June 11, 2015
This private address by Adolf Hitler to Generals and Officers that took place at the Platterhof Hotel on May 26, 1944 is very interesting and revealing but is NOT Hitler's “most significant speech” as has been falsely promoted by non-historian Veronica K. Clark (aka Weronika Kuzniar). It wasn't even a speech, although it was long. As he addressed the officers, he was sitting down comfortably in a room where they were also seated. He did not speak from a prepared text.
Less than two months later, on July 4, 1944, he addressed others of his staff in the same room of the same hotel, which he used often for special meetings.
Ray and Carolyn demonstrate that Clark not only badly misinterpreted Hitler's talk as a racial “change of mind,” which he never had, but that Clark even changed words Hitler used in two instances, on pages 10 and 48 of the original German manuscript. It is unheard of and totally unprofessional behavior and for this reason Clark's translation and overpriced book which she titles "Hitler's Most Significant Speech" should be cast aside into the realm of sensationalist pseudo-history.
This is Part 1, wherein Hitler speaks of the challenges facing officers at the fronts, the importance of leadership, the scientific perspective, the racial makeup of the German people and its Nordic element, the intolerance of Nature. Part 2 will be completed shortly. 1h39m58s
- 1383 views
Middle Reich
Markus
Was it "Zwischenreich"? That is twillight world. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/translate/german-english/zwischen-…
Or was it "Mittelreich"? That is the center part of the old Francish Empire (France, BeNeLux, Northern Italy and Germany), which was split into 3 states in 843.
King Lothar got the center part of Greater Francia, reaching from Holland along the Rhine lands through Switzerland to Northern Italy. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotharii_Regnum
But both terms can also be interpreted otherwise, imo.
It was Zwischenreich
carolyn
It was Zwischenreich
Looking it up now, an English equivalent would be Interregnum, a period of time between one ruling regime and another. As used by Hitler in this address (my alternate word for "speech" now), it would seem to be the period from the end of the monarchy in 1918 to January 1933.
Zwischen actually means "between." So it would be "between Reichs" during what's called the Weimar Republic. I'm going to remove my uneducated comment from the program.
Makes sense, since the 2nd
Markus
Makes sense, since the 2nd German Reich ended in 1918, and the 3rd didn't start until 1933.
Yes, exactly.
carolyn
Yes, exactly. I think Middle Reich is a poor translation of Zwischenreich, but at least Carlos Porter gave us the German word so we could check it ourselves. I just didn't do it, nor did Ray.
I'm thinking about changing "Middle Reich" to "between the Reichs". ...Done.
Reich
Markus
"Between the Reichs" is acceptable, but omits the cynical joke of "Zwischenreich". The Weimar Republic's official name was still German Reich, only with a republican constitution written in the city of Weimar. Zwischenreich has a double-meaning term in this context, probably made up by Hitler. Brilliant choice of words. Reich rather refers to realm or heaven here. Heaven is also called Himmelsreich, Hell is called Totenreich etc.
So this "Twillight Reich" (with Weimar constitution) wasn't dead, yet wasn't alive either. It was undead, a zombie.
Cross reference TT
Markus
Here, Hitler says a couple of things that verify Table Talk's validity.
Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean races.
Nordic = Organizational
Alpine = Musical
Mediterranean = Artistic
Hitler stated in TT that Beethoven was part Alpine because he had a big head and that Alpines are a very musical race.
Also, there is no mention of any other races than European, proto-European and inner-European race-mixing. Veronica desperately interpreted this otherwise to fit her agenda.
P.S. I think Hitler is a Nordic-Mediterrean mix, for he shows both great organizational and artistic skills. Speer as well, btw.
Are these Hitler's real words?
carolyn
When we do Part 2 I'm going to make a point of asking the question: If Table Talk is "dubious and unreliable", what about this address to officers? Is it a fake too? It has so much of the same words from Hitler, yet it was practically unknown.
What do the folks who revile Table Talk have to say about the authenticity of this 'speech?'
If Table Talk is "dubious and
Northpal
If Table Talk is "dubious and unreliable", - I think what people question is, what was edited by Borman? There are a few things that contradict all of Hitlers speeches, conversations, policies, and actions. And of course, the main one is so-called contentions with Christianity or more to the point, the institutional Churches and their bastardizied Roman religion labeled "Christianity".
We do know Hitler reprimanded Borman a few times on some of his unauthorized and hair brained attacks.
Any arguments against Borman's handiwork, only suggest that jews and other of Hitler's enimies were right. Hitler was nothing more than a two bit opportunist politician, a demi-god, and his associates were a pack of petty criminals who lied to the German nation. They promised what a desperate nation wanted to hear(tickled their ears), all the while plotting to enslave them to their grandoise plan for a "New World Order".
So Carolyn, it can't be both ways, to the volk Hitler was a low life liar just to win their confidance, but in private conversation (if all is accurate) he spoke in contradiction and that is where he only spoke the truth ?
Putting all the controversies aside, the NASDP always explained to the Volk their policies, what they were about and what they were to accomplish. If that is not the case, then the whole thing was a lie, and they did take the German people hand and hand to utter destruction, and this I find ludicrous.
Another strawman argument
carolyn
First I'll say, we recorded Part 2 today and I forgot to make the comment about this Platterhof address to officers being "dubious" if Table Talk was considered dubious. Oh well, way it goes.
Northpal, you make the error right off by stating:
Hitler's speeches, etc up until his death do NOT contradict what he said in Table Talk. There was one speech in 1922 (maybe two, I would have to look) in which he spoke as a Christian. After that, he did not. I don't know how to convince people that referring to "God", faith in a Greater/Higher Power, Providence, etc does not indicate having Christian beliefs. Those are universal terms.
His position was very simple: He did not speak publicly against Christianity. His government's position was NOT anti-Christian. He preferred not to make an issue of religion, as he had enough issues to deal with already. If that makes him a two bit opportunist politician and his associates a pack of petty criminals in your eyes, so be it. I don't see it that way. And I'm not having it "both ways" since there is no "both ways" involved.
The talks Bormann had recorded were not meant for the public, anymore than was this address to Officers at the Platterhof (within his own personal and SS coumpound!).
What does this have to do with Hitler's personal religious beliefs? The only reference to Christianity in the Party Platform was this:
[Positive Christianity was a specifically German Christianity, tied to and subodinate to the State. But it failed and did not exist in Germany. Many Germans, including Austrians, left the Chruch and became Gott Glaube ...?, God-Believers, which was not specifically Christian at all. ]
You are applying your own personal rubric here, but it's much too small to fit the Fuehrer of the German Reich, who had many goals and tasks to accomplish.
P.S.
carolyn
I can't go along with the idea that we have to lie about Hitler in order to make him look like a good guy in the public eye. Or maybe not to offend his Christian followers. Truth is truth.
anything recorded would eventually be public
Northpal
Maybe, I did not express it clear enough, and really I do not care either way.
"referring to "God", faith in a Greater/Higher Power, Providence, etc does not indicate having Christian beliefs. Those are universal terms." - No, that sounds like Monotheism (Christian unless Hitler was a closet Islamist or Jewdazement) as opposed to Polytheism or animism which is universal.
"The talks Bormann had recorded were not meant for the public, anymore than was this address to Officers at the Platterhof (within his own personal and SS coumpound!)"
Who are we kidding, anything recorded would eventually be public, other wise, why record it?
"24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state," - a faith and a religion are not the same. That is the trick, the Romans all by themselves (no dual citizen jews abound) created that monster, and that has always been the problem.
"COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD" - nothing unique to Germans, it justs never lasts, once a crisis is over, people back slide, and those of any wealth or power attempt to extend it.
Anyway, great topic, it definitely needed to be addressed and as usual you and Ray are up to the task.
Monotheism existed in the pre-Christian world
Michael Hansson
You might find this interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x90kI0zjI7E
In ancient times the representation and reverence of the Natural world was explained through the designation of different natural phenomenos to different Deities for the sake of the masses. An SS publication read: "Christianity declared war against the Natural world." Monotheistic faiths existed in the pre-Christian world. To be one doesn't necessarily entail believing in Yahweh.
Monotheism existed in the pre-Christian world
Northpal
Not in Europe