Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech

[Callafangers]

In a recent thread, bombsaway cited a speech from Hitler, here: viewtopic.php?p=4226#p4226

In this alleged speech of 22 August 1939, known as the Obersalzberg Speech, here is what Hitler is claimed by bombsaway to have said:

Whoever has pondered over this world order knows that its meaning lies in the success, of the best by means of force. And the German people belong to the best races of the earth. Providence has made us the leaders of this people and thereby given us the task of securing the necessary living space for the German people who are compressed 140 persons to a square kilometre.

After taking a whiff and realizing this smelled terrible, I requested the exact citation from bombsaway, for which he provided: https://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/22- ... -boehm.php

Upon reading, I noticed several other "problematic" phrases in this speech, where Hitler is portrayed as speaking in a way that is both grandiose and self-aggrandizing, with explicit references to violence and manipulation, while emphasizing propaganda/deception, and with ideological justifications for both expansion and racial supremacy (note that the text is written in third-person to Hitler, as it is allegedly personal notes [of Generaladmiral Hermann Boehm] of what was said):

Boehm Version Highlights

• "Seine eigene Person als Wertfaktor im Leben des deutschen Volkes. Er habe das deutsche Volk geeint, besitze Vertrauen und Autorität im deutschen Volke, wie ein Nachfolger es größer nicht haben könne."
  TRANSLATION: "His own person as a valuable factor in the life of the German people. He has united the German people, possesses trust and authority among the German people, to an extent that no successor could surpass."
• "Das Fassen von Entschlüssen, bei denen Blut fließen muß, ist schwer, aber für uns verhältnismäßig leicht, indem es für uns nur die Wahl gibt: hindurch oder verlieren."
  TRANSLATION: "Making decisions where blood must flow is difficult, but for us relatively easy, because for us there is only the choice: go through it or lose."
• "Die Auslösung des Konfliktes wird durch eine geeignete Propaganda erfolgen. Die Glaubwürdigkeit ist dabei gleichgültig, im Sieg liegt das Recht."
  TRANSLATION: "The initiation of the conflict will occur through suitable propaganda. Credibility is irrelevant in this case; in victory lies the right."
• "Zwischen Deutschland und Polen kann es nur einen erträglichen Zustand geben, oder es entsteht eine unerträgliche Belastung."
  TRANSLATION: "Between Germany and Poland, there can only be one tolerable state, or else an intolerable burden will arise."
• "Ein Volk wird aber nicht durch einen langen Frieden zu Leistungen erzogen, sondern durch Gewöhnung an Härte und Belastung."
  TRANSLATION: "A people is not educated to achievements through a long period of peace, but rather through habituation to hardship and strain."
• "Uns hat die Vorsehung zu Führern dieses Volkes gemacht, wir haben damit die Aufgabe, dem deutschen Volke, das mit 140 Menschen auf den Quadratkilometer zusammengedrängt ist, den nötigen Lebensraum zu geben."
  TRANSLATION: "Providence has made us leaders of this people; with this, we have the task of providing the German people, who are compressed at 140 people per square kilometer, with the necessary living space."
• "Größte Härte kann bei Durchführung einer solchen Aufgabe größte Milde sein."
  TRANSLATION: "Greatest hardness can be the greatest kindness in carrying out such a task."
• "Es gäbe eben Lagen eines großen Wagnisses, so für Hannibal vor der Schlacht bei Cannae, für Friedrich den Großen vor Leuthen und für Hindenburg-Ludendorff vor Tannenberg."
  TRANSLATION: "There are indeed situations of great risk, such as for Hannibal before the Battle of Cannae, for Frederick the Great before Leuthen, and for Hindenburg-Ludendorff before Tannenberg."

An original German text version of this speech was accepted at Nuremberg as Document 798-PS, but this version contains no such problematic phrases as those listed above:

https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/nazi-g ... st-22-1939

This more problematic version above is known as the 'Boehm version', and bombsaway's link includes the earliest known citation of it (Hohlfeld, 1953). This version appears to have arisen quite mysteriously, well-after the end of the war (I'll come back to this later).

The two main versions I have seen discussed are 798-PS and 1014-PS.

Here is 1014-PS (official Nuremberg Eng. translation):
https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00459

And here is 798-PS (official Nuremberg Eng. translation):
https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00458

Here's is a book excerpt quoted on English Wikipedia which summarizes some of the narrative on the various versions:

Just one week prior to the launching of the attack on Poland, Hitler made an address to his chief military commanders, at Obersalzberg, on 22 August 1939. [Three reports of this meeting are available: (L-3; 798-PS and 1014-PS). The first of the three documents (L-3) was obtained through an American newspaperman, and purported to be original minutes of the Obersalzberg meeting, transmitted to the newspaperman by some other person. There was no proof of actual delivery to the intermediary by the person who took the notes. That document (L-3) therefore, merely served as an incentive to search for something better. The result was that two other documents (798-PS) and (1014-PS) were discovered in the OKW files at Flensberg [sic]. These two documents indicate that Hitler on that day made two speeches, one apparently in the morning and one in the afternoon. Comparison of those two documents with the first document (L-3) led to the conclusion that the first document was a slightly garbled merger of the two speeches, and therefore was not relied upon.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27 ... erg_Speech

Note that only after the document L-3 (or L-003, the "Lochner version") was deemed inadequate did the other two versions at that time promptly appear (798-PS and 1014-PS). Rather than interpreting either of them as contradictory to one another (or even that one may be falsified), the assumption was instead that Hitler gave two speeches that day, presumably one in the morning and another in the afternoon. Document 1014-PS appears written in heavily-abbreviated shorthand so much that even if it were the notes of an actual second speech from Hitler that day, none of it is quotable as such (hence, it cannot be used as evidence of what Hitler did or did not say).

As for the Lochner version (L-3), which is more absurdity-ridden than all of those discussed thus far, the German-language Wikipedia has a different take than does English Wikipedia:

Another speech, the so-called Genghis Khan speech (IMT document L-003), appeared at the Nuremberg trials. It contains particularly brutal and bloodthirsty phrases that were considered implausible. The military court rejected this version as evidence. It was printed in a footnote in the publication of the "Files on German Foreign Policy" with the note that it was not presented as evidence.[4] It was long considered a forgery in historical research. According to this, it was created in German resistance circles to warn the British government about Hitler. It is said to have been handed over to the US journalist Louis Lochner at the instigation of Chief of the General Staff, Colonel General Ludwig Beck, who is said to have forwarded it to the British Embassy in Berlin on August 25, 1939 at the latest. For Andreas Hillgruber, the forgery was beyond doubt.[5] He opposed the understandable desire to accept the most incriminating quotations possible, even from dubious sources, without checking them. This would bring history into disrepute, given the strong tendency to cite the key documents as verbatim reproductions of Hitler's statements.[5] However, in 2022 Norman Domeier was able to prove the authenticity in an article in the Journal of History.[6]

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansprache ... ugust_1939

The supposed 'proven authenticity' of this Lochner version, mentioned in the last line above, comes from Norman Domeier. The complete "proof" in question can be read about, here:

https://www.academia.edu/81488514/Welth ... anschauung

Despite Domeier's analysis, the Lochner version is acknowledged to be a "copy", not an original transcript made by Admiral Canaris. Additionally, the claimed chain of custody from Canaris through Beck and Maaß to Lochner did not satisfy even the Nuremberg prosecutors, and only Lochner was available as a witness (but was never called as such). Domeier's critique focuses more on debunking what he perceives as post-war biases toward the Lochner version rather than addressing what exactly led to its exclusion from Nuremberg. Additionally, this version was circulated widely during the war, having been first published by Lochner in his book in 1943, then published again in 1944 by the magazine Deutsche Blatter, which suggests its probable intention as wartime propaganda against Germany. If there were any doubt about this, the language introducing the document within Deutsche Blatter helps clarify the intent for its portrayal (Domeier, p. 562):

So here we have the uncensored, original text of this speech, and anyone with a sound mind knows that this way of speaking cannot be invented, because it reveals too much the true nature of Nazism and its horrific leader.

[...]

And the generals? Not one of them lifted a hand to neutralize a madman when he was preparing to bring the greatest disaster upon the world. They may have disapproved of what they were told to do, but they obeyed – as they so often do! And most of them carried out the orders given in a way that made the blood run cold in our veins and will remain a terrible stain on the German name. That is why the curse of history has fallen on them too and why nothing can be expected from them for the future of Germany!

Of course, the introduction from Deutsche Blatter pales in comparison to the absurdity of the Lochner version itself, which Domeier nonetheless defends as being of 'proven authenticity'. The complete Lochner version can be read in the Academia.edu link I shared earlier (toward the latter half of the document) but here are its key highlights:

Lochner Version Highlights

• 1. Explicit Brutality and Genocide Advocacy:
  "Unsere Stärke ist unsere Schnelligkeit und unsere Brutalität. Dschingis Chan hat Millionen Frauen und Kinder in den Tod gejagt, bewußt und fröhlichen Herzens."
  - TRANSLATION: "Our strength is our speed and our brutality. Genghis Khan sent millions of women and children to their deaths, deliberately and with a happy heart."
  "So habe ich, einstweilen nur im Osten, meine Totenkopfverbände bereitgestellt mit dem Befehl, unbarmherzig und mitleidslos Mann, Weib und Kind polnischer Abstammung und Sprache in den Tod zu schicken."
  - TRANSLATION: "So I have, for now only in the East, prepared my Death's Head units with the order to mercilessly and without pity send to death men, women, and children of Polish descent and language."
  These passages portray Hitler as openly advocating for genocidal brutality, even likening himself to Genghis Khan and explicitly commanding the physical extermination of the Polish population.
  
  2. Direct Reference to the Armenian Genocide:
  "Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?"
  - TRANSLATION: "Who speaks today still of the extermination of the Armenians?"
  This statement directly references the Armenian Genocide as a precedent for mass murder that goes unpunished, suggesting that Hitler sees his planned actions against Poland in a similar light.
  
  3. Outlandish Claims and Strategic Intentions:
  "So werde ich in einigen Wochen Stalin an der gemeinsamen deutschrussischen Grenze die Hand reichen und mit ihm eine Neuverteilung der Welt vornehmen."
  - TRANSLATION: "So I will, in a few weeks, shake Stalin's hand at the common German-Russian border and undertake a redistribution of the world with him."
  "Nach Stalins Tod, er ist ein schwerkranker Mann, zerbrechen wir die Sowjetunion. Dann dämmert die deutsche Erdherrschaft herauf."
  - TRANSLATION: "After Stalin's death—he is a seriously ill man—we will destroy the Soviet Union. Then the dawn of German world domination will break."
  These statements suggest grandiose plans for world domination and a secret pact with Stalin.
  
  4. Derogatory and Racist Language:
  "Denken wir als Herren und sehen wir in diesen Völkern bestenfalls lackierte Halbaffen, die die Knute spüren wollen."
  - TRANSLATION: "Let us think as masters and see in these peoples at best varnished half-apes who want to feel the whip."
  Hitler's use of such dehumanizing and racist language to describe other peoples is a clear portrayal of him in a sinister light. This rhetoric is more overtly racist and imperialistic than the language used in the other versions.
  
  5. Mockery and Contempt for Other Leaders:
  "Die armseligen Würmer Daladier und Chamberlain habe ich in München erlebt. Sie werden zu feige sein, anzgreifen."
  - TRANSLATION: "The pitiful worms Daladier and Chamberlain I experienced in Munich. They will be too cowardly to attack."
  "Der König von Belgien und die nordischen Könige sind weiche Hampelmänner, abhängig von der guten Verdauung ihrer verfressenen und müden Völker."
  - TRANSLATION: "The King of Belgium and the Nordic kings are soft marionettes, dependent on the good digestion of their gluttonous and tired peoples."
  These comments about other world leaders are filled with contempt and mockery, emphasizing Hitler's aggressive and dismissive attitude toward his counterparts, which adds to the sinister depiction.
  
  6. False Flag Operations and Propaganda:
  "Ich lasse ein paar Kompanien in polnischer Uniform in Oberschlesien oder im Protektorat angreifen. Ob die Welt das glaubt, ist mir scheißegal. Die Welt glaubt nur an den Erfolg."
  - TRANSLATION: "I will have a few companies attack in Polish uniforms in Upper Silesia or in the Protectorate. Whether the world believes it, I don't give a shit. The world only believes in success."
  This passage reveals plans for false flag operations to provoke war, demonstrating a higher level of manipulation and deceit compared to the other versions.
  
  7. Personal Threats and Violent Rhetoric:
  "Ich lasse jeden füsilieren, der auch nur ein Wort der Kritik äußert."
  - TRANSLATION: "I will have anyone who utters even a single word of criticism shot."
  "Und wenn ich ihm persönlich vor den Augen aller Photographen in den Bauch treten muß."
  - TRANSLATION: "And if I have to personally kick him in the stomach in front of all the photographers."
  These direct threats and statements of violence against dissent and opponents further heighten the sinister image.
  
  8. Celebration and Barbarism:
  "Die Rede wurde mit Begeisterung aufgenommen. Göring stieg auf den Tisch. Blutrünstiger Dank und blutrünstiges Versprechen. Er tanzte wie ein Wilder herum."
  - TRANSLATION: "The speech was received with enthusiasm. Göring climbed onto the table. Bloody thanks and bloody promises. He danced around like a madman."
  This description of the audience's reaction, particularly Göring's behavior, adds a layer of barbarism and fanaticism that is absent from the other versions.

Does anyone here still truly consider this Lochner version to be of 'proven authenticity'?

Ultimately, all that this document shows is that the so-called "German resistance" (i.e. traitors within the German military, who had worked with the American journalist Lochner since even before the war started) was willing to embellish and fabricate documents from as early as 1939 onward, just like the Soviets were. There are obviously biased motives with such a "resistance" source, having a vested interest in portraying Hitler's 'genocidal intent' to aid their efforts in treason.

The more reliable version of Hitler's 22 August 1939 speech (798-PS) reads much more like his other speeches, which at no point whatsoever even hint at the 'unhinged lunatic vibes and rantings' that so many repugnant propagandists repeatedly attempted to ascribe upon him.

*

Going back to the Boehm document, not even Domeier defends the credibility of this document, for which he too highlights its suspicious appearance many years post-war, with no clear origin. In other words, this Boehm version (cited by bombsaway) appeared mysteriously only after the infamous Lochner version was widely circulated, criticized, and denied at Nuremberg. It seems, perhaps, that another version needed to be fabricated post-war which seemed a bit more credible than the Lochner version, while still peddling the same "Hitlerite maniacs" nonsense as the original.

Par for the course for 'Holocaust' documentation.

***

Here is a near-complete collection of all of Hitler's speeches (in English), for those interested:

https://archive.org/details/AdolfHitler ... es19221945

The translations and transcriptions appear reasonably accurate, from what I have checked thus far. Meanwhile, scholars and academics the world over continue to cite either/both the "Lochner version" and the "Boehm version" as valid sources.

[edit to add link to thread on the old forum, -Archie]
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... c57a4.html

[Callafangers]

New Wiki article just dropped:

https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... erg_Speech

[fireofice]

Here is the full L-3 version:

https://www.jrbooksonline.com/cwporter/transl3.htm

This "speech" is so ridiculous and over the top that I busted out laughing several times. This is my favorite part:

I have only one fear, that Chamberlain or some other pig will come to me with peace proposals and capitulation at the last moment. He will fly down the stairs. Even if I have to kick him in the stomach before the eyes of the photographers.

I was literally laughing for several minutes straight with tears coming down my face when I read that.

The photographers' reaction when Hitler makes Chamberlain fly down the stairs and then kicks him in the stomach in front of them because Chamberlain wanted peace:

[bombsaway]

L-3 wasn't accepted by the Tribunal because the provenance couldn't be established. It's an example of the court functioning in a correct way regarding evidence.

This more problematic version above is known as the 'Boehm version', and bombsaway's link includes the earliest known citation of it (Hohlfeld, 1953). This version appears to have arisen quite mysteriously, well-after the end of the war (I'll come back to this later).

I'm not sure what you mean by earliest citation being 53'. It was presented at Nuremberg

DR. SIEMERS: We are now at the summer of 1939. Admiral, in the course of the summer, after the speech of 23 May 1939, did you talk to Hitler in view of the generally known danger of war, and what did he tell you?

RAEDER: Whenever I talked to the Fuehrer, I always brought up the question of England, whereby I annoyed him to a certain extent. I tried to convince him that it would be possible to carry out the peace policy with England which he himself had urged at the beginning of his regime. Then he always reassured me that it remained his intention to steer a policy of peace with England, always leaving me in the belief that there was no danger of a clash with England-in any case, that at this time there was no such danger.

DR. SIEMERS: Now I come to the third key document-namely, Hitler's speech before the commanders-in-chief on 22 August 1939, at Obersalzberg. There are two documents: Document 1014-PS and Document 798-PS. Document 1014-PS is Exhibit USA-30, in Raeder Document Book 10a, Page 269; and Document 798-PS is Exhibit USA-29, in Document Book 10a, Page 266. In regard to this Document 1014-PS, which I have here in the original in the form submitted by the Prosecution, I should like to make a formal request. This Number 1014-PS was read into the record in the afternoon session of 26 November 1945 (Volume II, Page 286). I object to the use of this document. I request that this document be stricken from the trial record for the following reason...

THE PRESIDENT: What document are you speaking about now, 1014-PS?

DR. SIEMERS: In Raeder Document Book 10a, Page 269, Exhibit USA-30.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, what are your reasons?

DR. SIEMERS: The deficiencies which were already mentioned in the other transcripts are much greater here. This document is nothing but two pieces of paper headed "Second Speech by the Fuehrer, on 22 August 1939." The original has no heading, has no file number, no diary number, and no notice that it is secret; no signature, no date, no...

43

16 May 46

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to look at the original. Yes, Dr. Siemers.

DR. SIEMERS: It has no date, no signature-in the original in the folder, it has no indication of where the document comes from. It is headed "Second Speech..." although it is certain that on this date Hitler made only one speech, and it is hardly 1 1/2 pages long, although . . .

THE PRESIDENT: When you say it has no date, it is part of the document itself which says that it is the second speech of the Fuehrer on the 22d of August 1939.

DR. SIEMERS: I said, Mr. President, it has a heading but no date.

THE PRESIDENT: But you said it has no date.

DR. SIEMERS: It has no date as to when these notes were put in writing. It has only the date of when the speech is supposed to have been made. On all documents which the Prosecution submitted, also in the case of minutes, you will find the date of the session and the date on which the minutes were set up; also the place where the minutes were set up, the name of the person who set it up, an indication that it is secret or something like that. Furthermore, it is certain that Hitler spoke for 2 1/2 hours. I believe it is generally known that Hitler spoke very fast. It is quite out of the question that the minutes could be 1 1/2 pages long if they are to give the meaning and the content, at least to some extent, of a speech which lasted 2 1/2 hours. It is important-I may then refer to still another point. I will submit the original of Document 798-PS afterwards. I am no expert on handwriting or typewriters, but I notice that this document, which is also not signed, whose origin we do not know, is written on the same paper with the same typewriter.

THE PRESIDENT: You say we do not know where it has come from-it is a captured document covered by the affidavit which was made with reference to all other captured documents.

DR. SIEMERS: Well, but I would be grateful to the Prosecution if, in the case of such an important document, the Prosecution would be kind enough in order to determine the actual historical facts to indicate more exactly where it originates. Because it is not signed by Schmundt or Hossbach or anyone and has no number, it is only loose pages.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not know whether the Prosecution can do that, but it seems to me to be rather late in the day to ask for it.

MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): Mr. President, I do not know what the exact origin of this document is offhand, but I expect that we could probably get some

44

16 May 46

information before the Tribunal if the Tribunal wishes us to do so: But as the President pointed out, it is a captured document and everything that counsel says about it seems to go to its weight rather than to its admissibility.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know where the document was found, if that is possible.

MR. DODD: I will make an effort to find that out.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, Mr. Dodd just pointed out that my objection comes rather late. I believe I recall correctly that repeated objections were raised...

THE PRESIDENT: I think it was I who pointed it out, not Mr. Dodd.

DR. SIEMERS: Excuse me. I believe I recall correctly that the Defense on several occasions raised objection during the Prosecution's case, and it was said that all statements could be made during the Defense's case at a later time-namely, when it is the defense counsel's turn to speak.

THE PRESIDENT: I only meant that it might not be possible at this stage to find out exactly where the document came from, whereas, if the question had been asked very much earlier in the Trial, it might have been very much easier. That is all I meant. Have you anything more to add upon why, in your opinion, this document should be stricken from the record?

DR. SIEMERS: I should like to point out, Mr. President, that I do not do it for formal reasons but rather for a very substantial reason. Most important words in this document have constantly been repeated by the Prosecution during these 5 or 6 months- namely, the words "Destruction of Poland, main objective... Aim: elimination of vital forces, not arrival at a certain line." These words were not spoken, and such a war aim the German commanders-in-chief would not have agreed to. For that reason it is important to ascertain whether this document is genuine.

In this connection, may I remind the Court that there is a third version of this speech as mentioned in this courtroom-namely? Document L-3, which is even worse than these and which was published by the press of the whole world. Wherever one spoke to anyone, this grotesque and brutal speech was brought up. For that reason it is in the interest of historical truth to ascertain whether Hitler spoke in this shocking way at this time. Actually, I admit he used many expressions which were severe, but he did not use such words, and this is of tremendous significance for the reputation of all the commanders who were present.

Let me point out the next words. They say expressly, "close your hearts against pity, brutal measures." Such words were not

45

16 May 46

used. I will be in a position to prove this by another witness, Generaladmiral Boehm.

I therefore request the Court to decide on my request for striking this document from the record. I should like to point out that the document is mentioned in the record at many points. Should the honorable Court so wish, I would have to look for all the points. I have found only four or five in the German record. If necessary, I would give all the points in the English record. It was submitted on 26 November 1945, afternoon session (Volume II, Page 286).

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you need bother to do that. You are now only upon the question of whether the document should be stricken from the record. If it were to be stricken from the record, we could find out where it is. Is that all you wish to say?

DR. SIEMERS: One question to Admiral Raeder.

The words which I just read, "brutal measures, elimination of vital forces"-were these words used in Hitler's speech at that time?

RAEDER: In my opinion, no. I believe that the version submitted by Admiral Boehm, which he wrote down on the afternoon of the same day on the basis of his notes, is the version nearest to the truth.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, in order to achieve clarity on this question, I submit as Exhibit Raeder-27, in Raeder Document Book 2, Page 144, an orderly reproduction of this speech.

RAEDER: May I also have Document Book 2?

DR. SIEMERS: This is the speech according to the manuscript of Generaladmiral Hermann Boehm. Generaladmiral Boehm was present at Hitler's speech on 22 August 1939 at Obersalzberg. He made the notes during the speech. He transcribed them in the present form on the same evening-that is, on 22 August 1939-in the Vier Jahreszeiten Hotel in Munich. I have certified the correctness of the copy. The original is in the handwriting of Generaladmiral Boehm. Boehm has been called by me as a witness for various other questions. He will confirm that the speech was made in this form as I have submitted here. A comparison of the two documents shows that all terms, such as "brutal measures," are not contained in this speech. It shows further...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Surely this part of Dr. Siemers' argument must go to weight. He has said that a comparison of the two documents shows such and such. I have just looked at the end of Admiral Boehm's affidavit and it contains, I should argue, every vital thought that is contained in Document 1014-PS. But whether it does or not, that is a matter of weight, surely. We

46

16 May 46

cannot, in my respectful submission, go into intrinsic comparisons to decide the admissibility of the document. As I say, on that I should have a great deal to say by comparing the documents in detail. That is not before the Tribunal now.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Tribunal was only wanting to hear whatever Dr. Siemers has got to say upon the subject.

DR. SIEMERS: A comparison of the document with Document 798-PS, in the longer and better version, as the Prosecution submitted . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, as Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe has just pointed out, a mere comparison of the documents-of the two or three documents does not help us as to its admissibility. We know the facts about the document. It is a document in German, captured among German documents.

DR. SIEMERS: I understand. I made the statement only in order to show that I am not raising objections for formal reasons, but because the thing is actually of great importance. In proof of my...

THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, you will be able to urge that when you make your speech in criticism of the document as to its weight. You will be able to point out that it does not bear comparison with a fuller document taken down by Admiral Boehm or with the other document.

DR. SIEMERS: Absolutely right. To explain my formal request, I refer to my statement on the formal character of the document which I submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

The application to strike out Document 1014-PS is denied.

[A recess was taken.]

Based on this, revisionists have taken thepposite view. Raeder is the authentic document, not 1014 or 798.

eg here

While already origin and contents of “doc. 798-PS and 1014-PS” have been
disguised or rather falsified, in rather an amateurish way, so a comparison with
the Boehm report (doc. Raeder 27) shows, how the “accounts giving the gist”, by
omitting important ideas and concepts and by adding obscure material, are now
formulated in such a way that from their distorted meaning the intention is
becoming rather too obvious: to have here, at last, a “document” that is a whopping
big confirmation of the Allied war propaganda theses: the theses about the
unprovoked “conspiracy against world peace”.

https://wikispooks.com/w/images/e/e6/Tr ... ermany.pdf

I think it's all just silliness, and a good example of motivated reasoning and how easily you guys tend to confuse yourselves. Raeder 27, Document 1014-PS, Document 798-PS, all have considerable arguments for being authentic, and revisionists have agreed with this (Walendy for Raeder 27, and Callahan for the other two - or he didn't flat out call them fabrications)

About 798 PS Callan calls "most reliable" it's pretty damning from the position of no conspiracy to invade. The stuff here echoes what you see in the Schmundt note, particularly the decision to invade being made in the spring. I can see why Walendy would have wanted to this to be fake, and probably Callahan will echo that once he goes through the document more extensively.

AI Analysis

Reading through PS-798, there are several key quotes that show Hitler's intentions to invade Poland and expand German territory:

Early planning and inevitability of conflict:
"It was clear to me that a conflict with Poland had to come sooner or later. I had already made this decision in spring, but I thought that I would first turn against the West in a few years, and only afterwards against the East."
Timing and opportunity:
"All these fortunate circumstances will no longer prevail in 2 to 3 years. No one knows how long I shall live. Therefore conflict better now."
Rejection of compromise:
"A suggested compromise would have demanded that we change our convictions and make agreeable gestures. They talked to us again in the language of Versailles."
Explicit intent to conquer Poland:
"If Mr. von Brauchitsch had told me that I would need 4 years to conquer Poland I would have replied: then it cannot be done."
Strategic preparation with Russia:
"Now Poland is in the position in which I wanted her." - This comes after describing the non-aggression pact with Stalin, showing how Hitler diplomatically isolated Poland.
Imperial ambitions:
"The political arm is set farther. A beginning has been made for the destruction of England's hegemony. The way is open for the soldier, after I have made the political preparations."

The speech reveals Hitler's careful strategic planning, his assessment of the international situation, and his determination to act against Poland when he believed circumstances were most favorable. He explicitly discusses conquest rather than diplomatic resolution, showing clear aggressive intent.

Going back to the Boehm document, not even Domeier defends the credibility of this document, for which he too highlights its suspicious appearance many years post-war, with no clear origin.

Can you quote Domeier on this?

[Callafangers]

L-3 wasn't accepted by the Tribunal because the provenance couldn't be established. It's an example of the court functioning in a correct way regarding evidence.

This more problematic version above is known as the 'Boehm version', and bombsaway's link includes the earliest known citation of it (Hohlfeld, 1953). This version appears to have arisen quite mysteriously, well-after the end of the war (I'll come back to this later).

I'm not sure what you mean by earliest citation being 53'. It was presented at Nuremberg

[...]

Can you quote Domeier on this?

Here is what Domeier says (p. 556):

"Eine irgendwann nach 1945 aufgetauchte Version des Generaladmirals Hermann Boehm nahm er auch noch als interessant, wenn auch weniger authentisch wahr."

This translates to:

"A version of Admiral Hermann Boehm that appeared sometime after 1945 was also taken into account as interesting, though less authentic."

I may have said "years after Nuremberg" or similar in my OP, in which case I acknowledge this is not as precise about the timeline, but my broader point stands.

The key issue is that the prosecution preferred the 798-PS version (which was obviously the better of the two, between it and 1014-PS). Boehm's version was likely to "cover his ass" militarily. He is the only witness to his own version which was meant to be self-exonerating, as evident by the regular discussion that the 1014-PS and 798-PS versions had 'more harsh language' than the Boehm version did. 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".

Historiography by trial is a terrible way to write history.

[bombsaway]

Here is what Domeier says (p. 556):

"Eine irgendwann nach 1945 aufgetauchte Version des Generaladmirals Hermann Boehm nahm er auch noch als interessant, wenn auch weniger authentisch wahr."

This translates to:

"A version of Admiral Hermann Boehm that appeared sometime after 1945 was also taken into account as interesting, though less authentic."

Your assessment that "not even Domeier defends the credibility of this document" is questionable, to put it lightly. I'm confused as to how and why you even came to this conclusion, given the text is clear.

Winfried Baumgart's seemingly meticulous source criticism of the Hitler speech of 22 August 1939 from the late 1960s and early 1970s is not only characterized by personal value judgements and assumptions, it also gets tangled up in logical contradictions in numerous places. First of all, it is striking how Baumgart characterized the three versions of the Hitler speech that were available at the Nuremberg trials in 1945/46. He apodictically preferred the version from the OKW files (without signature and author information) to all other versions and described it, without any justification, as the only direct transcript of the Hitler speech.53 He also found a version by General Admiral Hermann Boehm that surfaced sometime after 1945 to be interesting, albeit less authentic.

He's talking about the views of another historian.

AI provides context here

Here's what Domeier actually argues:

1. Domeier does not dismiss the Boehm version (Raeder-27) as less reliable than PS-798. Rather, he criticizes how previous historians like Baumgart and Hillgruber used different versions to try to exonerate Wehrmacht leadership.

2. The key passage about timing that Callafangers cites ("Eine irgendwann nach 1945 aufgetauchte Version...") is actually Domeier describing and criticizing Baumgart's perspective, not stating his own view. This is important context that Callafangers misses.

3. In fact, Domeier treats the Boehm version as valid evidence from the Nuremberg trials. He discusses how it was submitted as "Exhibit Raeder-27" during Raeder's defense testimony (p. 545-546 of the article). This directly contradicts Callafangers' claim about it appearing mysteriously "years after Nuremberg."

4. Rather than arguing for the superiority of PS-798, Domeier suggests all the versions (Lochner/L-3, PS-798, PS-1014, and Boehm/Raeder-27) help demonstrate Hitler's worldview and intentions. He critiques post-war historians who tried to use supposed contradictions between versions to minimize Wehrmacht complicity.

5. The article's main argument is actually that the Lochner version (L-3), despite being rejected at Nuremberg on procedural grounds, is a key document for understanding Nazi ideology. This is quite different from Callafangers' focus on relative reliability of PS-798 versus Raeder-27.

So while Callafangers raises some valid points about being cautious with self-exculpatory testimony, their characterization of Domeier's view of the Boehm/Raeder version is not accurate. Domeier's article is more focused on critiquing how these documents were used in post-war historiography to construct the "clean Wehrmacht" myth than on establishing a hierarchy of reliability between the different versions.

The broader historical context suggests these various versions likely reflect different aspects and emphases of the same speech, rather than some being definitively "more reliable" than others. Domeier argues we should examine how they collectively illuminate Nazi ideology and leadership complicity rather than using supposed discrepancies to minimize responsibility.

I personally had dismissed L-3 but the paper you referenced is worth a look maybe, for a re-evaluation of this. Just because it was rejected by the tribunal doesn't mean it's an inauthentic document. Nevertheless Raeder and the other documents are in my mind clear evidence of Hitler's intentions with Poland, "conquest", l 3 is unnecessary.

[Callafangers]

Your assessment that "not even Domeier defends the credibility of this document" is questionable, to put it lightly. I'm confused as to how and why you even came to this conclusion, given the text is clear.

bombsaway, you are perpetually confused. You're like a lost child on a beach, staring at the sun while the waves splash ashore.

Winfried Baumgart's seemingly meticulous source criticism of the Hitler speech of 22 August 1939 from the late 1960s and early 1970s is not only characterized by personal value judgements and assumptions, it also gets tangled up in logical contradictions in numerous places. First of all, it is striking how Baumgart characterized the three versions of the Hitler speech that were available at the Nuremberg trials in 1945/46. He apodictically preferred the version from the OKW files (without signature and author information) to all other versions and described it, without any justification, as the only direct transcript of the Hitler speech.53 He also found a version by General Admiral Hermann Boehm that surfaced sometime after 1945 to be interesting, albeit less authentic.

He's talking about the views of another historian.

You misread my point -- Domeier, like Baumgart, questions the Boehm version's credibility due to its mysterious post-war emergence. Your focus on procedural details doesn't change the fact that both of them suspect its authenticity. Unlike 798-PS and 1014-PS, which were captured during the war, Boehm's narrative looks like a cover-up to whitewash Wehrmacht complicity. Domeier presents this effort as historical manipulation to protect reputations, not reveal truth.

AI provides context here

If you're going to use AI, bombsaway, you at least need to be feeding it coherent/relevant questions (it seems you're asking questions that divert from the central discussion of document credibility). And it is best to use it to help inform your own responses rather than copy-pasting its output. Fair enough?

I personally had dismissed L-3 but the paper you referenced is worth a look maybe, for a re-evaluation of this. Just because it was rejected by the tribunal doesn't mean it's an inauthentic document. Nevertheless Raeder and the other documents are in my mind clear evidence of Hitler's intentions with Poland, "conquest", l 3 is unnecessary.

Yes, bombsaway, I am sure that NO ONE is surprised that you still find the L-3 document to be credible. Here it is again, just for fun:

Lochner Version Highlights

• 1. Explicit Brutality and Genocide Advocacy:
  "Unsere Stärke ist unsere Schnelligkeit und unsere Brutalität. Dschingis Chan hat Millionen Frauen und Kinder in den Tod gejagt, bewußt und fröhlichen Herzens."
  - TRANSLATION: "Our strength is our speed and our brutality. Genghis Khan sent millions of women and children to their deaths, deliberately and with a happy heart."
  "So habe ich, einstweilen nur im Osten, meine Totenkopfverbände bereitgestellt mit dem Befehl, unbarmherzig und mitleidslos Mann, Weib und Kind polnischer Abstammung und Sprache in den Tod zu schicken."
  - TRANSLATION: "So I have, for now only in the East, prepared my Death's Head units with the order to mercilessly and without pity send to death men, women, and children of Polish descent and language."
  These passages portray Hitler as openly advocating for genocidal brutality, even likening himself to Genghis Khan and explicitly commanding the physical extermination of the Polish population.
  
  2. Direct Reference to the Armenian Genocide:
  "Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?"
  - TRANSLATION: "Who speaks today still of the extermination of the Armenians?"
  This statement directly references the Armenian Genocide as a precedent for mass murder that goes unpunished, suggesting that Hitler sees his planned actions against Poland in a similar light.
  
  3. Outlandish Claims and Strategic Intentions:
  "So werde ich in einigen Wochen Stalin an der gemeinsamen deutschrussischen Grenze die Hand reichen und mit ihm eine Neuverteilung der Welt vornehmen."
  - TRANSLATION: "So I will, in a few weeks, shake Stalin's hand at the common German-Russian border and undertake a redistribution of the world with him."
  "Nach Stalins Tod, er ist ein schwerkranker Mann, zerbrechen wir die Sowjetunion. Dann dämmert die deutsche Erdherrschaft herauf."
  - TRANSLATION: "After Stalin's death—he is a seriously ill man—we will destroy the Soviet Union. Then the dawn of German world domination will break."
  These statements suggest grandiose plans for world domination and a secret pact with Stalin.
  
  4. Derogatory and Racist Language:
  "Denken wir als Herren und sehen wir in diesen Völkern bestenfalls lackierte Halbaffen, die die Knute spüren wollen."
  - TRANSLATION: "Let us think as masters and see in these peoples at best varnished half-apes who want to feel the whip."
  Hitler's use of such dehumanizing and racist language to describe other peoples is a clear portrayal of him in a sinister light. This rhetoric is more overtly racist and imperialistic than the language used in the other versions.
  
  5. Mockery and Contempt for Other Leaders:
  "Die armseligen Würmer Daladier und Chamberlain habe ich in München erlebt. Sie werden zu feige sein, anzgreifen."
  - TRANSLATION: "The pitiful worms Daladier and Chamberlain I experienced in Munich. They will be too cowardly to attack."
  "Der König von Belgien und die nordischen Könige sind weiche Hampelmänner, abhängig von der guten Verdauung ihrer verfressenen und müden Völker."
  - TRANSLATION: "The King of Belgium and the Nordic kings are soft marionettes, dependent on the good digestion of their gluttonous and tired peoples."
  These comments about other world leaders are filled with contempt and mockery, emphasizing Hitler's aggressive and dismissive attitude toward his counterparts, which adds to the sinister depiction.
  
  6. False Flag Operations and Propaganda:
  "Ich lasse ein paar Kompanien in polnischer Uniform in Oberschlesien oder im Protektorat angreifen. Ob die Welt das glaubt, ist mir scheißegal. Die Welt glaubt nur an den Erfolg."
  - TRANSLATION: "I will have a few companies attack in Polish uniforms in Upper Silesia or in the Protectorate. Whether the world believes it, I don't give a shit. The world only believes in success."
  This passage reveals plans for false flag operations to provoke war, demonstrating a higher level of manipulation and deceit compared to the other versions.
  
  7. Personal Threats and Violent Rhetoric:
  "Ich lasse jeden füsilieren, der auch nur ein Wort der Kritik äußert."
  - TRANSLATION: "I will have anyone who utters even a single word of criticism shot."
  "Und wenn ich ihm persönlich vor den Augen aller Photographen in den Bauch treten muß."
  - TRANSLATION: "And if I have to personally kick him in the stomach in front of all the photographers."
  These direct threats and statements of violence against dissent and opponents further heighten the sinister image.
  
  8. Celebration and Barbarism:
  "Die Rede wurde mit Begeisterung aufgenommen. Göring stieg auf den Tisch. Blutrünstiger Dank und blutrünstiges Versprechen. Er tanzte wie ein Wilder herum."
  - TRANSLATION: "The speech was received with enthusiasm. Göring climbed onto the table. Bloody thanks and bloody promises. He danced around like a madman."
  This description of the audience's reaction, particularly Göring's behavior, adds a layer of barbarism and fanaticism that is absent from the other versions.

For those interested in the full version, it is here (p. 564): https://www.academia.edu/81488514/Welth ... anschauung

[bombsaway]

Domeier presents this effort as historical manipulation to protect reputations, not reveal truth.

I think we're running into the same problem we did a few years ago with you misinterpreting text that is pretty clear. You just did it again, actually when you said I find L-3 to be credible. I actually said I had "personally dismissed it" and might reevaluate in the future. I think these mistakes you are making are again indicative of some broader issue you have with parsing text that you should evaluate closely for your own good, just my advice.

Let's be very precise about what Domeier actually says versus what Callahan claims:

What Domeier says:

• Baumgart's source criticism is problematic and contradictory
• Baumgart dogmatically preferred the OKW version without justification
• Baumgart viewed Boehm's version as interesting but less authentic

What Callahan claims:
"Domeier presents this effort as historical manipulation to protect reputations, not reveal truth."

This is a clear overreach because:

• In this passage, Domeier is explicitly critiquing Baumgart's methodology and reasoning, not making claims about Boehm's motivations or the purpose of his version
• Domeier doesn't make any statement about the Boehm version being "historical manipulation to protect reputations"
• The text is focused on criticizing how Baumgart handled and characterized the different versions, not on analyzing Boehm's intentions in creating his version

Callahan appears to be conflating Domeier's criticism of Baumgart's methodology with a judgment about Boehm's motives that simply isn't present in the text. This is an interpretation that goes well beyond what Domeier actually writes.

In fact, it's particularly ironic given that Domeier's article is largely about critiquing how historians have made unsupported assumptions and interpretations about these documents - which is exactly what Callahan is doing with Domeier's text.

What you say Domeier is doing is nowhere in the text, it's a hallucination. If anything he's douing the opposite, with his overall critique of Baumgart. He does not think Baumgart is doing good history.

[Callafangers]

Domeier presents this effort as historical manipulation to protect reputations, not reveal truth.

I think we're running into the same problem we did a few years ago with you misinterpreting text that is pretty clear. You just did it again, actually when you said I find L-3 to be credible. I actually said I had "personally dismissed it" and might reevaluate in the future. I think these mistakes you are making are again indicative of some broader issue you have with parsing text that you should evaluate closely for your own good, just my advice.

Don't make me link the thread in which I break down exactly how you are a serial liar, bombsaway. You've been conclusively exposed as such. It's not even worth demonstrating further. To anyone seeking proof of this accusation, please feel free to DM me. I have saved the receipts. bombsaway lies and implements weaponised fallacy regularly ('pilpul' tactics, i.e. hair-splitting argumentation). It's a whole topic in and of itself.

Your openness to L-3 speaks volumes, that is the key issue. You're playing games, per usual.

What you say Domeier is doing is nowhere in the text, it's a hallucination. If anything he's douing the opposite, with his overall critique of Baumgart. He does not think Baumgart is doing good history.

Your BS is perpetual. Domeier mentions and does not object to Baumgart's point about the Boehm document arising postwar (1945). THAT is the key issue here, which both of them concede. You're throwing up smoke and mirrors. It's what you do.

[bombsaway]

Your BS is perpetual. Domeier mentions and does not object to Baumgart's point about the Boehm document arising postwar (1945). THAT is the key issue here, which both of them concede. You're throwing up smoke and mirrors. It's what you do.

So the absence of objection to you means that he is endorsing the viewpoint?

I don't think this is logical. When Domeier writes about Baumgart's characterization of the Boehm version being suspect due to its appearance a year after the war ended , there are several possible interpretations:

a) Domeier agrees with this characterization
b) Domeier disagrees but doesn't address it
c) Domeier is simply reporting Baumgart's view without taking a position
d) The timing of the document's appearance isn't central to Domeier's analysis, so he doesn't engage with it

You're arguing for possibility here, as per usual, but the other options are at least just as likely. Given the paper is highly critical of Baumgart's methodology, I'd say b) is most likely

It's also crazy to doubt the veracity of a document based on it appearing the year after the war was over. If Domeier stuck to this standard, that would mean he also should disregard a huge swath of Holocaust evidence, eg Goebbels diary entries, the Jaeger report, documents uncovered much later than 46. I could go on. This just strikes me as extremely unlikely, considering his eagerness to accept something like L-3, a document that immediately struck me as questionable when I first read it.

but even so - the responsible thing to do is to not ascribe intent where it is not given in the text.

[Callafangers]

So the absence of objection to you means that he is endorsing the viewpoint?

It means there's nothing to object to. He's stating something which nobody has challenged, because it's true.

I don't think this is logical.

That's a nice opinion you have, there. Enjoy.

[Archie]

The story of how Lochner got a hold of the speech automatically raises questions about the accuracy of the transcription, even if we generously assume everything was done in good faith.

Sitting in the back row at Obersalzberg while Hitler spoke, a German officer had jotted down Hitler's remarks on his cuff, in shorthand. General Beck thought publication of the transcript abroad might stop Hitler, as indeed it might have. (Newsweek, 3 Dec 1945)

Lochner published a book about it, What About Germany? (1942).

[bombsaway]

So the absence of objection to you means that he is endorsing the viewpoint?

It means there's nothing to object to. He's stating something which nobody has challenged, because it's true.

So even if he had been heavily criticizing him for "personal value judgements and assumptions" , getting "tangled up in logical contradictions" believing things "without any justification", in the same paragraph, and then says , "also" . . .

Winfried Baumgart's seemingly meticulous source criticism of the Hitler speech of 22 August 1939 from the late 1960s and early 1970s is not only characterized by personal value judgements and assumptions, it also gets tangled up in logical contradictions in numerous places. First of all, it is striking how Baumgart characterized the three versions of the Hitler speech that were available at the Nuremberg trials in 1945/46. He apodictically preferred the version from the OKW files (without signature and author information) to all other versions and described it, without any justification, as the only direct transcript of the Hitler speech.53 He also found a version by General Admiral Hermann Boehm that surfaced sometime after 1945 to be interesting, albeit less authentic.

We can agree to disagree on this one I guess.

[Callafangers]

We can agree to disagree on this one I guess.

What grounds do you have to 'disagree'? Are you saying the Boehm version appeared during the war? Are you okay believing this without a shred of evidence, whatsoever?

If so, that's cool. Everybody has opinions, some just have more valid ones than others. Diversity is our strength.

[bombsaway]

We can agree to disagree on this one I guess.

What grounds do you have to 'disagree'? Are you saying the Boehm version appeared during the war? Are you okay believing this without a shred of evidence, whatsoever?

I think documents that have provenance, are corroborated by other evidence, and have no signs of fabrication, are legit, meaning they didn't "appear" but were written, stored away, found and presented at a later date. This is in keeping with historical practice.

I don't think that document being found and presented a year after the war is sufficient evidence of fabrication. I don't think this the reason you think it's fabricated either, I think you think it's fabricated because it contradicts your notion of German aspirations re Poland. You think the Schmundt note is fabricated as well I'm sure, it says the same thing, even more explicitly, and has clear signs of authenticity such as having handwriting identical to Schmundt's.