Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech // DOCUMENTS 1014-PS, 798-PS and Raeder 27

[Otium]

First of all, I do not speak German. It would be a great help if people who are bilingual could help get this post to exclusively German speakers too, just so these documents can be assessed.

Okay so. The Obersalzberg speech is infamous.

There are 4 versions of it:

1014-PS
798-PS
Raeder 27 - Signed by Boehm
L-3

Of course, L-3 is the famous document that was thrown out at at Nuremberg for being so obviously fake.

While L-3 was thrown out, there was an attempt made to get documents 1014 and 798 thrown out as well but the tribunal rejected this.

The problem with the latter two documents is that they're written on the same kind of paper, no official markings, no origin of where they came from, no dates, nothing and one of them is marked "second speech" even though Hitler only gave one "speech" that day. They're seriously flawed documents.

However, the establishment historians STILL prefer to use these two documents instead of Raeder-27 which is considered by revisionists to be the authentic document.

I would recommend if you haven't already, reading Udo Walendy book, specifically the part about this speech and also the book by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof for another overview of these documents. I am making this post with the mindset that those reading already know what I'm talking about.

Okay so. This is where the German comes in.

These two documents here are in German

1968_2_2_baumgart-min.pdf

(931.12 KiB) Downloaded 157 times

1971_3_4_baumgart.pdf

(597.34 KiB) Downloaded 147 times

And these two above documents are also what gives the establishment historians the basis in which they feel they can use 1014-PS and 798-PS as legitimate documents. I would like to see what Germans have to say about these papers because I haven't seen anyone in the revisionist literature talk about it or respond to them.

Here are some examples of these papers being cited.

Christopher Brownings cites these papers in his "The Origins of the Final Solution" pages 437 and 438

Peter Longerich in his book "Holocaust" cites these documents:

And Max Domarus in "The Complete Hitler" discusses and cites as well:

Christopher Browning and Domarus you will notice use the Halder diary to back up these claims. I haven't seen this discussed or debunked either by anyone on the revisionist side. I am also curious as to how Canaris fits into this. He, as I'm sure we all know, was an untrustworthy traitor. I remember reading somewhere that he would've been willing to spread misinformation to turn the public against Hitler. I cannot recall where I read this right now though.

I suppose, as a revisionist myself, I am challenging the revisionists. How CAN WE account for these papers and the Halder diary. On the latter question I think I have the answer.

David Irving, whatever you may think made a very good point in regards to this speech.

You will see in the section I quoted from Browning that he mentions Halder:

It is not a question of reaching a certain line or new boundary but the destruction of the enemy...the means do not matter

This was quoted COUNTLESS times at Nuremberg as their lynchpin for German Guilt. However, it's a WRONG interpretation which can be explained.

On page 861 of Hitler's War by David Irving, referring to page 200 Irving writes:

The reference to crushing ‘the living daylights’ – die lebendigen Kräfte – out of Poland was misinterpreted by the Allied prosecutors at Nuremberg. In fact Hitler was just stating the basic military fact that the strategic objective was to destroy the enemy, not attain some line on a map. The professional soldiers present understood this perfectly (see, e.g., Bock’s diary). Note that Hitler used precisely the same turn of phrase in his harangue to the generals before the Battle of the Ardennes, on Dec 12, 1944 (Heiber, op. cit., 721)

Source: David Irving, Hitler's War and the War Path (Focal Point Publications), Pp. 861

When you consider it like this, it makes sense and fits into place perfectly. It's perfectly banal and obvious what Hitler mean't, but the Allied prosecutors and the current day establishment historians writing their hack job books purposely mislead the reader with a statement that may or may not be true, but nevertheless not in any way incriminating. We can see through this example the power of misdirection and interpretation. Suddenly something that means one thing can mean something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT!

So this I think partially explains the Halder diary entry. Although perhaps not totally.

[Hektor]

This belongs into the anglophone WW2 section of the forum.
I'm multilingual with some intimate knowledge of High German as well - and for biographical reasons more to the old mode of German than the present one. However that's a bit rich to expect someone to translate this all at once given that it is over a larger number of pages and up to now for a single purpose. Translating German to English takes time and actually some additional explanations may be required. Unlike English that uses a lot of buzzwords, German tends to be extremely precise with its meaning. So if you want something translated, perhaps start with passages of interest to you. We need to be economical in our approach given that we simply don't have the resources the other side of the debate has in abundance (considering that we still do extremely well).

Concerning documents coming via Allied sources, there is a high risk that they may have been forgeries, given that we already know some of the forgeries made in a way to suit their purpose in some way. But even those documents they presented aren't really that hot and that's why officious historiography tries to insinuate some sinister meaning into them. It all would fit a make belief tactic, but I still think that they were far too pushy and partially blatant in their approach.

Some leading Allied figures acknowledged that the Nuremberg trials were organized primarily for political purposes. Norman Birkett, a British alternate judge at the Nuremberg Tribunal, stated in a private letter in April 1946 that “the trial is only in form a judicial process and its main importance is political.”49 Chief U.S. prosecutor Robert H. Jackson stated that the Nuremberg Tribunal “is a continuation of the Allied war effort against Germany.”50 Judge Iola T. Nikitchenko explained the Soviet view of the Nuremberg Tribunal: “The fact that the Nazi leaders are criminals has already been established. The task of the Tribunal is only to determine the measure of guilt of each particular person and mete out the necessary punishment—the sentences.”
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/0 ... ean-jewry/

Well, the IMT records are still an interesting resource for historiography - on a show trial, but useless as a verdict for the accused to be guilty. Their own - mind you unrefuted - statements do have some exculpatory value. But this is virtually ignored by mainstream historiography.

[Webmaster]

This belongs into the anglophone WW2 section of the forum.

It has been moved over with a shadow topic left in its original place

Webmaster

[Otium]

I'm multilingual with some intimate knowledge of High German as well - and for biographical reasons more to the old mode of German than the present one. However that's a bit rich to expect someone to translate this all at once given that it is over a larger number of pages and up to now for a single purpose.

The idea wasn't to translate it all, but to see if anyone can confirm what it was that Christopher Browning was saying, seeing as David Irving and he use the same source but came to different conclusions. If anyone who reads German could read it, and make a post explaining the conclusion or the arguments used in these papers, then it could help us come to a further understanding regarding this most controversial alleged Hitler speech.

If papers like this exist, revisionists need to read them and they need to know what the orthodox side takes as evidence. Otherwise, when confronted on a particular subject we'll end up with egg on our faces. The debate over fake documents extends beyond Nuremberg, to testimonies, diaries, letters, interviews, notes, etc. we must know what happened, any detail helps.

[Otium]

Walendy on these two documents states on page 458 of the Castle Hill version of his book:

The “documents” 798-PS and 1014-PS are written on one and the same kind of paper, with the same typewriter, they have no heading, no stamp indicating secret matter, no date, no list of names of those present, no signature. Even later on, the prosecution did not produce any established proof of origin, as had been requested.

From the IMT:

R. DODD: Mr. President, yesterday afternoon the Tribunal asked that we ascertain the origins, if possible, of Document 1014-PS. Some question was raised about it by Dr. Siemers. It is Exhibit USA-30.

I have had a search made, and I have some information that we are prepared to submit concerning this document. I should like to point out that 1014-PS and 798-PS and L-3 are documents all concerning this same speech made at Obersalzberg on 22 August 1939. They were offered in evidence by Mr. Alderman of the American staff on the 26th day of November 1945.

I should like to point out that L-3, to which Dr. Siemers made reference yesterday, was offered only for identification, as the record shows for the proceedings of that day on the 26th of November, and has received the mark Exhibit Number USA-28 for identification only. Mr. Alderman pointed out, as appears in the record, that he was not offering it in evidence, that it was a paper which came into our hands originally through the services of a newspaperman, and that later on the Documents 798-PS and 1014-PS were found among captured documents. They referred to the same speech in Obersalzberg. Mr. Alderman offered these two at that time.

Now Document 798-PS, Exhibit Number USA-29, and Document 1014-PS, Exhibit Number USA-30, were both found by the forces of the United States in this fashion:

They had been taken from the OKW headquarters in Berlin, and in the course of various journeys in those days they finally arrived at one place and were stored, it now appears, at various places by the OKW under the control of a General Winter of the German forces; and they were transported in three railway trains to Saalfelden in the Austrian Tyrol. Subsequently, General Winter ordered that all documents in his possession be turned over to the Allied forces and they were. These particular documents, together with some other papers, were turned over by General Winter and members of his staff at that time; and on the 21st day of May 1945, they were removed from Saalfelden where they were under the control of General Winter and taken to the Third U.S. Army Document Center at Munich. While at Munich they were sorted and catalogued by Department G-2 Supreme Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Force with the assistance of clerks from the OKW and OKH. On the 16th of June 1945 these documents, together with others, were removed on six trucks from the headquarters of the Third Army at Munich and were taken to the U.S. Group Control Council Number 32 at Seckenheim, Germany, which was located in the former offices of the I.G. Farben Company, and were placed on shelves on the third floor of the building and kept

64

17 May 46

under guard. Between the 16th of June 1945 and the 30th of August 1945, the task of collecting, sorting, assembling and cataloging these documents was carried out under the supervision of the British Colonel Austin, with personnel of the Supreme Headquarters and the G-2 Document Center of the G-2 Operational Intelligence Section, 6889 Berlin Document Section, and the British Enemy Document Unit, and the British Military Intelligence Research Section. Beginning on the 5th day of July 1945, and continuing until the 30th of August 1945, these documents were screened at that place by members of the staff of the United States Chief Counsel. Lieutenant Margolies, who is here in the courtroom and a member of our staff, personally picked these documents out of your file 798-PS and 1014-PS from the OKW captured files, brought them to Nuremberg, and lodged them in the document room where they have been kept under strict security ever since.

Now, that is the history of these two documents about which Dr. Siemers raised some question yesterday-a considerable question I might say-and inferred there was something strange about their contents. I think the story which I have given in the form of a statement over the signature of Lieutenant Commander Hopper clearly establishes the source and where they have been ever since; and I think it is only fair to say that, since Dr. Siemers saw fit to point out that this language sounded extremely harsh and was attributed to Hitler, these documents were offered to show these people were actually talking about aggressive war. The reading of the three documents by the Tribunal will clearly show they are all in agreement in substance; of course, there are differences in phraseology, but the important thing and purpose for which they were offered was to show that these people were talking aggressive war. I might say I am not surprised to find my friend is sensitive about the remark, but I think the unanswered proof in the case thus far shows that not only were these things said but they were done.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/05-17-46.asp

So the claim is that these documents were found at the OKW headquarters. But Walendy says they couldn't establish origin. True enough it appears to be hearsay from Mr. Dodd because we cannot truly know the origin of these documents in a true sense. By this I mean, why they were written, who wrote them, where they travelled to, when they were written up etc. etc.

Is there another perspective on this? Or is Walendy wrong?

On this Walendy says:

It was claimed that these “two pieces of paper” were taken from captured German files. If this were true, their form ought to be correct, but that is not the case. Since it has been established that no minutes were taken at this meeting either, the German archives could contain no such text. These actualities of the situation are proof, furthermore, that this address by Hitler was not in the form of a program outline and was not the basis of a decision. From that fact contradictions and inconsistencies emerge already.

Source: Udo Walendy, Who Started World War II? (Castle Hill Publishers),Pp. 458

At Nuremberg again they themselves provide the similarities between L-3 which they THREW OUT and nobody accepts to be legitimate, and documents 1014-PS and 798-PS:

On 22 August 1939, Hitler called together at Obersalzberg the Supreme Commanders of the three branches of the armed forces, as well as the lower ranking Commanding Generals (Oberbefehlshaber), and announced his decision to attack Poland near dawn on 26 August. Keitel was at this meeting. (L-3; 798-PS; 1014-PS)

Three documents reporting this meeting have been uncovered: the text of one, L-3, overlaps the contents of the other two, 798-PS and 1014-PS; the latter two appear to be complementary, 798-PS being a record of a morning speech, and 1014-PS of an afternoon speech. Violent and abusive language appears in both L-3 and 798-PS. That Hitler made, at a minimum, the following points, appears from all of them:

1. The decision to attack Poland was made last spring. (L-3; 798-PS)

2. The aim of the war in Poland is to destroy the Polish armed forces, rather than to reach a fixed line. (L-3; 1014-PS)

3. The attack will start early Saturday morning, 26 August (L-3; 1014-PS)

4. A spurious cause for starting the war will be devised by German propaganda. It is a matter of indifference whether it is plausible or not. The world will not question the victor (L-3; 1014-PS). The text in L-3 further describes the pretext to be used to start the war: "I'll let a couple of companies, dressed in Polish uniforms, make an assault in Upper Silesia or in the Protectorate."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/chap16_part04.asp

Sounds TO ME like they're bullshit documents. If they have multiple similarities in COMMON with the fraudulent L-3 document, how legitimate CAN THEY truly be?

Continuing with Nuremberg nonsense, here is the entire conversation in which it is discussed whether or not to STRIKE OUT document 1014-PS and thus 798-PS as well because they're produced by the same person:

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.]

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/05-16-46.asp

Dr Siemers made a very good and convincing argument against this document, of course having struck out L-3 the tribunal kangaroo court couldn't just strike out another two documents that, as Siemers notes, was quoted MULTIPLE TIMES during the proceeding to establish German guilt.

---------------------

Irving also says the Canaris/Oster version is worthless, then references Baumgarts 1968 study. But the weird thing about this is that Browning and Longerich also cited Baumgart and they seemingly accept whatever Canaris had to do with it. This doesn't add up and I cannot read it to check.

The OKW invitation dated Aug 19 is in naval file pg/33984. Five versions were written of Hitler’s speech on Aug 22: by Halder, Albrecht, Boehm (nd, Raeder–27), Bock and Canaris (nd, 789–ps and 1014–ps); see also Groscurth’s diary, Aug 24, 1939. The speech is briefly mentioned in the diaries of Milch, Leeb and Felber (the Eighth Army’s chief of staff, n.67/2). Other versions exist, but they are of only secondary value; the lurid script played into the enemy’s hands by the Canaris/Oster circle (nd,003–L) is quite worthless. See Winfried Baumgart’s scholarly investigation in VfZ, 1968, 120ff.

Source: David Irving, Hitler's War and the War Path (Focal Point Publications, 2002), Pp. 861

[Otium]

This belongs into the anglophone WW2 section of the forum.

It has been moved over with a shadow topic left in its original place

Webmaster

Webmaster. I have already made a version of this thread for the anglophone section. I was posting it on purpose to the German forum because I cannot read the documents I was posting about, it was my hope that someone who is multilingual would see my post and be able to help out with reading the documents and relaying their content.

[Webmaster]

Webmaster. I have already made a version of this thread for the anglophone section. I was posting it on purpose to the German forum because I cannot read the documents I was posting about, it was my hope that someone who is multilingual would see my post and be able to help out with reading the documents and relaying their content.

The thread is still visible in the German section of the forum as a "ghost topic" which just means that if they click on the thread it will open it in this forum instead of the German language forum. Excluding the sticky, it is the 4th thread shown so it remains visible to German posters.

As this entire thread is in the English language, and it is the only thread visible in the German forum with an English-language title, I believe this is appropriate.

Webmaster

[Otium]

The thread is still visible in the German section of the forum as a "ghost topic" which just means that if they click on the thread it will open it in this forum instead of the German language forum. Excluding the sticky, it is the 4th thread shown so it remains visible to German posters.

As this entire thread is in the English language, and it is the only thread visible in the German forum with an English-language title, I believe this is appropriate.

Webmaster

Alright, no problem at all that should be fine!

[Hektor]

I'm multilingual with some intimate knowledge of High German as well - and for biographical reasons more to the old mode of German than the present one. However that's a bit rich to expect someone to translate this all at once given that it is over a larger number of pages and up to now for a single purpose.

The idea wasn't to translate it all, but to see if anyone can confirm what it was that Christopher Browning was saying, seeing as David Irving and he use the same source but came to different conclusions. If anyone who reads German could read it, and make a post explaining the conclusion or the arguments used in these papers, then it could help us come to a further understanding regarding this most controversial alleged Hitler speech.

If papers like this exist, revisionists need to read them and they need to know what the orthodox side takes as evidence. Otherwise, when confronted on a particular subject we'll end up with egg on our faces. The debate over fake documents extends beyond Nuremberg, to testimonies, diaries, letters, interviews, notes, etc. we must know what happened, any detail helps.

My take is that a protocol established after the fact based on memory can count as hearsay. However knowing what participants on a debate are saying and what they base their knowledge on is important to do. Hence familiarising oneself with arguments and source materials is of critical importance, if one wants to contribute to resolving the question posing for over 70 years.

Well, Revisionists tried doing that for quite a while now, but got extremely hostile responses from the side of the publicly funded academic establishment. That does of course not refute anything they saying, but is actually a good indication that the historians guild tries to cover up something that is of major importance to some rather influential people there.

[zapper]

However, the establishment historians STILL prefer to use these two documents instead of Raeder-27 which is considered by revisionists to be the authentic document.
.

Are we sure Raeder-27 is authentic?

I haven't seen the original document but found a line by line comparison used by Nuremberg prosecution. There's definitely a content match, even for sections that make clear the ensuing conflict was about far more than Danzig.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law ... uppl-A.pdf (page 994) 

PS-1014 . "I shall give a propagandistic cause for starting the war-never mind whether it be plausible or not. The victor will not be asked later on whether he told the truth or not.. In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters but victory."

Raeder: "The conflict will be set in motion by appropriate propaganda. The credibility is unimportant hereby, the right lies in the victory."

--------------------------

1014: "80,000,000 people must get what is their right. Their existence has to be secured."

Raeder: ": 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."

--------------------------

798-PS: "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. But the sequence cannot be fixed." 

Raeder: "Although this conflict with Poland was un- welcome and it was necessary. As late as last Spring his intention still was to postpone the solution of the Polish question, to put it on ice, so to speak, in order to settle first the conflict in the West, unavoidable in his opinion. However, a politician cannot commit him- self as to the sequence of events. One must be elastic."

[zapper]

I found Halder's diary. Certain passages make me consider it might be suspect as well. https://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/22- ... halder.php

PS-1014 . "I shall give a propagandistic cause for starting the war-never mind whether it be plausible or not. The victor will not be asked later on whether he told the truth or not.. In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters but victory."

Raeder: "The conflict will be set in motion by appropriate propaganda. The credibility is unimportant hereby, the right lies in the victory."

Halder: "Trigger: Means indifferent. The winner will never be questioned as to whether his reasons were justified. It is not a question of having the law on our side, it is all about victory."

(Auslösung: Mittel gleichgültig. Der Sieger wird nie interpelliert, ob seine Gründe berechtigt waren. Es handelt sich nicht darum, das Recht auf unserer Seite zu haben, sondern ausschließlich um den Sieg.)

This makes it seem like the "reasons" were not really justified.

And what about Groscurth's diary? All I could find about it was this: Groscurth noted in his diary on 24 August 1939: "On the 26th the war against Poland starts up." which seemingly contradicts the revisionist notion that the Germans were honestly negotiating up until the last days.

[Otium]

And what about Groscurth's diary? All I could find about it was this: Groscurth noted in his diary on 24 August 1939: "On the 26th the war against Poland starts up." which seemingly contradicts the revisionist notion that the Germans were honestly negotiating up until the last days.

Not it doesn't contradict the revisionist "notion". The Germans knew that the Poles weren't going to accept any revision of the Danzig and Corridor question.

Before noon on August 25th, Hitler postponed the planned invasion of Poland for the first time and met with his British Ambassador, Henderson at 1:30pm, it was at this meeting where Hitler tried in vain to pledge German support to the British empire and prevent the British from intervening in Poland, basically, trying to come to some sort of last minute agreement. Although the conversation overall, obviously, didn't work out. And at 3.02pm Hitler again confirmed the order to attack Poland at dawn the next morning. (John Toland, Adolf Hitler (New York: Doubleday, 1976), Pp. 552.)

Hitler later the same day at 5:30pm met with the French Ambassador Coulondre, who had insisted on France's determination to fight on the side of Poland, even though Hitler had stressed to him that he had no desire to go to war with France, and couldn't understand why Germany and France need to go to war, especially because Germany had renounced her claims to Alsace-Lorraine in order to conciliate friendly relations with France. But this didn't matter, Hitler reprimanded Coulondre and by extension the French government, for giving Poland a "blank check to act as she pleased" (Ibid., p. 553.). Hitler with these remarks clearly shows how uninterested he was in fighting any other country other than Poland, and didn't want France or Britain to get involved. To solidify this fact, after Hitler dismissed the French Ambassador, he met with the Italian Ambassador Attolico at 6pm in which the latter handed Hitler a letter from Mussolini in which he stated that Italy could not go to war because she wasn't prepared. Hitler's interpreter, Paul Schmidt, observed that the fact that the British-Polish pact (which had been crystallized the same day), the French declaration to fight, and the Italian defection had hit Hitler like "a bombshell", and so again, Hitler postponed the orders to march a second time, because, as he told Wilhelm Keitel "I need time for negotiations." (Ibid., p. 554.)

Clearly, Hitler didn't want or intend to fight Britain or France, as his efforts on August 25th clearly indicate. This is further proven by the fact that Hitler on the same day reiterated to Walther Hewel that he didn't actually believe the British would fight for Poland (Ibid.). At this time too, Hermann Göring was working with the Swedish businessman Birger Dahlerus, with Hitler's knowledge, to bring about a peaceful resolution to the crises. (Ibid., p. 554ff.)

By the time August 30th rolled around, Hitler had drafted the 16 point offer to Poland which he knew they wouldn't accept. That they wouldn't accept it is proven by the fact that they had mobilised their armed forces the same day, and had already done so before repeatedly, but most recently on August 28th. Hitler for the third time postponed the orders to march for 24 hours. (Ibid., p. 563.)

Only at the last minute on August 31st did Hitler confirm the order to invade Poland. A note extract from Halder shows that still, on this day, Hitler didn't believe the French and British would intervene:

1800 hours (6pm):

Poles are delaying, tapped telephone conversation.

Decision against evacuation shows that he (Hitler) expects France and England will not take action.

Documents on German Foreign Policy, D Series, vol. VII, Pp. 569.

According to the same notebook, Hitler had refused to see the Polish Ambassador Lipski, who had been trying to get in contact with Hitler. If you think that the Pole was coming to finally make some offer of agreement, you'd be wrong. Because 20 minutes later at 6:20pm Lipski met with Ribbentrop, and this was the conversation in which the Pole admitted he wasn't authorized to receive or even discuss any German proposals. Thus Hitler was proven to be correct in his belief that the Poles were simply dragging out the negotiations. Hitler probably knew for a while that the end result was going to be a conflict, the only way his actions in these last few days of peace can be explained is if Hitler was attempting, which is evident, to isolate Poland and prevent conflict with the West. Hitler wouldn't have bothered to do any what we observe him doing in late August if he had wanted the war which resulted, let alone expected it. Clearly he didn't.

His efforts therefore must be seen as sincere, but his aims somewhat concealed by the fact that a war with Poland was inevitable. He couldn't allow himself to simply make it seem as if Germany had no interest in negotiating. What historians misconstrue in these last few days I think, is that Hitler was looking to incite a war by bogging down progress in conciliation, which at first seems compelling, until you add to the picture the fact that the Poles weren't going to accept any conciliation anyway, and therefore trying to come to an agreement was pretty much pointless. The only thing to be done was take a risk and launch an attack on Poland while hoping that the West wouldn't get involved. This seems to have been Hitler's motives in those final days.

I don't think we can know exactly how sincere the 16 points were, if they weren't genuine the only way to prove that would've been to have a Polish delegate accept them and see what happens. That this didn't happen, but instead the Poles effectively declared war on Germany on August 31st, shows that they weren't particularly interested, which is clear from their reply to the 16 points.

[Otium]

As for the alleged "propagandistic cause" for starting a war with Poland, no such cause was manifested, or really exploited. These comments, even if they were made can largely be ignored due to the fact that they didn't really manifest in reality. The only real "propagandistic cause" that can be pointed out is the Gleiwitz incident, which was hardly exploited by the Germans and isn't supported by any documentary evidence. The entire Gleiwitz story came from a Nuremberg affidavit which has never been substantiated by any actual proof. (Rolf Kosiek und Olaf Rose (ed.), Der Grosse Wendig: Richtigstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte: Band 1 (Tübingen: Grabert-Verlag, 2006), Pp. 679-683.)

Even after the war with Poland started and ended, Germany had been attempting to patch-up relations with Britain and secure an end to the hostilities. So it really doesn't matter that a German-Polish war couldn't be avoided, only that the Allies didn't make peace when they were given the chance (multiple times) after it began.

Regarding the speech at hand in the thread:

No less than six versions of this review existed, sometimes differing considerably from each other. We have already become acquainted with L-3. Two other reports, 798-PS and 1014-PS, also presented in Nuremberg, bear no date, no signature, are without a header and without a secret note. So we have no more than a few typewritten pages stapled together, of which we are not even sure where they were found. Their content is all the more striking for that. From one of these anonymous sources comes HITLER's notorious statement: "I'm only afraid that at the last moment some bastard will present me with a mediation plan."

This sentence is a pure invention. That HITLER did not express himself in such a way was unanimously stated by the witnesses RAEDER, VON MANSTEIN and BOEHM. In the other three versions such a remark is then also missing. Of these three documents we can immediately disregard GREINER's report, because GREINER was not present at the meeting and has his knowledge only from "hearsay". Remains the transcript of Admiral BOEHM and the diary entry of HALDER. Both documents do not prove that HITLER had planned a German-Polish or even a world war. KEITEL, KÜCHLER, LEEB, etc. testify to this in addition to the participants mentioned above. Finally, let us again give the floor to a representative of the resistance. HALDER stated in the OKW trial:

"The meeting ended with HITLER saying that Poland is isolated, the negotiations continue."

Rolf Kosiek und Olaf Rose (ed.), Der Grosse Wendig: Richtigstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte: Band 1 (Tübingen: Grabert-Verlag, 2006), Pp. 585-586. Also see pages 596-600 for a longer discussion of the speech.

It seems silly therefore, to use this alleged Hitler speech as evidence of anything, other than perhaps some rough discussions about possibilities that could occur if such a time were to come in which it was necessary to go to war with Poland. There was never any kind of war-plan derived from this speech, on that fact alone it shouldn't be considered as important as it is.

Instead what we see is that Hitler wanted to isolate Poland in a conflict, and continue with negotiations. Whether those negotiations were to simply isolate Poland, or to also come to a potential agreement doesn't matter, the former is undeniably true, the latter less important for the fact remains that Hitler didn't desire the war which resulted from September 3rd onward.

[Otium]

https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law ... uppl-A.pdf (page 994)

Bohm discusses these comparisons here. See from page 407.

[zapper]

https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law ... uppl-A.pdf (page 994)

Bohm discusses these comparisons here. See from page 407.

Given the clear similarities between the documents, and that Bohms criticism of the other documents is mild (Fuhrer didn't say those things at Obersalzberg but did at other times) would you still say it is likely PS 1014, 798 are forgeries?