Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech - Revision history

Callafangers at 00:44, 21 January 2026

2026-01-21T00:44:41Z

Callafangers at 00:42, 21 January 2026

2026-01-21T00:42:52Z

Callafangers at 22:35, 6 July 2025

2025-07-06T22:35:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 6 July 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:
	=== Multiple Versions with Discrepancies ===		=== Multiple Versions with Discrepancies ===
	: At least eight recorded versions of the Obersalzberg Speech have been identified in historical records, including L-3 (Lochner version), 798-PS, 1014-PS, the Boehm version (Raeder-27), Halder's diary, Helmuth Greiner's notes, General Liebmann's account, and General Admiral Albert's record.<ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech." CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref> These versions differ significantly in content, tone, and emphasis, ranging from overtly genocidal rhetoric to more restrained strategic discussions.		: At least eight recorded versions of the Obersalzberg Speech have been identified in historical records, including L-3 (Lochner version), 798-PS, 1014-PS, the Boehm version (Raeder-27), Halder's diary, Helmuth Greiner's notes, General Liebmann's account, and General Admiral Albert's record.<ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech." CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref> These versions differ significantly in content, tone, and emphasis, ranging from overtly genocidal rhetoric to more restrained strategic discussions.
	: The Nuremberg Tribunal accepted 798-PS and 1014-PS as evidence, interpreting them as records of two separate speeches allegedly delivered by Hitler on the same day (one in the morning and one in the afternoon). However, 1014-PS is heavily abbreviated, written in shorthand, and unquotable as a direct transcript, rendering it nearly useless as evidence of Hitler's exact words.<ref>"Document 1014-PS." Nuremberg Trials Project. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved: https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00459</ref> The assumption of two speeches ~~(rather than just one that day)~~ appears to be an ad hoc explanation to reconcile inconsistencies rather than a conclusion based on solid evidence.		: The Nuremberg Tribunal accepted 798-PS and 1014-PS as evidence, interpreting them as records of two separate speeches allegedly delivered by Hitler on the same day (one in the morning and one in the afternoon). However, 1014-PS is heavily abbreviated, written in shorthand, and unquotable as a direct transcript, rendering it nearly useless as evidence of Hitler's exact words.<ref>"Document 1014-PS." Nuremberg Trials Project. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved: https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00459</ref> The assumption of two speeches appears to be an ad hoc explanation to reconcile inconsistencies rather than a conclusion based on solid evidence.

	=== Questionable Authenticity and Provenance ===		=== Questionable Authenticity and Provenance ===

Callafangers at 22:34, 6 July 2025

2025-07-06T22:34:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 6 July 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:
	=== Multiple Versions with Discrepancies ===		=== Multiple Versions with Discrepancies ===
	: At least eight recorded versions of the Obersalzberg Speech have been identified in historical records, including L-3 (Lochner version), 798-PS, 1014-PS, the Boehm version (Raeder-27), Halder's diary, Helmuth Greiner's notes, General Liebmann's account, and General Admiral Albert's record.<ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech." CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref> These versions differ significantly in content, tone, and emphasis, ranging from overtly genocidal rhetoric to more restrained strategic discussions.		: At least eight recorded versions of the Obersalzberg Speech have been identified in historical records, including L-3 (Lochner version), 798-PS, 1014-PS, the Boehm version (Raeder-27), Halder's diary, Helmuth Greiner's notes, General Liebmann's account, and General Admiral Albert's record.<ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech." CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref> These versions differ significantly in content, tone, and emphasis, ranging from overtly genocidal rhetoric to more restrained strategic discussions.
	: The Nuremberg Tribunal accepted 798-PS and 1014-PS as evidence, interpreting them as records of two separate speeches allegedly delivered by Hitler on the same day (one in the morning and one in the afternoon). However, 1014-PS is heavily abbreviated, written in shorthand, and unquotable as a direct transcript, rendering it nearly useless as evidence of Hitler's exact words.<ref>"Document 1014-PS." Nuremberg Trials Project. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved: https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00459</ref> The assumption of two speeches (rather than just one ~~on this~~ day) appears to be an ad hoc explanation to reconcile inconsistencies rather than a conclusion based on solid evidence.		: The Nuremberg Tribunal accepted 798-PS and 1014-PS as evidence, interpreting them as records of two separate speeches allegedly delivered by Hitler on the same day (one in the morning and one in the afternoon). However, 1014-PS is heavily abbreviated, written in shorthand, and unquotable as a direct transcript, rendering it nearly useless as evidence of Hitler's exact words.<ref>"Document 1014-PS." Nuremberg Trials Project. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved: https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00459</ref> The assumption of two speeches (rather than just one that day) appears to be an ad hoc explanation to reconcile inconsistencies rather than a conclusion based on solid evidence.

	=== Questionable Authenticity and Provenance ===		=== Questionable Authenticity and Provenance ===

Callafangers at 22:34, 6 July 2025

2025-07-06T22:34:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 6 July 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:
	=== Multiple Versions with Discrepancies ===		=== Multiple Versions with Discrepancies ===
	: At least eight recorded versions of the Obersalzberg Speech have been identified in historical records, including L-3 (Lochner version), 798-PS, 1014-PS, the Boehm version (Raeder-27), Halder's diary, Helmuth Greiner's notes, General Liebmann's account, and General Admiral Albert's record.<ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech." CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref> These versions differ significantly in content, tone, and emphasis, ranging from overtly genocidal rhetoric to more restrained strategic discussions.		: At least eight recorded versions of the Obersalzberg Speech have been identified in historical records, including L-3 (Lochner version), 798-PS, 1014-PS, the Boehm version (Raeder-27), Halder's diary, Helmuth Greiner's notes, General Liebmann's account, and General Admiral Albert's record.<ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech." CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref> These versions differ significantly in content, tone, and emphasis, ranging from overtly genocidal rhetoric to more restrained strategic discussions.
	: The Nuremberg Tribunal accepted 798-PS and 1014-PS as evidence, interpreting them as records of two separate speeches allegedly delivered by Hitler on the same day (one in the morning and one in the afternoon). However, 1014-PS is heavily abbreviated, written in shorthand, and unquotable as a direct transcript, rendering it nearly useless as evidence of Hitler's exact words.<ref>"Document 1014-PS." Nuremberg Trials Project. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved: https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00459</ref> The assumption of two speeches appears to be an ad hoc explanation to reconcile inconsistencies rather than a conclusion based on solid evidence.		: The Nuremberg Tribunal accepted 798-PS and 1014-PS as evidence, interpreting them as records of two separate speeches allegedly delivered by Hitler on the same day (one in the morning and one in the afternoon). However, 1014-PS is heavily abbreviated, written in shorthand, and unquotable as a direct transcript, rendering it nearly useless as evidence of Hitler's exact words.<ref>"Document 1014-PS." Nuremberg Trials Project. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved: https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00459</ref> The assumption of two speeches (rather than just one on this day) appears to be an ad hoc explanation to reconcile inconsistencies rather than a conclusion based on solid evidence.

	=== Questionable Authenticity and Provenance ===		=== Questionable Authenticity and Provenance ===

Callafangers at 22:06, 6 July 2025

2025-07-06T22:06:03Z

Show changes

Callafangers at 23:15, 2 February 2025

2025-02-02T23:15:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:15, 2 February 2025
Line 19:		Line 19:
	:* The Lochner version includes explicit references to genocide, brutal tactics, and grandiose plans for world domination, which are not found in the more restrained 798-PS version. This suggests possible embellishment or fabrication to serve political purposes.		:* The Lochner version includes explicit references to genocide, brutal tactics, and grandiose plans for world domination, which are not found in the more restrained 798-PS version. This suggests possible embellishment or fabrication to serve political purposes.
	:* The Boehm version includes phrases that emphasize Hitler's self-aggrandizement, racial supremacy, and the necessity of violent expansion, which align with the more sinister portrayals found in the Lochner version.		:* The Boehm version includes phrases that emphasize Hitler's self-aggrandizement, racial supremacy, and the necessity of violent expansion, which align with the more sinister portrayals found in the Lochner version.
	:* ~~The Boehm~~ version was allegedly discovered post-war and was used in German admiral Erich Johann Albert Raeder's defense at Nuremberg, with Boehm as its only witness. The Boehm version is less incriminating to Raeder and the Wehrmacht leadership specifically, suggesting it may have been fabricated by them to shift attention and blame more toward Hitler, exclusively. <ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech". CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref>		::* This version was allegedly discovered post-war and was used in German admiral Erich Johann Albert Raeder's defense at Nuremberg, with Boehm as its only witness. The Boehm version is less incriminating to Raeder and the Wehrmacht leadership specifically, suggesting it may have been fabricated or promoted by them to shift attention and blame more toward Hitler, exclusively. <ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech". CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref>

	=== Historical Context and Source Reliability ===		=== Historical Context and Source Reliability ===

Callafangers at 23:14, 2 February 2025

2025-02-02T23:14:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:14, 2 February 2025
Line 17:		Line 17:

	=== Inflammatory Content and Historical Manipulation ===		=== Inflammatory Content and Historical Manipulation ===
	: The Lochner version includes explicit references to genocide, brutal tactics, and grandiose plans for world domination, which are not found in the more restrained 798-PS version. This suggests possible embellishment or fabrication to serve political purposes.		:* The Lochner version includes explicit references to genocide, brutal tactics, and grandiose plans for world domination, which are not found in the more restrained 798-PS version. This suggests possible embellishment or fabrication to serve political purposes.
	: The Boehm version includes phrases that emphasize Hitler's self-aggrandizement, racial supremacy, and the necessity of violent expansion, which align with the more sinister portrayals found in the Lochner version. ~~Additionally, the~~ Boehm version was allegedly discovered post-war and was used in German admiral Erich Johann Albert Raeder's defense at Nuremberg, with Boehm as its only witness. The Boehm version is less incriminating to Raeder and the Wehrmacht leadership specifically, suggesting it may have been fabricated by them to shift attention and blame more toward Hitler, exclusively. <ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech". CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref>		:* The Boehm version includes phrases that emphasize Hitler's self-aggrandizement, racial supremacy, and the necessity of violent expansion, which align with the more sinister portrayals found in the Lochner version.
			:* The Boehm version was allegedly discovered post-war and was used in German admiral Erich Johann Albert Raeder's defense at Nuremberg, with Boehm as its only witness. The Boehm version is less incriminating to Raeder and the Wehrmacht leadership specifically, suggesting it may have been fabricated by them to shift attention and blame more toward Hitler, exclusively. <ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech". CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref>

	=== Historical Context and Source Reliability ===		=== Historical Context and Source Reliability ===

Callafangers at 23:13, 2 February 2025

2025-02-02T23:13:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 2 February 2025
Line 18:		Line 18:
	=== Inflammatory Content and Historical Manipulation ===		=== Inflammatory Content and Historical Manipulation ===
	: The Lochner version includes explicit references to genocide, brutal tactics, and grandiose plans for world domination, which are not found in the more restrained 798-PS version. This suggests possible embellishment or fabrication to serve political purposes.		: The Lochner version includes explicit references to genocide, brutal tactics, and grandiose plans for world domination, which are not found in the more restrained 798-PS version. This suggests possible embellishment or fabrication to serve political purposes.
	: The Boehm version includes phrases that emphasize Hitler's self-aggrandizement, racial supremacy, and the necessity of violent expansion, which align with the more sinister portrayals found in the Lochner version.		: The Boehm version includes phrases that emphasize Hitler's self-aggrandizement, racial supremacy, and the necessity of violent expansion, which align with the more sinister portrayals found in the Lochner version. Additionally, the Boehm version was allegedly discovered post-war and was used in German admiral Erich Johann Albert Raeder's defense at Nuremberg, with Boehm as its only witness. The Boehm version is less incriminating to Raeder and the Wehrmacht leadership specifically, suggesting it may have been fabricated by them to shift attention and blame more toward Hitler, exclusively. <ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech". CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref>

	=== Historical Context and Source Reliability ===		=== Historical Context and Source Reliability ===

Callafangers: Created page with "The problematic nature of the claimed transcripts of Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech of August 22, 1939, stems from the existence of multiple versions, including the notorious Lochner and Boehm documents, raising serious questions about their authenticity and the motivations behind their creation. == Problems with Versions == === Multiple Versions with Discrepancies === : There are several versions of the speech, including the Lochner version (L-3), 798-PS "Hitler's..."

2025-01-29T07:35:07Z

Created page with "The problematic nature of the claimed transcripts of Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech of August 22, 1939, stems from the existence of multiple versions, including the notorious Lochner and Boehm documents, raising serious questions about their authenticity and the motivations behind their creation. == Problems with Versions == === Multiple Versions with Discrepancies === : There are several versions of the speech, including the Lochner version (L-3), 798-PS<ref> "Hitler's..."

New page

The problematic nature of the claimed transcripts of Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech of August 22, 1939, stems from the existence of multiple versions, including the notorious Lochner and Boehm documents, raising serious questions about their authenticity and the motivations behind their creation.

== Problems with Versions ==

=== Multiple Versions with Discrepancies ===
: There are several versions of the speech, including the Lochner version (L-3), 798-PS<ref> "Hitler's Speech to the Commanders-in-Chief, August 22, 1939." German History in Documents and Images. Accessed January 28, 2025. https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/nazi-germany-1933-1945/hitler-s-speech-to-the-commanders-in-chief-august-22-1939</ref>, 1014-PS, and the Boehm version. These versions contain significant differences in content, with some having more inflammatory language and others appearing more restrained.
: The 798-PS and 1014-PS versions, which were presented at the Nuremberg trials, were interpreted as transcripts from two separate speeches Hitler allegedly gave on the same day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. However, the 1014-PS version is heavily abbreviated and not directly quotable<ref> "Document 1014-PS." Nuremberg Trials Project. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved: https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00459.</ref>.

=== Questionable Authenticity ===
: The Lochner version (L-3), which contains the most brutal and incriminating language, was rejected as evidence at Nuremberg due to its implausibility and lack of credible chain of custody. It was long considered a forgery, created by German resistance circles supposedly to “warn the British government about Hitler's intentions.”<ref>"Ansprache Hitlers vor den Oberbefehlshabern am 22. August 1939." Wikipedia (German). Accessed January 28, 2025. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansprache_Hitlers_vor_den_Oberbefehlshabern_am_22._August_1939</ref>
: Norman Domeier's 2022 article claims to have proven the authenticity of the Lochner version, but this claim is contested due to its reliance on a copy rather than an original transcript and the questionable chain of custody.<ref>Domeier, Norman. "Weltherrschaft und Völkermord: Die Lochner Version der Hitler-Rede vom 22. August 1939 als Schlüsseldokument nationalsozialistischer Weltanschauung." Journal of History, 2022. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/81488514/Weltherrschaft_und_V%C3%B6lkermorden_Die_Lochner_Version_der_Hitler_Rede_vom_22_August_1939_als_Schl%C3%BCsseldokument_nationalsozialistischer_Weltanschauung</ref>
: The Boehm version<ref>Cited in: https://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/22-08-1939-boehm.php</ref>, which appeared post-war, is also viewed skeptically due to its delayed emergence and lack of clear origin. It contains phrases that align with the narrative of Hitler as a megalomaniac, but its credibility is questioned by historians like Domeier.

=== Propaganda and Political Motivations ===
: The Lochner version was widely circulated during the war as propaganda against Germany. The language used in its introduction in the Deutsche Blatter magazine suggests it was meant to vilify Hitler and German generals, portraying them as complicit in his madness.
: The Boehm version might have been fabricated to provide a more credible alternative to the Lochner version while maintaining a similar narrative of Hitler as a genocidal maniac.

=== Inflammatory Content and Historical Manipulation ===
: The Lochner version includes explicit references to genocide, brutal tactics, and grandiose plans for world domination, which are not found in the more restrained 798-PS version. This suggests possible embellishment or fabrication to serve political purposes.
: The Boehm version includes phrases that emphasize Hitler's self-aggrandizement, racial supremacy, and the necessity of violent expansion, which align with the more sinister portrayals found in the Lochner version.

=== Historical Context and Source Reliability ===
: The reliability of the sources is compromised by their associations with wartime propaganda and post-war attempts to vilify Hitler. The German resistance circles, motivated to portray Hitler as a genocidal maniac, had vested interests in promoting such versions.
: The 798-PS version, considered more reliable and similar to Hitler's other speeches<ref>Adolf Hitler Collection of Speeches 1922-1945." Internet Archive. Accessed January 28, 2025. https://archive.org/details/AdolfHitlerCollectionOfSpeeches19221945</ref>, lacks the sensational and incriminating language found in the Lochner and Boehm versions.

== Summary ==
The discrepancies between the various versions of the Obersalzberg Speech, their questionable origins and authenticity, and the evident use of propaganda and political motivations in their creation and dissemination, highlight the problematic nature of these transcripts as historical sources. Caution should be exercised when considering these documents in uses for historical interpretation.

== References ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:42, 20 January 2026
Line 6:		Line 6:
	: At least eight recorded versions of the Obersalzberg Speech have been identified in historical records, including L-3 (Lochner version), 798-PS, 1014-PS, the Boehm version (Raeder-27), Halder's diary, Helmuth Greiner's notes, General Liebmann's account, and General Admiral Albert's record.<ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech." CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref> These versions differ significantly in content, tone, and emphasis, ranging from overtly genocidal rhetoric to more restrained strategic discussions.		: At least eight recorded versions of the Obersalzberg Speech have been identified in historical records, including L-3 (Lochner version), 798-PS, 1014-PS, the Boehm version (Raeder-27), Halder's diary, Helmuth Greiner's notes, General Liebmann's account, and General Admiral Albert's record.<ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech." CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref> These versions differ significantly in content, tone, and emphasis, ranging from overtly genocidal rhetoric to more restrained strategic discussions.
	: The Nuremberg Tribunal accepted 798-PS and 1014-PS as evidence, interpreting them as records of two separate speeches allegedly delivered by Hitler on the same day (one in the morning and one in the afternoon). However, 1014-PS is heavily abbreviated, written in shorthand, and unquotable as a direct transcript, rendering it nearly useless as evidence of Hitler's exact words.<ref>"Document 1014-PS." Nuremberg Trials Project. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved: https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00459</ref> The assumption of two speeches appears to be an ad hoc explanation to reconcile inconsistencies rather than a conclusion based on solid evidence.		: The Nuremberg Tribunal accepted 798-PS and 1014-PS as evidence, interpreting them as records of two separate speeches allegedly delivered by Hitler on the same day (one in the morning and one in the afternoon). However, 1014-PS is heavily abbreviated, written in shorthand, and unquotable as a direct transcript, rendering it nearly useless as evidence of Hitler's exact words.<ref>"Document 1014-PS." Nuremberg Trials Project. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved: https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/nur00459</ref> The assumption of two speeches appears to be an ad hoc explanation to reconcile inconsistencies rather than a conclusion based on solid evidence.
			: Boehm's affidavit (RAEDER-129) explicitly refutes key incriminating phrases in 798-PS and 1014-PS as absent, altered, or invented (e.g., no "GOERING can confirm this" in aggressive context; no mediation "pig-dog"; "harshness" applied only to military conduct, not civilians). He deemed prosecution versions "inaccurately and superficially" made, likely with "later additions or errors" due to delayed transcription.<ref>Robert M.W. and Ruth Benedicta Kempner papers, accession no. 2001.62.1, RG-71.001, series 5, subseries 1, file 6, pp. 229–239, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Collections, Washington, DC (http://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn)</ref>

	=== Questionable Authenticity and Provenance ===		=== Questionable Authenticity and Provenance ===
	: The Lochner version (L-3), notorious for its brutal and incriminating language, was rejected as evidence at Nuremberg due to its implausibility and lack of credible chain of custody. It was long considered a forgery by many historians, potentially created by German resistance circles to "warn the British government about Hitler's intentions." Its first publication during the war (1942-1943 by Louis Lochner) and its circulation as anti-German propaganda further undermine its credibility.<ref>"Ansprache Hitlers vor den Oberbefehlshabern am 22. August 1939." Wikipedia (German). Accessed January 28, 2025. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansprache_Hitlers_vor_den_Oberbefehlshabern_am_22._August_1939</ref> Norman Domeier's 2022 article claims to have proven its authenticity, but this is contested due to its reliance on a copy rather than an original transcript, the absence of key witnesses to verify its chain of custody, and its propagandistic tone.<ref>Domeier, Norman. "Weltherrschaft und Völkermord: Die Lochner Version der Hitler-Rede vom 22. August 1939 als Schlüsseldokument nationalsozialistischer Weltanschauung." Journal of History, 2022. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/81488514/Weltherrschaft_und_V%C3%B6lkermorden_Die_Lochner_Version_der_Hitler_Rede_vom_22_August_1939_als_Schl%C3%BCsseldokument_nationalsozialistischer_Weltanschauung</ref>		: The Lochner version (L-3), notorious for its brutal and incriminating language, was rejected as evidence at Nuremberg due to its implausibility and lack of credible chain of custody. It was long considered a forgery by many historians, potentially created by German resistance circles to "warn the British government about Hitler's intentions." Its first publication during the war (1942-1943 by Louis Lochner) and its circulation as anti-German propaganda further undermine its credibility.<ref>"Ansprache Hitlers vor den Oberbefehlshabern am 22. August 1939." Wikipedia (German). Accessed January 28, 2025. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansprache_Hitlers_vor_den_Oberbefehlshabern_am_22._August_1939</ref> Norman Domeier's 2022 article claims to have proven its authenticity, but this is contested due to its reliance on a copy rather than an original transcript, the absence of key witnesses to verify its chain of custody, and its propagandistic tone.<ref>Domeier, Norman. "Weltherrschaft und Völkermord: Die Lochner Version der Hitler-Rede vom 22. August 1939 als Schlüsseldokument nationalsozialistischer Weltanschauung." Journal of History, 2022. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/81488514/Weltherrschaft_und_V%C3%B6lkermorden_Die_Lochner_Version_der_Hitler_Rede_vom_22_August_1939_als_Schl%C3%BCsseldokument_nationalsozialistischer_Weltanschauung</ref>
	: The Boehm version (Raeder-27), ~~which emerged post-war during the Nuremberg Trials, is equally suspect due to its delayed appearance and lack of clear origin. Allegedly~~ written by Generaladmiral Hermann Boehm ~~on the evening of~~ the speech, ~~it was submitted as part of~~ Erich Raeder’s defense (Exhibit Raeder-27) with Boehm as its sole witness. ~~Its emergence after the war~~, under ~~circumstances convenient for~~ the ~~defense~~, ~~suggests it may have been tailored~~ to ~~mitigate~~ the ~~culpability~~ of ~~Wehrmacht leadership~~.<ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech." CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref>		: The Boehm version (Raeder-27), allegedly written by Generaladmiral Hermann Boehm immediately after the speech, emerged post-war during Erich Raeder’s defense at Nuremberg (Exhibit Raeder-27), with Boehm as its sole witness. In a notarized affidavit (Exhibit RAEDER-129), Boehm swore under oath that he took precise notes during the 2–2.5-hour speech, transcribed them unchanged that evening with Raeder and Vice-Admiral Densch, and directly compared them to 798-PS and 1014-PS. Boehm identified multiple fabrications or alterations, including: no mention of attacking the West first (798-PS p.1); no description of Greater Germany's founding as a "bluff" (798-PS p.3); no "small worms" slur against enemies or "Schweinehund" (798-PS p.5–6); no call for "destruction of Poland's living forces," "brutal procedure," "Might is right," or "total destruction of Poland" (1014-PS)—instead, emphasis was on breaking Polish ''military'' forces only; and no intent for a Polish protectorate. Boehm affirmed Hitler focused on eastern frontier necessity, believed England would stay neutral, and issued no calls for inhuman acts.<ref>Robert M.W. and Ruth Benedicta Kempner papers, accession no. 2001.62.1, RG-71.001, series 5, subseries 1, file 6, pp. 229–239, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Collections, Washington, DC (http://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn)</ref><ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech." CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref>
	: The 798-PS and 1014-PS versions, purportedly captured from OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht) files at Flensburg during the war, are often deemed more credible by mainstream historians due to their alleged origin in German archives. However, revisionists point out that their exact authorship remains unknown, they are not verbatim transcripts but summaries or notes, and their chain of custody through Allied hands raises the possibility of tampering or selective editing to support the prosecution's narrative at Nuremberg.<ref>Walendy, Udo. "Who Started World War II?" Historical Review Press, 2014. https://wikispooks.com/w/images/e/e6/Truth_for_Germany.pdf</ref>		: The 798-PS and 1014-PS versions, purportedly captured from OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht) files at Flensburg during the war, are often deemed more credible by mainstream historians due to their alleged origin in German archives. However, revisionists point out that their exact authorship remains unknown, they are not verbatim transcripts but summaries or notes, and their chain of custody through Allied hands raises the possibility of tampering or selective editing to support the prosecution's narrative at Nuremberg.<ref>Walendy, Udo. "Who Started World War II?" Historical Review Press, 2014. https://wikispooks.com/w/images/e/e6/Truth_for_Germany.pdf</ref>
	: Other versions, such as Halder's diary and notes by Greiner and Liebmann, are less inflammatory and written by known attendees of the meeting. Revisionists argue that these firsthand accounts are likely more reliable than the anonymous or post-war documents, though they still suffer from the limitations of memory and subjective interpretation.<ref>Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd. "The War That Had Many Fathers." Olzog Verlag, 2011.</ref>		: Other versions, such as Halder's diary and notes by Greiner and Liebmann, are less inflammatory and written by known attendees of the meeting. Revisionists argue that these firsthand accounts are likely more reliable than the anonymous or post-war documents, though they still suffer from the limitations of memory and subjective interpretation.<ref>Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd. "The War That Had Many Fathers." Olzog Verlag, 2011.</ref>
Line 15:		Line 16:
	=== Propaganda and Political Motivations ===		=== Propaganda and Political Motivations ===
	: The Lochner version was widely circulated as wartime propaganda against Germany, first published by Louis Lochner in 1942 in his book "What About Germany?" and later in 1944 by the magazine ''Deutsche Blätter''. The introduction in ''Deutsche Blätter'' explicitly frames the document as revealing the "true nature of Nazism and its horrific leader," indicating a clear intent to vilify Hitler and the German military leadership rather than to provide an objective historical record.<ref>Domeier, Norman, p. 562. "Weltherrschaft und Völkermord." Journal of History, 2022.</ref>		: The Lochner version was widely circulated as wartime propaganda against Germany, first published by Louis Lochner in 1942 in his book "What About Germany?" and later in 1944 by the magazine ''Deutsche Blätter''. The introduction in ''Deutsche Blätter'' explicitly frames the document as revealing the "true nature of Nazism and its horrific leader," indicating a clear intent to vilify Hitler and the German military leadership rather than to provide an objective historical record.<ref>Domeier, Norman, p. 562. "Weltherrschaft und Völkermord." Journal of History, 2022.</ref>
	: The Boehm version, presented during Raeder’s defense ~~at Nuremberg~~, ~~appears to have been crafted or promoted to reduce the apparent complicity of Wehrmacht leaders in aggressive war planning. While it still~~ portrays ~~Hitler~~ as ~~a determined leader~~, ~~it lacks the overtly~~ genocidal ~~rhetoric of the Lochner version and some of the~~ aggressive ~~language of 798~~-PS, ~~suggesting~~ a ~~deliberate attempt to shift blame exclusively~~ to Hitler.<ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech." CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref>		: The Boehm version (Raeder-27), presented during Raeder’s defense, portrays Hitler’s rhetoric as focused on eastern strategic necessity and English neutrality, without genocidal or broadly aggressive elements found in other versions. Boehm's supporting affidavit (RAEDER-129) swears no such inflammatory content appeared, attributing differences to prosecution documents' flaws, potentially aiding a defense narrative that isolates culpability to Hitler while challenging Allied evidence.<ref>Robert M.W. and Ruth Benedicta Kempner papers, accession no. 2001.62.1, RG-71.001, series 5, subseries 1, file 6, pp. 229–239, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Collections, Washington, DC (http://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn)</ref><ref>"Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech." CODOH Forum, 2025. https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=203</ref>
	: Revisionists argue that the Allied prosecution at Nuremberg had a vested interest in promoting versions of the speech (like 798-PS and 1014-PS) that aligned with their narrative of German "conspiracy against world peace." The selective acceptance and interpretation of these documents as evidence of premeditated aggression, despite their unclear authorship and inconsistencies, points to a broader pattern of historiography shaped by victor’s justice rather than objective truth-seeking.<ref>Walendy, Udo. "Who Started World War II?" Historical Review Press, 2014. https://wikispooks.com/w/images/e/e6/Truth_for_Germany.pdf</ref>		: Revisionists argue that the Allied prosecution at Nuremberg had a vested interest in promoting versions of the speech (like 798-PS and 1014-PS) that aligned with their narrative of German "conspiracy against world peace." The selective acceptance and interpretation of these documents as evidence of premeditated aggression, despite their unclear authorship and inconsistencies, points to a broader pattern of historiography shaped by victor’s justice rather than objective truth-seeking.<ref>Walendy, Udo. "Who Started World War II?" Historical Review Press, 2014. https://wikispooks.com/w/images/e/e6/Truth_for_Germany.pdf</ref>

Line 35:		Line 36:
	: Revisionist scholars assert that mainstream historiography has uncritically accepted certain versions of the Obersalzberg Speech—particularly 798-PS—without adequately addressing their evidentiary weaknesses. This selective reliance serves to perpetuate a narrative of premeditated aggression and genocidal intent that may not be fully supported by the primary sources.<ref>Walendy, Udo. "Who Started World War II?" Historical Review Press, 2014. https://wikispooks.com/w/images/e/e6/Truth_for_Germany.pdf</ref>		: Revisionist scholars assert that mainstream historiography has uncritically accepted certain versions of the Obersalzberg Speech—particularly 798-PS—without adequately addressing their evidentiary weaknesses. This selective reliance serves to perpetuate a narrative of premeditated aggression and genocidal intent that may not be fully supported by the primary sources.<ref>Walendy, Udo. "Who Started World War II?" Historical Review Press, 2014. https://wikispooks.com/w/images/e/e6/Truth_for_Germany.pdf</ref>
	: Udo Walendy and Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof argue that firsthand accounts (Boehm, Halder, Greiner) present a less incriminating picture of Hitler’s intentions on August 22, 1939, focusing on strategic necessity and frustration with Polish negotiations rather than a broader conspiracy for world domination or extermination. They suggest that the Nuremberg Tribunal’s use of 798-PS and 1014-PS reflects a deliberate effort to distort history by emphasizing incriminating passages while ignoring mitigating context in other records.<ref>Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd. "The War That Had Many Fathers." Olzog Verlag, 2011.</ref>		: Udo Walendy and Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof argue that firsthand accounts (Boehm, Halder, Greiner) present a less incriminating picture of Hitler’s intentions on August 22, 1939, focusing on strategic necessity and frustration with Polish negotiations rather than a broader conspiracy for world domination or extermination. They suggest that the Nuremberg Tribunal’s use of 798-PS and 1014-PS reflects a deliberate effort to distort history by emphasizing incriminating passages while ignoring mitigating context in other records.<ref>Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd. "The War That Had Many Fathers." Olzog Verlag, 2011.</ref>
			: Boehm's contemporaneous notes and affidavit (RAEDER-129)—sworn by an attendee under penalty of perjury—provide direct eyewitness contradiction to 798-PS/1014-PS, yet mainstream accounts often dismiss them as self-serving without addressing the specific refutations of incriminating phrases.<ref>Robert M.W. and Ruth Benedicta Kempner papers, accession no. 2001.62.1, RG-71.001, series 5, subseries 1, file 6, pp. 229–239, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Collections, Washington, DC (http://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn)</ref>
	: Revisionists also highlight the broader pattern of questionable documentation in Holocaust and war guilt narratives, pointing to the Obersalzberg Speech as a case study in how unverified or manipulated records have been used to construct historical "truths." The reliance on such documents in school textbooks and popular history, without noting their controversies, perpetuates a skewed understanding of the period.<ref>Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd. "The War That Had Many Fathers." Olzog Verlag, 2011.</ref>		: Revisionists also highlight the broader pattern of questionable documentation in Holocaust and war guilt narratives, pointing to the Obersalzberg Speech as a case study in how unverified or manipulated records have been used to construct historical "truths." The reliance on such documents in school textbooks and popular history, without noting their controversies, perpetuates a skewed understanding of the period.<ref>Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd. "The War That Had Many Fathers." Olzog Verlag, 2011.</ref>