Talk:Inside the Third Reich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Article creation (2005) 2 Seniority 3 confusing sentence 4 the sociopath 5 Under "Description of the Nazi hierarchy" there is something wrong 6 Mistakes 7 Incoherent use of the objective pronoun 8 Request to someone with a copy of the book. 9 So how did he say he joined the party?

[edit] Article creation (2005)

I just created this article, and would appreciate additions and subtractions. If anyone has read "Speer: His Battle With the Truth," the inclusion of that book's points would be extremely useful. --L. 15:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Great work! Maybe the section talking about Speer's contradictions is not clear enought, but I've not the knowledge to improve it, sorry :(

[edit] Seniority

As a purely technical nit-pick: in saying that Speer was the most senior Nazi to survive both the war and the Nuremburg trials, does this not overlook both Donitz, who was briefly the Führer and Hess, who was for some long time the Deputy Führer?--Anthony.bradbury 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I corrected the sentence. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.142.114.24 (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] confusing sentence

The last sentence of this paragraph is confusing and seems to be a non sequitur, or at least missing a key piece that would connect it:

In the book, Speer claimed to have contemplated Hitler's assassination in early 1945 to end the war. However, aside from an affidavit from one of his friends, Dieter Stahl, there is no evidence to substantiate this. In fact, in the late 1990s, examination of Royal Air Force photographs of Hitler's bunker near the end of the war directly contradicts Speer's claims.

How would Royal Air Force photographs of Hitler's bunker contradict Speer's claims that he had contemplated Hitler's assassination? --Delirium 21:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This confused me as well...the explanation below is fine. Why not reword the article to mention the technicalities that disproved Speer's claim about contemplating assassination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.248.1 (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Speer claimed that in mid-March of 1945, he examined the air filter to the bunker, and this caused him to comptemplate Hitler's assassination by dropping poison gas through the air shafts. Nuremburg testimony and ITTR.

2. A few days later, Speer returned to the bunker, to find that a guarded chimney was now over the grate. This caused him to drop any ideas on the gas attack. Nuremburg testimony, and Dieter Stahl's affidavid.

3. The chimney going up in about 48 hours was, as Speer admitted when pressed, a rather quick and timely precaution. He speculated that Hentchsel or another bunker technician must have run a "crash program" to get it up so quickly. Nuremburg testimony.

4. The RAF photos revealed that the chimney, which Speer claimed wasn't built until March, was up by January 1945. However, only until recently was the bunker able to pinpointed in these photos (if it had been pinpointed in 1945, history would be much different). Royal Air Force.

5. Ergo sum - even Speer's claim of "contemplation" of Hitler's assassination, as well as the affadavid, was false due to irrefutable physical evidence. The History Channel, Modern Marvels. --76.16.160.102 01:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, consider this-- why would Speer have even known about the existence of the "chimney," a rather odd and esoteric factoid for any senior official to be cognizant of? He obviously had scouted out the area and taken note of it. Maybe his memory was faulty, as memory can be, and the episode he describes took place earlier in 1945; or maybe he thought of killing Hitler, mentioned it to his friend, but never went further than that, and embellished the account afterward to portary himself in as favorable a light as possible. Either way, the very fact that he could comment from prison on the air filter system and the existence of the protective chimney strongly suggests that at least some element of the anecdote is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.4.21 (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the sociopath

i didn't know about the controversies, but now for me seems that Speer was the sociopath he claimed Hitler was, because the things that are not well explained about him are kinda "key facts", maybe he just did everything he could to benefit himself despite of truth. just compare the things he said with the things he did. i'd like more links to discussion about this book and the author, i'd add it but i'd get my ass kicked then. and Delirium made a good question up there, someone should explain that 'cause could be one more factor to contribute to the theory speer was a cold cold nut.

[edit] Under "Description of the Nazi hierarchy" there is something wrong

It says "Even in 1945, when Germany's armed forces were all but destroyed, Speer could not convince Hitler to admit defeat, or even to go on the defensive", when it should say "were nothing but destroyed" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.179.234.132 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, it's better as "all but destroyed" than as "nothing but destroyed". However, you could just make it "almost destroyed" if you like. — Lumbercutter 02:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistakes

This article is probably a translation of the corresponding German article. As a matter of fact, the mistakes of the original were adopted. For example, it is untrue that Albert Speer claimed that he had tried to avoid using foreign workers. Indeed, he says explicitely that he urged the competent men in the military to send him as many workers as possible. (See the discussion page of the German article for quotes from the book.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.52.183.194 (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incoherent use of the objective pronoun

"He then goes on to say that there was no way that he could have known what was happening to the Jews, even though he met with them twice a week to play poker"

What, all of them?

210.49.208.6 (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. I think the whole poker-playing thing was nothing but vandalism. I removed it. — ¾-10 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to someone with a copy of the book.

I wonder whether anyone with a copy of Inside the Reich could help with a fact tag on Alfred Cortot the tag is on a report of Cortot "befriending Hitler's friend, architect, and (after 1942) Minister of Armaments and War Production Albert Speer". From some googling I have gathered that there might be a photo of Cortot and the Speers in Inside the Reich. So could someone please check if it is there and what can be found on Cortot's relationship with Speer from the index. Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So how did he say he joined the party?

Today's edit by an anon edit has significantly changed how we report Speer's version of how he joined the party. Could someone with a copy of the book please verify which version is correct?--Peter cohen (talk)