I was re-reading about the South Pole polar expeditions to discover it, and the contest between Robert Falcon Scott and Roald Amundsen in 1911-1912 to get there first.
Scott and his expedition died, and Amundsen made it back with no loss of life. Scott is always considered a tragic hero, and there have been a lot of books, movies, etc., about Scott's nobility, but I think Amundsen was the better aryan hero.
I was impressed with Amundsen's background in polar expeditions and his meticulous planning. Scott was Royal Navy, and planned as well, but there seems something slapdash about it and rigid.
Amundsen took a team of four men with him. Scott had about thirty, although only a few went in for the final trek.
Scott used Siberian ponies, motor sledges, and dogs, and Amundsen did worry about the sledges, Scott might beat him. Amundsen used dog sleds. They'd worked at the North Pole.
The problem Scott had was things became too difficult. The sledges tended to break down, and he and hs men had to pull the supplies by hand. The ponies died from the extreme cold, and anyway, their food was an extra burden to the expediton. Amundsen's dog teams were quicker. he fed them, like his men, on blubber and penguin meat. This also provided extra fat. Scott's food supplies had lots of protein but lacked fat, so the men became worn out from all the hauling.

Also, when Amundsen left, his men ate some of the dogs on the way back. This horrified the English, but it got Amundsen and his men home.

Scott also used military planning. He related tasks like mapping and sextant use to certain men. Amundsen made sure all of his team were trained in everything. When Scott lost a certain man, he was in trouble. Amundsen wasn't.
Much like the sledges. A senior British engineer could repair them, but he was kept behind at the main base because another officer outranked him, and was allowed to go on for the final push. So when the sledges broke down, no one could fix them. Not that they could have been repaired and made useful in that awful climate.
Scott kept extra fuel and oil for fires and cooked meals, but the lamps didn't work half the time in the Antarctic.

I was impressed with the thoroughness of Amundsen's expedition. Also, while Scott used tighter fitting military style winter clothes, Amundsen relied on Eskimo like, loose fitting furs and dress. But what helped was his small team on dogsleds. They made much quicker time, weren't exhausted, and able to return quicker. Scott had supply depots, but when his team returned, they were too exhausted to make it to a depot of eleven miles. They simply died where they rested...or more honestly, collapsed.
It was very tragic, but also kind of stupid. When comparing the expeditions, Amundsen seemed like a SEAL team where Scott was like a platoon of National Guard.

it seems like Scott's failure, like the loss of the Titanic, showed somehow, Britain was losing it in a dynamic sense.

I always thought Amundsen seemed very brilliant, and again, the British scorned him for his success. It wasn't 'done right,' they said, and the British have a way or making their defeats glorious and noble.
But in the end, Scott lost and died.
so, who is more the aryan hero?
Although an experienced officer, Scott seemed caught up in military procedure. Amundsen was far more open-minded and innovative.