious anti-Bolshevik Alfred Rosenberg during this period was not significant and, in any case, the two men did not even meet until a few months later. Like many Germans, Hitler saw Bolshevism as a disease, which had knocked Russia out of the war, and then undermined German resistance a year later. He did not fear a Soviet invasion, not even after the victory of the Reds in the Civil War. Instead, Hitler fretted that communism would destroy the last vestiges of German sovereignty in the face of the Entente. ‘The threatened Bolshevik flood is not so much to be feared as the result of Bolshevik victories on the battlefields’, he warned, ‘as rather as a result of a planned subversion of our own people’, which would deliver them up to international high finance.
At this point Simms puts endnote 43 of his third chapter, and at the end of the book we can read the sources of Hitler’s words. But as I have said, in these quotations from some passages of Hitler I omit both the endnotes and the bibliographical sources.
Significantly, Hitler wasted no words on the Soviet Union in his early statements from 1919 save to predict that it was set to become a ‘colony of the Entente’. This means that capitalism and communism were not simply two equal sides of the anti-Semitic coin for Hitler. Bolshevism was clearly a subordinate force. Its function in the Anglo-American plutocratic system was to undermine the national economies of independent states and make them ripe for takeover by the forces of international capitalism.
I find Simms’s revisionism in his biography of Hitler so fascinating that just as in ‘Hitler 6’ I interpolated 9,000 words from another author’s book to show my disagreements with Simms (in the sense that even a Jewish scholar shows the genuine motivations of Germans in the face of Jewish subversion), in ‘Hitler 12’ I will interpolate a 4,500-word article by Gregory Hood.
That article, ‘Rockwell as Conservative’, published ten years ago in Counter-Currents, is perfect for understanding the maturity I have undergone in recent years regarding the primary aetiology of white decline.
Rockwellian Nazism was America’s fascist movement par excellence when I was a child. He hated commies as much as US Senator Joseph McCarthy during the late 1940s through the 1950s. Hood shows that George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of Rockwellian Nazism, was ideologically closer to American conservatism than is generally accepted on the racial right.
I would suggest starting the reading of that 2013 article, ‘Rockwell as Conservative’ from the ninth comment in the comments section: the response from Martin Kerr, who inherited the organisation Rockwell created, as well as the brief responses from Greg Johnson.
Just because I am going to interpolate that long article by Gregory Hood into this magnifying glass review of Simms’ book doesn’t mean that I agree with what Hood has said in other articles. On the contrary: Robert Morgan and I have criticised him very harshly because, like other white nationalists, Hood is clueless on the Christian Question.
Nevertheless, his article ‘Rockwell as Conservative’ is great for understanding why Rockwell and the neo-Nazis have failed and will continue to fail. Hood’s POV aside, the continuing failure is because, unlike Hitler, these Americans haven’t transvalued their values.
But even that is another matter. What concerns us for the moment is only Hood’s criticism of Rockwell. Like today’s white nationalists, Commander Rockwell never noticed the major etiological factors of Aryan decline, only the minor ones. Otherwise, he would never have defended, as Hood does, the American flag.
One reply on “Hitler, 11”
This seems too immodest, but I didn’t censor my sentence because it’s really what I’m thinking now. (Compare it with what I used to say about ten years ago in the discussion threads, where I defended Rockwell against the criticism of the Canadian Ronin.)