Were the Huns really White people? Propaganda distorts reality. Such as that the “Huns” weren’t Mongol hordes from inner Asia, but rather an East-Germanic tribe from Southern Russia—and another tribe by the same name from South-Eastern the Netherlands.
The monk Bede attested to this in Historia ecclesiastica (Vol. 9) when he wrote that the Angles and Saxons are descendants of these “Huns”, grouping them with Frisians, Rugians, Danes, and Old Saxons. It means they were not Mongolic Asians but White Germanics.
These “Huns” are also attested in the Old English and Old Norse heroic poetry (such as Widsith, the Eddic poems, the Nibelungenlied tradition, and Þiðreks saga). And in these poems, the Huns cannot be placed as coming from inner Asia either. They were continental Germanics.
So why did we start saying the Huns were Mongols? Because of Catholic propaganda that needed to rally new Crusades against Eastern Europe (the Northern Crusades, 1198-1442 AD). The Huns were then rewritten into dog-faced Asiatics as a scare-tactic.
Modern scholars agree, such as in Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen’s The World of the Huns (1973), clarifying that these Huns were Southern-Russian Germanics already living there before the 4th century AD. He attests to the large share of Germanic names among the “Attillanic” elite. The name Attilla means “little father” in Old Germanic.
A 2016 German volume by the Dietrich von Bern-Forum likewise concludes there was even a conflation of two groups of Huns: “Hunnen” and “Hunen”. The one was an Eastern-European group (East Germanic), and the other a Westphalian group related to the West-Germanic tribe of the Chattuarii.
And finally, genetic research proved that this Eastern, Carpathian-Basin population of people was predominantly of European ancestry with only a small East-Asian component. I.e., they weren’t Mongols. The Eastern Huns were mostly White people, and the Western Huns were White Germanics.