Is this quote from Hitler on the Indian Legion real?

[NatSoc420]

I was looking into the history behind relations between India and the Third Reich and I saw a discussion thread on Quora where a lot of people were citing this quote from the book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Willian L Shirer. Is this quote real?

[Otium]

Yes, it's real.

It's from a transcript of minutes taken during one of Hitler's military conferences. This quote is from March 23, 1945.

If you take quotes out of context like this, it makes it seem as if Hitler is insulting the Indian Legion. He's not (at least not without reason). If you read this discussion Hitler is just talking about whether foreign legions can truly be reliable when it isn't certain what exactly they're fighting for. if they're not politically, or even militarily reliable, and have nothing at stake, then he'd rather not use them. He talks about how he doesn't want to waste weapons on these foreign legions if he could equip reliable Germans and have them form new divisions:

THE FÜHRER: Either the unit is reliable or it's not reliable. I can't draw up units in Germany today because I don't have any weapons. It would be nonsense for me to go and give weapons to a Ukrainian division now that's not completely reliable. Then I'd rather take the weapons away from them and draw up a German division. Because I assume that they are very well armed — probably better than most of the German divisions we're forming today.

BURGDORF: It's the same with the Latvian 20th. It shattered immediately down there as well.

DE MAIZIERE: The Latvian [division] is fighting up in Courland right now, and very well. The one down there was the Estonian [division].

BURGDORF: Yes, the Estonian one was gone immediately. We have to imagine it psychologically as well. It's asking a bit much of these people.

THE FÜHRER: What are they still supposed to be fighting for, anyway? They're gone from their homeland.

BURGDORF: If there are a lot of fainthearted people even with us, we really can't demand it of those people.

THE FÜHRER: We need to find out exactly what's still there now in terms of foreign formations. For example, the Vlasov division is either good for something or not. There are only those two possibilities. If it's good for something, it has to be addressed like a fully effective division. If it’s good for nothing, it’s idiocy to arm a division of 10,000 or 11,000 men, while at the same time I’m unable to draw up other German divisions because I have no weapons. Then I’d rather go draw up a German division and give all the armaments to them.

BORGMANN: The Indian Legion!

THE FÜHRER: The Indian Legion is a joke. There are Indians who couldn’t kill a louse, who’d rather be eaten themselves. They wouldn’t kill an Englishman either. To have them face the English of all people is really a stupid idea, I think. Why should the Indians fight more courageously for us than they fought in India itself, under Bose’s' leadership? They put Indian units into action in Burma, under Bose’s leadership, to free India from the English. They ran away like sheep. Why should they be braver with us? I think that if the Indians were used to turn prayer wheels or something like that, they’d be the most untiring soldiers in the world. But to use them in real bloody combat is ridiculous. How strong are the Indians? [—] Besides, it’s nonsense. If we had an abundance of weapons, we could afford such jokes for propagandistic reasons. But if we don’t have an abundance of weapons, these propagandistic jokes just can’t be justified. [—J What’s with this so-called Galician division anyway? Is that the same as the Ukrainian division?

Helmut Heiber, David M. Glantz, Hitler and His Generals Military Conferences 1942-1945: The First Complete Stenographic Record of the Military Situation Conferences from Stalingrad to Berlin (New York: Enigma Books, 2003), Pp. 711-712. For the German: Helmut Heiber (ed.), Hitlers Lagebesprechungen: Die Protokollfragmente seiner militärischen Konferenzen 1942-1945 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1962), Pp. 938ff.

It's a very tame and analytical conversation. Hitler is learning about these divisions, some of which he didn't know about, and because of this lack of knowledge and materials he's concerned about the supply of weapons. He refers to the whole situation as a "joke", not just the Indian Legion. For example, Hitler says "We can’t afford this kind of joke when I can’t equip other divisions because I don’t have the weapons. It’s ridiculous." when referring to a Galician division, he asked whether it was still being refitted with weapons.

Rightfully so, Hitler was concerned that the Indian Legion was constantly being refitted but never saw any action:

GOHLER: The Indian Legion has a strength of about 2,300 men.

THE FÜHRER: We would do them the biggest favor if we told them, "You don't have to fire [fight?] anymore."

GOHLER: They have 1,468 carbones, 550 pistols, 420 submachine guns, 200 light machine guns—

THE FÜHRER: Imagine that. They have more weapons than they have men! Some people there have two weapons in their hands!

GOHLER: —23 heavy machine guns, 20 MKWs, four light field howitzers, six light infantry guns, six antitank guns—it doesn't say which kind—700 horses, 81 vehicles, 61 cards, five motorcycles, and twelve eastern model caterpillar tractors, of which eleven are ready for action.

THE FÜHRER: What is the Indian Legion supposed to do?

GOHLER: I can’t say It’s been getting refurbished for a quite long time.

THE FÜHRER: But it hasn’t fought yet.

GOHLER: No.

THE FÜHRER: I consider a unit to be in refurbishment if it has fought heavily and is now being refurbished again. Your units are always refurbishing replenishing themselves and never fighting.

Ibid., p. 713-714.

This was his overall sentiment:

THE FÜHRER: If the're ready for action now, they seem to have weapons again. [Referring to a Ukrainian division] I don't want to claim that we can't do anything with these foreigners. We can certainly do something with them. But we would need time for that. If we had them for 6 or 10 years. and the areas themselves were in our own hands, like in the old monarchy, then the would be good soldiers, of course. But if we get them, and the areas are somewhere over there—why should they still fight at all? They're receptive to every form of propaganda. I assume that there's still a very strong German presence in there as well.

Ibid., p. 713.

Personally I find Hitler's position to be rather sympathetic and understandable.