|
Background: The following material comes from Die Lage,
published by the Nazi Party’s Central Propaganda Office. It had
four editions (A, B, C, & D), which varied slightly depending on the
group they went to. Edition D went to speakers. This one gives them instructions
just after D-Day on how to keep the main focus on the battle against the
Soviet Union. This material was then translated into thousands of speeches
given throughout Germany.
The source: “Sprachregelung zum Thema ‘Bolshevismus’”,
Die Lage, D — Nr. 3/44, 15 June 1944.
Language Instructions on the
Theme of “Bolshevism”
The Invasion on Moscow’s Orders
Just as before, Bolshevism is Enemy #1 for us. The critical battle that
has begun in the west cannot be seen as an event independent of the Bolshevist
danger that threatens us and all of Europe. The outcome of events in
the west is of enormous significance to us, since on it depends whether
we will fall prey to Bolshevism according to the plans of our plutocratic
enemy, or whether we will overcome decisively their destructive desires.
If the Anglo-Americans were to be victorious on the Continent, it would
mean that Europe would be delivered to Bolshevist power. The Anglo-Americans
could not resist, even if they wanted to, since they would have nothing
left but their democratic phrases and the remnants of their army, battered
both in strength and morale. There is no doubt that the Americans and
British, almost bled dry, could not summon the necessary strength to defeat
Bolshevist might. They are fighting, after all, not for their existence,
but for the interests and profits of their plutocratic leadership. And
the growing social problems will only be intensified by the burdens of
war. It takes almost superhuman idealism to believe that, under such circumstances,
British and American soldiers would be willing to oppose the Bolshevist
war machine by defending the foreign continent of Europe, or that they
could succeed in so doing.
We must therefore completely eliminate any idea that this might happen,
particularly now that attention is being drawn to the west. The battle
in the west is being fought by Moscow’s satellites. It is, therefore,
a decisive battle against Bolshevism. We must see it this way to understand
its full political significance.
Was the War against the Soviet Union Necessary?
The severity of the conflict in the east has led certain circles to ask
if the battle against the Soviet Union could have been avoided. Such thoughts
display a complete misunderstanding of our Bolshevist enemy; the war came
not because of our good will, but rather from the innate aggressive nature
of Bolshevism. Such ideas are intended to lead the German people
to question the meaning of the hardest struggle in its history, thereby
weakening its fighting power. We must decisively oppose such an idea.
From its beginnings, Bolshevism proclaimed its intent to expand by force
beyond Russia’s borders. Over twenty-five years, Bolshevism has used cold
calculation and every means to realize this intent. It sacrificed millions
of lives to industrialize Russia, building a massive armory for communist
world conquest upon its vast rural landscape. It used, and still uses,
methods of unique brutality against its own people. There is no clearer
proof of this than Lenin’s words:
“If today every Russian had to die to assure the success
of the world revolution, I would desire the death of every Russian.”
His successors, to the present day, have consistently acted in the same
way. In countless proclamations, they have attempted to use the war between
us and the western powers to achieve their goals. Three years ago, they
were prepared to stab us in the back at the decisive moment of the battle
they expected between England and us. They signed the nonaggression pact
with us for purely pragmatic reasons, with the goal of misleading us.
As the center of Europe, Germany was always their first and most important
target of conquest. Conquering Germany would mean conquering Europe, which
is even more true today than it was then. Only the Führer’s determination
then frustrated the Bolshevist plan to attack us in a treacherous manner.
Only our victories in 1941 put us in a position to master the threatening
danger. They reduced the Soviet military potential in time to prevent
the further accumulation of force that Bolshevism would have turned on
us. Our attack on the approaching threat displayed the greatest political
foresight. Those short-sighted people who today overlook these facts would
today in all probability find themselves rotting in Siberia, had we not
acted in 1941.
Since then, military developments in the east have completely closed
off the Soviets. We have held our position against Bolshevism over three
years of the heaviest fighting only because at each decisive moment, millions
of troops were missing, troops the statesman and commander Adolf Hitler
defeated at literally the last moment. That accomplishment will be of
enormous significance for the outcome of this war, and does not pale before
the exertions the war in the east has placed on us, and will continue
to place.
Stalin
Our innate German desire for “objectivity,” often leads us
into the most questionable conclusions and formulations, as we well know.
We must, therefore, be on guard against seeing the Soviet dictator through
these lenses. To speak of Stalin, this head of the most brutal system
of suppression in all history, as a “leading personality,” as
a terrible person with an “extraordinary will,” to speak of
his “astounding achievements” or his “political cleverness,”
is not only psychological self-deception, but also a dangerous disregard
of the most cold-blooded and deadliest destructive force that Germany
has ever faced. It is as if a person fighting for his very life against
a powerful and deadly beast were to pause for a moment to think about
the sleekness and guile of the predator that was attacking him. Such objectivity
could hardly object as the unsentimental beast, true to its nature, objectively
tore its victim apart, which is, after all, according to its nature. For
us, Stalin is and remains a brutal criminal of historic proportions. He
has not only brutally destroyed millions of his own people, but has vast
plans for annihilation for us and all of humanity. To “appreciate”
his achievements would mean one would have to honor the deeds of any other
criminal operating outside of normal human rules, anyone willing to hold
back nothing in order to achieve his perverse goals, as long as he is
successful. Stalin’s methods along, insofar as we know them, show with
whom the German people must deal, as well as the terrible ways in which
Bolshevism’s “accomplishments” were achieved. There could be
no more deadly “objectivism” on the part of our people than
this, for it would lead to the most tragic conceivable consequences. We
must constantly hammer this truth into people’s minds: Siberia, starvation,
executions, mass misery, slavery. Stalin is the embodiment of this program
of inhumanity.
The Concept of a “Worldview”
Something similar is the case with any ideological comparison between
National Socialism and Bolshevism. For us, there is no such thing as a
Bolshevist “worldview.”
For us, a worldview is an organic understanding, the recognition of creative
and moral laws in humanity and in the lives of nations. Such a significant
concept cannot apply to a doctrine that intentionally aims at the extermination
of moral and creative laws, forces, and desires, and that wants to
destroy the things that we think are the most basic foundations of human
order and the dignity of human life.
There is therefore no “relationship” between National Socialism
and Bolshevism. When, for example, the war forces us to limit the freedom
of the individual by various measures or demands, we do it because it
is necessary to preserve the freedom of our people, and therefore of each
individual, from a system that wants to subject each individual and each
people to unprecedented slavery. All the privations that we have to
endure today will protect us from this terrible fate. The very fact
that we feel it to be a heavy burden is the best proof of the difference
between us and Bolshevism. We know the value of a happy life and the blessing
of free, independent work and achievement. The Bolshevist, on the other
hand, has long had these driven out of him by a terroristic system. He
has grown used to the heaviest burdens, as the polar bear has grown used
to the ice and the hyena its carrion.
We we to place ourselves on the same level as Bolshevism, out battle
would certainly lose its meaning. But for us, what is important is
not the things of today, but rather those that will be tomorrow. They
will justify our suffering and burdens today, not become permanent, or
even increase to unbearable levels, which is what has happened in the
Soviet Union for half of a human life span: The Bolshevist vegetates,
but we want to live!
Bolshevism and Jewry
We must constantly stress that Bolshevism was invented by the Jews, that
it is dominated by Jews, and that its goal is to subordinate the masses
and peoples to the Jews. It provides the Jew with the role of ruler and
exploiter that is his goal for the world. He pulls the strings, he whips
up the passive masses of the Soviet Union to the bloodiest attacks of
all times, and he has given Europe’s peoples in this system of pitiless
horror and inhuman hatred the image of his race and its goals for the
world. He drives the peoples we are fighting against us with force and
lies, through terror and the most extreme agitation. The battle will one
day reach its pinnacle against our hard resistance, the day when the peoples
will cry out for the reason for their sacrifices. For our part, we
know the reason: It is a matter of our existence. Only he for whom
all is at stake is able to give all that he has.
[Page copyright © 2005 by Randall L. Bytwerk.
No unauthorized reproduction. My e-mail address is available on the FAQ
page.]
Go to
the 1933-1945 Page.
Go to the German
Propaganda Archive Home Page. |
