Nazism and Bolshevism owe more to Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism respectively than to any other ideology or political movement.

This influence is most evident in their foreign policies, closely following conquest programs of the pan-movements before and during World War I.

Totalitarian aims of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia have often been mistaken for permanent German or Russian interests.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin openly acknowledged imperialism’s role in shaping their rule but admitted influence from pan-movements’ ideology and slogans.

Pan-movements did not originate with imperialism; Pan-Slavism evolved from Slavophile theories around 1870, and Pan-German sentiment existed in Austria since mid-19th century.

These movements gained wider appeal during the imperialist expansion of Western nations in the 1880s.

Central and Eastern European nations, lacking colonies, believed they had the same right to expand and if denied overseas, would expand within Europe.

Both Pan-Germans and Pan-Slavs agreed they were continental peoples and must seek colonies and expansion on the continent in geographic continuity.

Their ideology opposed England’s sea power ambitions with Russia’s desire to “rule the land.”

The superiority of land power over sea power was a fundamental belief of continental imperialism.

Continental imperialism differed from overseas imperialism by not allowing geographic distance between colony and nation, so its effects were felt directly within Europe.

It shared contempt for the narrow nation-state but promoted an “enlarged tribal consciousness,” uniting people of similar folk origin regardless of history or residence.

Continental imperialism had a close affinity to race concepts, absorbing race-thinking traditions and developing ideological racial theories rapidly as political tools.

This racial ideology was more ideological and less based on actual experience than overseas imperialists’ theories.

Pan-movements have been largely overlooked in imperialism discussions due to their lack of tangible colonial success and economic interest.

Their lack of economic motivation contrasted sharply with the huge profits of Western imperialism.

At a time when politics and economics were seen as inseparable, the similarities and differences between overseas and continental imperialism were often missed.

Both pan-movements and Western imperialists were aware of foreign policy issues neglected by older ruling groups of nation-states.

The influence of pan-movements on intellectuals was strong; most Russian intelligentsia was Pan-Slavic, and Pan-Germanism began as a students’ movement in Austria.

Unlike Western imperialism, pan-movements lacked capitalist support; their expansion efforts were not preceded by exports of surplus capital or population.

Their leaders were mostly from free professions, such as teachers and civil servants, rather than businessmen or adventurers.

While overseas imperialism revitalized the nation-state institutions despite its antinational tendencies, continental imperialism remained hostile to all existing political bodies.

Continental imperialism was more rebellious and its leaders more skilled in revolutionary rhetoric.

Overseas imperialism offered real benefits to all social classes, while continental imperialism offered only an ideology and movement.

This ideological appeal was enough during times of communal disintegration and social atomization, when people sought to belong at any cost.

The visible distinction of white skin in colonies paralleled the imagined distinction between Eastern and Western or Aryan and non-Aryan souls in continental imperialism.

A complex ideology with no immediate tangible benefits proved more attractive than concrete advantages and common convictions.

Despite their failures, pan-movements had stronger popular appeal than overseas imperialism and survived changes in program.

This appeal foreshadowed totalitarian groups with vague goals and frequent shifts in political lines.

Pan-movements were held together more by a general mood than by clearly defined aims.

Overseas imperialism focused on expansion for territorial gains, but pan-movements lacked even this anarchic human planning or geographic restraint.

Pan-movements generated a mood of total predominance and “pan-humanism,” encompassing all human issues.

In the alliance between mob and capital, overseas imperialism was led mostly by business representatives, except in South Africa.

In pan-movements, initiative was exclusively with the mob, led by a certain type of intellectuals.

Pan-movement leaders lacked ambition for global rule or total domination but were adept at organizing the mob and using race concepts for organizational purposes.

Their significance goes beyond modest foreign policy theories of Germanized Central Europe or Russianized Eastern and Southern Europe that were precursors to Nazi and Bolshevik world-conquest programs.

The concepts of “Germanic peoples” outside the Reich and “minor Slavonic brethren” outside Holy Russia served as national rights smoke screens for expansion.

Totalitarian governments inherited an aura of holiness invoking the past of “Holy Russia” or “Holy Roman Empire,” stirring superstitions among Slav and German intellectuals.

This pseudomystical nonsense and arbitrary historical memories created emotional appeal surpassing nationalism’s limits.

From this emerged a new tribal nationalism whose violent energy mobilized masses, replacing older national patriotism as an emotional center.

This tribal nationalism was characteristic of Central and Eastern European nations, differing in content but not in violence from Western nationalist excesses.

Chauvinism of Western nationalism glorified past and dead cultures but did not claim people born abroad without cultural ties were inherently members of the nation.

The “enlarged tribal consciousness” introduced the idea that nationality was tied to one’s own soul, making private life a public expression of national identity (e.g., “the private life of each true Pole… is a public life of Polishness”).

Psychologically, chauvinism is extroverted, focused on visible national achievements, while tribal nationalism is introverted, focused on the individual’s soul embodying national qualities.

Chauvinism is based on something that actually existed historically; tribal nationalism is based on nonexistent pseudomystical elements meant to be realized in the future.

Tribal nationalism is marked by arrogance and self-concentration, judging a people by exalted inner qualities and rejecting visible existence, tradition, institutions, and culture.

Politically, tribal nationalism insists its people are surrounded by a “world of enemies,” a “one against all” situation.

It claims its people to be unique, incompatible with others, and theoretically denies the possibility of a common mankind, preceding efforts to destroy humaneness.