I don't know anything about Spengler and dont much care,

All Spengler really did was summarize prevailing perceptions, no different from journalists. Spengler and his contemporary Toynbee merely represented the lack of idealism of their times. They inaugurated no new ideas, offered no working solutions. So why give them any attention? Nobody in their right mind regards Spengler as an authority.

Spengler was explicitly rejected by Hitler in his May 1, 1935 speech. Spengler's fatal defect was that he neglected to take unpredictability into account, he was unwilling to admit that chance plays a part in our lives.

Nikolai Trubetskoi, who rose up against Spengler's brand of Eurasianism, demonstrates a superior grasp for nationalism in his works (i.e. The Legacy of Genghis Khan). Fascist Otto Dickel also furnished a counterweight for Spengler's pessimism. Even John Lukacs, a conservative Jewish historian, points out in his book Historical Consciousness that a history of Eurasia would be utterly meaningless. His criticism for Spengler and Toynbee was that they were unable to give an account of their nation's histories and instead drew comparisons between them and failed ancient models.