Third Party Press

Hitler speaking normally

Peter U

Moderator
Staff member
If we think of A.Hitler speaking we all have in our mind the image of a furious ranting maniac; according to the source, this is the only sound recording of A.Hitler were we can hear him talking in his normal voice.
Not only the voice itself is interesting but all so the subject matter he is talking about with the Finnish army commander Mannerheim is worth listing to.
According to the source from which I found this You Tube clip the recording was made by a Finnish sound engineer and this candid recording lasted 11 minutes before the SS found it and broke off the recording.



 
This has always been an interesting source. You can tell that he know it was over, Russia would win. A country with 35,000 tanks? Ha ha. I bet American production blew his mind.
 
That was a fascinating recording! I would have loved to have heard it all. It must have been 1943? We get history spun up for us, written from the victors after the fact interpretation, not from the perspective of those experiencing it as it happened.
 
That was a fascinating recording! I would have loved to have heard it all. It must have been 1943? We get history spun up for us, written from the victors after the fact interpretation, not from the perspective of those experiencing it as it happened.


According to were I found it online it was 1942.
 
This has always been an interesting source. You can tell that he know it was over, Russia would win. A country with 35,000 tanks? Ha ha. I bet American production blew his mind.

An on top of huge production numbers Soviet tanks were also better quality wise in many cases, for example the T34 and the Josef Stalin tank; American produced tanks like the Sherman had only one advantage and that was the massive amount in which they could be produced.
I Always have found it odd that the western allies never were able to produce a better quality tank then the Germans during the war, the Sherman Firefly was about the best they could do apparently, although they were the first to be exposed to the them back in May 1940 and the big industrial capacity they had.
 
The M-26 Pershing was a pretty good tank, and knocked out some T-34s in Korea. Very few made it to Europe before the war ended, but some did and ended up seeing combat.
 
I've seen this before on TV and YouTube. It was very interesting. There's also some work where they use a computer program to read lips on Eva's silent films. That was interesting as well.

One of the versions I saw on TV of this conversation pointed out Hitler was lying and the relationship between Hitler and Mannerheim was cool. I think Hitler presented Mannerheim with an armored Mercedes as a gift.

I haven't seen this particular video with English translation. Thanks for posting.

Regards
 
Maybe it should say:

Dieses Video ist in Deutschland unbefugt.

"Not available" has a euphemistic quality.
 
An on top of huge production numbers Soviet tanks were also better quality wise in many cases, for example the T34 and the Josef Stalin tank; American produced tanks like the Sherman had only one advantage and that was the massive amount in which they could be produced.
I Always have found it odd that the western allies never were able to produce a better quality tank then the Germans during the war, the Sherman Firefly was about the best they could do apparently, although they were the first to be exposed to the them back in May 1940 and the big industrial capacity they had.

Absolutely true, but this also points up something we (the US) do pretty well, which is post-war assessment of advantages and disadvantages of arms, equipment and tactics. We learned a ton from the German Wehrmacht and the weapons they used, as seen in the development of weapons systems and tactics in use today. Just glance at the NARA records compiled from post-war interviews and debriefs to get an idea of this.

Pat
 
The mid war German tanks were never fully vetted, before being rushed into service, as this post war assessment of the vaunted Panther indicates.

Post War French Assessment of THe Panther Tank

The French army used captured Panther tanks from 1944 to 1947, making it the operator with the longest experience with the vehicles. 50 Panthers were used by the 501st and 503rd Tank Regiments. In 1947, the French War Ministry wrote an evaluation of them entitled Le Panther 1947. The Panther was not considered a reliable tank by the French because of its high breakdown rate.[

Some excerpts from the report:

The turret traverse drive is not strong enough to either turn the turret or hold it in place when the Panther is on an incline of more than 20 degrees. The Panther is therefore not capable of firing when driving cross-country.

Elevating the gun is normally simple, but made difficult if the pneumatic assist operated by compressed nitrogen has lost pressure.

The clarity and ranging reticles of the periscope gun sight was excellent and more effective than of the allied counterpart, the Sherman. Aside from his periscope gun sight, the gunner has no other type of observation device. He is therefore practically blind, one of the greatest shortcomings of the Panther.

The commander's cupola with its 7 periscopes provides a nearly perfect all-round visibility. Periscopes damaged by shells can be replaced very quickly.

A scissors periscope with large magnification power was affixed to a bracket in the commander's cupola.

The gunsight with two magnification stages is remarkably clear and has its field of view clear in the centre. The gunsight enables observation of a target and shells out to over 3,000 m (3,300 yd).

Once the commander has located a target, it takes between 20 and 30 seconds until the gunner can open fire. This data, which is significantly greater than that of the Sherman, stems from the absence of a periscope for the gunner.

A smoke grenade thrown onto the rear deck or the vent openings of the engine will start a fire.

The running gear is sensitive to HE shells. Calibres 105 mm and greater can render the vehicle immobile .

Fragmentation shells or 75 mm rounds which strike in the same spot on the front plate can penetrate it or cause the weld seams to break .

During rapid rate of fire it is not uncommon to be forced to break off firing when the recoil of the gun has reached its permissible limit .

A rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute is only permitted in exceptional cases when circumstances so dictate. When firing off a round the chassis demonstrates no unfavorable reaction, regardless of what position the turret is in.

The fatigue life of the mechanical parts was designed for 5,000 km (3,100 mi). The wear on many parts is greater than expected. Track and running gear have a life of 2,000–3,000 km (1,200–1,900 mi). Tracks break very rarely, even on rocky terrain. The bogie wheels, however, can become deformed when driven hard. The parts of the power train (with the exception of the final drive) meet the planned fatigue life. The replacement of a transmission requires less than a day.

The major drawback of the vehicle was its weak automotive drive train. The final drive only had a life of 150 km (93 mi). Half of all the Panthers found in Normandy post combat were abandoned due to their final drives breaking down. For that reason the Germans tried to move the Panthers by train as much as possible even for short journeys of 25 km (16 mi).

The French managed to operate the Panther for several years. Their assessment of the Panther, drawn from their considerable experience with it, provides a practical and balanced view. It was suited for the defensive battles that the Germans found themselves in from 1944–45, where its thick frontal armour and long range gun could be put to good use. However, the lack of gunner’s periscope delayed the engagement time in close range. More importantly, its mechanical drawbacks meant that it could not carry out sustained offensive operations, unlike the German Panzer IV, the Soviet T-34, the American Sherman or the British Cromwell .
 
The mid war German tanks were never fully vetted, before being rushed into service, as this post war assessment of the vaunted Panther indicates.

Post War French Assessment of THe Panther Tank

The French army used captured Panther tanks from 1944 to 1947, making it the operator with the longest experience with the vehicles. 50 Panthers were used by the 501st and 503rd Tank Regiments. In 1947, the French War Ministry wrote an evaluation of them entitled Le Panther 1947. The Panther was not considered a reliable tank by the French because of its high breakdown rate.[

Some excerpts from the report:

The turret traverse drive is not strong enough to either turn the turret or hold it in place when the Panther is on an incline of more than 20 degrees. The Panther is therefore not capable of firing when driving cross-country.

Elevating the gun is normally simple, but made difficult if the pneumatic assist operated by compressed nitrogen has lost pressure.

The clarity and ranging reticles of the periscope gun sight was excellent and more effective than of the allied counterpart, the Sherman. Aside from his periscope gun sight, the gunner has no other type of observation device. He is therefore practically blind, one of the greatest shortcomings of the Panther.

The commander's cupola with its 7 periscopes provides a nearly perfect all-round visibility. Periscopes damaged by shells can be replaced very quickly.

A scissors periscope with large magnification power was affixed to a bracket in the commander's cupola.

The gunsight with two magnification stages is remarkably clear and has its field of view clear in the centre. The gunsight enables observation of a target and shells out to over 3,000 m (3,300 yd).

Once the commander has located a target, it takes between 20 and 30 seconds until the gunner can open fire. This data, which is significantly greater than that of the Sherman, stems from the absence of a periscope for the gunner.

A smoke grenade thrown onto the rear deck or the vent openings of the engine will start a fire.

The running gear is sensitive to HE shells. Calibres 105 mm and greater can render the vehicle immobile .

Fragmentation shells or 75 mm rounds which strike in the same spot on the front plate can penetrate it or cause the weld seams to break .

During rapid rate of fire it is not uncommon to be forced to break off firing when the recoil of the gun has reached its permissible limit .

A rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute is only permitted in exceptional cases when circumstances so dictate. When firing off a round the chassis demonstrates no unfavorable reaction, regardless of what position the turret is in.

The fatigue life of the mechanical parts was designed for 5,000 km (3,100 mi). The wear on many parts is greater than expected. Track and running gear have a life of 2,000–3,000 km (1,200–1,900 mi). Tracks break very rarely, even on rocky terrain. The bogie wheels, however, can become deformed when driven hard. The parts of the power train (with the exception of the final drive) meet the planned fatigue life. The replacement of a transmission requires less than a day.

The major drawback of the vehicle was its weak automotive drive train. The final drive only had a life of 150 km (93 mi). Half of all the Panthers found in Normandy post combat were abandoned due to their final drives breaking down. For that reason the Germans tried to move the Panthers by train as much as possible even for short journeys of 25 km (16 mi).

The French managed to operate the Panther for several years. Their assessment of the Panther, drawn from their considerable experience with it, provides a practical and balanced view. It was suited for the defensive battles that the Germans found themselves in from 1944–45, where its thick frontal armour and long range gun could be put to good use. However, the lack of gunner’s periscope delayed the engagement time in close range. More importantly, its mechanical drawbacks meant that it could not carry out sustained offensive operations, unlike the German Panzer IV, the Soviet T-34, the American Sherman or the British Cromwell .

Interesting read! Thanks!
 
I heard this second hand, but it was from a guy that was in the loop, so I believe it to be true.

Jacque Littlefield and his people out in California restored a panther to factory new condition. It had been pulled from a lake or something and had the hell blown out of it. Anyhow, when they were putting it back together, they decided to check out the steel quality in the final drives. You know, if it was weak steel or flawed war material, perhaps a new made set would hold up well. The outcome?

Nope. The original was great material, and nothing supplied today would've been better. It was just a bad design overall. The parts were never going to be strong enough with their sizing and design and the weight of the tank. They were just going to get destroyed by using them.

It puzzles me why it worked out like this. T-34's ate transmissions and clutches, and the engines wore out faster than they should have, but at least they made it to the battlefield and fired some shots before it happened. It seems like the Germans should've figured this out.
 
Least we forget the original design was for a roughly 35 ton vehicle, but with multiple changes, often from Hitler himself, the weight crept up to around 45 tons without concurrent modification of the transmission, and more importantly the final drives, to reflect the increased weight. That, and the fact that the engine, by design, sat in a water proof engine compartment were monumental fatal flaws.

The water proof engine compartment meant that oil / gasoline both leaked, and collected in a confined space with no way to flush them out or drain out themselves. The result was all too frequent fires that often led to the complete loss of the vehicle. They never modified the engine compartment.

For the record, I can tell you that, having been Armor, replacing a failed final drive is back breaking work.
 
Last edited:
An interesting piece of recording.

I have read quite a few biographies of German Officers from the time and they always described AH as having a deep voice.
I could never correlate this description with the speech footage you usually see where he is on the podium.

I figured it was old soldiers adding a degree of fantasy to their memory of the Fuhrer.
People like Skorzeny, who made a disciplined effort to paint AH as positively and adoringly as possible each time he described him in his auto-biography, repeatedly remarks on the deep voice - Otto was an Olympic level BS'er so I took all of his descriptions with a grain of salt.

But, clearly AH's voice was a distinctly different tone in speaking, to that when he was shouting, or addressing a crowd, quite fascinating indeed.

Interesting hearing Mannerheim's voice in relation, too.

Whatever we know now, and of course we know a lot - back in 1942 this was a man who had ruled Germany absolutely for about nine years, and had had incredible victories, there was no real "sign" he was on a downward spiral (hindsight being 20:20), I would have picked my words carefully when addressing him, too.
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top