The Heretics' Hour: What the Fuehrer did and didn't say in his Platterhof talk

Published by carolyn on Tue, 2015-02-17 06:55

Feb. 16, 2015

Adolf Hitler's view on race and the German Volk in his talk to Officers of May 1944 has been misrepresented by Veronica Clark in two books that she has sold on Amazon. Carolyn discusses the most interesting parts of the talk and points out the mistakes in Clark's translation:

  • Changing the word Volk to Rasse, or race, in one instance where it could not be an honest error (on page 48 of the German copy, shown at right - click on image for enlarged view);
  • Other inexplicably poor translation seemingly designed to detract from Hitler's strict attitude on race;
  • Attributing to Adolf Hitler in her foreward a false quote that she knew was actually written by another man, Otto Wagener;
  • Hadding Scott comes on the line in the last 15-20 minutes and confirms the correctness of Porter's translation over Clark's in some specific instances.

Read "Hitler's Talk to Officers and Generals on May 26, 1944 at the Platterhof in Obersalzberg" translated by Carlos W. Porter here.

Comments

Volk can also mean mob, referring to the masses vs the royal upper class. German "Pöbel" comes to mind. Hitler speaks of class struggle here, Volk und Volk probably refers to this.
 
According to Duden.de, Ansprache is a little speech or explanation, statement. The German Chancellor and Preseident hold "Fernsehansprachen" (TV speeches) each year, where they once a year sum up the year and give a moral compass for the next. These speeches are always while sitting. Big speeches while standing are called Rede. 

Hey, thank you Markus! You're always so helpful and this is VERY helpful. So there it is -- it's not even an unusual occurrence in Germany,

See my comment following.

I have now checked the German original for page 10-11 and the word used is sässen, which is "sitting." Carlos Porter is correct in writing:

...if I did not possess this confidence, then I would not be sitting before you now ...

What would cause V. Clark to make it "...I would not be standing here before you ..."  when even Google Translate knows the word is "sitting?" Another arbitrary editorial decision on her part? The carelessness is pretty disgraceful for a book.

Hitler uses the word "cleaning" - Reinigung - and also Reinhalten -"pollution" - on page 13, which is how Carlos Porter translates it.

It was based on the recognition that the German people would be completely unable to rise again unless there was a fundamental change in the leadership of this German people, in the organisation of its society, and, especially in the cleansing of this German people, in maintaining the purity of this German people.

Clark translated it "...but mainly that an effort has to be made to purify our people, an effort to maintain a pure society.

Again, I think Clark's translation is too weak to convey as well the idea of "cleaning, cleansing" away the pollution adhereing to the German people from 1918 to 1933.

The word used by Hitler was Weltanschauung - 3 times - while he never used Ideologie.

Porter translated (p 17-18):

I also formed the concept of a new world view for the new movement.

Now, this word “world view” is in the mouths of innumerable people, even then, and will continue to be mentioned. But I must tell you quite briefly what a “world view” really is. It is a definition which in my view is quite necessary, since, as I said, the word is used too strongly [I think strongly is a poor choice - should be "too much" or "too often" -cy], and in the end no longer meant anything certain or definite. “World view” is nothing other than a way of considering all the problems of this existence according to scientific knowledge, insofar as is available to us today.

Clark translated:

I also began to form an ideology for the new movement.

The word ideology has been promulgated by many, even then and that will not change. But allow me to just briefly tell you what ideology means. In my opinion this definition is important; for, as mentioned, the word is used by many and in the end it becomes meaningless. Ideology is nothing more than a consideration of all problems of our being as they present themselves today, based on scientific principles.

It's possible/probable that the use of the word "Ideology" is part of the attempt to de-Germanize Hitler ... for popular consumption. This is part of Clark's program too.

Perhaps you three have something you'd like to contribute to the following comment thread regarding Veronica Clark's comments as well as my own (the bulk of which John posted at "The Realist Report" with the rest being under the title name of my WordPress blog, "volkischpaganism"): http://www.therealistreport.com/2015/02/the-realist-report-friedrich-pau...

In the first place, BlutundBoden, why would any self-respecting National-Socialist want to contribute anything to John Friend's blog? Neither he nor Fritz Berg nor V Clark are National-Socialists, and that is made more than clear.

In the second place, posting that long excerpt from you as a comment is ridiculous, and impossible to reply to. If you want to critique Veronica Clark, do it here.

Uh, I don't know, maybe because it is foolish only to talk amongst yourselves? Since when do National-Socialists only comment in reply to other National-Socialists?

Also, you don't know what the excerpts were intended to demonstrate unless you listened to the show, otherwise you wouldn't say that it is impossible to reply to as the sole purpose was to demonstrate that Fritz's comment on the program that "I don't think Hitler really cared about race all that much." is absurd. I didn't actually read all of that on the show.

I guess Markus is not a self-respecting National-Socialist since, more than simply commenting, he actually called into the show itself.

but it kept jumping back to the prior Renegade show. Now I'm downloading it. But you must understand I have a lot to do and don't find arguing these same points over and over again with people who are pushing a false narrative without being well-versed in the subject to be a good use of my time. With that, I'm speaking of John Friend and Fritz Berg on Adolf Hitler and National Socialism.

Plus I was only speaking for myself, not for Markus or Hadding.

So far I managed to write down these words of  Fritz Berg:

"Hitler wasn't accused of being an extreme racist, he never spoke, to my knowledge at least, EVER of a German race. Germany was a mixture of races, according to Hitler. He acknowledged that – there were various Dinaric peoples, and the Scandinavians and whatnot, in the German mix of races that formed the German cultural identity which was the really important thing. As far as race, I don't think that Hitler was even all that interested in it. He was a great admirer and follower of Friedrich Nietsche who..."

Even this much shows that Berg doesn't know beans about Hitler's views and is listening to his slave-master Veronica Clark, and a few other things he may have casually come across and remembers.

Berg made it very clear earlier that he is anti-racist, just like Clark, and they both want to see Adolf Hitler in their own image. Maybe I'll be able to add to this later. But I will do it here, not there.

I suppose I could have been clearer in what I was actually interested in, which was hearing if any of the aforementioned people had any knowledge to contribute specifically concerning the information contained in Veronica's comment regarding Chris Hutton's book and some of the implications her given excerpts might have on commonly held views of racial anthropology, science, etc. in the Third Reich.

I heard you tell John you were Luke. I could have explained myself more fully too, but just rushed off something. So, my apologies for sounding dismissive.

I ended up listening to all of that program and was pretty amazed by what was said, but really I've heard it before. I'm actually glad that Fritz came out with what he did - it shows he is slavishly following V. Clark whom he has a huge crush on, since he first met her online like around in 2008 or earlier ... 2006? Now he wants John Friend to bring her to Arizona so he can finally see her in person before he dies! He refuses to travel anywhere himself. That explains Fritz Berg.

About Veronica and Chris Huttons's book, that's been her "bible" for several years now. Hadding Scott and I have been over this in the past; why should we have to keep repeating it. It exists somewhere, partly on John Friend's blog post (comments) of the last time he had VC on his show.

I have shown in this very radio program of mine right here on this page that V Clark is a falsifier and a "swindler" who is not above defrauding her readers. Adolf Hitler, who she is attempting to define, would call her that, I'm sure. The comments that she wrote on that JF/FB show page also reveal that's what she is doing.

I liked that you told JF in your call that he should stick with the Holocaust and stay away from, was it National Socialism? Anyway, I agree - he very often reveals his incompetence but doesn't recognize it. Sure, he's a nice guy. But what do you think AH thought of nice guys?

In my show on Monday, I will have more to say. I have a topic, but this will fit in well with it. And I invite people to comment here on this subject if they want. I sent the show link to Hadding and said only the 2nd hour was pertinent.

No, just a lousy American blurting out "Blut", not Luke, haha.

I found the post on John's site that you were referring to.

Thank you.

Hallo Carolyn,
do you know where I can get a german copy of the Platterhof Speech. I've seen the link to the english translation by Mr. Porter but I'd prefer the german version...
Can you or someone else help me on that?
 
Gruß aus Deutschland,
Hans

http://carolynyeager.net/new-translation-hitlers-may-1944-talk-officers-...

INTRODUCTION by Carolyn Yeager

This unrehearsed talk was taken down by stenographers at the time it was given by Adolf Hitler to his top officers. A single typed copy exists in the archives of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich, Germany. To obtain it, a Munich woman familiar with the Institute had to go there in person and request it, then make a copy on the premises, after which she mailed the copied pages to me for a fee. It consists of 70 typed, double-spaced pages, with some words on every page illegible because of fold marks.

You, Hans, can go to Munich and obtain a copy.

Unfortunately the German national being is not based on a uniform racial type. The process of welding the original elements together has not gone so far as to warrant us in saying that a new race has emerged. On the contrary, the poison which has invaded the national body, especially since the Thirty Years’ War, has destroyed the uniform constitution not only of our blood but also of our national soul. The open frontiers of our native country, the association with non-German foreign elements in the territories that lie all along those frontiers, and especially the strong influx of foreign blood into the interior of the Reich itself, has prevented any complete assimilation of those various elements, because the influx has continued steadily. Out of this melting-pot no new race arose. The heterogeneous elements continue to exist side by side.
 
And the result is that, especially in times of crisis, when the herd usually flocks together, the Germans disperse in all directions. The fundamental racial elements are not only different in different districts, but there are also various elements in the single districts. Beside the Nordic type we find the East-European type, beside the Eastern there is the Dinaric, the Western type intermingling with both, and hybrids among them all. That is a grave drawback for us. Through it the Germans lack that strong herd instinct which arises from unity of blood and saves nations from ruin in dangerous and critical times; because on such occasions small differences disappear, so that a united herd faces the enemy. What we understand by the word hyper-individualism arises from the fact that our primordial racial elements have existed side by side without ever consolidating. During times of peace such a situation may offer some advantages, but, taken all in all, it has prevented us from gaining a mastery in the world. If in its historical development the German people had possessed the unity of herd instinct by which other peoples have so much benefited, then the German Reich would probably be mistress of the globe to-day.
 
World history would have taken another course and in this case no man can tell if what many blinded pacifists hope to attain by petitioning, whining and crying, may not have been reached in this way: namely, a peace which would not be based upon the waving of olive branches and tearful misery-mongering of pacifist old women, but a peace that would be guaranteed by the triumphant sword of a people endowed with the power to master the world and administer it in the service of a higher civilization. The fact that our people did not have a national being based on a unity of blood has been the source of untold misery for us. To many petty German potentates it gave residential capital cities, but the German people as a whole was deprived of its right to rulership.
 
Even to-day our nation still suffers from this lack of inner unity; but what has been the cause of our past and present misfortunes may turn out a blessing for us in the future. Though on the one hand it may be a drawback that our racial elements were not welded together, so that no homogeneous national body could develop, on the other hand, it was fortunate that, since at least a part of our best blood was thus kept pure, its racial quality was not debased. A complete assimilation of all our racial elements would certainly have brought about a homogeneous national organism; but, as has been proved in the case of every racial mixture, it would have been less capable of creating a civilization than by keeping intact its best original elements. A benefit which results from the fact that there was no all-round assimilation is to be seen in that even now we have large groups of German Nordic people within our national organization, and that their blood has not been mixed with the blood of other races. We must look upon this as our most valuable treasure for the sake of the future.
 
During that dark period of absolute ignorance in regard to all racial laws, when each individual was considered to be on a par with every other, there could be no clear appreciation of the difference between the various fundamental racial characteristics. We know to-day that a complete assimilation of all the various elements which constitute the national being might have resulted in giving us a larger share of external power: but, on the other hand, the highest of human aims would not have been attained, because the only kind of people which fate has obviously chosen to bring about this perfection would have been lost in such a general mixture of races which would constitute such a racial amalgamation. But what has been prevented by a friendly Destiny, without any assistance on our part, must now be reconsidered and utilized in the light of our new knowledge. He who talks of the German people as having a mission to fulfil on this earth must know that this cannot be fulfilled except by the building up of a State whose highest purpose is to preserve and promote those nobler elements of our race and of the whole of mankind which have remained unimpaired. -pp. 308-310
 
https://volkischpaganism.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/adolf-hitler-mein-k...

It's very relevant. This is great:

...  a peace which would not be based upon the waving of olive branches and tearful misery-mongering of pacifist old women, but a peace that would be guaranteed by the triumphant sword of a people endowed with the power to master the world and administer it in the service of a higher civilization.

Only the Germans could be entrusted with this. Truly, no one else. And it could not be a collaborative venture either.

Add new comment