For those who are interested: For this video I used the German transcript of this speech, which was printed in the book “Der verweigerte Friede - Deutschlands Parlamentär Rudolf Hess muss schweigen” by Alfred Seidl (Hess's lawyer). Universitas Verlag München, 2nd edition from 1985. Interesting book, by the way; I would recommend it. I'm pretty sure there is an English translation of the book. EDIT: Correction: 1:30 German: " Ich stelle fest, dass Sie sich zu Ehren unserer toten Kameraden erhoben haben." English: "I note that you have risen in honor of our dead comrades."
Statements regarding the Kremlin's intentions to dominate all of Europe could come from Biden and the current British Prime Minister justifying involvement in the Ukrainian war!
In a globalized world, an attack on the trade partners of someone is an attack on that someone. If we lived in an endless world with an unlimited number of exchangeable trade partners this wouldn't be the case. While the U.S. joining WW1 was rather coincidental and happened out of fear that the Entente won't honour their U.S. debts if they lose WW1, the U.S. joining WW2 wasn't coincidental: the U.S. was lacking strategic materials like tin and rubber and letting Japan and Germany have their way would have led to the prospect facing two hostile superpowers controling two of the three major concentrations of industry on this planet.
@@fars8229 Utter bullshit revisionism. It was Japan who lacked OIL and attacked the Dutch Indies because of it, and it was Japan who attacked the US, regardless of this situation. Plus, in regard of rubber there were other producing countries in South-America and synthetic solutions if money, that the US had plenty. It's easily checkable in two clicks. Japan on the other hand didn't have any other way to have oil exept by conquest and it was one of the very factors which killed them.
@@kornofulgur The U.S. , who produced ~60% of the global crude oil, cut its oil supply to Japan in Juin 1940, which was, of course, a hostile act towards Japan. But Japan was threatening Western interests in China and East Asia since 1931. War is inevitable, so it doesn't really matter who does the first move, or what we do consider as first move from hindsight. Japan thought, East Asia is its backyard, the West disagreed... In the end it boils down, who is in the right, who has legit claims and who doesn't. What is right, and what is wrong, only depends on what we agree on, and we can only come to such agreements if we share the same basic views and values. As long as we don't, peace will never be, at best "peace for our time"...
@@ethanvanidour Yeah there was so much freedom these 12 years. There was no manipulation via media, you could say whatever you want against the authorities, the elections weren't influenced, there was peace and you could be whoever you are. It didn't matter with what race you were born with. I wish we had that freedom today like in the good old times.
@@og5891 Das beantwortet nicht meine Frage. Aber offenbar versuchen Sie so zu antworten, dass es nicht justiziabel ist. Ich verabscheue Ihre Einstellung.
@@pommesschale5440 Ich weiß nicht um welche Dokumentation es hier geht. Ich habe viel über diesen Teil der Geschichte gelesen, Filme gesehen, in der Schule darüber gelernt. Ich erkenne die meisten Referenzen die in der Rede auftauchen wieder und kann sie Ereignissen zuordnen. Es passt zusammen. Also eigentlich nichts neues in dieser Rede. Was für mich neu und schockierend ist, ist wie wenig anders sich das alles anhört, wenn man es mit dem vergleicht was wir heute in unserer "kleinen Geschichte" sehen. Würde ich nicht wissen wer da spricht, welche Art von Geschichte da gemacht wird, dann würde es mir schwerfallen das ganze als bemerkenswert zu erkennen. Oder, schlimmer noch, es hört sich "gut" an. Durchdacht. Da ist natürlich ein starkes Element von Antisemitismus. Aber wenn man das Inhaltlich durch eine andere Zielgruppe ersetzt, "Terroristen" wäre ein Beispiel, dann fällt es wieder gar nicht auf. Das hört sich gar nicht an wie die Rede eines Wahnsinnigen. Das genau ist aber eine der Erwartungen die ich immer im Hinterkopf hatte, wenn Ich Hitler gelernt habe. Es würde sich ganz anders anhören, wären die USA heute ein Land, dass sich an internationales Recht genau so hält, wie es andere dafür kritisiert die es brechen. Es wäre so viel leichter den Vorwurf von Manipulation als rassistische Propaganda zu erkennen, gäbe es keine AIPAC. Man nimmt es den USA aber gar nicht übel, hätten sie völkerrechtswidrig deutsche Uboote versenkt, das waren ja Nazis. Und davon abgesehen hat sich an der Praxis, dass die USA sich nicht um internationales Recht ja schert ja nie etwas geändert und deswegen konnten sie trotzdem in Nürnberg Richter sein, und Russland für seine Verbrechen tadeln, kurz nach dem sie in großem Stil das gleiche getan haben. Wäre Hitler einfach nur ein Staatsmann gewesen, ein Feldherr, und hätte es keinen Holocaust gegeben, wir würden Geschichte wohl ganz anders bewerten, egal ob Hitler einen Krieg letztlich gewonnen oder verloren hätte. Er hätte dann immer noch Völkerrecht gebrochen und es wären trotzdem Millionen gestorben. Aber ein Völkerrechtsbruch ist ja nun wirklich kein Problem um das man sich heute Gedanken machen müsste. Selbst ein kleiner Genozid ist kein Verbrechen, wenn er im Rahmen eines Verteidigungskriegs gegen den richtigen Gegner - Terroristen - geführt wird. Das wirklich schlimme ist, dass ich mich wahrscheinlich wie ein Neo-Nazi anhöre, wenn ich das sage. Aber ich meine das nicht so. Ich verteidige Hitler's Rede hier nicht. Ich verharmlose den Holocaust nicht. Im Gegenteil. Es ist nur so, dass es mir immer schwerer fällt rationale Argumente vorzubringen, wenn die dann einfach und valide umgekehrt werden können und auf mich zurückfallen. Ich bin nämlich so geprägt, dass ich rationalen Argumenten kaum widersprechen kann, wenn ich sie nicht widerlegen kann. Wenn ich dann aber nicht mehr mit rationalen Argumenten arbeiten kann, dann bleibt mir wenig übrig als meinen Diskussionspartner zum Feind zu erklären und umzuhauen, weil Reden ja keinen Sinn mehr hat und einer muss ja gewinnen, wenn man auf der Ebene Konflikte austrägt. Das macht diese Aufzeichnung viel klarer als es irgendeine Dokumentation sein könnte. Die Aufnahme macht es möglich sich vorzustellen man höre das genau wie eine zeitgenössische Rede, vielleicht eine von Trump, Putin oder Biden. In so einer Rede kann man die Faktenlage ja auch nicht besser prüfen als damals. Ich habe zum Spaß versucht herauszufinden was es heute an Informationen zu diesem polnischen Botschafter und seiner Kommunikation mit und über Roosevelt zu lesen gibt, und alles was ich gefunden habe ist ein Eintrag der beschreit das es den Mann gab und das er Botschafter war. Vielleicht hat Hitler das einfach erfunden, was er da beschreibt. Damals gab es kein Wikipedia, heute gibt es das aber da steht leider nichts relevantes. Würde in einer Dokumentation zu dieser Rede etwas zu dem Botschafter stehen. Würde man sich in einer solchen Dokumentation mit den in dieser Rede präsentierten Argumenten auseinandersetzen und die ernsthaft bewerten? In den vielen Dokumentation die ich gelesen habe kam keine Bewertung der USA vor, die beschreibt inwieweit sie eher Teil einer möglichen Lösung war, die den Krieg hätte verhindern können, oder ob sie vielleicht stattdessen vielleicht sogar eine Teilverantwortlichkeit hatte. Soetwas ähnliches sehe ich heute im Ukraine-Krieg. Vielleicht gibt es mehr als eine Kriegspartei die aus WW2 hätte lernen müssen. Das würde Hitlers Schuld und die Schuld der Deutschen nicht schmälern. Es würde nur dieser Rede den Überraschungs-Effekt nehmen. Und es würde es auch denen schwerer machen so eine Rede als Beispiel zu verwenden warum man in all den Dokumentationen nichts gelesen hat, dass auf diese Überraschungen vorbereitet hätte. Dokumentation muss nicht unehrlich sein um weniger Informationen zu transportieren als ein Quelldokument liefert. Dokumentation kann eine Anreicherung sein, oder ein Filter in dem Aspekte ausgelassen werden die dem Autor nicht wichtig sind. Es kann auch eine Lüge sein in dem Falsches behauptet wird, richtiges geleugnet und wichtiges ausgelassen. Das kommt dann ganz auf die Dokumentation an. Der Author des ursprünglichen Kommentars hat mit dem Ehrlichkeits-Begriff nach meinem Geschmack zu viel Wertung eingebaut. Aber in der Sache kann ich nur zustimmen. Mir sind Quellen viel wertvoller als Reproduktionen oder Interpretationen.
Honestly, the funniest thing about the comments here is that, according to the statistics, only a fraction actually watched the speech in the video in its entirety. But everyone here writes as if they know exactly what's going on and have studied the subject matter in depth. Most of them see the title, click on the video and write a comment just to express their opinion and view on the topic, but without even having a clue what they are talking about. Especially the insults and accusations against the leadership of the German Reich government at the time appear very often, but without ever having studied the reasons and causes of those decisions, or at least having listened to them. But it is probably true: “No one has knowledge, but everyone has an opinion.”
i believe because it is in a foreign language people are less interested in reading for a considerable length of time and are less engaged. thats why AI voice reconstructions of hitler are so popular now and bring a whole new level of understanding to the individual that the vast majority of us didnt have access to in understanding german before
My issue here is not that many do not have the leisure to listen to the whole speech, or rather to read it. That is not the problem. My point is that people comment on something they are not even willing to understand. I know the speech is long and in a different language for many, but my point is that people give their opinion on a subject that they obviously don't understand and don't seem to want to understand. If people don't want to “read through” the whole speech, that's not a bad thing at all, but then at least they shouldn't blindly express their own opinion, especially if they have no idea whatsoever about the subject matter. Commenting without understanding and without the will to understand is the funny thing here, and mostly very ironic.
@@GermanSpeeches The writing is partly unclear (lack of contrast with the background). PS: Poland and Cheslovakia actually provoked the Nazi invasion, the "pan-Slavic movement" after WWI became a nightmare for the German-speaking minorities, some of whom had been living there for centuries. Added to this was the religious antagonism between Protestant Germans and Catholic Poles; there were even calls for genocide against Germans in Polish churches! Even Russia was attacked by Poland, and Russian phobia is still present today. However, Poland had a very difficult history; it was divided three times, i.e. de facto eliminated. The main reason for Hitler's invasion of Russia may have had quite personal reasons - in WW1 the Austrian Habsburg monarchy was defeated by the Russians in the east of his empire (today Western Ukraine!) and as a result lost the war and almost all of its huge territories outside the small Austrian heartland. Late revenge, so to speak, of the Austrian Hitler, who directed the war more from his Alpine fortress Obersalzberg than from Berlin! After the war, Linz in Austria was supposed to become the new capital of the Reich, the home of Hitler's youth - that says a lot! ;-)
@@carstenmanz302 To say Czechoslovakia provoked a full-scale invasion and a complete takeover of the entire country is a profound misrepresentation of historical facts at best, and an alarming alignment with pro-Nazi rhetoric at worst... Your inability to properly spell the country's name has me hoping for the former.
Unfortunately, it is absolutely necessary to publish Nazi content only with context: Hitler knew the war was lost by November 1941, before Pearl Harbor, before the Soviet winter counter-offensive. Or: Hitler pretends in this very speech that the invasion of the USSR was a reaction to Soviet meddling in the Balkans in spring 1941, however, Hitler had already ordered the attack on the USSR on Dec 18th 1940 (Weisung Nr. 21). More important: Words of politicians don't matter, only if they are coherent with their actions and omissions. E.g.: Treaties, pacts and other paperstuff do not create or set up the balance of power, they are mere reflections of it. The only inherent power, pacts and treaties do have, is, that they are a sort of tripwire or litmus test of loyalty, because keeping promises or reneging them is a sign of strength resp. weakness.
By the time Hitler declared war in USA, German armies had been stopped in the tracks before Moscow and the Red Army was beginning to force them back. It was the beginning of the end for Germany. This meant that Hitler should’ve focused all his attention on the eastern front and not have declared war on USA. Germany could not possibly defeat the combined forces of the Soviet Union, United States and British Empire. The very idea.was completely unrealistic.
Even if he didn't declare war on USA, german would be lose We talking about soviet, who owns 25% of land in this world at those times. While german already in crisis with oil If he focused so much to eastern front, the soviet would multiply their production and their army by hundred to thousandfold Its just predestined for german to lose the moment he attacking soviet
The USA would have joined the war anyways. They were already attacking German submarines and naval assets in the Atlantic before Germany declared war and they militarily occupied Greenland and Iceland. They would have found any excuse, similar to WWI, to join the war against Germany. Also, the “declaration of war” wasn’t really a declaration of war. It was an affirmation that Germany and the United States found themselves in a state of war. You can watch Von Ribbentrop’s speech where he clearly states this.
@@patrickcastell2061 Once Japan attacked the USA at Pearl Harbor and Philippines, it was obvious that Japan had no intention at all of attacking the Soviet Union. Yes, Hitler had hoped that Japan would help him fight SU, but he surely realized that was not going to happen after Pearl Harbor. And Hitler had no treaty obligation to Japan against USA because Japan was the aggressor.
@@Auqi The USA provides vital assistance to both Britain and Soviet Union. Ships to Britain and trucks and other military equipment to SU. And of course massive loans to both. If the USA had remained neutral and not provided such assistance and if Germany had not fought a war on two fronts but concentrated all its military strength against the SU, and if Germany had attacked SU in the spring instead of midsummer, and if Hitler had built more submarines instead of battleships, and if Japan had attacked SU instead of USA this bringing USA fully into the war against Germany, then it might have turned out differently. But thats a lot of big “ifs”. One thing is certain: Hitler underestimated the fighting strength of the SU. He couldn’t believe how many tanks they had!
@@spazemfathemcazemmeleggymi272Roosevelt? You mean the one who clowned the Nazis? Wonder what Hitler did in his bunker. You know what they say, follow your leader 😁
UA-cam:die Zuversicht mit "Die größte Verschwörung der Geschichte" 1. //// UA-cam:"DIE VERBORGENE GESCHICHTE" TEIL1 👋 Vielleicht interessiert es sie ja 👋
German but living in the US. Actually most Americans didn't want any war back then, and the Fuhrer declared war on the US, so it's not the fault of the US in this context.
@@paulpipek9108 still seeing many Americans and businesses in the US having some kind of German sounding names, so there must have been many German immigrants, especially in the previous 100-200 years. In fact lucky to be in the US and not in Nazi Germany back then.
Two fatal decisions by Hitler in 1941: first, invade the USSR, then declare war on the USA. By 1943 he had already lost both wars. 1945 was just the coup de grace.
Interesting enough, had the Germans and Japanese really trusted each other. They would have coordinated the attack on Russia and attack from both sides. But there was a mistrust that existed, once Japan had attacked the U.S. Stalin decided to believe his spy in Tokyo that Japan had no plans on attacking Russia. Stalin was able to then move his Siberian reserves about 40 divisions in number to the Moscow front. That force pushed the Germans out as they advanced on the Moscow front.
Japan had no interest in the tundra and forests of siberia they desperately needed the oil and rubber of south east Asia and they knew this would need to be protected at all cost by a huge perimeter of island fortresses in the Pacific from the USA.
@@koperekhabsburdzki43Germany was considering an Alliance with China before, as they had a good relationship but decided for Japan for strategic reasons
It would be great if someone more talented than myself would record this in English like the other AI assisted speeches. Thanks in advance if it comes to pass!
His Army was facing a strong and unexpected resistance from the "Untermenschen" and he declares war to the 1st military power of his time...That guy was completely deliusionnal !
Us English should have sided with the Germans in ww2. Hitler tried so many times to make peace with Great Britain. It's depressing that us English murdered our German brothers, knowing they were right. Look at the state of the world now. Here in England, our towns and cities are becoming unrecognisable, and our culture is disappearing
Da hast du recht, der Frieden wurde mehrmals angeboten und im Frankreich Feldzug britische Truppen verschont obwohl man hätte 300k Truppen vernichten können..... Glaubst du das war Zufall..... Ich denke nicht, wir wissen heute alle wie effizient die Wehrmacht war
Germany raped and pillaged poor Norway and treated neighboring Denmark like shit and you talk about siding with Germany? And both Norway and Denmark are suposedly Germanic? Please.
und was musste Sudetendeutschland alles ertragen? Denkst du es wird ewig weggeschaut? Sowas kommt von sowas...... Es wurde alles getan dafür das es kein Frieden gab nicht nur von Deutschland aus...... Russland zum Beispiel hat Polen auch angegriffen und Finnland aber dazu sagt ihr alle nix.....
The war against Germany by the USA started in July 1941 5 month before this event when President Roosevelt ordered the American Armed Forces to sink all German ships they encountered. Many German and Americans died in these encountered and at least one American destroyer ( the Ruben James ) was sunk in October 1941 with a loss of 120 American sailors loosing their lives. So the action by Roosevelt was in fact a declaration of war against Germany. So who were the aggressors?
@@fahrradmittelfranken8207 Do you still not know after over 80 years that Poland murdered 62,000 Germans from 1919 to Sept.1 1939 in the corridor? I suggest that you read the book by the son of the world famous violinist "Menuhin" ( a Jew) Gerard Menuhin " Wahrheit Sagen Teufel Jagen". In English "Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil". Germany had every right to protect its ethnic Germans just like Putin had the right to protect its ethnic Russians in the Ukraine.
@@fahrradmittelfranken8207 So einfach ist es nicht! Da gab es überall Vorgeschichten und Provokationen seitens Polen und England. Der Weltkrieg begann erst indem England und Frankreich sich in den Konflikt mit Polen einmischten. Sonst wäre die Geschichte nach wenigen Wochen erledigt gewesen aber England wollte einen Großen Krieg , genau wie die Selben heute wieder Krieg wollten. Alte Reden verraten sehr viel was uns die heutige Sieger Propaganda verschweigt
@@fahrradmittelfranken8207 No war......also this tragic world war never falls from the sky.....there is in every case a historic-development behind it. The Germans (and the russians today) was a threat for the anglistic dominance in the world. The "treaty of Versailles" was the cornerstone to keep the german nation down. Germany lost the war and is today not more as the 51-state of the USA. Now russia.....with it's enormous natural resources is the new target for the international "free" financial system.
We all remember December 7, 1941 and December 8, 1941, but this is hardly talked about. Not many nations delcare war on us. It was Germany and Italy that delcared war, due to the The Tripartite Pact aka The Berlin Pact.
The man really believed what he was saying back then. Nevertheless, he must have realized then that the cards would be reshuffled when the USA entered the war.
Leider ist die englische Übersetzung nur teilweise korrekt. Da ich nicht die gesamte Transkription korrigieren will, hier ein Beispiel: 1:30 „I note that you all stood up to honor our dead comrades.“ - NOT „that you have come up here“. Nicht mal die deutsche Übersetzung ist hier korrekt, da es das Wort „heroben“ im deutschen nicht gibt. Es muss natürlich „erhoben / stood up“ heißen. So ziehen sich leider unzählige Fehler durch die gesamte Übersetzung. 😢
Ich würde an Ihrer Stelle versuchen, die Reden auch unter deutschem Titel mit deutscher Beschreibung einzustellen. Mit englischem Titel werden sie insbesondere Englisch Sprechenden vorgeschlagen, wie man an den Kommentaren sieht. Alles Gute!
Dear German Speeches, Shukran - This is a fascinating film, though the English translation is a bit ropey. Balanced commentators need to disentangle four broad questions: (1) did the over-promoted painter from Vienna sign the suicide note of Nazi Germany and much of civilised Europe by instigating war simultaneously against Russia and the US? Undoubtedly. (2) could the Wehrmacht have succeeded in a lightning victory over Stalin's forces in the west, particularly if there had been no idiotic exterminatory treatment of our Slavic sisters and brothers, but rather a wise recruitment of the Ukrainians and others into an anti-Bolshevik front? Probably, but it is still unlikely that Germany could have held those territories against a hugely arming Soviet counterattack. (3) was the drunken blow-hard Mr Churchill a traitor to British Imperial interests in May-June 1940, and a puppet of Zionist financiers in Wall Street, London and Washington? Undoubtedly, just as the Yankee stooge intendedly and irresponsibly dragged the British Empire into a European squabble in Aug 1914. (4) Should England and its imperial interests have concluded a peace treaty with Nazi Germany in June 1940, after the fall of France. Yes indeed. As Disraeli and everyone since the Conference of Vienna understood, we need to stand aside from the squabbles of Paris and Berlin, unless our general imperial and trading and financial interests are directly imperilled. But the problem with that theory, as the often questionable Oswald Moseley spotted in 1938, is that Zionist money-power in the City of London was out to force England into a spurious conflict. Not least because the Zionists wanted to jump ship, from a bankrupted British and French world-imperial system, to the shiny new version run from Washington, and even more securely under Zionist control. ua-cam.com/video/oWqIExUfp4Q/v-deo.htmlsi=55Yu_M580E_C63QC The underlying problem with Nazi Germany was the lawless irrationality and racist lunacy of the Nazi administration. What, I politely submit, the English and the French should have done, is to study Bismarck and Machiavelli a little more, and work with German constitutional and military interests between, say, 1936 and Sept 1939. Who rightly despised the occasionally mercurial, in some ways gifted, but unquestionably deranged Corporal Hitler. To assassinate the Fuhrer and otherwise undermine the Fascist regime, and instigate a nationalist but explicitly anti-Nazi coup. Dr Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich and the rest of the trash conclusively shot. Albert Speer and stylish Field Marshall Goering still doing good stuff, and the forces of the Wehrmacht under the intelligent control of Rommel, von Rundstedt and other professional soldiers with a Prussian grasp on honour and civility. Thereby ensuring the flavour of continuity so appealing to the petit bourgeois "gemutlich und Biedermeier" mentality of so many Germans. For instance, the General Ludwig Beck attempt in May-Aug 1938 to oust the Nazis is a clearly missed opportunity. ua-cam.com/video/C24jMB4Aq58/v-deo.htmlsi=M4DPQdW3QpqBoBiM Post Nazi talks by Berlin with Paris and Warsaw and Prague and Budapest and Vienna (Austria was still a genuine state), etc, etc could have proceeded fruitfully, perhaps on the foundations of a proto-EUmpire. Monet and Schuman and Speer would have understood each other very well. Best of all, no WW2. But that could never really have worked, once Germany was embroiled in general war, and had retreated into the masculine-gorilla paranoia of destroy or be destroyed. Which is exactly what Mr Churchill, the Zionists, and Wall Street, FDR, and 1000 US generals and Admirals, and perhaps even Uncle Joe Stalin wanted. English Edwardian self-righteousness, and ever prevalent Parisian blasé decadence missed the boat .... and here we are 80 years later, all kissing the arse of the Yankee Petro dollar Empire of Chaos and Assassination. With Zionist money-power pulling the strings and getting fatter by the hour through the US military-industrial complex; and the deranged planet-destroying perverted logic of huge and putrid, hyper-masculine, military-imperialist weaponry; capitalist profit extraction; perverse late patriarchal consumer-capitalism; oceans of crap products, manufactured desires and neuroses and techno-junk; and AI enabled anti-human trash that might well exterminate all organic life on the planet. However, Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi now all have their sights on toppling at least some of this system. Will the sick & twisted world-f*cking bedfellows of the Yankees and the Zionists quietly throw in the towel, or instigate WWIII ? Is Blood Soaked Benjamin Netanyahu circumcised or not? Ask our Libyan, Iraqi, Syrian, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Cubans, Koreans, Palestinian, Japanese, and our Lebanese sisterhood what is most likely? Love andrea
Not really. The sound quality of the recordings of the time are a bigger problem. But the accent itself is clear with words pronounced more sharply than usual.
A really stupid thing to do. It made Roosevelt’s job much easier. Yes, the USA was already committed to helping Britain defeat Germany but Pearl Harbor meant that Roosevelt had to deal with Japan, not Germany. By declaring war in the USA, Hitler gave Roosevelt what he needed to enter the war against Germany openly and with full force and to attack German armies in North Africa. Hitler made a terrible mistake by attacking the Soviet Union in June, 1941, and followed it up with another serious blunder by declaring war against USA in December. He should’ve simply ignored the British declaration of war in September, 1939, and just consolidated his forces and focused on defeating the Soviet Union. He didn’t need to defeat France first, because there was no way that the British and the French would have lifted a finger to help Stalin if Hitler had simply marched against Russia directly and left Britain and France alone. The British and French hated and feared Communism much more than fascism, and the same is true for USA.
You don't understand the kind of person Hitler was. He was a monster, but not in the way such villains are displayed in Hollywood movies. American presidents don't mind it much if children are caged up and deported. That's not unique for Trump. They don't mind it if children die as a result of systematic bombardments. But killing innocents is one component that makes up a monster. Another is indifference. Indifference to something that is extremely valuable to others. Children usually are. If we see a child fall down, we help. We don't necessarily do that for a random stranger. We see the shortcomings of American presidents in contexts, even if they are at least partially responsible for atrocities, such as the corpses of children. We contrast these flaws with how well the economy did during their term, or we consider that immigration is a very complex and ambivalent topic, and so of course is self-defense. We don't see Hitler in context. And just like American presidents, Hitler was not just a monster. A great monster, but also a man with cultural and individual peculiarities. One of them was that he enjoyed to display himself as a self-made man and not a rich heir. Just like Trump, even though he is not quite self-made. And yet another part of him was that it was obviously important for him to explain himself and to fight openly. He also loved and protected dogs and he build the Autobahns. It would be a stretch to use terms like chivalry, but he would certainly have agreed. Did he make it easier for Roosevelt? I don't think this speech made a big difference. The USA has long been a party to the war, just like it is in Ukraine today. The one property nobody would ever assign to the USA is honesty or chivalry. Hitler enjoyed making this a point in this speech. And no, I did not describe Hitler as an honest knight, even though I came terrifyingly close. But I didn't and very deliberately so. As for Germany not having to defeat France: That success of this campaign was not a matter of genetics, material superiority or military genius. Had Hitler not done that when he did, he would not have been able to do it later on. Had he done it differently, there was a slight chance he could have pushed the UK out of the war early. That's all speculation, but not an unreasonable one. At the early stages of the war, France, the UK and others did not fight Germany for any moral or idealistic reasons. There was not yet a holocaust and human rights were not something anybody cared at all, not even in terms of public relations. This was all politics from the very start. Maybe they though Germany was not in a position to even put up a serious fight at all. They have been demilitarized and humiliated just a few years earlier. Don't forget that. France should have been unbeatable for Germany at that time and they probably could have become just that, had it not been defeated swiftly. Russia was probably also not seen as a great enough thread to have mattered for what the UK was willing to do at this point. It was an abstract thread, much more on an ideological level than in terms of geopolitics or military. Hitler suspected Russian would fight riding on donkeys. And I would be surprised if Churchill would have thought higher of Russians then. Nobody at that time knew or suspected that there would be a cold war with Russia coming up in which Germany was to be an important ally. There were not even nukes and the game of mutually ensured destruction. War was diplomacy. Increasingly ugly because of technology, but it was still like playing chess.
The only reason why operation Barbarossa went so well on the earlier stages is that Stalin was sure, that Hitler is focused on the west and won't attack him. This is why the attack were so unexpected and devastating for the Red army. However, if Hitler ignored the west and focused solely on the Soviet Union, there would be no guarantee, that he is be able to win. Soviets would definetely be prepared for the attack.
Wrong. France and Britain would not have felt at ease neighbouring a Germany who controles the industries and resources of all Central and Eastern Europe. (Balance of Power) Ideological reasonings are just pretexts, mere varnish and smoke screen. A Germany from the Rhine to the Ural would have gobbled up the rest of Europe sooner or later.
Of course, because the U.S. DARED to declare war on Japan.. Seriously how dare them? The Americans literally went to ki.. and di.. for Lilo & Stitch !!!
If I would have listened to this speech 10 or 20 years ago, I would have heard one red flag after the other. That's because I was taught history in school at a time after world war 2 and I was brought up in a democracy, that was sensible to the causes and consequences of this war. When I listen to this speech today, all these things that would have raised red flags are elements of speeches and arguments I hear every day. I hear them from the USA, I hear them from Russia, I hear them from Israel. What does that mean? If this was not Hitler speaking, if there was no swastika on display, if it was not that rough militaristic type of German but the smoother language it is today, he would not even sound radical or extreme. He draws a picture, he tells a story, he explains his situation, and it sounds all understandable. Of course, just by listening to a speech you cannot know the veracity of claims he makes and on this truth or falsehood depends the validity of the speech and the man. It could all be lies. But it could just as well be the truth, you can't tell by just listening. No more than you can tell today. You had to know better. If I apply the uncertainty of truth today to this speech, our inability to find facts and to agree on what is real and what is fiction, or in other words, if I allow for alternative facts, then the only means I have to condemn the speech is hindsight. If I still had my red flags, if these flags would be raised when contemporary politicians speak, then it would be easy. We would condemn war unless war is an existential necessity. It would be a crime to start a war unless it would be legitimized by the UN security council or international law. It would not be cheap and easy to break this law. Innocent lives would be protected. To take them could get you prosecuted and even hanged. This is what hindsight taught us in Nuremberg. We did away with these red flags and today, we casually look away when a genocide happens right in front of our eyes. International law is a convenience. A tool to mark adversaries. It's just propaganda. There is no rule of international law, there is not even rhyme or reason to it. This is why this speech of the greatest monsters of all times sounds so eloquent, so reasonable. It's not the rambling of a madman. It's more civilized than the speeches we hear today. We have to doubt every word we hear from our leaders. What actually keeps us from doubting what Hitler was accused of? Maybe his lies were just alternative facts. If we can accept the loss of innocent lives so easily as collateral damage, regrettable necessities or a consequence of the atrocities of our enemies, how can we then demand more from this man, considering that he has much less hindsight than we do? It would be so easy to doubt history and believe this man, despite of everything we know. We only had to doubt what was common sense. We already doubt this common sense every day when we watch the news. Believing Hitler would not be a different quality of madness, it would just be breaking with a convention. Just barely more than a lack of decorum. I wish I could still warn about this dangerous effect, but it's already to late. This is very disturbing.
Here is proof, long before the end of World War 2, that Hitler was not always the hypnotic, inspiring speaker he is made out to be. Here one hears mainly polite applause, particularly as he goes over his supposed achievements as a politician and war leader, with many applause lines landing in silence.
sure Hitler was not a mythical leader, but he was still a completely deranged maniac, uneducated, not well spoken, from a working class family and with severe trauma from the war. by 1941 he had Parkinson's which he tried to hide on stages.
@ there was no evidence that HITLER did not believe in victory in December 1941. Some of his generals BELIEVED that it was only a matter of time before Germany lost the war. However, a rational person could have no way of knowing what the outcome would be that early in the war.
@@abrakadabramo True, by November 1941 Hitler was convinced that the war was lost. "Operation Barbarossa" had already failed in the midth of July 1941 (Juli-Krisis). Goebbels' diary reflects quite well the sentiments and pre-sentiments of himself and other leading nazis. By declaring war on the U.S. he tried to look strong and hoped, maybe, maybe Japan in the Pacific and a stiff U-Boat campaign in the Atlantic (Operation Paukenschlag) may fend off the U.S. A desperate leap of faith.
He COULD defeat Britain. A naval invasion of Britain was seriously considered, but he decided against it. Attacking the USSR was not a matter of choice, it was either you strike first and get the element of surprise, or you get attacked first and lose any advantages.
he interrupted an agenda of the elites to financially exploit Germany, so he had to go and so did Germany's economic power. After that, things continued exactly as before until today. And not just in Germany
Note that the recent interview that Tucker Carlson had with Putin which had a great amount of the same kind of talk. With Tucker, Putin kept referring to a bunch of past history to justify his aggression. No less using the same reasoning to take territories just because the majority of the people there spoke their own language. Putin has now found 'his Italy" ally in North Korea. And in this 1941 speech the numbers of captured men and material is very much exaggerated. Not to mention the inference of a greater number of men in arms from other countries taking part in fighting on the German side. Evidence of that lies in him leaving out any numerical numbers on that while having such exact numbers on everything else going on. Selling people on waging war is always the same 'schtick." Establishing a threat that isn't there. Making you out to be some kind of Saviour. And then lying to you about how badly the campaign is going until the enemy is at your front door. All the while telling you how honorable it is to die today as the next conflict is on the horizon. Germany was all about saving the continent of Europe. When is America going to stop saving the world?
That eagle sign is very powerful in its claws the whole world I should put it in my lab so my engineers and scientists living existential lives know my ambitions very clearly
Nope. Hitler realized that the war was lost by November 1941, and the Axis never stood a chance to win WW2. The U.S.A. comprised almost 50% of the world's industrial output and GDP back then. A desperate leap of faith of a strongman who wanted to look strong at all costs.
Thanks for posting. Fascinating how personal he makes it, dwelling at length on Roosevelt’s privilege as compared to his much poorer upbringing. Psychologically obsessed w/FDR’s Wealth & class status. I’d say President Roosevelt got der Fuhrer’s skin.
Major factors that saved England during World War II: Hitler's decision to invade Russia instead of England, the English Channel, which prevented a land invasion by the German Wehrmacht, and the industrial capacity of the United States, which produced and contributed thousands of tanks, airplanes, ships, rifles, ammunition, men, etc.
@@BaptisteMoreau-yx7vs uhh absolutely not. I can promise you that Hitler would not have allowed Britain to be overrun by immigrants eating away at the very fabric of the United Kingdom. Besides, there was never going to be German rule. There were no plans for anything West of Germany before the UK and France declared war on Germany.
USA joined the server with 400% mic volume screaming RAID SHADOW LEGENDS with 500 ping forcing everyone to leave with broken eardrums. USA left alone on the server feeling itself as the winner while everyone hates it.
If the US didn't intervene, the war had prolonged for sure. But the Soviets would still have defeated the Nazi Regime and Japan sooner or later. In fact the US brought all to an end much sooner, also in the Pacific, to be fair. ( Other allies too, but I'm mainly talking about the part of the US here )
In my opinion no. The USA at that time had way more in common with Germany than the soviets, but that's just my opinion. That war should've never happened in the first place. Also look at the world today and tell me it's better.
Es war falsch gegenüber Japan loyal zu sein den Japan hat Deutschland verkauft indem Japan ein Vertrag mit der UdSSR schloß und somit hatte deutschland zwei Fronten anstatt die UdSSR....... Shit happens
The US was already at war with the Reich due to Roosevelt's extremely hostile intervention and policies against Germany. The declaration merely made it official. Maybe it was a mistake. Maybe it was really the only logical thing left to do, but it certainly wasn't "dumb." Did you even pay attention to what what he said in that speech?
Why would a SPEECH be taken seriously when OBVIOUSLY he’s trying to rally the German populace for more war? It’s propaganda. Hitler was under the false pretense that he could finally strangle the UK with U-Boats and that the Japanese could deal with the Americans at sea
@charliejdk I won't. To not make that declaration possibly could have contained this global conflict for a little longer, but considering Pearl Harbour, this doesn't seem very likely. If Hitler would instead have waited for the US to declare war on Germany, it might have looked like he was losing control/initiative, which also would have cost him support in his own ranks.
At this point it was only assumed how big the communist thread could be. In the first three month of Barbarossa the Wehrmacht shot 35000 russian tanks. Clearly the russians had well prepared for offensie operations. Do you know any country in the world today that has 35000 tanks? Saving western europe from the bolschewist thread is probably the most underated aspect of the second WW.
... And in the end of the glorious action half of Europe fell under Soviet dominance. Bravo! As we see today in the Russo-Ukrainian War, the main reason why Russia stockpiles war matériel is Russia's incapicity to increase industrial capacity on its own. All necessary machine tools, electronics etc are of European or U.S. origin since the beginning of Russia's industrialization in the 19th century.
Ja, er hatte rhetorische Qualitäten und wegen seiner stechenden blauen Augen einen hypnotischen Blick. Jedoch, Hitler sprach stets vor handverlesenem Publikum, denn seine ersten Rednererfahrungen 1919 machten ihm deutlich, dass er absolut unfähig war, vor einem Publikum zu bestehen, das ihm kritisch oder gar feindlich gegenübersteht. Z.B. Paul Joseph Goebbels hingegen war eindeutig der bessere Redner, er scheute nicht den direkten Wettbewerb mit anderen Rednern oder die Debatte. Gleichwohl waren und sind alle Nazis schlechte Redner, weil ihnen die guten Argumente fehlen, und sie daher zu Gewalt und Unterdrückung neigen.
" Peace through strength" or " Aggression through strength". Both, it would seem, lead to the same thing. A war. Any aggression outside your own county's border's either in international areas or across a recognized border are wrong, always. And no matter how you want to frame your reasoning or judgments to conduct a conflict or wage war outside your own borders is wrong. We have always lived in a world where we have two kinds of war conducted. One of economics and one of armed conflict. And by building a nation of arms you in essence neglect the very economics that would benefit your nation at large. Thus, leading your people eventually to an armed conflict. The divergence of GNP to a buildup of military might at the neglect of its people's wealth within the country can only set a course to poverty among its people and a call to arms. Act as you will. But don't allow yourselves to be misled. In that, only your death, and countless others awaits.
Yes indeed - evil sophistry from both. Such a previously cultured nation as Germany fell into the arms of a hideous ideologue. Russians are a different breed, but similar today.
well it would be the other way around though they both have the same hates, anything woke, anything big , and basically anything that's cooler then themselves .... Small man ... I'm guessing Napoleon sounded a lot like them
@donlopez: und erstmal die Menschen in den überfallenen Ländern West- und Osteuropas... Und nicht zu vergessen natürlich die Juden, Sinti und Roma,Sozialisten, Kommunisten, Regimegegner und sonstigen Andersdenkenden im Deutschen Reich. Und die kranken Menschen in den Heilanstalten... unfassbar
The sound was the best that Germany had seeing who it is for ,the speak was s-t ,boring and rambling and only showed just how stupid he was .Great at war with Britain,the Soviet Union and now he is going to take on the POWER. Just stupid.
Yeah, I couldn't hear what he was saying there. But it really is “Gehirntrust”. I have the written recording in German and also the English translation. In the German recording, the word, even in quotation marks, is “Gehirntnist”. But this is wrong and is due to a conversion error when converting Fraktur script to Antiqua script. This often happens because old Fraktur script is poorly recognized by computers. But in the English translation of the speech (again in quotation marks) it says “brain trust”. And that is absolutely correct. Hitler put the German and the English words together and said “Gehirntrust”. You can google the word “brain trust” and you'll see that the word actually makes a lot of sense in the context. But I only know all this now in retrospect, and I didn't know it at the time I made the video. That's why I put a “[?]” after it, because I was just as puzzled. :)
@GermanSpeeches You're right!,🙏🏻👌🏻 It just didn't make any sense to me in german at first. In this context, *Brain Trusters* are a group of official or unofficial “advisors” who are particularly concerned with planning and strategy......that's, what AH meant and so it makes sense😊
It can be said that the “brain trust” was the group of gentlemen that surrounded Roosevelt. But I would like to add in this context that the German transcript I used for this video actually says 'Gehirntrust'. Exactly like that. For this video I used the German transcript of the speech, which was printed in the book “Der verweigerte Friede - Deutschlands Parlamentär Rudolf Hess muss schweigen” by Alfred Seidl (Hess's lawyer). On page 182 at the bottom you find the word 'Gehirntrust'. Universitas Verlag München, 2nd edition from 1985. Interesting book by the way; I can recommend it. :)
@@GermanSpeeches Yes, he almost certainly means “the gentlemen” around Roosevelt ;) It was completely clear in the speech what he was aiming for with his words....only the word brain trust itself was a new term to me 😊 Otherwise, the whole video with its translation turned out very well, even for me as a German and not English -Native speaker could follow the English translation 🙏🏻
@@GermanSpeeches AH means that these gentlemen are, so to speak, the secret poison whisperers, like Grima Wormtongue in J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings
why does the most evil man in the world sound so darn reasonable? almost as if he was onto something or maybe even right? wait beeing right is not right right???
Hitler and Stalin, like two bank robbers, joined forces and attacked the smaller states between them until 1941. Then, in 1941, one gangster decided to kill the other with the goal to grab the whole prey. Stalin crafted a narrative of Russian heroism out of this, which is still told today. Putin also seeks to obscure the fact that the Kremlin was an accomplice, certainly not (only) a victim. For Russia, World War II seems to begin in 1941; there is no remembrance of the two years before or of the pact with Hitler.
Die Tonqualität ist bedauerlich sehr schlecht. Ich konnte den Führer nicht ganz verstehen…YT, bitte verbessern Sie die Ton Qualität der Führeransprachen!
Nich immer beklagen! Selber was tun. Ich habe mir ein einfaches Mischpult Programm geladen und selbst optimiert. Desweiteren geht es um die Aussagen, nicht um dein Höhrvergnügen.
Its a matter of perspective, context if you will. No matter how "popular" hit ler or antisemitism becomes, its still going to be 100-1. The NS aren't coming back.
No. Hitler was convinced, the war is lost, by November 1941. This is also reflected by the change of policy towards the Jews, the régime's major obsession and litmus test for loyalty. This declaration of war was the leap of faith of a desperate who wanted to look like a strongman.
![Adolf Hitler speaks to the German armaments workers in Berlin, December 10, 1940 [English Subtitles]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yFrEn7AUJLQ/mqdefault.jpg)
For those who are interested: For this video I used the German transcript of this speech, which was printed in the book “Der verweigerte Friede - Deutschlands Parlamentär Rudolf Hess muss schweigen” by Alfred Seidl (Hess's lawyer). Universitas Verlag München, 2nd edition from 1985. Interesting book, by the way; I would recommend it. I'm pretty sure there is an English translation of the book.
EDIT: Correction:
1:30 German: " Ich stelle fest, dass Sie sich zu Ehren unserer toten Kameraden erhoben haben." English: "I note that you have risen in honor of our dead comrades."
This should have a billion views! Still just as relevant today.
Wieso? Hat Amerika schon wieder Japan angegriffen?
Statements regarding the Kremlin's intentions to dominate all of Europe could come from Biden and the current British Prime Minister justifying involvement in the Ukrainian war!
@@WeltraumkommandoDerBundeslade was? Japan hat die USA angegriffen?
Nuts!
So sieht's aus🙏🏻
Thanks for translations, appreciated.
" No one will attack America unless it provokes the attack itself" sounds familiar to me
In a globalized world, an attack on the trade partners of someone is an attack on that someone. If we lived in an endless world with an unlimited number of exchangeable trade partners this wouldn't be the case.
While the U.S. joining WW1 was rather coincidental and happened out of fear that the Entente won't honour their U.S. debts if they lose WW1, the U.S. joining WW2 wasn't coincidental: the U.S. was lacking strategic materials like tin and rubber and letting Japan and Germany have their way would have led to the prospect facing two hostile superpowers controling two of the three major concentrations of industry on this planet.
@@fars8229 Utter bullshit revisionism. It was Japan who lacked OIL and attacked the Dutch Indies because of it, and it was Japan who attacked the US, regardless of this situation. Plus, in regard of rubber there were other producing countries in South-America and synthetic solutions if money, that the US had plenty.
It's easily checkable in two clicks.
Japan on the other hand didn't have any other way to have oil exept by conquest and it was one of the very factors which killed them.
9/11....
@@kornofulgur The U.S. , who produced ~60% of the global crude oil, cut its oil supply to Japan in Juin 1940, which was, of course, a hostile act towards Japan.
But Japan was threatening Western interests in China and East Asia since 1931.
War is inevitable, so it doesn't really matter who does the first move, or what we do consider as first move from hindsight.
Japan thought, East Asia is its backyard, the West disagreed... In the end it boils down, who is in the right, who has legit claims and who doesn't. What is right, and what is wrong, only depends on what we agree on, and we can only come to such agreements if we share the same basic views and values. As long as we don't, peace will never be, at best "peace for our time"...
911
Thank you for posting this !
That "extremely dangerous to our democracy" in the middle is funny
You seem to think our voting system is much different… they had 12 years of freedom from the oppression that we face today.
@@ethanvanidour Yeah there was so much freedom these 12 years. There was no manipulation via media, you could say whatever you want against the authorities, the elections weren't influenced, there was peace and you could be whoever you are. It didn't matter with what race you were born with. I wish we had that freedom today like in the good old times.
Das Original ist immer das ehrlichste, gegenüber einer Dokumentation
Most "documentaries" dont even include the sub titles. Just some idiot talking over the man, telling you what to think
So, so, was ist denn Ihrer Meinung nach nicht ehrlich dargestellt in Dokumentationen?
@ was gezeigt wird ist das Original und keine Doku. darum sollte man dieses vorziehen gegenüber eine Doku
@@og5891 Das beantwortet nicht meine Frage. Aber offenbar versuchen Sie so zu antworten, dass es nicht justiziabel ist. Ich verabscheue Ihre Einstellung.
@@pommesschale5440 Ich weiß nicht um welche Dokumentation es hier geht. Ich habe viel über diesen Teil der Geschichte gelesen, Filme gesehen, in der Schule darüber gelernt.
Ich erkenne die meisten Referenzen die in der Rede auftauchen wieder und kann sie Ereignissen zuordnen. Es passt zusammen. Also eigentlich nichts neues in dieser Rede.
Was für mich neu und schockierend ist, ist wie wenig anders sich das alles anhört, wenn man es mit dem vergleicht was wir heute in unserer "kleinen Geschichte" sehen. Würde ich nicht wissen wer da spricht, welche Art von Geschichte da gemacht wird, dann würde es mir schwerfallen das ganze als bemerkenswert zu erkennen. Oder, schlimmer noch, es hört sich "gut" an. Durchdacht. Da ist natürlich ein starkes Element von Antisemitismus. Aber wenn man das Inhaltlich durch eine andere Zielgruppe ersetzt, "Terroristen" wäre ein Beispiel, dann fällt es wieder gar nicht auf.
Das hört sich gar nicht an wie die Rede eines Wahnsinnigen. Das genau ist aber eine der Erwartungen die ich immer im Hinterkopf hatte, wenn Ich Hitler gelernt habe.
Es würde sich ganz anders anhören, wären die USA heute ein Land, dass sich an internationales Recht genau so hält, wie es andere dafür kritisiert die es brechen. Es wäre so viel leichter den Vorwurf von Manipulation als rassistische Propaganda zu erkennen, gäbe es keine AIPAC. Man nimmt es den USA aber gar nicht übel, hätten sie völkerrechtswidrig deutsche Uboote versenkt, das waren ja Nazis. Und davon abgesehen hat sich an der Praxis, dass die USA sich nicht um internationales Recht ja schert ja nie etwas geändert und deswegen konnten sie trotzdem in Nürnberg Richter sein, und Russland für seine Verbrechen tadeln, kurz nach dem sie in großem Stil das gleiche getan haben.
Wäre Hitler einfach nur ein Staatsmann gewesen, ein Feldherr, und hätte es keinen Holocaust gegeben, wir würden Geschichte wohl ganz anders bewerten, egal ob Hitler einen Krieg letztlich gewonnen oder verloren hätte. Er hätte dann immer noch Völkerrecht gebrochen und es wären trotzdem Millionen gestorben. Aber ein Völkerrechtsbruch ist ja nun wirklich kein Problem um das man sich heute Gedanken machen müsste. Selbst ein kleiner Genozid ist kein Verbrechen, wenn er im Rahmen eines Verteidigungskriegs gegen den richtigen Gegner - Terroristen - geführt wird.
Das wirklich schlimme ist, dass ich mich wahrscheinlich wie ein Neo-Nazi anhöre, wenn ich das sage. Aber ich meine das nicht so. Ich verteidige Hitler's Rede hier nicht. Ich verharmlose den Holocaust nicht. Im Gegenteil. Es ist nur so, dass es mir immer schwerer fällt rationale Argumente vorzubringen, wenn die dann einfach und valide umgekehrt werden können und auf mich zurückfallen. Ich bin nämlich so geprägt, dass ich rationalen Argumenten kaum widersprechen kann, wenn ich sie nicht widerlegen kann.
Wenn ich dann aber nicht mehr mit rationalen Argumenten arbeiten kann, dann bleibt mir wenig übrig als meinen Diskussionspartner zum Feind zu erklären und umzuhauen, weil Reden ja keinen Sinn mehr hat und einer muss ja gewinnen, wenn man auf der Ebene Konflikte austrägt.
Das macht diese Aufzeichnung viel klarer als es irgendeine Dokumentation sein könnte. Die Aufnahme macht es möglich sich vorzustellen man höre das genau wie eine zeitgenössische Rede, vielleicht eine von Trump, Putin oder Biden. In so einer Rede kann man die Faktenlage ja auch nicht besser prüfen als damals.
Ich habe zum Spaß versucht herauszufinden was es heute an Informationen zu diesem polnischen Botschafter und seiner Kommunikation mit und über Roosevelt zu lesen gibt, und alles was ich gefunden habe ist ein Eintrag der beschreit das es den Mann gab und das er Botschafter war. Vielleicht hat Hitler das einfach erfunden, was er da beschreibt. Damals gab es kein Wikipedia, heute gibt es das aber da steht leider nichts relevantes.
Würde in einer Dokumentation zu dieser Rede etwas zu dem Botschafter stehen. Würde man sich in einer solchen Dokumentation mit den in dieser Rede präsentierten Argumenten auseinandersetzen und die ernsthaft bewerten?
In den vielen Dokumentation die ich gelesen habe kam keine Bewertung der USA vor, die beschreibt inwieweit sie eher Teil einer möglichen Lösung war, die den Krieg hätte verhindern können, oder ob sie vielleicht stattdessen vielleicht sogar eine Teilverantwortlichkeit hatte. Soetwas ähnliches sehe ich heute im Ukraine-Krieg.
Vielleicht gibt es mehr als eine Kriegspartei die aus WW2 hätte lernen müssen. Das würde Hitlers Schuld und die Schuld der Deutschen nicht schmälern. Es würde nur dieser Rede den Überraschungs-Effekt nehmen. Und es würde es auch denen schwerer machen so eine Rede als Beispiel zu verwenden warum man in all den Dokumentationen nichts gelesen hat, dass auf diese Überraschungen vorbereitet hätte.
Dokumentation muss nicht unehrlich sein um weniger Informationen zu transportieren als ein Quelldokument liefert. Dokumentation kann eine Anreicherung sein, oder ein Filter in dem Aspekte ausgelassen werden die dem Autor nicht wichtig sind. Es kann auch eine Lüge sein in dem Falsches behauptet wird, richtiges geleugnet und wichtiges ausgelassen. Das kommt dann ganz auf die Dokumentation an.
Der Author des ursprünglichen Kommentars hat mit dem Ehrlichkeits-Begriff nach meinem Geschmack zu viel Wertung eingebaut. Aber in der Sache kann ich nur zustimmen. Mir sind Quellen viel wertvoller als Reproduktionen oder Interpretationen.
Honestly, the funniest thing about the comments here is that, according to the statistics, only a fraction actually watched the speech in the video in its entirety. But everyone here writes as if they know exactly what's going on and have studied the subject matter in depth. Most of them see the title, click on the video and write a comment just to express their opinion and view on the topic, but without even having a clue what they are talking about. Especially the insults and accusations against the leadership of the German Reich government at the time appear very often, but without ever having studied the reasons and causes of those decisions, or at least having listened to them. But it is probably true: “No one has knowledge, but everyone has an opinion.”
i believe because it is in a foreign language people are less interested in reading for a considerable length of time and are less engaged. thats why AI voice reconstructions of hitler are so popular now and bring a whole new level of understanding to the individual that the vast majority of us didnt have access to in understanding german before
My issue here is not that many do not have the leisure to listen to the whole speech, or rather to read it. That is not the problem. My point is that people comment on something they are not even willing to understand. I know the speech is long and in a different language for many, but my point is that people give their opinion on a subject that they obviously don't understand and don't seem to want to understand. If people don't want to “read through” the whole speech, that's not a bad thing at all, but then at least they shouldn't blindly express their own opinion, especially if they have no idea whatsoever about the subject matter. Commenting without understanding and without the will to understand is the funny thing here, and mostly very ironic.
@@GermanSpeeches
The writing is partly unclear (lack of contrast with the background).
PS: Poland and Cheslovakia actually provoked the Nazi invasion, the "pan-Slavic movement" after WWI became a nightmare for the German-speaking minorities, some of whom had been living there for centuries. Added to this was the religious antagonism between Protestant Germans and Catholic Poles; there were even calls for genocide against Germans in Polish churches! Even Russia was attacked by Poland, and Russian phobia is still present today. However, Poland had a very difficult history; it was divided three times, i.e. de facto eliminated. The main reason for Hitler's invasion of Russia may have had quite personal reasons - in WW1 the Austrian Habsburg monarchy was defeated by the Russians in the east of his empire (today Western Ukraine!) and as a result lost the war and almost all of its huge territories outside the small Austrian heartland.
Late revenge, so to speak, of the Austrian Hitler, who directed the war more from his Alpine fortress Obersalzberg than from Berlin! After the war, Linz in Austria was supposed to become the new capital of the Reich, the home of Hitler's youth - that says a lot! ;-)
@@carstenmanz302 To say Czechoslovakia provoked a full-scale invasion and a complete takeover of the entire country is a profound misrepresentation of historical facts at best, and an alarming alignment with pro-Nazi rhetoric at worst... Your inability to properly spell the country's name has me hoping for the former.
Unfortunately, it is absolutely necessary to publish Nazi content only with context: Hitler knew the war was lost by November 1941, before Pearl Harbor, before the Soviet winter counter-offensive. Or: Hitler pretends in this very speech that the invasion of the USSR was a reaction to Soviet meddling in the Balkans in spring 1941, however, Hitler had already ordered the attack on the USSR on Dec 18th 1940 (Weisung Nr. 21). More important: Words of politicians don't matter, only if they are coherent with their actions and omissions. E.g.: Treaties, pacts and other paperstuff do not create or set up the balance of power, they are mere reflections of it. The only inherent power, pacts and treaties do have, is, that they are a sort of tripwire or litmus test of loyalty, because keeping promises or reneging them is a sign of strength resp. weakness.
Vielen Dank.
By the time Hitler declared war in USA, German armies had been stopped in the tracks before Moscow and the Red Army was beginning to force them back. It was the beginning of the end for Germany. This meant that Hitler should’ve focused all his attention on the eastern front and not have declared war on USA. Germany could not possibly defeat the combined forces of the Soviet Union, United States and British Empire. The very idea.was completely unrealistic.
He was hoping Japan would also invade Russia
Even if he didn't declare war on USA, german would be lose
We talking about soviet, who owns 25% of land in this world at those times. While german already in crisis with oil
If he focused so much to eastern front, the soviet would multiply their production and their army by hundred to thousandfold
Its just predestined for german to lose the moment he attacking soviet
The USA would have joined the war anyways. They were already attacking German submarines and naval assets in the Atlantic before Germany declared war and they militarily occupied Greenland and Iceland. They would have found any excuse, similar to WWI, to join the war against Germany. Also, the “declaration of war” wasn’t really a declaration of war. It was an affirmation that Germany and the United States found themselves in a state of war. You can watch Von Ribbentrop’s speech where he clearly states this.
@@patrickcastell2061 Once Japan attacked the USA at Pearl Harbor and Philippines, it was obvious that Japan had no intention at all of attacking the Soviet Union. Yes, Hitler had hoped that Japan would help him fight SU, but he surely realized that was not going to happen after Pearl Harbor. And Hitler had no treaty obligation to Japan against USA because Japan was the aggressor.
@@Auqi The USA provides vital assistance to both Britain and Soviet Union. Ships to Britain and trucks and other military equipment to SU. And of course massive loans to both. If the USA had remained neutral and not provided such assistance and if Germany had not fought a war on two fronts but concentrated all its military strength against the SU, and if Germany had attacked SU in the spring instead of midsummer, and if Hitler had built more submarines instead of battleships, and if Japan had attacked SU instead of USA this bringing USA fully into the war against Germany, then it might have turned out differently. But thats a lot of big “ifs”. One thing is certain: Hitler underestimated the fighting strength of the SU. He couldn’t believe how many tanks they had!
50:30
When he starts comparing himself to Roosevelt is the most epic part of this speech!
Dude was so loony
@@kbanghart Roosevelt? yeah I hate that guy.
@spazemfathemcazemmeleggymi272 cool
@@spazemfathemcazemmeleggymi272 :'D
@@spazemfathemcazemmeleggymi272Roosevelt? You mean the one who clowned the Nazis? Wonder what Hitler did in his bunker. You know what they say, follow your leader 😁
Wir Lernen nie aus. Viele Dinge die uns nie Erzählt wurden. Es ist gut die wahre Geschichte zu kennen.
Die Geschichte des ww2 beginnt in der Schule erst ab 1939 und das ist Geschichtsverzehrung
@keinplan7686 stimmt nicht die fängt mit dem ersten Weltkrieg an und teilweise der Zeit davor
UA-cam:die Zuversicht mit "Die größte Verschwörung der Geschichte" 1. //// UA-cam:"DIE VERBORGENE GESCHICHTE" TEIL1 👋 Vielleicht interessiert es sie ja 👋
@@keinplan7686 Die Ukraine Story beginnt auch erst ab 22 - darüber könnte man auch reden!
@@keinplan7686 Das stimmt nicht ich hatte auch wie er an die macht gekommen ist
The lying, distortions and omissions of fact in his speech are extraordinary.
There are no lies in his speech. Why should he lie? To drag Germany in a war with America, because of what? Communism, territory or something else?
They are no Lyes in his speeches 😘
@@filiplenart9537 there are only lies. Without y btw you pig.
@@filiplenart9537 it's embarrassing how you're fooled by a dead man
*Doesn’t elaborate*
Thank you brother
How many Germans watched this today?
I know of at least one;-).
German but living in the US. Actually most Americans didn't want any war back then, and the Fuhrer declared war on the US, so it's not the fault of the US in this context.
@@hvhans305 , Roosevelt wanted the war however.
Many
@@paulpipek9108 still seeing many Americans and businesses in the US having some kind of German sounding names, so there must have been many German immigrants, especially in the previous 100-200 years. In fact lucky to be in the US and not in Nazi Germany back then.
"We fought the wrong enemy"
🙏
real
follow your leader, dog
It s the info that is wrong...
Mulingan Paddy
the national anthem sounds so good
Two fatal decisions by Hitler in 1941: first, invade the USSR, then declare war on the USA. By 1943 he had already lost both wars. 1945 was just the coup de grace.
@@MonTube2006 ... and he does not ask you for permission.
US supplied the British and the RAF were bombing german cities. The USSR were preparing to attack the Reich but Germany pre empted them.
That enormous eagle backdrop is a work of Fine Art.
😂
Any of my USA brothers here, listen to "Over There!" The song every nation feared and still fears 😂😂
Interesting enough, had the Germans and Japanese really trusted each other. They would have coordinated the attack on Russia and attack from both sides. But there was a mistrust that existed, once Japan had attacked the U.S. Stalin decided to believe his spy in Tokyo that Japan had no plans on attacking Russia. Stalin was able to then move his Siberian reserves about 40 divisions in number to the Moscow front. That force pushed the Germans out as they advanced on the Moscow front.
Japan had no interest in the tundra and forests of siberia they desperately needed the oil and rubber of south east Asia and they knew this would need to be protected at all cost by a huge perimeter of island fortresses in the Pacific from the USA.
Yea, the "Berlin Tokio Axis" alliance was more like two drunks who accidentally fell into each other's arms
@@leonpaul9443 plus they got thoroughly whacled by the Soviets in Mongolia shortly beforehands.
@@koperekhabsburdzki43Germany was considering an Alliance with China before, as they had a good relationship but decided for Japan for strategic reasons
It would be great if someone more talented than myself would record this in English like the other AI assisted speeches. Thanks in advance if it comes to pass!
Ich hoffe das bleibt Geschichte. Dessen kann man sich ja nicht mehr so sicher sein.
how did you find this?
Germany had a really cool leader at one time
the declaration of war on the USA begins at 01:21:57 ... die Kriegserklärung im Wortlaut beginnt bei 01:21:57
The "What is Europe?" part always stuck with me for some reason.
Fascinating and thank you 🙏🏻
His Army was facing a strong and unexpected resistance from the "Untermenschen" and he declares war to the 1st military power of his time...That guy was completely deliusionnal !
And many people fall for him, even now. Dumme Menschheit!
Us English should have sided with the Germans in ww2. Hitler tried so many times to make peace with Great Britain. It's depressing that us English murdered our German brothers, knowing they were right. Look at the state of the world now. Here in England, our towns and cities are becoming unrecognisable, and our culture is disappearing
Da hast du recht, der Frieden wurde mehrmals angeboten und im Frankreich Feldzug britische Truppen verschont obwohl man hätte 300k Truppen vernichten können..... Glaubst du das war Zufall..... Ich denke nicht, wir wissen heute alle wie effizient die Wehrmacht war
Errr... 700 years of British Empire abroad...
Memory not much?!
Actions have consequences, laddie.
Germany raped and pillaged poor Norway and treated neighboring Denmark like shit and you talk about siding with Germany? And both Norway and Denmark are suposedly Germanic? Please.
@@mlyntoNorway and Denmark were treated with kid gloves by Germany compared to the Slavs of the East.
und was musste Sudetendeutschland alles ertragen? Denkst du es wird ewig weggeschaut? Sowas kommt von sowas...... Es wurde alles getan dafür das es kein Frieden gab nicht nur von Deutschland aus...... Russland zum Beispiel hat Polen auch angegriffen und Finnland aber dazu sagt ihr alle nix.....
The war against Germany by the USA started in July 1941 5 month before this event when President Roosevelt ordered the American Armed Forces to sink all German ships they encountered. Many German and Americans died in these encountered and at least one American destroyer ( the Ruben James ) was sunk in October 1941 with a loss of 120 American sailors loosing their lives. So the action by Roosevelt was in fact a declaration of war against Germany. So who were the aggressors?
yes, who was the aggressor? Maybe the one who invaded Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium without being at war with them?
@@fahrradmittelfranken8207 Do you still not know after over 80 years that Poland murdered 62,000 Germans from 1919 to Sept.1 1939 in the corridor? I suggest that you read the book by the son of the world famous violinist "Menuhin" ( a Jew) Gerard Menuhin " Wahrheit Sagen Teufel Jagen". In English "Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil". Germany had every right to protect its ethnic Germans just like Putin had the right to protect its ethnic Russians in the Ukraine.
@@fahrradmittelfranken8207 So einfach ist es nicht! Da gab es überall Vorgeschichten und Provokationen seitens Polen und England. Der Weltkrieg begann erst indem England und Frankreich sich in den Konflikt mit Polen einmischten. Sonst wäre die Geschichte nach wenigen Wochen erledigt gewesen aber England wollte einen Großen Krieg , genau wie die Selben heute wieder Krieg wollten. Alte Reden verraten sehr viel was uns die heutige Sieger Propaganda verschweigt
@@fahrradmittelfranken8207deine primitive Ablenkung funktioniert nicht!!! 😂
Propaganda Troll!!!
@@fahrradmittelfranken8207
No war......also this tragic world war never falls from the sky.....there is in every case a historic-development behind it.
The Germans (and the russians today) was a threat for the anglistic dominance in the world.
The "treaty of Versailles" was the cornerstone to keep the german nation down.
Germany lost the war and is today not more as the 51-state of the USA.
Now russia.....with it's enormous natural resources is the new target for the international "free" financial system.
i have a feeling things might turn just like this again very soon...
This is gold
A bright image in the background and white subtitles. It is hard to see them. Who tf had this idea? Give him a darwin award.
Better than nothing… it will get banned by YT soon anyway
Lern deutsch
@@Luka23567never saw a nazi historical video get get banned on yt I think ur paranoid
His generals had to be flabbergasted by this speech.
We all remember December 7, 1941 and December 8, 1941, but this is hardly talked about. Not many nations delcare war on us. It was Germany and Italy that delcared war, due to the The Tripartite Pact aka The Berlin Pact.
They had to declare war only if Japan was attacked,not the other way around,learn some history
The way Hitler personally throws insults at Roosevelt sounds just like the kind of thing Trump would say.
It was Roosevelt who constantly insulted Hitler before this speech. He literally talks about this, did you not hear the whole speech ?
Ur a clown. How’d that L taste last night simp ?
And coughs into the Mic like Hillary
ja,die Warheit ist für Manchen eben hart.
@@Lev259 how dare roosevelt insult the genocidal warmongering maniac??? cmon
The man really believed what he was saying back then. Nevertheless, he must have realized then that the cards would be reshuffled when the USA entered the war.
Well these were real men much different from today's germans.
Ja!!! Die heutigen Deutschen an der Macht sind Antideutsche!! Jedoch gibt es sehr viele Deutsche, die diesen damaligen Deutschen gleichen!!!
You should thank your creators that the Germans no longer strive for world domination.
@@Wolfgang-s2idas haben wir nie gewollt, du antideutscher Troll!!!
Mörder sind also richtige Männer? Wie krank musst denn ihr sein, um so zu denken? Ein Arzt könnte helfen.
Oh yes. Totally different. And that’s a great thing.
Leider ist die englische Übersetzung nur teilweise korrekt. Da ich nicht die gesamte Transkription korrigieren will, hier ein Beispiel:
1:30 „I note that you all stood up to honor our dead comrades.“ - NOT „that you have come up here“. Nicht mal die deutsche Übersetzung ist hier korrekt, da es das Wort „heroben“ im deutschen nicht gibt. Es muss natürlich „erhoben / stood up“ heißen.
So ziehen sich leider unzählige Fehler durch die gesamte Übersetzung. 😢
Ich würde an Ihrer Stelle versuchen, die Reden auch unter deutschem Titel mit deutscher Beschreibung einzustellen. Mit englischem Titel werden sie insbesondere Englisch Sprechenden vorgeschlagen, wie man an den Kommentaren sieht. Alles Gute!
Aber genau dafür wurde es Ja hochgeladen
Soll das ein Service für rechtsextreme Neonazis sein?
Hallo cassandra ich liebe deine Arbeit! 💙💙💙
Dear German Speeches,
Shukran - This is a fascinating film, though the English translation is a bit ropey.
Balanced commentators need to disentangle four broad questions:
(1) did the over-promoted painter from Vienna sign the suicide note of Nazi Germany and much of civilised Europe by instigating war simultaneously against Russia and the US? Undoubtedly.
(2) could the Wehrmacht have succeeded in a lightning victory over Stalin's forces in the west, particularly if there had been no idiotic exterminatory treatment of our Slavic sisters and brothers, but rather a wise recruitment of the Ukrainians and others into an anti-Bolshevik front? Probably, but it is still unlikely that Germany could have held those territories against a hugely arming Soviet counterattack.
(3) was the drunken blow-hard Mr Churchill a traitor to British Imperial interests in May-June 1940, and a puppet of Zionist financiers in Wall Street, London and Washington? Undoubtedly, just as the Yankee stooge intendedly and irresponsibly dragged the British Empire into a European squabble in Aug 1914.
(4) Should England and its imperial interests have concluded a peace treaty with Nazi Germany in June 1940, after the fall of France. Yes indeed. As Disraeli and everyone since the Conference of Vienna understood, we need to stand aside from the squabbles of Paris and Berlin, unless our general imperial and trading and financial interests are directly imperilled. But the problem with that theory, as the often questionable Oswald Moseley spotted in 1938, is that Zionist money-power in the City of London was out to force England into a spurious conflict. Not least because the Zionists wanted to jump ship, from a bankrupted British and French world-imperial system, to the shiny new version run from Washington, and even more securely under Zionist control.
ua-cam.com/video/oWqIExUfp4Q/v-deo.htmlsi=55Yu_M580E_C63QC
The underlying problem with Nazi Germany was the lawless irrationality and racist lunacy of the Nazi administration.
What, I politely submit, the English and the French should have done, is to study Bismarck and Machiavelli a little more, and work with German constitutional and military interests between, say, 1936 and Sept 1939. Who rightly despised the occasionally mercurial, in some ways gifted, but unquestionably deranged Corporal Hitler. To assassinate the Fuhrer and otherwise undermine the Fascist regime, and instigate a nationalist but explicitly anti-Nazi coup. Dr Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich and the rest of the trash conclusively shot. Albert Speer and stylish Field Marshall Goering still doing good stuff, and the forces of the Wehrmacht under the intelligent control of Rommel, von Rundstedt and other professional soldiers with a Prussian grasp on honour and civility.
Thereby ensuring the flavour of continuity so appealing to the petit bourgeois "gemutlich und Biedermeier" mentality of so many Germans.
For instance, the General Ludwig Beck attempt in May-Aug 1938 to oust the Nazis is a clearly missed opportunity.
ua-cam.com/video/C24jMB4Aq58/v-deo.htmlsi=M4DPQdW3QpqBoBiM
Post Nazi talks by Berlin with Paris and Warsaw and Prague and Budapest and Vienna (Austria was still a genuine state), etc, etc could have proceeded fruitfully, perhaps on the foundations of a proto-EUmpire. Monet and Schuman and Speer would have understood each other very well.
Best of all, no WW2.
But that could never really have worked, once Germany was embroiled in general war, and had retreated into the masculine-gorilla paranoia of destroy or be destroyed. Which is exactly what Mr Churchill, the Zionists, and Wall Street, FDR, and 1000 US generals and Admirals, and perhaps even Uncle Joe Stalin wanted.
English Edwardian self-righteousness, and ever prevalent Parisian blasé decadence missed the boat .... and here we are 80 years later, all kissing the arse of the Yankee Petro dollar Empire of Chaos and Assassination.
With Zionist money-power pulling the strings and getting fatter by the hour through the US military-industrial complex; and the deranged planet-destroying perverted logic of huge and putrid, hyper-masculine, military-imperialist weaponry; capitalist profit extraction; perverse late patriarchal consumer-capitalism; oceans of crap products, manufactured desires and neuroses and techno-junk; and AI enabled anti-human trash that might well exterminate all organic life on the planet.
However, Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi now all have their sights on toppling at least some of this system. Will the sick & twisted world-f*cking bedfellows of the Yankees and the Zionists quietly throw in the towel, or instigate WWIII ?
Is Blood Soaked Benjamin Netanyahu circumcised or not?
Ask our Libyan, Iraqi, Syrian, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Cubans, Koreans, Palestinian, Japanese, and our Lebanese sisterhood what is most likely?
Love andrea
Some Germans said they Hitler' accent is hard to understand. Is it true?
Not really. The sound quality of the recordings of the time are a bigger problem. But the accent itself is clear with words pronounced more sharply than usual.
The dumbest thing Hitler ever did.
A really stupid thing to do. It made Roosevelt’s job much easier. Yes, the USA was already committed to helping Britain defeat Germany but Pearl Harbor meant that Roosevelt had to deal with Japan, not Germany. By declaring war in the USA, Hitler gave Roosevelt what he needed to enter the war against Germany openly and with full force and to attack German armies in North Africa. Hitler made a terrible mistake by attacking the Soviet Union in June, 1941, and followed it up with another serious blunder by declaring war against USA in December. He should’ve simply ignored the British declaration of war in September, 1939, and just consolidated his forces and focused on defeating the Soviet Union. He didn’t need to defeat France first, because there was no way that the British and the French would have lifted a finger to help Stalin if Hitler had simply marched against Russia directly and left Britain and France alone. The British and French hated and feared Communism much more than fascism, and the same is true for USA.
You don't understand the kind of person Hitler was. He was a monster, but not in the way such villains are displayed in Hollywood movies. American presidents don't mind it much if children are caged up and deported. That's not unique for Trump. They don't mind it if children die as a result of systematic bombardments. But killing innocents is one component that makes up a monster. Another is indifference. Indifference to something that is extremely valuable to others. Children usually are. If we see a child fall down, we help. We don't necessarily do that for a random stranger.
We see the shortcomings of American presidents in contexts, even if they are at least partially responsible for atrocities, such as the corpses of children. We contrast these flaws with how well the economy did during their term, or we consider that immigration is a very complex and ambivalent topic, and so of course is self-defense. We don't see Hitler in context.
And just like American presidents, Hitler was not just a monster. A great monster, but also a man with cultural and individual peculiarities. One of them was that he enjoyed to display himself as a self-made man and not a rich heir. Just like Trump, even though he is not quite self-made. And yet another part of him was that it was obviously important for him to explain himself and to fight openly. He also loved and protected dogs and he build the Autobahns. It would be a stretch to use terms like chivalry, but he would certainly have agreed.
Did he make it easier for Roosevelt? I don't think this speech made a big difference. The USA has long been a party to the war, just like it is in Ukraine today. The one property nobody would ever assign to the USA is honesty or chivalry. Hitler enjoyed making this a point in this speech.
And no, I did not describe Hitler as an honest knight, even though I came terrifyingly close. But I didn't and very deliberately so.
As for Germany not having to defeat France: That success of this campaign was not a matter of genetics, material superiority or military genius. Had Hitler not done that when he did, he would not have been able to do it later on. Had he done it differently, there was a slight chance he could have pushed the UK out of the war early. That's all speculation, but not an unreasonable one.
At the early stages of the war, France, the UK and others did not fight Germany for any moral or idealistic reasons. There was not yet a holocaust and human rights were not something anybody cared at all, not even in terms of public relations. This was all politics from the very start. Maybe they though Germany was not in a position to even put up a serious fight at all. They have been demilitarized and humiliated just a few years earlier. Don't forget that. France should have been unbeatable for Germany at that time and they probably could have become just that, had it not been defeated swiftly.
Russia was probably also not seen as a great enough thread to have mattered for what the UK was willing to do at this point. It was an abstract thread, much more on an ideological level than in terms of geopolitics or military. Hitler suspected Russian would fight riding on donkeys. And I would be surprised if Churchill would have thought higher of Russians then.
Nobody at that time knew or suspected that there would be a cold war with Russia coming up in which Germany was to be an important ally. There were not even nukes and the game of mutually ensured destruction. War was diplomacy. Increasingly ugly because of technology, but it was still like playing chess.
Should have advised Hitler.
The only reason why operation Barbarossa went so well on the earlier stages is that Stalin was sure, that Hitler is focused on the west and won't attack him. This is why the attack were so unexpected and devastating for the Red army. However, if Hitler ignored the west and focused solely on the Soviet Union, there would be no guarantee, that he is be able to win. Soviets would definetely be prepared for the attack.
Wrong. France and Britain would not have felt at ease neighbouring a Germany who controles the industries and resources of all Central and Eastern Europe. (Balance of Power) Ideological reasonings are just pretexts, mere varnish and smoke screen. A Germany from the Rhine to the Ural would have gobbled up the rest of Europe sooner or later.
National socialism
Soziale Nationale!!!
you will grow out of this eventually
Of course, because the U.S. DARED to declare war on Japan.. Seriously how dare them?
The Americans literally went to ki.. and di.. for Lilo & Stitch !!!
this man has something on him , something that legends have
Being a genocidal mass murderer, do you mean?
This man is the most evil person in history.
@@Crimson-m9olet me guess, you are a huge supporter of Ukraine right?
@@KingTrump-25 tell me your a russian suppoerter without telling me
@@KingTrump-25 PS 100k people wouldnt have died if russia didnt invade ukraine
If I would have listened to this speech 10 or 20 years ago, I would have heard one red flag after the other.
That's because I was taught history in school at a time after world war 2 and I was brought up in a democracy, that was sensible to the causes and consequences of this war.
When I listen to this speech today, all these things that would have raised red flags are elements of speeches and arguments I hear every day. I hear them from the USA, I hear them from Russia, I hear them from Israel.
What does that mean?
If this was not Hitler speaking, if there was no swastika on display, if it was not that rough militaristic type of German but the smoother language it is today, he would not even sound radical or extreme. He draws a picture, he tells a story, he explains his situation, and it sounds all understandable. Of course, just by listening to a speech you cannot know the veracity of claims he makes and on this truth or falsehood depends the validity of the speech and the man. It could all be lies. But it could just as well be the truth, you can't tell by just listening. No more than you can tell today. You had to know better.
If I apply the uncertainty of truth today to this speech, our inability to find facts and to agree on what is real and what is fiction, or in other words, if I allow for alternative facts, then the only means I have to condemn the speech is hindsight.
If I still had my red flags, if these flags would be raised when contemporary politicians speak, then it would be easy. We would condemn war unless war is an existential necessity. It would be a crime to start a war unless it would be legitimized by the UN security council or international law. It would not be cheap and easy to break this law. Innocent lives would be protected. To take them could get you prosecuted and even hanged. This is what hindsight taught us in Nuremberg.
We did away with these red flags and today, we casually look away when a genocide happens right in front of our eyes. International law is a convenience. A tool to mark adversaries. It's just propaganda. There is no rule of international law, there is not even rhyme or reason to it.
This is why this speech of the greatest monsters of all times sounds so eloquent, so reasonable. It's not the rambling of a madman. It's more civilized than the speeches we hear today. We have to doubt every word we hear from our leaders. What actually keeps us from doubting what Hitler was accused of? Maybe his lies were just alternative facts. If we can accept the loss of innocent lives so easily as collateral damage, regrettable necessities or a consequence of the atrocities of our enemies, how can we then demand more from this man, considering that he has much less hindsight than we do?
It would be so easy to doubt history and believe this man, despite of everything we know. We only had to doubt what was common sense. We already doubt this common sense every day when we watch the news. Believing Hitler would not be a different quality of madness, it would just be breaking with a convention. Just barely more than a lack of decorum.
I wish I could still warn about this dangerous effect, but it's already to late. This is very disturbing.
He speaks the truce!
Here is proof, long before the end of World War 2, that Hitler was not always the hypnotic, inspiring speaker he is made out to be. Here one hears mainly polite applause, particularly as he goes over his supposed achievements as a politician and war leader, with many applause lines landing in silence.
sure Hitler was not a mythical leader, but he was still a completely deranged maniac, uneducated, not well spoken, from a working class family and with severe trauma from the war. by 1941 he had Parkinson's which he tried to hide on stages.
He couldn’t defeat Britain, so he attacked Russia. He couldn’t defeat Russia, so he declared war in the United States. What a genius.
By the time he was´nt believing in victory anyway...
@ there was no evidence that HITLER did not believe in victory in December 1941. Some of his generals BELIEVED that it was only a matter of time before Germany lost the war. However, a rational person could have no way of knowing what the outcome would be that early in the war.
@@abrakadabramo True, by November 1941 Hitler was convinced that the war was lost. "Operation Barbarossa" had already failed in the midth of July 1941 (Juli-Krisis). Goebbels' diary reflects quite well the sentiments and pre-sentiments of himself and other leading nazis. By declaring war on the U.S. he tried to look strong and hoped, maybe, maybe Japan in the Pacific and a stiff U-Boat campaign in the Atlantic (Operation Paukenschlag) may fend off the U.S. A desperate leap of faith.
You're the genius
He COULD defeat Britain. A naval invasion of Britain was seriously considered, but he decided against it. Attacking the USSR was not a matter of choice, it was either you strike first and get the element of surprise, or you get attacked first and lose any advantages.
1000 Jahre 😢
lutscher
Salve a Grande Alemanha Ocultista e Esoterica
*Germany was forced into the War...*
Why? Because someone want to Dominate? Because someone want to have total control? Better zero dominance and earth without humanity.
In some sense yes. But only in some sense.
@@constantinioan5425 drunk warmonger Churchill started a war that nobody wanted in the name of poland.
appalling how this nonsense has so many likes.
he interrupted an agenda of the elites to financially exploit Germany, so he had to go and so did Germany's economic power. After that, things continued exactly as before until today. And not just in Germany
The coughing in the background is somehow funny
Note that the recent interview that Tucker Carlson had with Putin which had a great amount of the same kind of talk. With Tucker, Putin kept referring to a bunch of past history to justify his aggression. No less using the same reasoning to take territories just because the majority of the people there spoke their own language. Putin has now found 'his Italy" ally in North Korea. And in this 1941 speech the numbers of captured men and material is very much exaggerated. Not to mention the inference of a greater number of men in arms from other countries taking part in fighting on the German side. Evidence of that lies in him leaving out any numerical numbers on that while having such exact numbers on everything else going on. Selling people on waging war is always the same 'schtick." Establishing a threat that isn't there. Making you out to be some kind of Saviour. And then lying to you about how badly the campaign is going until the enemy is at your front door. All the while telling you how honorable it is to die today as the next conflict is on the horizon. Germany was all about saving the continent of Europe. When is America going to stop saving the world?
and now start to think please
That eagle sign is very powerful in its claws the whole world I should put it in my lab so my engineers and scientists living existential lives know my ambitions very clearly
I would like an AI English voice of this speech, probably the biggest blunder Hitler ever made.
Nope. Hitler realized that the war was lost by November 1941, and the Axis never stood a chance to win WW2. The U.S.A. comprised almost 50% of the world's industrial output and GDP back then. A desperate leap of faith of a strongman who wanted to look strong at all costs.
1:17:00
😂
Thanks for posting. Fascinating how personal he makes it, dwelling at length on Roosevelt’s privilege as compared to his much poorer upbringing. Psychologically obsessed w/FDR’s Wealth & class status. I’d say President Roosevelt got der Fuhrer’s skin.
Roosevelt was a drunkard criminal bastard and Hitler exposed him with ease, logic and reason.
Major factors that saved England during World War II: Hitler's decision to invade Russia instead of England, the English Channel, which prevented a land invasion by the German Wehrmacht, and the industrial capacity of the United States, which produced and contributed thousands of tanks, airplanes, ships, rifles, ammunition, men, etc.
I suppose the Royal Air Force shooting quite a few Luftwaffe aircraft in 1940 didn't deswade the little Corporal as well.....
Hmm... yes, they totally did not attack the UK at all and went straight to the Soviet Union...
"Saved England" and how is England today?
@@j8816k still better than under german rule lmao
@@BaptisteMoreau-yx7vs uhh absolutely not. I can promise you that Hitler would not have allowed Britain to be overrun by immigrants eating away at the very fabric of the United Kingdom. Besides, there was never going to be German rule. There were no plans for anything West of Germany before the UK and France declared war on Germany.
USA joined the Server
Germany Left the Server
USA joined the server with 400% mic volume screaming RAID SHADOW LEGENDS with 500 ping forcing everyone to leave with broken eardrums. USA left alone on the server feeling itself as the winner while everyone hates it.
1:29:51. Swalwell was here
Hundreds of thousands of mostly young American casualties during ww2 in Europe alone, was it really worth it?
According to FDR and the Democratic Party it was all worth it.
If the US didn't intervene, the war had prolonged for sure. But the Soviets would still have defeated the Nazi Regime and Japan sooner or later. In fact the US brought all to an end much sooner, also in the Pacific, to be fair. ( Other allies too, but I'm mainly talking about the part of the US here )
In my opinion no. The USA at that time had way more in common with Germany than the soviets, but that's just my opinion. That war should've never happened in the first place. Also look at the world today and tell me it's better.
@@alexfriedman2152the world today is much, much better than what it was in the 1930-40s. How can you even raise such a stupid question?
@@alexfriedman2152 Had Roosevelt been a good president he would have opened up a dialogue with Hitler instead of threatening him.
This was the real suicide for millions of germans and at last for himself.
Declaring war on USA - now how extremely dumb is that
Es war falsch gegenüber Japan loyal zu sein den Japan hat Deutschland verkauft indem Japan ein Vertrag mit der UdSSR schloß und somit hatte deutschland zwei Fronten anstatt die UdSSR....... Shit happens
The US was already at war with the Reich due to Roosevelt's extremely hostile intervention and policies against Germany.
The declaration merely made it official.
Maybe it was a mistake. Maybe it was really the only logical thing left to do, but it certainly wasn't "dumb."
Did you even pay attention to what what he said in that speech?
Why would a SPEECH be taken seriously when OBVIOUSLY he’s trying to rally the German populace for more war? It’s propaganda.
Hitler was under the false pretense that he could finally strangle the UK with U-Boats and that the Japanese could deal with the Americans at sea
The smoking ruins of Germany make me think you should edit out the “maybe.”
@charliejdk I won't. To not make that declaration possibly could have contained this global conflict for a little longer, but considering Pearl Harbour, this doesn't seem very likely.
If Hitler would instead have waited for the US to declare war on Germany, it might have looked like he was losing control/initiative, which also would have cost him support in his own ranks.
At this point it was only assumed how big the communist thread could be. In the first three month of Barbarossa the Wehrmacht shot 35000 russian tanks. Clearly the russians had well prepared for offensie operations. Do you know any country in the world today that has 35000 tanks? Saving western europe from the bolschewist thread is probably the most underated aspect of the second WW.
... And in the end of the glorious action half of Europe fell under Soviet dominance. Bravo!
As we see today in the Russo-Ukrainian War, the main reason why Russia stockpiles war matériel is Russia's incapicity to increase industrial capacity on its own. All necessary machine tools, electronics etc are of European or U.S. origin since the beginning of Russia's industrialization in the 19th century.
1:22:24 Germany declares war against the USA
Hitler went full Trump on Roosevelt!
Europa the last Battle: newspaper from USA With Propaganda war
I look at the world today and ask myself if we really won anything.
Bin kein Nazi, aber der Mann war wirklich ein begnadeter Redner.
"Bin kein Nazi, aber ich liebe den obersten gerichtsherr der NSDAP!"
ja muss man zugeben
Ja, er hatte rhetorische Qualitäten und wegen seiner stechenden blauen Augen einen hypnotischen Blick. Jedoch, Hitler sprach stets vor handverlesenem Publikum, denn seine ersten Rednererfahrungen 1919 machten ihm deutlich, dass er absolut unfähig war, vor einem Publikum zu bestehen, das ihm kritisch oder gar feindlich gegenübersteht. Z.B. Paul Joseph Goebbels hingegen war eindeutig der bessere Redner, er scheute nicht den direkten Wettbewerb mit anderen Rednern oder die Debatte. Gleichwohl waren und sind alle Nazis schlechte Redner, weil ihnen die guten Argumente fehlen, und sie daher zu Gewalt und Unterdrückung neigen.
Do ai translated dub
38:23
Zajebo se 🤷♂️
1:13:17 Adolf Hitler diss is crazyzzyy
And there are those today (and on this channel's commentary thread) who would fall for this kind of evil nonsense.
Edgys
Edgys like hitler and goebbels
Dont worry once they enter middle school they start becoming communists
" Peace through strength" or " Aggression through strength". Both, it would seem, lead to the same thing. A war. Any aggression outside your own county's border's either in international areas or across a recognized border are wrong, always. And no matter how you want to frame your reasoning or judgments to conduct a conflict or wage war outside your own borders is wrong. We have always lived in a world where we have two kinds of war conducted. One of economics and one of armed conflict. And by building a nation of arms you in essence neglect the very economics that would benefit your nation at large. Thus, leading your people eventually to an armed conflict. The divergence of GNP to a buildup of military might at the neglect of its people's wealth within the country can only set a course to poverty among its people and a call to arms. Act as you will. But don't allow yourselves to be misled. In that, only your death, and countless others awaits.
Hitler is speaking directly from Putin's playbook!
Yes indeed - evil sophistry from both. Such a previously cultured nation as Germany fell into the arms of a hideous ideologue. Russians are a different breed, but similar today.
well it would be the other way around though they both have the same hates, anything woke, anything big , and basically anything that's cooler then themselves .... Small man ... I'm guessing Napoleon sounded a lot like them
How to lose a war in 1:35:25
XDDDD
Welchen Belastungen dieser Mann in diesen Zeiten ausgesetzt war....Unfassbar...
Und das mit nur einem Hoden.
@@hanshansenhanst😂😂😂
@@hanshansenhanst Wieder so ein Schwachsinn von jemanden dessen Gehirn ausgeschaltet ist.
@donlopez: und erstmal die Menschen in den überfallenen Ländern West- und Osteuropas... Und nicht zu vergessen natürlich die Juden, Sinti und Roma,Sozialisten, Kommunisten, Regimegegner und sonstigen Andersdenkenden im Deutschen Reich. Und die kranken Menschen in den Heilanstalten... unfassbar
@@terek3793 Da verfügst du ja über erstaunliche Selbsterkenntnis. Hätte dir kaum einer zugetraut.
Great Speech ,but Trash Sound !
The sound was the best that Germany had seeing who it is for ,the speak was s-t ,boring and rambling and only showed just how stupid he was .Great at war with Britain,the Soviet Union and now he is going to take on the POWER. Just stupid.
no, the speech is trash
you know that record was made like 80 years ago
@GustavoFrings Yes Sir
@@GustavoFringssome 90 years old audio have better quality tha this...., this can be 80 years old but also it was bad recordered....
👂👂🖤🤍♥️🤚
It is interesting is history
Bei Minute 53:34 sagt er *Gehirndreck (brain crap)* ,nicht *Gehirntrust* was auch überhaupt keinen Sinn ergibt🙏🏻
Yeah, I couldn't hear what he was saying there. But it really is “Gehirntrust”. I have the written recording in German and also the English translation. In the German recording, the word, even in quotation marks, is “Gehirntnist”. But this is wrong and is due to a conversion error when converting Fraktur script to Antiqua script. This often happens because old Fraktur script is poorly recognized by computers. But in the English translation of the speech (again in quotation marks) it says “brain trust”. And that is absolutely correct. Hitler put the German and the English words together and said “Gehirntrust”. You can google the word “brain trust” and you'll see that the word actually makes a lot of sense in the context. But I only know all this now in retrospect, and I didn't know it at the time I made the video. That's why I put a “[?]” after it, because I was just as puzzled. :)
@GermanSpeeches You're right!,🙏🏻👌🏻 It just didn't make any sense to me in german at first.
In this context, *Brain Trusters* are a group of official or unofficial “advisors” who are particularly concerned with planning and strategy......that's, what AH meant and so it makes sense😊
It can be said that the “brain trust” was the group of gentlemen that surrounded Roosevelt.
But I would like to add in this context that the German transcript I used for this video actually says 'Gehirntrust'. Exactly like that. For this video I used the German transcript of the speech, which was printed in the book “Der verweigerte Friede - Deutschlands Parlamentär Rudolf Hess muss schweigen” by Alfred Seidl (Hess's lawyer). On page 182 at the bottom you find the word 'Gehirntrust'. Universitas Verlag München, 2nd edition from 1985. Interesting book by the way; I can recommend it. :)
@@GermanSpeeches Yes, he almost certainly means “the gentlemen” around Roosevelt ;)
It was completely clear in the speech what he was aiming for with his words....only the word brain trust itself was a new term to me 😊 Otherwise, the whole video with its translation turned out very well, even for me as a German and not English -Native speaker could follow the English translation 🙏🏻
@@GermanSpeeches AH means that these gentlemen are, so to speak, the secret poison whisperers, like Grima Wormtongue in J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings
about as notable as kamala harris' November 4th speech.
why does the most evil man in the world sound so darn reasonable? almost as if he was onto something or maybe even right? wait beeing right is not right right???
or maybe you just have the same brain disease as he did
Hitler and Stalin, like two bank robbers, joined forces and attacked the smaller states between them until 1941. Then, in 1941, one gangster decided to kill the other with the goal to grab the whole prey. Stalin crafted a narrative of Russian heroism out of this, which is still told today. Putin also seeks to obscure the fact that the Kremlin was an accomplice, certainly not (only) a victim. For Russia, World War II seems to begin in 1941; there is no remembrance of the two years before or of the pact with Hitler.
true
daumen runter von mir, lernt mal 'der selbe' 'in Frage' 'auf Grund' 'nieder zu legen' und 'in wie weit' getrennt zu schreiben, so wie es sich gehört
Die Tonqualität ist bedauerlich sehr schlecht. Ich konnte den Führer nicht ganz verstehen…YT, bitte verbessern Sie die Ton Qualität der Führeransprachen!
Daran haben diese Lügner und Vertuscher der Wahrheit, kein Interesse!!
Nich immer beklagen! Selber was tun. Ich habe mir ein einfaches Mischpult Programm geladen und selbst optimiert.
Desweiteren geht es um die Aussagen, nicht um dein Höhrvergnügen.
Jaaaawohl!
Wir haben den Führer gebeten seine Rede noch einmal mit moderner Aufnahmetechnik zu wiederholen. Leider hat er abgelehnt.
da heulen die nazibengel
Actually buying propaganda is INSANE
As if the allies didn’t utilize propaganda, are you retarded ?
The amount of Nazi sympathizers in this comment section is crazy
Its simple. People are waking up to the truth and there is nothing you can do about it, except crying. Now, cry about it .
@@elviadarkgrape2859 AHAHAHAAAAA
@@elviadarkgrape2859 lmfao what truth except being retarded
@@elviadarkgrape2859how is Nazism the truth?
What he is saying is the truth, cant you Listen?
😮guuuuuueehhhd
😣 EAHM NOHT FOCOUSH
IF SEEEE THAH'TS
🙃FEARM FIREHHH
😝
1:13:00
Are they laughing when Adolf calls american presidents mentally ill?
"Geisteschrank" would mean more like "Spiritually ill" if my German knowledge isn't completely wrong, and yeah they're laughing.
@Lars-Liam-Vilhelm when i think about, how did one man managed to brainwash 100 million people of Germany and Austria like that, its unbelievable...
UA-cam you lost, Hitler will not disappear
He has less than a fraction of 1% of the views that Taylor Swift has. lol
@@mitchrichards1532 do you really compare them with us? please.
Its a matter of perspective, context if you will. No matter how "popular" hit ler or antisemitism becomes, its still going to be 100-1. The NS aren't coming back.
Biggest mistake
No. Hitler was convinced, the war is lost, by November 1941. This is also reflected by the change of policy towards the Jews, the régime's major obsession and litmus test for loyalty. This declaration of war was the leap of faith of a desperate who wanted to look like a strongman.
Germans sure loved their maga.
ew dont compare the Führer to the orange.
Trump seems pathetic next to the Austrian painter.
No way there are people in the comments celebrating this trash. 😭
Education really failed some people.
education outside of Bible study will soon be illegal in America
You’re a retard
all around 12:00 catched me hard.
Anyone here after Trump election victory?