ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE LEFT AND ISLAM CEMENTED BY LENIN AND HITLER

Alliance Between the Left and Islam Cemented by Lenin and Hitler

By Alexander Shah - on August 22, 2017

Dateline, Europe, 2017: There is no respect for history anymore. There can be no positive excuse for attacks on the heritage of one’s nation. 

Such symbols and memories stand above the political opinion. They inspire individuals independently of government influence. What cannot be controlled must be annihilated! The monuments in America are intellectual obstacles to egalitarian government ideologues – but to men of an organic culture that transplanted itself from Europe onto the soil of the New World these standing objects capture the biographical character of men that enriched the American history. 

Obsession with slavery is largely a cult of vanity promoted by the LEFT to abolish the American identity and establish George Soros’ open society vision. European immigrants to America were diverse people of various grades of talent. Their combined contribution laid the foundation for the world’s most powerful nation.

When the symbols of the past become subjected to an opinion about their worth, then the heritage of the nation is not respected anymore. Heritage is not a matter of opinion. Heritage is a matter of fact, and as such, it is a living past coded into the memory of the people for whom it meant something. The sense of meaning derived from an artifact of history is a personal experience that is relived in every generation. 

Today, the monuments to American history are either falling or under attack everywhere, at the moment, this onslaught by the mobs is made easy by the liberal education system in America and Western Europe where all nations are treated with disrespect because of the need to erase the memory of a conservative, family-oriented and God-fearing past through which alone the Western nations emerged into existence after long centuries of development and sacrifice. 

Otherwise, the mob-like entourage of the LEFT standing behind our system of public education would not be in business for their sordid industry of human rights selectively applied. They need something to attack. The propaganda of the LEFT thrives on sonorous moral tales of past injustices to construct taboos with (taboos are fear-induced notions that cannot be questioned set up to limit public discourse, eliminate individual freedom of thought and control the only thing remaining – which is the group-based thought rooted in a consensus tirelessly restated every day in the mainstream media and in classrooms).

The LEFT today is the result of the alliances and conflicts between the three big players of the 20th century: Lenin, Hitler, and Islam. The manner in which the LEFT manufactures and enforces its canon through newspapers, TV screens and textbooks closely resembles the written method of Islam in the way in which it carries forth its mental control over its Muslim followers. 

The chief reason for the need for immigrants and outsiders in the West is that these imported types are ready material for brainwashing because they have no attachment to and no affinity for the heritage or traditions of the Western nations in which they find themselves – and can, therefore, be turned into ready pawns of the ideological system in control of the Western institutions, acting just like mercenaries in wars. 

Unlike the natives, these outsiders possess no inner energies of spiritual resistance against an attack on traditions of Western nations. What’s more, they join in on the attack with gusto! Every organism only can have what it can digest. Western nations are no longer living organisms that choose the food they digest.

Has there ever been a Muslim immigrant to the UK who cared to devote time to the issues of British parliamentarian democracy of the 18th century, such as the unconstitutional position of the Prime Minister’s cabinet? 

Was any Muslim ever inspired by the brilliant work of Sir William Blackstone, a celebrated jurist and author of “Commentaries On The Laws of England” without which the US Constitution could not have been written in the form passed down to us? Of course, no! All these issues are infinitely remote from them. 

Ultimately, the key factor for the founders of the modern LEFT, just as it was for Lenin, for Hitler, and for Islam, has been the subculture of intellectual poverty widely represented in the American, Russian and German majorities that supported them politically. 

All they did was liberate the beast in man so it can become a weapon in their hands. The LEFT today treats the minorities in the same way, exploiting their intellectual poverty in order to use them as fists in a civil war against the patriotic forces that revere the nation’s past.

So this system of the LEFT is inherently opposed to World History and prefers to employ the vetted subject of history merely as a foil for its stupid moral lessons about the virtues of its system of government. This system of government of the LEFT is serving the purpose of an unnatural egalitarian logic (the logic that opposes everyone’s historical heritage because heritage is a matter of natural inequality and of invisible qualities that empower people independently of the government). 

The hybrid LEFT of today was conceived in the acerbic minds of disaffected intellectuals of the fringe of Western societies in the 19th century (thinkers like Karl Marx) to be used as a future social and intellectual weapon against the natural order formed by the flow of various grades of achievement in the human history of a nation. 

The chief method of this weapon was the divisive art of painting of social contrasts. But before this weapon could be deployed, a major geopolitical earthquake (like World War I) needed to be unleashed – just like noxious gases in a volcano cannot get out unless the build up of magma or lava leads to an explosion on the surface letting them loose upon the unsuspecting world.

Once the evil genie of the old LEFT got out of the bottle during World War One, this weapon wasted no time in being seized by demagogues and dictators of the LEFT, power-greedy men like Vladimir Lenin of Russia (internationalist) and Adolf Hitler of Germany (nationalist) looking to expand their sway over souls and fulfill their petty thirst for revenge against the society that rejected them – the polite society of circles of natural elites bound together by the substantial spirit of the intelligentsia thanks to which brilliant works of literature, arts, science, and engineering were made possible – human marvels of thought to which also the criticism of every government was natural! 

 And so, these intellectually dishonest and largely talentless dictators of the 20th century became social rejects in one way or another. They were discontented and so they looked for discontent, just as the LEFT today does. Every cancer seeks out injured tissue first.

Lenin used the discontent among the factory workers and the underpaid mobs of the big cities as the glue holding the supporters for his internationalist egalitarian promises of a better future for the supposedly downtrodden; Hitler used the deep discontent among the defeated Germans as his thick political glue with which to hold together an immature and impossible promise of a better future for a lonely Germany standing oblivious to the nations all around her. Germany was not an island. Germany’s life depended upon good relations with neighbors, much more than England’s national life did. And Russia was not even a nation but a vast Asian empire of poor Christian peasants and subdued Muslim tribes. Lenin sought to use nationalism as a disposable communist weapon and so he created Soviet republics for various minorities to feel elevated to the status of Western nations.

Hitler used it, too, in the same manner, issuing promises of national interest consideration to smaller nations only to trample them later. Like the LEFT today, neither Lenin nor Hitler respected the heritage or history or culture of any nation, not even their own. Nations to them are just means to an end, necessary for the acquisition of political power, to be used and then discarded like condoms. Whereas, nations used to be venerable phenomena. Although Hitler swore by mystic notions of Aryan unity – to him there was nothing venerable about the past, or even the German past, in order satisfy the envy in him. 

Envy seeks leveling, egalitarianism in its lowest state. Men he could not understand he automatically hated. Islam does the same thing. He made national existence a captive of brutalities of nature outside the higher history of Man of the past 5,000 years. Islam does the same thing. And the LEFT maintains this attitude to this day. The vulgarity of their viewpoints is matched by their appetite for control.

Likewise, Islam carries its ancient methods of rejection of unique value and the historical worth of peoples, nations and other entities accumulated in the wider world around Islam’s habitable zone. 

The modern LEFT is a hybrid of these three movements (Communism, Nazism and Islam) which helped the liberal LEFT soar to political heights never before seen in World History. Lenin supplied the economic justification for the ever dumber masses subject to state propaganda to be nurtured at the public expense; although Hitler through his military acted as the main battering ram for the destruction of the conservative heritage of the European nations – his egalitarian socialist agenda reserved exclusively for the national-socialist form of the German nation served to annihilate the intelligentsia and the traditional forces inside Germany, Europe’s most powerful nation, thereby ensuring for posterity a servile German remnant of a nation acting as a mercenary of the world powers, including Islam – the new postwar power. 

Hitler sought to reduce every German down to his own low personality standard, and whoever could not be thus transformed was killed or arrested. The LEFT today seeks everyone to be reduced down to the level of consumer. The once sovereign citizen of a democracy is now a hapless creature of needs. Whatever Muslims want Muslims get in Germany or outside Germany just so they can support the agenda of the LEFT. So, Islam stands to benefit from the damage done by forces that were under the control of Lenin and Hitler.

In fact, in Russia, Islam was aided by the ruling Communist authority erected on the grave of Russian Christianity after Lenin’s ascent to power. Numerous Soviet laws were passed to ensure the political activism of Muslim subjects of the old Russian Empire, and while the churches were being blown up by Lenin’s henchmen across Russia, the mosques were rising in the Soviet Union. After his failure to conquer Europe in 1920 (thanks to traditional Poland’s resistance), Lenin found another way – he supplied a worldwide leftist propaganda spree with which to inspire the Third World to rise against the West everywhere. For that reason, (for instance) Vietnam became a bastion of communist guerrillas seeking to destroy the Western influence in that part of Asia. Long before the Vietnam War, Lenin’s agents were in French Indochina plotting attacks on Western interests. His ideas were so effective he even converted America’s news anchor Walther Cronkite to the cause.

Likewise, CNN today serves as Islamic agenda’s premier Western media partner. Lenin’s state-funded party agents blanketed the world with plans for subterfuge, means of execution and a propaganda cover for terror-inspiring activism. Moscow turned the world into a vast worldwide series of communist election campaigns using bullets instead of ballots as the means of democratic franchise. 

For its part, (Nazi) Germany (which was allied with Lenin’s Russia for a time) openly attacked the colonial Western powers under the moral pretext of a colonial system’s injustice to Arabs and Africans – thereby seeking to bribe Islam to join the fight on behalf of Nazi Germany. The entire series of revolts against England and France in the Middle East and North Africa following World War II was a direct consequence of the work of Hitler. 

The annihilation of the Jews by Hitler inspired the Palestinians and other Arabs to think they could make a short work of the Jews in Israel in the Final Solution’s epilogue done the Islam’s way. 

Hitler revealed the rot in the heart of the White Man’s world and the Third World picked up on that. Islam to this day bases its morality of resistance to the West on the basis of the opening provided by Lenin’s ideology of exploitation and Hitler’s solution of genocide. The West exploits, the West kills, the West lacks authority: so Islam becomes the way.

What unites this evil triumvirate of the 20th century is the work of Lenin, Hitler and Islam – all of which were political forces against the positive memory of history. The Shah of Iran represented the bygone heritage of Persian history, the idea of monarchy and the love of pre-Islamic antiquity – and for that reason, he was an enemy of Islam and ended up being hated by the majority of Muslims in his country. 

So, this triumvirate of the 20th century is the sworn enemy of accumulated experience, full of hatred for history and carries resentment against the natural inequality of men’s talents and circumstances with which a wealth of diverse results are produced in a healthy culture. Above all, the LEFT recognizes, just as Hitler and Lenin did, that the institution of the traditional heterosexual family is the bedrock of history and, as such, it is to be eroded and destroyed. 

What cannot be controlled must be annihilated! This was the governing principle of Lenin, of Hitler and of Islam’s ideologues. And of course, history cannot be controlled because it happens naturally, so the best way to eliminate a culture’s history is to erase the memory of its history. And the monuments in America keep falling….like London bridge…

“If Allah were to take mankind to task for their wrongdoing, He would not leave a single living creature on the face of earth, but He reprieves them to an appointed time, and when their appointed time comes, they cannot put it off an hour nor can they advance it.” (Surah an-Nahl, 16:61)

Islam is wrong. God is not a capricious dictator nor is He bound by hard deadlines. In the Arabian dust bowl there is no season of Spring, so Arabs never saw the annual renewal of Nature.

“Social-Democracy, therefore, must give most emphatic warning to the proletariat and other working people of all nationalities against direct deception by the nationalistic slogans of “their own” bourgeoisie, who with their saccharine or fiery speeches about “our native land” try to divide the proletariat and divert its attention from their bourgeois intrigues while they enter into an economic and political alliance with the bourgeoisie of other nations and with the tsarist monarchy.” – Vladimir Illich Lenin

Lenin is wrong. The disparaging use of the phrase “bourgeoisie” obscures the fact that this is the natural elite of historic achievement for the nation.

“The state is only the vessel and the race is what it contains.  The vessel can only have meaning if it preserves and safeguards the contents  … The supreme purpose of the ethical state is to guard and preserve those racial elements” – A. Hitler, Mein Kampf

Hitler is wrong. The state is not only the vessel – the state is an idea itself that took a long time to emerge, and, as such, it is venerable just as history that it emerged from, is, too!

THE NAZI ROMANCE WITH ISLAM HAS SOME LESSONS FOR THE UNITED STATES

Both Hitler and Himmler had a soft spot for Islam. Hitler several times fantasized that, if the Saracens had not been stopped at the Battle of Tours, Islam would have spread through the European continent—and that would have been a good thing, since “Jewish Christianity” wouldn’t have gone on to poison Europe.

Christianity doted on weakness and suffering, while Islam extolled strength, Hitler believed. Himmler in a January 1944 speech called Islam “a practical and attractive religion for soldiers,” with its promise of paradise and beautiful women for brave martyrs after their death. “This is the kind of language a soldier understands,” Himmler gushed.

Surely, the Nazi leaders thought, Muslims would see that the Germans were their blood brothers: loyal, iron-willed, and most important, convinced that Jews were the evil that most plagued the world. “Do you recognize him, the fat, curly-haired Jew who deceives and rules the whole world and who steals the land of the Arabs?” demanded one of the Nazi pamphlets dropped over North Africa (a million copies of it were printed). “The Jew,” the pamphlet explained, was the evil King Dajjal from Islamic tradition, who in the world’s final days was supposed to lead 70,000 Jews from Isfahan in apocalyptic battle against Isa—often identified with Jesus, but according to the Reich Propaganda Ministry none other than Hitler himself. Germany produced reams of leaflets like this one, often quoting the Quran on the subject of Jewish treachery.

It is not surprising, then, that there are those today who draw a direct line between modern Jew-hatred in the Islamic world and the Nazis. A poster currently at Columbus Circle’s subway entrance proclaims loudly that “Jew-hatred is in the Quran.” The poster features a photograph of Hitler with the notoriously anti-Jewish Mufti al-Husaini of Palestine, who is erroneously labeled “the leader of the Muslim world.” The truth is considerably more complex. The mufti made himself useful to the Nazis as a propagandist, but he had little influence in most Muslim regions. Few Muslims believed Nazi claims that Hitler was the protector of Islam, much less the Twelfth Imam, as one Reich pamphlet suggested.

The Nazis’ anti-Jewish propaganda no doubt attracted many Muslims, as historian Jeffrey Herf has documented, but they balked at believing that Hitler would be their savior or liberator. Instead, they sensed correctly that the Nazis wanted Muslims to fight and die for Germany. As Rommel approached Cairo, Egyptians started to get nervous. They knew that the Germans were not coming to liberate them, but instead wanted to make the Muslim world part of their own burgeoning empire. In the end, more Muslims wound up fighting for the Allies than for the Axis.

Hitler’s failed effort to put Muslim boots on the ground still stands as the most far-reaching Western attempt to use Islam to win a war. Such is the judgment of David Motadel, the author of a new, authoritative book, Islam and Nazi Germany’s War.Motadel’s detailed and fascinating explanation of how and why the Nazis failed to get Muslims on their side is a must-read for serious students of World War II, and it has an important message as well for our own policy in the Middle East.

***

To grasp why the Nazis had such high hopes for Muslim collaboration—and why their hopes failed—we need to go back to the great war that made Hitler the fanatical monster he was. One hundred years ago, a few months into World War I, Germany looked like it might be in trouble. The German offensive had failed to break through at Ypres after a month of bloody fighting. The waves of German soldiers stumbling through no-man’s land slowed to a stop. The kaiser’s army was exhausted, and its commanders suddenly realized that the quick Western Front victory they had dreamed of was impossible. Meanwhile, Russia was massing troops around Warsaw, and the tsar had just declared war on the Ottoman Empire.

There was one bright spot, though. On Nov. 11, 1914, the highest religious authority of the Ottoman caliphate, Sheikh al-Islam Ürgüplü Hayri, issued a call for worldwide jihad against Russia, Britain, and France. Suddenly, the Great War was a holy war. Surely, the Germans dreamed, Muslims would join their side en masse and turn the tide of battle.

In the early years of World War I the German Reich caught Islam fever: Muslims became the great Eastern hope against the Entente. Helmuth von Moltke, chief of the German general staff, planned to “awaken the fanaticism of Islam” in the French and British colonies, making the Muslim masses rise up against their European masters. Max von Oppenheim, the German diplomat and orientalist, described Islam as “one of our most important weapons” in his famous position paper of October 1914. Oppenheim wanted to spark a Muslim revolt stretching from India to Morocco that Germany could use for its own purposes. Germany just needed to get the message across, Oppenheim insisted: Russia, Britain, and France were the oppressors of Muslims, whereas the Germans would liberate them.

The German strategy didn’t work. Instead, Britain and France won the game when they capitalized on the Arab uprising against a crumbling Ottoman Empire. T.E. Lawrence, rather than the kaiser, inspired the Arabs. After the war, Britain and France sliced up the Middle East pie between them in the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916.

Germany tried once again to mobilize Islam in WWII. Astonishingly, in 1940 Oppenheim, at that point 80 years old, championed the same plan that had failed so badly in the previous war. Even more surprising, Hitler and Himmler warmly embraced the part-Jewish Oppenheim’s idea: They too thought that Islam would help bring about a Nazi triumph.

“German officials would always refer to global Islam, to pan Islam,” Motadel told me over the phone from his home in Cambridge, England, where he is Research Fellow in History at the University of Cambridge’s Gonville and Caius College. The Nazis spoke of the Muslims as a “bloc” that could be “activated” against the British, the French, and the Soviets. Their belief that Islam was monolithic led them to ignore differences of region, sect, and nationality, which helped to ensure the failure of their efforts.

As Motadel documents, those efforts were indeed considerable. Germans sought out imams who would issue fatwas for their side, and they told their soldiers to be especially careful of religious sensibilities when traveling through Muslim territory. They gave special privileges to Muslims who joined the Wehrmacht: The Nazi leadership even allowed them to follow Muslim dietary laws. Astonishingly, German forces in the East permitted Muslims to practice both circumcision and ritual slaughter, proving more liberal on these two issues than many Europeans are today. At the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the Germans murdered many Muslims because they were mistaken for Jews: They didn’t realize that Muslims were also circumcised. But Berlin soon corrected the error and cautioned troops in the East to make sure to treat Muslims with respect, since they were Germany’s potential allies. In December 1942 Hitler decided he wanted to recruit all-Muslim units in the Caucasus. He distrusted Georgians and Armenians, but the Muslims, he said, were true soldiers.

The Germans assumed that the Muslim world would naturally flock to the Nazi banner, since Muslims like Germans knew that Jews were the enemy, and since Germany was offering them freedom from France, Britain, and Russia. But for the most part, they were wrong. Muslims only embraced the Nazi cause in places where they were desperate to arm themselves against local persecutors, the Crimea, the Caucasus, and the Balkans. In most of the Muslim world, Hitler failed to attract a large following.

North Africa was a miserable failure for German recruitment. “230,000 Muslims fought for the Free French against the Axis from North Africa,” Motadel pointed out to me in our interview, far more than those who enlisted with Germany. The Germans had their millions of leaflets, but they were not the only propagandists in the field. “The Free French mobilized them with anti-colonial rhetoric. The British and French were the ruling powers; they had much more control over propaganda.”

The East was much more favorable than North Africa to the German recruitment drive. The Muslims of the Caucasus and the Crimea had many reasons to choose Germany over Stalin’s Soviet Union. “In the East the Muslim population had really suffered under Stalin, economically and religiously,” Motadel remarked to me. They had nothing to lose, they thought, by siding with “Adolf Effendi.” The Crimean Tatars took a notorious place among Germany’s most loyal and ruthless battalions, fighting both in the East and, near the end of the war, in Romania. The Tatars made the wrong choice: Stalin mercilessly deported many of them to his gulags after the war.

In the Balkans many Muslims turned to Germany in the middle of a brutal civil war, fleeing the rampages of the Croatian Ustase. The infamous all-Muslim Handžar battalion of the SS, organized in the Balkans late in the war, committed many atrocities. In Serbian areas, noted one British officer, the Handžar “massacres all civil population without mercy or regard for age or sex.”

The Nazis made sure, with few exceptions, that the Nuremberg laws could be applied only to Jews, not to those other Semites, the Arabs, nor to Turks and Persians—which paradoxically allowed certain communities of Jews in Muslim regions to also survive the Shoah. In Crimea, two puzzled officers of the Wehrmacht, Fritz Donner and Ernst Seifert, reported on “Near Eastern racial groups of a non-Semitic character who, strangely, have adopted the Jewish faith,” while also noting that “a large part of these Jews on the Crimea is of Mohammedan faith.” What to do? In the end the Reich ruled that the Karaites, traditionally seen as a Turkic people, could be spared, while the Krymchaks should be murdered as Jews, though both these Crimean tribes followed Jewish law. In the northern Caucasus, the Nazis decided that the Judeo-Tats, a tiny Torah-observant island in a sea of Muslims, had only their religion in common with Jews. In effect, they became honorary Muslims and were saved from death. The Karaites were close to the Muslim Crimean Tatars, and the Judeo-Tats also had deep ties to their Muslim neighbors. It was their supposed affinity to Islam that saved the lives of these observant Jews. In these cases the Nazi wish to cultivate the Muslim world even affected to a small degree their anti-Semitic policy—to the Jews’ advantage.

***

Hitler cultivated many parts of the Muslim world, but he was fanatically enthusiastic about only one country: Turkey (the Nazis officially decided in 1936 that the Turks were Aryans). Stefan Ihrig’s brilliant new book Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination demonstrates convincingly that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s conquest of Turkey was the most important model for the Nazis’ remaking of Germany, far more so than Mussolini’s 1922 March on Rome, which is usually cited as Hitler’s main inspiration. Turkey had taken control of its destiny in manly fashion, in proud defiance of the international community—if only Germany would do the same! So argued many on the German right, including Hitler, during the 10 years between Atatürk’s victory and the Nazi seizure of power.

The victorious Entente had vastly curtailed Ottoman territory under the Treaty of Sèvres after WWI, just as the Treaty of Versailles shrank German territory. But the new nation of Turkey threw off the victors’ shackles and, after Mustafa Kemal (later renamed Atatürk) marched from Ankara westward, the Turks won the right to a homeland in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. The Weimar Republic’s newspapers obsessively celebrated the Turks’ victory and endorsed their claims to the disputed region of Hatay (the Turks’ Alsace-Lorraine), portraying the Turks as more advanced than the Germans, trailblazers on the path to strong nationhood. “If we want to be free, then we will have no choice but to follow the Turkish example in one way or another,” the right-wing military man and journalist Hans Tröbst announced in the newspaper Heimatland in 1923. Nearly every item in Hitler’s playbook can be found in such Weimar-era endorsements of Atatürk: All Turkey had mobilized for the war; strong faith in their leader had saved them.

Ihrig argues that the Turkish treatment of minorities, both under Atatürk and earlier, was the true precursor for Hitler’s murderous policy in the East. Those “bloodsuckers and parasites,” the Greeks and Armenians, had been “eradicated” by the Turks, Tröbst explained in Heimatland. “Gentle measures—that history has always shown—will not do in such cases.” The Turks had achieved “the purification of a nation of its foreign elements on a grand scale.” He added that “Almost all of those of foreign background in the area of combat had to die; their number is not put too low with 500,000.” Here was a chilling endorsement of genocide, and one that surely did not escape Hitler’s eye. Shortly after his articles appeared, Hitler invited Tröbst to give a speech on Turkey to the SA.

From 1923 on, Hitler consistently praised Atatürk in his own speeches as well. Berlin, like Istanbul, was cosmopolitan and decadent. Munich, site of Hitler’s beer-hall putsch, was the place for a German “Ankara government.” When Hitler seized power in 1933 his Völkischer Beobachter cited Atatürk’s victory as the “star in the darkness” that had shone for the beleaguered Nazis in 1923, after the putsch’s failure. Turkey was “proof of what a real man could do”—a man like Atatürk, or Hitler.

The Third Reich produced many idolizing biographies of Atatürk. Six years after the Turkish leader’s death, in late 1944, a delusional Hitler was still dreaming of a postwar alliance between Turkey and Germany. He never got his wish. During the war, Turkey, as a neutral power, kept its distance from the Nazis until it finally declared war against Germany in February 1945.

In Turkey, criticizing Atatürk can still get you three years in jail, though the country’s increasingly unhinged President Recep Tayyip Erdogan broke the law himself last year when he called Atatürk a drunkard. While Erdogan wants to reverse his predecessor’s program for secularizing Turkey, he appears to be imitating Atatürk’s extravagant cult of personality along with his habit of demonizing his enemies. But while Atatürk disdained Hitler’s anti-Semitism, Erdogan is obsessed with Jews. The 2014 Gaza operation, he has remarked, was worse than anything Hitler ever did, and the Israelis have been committing “systematic genocide every day” since 1948. Perhaps if Erdogan had been in power in the 1940s, the Nazis would have found the Muslim ally they so desperately sought.

Weaponizing Islam has often been a temptation for the United States, just as it was for Germany. In its battle against Moscow, Washington recruited Islamic leaders after WWII, most famously Said Ramadan, a major figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. The United States even smiled on Saudi Arabia’s funding of radical Islamist organizations, hoping that religion would serve as a bulwark against Soviet Communism. Then the Muslim Brotherhood killed U.S. ally Anwar Sadat, and its follower Ayman al-Zawahiri became, along with Osama Bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaida. We supported the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, until the Mujahedeen turned into the Taliban.

We still have not learned the major lesson of 20th-century history so adeptly conveyed by Motadel and Ihrig: Western leaders who try to get Islam on their side through propaganda and favors will be unpleasantly surprised.

Bosnian Muslim recruits for the Nazi SS shown pampere by the Hitlerites.

The Bolsheviks of Lenin clustered around their god.---https://pamelageller.com/2017/08/alliance-lenin-hitler.html/