Hitler-Mannerheim Recording | Hacker News Reader

Hitler-Mannerheim Recording

yle.fi

79 pointsmahirsaid52 comments

YouTube video with explanations and transcripts: https://youtu.be/WE6mnPmztoQ?si=90qzd9zrov9gvFYt

It's missing the first 6 minutes though.

Interesting to hear a much stronger Austrian accent in his tonality compared to his public speech style.

Yes, I'm quite surprised, despite being born and raised in Berchtesgaden and now living in Austria, I only ever heard excerpts from his speeches.

I love this recording and the longer recordings of Hitler speeches because all that is left in popular memory is the wild screams and crescendos that he would use at the end of his speeches. When you read accounts at the time people would talk about Hitler always starting quietly making you listen, and then slowly building up the pitch in the further of his meetings. They described as almost hypnotic. There’s a great fictional series that was done on Amazon – the man in the high castle – where they really leaned into this with their portrayal of Hitler.

There’s a lot of value in studying how leaders convince and control the masses.

If i recall correctly, there is also a part in the transcript where he admits he just didn’t know Russias true strength, and he never would have invaded had he known. Remarkably different language than he used at the time.

> If i recall correctly, there is also a part in the transcript where he admits he just didn’t know Russias true strength, and he never would have invaded had he known. Remarkably different language than he used at the time.

In the recording linked here he says (around the 8 min mark), while talking about Russia's strength in terms of the amount of tanks: "Had I known this my heart would have been even heavier but I would have made the decision even more so because I did not have another option".

Hitler had (poor) intelligence that the Soviets had thousands of tanks (they actually had more than the germans thought); he refused to believe that such a 'backwards' country could have such a strong modern military however.

There's a decent chance that without US assistance, that wouldn't have been the case. We sent them a lot of equipment.

Just to expand on that - we sent multiple millions of tons of aid - probably $120-150 billion, in current dollars. Thousands of tanks, thousands of planes, plus trains (locomotives and cars), food, fuel, anmmo, explosives, and industrial supplies. Not to minimize the tremendous price the Soviets paid in lives (soldier and civilian), but they almost certainly would've lost the war without lend-lease.

Y'know, with Hitler, the more I learn about that guy, the more I don't care for him.

https://youtu.be/4GtQEGJjqGI?si=W9RUaVbOEOyWFpIx

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Not my idea of a silver-tongued devil.

I do the quiet talking when people won't be quiet in meetings.

does it work (as intended)?

Yeah but I don't say much in meetings so when I do speak people tend to let me have the space to talk.

Transcript(s) : https://feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13647

I have no affiliation and no idea of the reputation of this site.

Doesn't seem to be a transcript of the same clip. It doesn't start like that.

Edit: This is the audio of the transcript you posted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClR9tcpKZec

I believe there is only one such recording of Hitler and it is the 'same'.

This is definitely the same recording. (However, I think there's also another snipped of H.'s private voice, recorded at the "Berghof".)

They are clearly two different clips though (just listen to the first 30 seconds and you will see... your transcript only matches the YouTube video), so what am I missing? Is one edited?

It appears the shorter one is trimmed?

Ah, I haven't come across this recording in some time - it's good to be reminded of it. The phrase is overused but given the rarity of hearing the man in anything other than full-tilt harangue, the recording really does represent the "banality of evil," comparatively speaking.

Put another way, it truly is strange (and a bit chilling, almost) to hear Hitler without mustache.

I understand what you mean citing Arendt, but unlike Eichmann, what strikes me about this recording of Hitler is how eerily charismatic he comes across with the deep and sober voice, contrasted by Mannerheim's accented and presumably somewhat strained German. Hitler really respected Mannerheim though, as I understand. Maybe that plays a part too.

Hitler and Stalin were both meant to pretty charming in person to people they respected in some way, right?

Ironic in this situation that Mannerheim hated him.

In some ways, but in relatively different ways. Hitler played the charismatic warrior figure; Stalin wrote books and tried to talk like a scholar (whilst promoting the likes of Lysenko).

Stalin was very well read and and could recall his sources quickly. He was also reckless and good looking - his career path is not that of your typical bank robber. Simon Sebag Montefiore has written some worthwhile books on his life. ‘Young Stalin’ is an interesting read [1].

Stalin was a truely terrible human.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/826564.Young_Stalin

The mustache wasn't so loud before he stole it from Chaplin!

So this article claims the conversation was covertly recorded, while the Wikipedia-article claims the opposite : the clearly visible microphone was used for an official recording and the recorder(!) kept it running afterwards.

Where's the contradiction? The conversation was covertly recorded after the official speech ended.

FTA: tossed a microphone on the parcel shelf of the

The article suggests the microphone was hidden.

Two microphones are clearly seen on the picture in the article.

There are?

Open mic recording after people expected to be closed is definitely a thing. The Russians in particular are famous for ensuring that Mike’s are almost always hot recorded, and then distributed to friendly sources after events of big meetings have occurred. Condi Rice, apparently read Putin the riot act, which was one of the things that soured the American/Russian relationship early on. They also did it to Hillary Clinton, who had a very similar response.

I wonder why they lecture woman and coloured politicians, but left white men alone.. surely no arching theme there.

Might be because the secretary of state during Bush was a woman, as well as Obama. Both women pitched a "return to normalcy" with Russia - and both women were incredibly disappointed when their plans came to naught.

They didn't treat Kerry any better.

Their goals were a fools errand and appeasement.

FYI this was recorded in secret, which is why you'd find nuances commonly uncharacteristic to Hitler. He was "out of character."

Edit: there's a wiki about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_and_Mannerheim_recordin...

I wonder why there is only a single recording of him in a more natural setting, over 12 years as chancellor I would have expected something more!

My guess: Recording equipment tended to be large and media expensive.

There was magnetic wire recording technology, which was relatively compact, but the amps still needed tubes and the machine hardly concealable.

Hitler had a carefully constructed public persona. He didn't want to be seen/heard by the public outside of this persona.

Came to say the same. Another example: While H. was (at least at times) wearing glasses, I don't think there's a single photo or film recording showing him with glasses.

Because he didn't want to be recorded in a natural setting. His public image was very well managed.

* In the early years of his leadership of the NSDAP there were no pictures of him because he didn't let people take pictures of him.

* He never married (until the end) because he thought he would appeal more to women if he was a bachelor and would enhanced the idea that he was fully dedicated to Germany.

* There are pictures of him practicing his dramatic expressions. His photographer was supposed to destroy them, but he disobeyed and kept the photos. That is, he wasn't spontaneous, he practiced his poses a lot.

* He would exercise his right arm. Apparently holding your arm up is quite exhausting and he wanted to give strong and long salutes at marches.

(BTW, the reason he had a toothbrush mustache (even though many advised him to shave it because it provided cannon fodder for caricaturists) is because he thought his nose was big and a mustache distracted from it.)

The mustache was branding. It was a fashion trend, made so by Charlie Chaplin. Of course, it became so much associated with Hitler, that any mustache now is immediately hitleresque.

> (BTW, the reason he had a toothbrush mustache (even though many advised him to shave it because it provided cannon fodder for caricaturists) is because he thought his nose was big and a mustache distracted from it.)

Actually it was a common mustache style through the 1940s. It marked the wearer as a WWI trench veteran as it would fit under the gas mask. Until the outbreak of conflict with Germany in 1938 it was quite common in the UK and France as well as Germany, Austria, and Italy, as can easily be verified by any number of contemporaneous photos. Note that the toothbrush mustache was worn by veterans of all classes in Peaky Blinders, for example.

The small mustache actually accentuated the size of his nose, but he was proud (and it was valuable) for him to be a veteran.

This is almost like listening to a recording of George W Bush planning the invasion of Iraq.

Back in 1812 Napoleon overestimated the abilities of his army which was perfectly suited for fighting in Western & Central Europe (Grande Armée) but had virtually no experience in the middle of the East European plain [0] the horrific outcome is one of the best studied in the history of military campaigns [1].

So, obviously Hitler and his military advisors were well aware of the huge risk, nonetheless they took it.

The explanation given in the recording (Who could have known that they could have produced over 35.000 tanks? Of which we have destroyed 34.000.) is an obvious exaggeration (the total number of all armored fighting vehicles was around 25.000 [2] at the time of the invasion) to deflect from major failures in strategic considerations e.g. underestimating the ruthless adaptability of the Soviets given their gigantic resources of land, oil and fighting men.

Because it is only when the Soviets got invaded they really began to ramp up the production of the legendary T-34 (from 3000 in 1941 to 15.000/year (!) until the end of the war in 1945) and their vast geography helped them to relocate more than half of the production sites from the West to the Ural Mountains way out of the reach for the Germans. So, the Blitzkrieg which worked brilliantly in Western & Central Europe got stuck at Stalingrad into a slow grind. Resulting into the broadest land front in military history with about 10 million military deaths on the Soviet side and about 5 million on the German/Axis side.[3]

Again, why the high risk? The necessity to secure oil fields?[4] Yes, but only paired with the pathological paranoia towards anything "bolshevik" as is evident in the recording. So the recording is not only superficially remarkable as we hear Hitler's normal voice but also quite revealing about the rationalization taking place at a crucial point on the Eastern Front in 1942.

[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_European_Plain

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia

[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_produc...

[3]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

[4]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kVo5I0xNRhg

Someone told me Hitler is seeing a massive surge in popularity lately.

Anyone know why?

He was anti Russia and anyone who opposes Russia is a good guy.At least according to contemporary Western liberal logic.

I mean, if Bin Laden, came back to life and offered to send al qaeda to fight in Ukraine against the Russians, his 911 sins would be forgiven.The Canadian parliament would even probably fete him

The anti-Israel left is finally showing its true colors.

I believe there is a renewed interest in Hitler's speeches due to alleged support of Palestine/Arabs and the encroachment of US/UK interests in the middle east/north Africa pre-ww2, for example, take this speech from the Reichstag in 1939: https://archive.is/BsJ1T

So I guess we should expect Trudeau to distract Canadians on their collapsing relationship with India by having the CBC launch a series of documentaries on the letters Hitler exchanged with Gandhi.

history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com