Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech

[fireofice]

I am a little confused on why Callafangers prefers the Second version over the Boehm version. In Udo Walendy's book Who Started World War II and Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof's The War That Had Many Fathers both consider the Boehm version to be less incriminating. Callafangers is going against the "revisionist war guilt consensus" if one can call it that on this. One of the incriminating passages in the version Callafangers prefers is:

I am only afraid that at the last moment some cur (Schweinehund) or other will yet submit to me a plan for mediation.

This indicates a desire for war and against a peaceful resolution. Whereas the Boehm version doesn't have this line. Instead in that one he says:

Rotten compromises, the desire for "good gestures" of the language of Versailles, which would be audible again, would have to be rejected.

This is much less incriminating.

Gerd's conclusion:

If one takes as a basis the transcripts of Greiner, Boehm and Halder, Hitler reveals to the generals on that 22 August 1939 no more and no less than that he now, after months of fruitless negotiations with Poland, wants to take military action in the near future.[...] But the speech contains nothing that could surprise the generals in such a state of tension. They at the least hear nothing more about other plans for Hitler to later attack France, Great Britian, Russia, or whomever. If that is so-and there is little doubt about it-then, the World Military Tribunal at Nuremberg with its two mangled speech protocols sought not for the truth but for incriminating evidence. And the court has left to us and to German school children a dubious legacy. The "striking" quotes in the 2nd version are still found to this day in the school history and social studies books.

In my view, 798-PS and 1014-PS are possibly (although far from certainly) authentic insofar as they may be German documents. But if they are German documents, we don't know exactly who wrote them and it seems to me they are farther removed from someone who actually heard Hitler's speech first hand. They are possibly second hand documents from non eyewitnesses based on a garbled understanding of what was said. The Greiner, Boehm and Halder documents are more likely to be more accurate as they were actually there.

[Callafangers]

I am a little confused on why Callafangers prefers the Second version over the Boehm version.

There isn't much of a choice to be made here, as there are no good options. My summary stance on all of these documents, from an earlier page on this thread:

The bottom line is that none of these versions have a reliable chain of custody or verifiable provenance. They are all purported to be notes or summaries, not verbatim transcripts, leaving ample room for errors, omissions, or even fabrication. The inconsistencies and contradictions between them only deepen our doubts. Most suspicious are the versions that emerged post-war under questionable circumstances, like the Lochner version with its tall tale of origins, or the Boehm version conveniently produced for Raeder's defense at Nuremberg. The burden of proof must be on demonstrating authenticity, not on proving fakery - and that burden simply has not been met for any of these documents. Historians who rely on them as definitive are building houses of cards.

Specifically on why I would consider 798-PS as potentially more reliable, though, is (also on an earlier page):

The OKW files (798-PS and 1014-PS) were [allegedly] pulled directly from German files with a relatively minimal chain of custody, captured during the war. This puts them ahead of the Boehm report, which appears only post-war for Raeder's defense (with Boehm as its only witness), quite convenient for Boehm.

And:

The bottom-line is that 798-PS has a far more reliable origin than the Boehm version, and the Boehm version seems meant as part of his strategy to shape the narrative to protect himself and fellow defendants from the most serious charges while still acknowledging Hitler's "aggressive stance".

Regarding this:

I am only afraid that at the last moment some cur (Schweinehund) or other will yet submit to me a plan for mediation.

The same kind of nonsense is in Boehm's version, see the OP on this thread. Also, it's not clear which document you're quoting from; is this 1014-PS or 798-PS?

[fireofice]

The same kind of nonsense is in Boehm's version, see the OP on this thread. Also, it's not clear which document you're quoting from; is this 1014-PS or 798-PS?

1014-PS:
https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00459

798-PS:
https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00458

The quote in question comes from 798-PS. As can be seen, 1014-PS is pretty short and can't be considered the whole speech by any means.

The Boehm version doesn't have the swine quote anywhere at all. You can check, it's not there:

https://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/22- ... -boehm.php

Here is Halder's diary of the speech:

https://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/22- ... halder.php

I have looked through Gerd and have deduced this total number of records of the speech: L-3, 1014-PS, 798-PS, Boehm, Halder, Helmuth Greiner, General Liebmann, & General Admiral Albert. L-3 is the obvious forgery. 1014-PS and 798-PS aren't as absurd as L-3 but still have some pretty aggressive stuff in there. We also don't know exactly who wrote them. They could be forgeries, they could have been written by someone there, or they could be second hand garbled accounts. We just don't know. The rest are the least aggressive and were written by people we know the names of and were there. So without dismissing 1014-PS and 798-PS out of hand but instead weighing the preponderance of the evidence, I would say Boehm and the others are probably more reliable than L-3, 1014-PS, and 798-PS.

[Callafangers]

The same kind of nonsense is in Boehm's version, see the OP on this thread. Also, it's not clear which document you're quoting from; is this 1014-PS or 798-PS?

1014-PS:
https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00459

798-PS:
https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00458

The quote in question comes from 798-PS. As can be seen, 1014-PS is pretty short and can't be considered the whole speech by any means.

Agreed, both are problematic.

The Boehm version doesn't have the swine quote anywhere at all. You can check, it's not there:

https://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/22- ... -boehm.php

I don't dispute this, never did. Boehm's version does say this, though:

The initiation of the conflict will occur through suitable propaganda. Credibility is irrelevant in this case; in victory lies the right.

In other words, "we will initiate the conflict via our lies."

Other questionable language, here:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235

I have looked through Gerd and have deduced this total number of records of the speech: L-3, 1014-PS, 798-PS, Boehm, Halder, Helmuth Greiner, General Liebmann, & General Admiral Albert. L-3 is the obvious forgery. 1014-PS and 798-PS aren't as absurd as L-3 but still have some pretty aggressive stuff in there. We also don't know exactly who wrote them. They could be forgeries, they could have been written by someone there, or they could be second hand garbled accounts. We just don't know. The rest are the least aggressive and were written by people we know the names of and were there. So without dismissing 1014-PS and 798-PS out of hand but instead weighing the preponderance of the evidence, I would say Boehm and the others are probably more reliable than L-3, 1014-PS, and 798-PS.

It seems we agree on the shared problem of these versions but we have a different perception of "reliability". My foremost concern is the chain of custody. How many links in the 'chain', and who on each? I think that is the first place we should begin. 798-PS and 1014-PS were reportedly taken directly from a German archive. Aside from the conflicts of interest pertaining to the victors generally, that's a pretty decent standard compared to other 'Holocaust' evidence. For Boehm's version, its arrival comes later and at an opportunistic moment, with Boehm as its sole witness. I think that puts the weight of potentially greater objectivity (hence, accuracy) to 798-PS. But it still isn't a transcript, it's still been in Allied hands, etc.

I think there is room for multiple perspectives on this, given the problems with each document.

[fireofice]

The initiation of the conflict will occur through suitable propaganda. Credibility is irrelevant in this case; in victory lies the right.

In other words, "we will initiate the conflict via our lies."

I personally don't think any of this necessarily implies that they will lie. Propaganda has a bad rep today and people associate it with lying, but that's not necessarily the case. His statement on credibility being irrelevant is just an acknowledgement of the fact that whatever they say won't be considered credible by large swaths of the western world given the propaganda campaign against them.

But I won't quibble any further. There is definitely a lot of ambiguity on what exactly is credible in these documents given the differences.

[Callafangers]

I personally don't think any of this necessarily implies that they will lie. Propaganda has a bad rep today and people associate it with lying, but that's not necessarily the case. His statement on credibility being irrelevant is just an acknowledgement of the fact that whatever they say won't be considered credible by large swaths of the western world given the propaganda campaign against them.

But I won't quibble any further. There is definitely a lot of ambiguity on what exactly is credible in these documents given the differences.

Fair points, appreciate the critical analysis. Wiki has been updated: https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... erg_Speech