Each softcover volume has over 50 pages. Complete Set of All Seven Volumes only $60.00.
Translation of the Third Reich original Das eherne Herz by Dr. Joseph Goebbels. It is a compilation of his speeches and essays from October 3, 1941 to September 20, 1942, when Germany was at its height and final victory appeared to be within its reach.
Each softcover volume has over 50 pages. Complete Set of All Seven Volumes only $60.00.
In the last week, the third war year has begun. The military successes achieved by the German Wehrmacht in these 24 months of the most difficult fate-struggle [Schicksalskampf] surpass even the most optimistic concepts and expectations. Our soldiers have won truly historical victories on all fronts. They have defended in bitter fighting our folk’s life and freedom; their heroic deeds will be entered indissoluble into the book of German history. We who are witnesses of these splendid soldierly accomplishments cannot yet gain, like probably one day later descendants, an exhaustive overview of the already achieved. We are too closely interwoven with the time for us to be in the position already today to issue a binding historical judgment on it. But one thing stands certain: admired by the whole world, loved and revered by the homeland, the German Wehrmacht has assembled on all the fronts, where the enemy tried to threaten our Reich for the struggle of our folk’s future, and it has, after all, far exceeded the expectations that, at the beginning of the war, were placed on German arms and their bearers.
* * * * *
The historical fault of World Jewry for the outbreak and expansion of this war has been so sufficiently proven that no more words are to be lost about it. The Jews wanted their war and now they have it. But the old prophecy proves itself with them as well, which the Führer pronounced on January 30, 1939 in the German Reichstag, that, if international finance Jewry should manage to once again plunge the folks into a world war, that the result would not be the Bolshevization of the earth and hence the victory of Jewry, rather the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe.
We simply experience the execution of this prophecy, and a fate thereby fulfills itself on Jewry that is indeed hard, but more than deserved. Sympathy or even regret is totally inappropriate there. World Jewry has, in the instigation of this war, totally wrongly estimated the forces standing at its disposal, and it now suffers a gradual process of annihilation that it had intended for us and would also pitilessly perform on us, if it possessed the power for it. It now goes according to its own law: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”.
In this historical conflict, every Jew is our enemy, regardless whether he vegetates in a Polish ghetto or still lives his parasitic existence in Berlin or in Hamburg or blows his war trumpet in New York or Washington. All Jews belong, on the basis of their birth and race, to an international conspiracy against National Socialist Germany. They wish its defeat and annihilation and do whatever stands in their power to help in it. That they still find only few opportunities for it in the Reich itself, is not to be traced back to them being loyal here, rather exclusively to it that we have taken the measures against it seeming suited to us.
One of these measures is the introduction of the yellow Star of David, which each Jew must wear visibly. We want to thereby outwardly mark him, above all, also so that, at the slightest attempt to trespass against the German folk community, he is immediately recognized as Jew. It is an extraordinarily humane regulation, a hygienic prophylactic, as it were, which should prevent that the Jew can sneak into our ranks unnoticed in order to sow discord.
When the Jews, adorned with their Star of David, appeared a few weeks ago in Berlin, the first impression among the Reich capital’s citizens was that of general bewilderment. Only the very smallest knew that there were still so many Jews in Berlin. Each discovered in his surroundings or neighborhood a harmless acting contemporary, who indeed stood out through his occasional grumbling and grousing, but whom nobody had held for a Jew. He had hence obviously camouflaged himself, engaged in mimicry, adapted to the shade of the milieu, in which he lived, and waited for his hour. Who among us had even just a surmising that the enemy stood directly next to him, that he was a silent or skillfully inciting listener to conversations on the street, in the subway, in the lines of people standing in front of the cigarette shops? There are Jews whom one can still hardly recognize by their exterior. They have adapted in this regard as well, as far as it goes. These are the most dangerous. It is characteristic that every measure, which we take against the Jews, stands to be read already the next day in English and U.S. newspapers. The Jews hence possess still today secret contacts with hostile foreign countries and also use these not only for their own cause, rather in all the Reich’s war-important matters. The enemy hence sits in our midst. What is more obvious than they we at least make him outwardly recognizable for every citizen?
* * * * *
The British Prime Minister Winston Churchill is known to have a pronounced relationship of trust with alcohol. All the more stressed are his relations with truth, with which he finds himself continuously at odds since his entry into political life. He belongs to the most world famous liars, and if he makes a claim, then the experts, not only in neutral and anti-English circles, rather also the informed British ones, blink and an understanding grin comes to the face of the world media. Everybody knows how much he should add to or subtract from. At the moment, the tax stands like this: for figures that are unfavorable for England, one must multiply by three, and for those that are favorable for England, divide by three.
* * * * *
Nothing is more characteristic for the Jewish-democratic view of world, life and history than the revaluation of all values, taking placing slowly, but with an almost uncanny seeming inevitability, toward the negative side. We still remember many examples of this from the republican system time, after all, so that it hardly still seems necessary to list them. The hero was the fool and the coward the man of honor. One preferred to be thrice the slave and alive than free and dead. The father of a large family was mocked as a ridiculous contemporary figure and the homosexual libertine as the ideal figure of new German manhood. The great men of our history were either degenerate cretins or unscrupulous bloodsuckers. Not the murderer, rather the murdered person was guilty. Capital criminals were portrayed as souls of human beings, whose inner life offered welcome material for delicate psycho-analytical studies. In short, the hero ideal, as one of the most prominent Jewish spokesmen was allowed to declare in the first Berlin Jewish newspaper, was the dumbest of all ideas and the dead of the World War had fallen on the field of dishonor.
Looking back, one would like to designate such a way of thinking as schizophrenic. But it was more than that. Those who showed it off and pleaded for it with a glistening intellectuality in the media, did not, say, believe in it themselves; quite the opposite, they only used it in order to thereby slowly but surely undermine the world of feeling of their host folk and thereby to make it ripe for the biggest spiritual rebellion, which we know only too well under the name Bolshevism. Its predecessor is democracy. It means the revaluation of values in precisely the portrayed sense, the path at whose end stands chaos.
* * * * *
The hard and bitter fight for Sevastopol as well as the German Wehrmacht’s new large-scale attack operations against the Soviet armies have, above all, in neutral foreign lands, made flare up again a debate that had already been taken up in the past winter as well: that about the secret of the so-called Russian soul. Not only the territorial, rather also the spiritual boundary between Europe and Asia has, after all, always already greatly occupied the minds of Western European people, and it should not be disputed that the ethnic admixture, which we summarized up until under the name Russia and since then under the name Soviet Union, has presented many a puzzle to our continent. Directly in itself, this has had neither back then something to do with the Czar nor does it have any anything to do today with Bolshevism. It simply lies in that, with these ethnic groups, which are compressed into this state monster, one cannot speak at all of a folk in our sense.
The many sides of the so-called Russian folk soul, which often appear to us so shimmering and full of contradictions, are in reality only the reflection of totally diverse ethnic groups, which have arranged a meeting here. It would also be totally wrong to classify them according to the pattern, which we tend to apply to Western European folks. What we call Russia has always put in an appearance collectively only as mass. Only a small group has always had a history-shaping effect in the general sense over there, be it back then the Czarist upper stratum, be it today the Bolshevik leadership clique. The broad masses of workers and peasants were always only employed by them without they themselves being even the slightest involved in the historical events.
The ethnic groups of the Soviet Union live on a level that we can hardly imagine in its stupid primitiveness. Recently in Berlin and other big cities of the Reich, an exhibition under the name “The Soviet Paradise” was shown, which tried to illustrate life in the Soviet Union mainly though original renderings. It seemed downright unbelievable to the normal and unschooled observer, and one frequently saw in it lively debating groups of civilians, who had to be instructed by a few of the wounded from the eastern front that it sooner looks worse in the so-called paradise of workers and peasants than it was portrayed here. It is, after all, also typical that the campaign against the Soviet Union has in no way again awakened among us beautifying memories of Communism. The Soviet Union still owes to German soldiers proof for the agreement between theory and practice in Bolshevism. None of them will return from the east as Communist. The mysterious picture has been unveiled. Bolshevism no longer represents an intellectual threat for us.
Nonetheless, it must seem amazing that the Soviet armed forces often oppose our troops with a resistance, which they were not accustomed to meeting in their previous campaigns. It fights at times with a dull, almost animalistic tenacity and often displays a contempt for death that is more that notable. Pictures of the Soviet garrison’s power of resistance are passed along precisely from participants in the fighting for Sevastopol, which require a closer explanation, if they are not supposed to have a confusing effect on a broader public.
It may be stated in advance that the Russians have throughout their whole history distinguished themselves by an especially tenacious and stubborn kind of defense, while they have never been worth much on the attack. Their whole folk character is very favorable for defensive warfare. They are dull and of a wild animalism. Accustomed to a hard life rich in deprivation, they also do not cling to it all too strongly for that reason. The individual human being counts for hardly as much as a bicycle in public thinking. Folk blood losses can easily be made up through a huge surplus in births. There is a kind of primitive tenacity, to which one would do too much honor, if one wanted to designate it as courage. It is something completely different. Courage is a kind of intellectualized bravery. The tenacity with which the Bolsheviks defended their bunkers in front of Sevastopol was more an animalistic drive, and nothing would be more wrong that, say, to want to presume this was a result of Bolshevik view or education. The Russians were basically always so and will presumably also always remain so. It is, after all, also easier to throw away a life, when it no longer leaves any wishes open, than when it appears in the final danger to once more wave like a distant paradise.
No word should be said against the tremendous threat that the armed rebellion by such dull masses of millions means for Germany and all of Europe. It is, after all, also the same to the attacking soldiers for what reason the opponents defends his skin almost to the last breath. What means the Bolshevik commissar uses in order to whip up the troop entrusted to his intellectual leadership for the final resistance, this does not play a decisive role for the course of the fighting itself. But it is nonetheless important to know this so that we do not come up with the wrong ideas out of ignorance. The system of Bolshevism is based on the most clever exploitation of the Slavic folk soul. Only in Russia was this ghastly experiment possible. It required the primitiveness and animalistic dullness as well as the social and economic modesty of the ethnic groups living enclosed in the Soviet Union as prerequisite in order to come into play at all. But it was then carried out with a thoroughness, which seems downright uncanny to the expert.
We have not overstated, rather understated in our earlier portrayals of the consequences of Bolshevism. We have been left far behind by the facts. We do not want to speak at all of the so-called social achievements of the Soviet system, which compared to our social and life standard can trigger only a smile or repugnance. But it is a question of taste to summon up admiration for the fact that Bolshevik propaganda has nonetheless managed to a large degree to convince the masses of Russian workers and peasants, through hermitic isolation from the outer world and stupid repetition of its world blessing slogans, that this condition is simply paradise on earth. Independent realizations require possibilities for comparison. They are totally cut off here. The worker and peasant in the Soviet Union resemble somebody locked in dark cellar, whom one can easily convince after 25 year imprisonment that a burning petroleum light is the sun.
In such a system, the political commissar has a function to carry out, which is totally inconceivable by our standards. He is simple the whip, and indeed in the folk as well as in the army. He has total power over life and death and is himself responsible with his head for the fulfillment of his assignment. A dull mass stands at his disposal for this, which is trained to either let anything happen to itself without will or to choose between prison in milder or death with bestial tortures in severe cases. A national intelligentsia, which could combat this system, no longer exists. The system itself possesses all means of power in order to nip in the bud its development already in the most modest beginnings. The whole land is crisscrossed by an informer system that misuses children as informants against their own parents. What else is there for the dull and will-lacking mass to do than to obey and surrender itself to its fate with the fatalism that already finds in its racial soul the most welcome soil? Why should a bunker garrison not fight to the last shot, if the commissar forces them to it at pistol point and, in addition to this, it has also been convinced by systematic Jewish propaganda that not only death, rather also the most cruel tortures await it in captivity?
We cannot see that this has something to do with what we tend to understand by courage. For after all, even this system must nonetheless, when it is put to the final test, again and again retreat before the superior spirit of manly warriordom. The Bolsheviks, for examples, were in the defense of Sevastopol in a much more favorable position than our troops on the attack, and they nonetheless capitulated after 25 days. In the end, their system just lacked the individual fighting spirit stemming from free personal will, which overcomes difficulties and dangers not through terror and threat of violence, rather through the courage of the individual man. It is not to be doubted that international Jewry confronts us with the most dangerous opponent in the east’s dull and will-lacking human material organized by it.
When it is defeated, then there is no longer any threat before which we need to shudder for even just a moment. But we would have to doubt the quality of our race, the goodness of our soldiery and the penetrating force of our worldview and our principles, if we wanted to believe for even just a moment that we could not manage to break this threat.
* * * * *
With the Americans, one never knows precisely which of their traits are more pronounced and is hence of decisive significance for their national character: their naivety or their arrogance. If, for example they provide judgments on our continent’s issues and its life conditions, then they surprise each time with an ignorance, which is surpassed by only the cheekiest impertinence with which it is presented. The less they understand about a matter, the more expertly they talk about it. They seriously believe that the European folks are just waiting to be cared for the led by them. They held our tactful reserve in the public judgement of American culture and pseudo-civilization before the war to be admiration. The high point of their technological development is the refrigerator and the built-in radio cabinet. They cannot imagine at all that there are cultural values beyond that, which represent a folk’s centuries long historical development and that one does not acquire in that one buys them. It is not a scurrilous joke that they purchased castle ruins after the war, which they transported stone by stone to the USA and had exactly rebuilt there. They thought to thereby acquire a piece of national history, embodied in its stone monuments, and were naïve enough to hold the sarcastic smile of an educated European at this for great respect for their wealth, which allowed them to buy for money what they lacked in national tradition and culture.
Precisely in these days, the book by the Scottish author Eric Linklater, “Juan in America”, is being published in German translation, in which, without much external expense of words, but with the assistance of a lethal appearing irony, the mirror is held up to Yankeedom. One must have read this book, which plays out in the postwar period, in order to correctly understand the American of today. Recently a USA report went through the press that one is of the opinion in the United States that General Rommel learned his military tactics, admired in the whole world, from the Americans; already General Lee had in the American Civil War proceeded exactly the same with his cavalry squadrons as Rommel with his tank brigades. One does not know whether one should be more amazed or more repulsed by this naïve and cheeky pretentiousness. At any rate, it is genuinely American, and one wan wage ten to one that most Americans are firmly convinced that it is so.
Only in the USA is it possible that the wife of the President, as the First lady of the Land, delivers lectures at charity events for an honorarium of thousands of dollars and, as the New York newspapers complain, simply takes the sum due from the cash-box without regard that, as a result of this, the event ends with a deficit to the disadvantage of the war wounded. The same Mrs. Roosevelt appears as mannequin at public teas and models the latest fur fashions to the amazed world of ladies for good payment. She writes in a whole series of USA-papers each day under the title: “My Day” an article, in which she explains to her reading public to some extent how her preceding day went, what cloths she wore, which cocktail parties she attended and what acquaintanceships she made there, and then what she plans to start the following day.
We largely have a totally false picture of America. Hollywood film is mostly to blame for this, which gives us a false picture of a living standard and way of life in the USA which exists practically exclusively for the upper ten thousand and of which the broad masses in the United States also learn only through film. Experts on America mostly range in their judgment of the USA between unbridled admiration or most gruff rejection, and indeed the superficial observer admires, while the person looking deeper always rejects. Certainly, many things are impressive at the first glance, if one observes a still young continent in its clumsy years. But the height of the skyscrapers alone is no criterion for the height of the cultural level. The same land that wages war against Europe’s and Asia’s oldest cultured folks for the protection of the freedom of the mind itself possesses no standing theater and no standing opera. A private enterprise like the New York Metropolitan Opera lived in peace only from German and Italian operas and singers and at the beginning of the war had to close its doors, characteristically, due to lack of money.
The USA has no poet, no painter, no architect and no composer of world format. Insofar as it possesses in culture life names of significance at all, they are borrowed from Europe. The land does not possess its own language, own culture or own education. Everything is borrowed and usually spoiled through Americanization, which runs to putting an American stamp on every genuine cultural value, turning a grown language into slang, a waltz into jazz and a work of fiction into a revolver-journalist story.
If the Americans had no money, they would probably be the world’s most despised folk. Nowhere is arrogance as irritating as with them. They naturally build the best airplanes and tanks, and indeed by the hundreds of thousands. They have the best soldiers and generals, and their defeats are only proof of the acumen with which they know how to escape their opponents’ courage through their retreats. Their President is a kind of half-god, even though he has initially only brought an economic catastrophe over the land, from which he no longer saw another escape than war. In 1917, they promised Europe a Savior, and in 1919 they sent it Wilson. They would repeat this blatant swindle, if we were not to watch out. In a word: a nation that is still far away from becoming one and a folk, which lacks the important prerequisite for being a folk: a firm life style.
According to official American statistics, there are in New York 190 Evangelical and 420 Catholic churches, but 1,000 synagogues. What else can one already expect from this city, which calls a Jewish Senior Mayor its own, who recently stood out at a reception for neutral journalists in that he tried to translate European problems into the jargon of the gangsters! The Jews have put their stamp not only on this city, rather on all of American public life. The President is surrounded only by Jewish advisors, and his wife paves the way for her Jewish friends into the administration and military bureaucracy. One has the need to let cold water run over one’s hands for a while, when one has read American newspapers, so much intellectual dirt collects in their columns daily. For example, they bring the news as big sensation that a number of convicts have founded a club “Fighters Inc.” and offered their services to the President; they stand ready to fight in the ranks of the Allied nations against aggression, and Mr. Roosevelt has gladly accepted this offer.
* * * * *
We Germans are still a young folk with all the virtues and weaknesses as well as advantages and disadvantages of being young. Our national feeling is only of recent date and hence still subject to many attacks. We have lived too long in tribal concepts for our national consciousness to be able to be a kind of self-evident thing. A statement like: “Right or wrong – my fatherland!”, which in England, for example, is an uncontested and no longer discussed maxim of state life, is hard for us Germans to grasp.
We have a very strongly developed individual feeling for justice; even more, we sometimes suffer from a kind of over-objectivity, which usually benefits our worst enemies, and indeed at the cost of our own interests. An appeal to our decency has always found an echo in our hearts, and we do not ponder long at all, whether it is also meant decently or only gambles on our kind-heartedness. If one would leave the German folk alone for a few years without a clear goal leadership, it would very soon again be a colorful conglomerate of individualities. Nothing is more characteristic for our national character than the fact many millions of German-Americans indeed long nurture and keep awake their social feeling in bowling clubs, singing and homeland clubs, but very soon lose their national feeling.
Only National Socialism has first given us Germans something like a folk consciousness. It has for the first time conveyed to at least a certain stratum of the generation living today a concept of what it means and what obligations it brings with it, to be a world folk. But even all that is still so young and fragile that we must always be alert so that it suffers no harm.
Our enemies know this better than we; and their attrition propaganda sets in here. One can hardly imagine that any other folk would have fallen for such a grotesque enemy bluff as we in 1918. But we, on the other hand, did not want to grasp that idealist ideas and concepts should not mean the same to our enemies as they did to us. We saw them as they appeared to be on the basis of a few flat world bliss slogans, and it took years before we figured out the swindle. But we Germans do not to belong to those people who long bear a grudge. Quite the opposite, we love it to, say, push our sympathy onto other folks, which show no desire for it at all. Nothing hindered us, even after Versailles, to very soon already again count the French among our declared friends, and even this war, which, after all, was instigated against us not only in London, rather also in Paris and, after all, goes against our elementary life, has hardly made us stray from this friendly attitude toward the French.
One cannot envision at all what our folk would do with a government that wanted to swindle it like, for example, that of Mr. Churchill swindles the English. And there are nonetheless people among us, who want to discover in this a kind of political style. They are not at all embarrassed by the fact that all this is directed against us and represents the actual cause of our worries and the war’s cares. We have such a fear of doing an injustice toward another that, in case of doubt, we prefer to inflict injustice upon ourselves. One really cannot claim that the German leadership has made many mistakes during this war. Overall, we have always analyzed the given time’s situation and development accurately. But there are those among us who with industriousness forget everything that we have predicted correctly, and with just as much industriousness keep in their memory and always repeat anew the rare cases, in which we allegedly erred.
Nobody will want to claim that this is fair. But it is all the more irritating, if the enemy is allotted a kind of superiority by the same people, which is totally misplaced. With us, they find any even ever so sympathetic willfulness silly, but, with the enemy, they consider the most primitive popularity-snatching originality. It really does not require much intelligence to see through Mr. Churchill’s tricks. It should not be disputed that he has a high degree of demagogic talent. But that is also all. We find it downright insulting to name him at all in the same breath as the Führer. One cannot imagine at all that an Englishman could show even just a trace of justice toward the Führer during the war, who, after all, in everything that he is and means, is and means from his own strength, who lives in almost legendary simplicity, himself hardly raises claims to personal existence, but make the whole world tremble with the dynamics of his ideas. He is England’s enemy, and that is all. The English save up sentimentalities for after the war, when they no longer cost anything.
Totally different we. If by us a newspaper covers a statesman of the enemy side with some coarse expressions, expressions, by the way, such are often to be found even in the so-called serious British press, for example, daily frequently against the Führer, then the German justice craze suddenly awakes, then our Michel feels compelled to take the enemy statesman under his personal protection, to respectfully stress his few good sides and to totally drop his cynicism and loathsomeness.
We Germans must yet learn hating. We are poorly suited for Chauvinism, and if one wants to make the folk soul boil with us, then he must already go about it very skillfully. There are even supposed to be German soldiers who march 1,000 kilometers through the eastern desolation, which shows only a picture of horror and spiritual devastation; and then they discover somewhere in a village school an atlas, stand in front of it contemplating and, full of doubt, throw up the question, whether there is perhaps something to Bolshevism, after all.
The English trample a very valuable ancient culture in India and would not even come up with the idea of searching for its development and value. They are simply Englishmen. They represent the standpoint that the world exists for the English, whereas we represent the standpoint that we Germans exist for the world. That is the difference. And since it is not to be doubted that the British standpoint has turned out to be more suited for practical political life, we have always gotten the short end compared to the English. There are many among us who would reject being like the English are, which, however, does not hinder them from admiring in the English precisely what they reject for us. The English consider it self-evident that one speaks English with them. We would be embarrassed to put the same demand to a foreign conversation partner. We mangle the French or English language with him, seek with the American to penetrate into the mysteries of his slang in order, after all, to not inconvenience him with pure English.
Are those the traits that make as particularly popular in the world? By no means! This German deficiency sooner makes us an object of contempt than of admiration. If certain people were in England before the war for half a year, then they considered it their duty to mix English imitations into their speech, they put value on the English cut of their clothing, ate English, no longer drank coffee, rather five o’clock tea, went out only with a rolled up umbrella, totally insensitive to the pitying grinning from their fellow citizens and with a sarcastic feature of contempt on their lips toward the homeland from which they came and which became alien, or even repugnant, to them already upon the first encounter with a new world.
We Germans must still learn a lot, if we want to finally triumph even spiritually and socially. Many among us, and usually precisely those who put a lot of store in their good education and nursery, suddenly get inferiority complexes toward foreign countries. They behave in the world of the others as if that had to excuse themselves and in the process put on a face like one who participates for the first time in a formal diner and is not completely clear about whether he is supposed to eat fish with the knife or with something else. We feel totally free of this feeling of inferiority and can hence also speak of it openly. When we received an English or American journalist before the war who wanted to conduct himself clumsily and boldly and freshly asked whether we did not understand English, we did not, say, mangle the language and feel embarrassed, rather we explained to the rude lout quite tersely in German that, even if we did know English, we would not speak it with him, and showed him where the door was. He usually understood that quite well.
We do not want to be misinterpreted. Nothing could cause us to underestimate the opponent, and nothing helps better to correctly recognize him than to diligently study him. We naturally know that even the English are not a folk of devils. Even they have traits that deserve admiration. But we do not talk about it for as long as they have nothing good to say about us. And besides, we are at war. We do not hesitate at all to admit that we hate them from the deepest bottom of our soul and with passion, because they threaten our life, because they want to hold us prisoner in the confines of our national existence, and indeed only out of envy, ill-will and poorly concealed national jealousy.