Very interesting Hitler speech newly accurately translated

digme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqTx6DKbzrA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StIskkWEyy8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YzhaNuSqpM

Thought you lads might like this.

xflyer

I know some lads who will not only like it but believe it.

Morlar

xflyer wrote: »

I know some lads who will not only like it but believe it.

Seeing as it's a 'discussion forum' and not a 'throwaway remark forum' why not clarify which parts of the speech you dispute ? Would that not make for a more meaningful contribution ? I mean your post above says nothing, means nothing and adds nothing. imo. No offence btw.

Morlar

For what it's worth I thought it was a quite surprisingly humourous & eloquent speech (considering it essentially boils down to 'Declaring WAR on the USA' in 20 minutes or less).

The reaction of the audience towards the end is quite interesting too, at a certain point (in video 3) they know the formal declaration is coming (as it's been telegraphed by the preceding phrasing) and the speech spontaneously stops for approx 25 seconds of rapturous applause then continues as the audience hangs on every word. It would be surprising to me if such an important speech in 20th century history is (allegedly) mis-translated for so long. It would be interesting to read a contemporary New York Times translation alongside the new one to clarify exactly what was mis-translated and by which editor/journalist etc and IF this is the case then the obvious question would be why was that exactly ?

There is also an interesting amount of very specific information present. Specific allegations about actions taken by USA govt/Navy armed forces on specific dates, specific locations etc & with reference to specific speeches given in Chicago on x date etc.

I would like to see that speech taken apart in a neutral manner in terms of the allegations made & if they hold any substance.

However even if there is no mistranslation whatsoever (& it is more than curious that the author alludes to 'mistranslation' but does not provide a single example) it is a very interesting speech in my opinion.

xflyer

Morlar wrote: »

Seeing as it's a 'discussion forum' and not a 'throwaway remark forum' why not clarify which parts of the speech you dispute ? Would that not make for a more meaningful contribution ? I mean your post above says nothing, means nothing and adds nothing. imo. No offence btw.

It didn't take long did it?

You don't need a line by line dissection of the speech to see that it's the usual Nazi mix of self deception, misrepresentation, propaganda and outright lies mixed in with a bit of truth to keep it plausible. It also follows the same old line that Germany was forced into the war, forced to invade Poland because of Polish Aggression, forced to invade France etc etc. Now they are forced into declaring war on the United States because of US behaviour.

But it also supports to some extent your contention that most Germans were not really Nazis but simply patriots. Hitler knew he had to justify the declaration of war on the USA to the German people. Otherwise it would have looked like the mere folly it was. He had to bring the German people with him on his insane journey to destruction.

Morlar

xflyer wrote: »

. . . . it's the usual Nazi mix of self deception, misrepresentation, propaganda and outright lies mixed in with a bit of truth to keep it plausible. It also follows the same old line that Germany was forced into the war, forced to invade Poland because of Polish Aggression, forced to invade France etc etc. Now they are forced into declaring war on the United States because of US behaviour.

But it also supports to some extent your contention that most Germans were not really Nazis but simply patriots. Hitler knew he had to justify the declaration of war on the USA to the German people. Otherwise it would have looked like the mere folly it was. He had to bring the German people with him on his insane journey to destruction.

Again I would ask . . .

Rather than saying

'it's inaccurate'

Why not clafiry which exact parts of the speech are inaccurate ?


I mean anyone can say 'it's inaccurate' about any speech given by any leader throughout history but without specifying which parts are inaccurate it doesn't amount to much.

marcsignal

xflyer wrote: »

You don't need a line by line dissection of the speech to see that it's the usual Nazi mix of self deception, misrepresentation, propaganda and outright lies mixed in with a bit of truth to keep it plausible. .

Just playing devil’s advocate here for a moment, in relation to the speech. I took the time to read it through, and take note of the dates, and claims. In terms of historical accuracy, I haven’t been able to find one that doesn’t stand up. Feel free to correct me in case I missed something.

In terms of your claims (in bold above), and in relation to the speech, can you give us any specific examples of: “self deception, misrepresentation, propaganda and outright lies mixed in with a bit of truth” ?

Or even one specific example will do...

Also, in relation to Polish aggression. Even the most moderate historian will now acknowledge that Poland, at the time, was well known for posturing, and trying to ‘Punch above its weight’ for the want of a better term.

Marshal Rydz-Smigly: "Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to" (Daily Mail, August 6th, 1939)

Or maybe 58’000 of the good people (Ethnic Germans*), like the ones of “Bromberg” (today: Bydgoszcz/Poland) below, committed an act of mass suicide in August 1939, and were not murdered by the poles at all ??

* May be bad, and consequently deserving of what was coming to them:rolleyes:

Bloody Sunday of Bromberg

Images below NSFW

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

..and finally, one of my personal favourites...
This woman was hours away from giving birth before the poles visited her town....

21

You’re also forgetting that, in fact, Germany invaded ‘half’ of Poland, not all of it.

No clues for who took the other half.

Mike 1972

xflyer wrote: »

I know some lads who will not only like it but believe it.

Given iits a source (a Youtube page babbling on about the "Illumeniti" Id credit it with about as much reliability as the Daily Mail :rolleyes:

marcsignal

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Given iits a source (a Youtube page babbling on about the "Illumeniti"

...which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Once again, can you dispute any of the claims made in the speech in terms of historical accuracy ?

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Id credit it with about as much reliability as the Daily Mail :rolleyes:

Your personal taste in news publications is also irrelevant.

Are you claiming that Edward Rydz-Śmigły never said:

"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to"

..and how would you choose to interpret such a statement, considering ??

Manach

Re: "Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to" - this is a new quote to me, and in hindsight seems just a tad reckless for Mr. Edward Rydz-Śmigły to make.
However, given the earlier in 1939 Germany had annexed what was left of Czechoslavika without any real protest from the West - it could be he was trying to bluff the Germans about the state Poland's military strength (a guess on my part).

marcsignal

^^

good point, and an interesting angle.

.

Mike 1972

Manach wrote: »

However, given the earlier in 1939 Germany had annexed what was left of Czechoslavika without any real protest from the West - it could be he was trying to bluff the Germans about the state Poland's military strength (a guess on my part).

Worth remembering that the Germans didnt annex all of Chechslovakia in 1938/9. Poland and Hungary got bits of it too with (most of) Slovakia becoming (nominally) independent/

marcsignal wrote: »

...which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The credibility of a source used in support of a proposition is irrelevent ? well I never :rolleyes:

marcsignal wrote: »

Once again, can you dispute any of the claims made in the speech in terms of historical accuracy ?

In this instance I dont reckon the onus is on me

marcsignal

Mike 1972 wrote: »

The credibility of a source used in support of a proposition is irrelevent ? well I never :rolleyes:

You're missing the point. If I come across a picture of 'Twink' on the 'Cruffs' website, does that mean she's a greyhound ?

If whoever uploaded the clip, is using its content to support whatever theory they have about the illumaniti, then that's their perogative. It doesn't mean for a second that the content of the speech, in terms of historical accuracy, is untrue.

so once again, if you think the speech is a load of bollocks, then it should be easy for you to pick even one specific claim that doesn't stand up. Then we may have the basis for a proper debate, on that/those points.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

In this instance I dont reckon the onus is on me

why's that ? you're the one disputing the claims.

.

Mike 1972

marcsignal wrote: »

why's that ? you're the one disputing the claims..

But Im not the one making them

marcsignal

Mike 1972 wrote: »

But Im not the one making them

If i'm not mistaken, Hitler's the one making the claims, and you're the one disputing them, so where's your counter-claim ?

if you can't, or wont, then, in terms of this discussion, your time might be better spent Here

WallabyPie

marcsignal wrote: »

Or maybe 58’000 of the good people (Ethnic Germans*), like the ones of “Bromberg” (today: Bydgoszcz/Poland) below, committed an act of mass suicide in August 1939, and were not murdered by the poles at all ??

* May be bad, and consequently deserving of what was coming to them:rolleyes:

Bloody Sunday of Bromberg

Images below NSFW

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

..and finally, one of my personal favourites...
This woman was hours away from giving birth before the poles visited her town....

21

You’re also forgetting that, in fact, Germany invaded ‘half’ of Poland, not all of it.

No clues for who took the other half.

58'000 of the good people you say? How about 300 of saboteurs?

via Wiki:

"The term "Bloody sunday" (Bromberger Blutsonntag) was created and supported by the Nazi-propaganda officials."

"According to the most widely accepted version, the incident stemmed from groups of German saboteurs attacking Polish troops behind the front lines.[8][9] This version holds that, as a contingent of the Polish Army was withdrawing through Bydgoszcz (Army Pomorze's 9th, 15th, and 27th Infantry Division)[9] it was attacked by German irregulars from within the city. According to a British witness, a retreating Polish artillery unit was shot at by Germans from within a house; the Poles returned fire and were subsequently shot at from a Jesuit church.[10] In the ensuing fight both sides suffered some casualties; captured German nonuniformed armed insurgents were executed on the spot and some mob lynching was also reported.[9][11][12] A Polish investigation concluded in 2004 that Polish troops had been shot at by members of the German minority and German military intelligence (Abwehr) agents; around 40–50 Poles and between 100 to 300 Germans were killed.[13]"


"The exact number of victims of Bloody Sunday is disputed. Peter Aurich (a pseudonym of the German journalist Peter Nasarski [22]) put the number of German civilian deaths in Bydgoszcz at 366,[23] while Hugo Rasmus estimates it as at least 415.[4] Two Polish historians, Włodzimierz Jastrzębski and Czesław Madajczyk, estimate ethnic German deaths at 103 (Jastrzębski), and about 300 (150 on September 3, the rest in the days after).[24] The Polish historians point out that since these losses occurred during actual combat, most of the civilian losses should be attributed to accidents common in urban combat conditions; they argue that civilian losses might have occurred when the town was attacked by the German airforce (Luftwaffe).[4] Strafing civilians in the town by the Luftwaffe is confirmed by German witnesses.[25] Nazi propaganda reinforced Polish perceptions of the German minority as hostile, and during the invasion reported that the German minority was aiding the forces. This contributed Polish misconceptions, as the Poles were expecting the German minority to be actively hostile.[26]"

Morlar

Hello WallabyPie and welcome to boards. Interesting first post.

In my experience you will find wikipedia inherently unreliable on any WW2 topic which involves Germans victims.

In my experience whenever there is a choice of numbers to use wiki will use, and put greater emphasis, on the number that reflects the lowest possible number of Germans Killed (and the highest number of those killed by Germans). Wikipedia is free to edit and it's pro israel bias is well known - it is open to systematic abuse by advocacy and lobby groups and there have even been special classes organised in how to do this. This extends unfortunately to WW2 in the form of minimising wherever possible the numbers of German victims.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Hello WallabyPie and welcome to boards. Interesting first post.

In my experience you will find wikipedia inherently unreliable on any WW2 topic which involves Germans victims.

In my experience whenever there is a choice of numbers to use wiki will use, and put greater emphasis, on the number that reflects the lowest possible number of Germans Killed (and the highest number of those killed by Germans). Wikipedia is free to edit and it's pro israel bias is well known - it is open to systematic abuse by advocacy and lobby groups and there have even been special classes organised in how to do this. This extends unfortunately to WW2 in the form of minimising wherever possible the numbers of German victims.

In my experience you react to anti- nazi criticism by focusing on issues other than those raised. i.e. focusing on wiki as opposed to the issues in the article.

marcsignal

WallabyPie wrote: »

58'000 of the good people you say? How about 300 of saboteurs?

I’m assuming This is the Wiki piece youre referencing ?

Did you miss the bit under the Heading ‘The Debate in Scholarship’ where it states quite clearly:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (September 2011)

As of September this year (2011) it still hasn’t been resolved. That works ‘both ways’ you realise that ? don’t you ?

Having said that, you could be right, I mean, a proper bunch of sabatoures these pregnant women, old men, cripples and children under 10 would have made.

You don't have to rely on exclusively German reports about this kind of thing, the Russians and French also had a thing or two to say with regard to the persecution of ethnic minorities in Poland. Whether British politicians had any view on the matter is hard to ascertain, officially, but the British public certainly knew.

French Protest against Polish Police Terrors.

"A wave of terror is sweeping Poland at this very moment. The Press can hardly breathe a word because it is gagged. A police regime with all its horrors and its wild measures of oppression strangles the country. The prisons of the Republic to-day hold more than 3000 political criminals who are maltreated by their jailers, humiliated and beaten up with belts and sticks. The life they have to stand is such that in many prisons the inmates prefer death to the slow torture inflicted upon them."

Paul Painlevé, Edouard Herriot, Léon Blum, Paul Boncour, Séverine,
Romain Rolland, Victor Basch, Georges Pioch, Pierre Caron, Charles
Richet, Aulard, Hadamard, Bouglé, F. Herold, Mathias Mornardt, Jean-
Richard Bloch, Pierre Hamp, Charles Vildrac, Lucien Descaves, Henri
Béraud, Michel Corday, Léon Bazalgette, Paul Colin, Albert Crémieux,
Henri Marx, Paul Reboux, Noel Garnier.

From: Protest against the terrorisation of minorities in Poland submitted by French politicians and men of letters, 1924.

"The minorities in Poland are to disappear, and it is Polish policy that they shall not disappear only on paper. This policy is being pushed forward ruthlessly and without the slightest regard for public opinion abroad, for international treaties, and for the League of Nations. The Ukraine under Polish rule is an inferno -- White Russia is an even more hellish inferno. The purpose of Polish policy is the disappearance of the national minorities, both on paper and in reality."

From: "Manchester Guardian", December 14, 1931 (special report from Warsaw).

"The oppression of the Ukrainian minority in Poland is growing worse every day. It would perhaps be wearisome to record the oppressive acts, . . . such a record would be of almost impossible length. But there are certain things that cannot be left unrecorded, that must be heard by the civilised world -- namely, the horrible and inhuman barbarities that are inflicted on Ukrainian political prisoners in Polish gaols, and which are part of the war waged by the Polish dictatorship against the Ukrainian minority."

From: "Manchester Guardian" of December 12, 1931: "Oppression of Ukrainians. Methods of Middle Ages revived by Poles." Special Report from Lemberg (East Galicia).

The Germans protested to the League of Nations a dozen times about this. They left the League in 1933.

Forgive me if I give credence the OKW reports on this one, they were pretty acurate regarding Katyn, an atrocity blamed on the Germans up until 1990, not to mention the Primary Research I have done myself since the mid 90s. I’ve spoken to quite a few ethnic Germans who grew up in the German part of Poland during the 30’s. The accounts of their ongoing persecution are grim to say the very least. I don’t have any reason to doubt the accounts of pensioners in their 80s and 90s, who were not supporters of Hitler or the Nazis, but who were inconsolable, and bawling crying in front of me at the time, recounting their persecution under the Poles, and of the disappearance of members of their families, of whom no trace has ever been found.

Not a pleasant experience on a Sunday afternoon, 60 odd years after the fact, I can tell you.

WallabyPie

@marcsignal:

These quotes (Manchester Guardian and French Protest) are from a nazi propaganda book: "The Polish Atrocities Against the German Minority in Poland" by Hans Schadewaldt (Berlin 1940). Very credible source of information I must say.

Yes, the case (Bromberger Blutsonntag) still hasn't been resolved, but most of historians (Polish and German) agree about the number of casualties: 300-500 and not 58,000. Quite the difference. We don't know how many of these Germans were victims of Polish atrocities and how many were victims of war. Also this was rather single incident and not a planned in advance massacre. Of course killing innocent civilians is a crime no matter whether it's 1,000 or just 1. But were they innocent? We don't know.

marcsignal wrote: »

I’ve spoken to quite a few ethnic Germans who grew up in the German part of Poland during the 30’s. The accounts of their ongoing persecution are grim to say the very least. I don’t have any reason to doubt the accounts of pensioners in their 80s and 90s, who were not supporters of Hitler or the Nazis, but who were inconsolable, and bawling crying in front of me at the time, recounting their persecution under the Poles, and of the disappearance of members of their families, of whom no trace has ever been found.

Names? Dates? Places? Graves?

There's a lot of proofs of crimes committed on Polish civilians by the Germans. Some of the "Polish" Germans "went bananas" during German invasion and occupation.

marcsignal

WallabyPie wrote: »

@marcsignal:

These quotes (Manchester Guardian and French Protest) are from a nazi propaganda book: "The Polish Atrocities Against the German Minority in Poland" by Hans Schadewaldt (Berlin 1940). Very credible source of information I must say.

...and they never appeared in the Manchester Guardian ? No ? are you sure about that ? and the French Protests are fabricated ? Is that what you're saying ?

Consider the fact that the French protestations were made in 1924, 9 years before Hitler came to power. Consider also the relationship between the French and the Germans during this period. Do you really think it's likely, that French Politicians would be seen to wade in on the side of the Germans by making these claims, even unintentionally, if there wasn't substantial truth in there ? To say the French hated the Germans during this period would be 'the mother of all understatements', if you don't mind my saying so.

Besides, Hans Schadewaldt, imo, is every bit as credible as Daniel Goldhagen, by comparison.

WallabyPie wrote: »

Yes, the case (Bromberger Blutsonntag) still hasn't been resolved, but most of historians (Polish and German) agree about the number of casualties: 300-500 and not 58,000. Quite the difference. We don't know how many of these Germans were victims of Polish atrocities and how many were victims of war.

the 300-500 you refer to are the dead, not the missing.
I'm happy with the OKW info.

WallabyPie wrote: »

Also this was rather single incident and not a planned in advance massacre.

Let our foe, the German, fall! I, your priest do promise you Plunder, rob, and set on fire! Bliss and joy in Heavenabove . . .Let the enemy die in pain; But the curse will fall on him He that hangs those German dogs, Who doth plead the German cause. Reaps reward from God on High.

Polish hymn of hate against Germany dating from the 1848 revolution.

Not Planned Then ? We will just have to agree to disagree on this.

WallabyPie wrote: »

Of course killing innocent civilians is a crime no matter whether it's 1,000 or just 1. But were they innocent? We don't know.

pregnant women, kids, cripples and old men ? my money's on 'Innocent'

WallabyPie wrote: »

Names? Dates? Places? Graves?

Having not been given their expressed premission to publish that private information on a public web forum, I'm not going to do so. As I have already said, many of these individuals were not supporters of Hitler or the Nazis. Consequently I have no reason to suspect they were lying.

WallabyPie wrote: »

There's a lot of proofs of crimes committed on Polish civilians by the Germans. Some of the "Polish" Germans "went bananas" during German invasion and occupation.

If there are 'lots of proofs' of Polish Germans 'going bananas' then reference them.

WallabyPie

marcsignal wrote: »

...and they never appeared in the Manchester Guardian ? No ? are you sure about that ? and the French Protests are fabricated ? Is that what you're saying ?

And do you have any proofs they weren't? And what gives them so much credibility? For example Edouard Herriot (who signed these protests) is known for denial of the Holodomor. And where are the Germans mentioned in these protests?

marcsignal wrote: »

pregnant women, kids, cripples and old men ? my money's on 'Innocent'

Again, any proofs? How can you be sure that people on these pictures are Germans killed in Bydgoszcz by Poles in 1939?

marcsignal wrote: »

If there are 'lots of proofs' of Polish Germans 'going bananas' then reference them.

Ever heard of Selbstschutz, Sonderdienst, Einsatzgruppen, Operation Tannenberg, Intelligenzaktion, Piasnica?

ejmaztec

I can well believe that both sides went mad in Poland, and that fervent nationalism and a mob mentality had a lot to do with it. The ethnic Germans left behind after WW1 as a result of territory being transferred to Poland were, as I've mentioned before, treated like second class citizens. The Poles would have been quite happy to get shot of all of them after WW1, but they stayed put as reluctant new Polish citizens.They must have had to deal with a lot of crap for the twenty years leading up to WW2.

When you consider what happened to some protestants in the Cork area for example, at the start of independence, it must have been a similar situation in the new Polish territory, where people had scores to settle, and axes to grind.

To deny that the Polish committed atrocities is naive to say the least, and to further state that it was nazi propaganda is in my opinion denial. There were victims and perpetrators on both sides. The Germans didn't tell lies all of the time, take Katyn for instance, where they proved that the Russians had carried out the massacre, but the Russians accused them of lying. The Russians didn't admit to Katyn for decades.

After WW2, any future problem with ethnic Germans was eliminated when they were kicked out en-masse (with more atrocities carried out on them by the victors as they made their way to the other side of the Oder.)

WallabyPie

@ejmaztec: Do you have any proofs of Germans "treated like second class citizens" in Poland during the Interbellum? Care to give a source? Or is it all based on a nazi propaganda book and your suppositions?

Oh, and of course the Germans were right about Russians in Katyn. They just wanted to take the blame off of themselves. They didn't care about the victims.

ejmaztec

WallabyPie wrote: »

@ejmaztec: Do you have any proofs of Germans "treated like second class citizens" in Poland during the Interbellum? Care to give a source? Or is it all based on a nazi propaganda book and your suppositions?

Oh, and of course the Germans were right about Russians in Katyn. They just wanted to take the blame off of themselves. They didn't care about the victims.

I take offence at this. Your post seems a little aggressive.

My basic knowledge of what took place was gained during conversations I had with Polish ex-servicemen who had decided to stay in the UK after WW2.

Here's a Wiki article on the Polish Corridor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#Exodus_of_the_German_population