Did the Mussar Movement fight Haskala by being a frum Haskala or by focusing on developing greater yiras shamayaim and character perfection?

 update May 13: I sent this post to Dr. Marc Shapiro who is one of the world's greatest expert on the Seridei Aish. His reponse totally knocked the air  out my question. He said that  I was reading too much into the words of the Seridei Aish. He said that what the Seridei Aish claimed that Rav Salanter meant by Hebrew Haskala that would be a defense against the maskilim was simply "moral perfection, nobility of soul, and lofty ideals"

I replied with: "You are right I read too much into this. He is defining his haskala as moral perfection, nobility of soul and lofty ideals. Don't know what that has to do with enlightenment. Why not call the kabbala or chasidus enlightenment. In fact why not just say that Yiddishkeit is enlightenment? How did the students who were leaving the yeshivas for the haskala view what he was offering them and why would they think it was a valid alternative form of enlightenment?  Apparently the maskilim of his day also understood him the way I did. Did he mislead them or did he simply nod his head at everything they said? In essence he seemed to be forming what we call a cult  in modern terms.

 =========================================
 I recently posted a discussion of the Seridei Aish regarding the nature of the Mussar Movement. I had been looking for the process that psychology and modern ideas entered the frum world. I thought I found it in the Seridei Aish's description of the Mussar Movement. 

The Seridei Aish clearly states that Rav Salanter in his battle against the Haskala - decided to co-opt the goals and means that were attractive to the frum population and that taking people out of yeshivas and religious observance. Instead of  locking the doors of the yeshiva tighter against the Haskala - he decded to make a frum haskala. That would mean a greater openness to the world and secular studies, a concern with improving the world and  being nice to others. However Rav Trebitz asserted that once the students were safely back in Yeshiva with the aid of a mashgiach and a mussar program - the movement change to an internal one of piety and the  secular studies, tikun olam was dropped and even the  sensitivity to others became secondary to piety and fear of heaven.

The only problem with this view of the Seridei Aish is I can't find anybody who agrees or even cites his views about the Mussar movement. For example Prof Etkes' major biography of Rav Salanter does not mention this view and in fact does not cite the Seridei Aish except for minor historical facts. I looked at several other books dealing with the Mussar Movement and they also do not mention either the Seridei Aish or the idea of a frum haskala. Below I cite the summary of the Encyclopedia Judaica which is similar to the view held by the other references I looked at. They works assert that the Musar movement was focused on increasing fear of G-d and perfection of character. It thus also would serve to inoculate people against interest in the Haskala and the outside world. It was not a frum Haskala or even primarily concerned with the Haskala! Now  the question is why did the Seridei Aish make such a claim? According to this mainstream view Rav Yisroel Salanter does in fact have a major legacy today.

================

Rabbi Yisroel Salanter (Encyclopaedia Judaica Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 13. 2^nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. p64-66. COPYRIGHT 2007 Keter Publishing House Ltd. Itzhak Alfassi and David Derovan)... [...] The central issue that concerned him was the gap between an individual's professed beliefs and his actions. Searching for the causes of this phenomenon, Lipkin discovered that there was no direct relationship between a person's piety and his knowledge of Torah. Knowledge attained through the standard yeshivah curriculum did not necessarily produce moral behavior, but knowledge of divine retribution, knowing that no one escapes the consequences of his actions, does affect behavior. This insight, coupled with another one, formed the basis for Lipkin's musar campaign. The second insight relates to the difference between a person's appetites and desires and knowledge. Contrary to one's desires, which are innate in a person, knowledge is acquired. For this reason, attaining even the right knowledge is rarely enough to control one's appetites. To solve this problem, Lipkin developed behavioral mechanisms, i.e., the habitual repetition of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral stimuli, "to fortify the intellectual fear of God that the latter eventually achieves the level of distinct instinct capable of combating less worthy desires or even uprooting them totally" (Ross, Immanuel, 1983/84, 70). Later on in his career, Lipkin proposed a different solution based on improving character traits, thus changing one's personality. All of these teachings were Lipkin's means to achieve a particular end: an improvement in piety and religious observance. Lipkin dealt with a number of philosophical issues peripherally in his sermons and writings. These included the paradox of divine knowledge and free will, miracles vs. natural law, the relative ability or inability of the human intellect to grasp objective truth in general or Torah in particular, and emunat hakhamim (blind faith in rabbinic dicta). This aspect of his teachings was developed by his students into "yeshivah ideology" (ibid.). Thus, Lipkin's disciples abandoned his musar methods and began to emphasize his philosophical ideas. Ironically, their musar technique became the identification with a set of proper ideas and opinions.