Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech

The claimed transcripts of Adolf Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech, delivered on August 22, 1939, to his military commanders just prior to the invasion of Poland, are riddled with inconsistencies, questionable provenance, and evidence of political manipulation. Multiple versions of the speech exist, including the notorious Lochner (L-3), Boehm (Raeder-27), 798-PS, and 1014-PS documents, each with significant discrepancies in content and tone. Revisionist scholars argue that these documents are unreliable as historical evidence due to their dubious origins, lack of verifiable chain of custody, potential for wartime and post-war propaganda fabrication, and the clear motivations of those who produced or promoted them.

Problems with Versions

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Inflammatory Content and Historical Manipulation

• The Lochner version (L-3) stands out for its extreme content, including explicit references to genocide ("I have prepared my Death's Head units with the order to mercilessly and without pity send to death men, women, and children of Polish descent and language"), comparisons to Genghis Khan, and references to the Armenian Genocide as a precedent for unpunished mass murder ("Who speaks today still of the extermination of the Armenians?"). These passages, absent from other versions like 798-PS, suggest deliberate embellishment to paint Hitler as an unhinged, genocidal madman—an image useful for wartime propaganda and post-war justification of Allied actions.
• The Boehm version, while less extreme than L-3, still contains phrases promoting Hitler’s self-aggrandizement ("His own person as a valuable factor in the life of the German people"), the necessity of violent expansion ("Providence has made us leaders of this people… to provide the German people… with the necessary living space"), and arguably dishonest tactics ("The initiation of the conflict will occur through suitable propaganda. Credibility is irrelevant in this case; in victory lies the right."). Revisionists argue that its post-war emergence and use in Raeder’s defense indicate an attempt to balance acknowledgment of Hitler’s aggressive rhetoric with a softer portrayal that mitigates Wehrmacht responsibility.
• The 798-PS version, often cited by mainstream historians as the most reliable, contains language suggesting intent to invade Poland ("I had already made this decision in spring") and rejection of compromise ("A suggested compromise would have demanded that we change our convictions"). While less sensational than L-3, revisionists argue that its selection by the Nuremberg prosecution as "most reliable" was motivated by its utility in supporting charges of aggressive war, rather than by any proven superiority in authenticity over firsthand accounts like those of Halder or Boehm.

Lack of Verbatim Records and Chain of Custody Issues

None of the versions of the Obersalzberg Speech are verbatim transcripts; all are notes or summaries, often reconstructed from memory or hearsay. This inherent limitation means they are prone to errors, omissions, and subjective interpretation by the note-takers. For instance, 1014-PS is so abbreviated that it cannot be considered reflective of the speech verbatim, while 798-PS and the Boehm version differ significantly in tone and content despite allegedly documenting the same event.

The chain of custody for each document is either unclear or compromised. The Lochner version’s origins are tied to an implausible story of shorthand notes on a cuff passed through resistance circles to a journalist, while 798-PS and 1014-PS, though allegedly from German archives, passed through Allied hands with no clear limit for potential tampering. The Boehm version’s post-war emergence for a specific legal defense further undermines trust in its objectivity.

Revisionists emphasize that the burden of proof lies with historians claiming authenticity for these documents. Without original recordings, signed transcripts, or independent corroboration from multiple sources, their reliability as evidence of Hitler’s exact words or intentions remains speculative at best.

Historical Context and Source Reliability

The reliability of these sources is further compromised by their historical context. Wartime propaganda efforts by both the Allies and German resistance circles had clear incentives to portray Hitler in the most sinister light possible. Post-war, the Nuremberg Trials prioritized incriminating evidence over historical accuracy, often accepting documents of questionable origin to build a narrative of German guilt.

The 798-PS version, while considered more reliable by some and more consistent with the tone of Hitler’s other documented speeches, still lacks independent verification and remains a product of summary rather than direct quotation. Revisionists argue that historians have over-relied on these problematic documents, ignoring firsthand accounts by attendees like Halder and Greiner, which lack the sensational elements and align more closely with military strategy discussions rather than genocidal rantings.

Revisionist Critique of Mainstream Historiography

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.

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.

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.

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.

Broader Implications for Historical Research

The controversies surrounding the Obersalzberg Speech underscore the need for rigorous source criticism in historical research, particularly regarding documents associated with the Third Reich and the Second World War. Revisionists argue that similar skepticism should be applied to other key documents often cited in Holocaust and war guilt narratives which also suffer from issues of provenance and potential post-war manipulation.

The case of the Obersalzberg Speech illustrates the dangers of "historiography by trial," where legal proceedings like Nuremberg prioritize narrative over evidence, shaping subsequent historical interpretations. Revisionists call for a re-examination of primary sources, independent of Allied or resistance influence, to reconstruct a more accurate picture of Nazi policies and intentions.

Summary

The numerous versions of Hitler’s Obersalzberg Speech of August 22, 1939, their glaring discrepancies, questionable origins, and evident ties to wartime propaganda and post-war legal motivations render them deeply problematic as historical sources. Revisionists contend that none of these documents meet the burden of proof required for establishing authenticity, and their uncritical use in mainstream historiography perpetuates a potentially distorted narrative of Hitler’s intentions and German war guilt. Extreme caution must be exercised when considering these documents for historical interpretation, and greater weight should be given to firsthand accounts by known attendees, alongside a broader reevaluation of the evidentiary standards applied to wartime documentation.