Comparison of two existing texts of Heinrich Himmler's “Freedom Day” speech

Published by carolyn on Sun, 2016-02-21 20:47

By Carolyn Yeager

WHEN IT CAME TO MY ATTENTION that there were differences between my copy of Himmler's speech and the one that Veronica (Kuzniar) Clark used for her book Hitler and Himler Uncensored, I was fortunate to have the cooperation of the translators on both sides in order to do a proper investigation.

It came about this way:

After I posted Carlos Porter's translation of the speech on 7 Feb. 2016, Wilf Heink saw it and wrote to me on the evening of 9 February, telling me that the image of the front page of Himmler's transcribed speech was different from what he had found back in 2011-12 on a roll of NARA microfilm. He wanted to know why, and he attached a copy of the front page of the speech that he had printed out from the microfilm (shown here - click on images for enlarged view).

I was surprised to see his page in negative form. It turns out that was all he and Clark had to work from in translating the speech. I also noticed differences right away. The following day, Wilf sent this explanation to me:

Carolyn, here it is, as I remember it.

Some time ago I tried to substantiate a source Maser quoted from [...] I contacted Scott Smith from RODOH, asking him if he could help. He consequently sent me two microfilm rolls, 712 and 713. […] I went through the film frame by frame and found nothing, the frames are numbered in sequence with huge gaps, one can see the splices. Now this was obviously sorted out after the fact, material removed. And that is when I stumbled on the Himmler speech and printed it out. [...] I translated the speech, sent it to her [Veronica Clark] to do with it whatever she will.

Both Carlos and I suspected right away this was something from Nuremberg where, Carlos explained, all the documents were retyped using a stencil for reproduction on a mimeograph machine, and many were later photostated. Those came out as negatives and, because it was expensive to turn so many pages into positives (they had many thousands of pages), a great many of them remained only in negative form.

After Wilf sent his complete set of negatives to Carlos, it became obvious that, while our text showed the signs of being a product of the SS [Schutzstaffel], the Clark text was a copy produced at the post-war Nuremberg IMT by the Jew-heavy American team. Or, to put it another way, ours is a photocopy of an original, taken out of a larger file – which explains the double pagination and why the upper left-hand corner is pasted over to delete reference to that larger file. Hers is a "negative photostat" of a retyped "copy"

This Nuremberg copy of the speech was in a batch of other documents on microfilm, in negative form, and possibly never used by the American prosecutors. Perhaps they had another copy somewhere, who knows? But we do know that this copy of Himmler's speech that Veronica Clark used in her book is defective when compared to the SS version of the speech that Carlos obtained. After I compare the two, you will agree with that assessment. They are the same speech and convey essentially the same content, but things have been added, deleted, reworded, inverted, and the order of ideas has been changed in some cases according to Porter.

Why was it changed, you ask? Well, we're not saying it was mischevious, but more like just plain carelessness. The typists seem to have gotten the idea to “edit” the text and went about “improving” Himmler's grammar and rearranging his sentences! There were at least two different typists because on the first 7 pages the “sharp S” (ß), which is on ALL German typewriters, was used, but on pages 8-24 it was not. Different typewriter too? [The sharp S is seen below on the upper typewriter key second from right, below the "colon" sign]

Carlos said to me, “Some of the sentences are made slightly more clear, but the sense also becomes slightly different. It should go without saying that you're not supposed to “improve” on historical documents – especially when they're for use in a criminal trial.”

He also said the handling of documents at Nuremberg was extremely sloppy. “They only went over there to party and screw starving German girls and have affairs with their secretaries and boss people around,” Carlos said [which I already knew from my own research]. “Telford Taylor describes this party atmosphere, which lasted for a whole year. […] Plus they were all Jews and most of them were probably drunk half the time. That's the reason for some of this sloppiness. They didn't give a damn. There's no other explanation for deletions like this.”

I can't show you the entire speech comparison, but be assured there are numerous differences on every page, adding up to hundreds. I will do my best to give you an idea of what they're like by detailed comparisons of pages 1 and 8, plus one item on page 13.


On Page 1 (see above), you can see that the document Carlos used appears to be a modern photocopy of an original SS document, with SS rune ( see image below of typewriter keys), ink stamp (Geheim) and a real-live handwritten signature (Venner), the person who prepared the copy. It accords with the sound recording of the speech that exists. 

In contrast, Clark's copy (the negative image shown further above) is without SS-runes, without a signature, with an altered heading, altered security classification (changed from "Geheim" [Secret] to "Geheime Reichsache", a higher classification). There are no stamps on the document, the words "Geheime Reichsache" are typewritten.

Based on this typed incorrect security classification, Clark emphasized in her book that because of its “top secret” classification, Himmler was more unguarded in this speech than he otherwise would be, which meant to her that it was a real insider look into his state of mind. Wrong. The speech was only classified as “Secret” (as I suppose every Party speech was) and he was saying the same things he was known for saying all along. He is also very much in line with Hitler and carrying out Hitler's policies. There is actually nothing in this speech that was not discussed between Hitler and Himmler during their dinner conversations recorded in Table Talk, which we have known for a long time.

Why the salutation in the speech was changed is a mystery. In our SS copy, Gauleiter Greiser is mentioned last and Himmler goes directly to special words addressed to Greiser – a natural flow. In the Clark salutation, Himmler mentions Greiser first and then the party comrades and guests. This requires a new paragraph and sentence to address Greiser again with some special words.

In the next short paragraph the word nun [now] is left out. In the next, an “n” is added to Wir Deutsche, which is how it appears on our copy. Both forms are correct, so this probably illustrates what Carlos Porter described to me in this way: Some people have to screw around with everything. I had an editor who kept "correcting" the bad English spoken by a Frenchman in a trial transcript, for Christ's sake. I told him, look, you can't change that, it's a trial transcript, an official record, damn it.”

There are eight more minor changes in the same paragraph that come under that same category of “screwing around.”

In the next paragraph, a sample sentence is:

Ein moderner Gegner konnte damals innerhalb von 20 Minuten -- heute bei den modernen Geschwindigkeiten der Flugzeuge innerhalb von zehn Minuten -- die Reichshauptstadt mit seinen Bombern und Fliegerkräften erreichen.

The Nuremberg typist took the liberty to change it to this:

Ein moderner Gegner konnte damals in 20 Minuten – konte heute in 10 Minuten die Reichshauptstadt mit seinen Bomber- und Fliegerkräften erreichen.


Das war die Zeit vor 4 1/2 Jahren. Nunmehr, vor vier Jahren, wurde durch das Dekret des Führers nach dem Polenfeldzug aus dem geographischen Begriff des Warthe-Landes der politisch-staatliche verwaltungsmäßige Begriff des Warthegaues; eine, wie man sicherlich in späteren Zeiten wird feststellen können, der besten Schöpfungen des Deutschen Reiches war damit eingeleitet.

Changed to:

Von nunmehr vier Jahren wurde nach des Polenfeldzug durch Dekret des Führers aus dem geographischen Begriff des Warthelandes der politisch-staatliche, verwaltunsmässige Begriff des Warthegaues. Wie man sicherlich in späteren Zeiten wird feststellen können, war damit eine der besten Schöpfungen des Deutschen Reiches.

Also, the number 329961 at the bottom right of the first page is the “document book number” that is on all IMT documents. Each page has a number. That tells us it's definitely a Nuremberg trial document.


On page 8 (above) an entire sentence in the middle of the page was deleted:

Und das werden wir nach dem Kriege gestalten. Allmählich wird es geeint werden; dieses germanische Reich wird Europa seinen Stempel aufdrücken, wird die weiße Rasse in Europa führen, vorbereiten auf die grossen Rassekämpfe, die sicherlich – wir werden sie nicht mehr erleben – zwischen den Kontinenten in einigen Generationen ausgefochten werden.

Translated: And that will be drawn up after the war. It will gradually be united; this Germanic Reich will impress its stamp upon Europe, will lead the white race in Europe, and prepare it for the great racial struggles which will surely -- we won't be around to see it -- be fought out between the continents within a few generations.

Changed in Clark's text to:

Und das werden wir nach dem Kriege gestalten und schaffen. Allmählich wird es geeint werden; dieses germanische Reich wird Europa seinen Stempel aufdrücken, wird die weisse Rasse in Europa führen. [The last sentence is missing.]

Translated: And it will be created and drawn up after the war. Gradually it will be united; this Germanic Reich will impress its stamp on Europe, will lead the white race in Europe.

Und schaffen” (and created) was added – for whatever purpose. Was this typist just having fun?

The “great racial struggles” that would be “fought out between the continents within a few generations” was deleted from the Nuremberg copy – as we can see on the page 8 negative. That paragraph ends “in Europa führen.” and then continues with a new paragraph “Wenn wir nun die Grösse dieses Reiches bedenken, … [ Now, when we think of the greatness of this Reich ...].

This is a serious omission that definitely deprives the reader of the sense of one of the National Socialist motivations for colonizing the East – to better protect Europe from the non-White invasions that were sure to come. I noted on the speech that this was very prescient of Himmler!

In the next paragraph on page 8 are five more differences, and in the last paragraph there are twelve! The worst one is this sentence from  our SS copy:

...ich bin überzeugt, dann werde gerade diejenigen alle, die jetzt sich nich genug tun können mit Herschenken von Rechten und Wünschen des Reiches, hinterher die 150prozentigen sein und ganz droß dastehen.

was changed to:

Ich bin überzeugt, dann werden gerade alle diejenigen, die sich jetzt nicht genug tun können mit dem Hergeben von Rechten und Würden des Reiches die Hundertfünfzigprozentigen sein und ganz gross dastehen.

This is the kind of thing we find throughout the entire speech. Carlos Porter says he's never seen anything like it. But if you have only the Nuremberg copies, you have no way of knowing how wrong it is. For example, I just edited the previous sentence: I changed “only have” to “have only,” which is only stylistic, but I should not edit even that much in a historical document.


On Page 13 (above) there is another serious example of deleting Himmler's words. On our SS copy, 8 lines down:

Dann gibt es aber welche, die foltern die Leute so unangenehm und sind von einer viehischen Grausamkeit. [There are also those who torture people quite horribly, with a bestial cruelty.] 

On the equivalent Nuremberg copy page it is:

Da gibt es aber welche, die foltern die Leute mit einer  viehischen Grausamkeit. [But there are some who torture people with a bestial cruelty.]

How important is this deletion? You will decide, but it doesn't express fully what Himmler said.

To sum up, we learn again that nothing can be taken for granted; everything has to be investigated by someone who cares about exactitude with the truth. In this case, I was lucky that Wilf Heink saw it and that Wilf is an honorable man whose goal is the TRUTH about Germany. I was also fortunate that my translator, Carlos Porter, is very familiar with Nuremberg trial documents, having done massive work in translating and writing about them. Because of this "luck," something has been brought to light that, if I had not been prevented from using Clark's translation of Himmler's speech and thus forced to get my own, may never have seen the light of day. Pretty ironic.

But the most important thing in all this is to know we have the words that Himmler actually spoke. For this, we do have the recording to compare with the written text. In the opinion of many, Heinrich Himmler was a brave and hard-working man who served his country's leader Adolf Hitler and the German people with all his ability and all his strength. He was also a man of wit who liked to use heavy irony in his speech when the occasion allowed it. He deserves to be seen by history as he actually was.

Thanks to all who have read this all the way through. I hope you will spread the news that the only Himmler Oct. 24, 1943 “Freedom Day” speech you can trust is found at


Führer Speeches


Thank You for all of the work you do Carolyn, you are the only person I trust.

After I was released from Mannheim prison on 12 November 1999 I was privileged to meet Himmler's daughter Gudrun. I was impressed by her modesty and frankness and steadfastness - not like some of the children of that era who turned against their parents, or lied for personal gain. Slightly disconnected from this topic, think of Dr Gottfried Wagner, son of Wolfgang Wagner and Richard Wagner's great grandson, who spends his time propounding the thesis that Wagner's music led to Hitler and Auschwitz. Just because the Wagner family supported Hitler while in prison should cause anyone to wonder why they did that and not condemn them for it. Adolf Hitler and Winifred Wagner had a good relationship going, sharing a common cause. She was one of the few who did not repudiate their friendship because of what is alleged to have happened. 
What many fearful individuals touching on this topic of war guilt fail to recall is that the legal contracts that support this guilt trip are still binding. Recall this one?
The 1952 Luxenburg Treaty which, among others, stated: Whereas, unspeakable criminal acts were perpetrated against the Jewish people during the National Socialist regime of terror and whereas by the declaration of the Bundestag of 27 September 1951, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany made known their determination, within the limits of their capacity, to make good the material damage caused by these acts.

Thank you, Ms. Yeager and Mr. Porter for the effort and for making this available to us, along with some of the "discrepancies" found in the Nuremberg document used by Clarke.
Best wishes,

[Wilf couldn't get past the registration nonsense, so I'm posting his comment for him. -cy]

Dear Carolyn.

Great work, thanks for doing this. As mentioned, I did not spend much time translating the Himmler speech I had found, never considered it to be of much importance, at that time.

Himmler speaks of the Slavs as they were seen then. Was he right? I have no idea, but I am sure he based what he said on solid evidence.

Later on the speech came to mind again. We were discussing Himmler’s Posen speech of October 4, 1943. I’m not into discussing the Posen speech issues here, just to say that I see a difference in style. Can a person tailor his speech to the audience? Perhaps, but I find it hard to believe.


Thanks for sending a comment. Because of it, I read through Himmler's Oct. 4, 1943 Posen speech again and took notes. I found it remarkably similar to the Oct. 24th speech. What was different was the audience. On Oct. 4th Himmler was speaking to SS Group Leaders after a ceremony honoring "the Fallen." On the 24th, he was speaking to Party Gauleiters on the 4th anniversary of the formation of the Warthegau district in former Poland. So yes, the speech was rightly tailored to the audience. But the themes he brought up and his commentary on those themes was the same. 

What stands out to me is his consistency, which I've also found and commented on in Hitler's speeches. There is simply no evidence of Veronica Clark's thesis that both men exhibited big changes in their thinking about Slavs and racial issues in general, from 1944 on.

The Oct. 4th speech contains much more about the SS involvement in the war that is not in the Oct. 24 speech, which goes more deeply into the "Polish problem" and the "Slavic problem" in general. But all of this was touched on in both speeches. In the Oct. 4th speech, along with the Russians and Vlasov, Himmler brought up the subject of the Jews, and said some things that have become very controversial, with questions arising as to whether he really said them. On Oct. 24th, because of the occasion and his audience, he never even mentioned the Jews.

It all seems natural to me, but I am aware that so many believe the two paragraphs from Oct. 4th on "the evacuation of the Jews" have been tampered with, or even added as an outright forgery, because he says:

"The Jewish people will be extirpated", says every Party comrade, "that's quite clear, it's in our programme: elimination  of the Jews, extirpation; that's what we're doing."

He wasn't talking to "Party comrades" but to SS Leaders, but he could have been saying that it was a Party directive, an undertaking of the Party (see Points 4, 7, 8 of the Party Program). In that case, I think what Himmler would be referring to was the removal of Jews and their influence from Germany because they were foreigners (not of German blood) and also agitators and secret saboteurs, etc. The whole controversy stems from the forced interpretation of the word "Ausrottung" as killing. But Himmler also brought up elsewhere the great value that all available manpower had for the Reich as the war went on, so Jews were put to work.

Speaking of the "100" to "1000" bodies that lie together - they are the partisans who were the non-uniformed enemy who were executed rather than put into POW camps because they weren't legal fighters and were vicious killers. It all seems perfectly OK to me.

I know, Wilf, that you don't want to discuss it, but maybe someone else will want to.

Thank you! Smile Your great work on this is here.

Whew! Carolyn, ya had me momentarily worried there until I read on down to see that the usual disinformation variant didn't affect OUR translation of the HH speech. The first half of that story has gone to press and will appear online in a few days. Don't want to have the March TFF issue appearing online for free before paying hardcopy subscribers hold it in their hands. God bless you, Carolyn, and all your contacts digging up these non-kosher skeletons from WWII. Let's just keep plugging the many truths too long buried until now. The enemy's fingers are starting to tremble; his show today of all-or-nothing chutzpah is all bluff. Who should know it better than he? That there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip.
Bestens, Olaf

OUR translation?? It is not Ours at all. You had nothing to do with it. Do you see the copyright on the speech? It means you need to get permission from the copyright owner to re-publish this creative work which took many hours and work to bring into being. I don't give you permission. Okay?

What you can do is write about it and give the internet URL for people to come to this site to read it. So if you have put the actual speech online, take it off! And if you are publishing it in your newspaper, you are in the wrong. A speech like this doesn't belong in your newspaper anyway.

If I got the wrong impression from your comment, I apologize.

Bestens, Carolyn

The first image in the above article has been replaced with a much clearer version, compliments of Carlos Porter. I was using the one Wilf had quickly sent. Just wanted to make that known to people who may have already read the article and wished for a larger image of the "Nuremberg" page 1 so they could actually read it. Now you can.

Wir Deutsche vs Wir Deutschen. 
Wir Deutsche is a self-evident proclamation of an identifiable people, even regardless of citizenship. 
Wir Deutschen can include "eingedeutscht" culture or people. "Eingedeutscht" is the German equivalent of "Americanized" and this can mean anything as well. Not only Americanized Irish people for example but also generally Americanized Chinese etc. 
you get the idea. 

In other words Wir Deutsche refers to a singular definition of what Deutsch is. Wir Deutschen refers to a plurality of definitions of what Deutsch is. 

"If I got the wrong impression from your comment, I apologize."
I accept your apology, Carolyn, as you did get it wrong. Why in God's name you don't want that HH speech appearing in TFF baffles me. OUR side includes The First Freedom, and if it's just a matter of payment for that story's use, how much? The March 2016 issue of TFF has already mailed out and will go online as is in a few days, or with pages 6 & 7 blanked out to reflect your objection and my apology to TFF readers explaining your position as I see it.

Obviously, I did NOT get it wrong, Olaf. You have it wrong and are in the wrong. You owe me an apology.

The March 2016 issue of TFF has already mailed out ...

So you consider yourself a newspaperman but do not know you cannot publish other's copyrighted material without their permission? Oh, you know but just ignore it because .... "OUR side".

[It] will go online as is in a few days, or with pages 6 & 7 blanked out to reflect your objection

Blanked out. And write whatever you want. I am going to write about the knaves and "pick-up-artists" in "our movement" who think they are above the rules. And I may even turn it into a radio podcast. You will star in the opening segment.

To explain why I "don't want that HH speech appearing in TFF" is easy. I want control of my translation so every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't screw around with it and pass it from here to there. YOU are a Dirty Harry who is screwing around with it. It is available to be read free at carolynyeager.NET, that is enough. You can explain that to your readers.

I did send you a private email but something went wrong with the address. I am resending it. But it's understood, I hope, your April issue of TFF will NOT carry 'Part 2' of the speech.

You have been advised and warned.

Add new comment