Hitler's accent
Bill Chapman
enough to tell.
Bodo Mordhorst
>What accent did Hitler have? Austrian? High German? My German's not good
>enough to tell.
Hi
As far as I remember the little bit I heard at school and in tv he had an
Austrian dialect but not very much. For my northern-german ears I would say
very southern-Germany/Austria, but not typically Austria.
If you hear a speech of him, the voice is very "hard" and the "r" is (how do
you say in english?) rolling. Thats something typical southern-german (some
areas) and thats the ways people spoke at this time to big audience.
Remember he started speaking to people in pubs/bars without any microphone
or so.
BTW once I read that Hitler disliked the northern-german dialects
(Plattdeutsch and some kinds of frisian) very much.
Regards
Bodo Mordhorst
Goslar/DE
Glenn A. Steinberg
> What accent did Hitler have? Austrian? High German? My German's not good
> enough to tell.
Many of the aristocrats who were involved in the German Resistance made
much
fun of Hitler's plebeian "accent." I think, however, that it was more
Bavarian
than Austrian.
Marco de Innocentis
Bill Chapman <bcha...@best.com> wrote:
> What accent did Hitler have? Austrian? High German?
> My German's not good enough to tell.
I'm not a native speaker of German, but it seems to me that
Hitler's accent was more or less High German, except for his
R's, which were always rolled (like in Italian or Spanish)
and sometimes exaggerated. As far as I can tell this was the
only Austrian characteristic of his speech. For example, when
speaking to the Reichstag after the invasion of Poland, on
1.9.1939, he went something like this:
"Ich habe meiner Luftwaffe den Auftrag gegeben, sich
auf militärrrische Objekte bei ihren Angriffen zu
beschränken."
According to Ernst Hanfstangl ("Hitler: the Missing Years"),
Hitler originally - around 1921, that is - had a more
distinctly Austrian way of speaking, but afterwards it became
more "germanised".
Marco
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Philippneu
So his accent was Austrian.
Phil
HCALTMANN
>What accent did Hitler have? Austrian? High German? My German's not good
>enough to tell.
Hitler rolled his R's, which is a Bavarian & Austrian characteristic.
However,
he did not speak with any accent. As an orator, he had to speak what is
called
Hochdeutsch, i.e. the written German. Hochdeutsch is the only German that
all
German people understand. They generally do not understand each other's
local
dialects. Accents arise from dialects. The term "high German" is an
English
term, and it does not translate into Hochdeutsch.
-- Heinz
HCAl...@aol.com (Heinz Altmann)
"I have no desire to win, only to get things right." A.J.P. Taylor
Werner Pfeiffer
>
> What accent did Hitler have? Austrian? High German? My German's not good
> enough to tell.
Fairly Standard German. His "r" was a bit of a give-away. I definitely
wouldn't call his accent "Austrian" or "Viennese".
Hitler got intensive rhetorical training. This probably included
development of his pronunciation.
Regards,
-Werner
PS: I am a German born after the war.
Dave Gower
Bodo Mordhorst <bodo...@foni.net.de.com.org.blabla> wrote in message
news:8ju5n5$p4f@beast...
>
> If you hear a speech of him, the voice is very "hard" and the "r" is (how do
> you say in english?) rolling. Thats something typical southern-german (some
> areas) and thats the ways people spoke at this time to big audience.
> Remember he started speaking to people in pubs/bars without any microphone
> or so.
I do not speak German so won't dispute what you say but I have read that he
took training in oratory from a well-known theatrical coach in the early
1920s. I believe it was financed by a wealthy admirer. This may have also
influenced how he sounded.
There are many testimonials about his speaking skills. Even people utterly
opposed to his philosophy reported being spell-bound when hearing him in
person.
Paco Jones
wrote:
>What accent did Hitler have? Austrian? High German? My German's not good
>enough to tell.
He had an Austrian accent, and a very low-class one at that. Amazing
how the Germans, industrialists, aristocrats, etc., who were highly
"class conscious", could have followed someone with such a thick
accent...
But then again, who could figure out the pre-WW2 Germans...
HCALTMANN
>He [Hitler] had an Austrian accent, and a very low-class one at that.
Not true, definitely not true. Have you ever heard an Austrian or a Bavarian
speak his dialect? Even I, who grew up next door, had trouble understanding
them at times. When it comes to accent, what is that? Accent is not dialect.
Accent is a residual of pronunciation that shows up when another language is
spoken. I grew up in Germany, have lived in the US for fifty years and hardly
used German , but I still have an accent.
Hitler had traces of an Bavarian and/or Austrian accent, the most prominent one
the rolling R. Other than that, he spoke impeccable German. By the way, there
is little difference between Austrian and Bavarian dialects.
I heard Hitler speak many times and will never forget it. -- Heinz
Jeppe Locht
> > enough to tell.
-snip-
>
> Hitler got intensive rhetorical training. This probably included
> development of his pronunciation.
One of the few recordings I have heard where he is not adressing crowds is
his speech after becoming chancellor in '33. The speech was done in
studio-like surroundings and was published on a phonographic record of which
my family owns a copy.
He speaks very quietly and doesn't (to my recollection) roll his r's too
much. Since I am not a native german speaker I cannot judge the accent too
well and it has been quite a while since I heard the record.
b. rgds.
j.
Mike Woods
: What accent did Hitler have? Austrian? High German? My German's not good
: enough to tell.
IIRC, he claimed in "Mein Kampf" that he grew up speaking a Bavarian
dialect. After his youth he lived in Vienna, then Munich, then served in
the Bavarian army. All of these influences likely had an effect on his
speech. Later on, of course, he learned to be a speechifier to the entire
nation and would have had to eliminate most traces of dialect from his
speech habits.
-- Mike Woods
Jim Kellogg
Paco Jones
>From: Paco Jones flam...@hotmail.com
>
>>He [Hitler] had an Austrian accent, and a very low-class one at that.
>
>Not true, definitely not true. Have you ever heard an Austrian or a Bavarian
>speak his dialect? Even I, who grew up next door, had trouble understanding
..>Hitler had traces of an Bavarian and/or Austrian accent, the most
prominent one
>the rolling R. Other than that, he spoke impeccable German. By the way, there
>is little difference between Austrian and Bavarian dialects.
..
You are supporting my posting. Do not confuse "accent" with syntax,
grammar, which goes to make a "language"or a dialect.
Yes, I've heard Austrian dialect, and I can't understand a word. {On
the other hand, I have no problems with Swiss German, or Schwitzer
Dutsch.) :-) :-) As hideous a patois as Austrian, Bavarian or
Swabian...
So, once again, Hitler had an Austrian accent. Since he was Austrian,
that is not a surprise. But he spoke(at least in his recorded
speeches) in High German, which is not an accent, but a language, an
idiom, whatever you choose to call it.
I can't vouch for the fact that he spoke "impeccable German", since I
was never with him in private, or when he spoke to his generals, or
when he had his feet up, relaxing.
It is curious, however, that von Rundstedt, a Prussian aristocrat,
always referred to Hitler as "the Bohemian corporal." (Der Bohmische
Gefreiter).
So did the von Moltkes...
Donald Phillipson
> During WWII how many German accents are there and what are they?
Probably as many as in the USA or Britain, divided
along many lines e.g.
1 Geography (different accents in Berlin, Hamburg, Munich etc.)
2 Social class (a = remote countryside, b = big city proletariat.)
3 Influences of higher education, radio etc. (In Britain, the
biggest single exterminator of regional accents was radio
1930-70.)
-- in short, perhaps too many to count accurately.
--
| Donald Phillipson, dphil...@trytel.com |
| Carlsbad Springs, Ottawa, Canada |
HOST Comp Tanker
About as many as there were during World War I, or
during the Napoleonic Wars, actually...
Seriously, "Germany" (as a legal distinction) really
encompasses as many different "nations" as did the
former Soviet Union. Some, like Prussia and
Bavaria, were relatively large states for centuries.
Others were nothing more than small princedoms or
dukedoms. All had their linguistic differences, from
things like the "Ick"/"Ish" pronounciation split of
the basic pronoun "Ich" to different words for a day of the week.
Just as we here in the US can sense regional
differences in people from different states, so too
can Germans tell if their interlocator is a
Prussian or a Bavarian, a Brandenburger or a West-
phalian and so on.
So, in short, the first answer above is probably still
the best one.
Terry L. Stibal
HOSTCom...@aol.com
Thor Eysteinsson
HCALTMANN wrote in message <8k0lk7$h2g@beast>...
>From: Paco Jones flam...@hotmail.com
>
>Hitler had traces of an Bavarian and/or Austrian accent, the most prominent one>the rolling R. Other than that, he spoke impeccable German. By the way, there
>is little difference between Austrian and Bavarian dialects.
I have seen in claimed that his grammar was bad. I haven't seen any
of his speeches in the original, and thus can not determine for myself.
But Prof. R.V. Jones, in his "Most secret war", cites one of his
colleagues during the war, Prof. Frederick "Bimbo" Norman on this.
Hitler had made a speech allegedly referring to a "secret weapon",
and this was recorded by the BBC and translated by the Foreign Office.
Dr. Jones wasn't certain that he had actually referred to such a weapon.
So he asked his friend Norman to translate the thing. "He [Norman] duly
went and returned full of indignation at Hitler's grammar" (p. 64).
As it turned out, Hitler had used the term "waffe", which can either mean
weapon or a military force, e.g. Luftwaffe or U-bootwaffe, and not referred
to a weapon. In fact he was talking about the Royal Navy as a "waffe"
in that speech. Prof. Norman was professor of German at Kings College
London before the war. He was an intelligence officer at Bletchley Park
during the war. Of course he may have been a bit of a perfectionist
when it came to "Hochdeutsch" and it's grammar. I wonder if he was
right about Hitler's grammar, though. Hitler had a lousy education,
so...
Thor Eysteinsson
HCALTMANN
> ... Hitler had used the term "waffe", >which can either mean weapon or a
>military force, e.g. Luftwaffe or >U-bootwaffe, and not referred
>to a weapon. In fact he was talking about >the Royal Navy as a "waffe" in that
speech.
I am confused. You seem to imply that Hitler's use of the word "Waffe" was
bad
German, because the equivalent "weapon" means something else in English??
Hitler's use of "Waffe" as the equivalent of the English "force" (as in
airforce) was entirely appropriate, as any native German-speaker will tell
you.
The Royal Navy was, in German, a "Waffe."
I repeat: I remember hearing Hitler speak many times, and his oratory was
perfect. It could not have been had he spoken in a dialect. The rolling
"R"
is Bavarian-Austrian and is not, repeat not, a sign of inferior education,
no
more than the Prussian "Gaumen-R" is, or the English rolled-tongue "R".
Mind you, I am not defending Hitler, merely his ability to speak German.
inter...@aol.com
Paco Jones <FLAM...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> It is curious, however, that von Rundstedt, a Prussian aristocrat,
> always referred to Hitler as "the Bohemian corporal." (Der Bohmische
> Gefreiter).
> So did the von Moltkes...
>
>
This had nothing to do with his speaking skills. Let's put it this
way, if it were not for Hitler's speaking skills, the von Moltke's
would not even refer to him. You see, dirt is ignored in aristocratic
circles. Hitler won many converts however among the aristocrats. The
reference to the Bohemian corporal was indicative of the caste system
practiced by Germans, even today. Hitler did lack the sentiment and
disposition of well-bred people. The Prussian aristocracts were much
like their cousins the English aristocrats where high-mindedness, self-
control, humor, fair-play and dry whit were admired. Hitler was more
akin to a Schnauzer then a great Dane in personality type. In German
society of the time it mattered more what your credentials were then
what you could bring to the job. The foundation of a persons
credentials in those days was what your father did, where you were
educated and your curriculum vitae. In Hitler's case, decidedly slow
track.
Paco Jones
wrote:
>
>HCALTMANN wrote in message <8k0lk7$h2g@beast>...
>>From: Paco Jones flam...@hotmail.com
>>
>>Hitler had traces of an Bavarian and/or Austrian accent, the most prominent one>the rolling R. Other than that, he spoke impeccable German. By the way, there
>>is little difference between Austrian and Bavarian dialects.
>
>I have seen in claimed that his grammar was bad. I haven't seen any
>of his speeches in the original, and thus can not determine for myself.
..The same was confirmed to me by Theo von Moltke, the grandson of the
Chief of Staff of the German Imperial Army in WW1.
His grammar was, apparently, very defficient and he would massacre the
so-called "fellen". German as a language has some of the same
construction as Latin, in that you have five cases or "Fellen".
(Nominatif, Datif, Accusatif,etc.)
And, apparently, his lousy grammar was also evident in Mein Kampf.
No ghost writers in those days....
inter...@aol.com
>
> >From: Paco Jones flam...@hotmail.com
> >
> >>He [Hitler] had an Austrian accent, and a very low-class one at that.
I was not there when he spoke, but I have heard him on recordings. As
an expert in German (hochdeutsch and plattdeutsch and anything in
between including saechsich) I can guarantee you that Hitler did not
speak in Austrian dialect or any other. He spoke hochdeutsch, the
German of the educated and aspirants. Like Heinz said he rolled his
r's which was a bit out of norm. However, his skill of presentation,
thought process, and articulation was admired even by German
intellectuals. In fact it was his articulation that won over many
Junkers and idealists to the early SS. A man with a dialect would
never be able to achieve that in German society of the day where
dialects where frowned upon in the same way a heavy southern drawl was
looked at in the US, it evoked immediate stereotypes.
His force of delivery was decidedly unaristocratic and betrayed his
working class origins, so was his habit of starting a speach in calm
delivery and ending in something histeric-like which was an indication
of loss of self-control, decidely unaristocratic and more pleasing to
the emotional outbursts of working class communists and storm troopers
which were a large percentage of his constituents. For his origins and
lack of education Hitler was remarkable in that he could persuade the
upper class. This is not difficult in English where anyone could put
on airs, but very difficult in a sophisticated and complicated language
as German. Hitler played to all audicences.
Werner Pfeiffer
> >of his speeches in the original, and thus can not determine for myself.
> ..The same was confirmed to me by Theo von Moltke, the grandson of the
> Chief of Staff of the German Imperial Army in WW1.
Prussian officers aren't renowned for their grammar, I am afraid. ;-) I
don't know about their grandsons. As a German proud of his correct
grammar - although German wasn't my favourite subject at school! - I
would contest this statement.
> His grammar was, apparently, very defficient and he would massacre the
> so-called "fellen".
No, Hitler's manners might well be desrcibed - by an aristocrat at that
- as plebeian but his grammar was correct. Wrong usage of the "Faelle"
is what foreigners usually are detected by and certain confusions are
particular to some regions - Hitler's grammaer, though, was impeccable.
Mind you, his work "Mein Kampf" reminded me more of a school essay than
a piece of literature - stylewise.
> German as a language has some of the same construction as Latin, in
> that you have five cases or "Fellen".
That's true. But we learn the usage by way of mother's milk. And at
school of course.
> And, apparently, his lousy grammar was also evident in Mein Kampf.
> No ghost writers in those days....
Again, his grammar is alright but his style is awful. "Mein Kampf"
really reads like Hitler wrote it all himself. Hitler's plebeian manners
probably endeared him to many an ordinary German. His fiercest opponents
can be found among the aristocracy. Just check who took part in the 20th
July assasination attempt! But there was also much support at the
beginning.
One of Wilhelm II son's (August Wilhelm?) joined the NSDAP - or was it
the SA.
Kind Regards,
-Werner
Thor Eysteinsson
HCALTMANN wrote in message <397e2924...@news.dialix.com.au>...
>From: "Thor Eysteinsson" tho...@simnet.is :
>
>> ... Hitler had used the term "waffe", >which can either mean weapon or a
>>military force, e.g. Luftwaffe or >U-bootwaffe, and not referred
>>to a weapon. In fact he was talking about >the Royal Navy as a "waffe" in that>speech.
>I am confused. You seem to imply that Hitler's use of the word "Waffe" was
>bad German, because the equivalent "weapon" means something else in English??
>Hitler's use of "Waffe" as the equivalent of the English "force" (as in
>airforce) was entirely appropriate, as any native German-speaker will tell
>you. The Royal Navy was, in German, a "Waffe."
I am terribly sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Hitler's use of "waffe"
certainly wasn't bad German at all. The civil servants at the Foreign
Office had mistranslated this term in the official translation, such
that he had referred to a "weapon". According to Prof. Norman's
translation, however, he was referring to a military force, including
the Royal Navy as a military force. I knew that in German one can refer
to the RN as a "waffe". But the FO mistranslation, broadcasted on the
BBC, had raised some feathers in London, among politicians, military
and intelligence officers. In newspaper and even intelligence reports
the "weapon" became in fact a "secret weapon", but it is quite clear
that Hitler had not said anything about such things in that speech.
Dr. Jones, head of air ministry Scientific intelligence, and ever the
sceptic that he was, did not believe that this was correct. So he had
Prof. Norman go over to the BBC and listen to the speech again. He
came back full of indignation at Hitler's grammar, and with a different
and more accurate translation. But I don't find that part of the
speech that dr. Jones prints particularly coherrent, and thus it may
have confused the civil servants. >From the content one can discern
that Hitler was in an agitated emotional state when he gave the
speech.
>I repeat: I remember hearing Hitler speak many times, and his oratory was
>perfect. It could not have been had he spoken in a dialect. The rolling "R"
>is Bavarian-Austrian and is not, repeat not, a sign of inferior education,
I wasn't implying that at all. The little that I have heard of his
oratory, he does seem to have fairly clear diction, when not drowned by
his screaming and yelling and that of the crowd. Then one can clearly
hear what he is saying. I don't find the rolling R's particularly
prominent in his speech, but then again I can't say that Hitler's
speeches are my favourate music :)
>no more than the Prussian "Gaumen-R" is, or the English rolled-tongue "R".
>Mind you, I am not defending Hitler, merely his ability to speak German.
I understand that perfectly. The reference to his inferior education
(and I believe the evidence does indeed show that it was in shambles)
was based on Prof. Norman's comment about his grammar, rather than his
rolling R's or diction. I think that one can assume that bad grammar
is an indication of bad education, in Germany as elsewhere.
But still, I am curious as to how bad/good his grammar really was.
Written speeches, perhaps by speechwriters, are of course not
acceptable as evidence on that issue, but I believe that large portions
of Hitler's speeches were actually spontaneous. We have a comment from
a British professor of German studies on his grammar, and rather
unfavourable it is, but I wonder if others who have listened to him and
know German grammar well agree with that assessment.
Thor Eysteinsson
Teruzo...@exicte.com
> > >of his speeches in the original, and thus can not determine for myself.
Remember that he spoke High-German... which is considered to be a "Blue
Collar"
working class dialect when compared to the German aristocrates' Low German.
In addition... the language in "MK" will not win literary proses, but it
was
directly specifically for the working class, veterans, and anti-commies.
Simple words... direct communication. No fanciful lingo here.
Nazism... is not just Anti-Semitism, but also Nationalism, and Socialism !
It's aim was also to destroy the old feudal imperial/aristoric order of
German to establish the New Order of things.
What better creed to use "High German" to communicate to the masses.
T.
Paco Jones
<wernerp...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> ..The same was confirmed to me by Theo von Moltke, the grandson of the
>> Chief of Staff of the German Imperial Army in WW1.
>
>Prussian officers aren't renowned for their grammar, I am afraid. ;-) I
.Far from me to argue with a German re grammar. If you say so, I guess
I'll take it for granted that Prussian aristocrats have terrible
grammar.
However, I'm glad to see that you agree with Theo's statement re Mein
Kampf.
You are absolutely right in that many of the opponents of Hitler were
aristocrats of the old school. Bruno von Moltke left Germany in 1935
when the Nuremberg laws were passed. Yet, he wasn't Jewish and
probably didn't count any Jews among his friends. But he was revolted
to see that Germany and the honor of the army had fallen to the levels
they were falling.
You are right that one of the sons of Kaiser Wilhelm was a Nazi, but
the remainder of them opposed the NSDAP. So did the Kaiser...
HCALTMANN
>We have a comment from
>a British professor of German studies on his grammar, and rather
>unfavourable it is, but I wonder if others who have listened to him and
>know German grammar well agree with that assessment.
I take the word of your British professor: To his professorial, albeit English
ears, Hitler's "grammar" was terribly lower-class, and therefore atrocious. To
this boy, when he listened to Hitler speak in the Thirties, his language was
perfectly plain and understandable. Plain speaking, and perhaps folksy
speaking, is a virtue to an orator, and never mind the grammar. May I just
remind you of Eisenhower's speech?
Respectfully of all academics (now that is poor grammar, but I think I am
understood) -- Heinz
Thor Eysteinsson
HCALTMANN wrote in message <20000713200110...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
>From: "Thor Eysteinsson" tho...@simnet.is
>
>>We have a comment from
>>a British professor of German studies on his grammar, and rather
>>unfavourable it is, but I wonder if others who have listened to him and
>>know German grammar well agree with that assessment.
>
>I take the word of your British professor: To his professorial, albeit
English
>ears, Hitler's "grammar" was terribly lower-class, and therefore atrocious.
To
>this boy, when he listened to Hitler speak in the Thirties, his language
was
>perfectly plain and understandable. Plain speaking, and perhaps folksy
>speaking, is a virtue to an orator, and never mind the grammar. May I just
>remind you of Eisenhower's speech?
You probably have the crux of the matter there. Prof. Norman, as I
understand,
was particularly pedantic when it came to the German language.
His job was to assess decrypted German messages during
the war. His knowledge of German and Nordic literature was also
very useful for that. The Luftwaffe had a navigational system called
"Wotan" (the German term for Odin, the "Zeus" of Nordic gods),
which was an improvement on the "Knickebein" radio beams.
His deduction was that since Odin only had one eye according to the
Edda, the "Wotan" system probably involved one beam, as opposed
to the two beams of the "Knickebein". I suppose Hitler's speeches,
no matter how well prepared (or not), could not live up to his standards
in terms of grammar and syntax. The trouble is that most of Hitler's
speeches were more or less prepared, sometimes written beforehand,
and as you point out, geared for certain audiences. Perfect grammar
is certainly not the important thing in such oratory.
I should note that the only recording of a conversation in which Hitler
participated that I am aware of as being available was between him
and the head of the Finnish army, Field Marshal Mannerheim. This occurred
during Hitler's visit to Finland in 1942 or 1943. The recording was
obtained, discreetly, by the Finnish intelligence services, so that Hitler
was not aware of the fact that he was being recorded. I heard a bit
from the recording some time ago. The sound quality is bad, but
one can hear that Hitler is relaxed and speaking spontaneously.
Unfortunately my ability to understand spoken German is not up
to the task of assessing his grammar from there. But he spoke
most of the time, about his decisions during the "Barbarrossa"
campaign. I suppose this recording might give a clue on the matter.
Thor Eysteinsson
Thor Eysteinsson
Werner Pfeiffer wrote in message <39880c64...@news.dialix.com.au>...
[snip]
>Again, his [Hitler's] grammar is alright but his style is awful. "Mein
Kampf"
>really reads like Hitler wrote it all himself. Hitler's plebeian manners
>probably endeared him to many an ordinary German. His fiercest opponents
>can be found among the aristocracy. Just check who took part in the 20th
>July assasination attempt! But there was also much support at the
>beginning.
It was I who posed the question about Hitler's grammar. Mind you, my
source for his bad grammar was second hand...
I don't think "Mein Kampf" can be accepted as evidence of his
gammatical abilities. It was a published work, and dictated to Rudolf
Hess (whose grammatical abilities are unknown to me as well), but
who may have improved the grammar, but apprently not the style.
Finally, it must have been proofread by the publisher, and German
publishing houses are and have been well known for their careful
work in proofreading and printing.
I think that unwritten speeches and conversation by Hitler can only
be acceptable evidence of his grammar. Prof. Norman, professor
of German studies, known for his abilities and knowledge of German
literature and grammar, was cited by dr. Jones in his book as saying
that Hitler's grammar was bad. It is of course possible that Prof.
Norman actually referred to his style rather than his grammar, but he
had just been exposed to a recording of a spontaneous speech made
by Hitler in the Reichstag when he said this. Now his criterion may have
been particularly high, with reference to Goethe and Schiller.
It would be interesting to have someone who knows German well
listen to a decent recording of a Hitler speech and comment on his
grammar and perhaps style.
>One of Wilhelm II son's (August Wilhelm?) joined the NSDAP - or was it
>the SA.
Prince August Wilhelm, to whom respectable society in Berlin referred to
as "Auwi", was the fourth of Kaiser Wilhelm's six sons. He was the only
one who became a devout Nazi. He did at first interact with Hitler, but
Hitler soon lost interest. He continued to be devoted to Hitler but
probably in hope of Imperial restoration. He was a member of the
SA, becoming a general (Obergruppenfuhrer). After the war he served
30 months in prison as a "co-conspirator" of war crimes.
Thor Eysteinsson
HCALTMANN
grammar,
accent or what have you:
>It would be interesting to have someone who knows German well
>listen to a decent recording of a Hitler speech and comment on his
>grammar and perhaps style.
I would be glad to do this and give my opinion to the newsgroup. I think I
qualify: Complete secondary education in Hitler's Germany, BS in
Engineering
from an American University in 1953, 23 years a German-speaker, 50 years
an
English- speaker.
The only problem is that I have no access to any recordings of Hitler's
speeches. My public library has none such. Where do I go?
Werner Pfeiffer
> It was I who posed the question about Hitler's grammar. Mind you, my
> source for his bad grammar was second hand...
To follow this up you would have to give an example of Hitler's "bad
grammar". I for myself would say that Hitler's "grammar" was for example
better than Helmut Kohl's. ;-) But when judging a native speaker's
"grammar" it is more a question of style and taste than right and wrong.
> I don't think "Mein Kampf" can be accepted as evidence of his
> gammatical abilities. It was a published work, and dictated to Rudolf
> Hess (whose grammatical abilities are unknown to me as well), but
> who may have improved the grammar, but apprently not the style.
True, okay.
> Finally, it must have been proofread by the publisher, and German
> publishing houses are and have been well known for their careful
> work in proofreading and printing.
Agreed. But if you don't believe me, do you think a crowd can be
spellbound by an orator who doesn't have command of the grammar?
> Prof. Norman, professor
> of German studies, known for his abilities and knowledge of German
> literature and grammar, was cited by dr. Jones in his book as saying
> that Hitler's grammar was bad. It is of course possible that Prof.
> Norman actually referred to his style rather than his grammar, but he
> had just been exposed to a recording of a spontaneous speech made
> by Hitler in the Reichstag when he said this. Now his criterion may have
> been particularly high, with reference to Goethe and Schiller.
It must be that. An Oxbridge professor of German looked at people's
speech from a literary point of view. He maybe meant that Hitler's
speech wasn't refined.
> It would be interesting to have someone who knows German well
> listen to a decent recording of a Hitler speech and comment on his
> grammar and perhaps style.
I thought about that too. Your hear snippets of his speeches regularly
in the history programmes on TV. Apart from that I wouldn't know where
to listen to his speeches.
I thought of someone else. Victor Klemperer not only wrote his diaries
but also published a book on the language of the Third Reich. He called
it LTI - lingua tertii imperii. The book was published after the war in
what was then Eastern Germany. I haven't yet read all of it. But so far
I can't find a passage where he complains about Hitler's bad grammar.
I don't know whether LTI is available in English.
There must exist a dissertation on exactly this subject. Otherwise it
would make for a nice subject.
-Werner
Marco de Innocentis
Werner Pfeiffer <wernerp...@t-online.de> wrote:
> To follow this up you would have to give an example of Hitler's "bad
> grammar". I for myself would say that Hitler's "grammar" was for
> example better than Helmut Kohl's. ;-)
I think Hitler's "bad grammar" consisted in the usage of expressions
which at the time were regarded as unsuited for public speech, but
today probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow (eg "Dieser Kampf ist ein
unerbittlicher").
> > I don't think "Mein Kampf" can be accepted as evidence of his
> > gammatical abilities. It was a published work, and dictated to
> > Rudolf Hess (whose grammatical abilities are unknown to me as
> > well), but who may have improved the grammar, but apprently not
A better evidence can be provided by Hitler's letters to his
friend August Kubizek, all of them reproduced in Kubizek's
book "Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfreund". They are probably the
only written documents by Hitler which have reached us without
going through somebody else's hands. Of course hereI mean the
letters Hitler wrote as a teenager (he and Kubizek resumed
contact in 1933 and met a few times after 1938).
Marco
Thor Eysteinsson
Werner Pfeiffer wrote in message <39722C...@t-online.de>...
>Thor Eysteinsson wrote:
>
>> It was I who posed the question about Hitler's grammar. Mind you, my
>> source for his bad grammar was second hand...
>
>grammar". I for myself would say that Hitler's "grammar" was for example
>"grammar" it is more a question of style and taste than right and wrong.
The only "evidence", such as it is, that I have about Hitler's grammar
is a sentence in R.V. Jones' "Most Secret War", i.e. that it was not
up to the standards of linguist. Another poster presented an example
of Hitler's bad "grammar", without reference. That example was odd
syntax, as far as I can discern.
>> Finally, it must have been proofread by the publisher, and German
>> publishing houses are and have been well known for their careful
>> work in proofreading and printing.
>
>Agreed. But if you don't believe me, do you think a crowd can be
>spellbound by an orator who doesn't have command of the grammar?
I keep an open mind on the matter, I really don't know what to believe
in this. But I tend to agree with Heinz Altman in that grammar, phraseology
syntax etc. are not critical for oratory. An orator can certainly,
given an audience with the right frame of mind, have tremendous effects
regardless of linguistics.
>
>It must be that. An Oxbridge professor of German looked at people's
>speech from a literary point of view. He maybe meant that Hitler's
>speech wasn't refined.
Yes, most likely. Mind you, this professor read and listened to many
German speeches and texts during the war, some of vital importance
for British intelligence. Jones makes frequent references to him and
his work, but in no other case to his comments about bad grammar.
I assume he utterly disliked Hitler...
>> It would be interesting to have someone who knows German well
>> listen to a decent recording of a Hitler speech and comment on his
>> grammar and perhaps style.
>
>I thought about that too. Your hear snippets of his speeches regularly
>in the history programmes on TV. Apart from that I wouldn't know where
>to listen to his speeches.
This is my experience as well, and I don't know where one can
gain easy access to these speeches. I believe that the recording
I heard of Hitler's conversation with Mannerheim was on a German
documentary series on Hitler, few years ago. It was a snippet, but very
interesting.
>I thought of someone else. Victor Klemperer not only wrote his diaries
>but also published a book on the language of the Third Reich. He called
>it LTI - lingua tertii imperii. The book was published after the war in
>what was then Eastern Germany. I haven't yet read all of it. But so far
>I can't find a passage where he complains about Hitler's bad grammar.
>
>I don't know whether LTI is available in English.
That is indeed interesting. If it is not available in English, it should
be...
>
>There must exist a dissertation on exactly this subject. Otherwise it
>would make for a nice subject.
I certainly agree with that. The German journalist Joachim Fest
in his "The Face of the Third Reich" (Das Gesich des Dritten
Reiches: Profile einer totalitaeren Herrschaft) goes a bit into
Hitler's oratory and the style of "Mein Kampf", which he characterises
as "inflated and semi-educated verbiage through almost
eight hundred pages". He also gives examples of "absurd
linguistic contradictions" and mistakes in the book, but
these are more logical and factual errors than violations
of grammatical rules, which a proof reader would correct
in any case. I can not find any comments on Hitler's
"grammar" there other than this. It is certainly a topic for a
dissertation, I would think.
Thor Eysteinsson
Werner Pfeiffer
> The only "evidence", such as it is, that I have about Hitler's grammar
> is a sentence in R.V. Jones' "Most Secret War", i.e. that it was not
> up to the standards of linguist. Another poster presented an example
> of Hitler's bad "grammar", without reference. That example was odd
> syntax, as far as I can discern.
I know of none such example. As I understand the English professor made
the remark on Hitler's "bad grammar" when he - the professor - was
interpreting what Hitler was saying. Now interpreting is an infinitely
difficult job. I could well imagine an interpreter not being able to
translate everything instantaneously and perfectly.
So I imagine the professor surrounded by a bunch of important military
people who eagerly await his translation. Maybe he couldn't translate
something straight away. Or he even made a mistake. Maybe he felt really
under pressure to spit things out in English. I also assume he was a
very conscientious.
So he gave Hitler's "bad grammar" as an excuse for not delivering.
My humble opinion.
Regards,
-Werner
Teruzo Saigo
<wernerp...@t-online.de> wrote:
[...]
> So he gave Hitler's "bad grammar" as an excuse for not delivering.
> My humble opinion.
>
Didn't Hitler speak High German...or at least the Bavarian southern
German dialect ? Since those were more rural farming areas compared to
the industrial west and the intellectual north.... that professor may yet
have difficulty at translation.
No different than a New Yorker trying to translate Alabama souther draw...
or Bostonian attempting to translate Black English... or a Chinese guy
from Peking trying to translate Cantonese (which is a near
impossibility)...
or a Japanese from Tokyo trying to translate Kyushu-ben.
My humble reply..
T.