Hrafn wrote:Yes. Let's not forget Saint Churchill, who was a white supremacist who deliberately let millions of hindus starve to death, and who considered the irish to be subhuman scum as well (even though they are white...). After WW2, he loudly protested against letting non-whites from the colonies immigrate. When Nick Griffin said that Churchill would have voted for the BNP, his liberal/cuckservative admirers (who think of him as a tolerant anti-racist crusader) went apeshit, but it's probably true. If anything, Churchill might not consider the BNP racist enough.
Hmm... I dunno. Even if Churchill was racist in a way that was commonly accepted at his time, and even if he opposed immigration form the colonies, did he share BNP ideas about racial purity? Was he motivated by a desire to keep the British race "clean", or did he simply see the colonial subjects as backwards?
Hrafn wrote:It's kinda funny that people try to link the Alt-Right to Nazism, when the race realism of the alt-right is actually derived from the scientific racism that was strong in Britain and America and which Winston Churchill as far as we know never denounced. Hardly anyone takes the National Socialist's occult Aryan theories seriously. They were outdated even back in 1933, as racial biologists in countries other than Germany pointed out.
The Nazi's hatred of slavs is also pretty weird even in the context of their own ideology. Slavs actually have higher rates of blue eyes and blonde hair than germans have, so WW2 was basically swarthy germans butchering aryan slavs in the name of aryan supremacy. Pretty amusing in a morbid way. Nordic and finnish SS-volunteers were often disappointed about taking orders from swarthy, chubby german commanders who were a head shorter than them, and referred to them as "Nachgedunkelte Schrumpfgermanen"
Honestly, the term "alt-right" has been used by so many groups nowadays, including people who are pretty much outright neo-nazis, that I don't know what it's supposed to mean. Back in 2016 you had people championing classical liberal issues like Milo (who isn't a perfect human being, sure) associated with that term, but it seems to have been completely taken over by identitarians and "stormies". If there's anything I associate the term with here in Sweden its a bunch of unemphatic autistic meme makers making "jokes" about the holocaust etc.
SlavaD wrote:No it didn't. It wanted to deport millions of Poles into a minor, disarmed, deliberately impoverished, and landlocked "Poland" that would have been ruled by a German King and been totally subservient to German interests. The same was true of the planned United Baltic Duchy, which was meant to be a puppet state of Germany ruled by the German Baltic nobility, and Ukraine - massive parts of which (such as Crimea) were slated for German colonization. They were absolutely ethnic nationalists.
Hitler was not some aberration. He was the continuation of long standing German policy of eastward colonization, with a somewhat radicalized cadre willing to support genocide to achieve their immediate goals. Over a century of dehumanizing Slavs and emphasizing them as a threat to German integrity didn't come from Hitler - it was ready made for him by the "Prussians" you venerate so much.
AFAIK the plan you are referring to was made up by some overzealous German generals without the Emperor's support, and was discarded when they reestablished Poland instead. It would have taken a strip of Polish land at the border and settled it with Germans to make the border "stable". Terrible and unjust idea - sure - but hardly comparable to anything the Nazis did. Germany was well underway to become a democracy at the time and appointed an all-Polish Regency Council (including the archbishop of Warsaw) to rule Poland, so even if some German or Austrian Prince might have become king in the end, had the Central powers prevailed, their plan was quite clearly a functioning Polish state.
I agree that the Congress Poland borders were hardly right and for Germany, having Posen as a province was quite unjustified, but afaik poles fared a lot better there than in Russian "Vistula Province" as they called the core of Poland they controlled (Prussia even recognised it as a part of Poland they controlled in the province's coat of arms!). Regarding sea access, looking at where poles lived at the time, that would have been the result, yes. As we saw from post WW1, the corridor thing was hardly optimal and gave Hitler an excuse to attack Poland in the end. Maybe Poland could have gained sea access by reestablishing the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth instead like Pilsudski wanted to (could also have avoided sad things like the conflict regarding Vilnius)?
However, apart from Posen, the idea that Germans had been somehow preying on Polish lands, driven by some kind of master race complex for centuries, is hardly justified by history. Most of those lands that Poland took post-WW2 had been German since the middle ages, largely as a result of the Polish king inviting the Teutonic knights to Christianise those lands. In regards to Russia, that accusation would probably be more justified, however.