- Very well, Giesler, you did not know it back then, but I was sure, both in the strategic conception, the tactical individual measures and the trust in the power of the German Wehrmacht. This resulted in the carefully considered timing. - Of course I remembered that in the winter I had invited you to see Paris with me, I also asked Speer and Breker to do so. I want to see Paris with my artists, we fly in the early morning hours.
Wilhelm did a superb job. He was used to speaking both German and English from say 1948 on. He was always good at everything he put himself to. Except typing. He always had a secretary. I did the editing, sometimes it was a big job, other times easy. We worked together using skype "talk." I was the only editor, the final wording was mine (maybe that's why it sounds similar to the Commentary to you), but never without his agreement. I made sure that what we had in English was the same as Giesler had written in German. We very much apprecited, and needed, one another's contribution. It was in every way a joint project.
I thank you for bringing this up, so I could answer concerns other people might also have. I can refer them here.
I just finished Chapter 4 this afternoon, and I found this sentence, "What follow are Giesler's recommendations."
That sentence is what I've been dependent on finding in the text, and it was the first time such a break was offered this reader -- at Chapter 4. Even though you wrote me about the Table of Contents and I saw the division or interruption of the Giesler text there for myself, I nonetheless, like a boob, kept reading straight through, wondering what part was Giesler and what part was you or Willi. That wasn't a very sensible thing for me to have done.
I think I just didn't like the interruption in my reading and I didn't like having to constantly refer back to the Table of Contents so I didn't and then thought I'd naturally get the gist if I kept on reading, which never fully happened. And maybe I felt a subconscious pressure to digest the book quickly like Raymond Goodman did, even though he's an experienced historian and teacher.
In Chapter 4 there's a Translators' Commentary that goes on for a couple of pages, and that is also unusual. I wasn't sure what part was the Translators' Commentary and what part was Giesler until I read the words, "What follow are Giesler's recollections."
As I read more of Giesler's recollections of Hitler's plans of attack, I was astonished by his detailed memories and then I realized that all this time, from Chapter 1 to Chapter 3 for sure, I didn't believe, unconsciously, I didn't really believe that Giesler could have written so militaristically about the war since I assumed he was only an architect and engineer and only learned about Hitler's plans when Hitler directly shared his strategies with Giesler. I thought there was some commentary being inserted into the text from by the translators just to provide more military background. I made it up!
So I had expectations, made assumptions, invented illusions, and clearly ignored your certain tips as to how to read this book, and I only just realized this by reading Chapter 4 and finding out -- after our discussion too -- how wrong or wrong-headed I'd been. But now I'm "woked" as they say, and don't think I'm going to make that mistake again.
I'm really very sorry for putting you on the defensive, which was not my intention, but my confusion and ignorance was in the way. Haste and inattentiveness was the cause of this morass despite my attempt to read the book slowly and carefully -- or so I had thought.
About any editorial credits to TBR, I made none. I merely suggested that TBRs books are clear to read; that's their hallmark, as this book is clear to read -- despite the unusual formatting or design of the book.
Also, when I was addressing Hitler's view of war as art, here is the exact quotation from Giesler's memoir at page 44 of TAWTW: "In December 1939, the offensive plan moved from a mere idea into a more concrete stage. Great strategy takes place not only on an intellectual level, but according to its own laws, similar to city building, and architecture -- I am nearly tempted to say, it is artwork."
Hitler was nearly tempted to say it was artwork. I think he was saying or was at least suggesting it was artwork.
The formatting of the book is unusual. I prefer my text not to be so frequently interrupted. I'd rather have all the explanatory essays at the back or further information put in footnotes, which is the more conventional approach, but I finally understand the format. Oh, one other thing about this memoir and my expectations or assumptions. It really is a kind of memoir that I've not read before -- given so much military information that's in it. It might have been called a history or a biography, I think. For me, it would have gone down (in my brain) better. I associate memoirs with literary writing especially.
As it turns out, it wasn't necessary before then. Chapt. 1 and 2 have no commentary apart from beginning and end (I had said previously it was only 12 & 13 ... and also neither does Chapt 11). See page 48 and "Hitler continues:"
You have really made a mountain out of a molehill. Are you always like this? Hitler definitely did not say that War is Art -- he suggested strategy/war planning is an art. Exactly, bc it's not a purely intellectual process.
But continue to give me your thoughts. You have caused me to see some unnecessary astericks in Chapt. 5 and for that I'm thankful bc we're preparing for the 2nd printing.
Nothing I wrote says that I said Hitler said War Is Art, Carolyn. I used the phrase "war as an art" only, and I didn't capitalize "art." Do you make mountains out of molehills all the time, Carolyn? :)
I quoted a passage from your own book. From Giesler's memoir, Hitler clearly said on page 44 that he was tempted to say making war plans is artwork. Now do you want to tease apart the meaning of artwork versus the meaning of Art? Can you make that distinction? Does the book make that distinction? The title of the book is "The Artist Within the Warlord." I'm looking at this theme within the book. Apart from a brief discussion of architecture at the beginning when Hitler and Giesler are in Paris, there is precious little art talk in the first four chapters. I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm trying to find the point to this book, i.e., the evidence for the artist within the warlord. Forgive me if I found a morsel of an idea about art from Hitler's own lips in the book.
his viewpoint on the war was identical with those he already possessed aesthetically about architecture.
I think that is a statement that does not quite hold up. You're reaching too far. That's what I'm getting at. Speaking about the planning aspect of war and architecture is not speaking about the aesthetics.
You've read four chapters out of 13 and you're fussing that the book is misrepresenting itself. The word Warlord is also in the title. You can criticize the book all you want, it doesn't bother me. In fact, it's helpful. You may inspire someone to buy it to find out for him or herself.
Speaking about the planning aspect of war is not speaking about aesthetics? Yes, it is. Integration is one of the aspects of both art and planning war, and Hitler touched on that.
I’m not getting in a fuss about the book misrepresenting itself. I don't think it does misrepresent itself, and I hope I never implied that. I’m only just trying to get out a hole that I built myself with you, Carolyn!!! I misread a lot of the book so far as its design or formatting is concerned, and I'm trying to correct impressions I gave to myself first and then shared with you. I’m glad you feel I can criticize the book all I want. That's real objectivity and detachment. I applaud you for having it, and I know few authors who do have both, so you're rare and well-liked for it, but I apologize for so having misunderstood your book so badly that my responses came off totally as criticism.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
International Day of Commemoration in Honor of the Revisionists Who Introduced Sanity to the Auschwitz “Death Camp” Narrative
To my valued readers and listeners: If you enjoy this site, please contribute to the costs of keeping it online. Thank you!
If you are moving in or out of your property and need a though deep clean why not give us a call and ask for our End of Tenancy Cleaning (EoTc) service for private/commercial.
Get your rental or property cleaned professionally with our check-list service reflecting the standards required by major national UK letting agents. Each cleaning operation has its own End of Tenancy Check-List (EoTCL)
Our EoTc is carried out by a dedicated mobile team who specialise in impeccable intense cleans. The uniformed team is equipped with powerful eco solutions. We carry the big tools, and latest cleaning equipment so that the Clean Team can blitz any private or commercial property.
We also offer services that clean communal areas in buildings and flats. This also includes walls and ceilings.
Fully insured Carpet Doctors provide an all in friendly, honest, ethical, and caring client centred service in a professional manner.
This site uses cookies to give you the best possible experience. No personal information will be taken by us. By continuing to use this site you will be giving us consent to do so.OkRead more
Create an Account - Increase your productivity, customize your experience, and engage in information you care about.
The State Building Code requires that "[n]o person, firm or corporation shall erect, construct, enlarge, install, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building, structure, or service system without first obtaining a permit for such from the Inspections Department having jurisdiction."