New Book on Hitler's Table Talks

[fireofice]

I wanted to respond to this quote from Carrier:

Another example pertains to the Holocaust, where Nilsson finds a statement attributed to Hitler in the Table Talk derives from Genoud’s French which altered the surviving German into making Hitler refer to his extermination of the Jews as a “rumor.” In the German, it is stated as a fact (Nilsson, p. 257).

I didn't know exactly what he was referring to in this. After looking through Nilsson's book this what I found.

The English translation reads:

Let nobody tell me that all the same we can’t park them in the marshy parts of Russia! Who’s worrying about our troops? It’s not a bad idea, by the way, that public rumour attributes to us a plan to exterminate the Jews. Terror is a salutary thing.

The German translation:

Sage mir keiner: Wir können sie doch nicht in den Morast schicken! Wer kümmert sich denn um unsere Menschen? Es ist gut, wenn uns der Schrecken vorangeht, daß wir das Judentum ausrotten.

which translates to:

Nobody should tell me: We cannot send them into the marshes! Who is then concerned about our people? It is good if the fear that we exterminate the Jews precedes us.

Now it is true that the English version does downplay Hitler's acknowledgment of extermination by referring to it as a "rumor" which is not in the original German. But even if we take "extermination" to mean killing here, Hitler is by no means stating this is a fact. Carrier completely misread what this said. Hitler said it was good if "the fear that we exterminate the Jews" existed, not that the fear was actually based on fact.

[Otium]

Now it is true that the English version does downplay Hitler's acknowledgment of extermination by referring to it as a "rumor" which is not in the original German. But even if we take "extermination" to mean killing here, Hitler is by no means stating this is a fact. Carrier completely misread what this said. Hitler said it was good if "the fear that we exterminate the Jews" existed, not that the fear was actually based on fact.

Yes, that's a good and valid point. Shame that Nilsson doesn't cite an archival source for this entry along with the printed one. Which leaves me to assume that no such original exists for this particular date. If so, this is even more flimsy.

Moreover, while Nilsson mentions of course that the Genoud version is wrong, he doesn't go so far as Carrier in claiming outright that this was an admission of Hitler's knowledge of the alleged Holocaust, which is dubious. Interestingly Nilsson makes reference to one of Hitler's military directives which makes a similar statement to that of the 25 October, 1942 Table Talks entry:

The last part about the fear of extermination of the Jews has some resemblance to something that Hitler wrote in Weisung Nr. 33 dated 23 July 1941 where he said that acts of resistance against the German forces could not best be stopped simply by punishing those guilty of active resistance before a court, but “especially if the occupying power spreads such a fear” that it alone would quell any effort to resist among the people.

Mikael Nilsson, Hitler Redux: The Incredible History of Hitler's So-Called Table Talks (London: Routledge, 2021), pp. 257-258.

Nilsson is partly mistaken though—not in any particularly significant way—but the document in which this line is quoted comes not from Hitler's 'Directive No. 33' which was actually issued on July 19th, but from the supplementary directive issued by Keitel on July 23rd:

German:

Die zur Sicherung der eroberten Ostgebiete zur Verfügung stehenden Truppen reichen bei der Weite dieser Räume nur dann aus, wenn alle Widerstände nicht durch die juristische Bestrafung der Schuldigen geahndet werden, sondern wenn die Besatzungsmacht denjenigen Schrecken verbreitet, der allein geeignet ist, der Bevölkerung jede Lust zur Widersetzlichkeit zu nehmen.

English:

The troops available for securing the conquered Eastern territories will, in view of the size of this area, be sufficient for their duties only if the occupying power meets resistance, not by legal punishment of the guilty, but by striking such terror into the population that it loses all will to resist.

Walther Hubatsch (ed.), Hitlers Weisungen für die Kriegsführung 1939–1945: Dokumente des Oberkommando des Wehrmacht (Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1965), p. 167; H. R. Trevor-Roper (ed.), Hitler's War Directives 1939-1945 (London: Pan, 1966), p. 144.

So really, the idea as expressed both in the Table Talks and in this military directive was to use the impressions concocted by the German resistance to their own advantage in hopes it would quell resistance, rather than propagate it; saying nothing about any "real" Holocaust.

[EtienneSC]

Nilsson's Hitler Redux casts fundamental doubt on the value of the Table Talks. He documents the inconsistent things that were said over the years by those involved about who was in the room, whether stenographic notes were taken, whether Hitler knew his words were being recorded and the money and contracts behind the published versions. The question of Genoud is only part of the problem. Nilsson has gone into the matter much more thoroughly in his book than the articles discussed here.

Nilsson's conclusion is that the notes were largely fabricated after the event and that it is impossible to distinguish what may reflect Hitler's words from what does not.

[Hektor]

....

An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure science.

Adolf Hitler, 14 October, 1941., Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944: His Private Conversations (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), Pp. 59.

I'm having a hard time believing what the author asserts, that the Table Talks were manipulated by Nazis to make Hitler appear to be an Atheist...

Having skimmed through another one of this guys articles, the one regarding Richard Weikart, I noticed he doesn't provide any evidence that Hitler was Christian, only that Hitler's ideas of religion weren't inconsistent with certain denominations or sects of the Christian religion (eg. Hitler's belief in an afterlife for the "the most illuminated spirits,"). But he makes the mistake of equating this with a belief in Christianity held by Hitler, which he admits might be distorted or perverted in some ways. He also conflates his opinion with fact, for example stating that Deism and Pantheism are just less extreme forms of Atheism. I'm not convinced of his argument thus far.

At some point I'll read through the book on the Table Talks to try and answer any of the questions and suspicions I have about it. I'll probably make posts if I have anything to say on the matter.

For Richard Weikart Hitler was a Darwinist and something akin to an atheist. It seems however he struggles himself wit the issue. And that demonstrates that the Hitler2.0. idol has quite some power over him. It's merely the Americanized version of Hitler2.0. one deals with there.

One can of course apply the broad definition of Christianity on it and then you can fit almost anyone from a trad. Christian society into the scheme somehow. Pantheism is equating nature with God. Deism has a more passive image of God. E.g. that God created the universe, but left it to its own devices afterwards. It was a popular position among intellectuals in the late enlightenment period.

As for the Table-Talks I'd guess that was snippets garbled together from memory of conversations in the surroundings of Hitler. That will have a bias in it in the sense of the persons impression on what had been said or what was meant during a conversation. The problem is that the observer not always knows, if something was a proposition or a statement on something. It can get really confusing, especially when it is decontextualized. And Hitler would have dealt with what was reported to him. About announcements in the foreign press, on Jewish activity, on the activities of Churches, etc. One issue would be the 'confessing Church', which wasn't as confessional as one may think from that name. There are several characters there that had a rather unconventional view on what Christianity means. Niemoeller was initially more traditional, theologically conservative. But if one takes characters like Barth and Bonhoeffer one deals with a rather duplicitous positions. They use all the Christian lingo, but mean something entirely different. It's secular philosophies in Christian clothing. With Barth being a Marxist and Bonhoeffer beings something of an early post-modernist. This isn't really clear to present-day Evangelicals that tend to venerate those characters for being 'anti-Nazis'... And it can take rather idiotic forms, them on their own reading things into statements that weren't even intended by Barth and Bonhoeffer. I should however add that both had a way of expressing themselves in a way that could be understood in several ways. They say a thing, which suggests something they intend, but when that gets critiqued they will claim they were misunderstood. At the same time they will misunderstand statements by other people to paint them in a bad light. More intelligent folks will of course be pissed by this and view it as intellectually dishonest. And given that those characters 'represent Christianity' over time. That's the reason why Christianity is taken with a grain of salt by most people in Western Europe already for a longer time. And why most public figures are careful to be associated too much. They will argue more harmonistically in a direct fashion... or simply try to be pragmatic as not to offend anyone. Arguing with Christianity is considered trying to be sanctimonious and manipulative by many so people rather keep some distance there. Church officials themselves will try to be pc and argue humanistic as to fit into the broader culture of society. It's still sanctimonious of course... And more people started to realize that just because it is not explicitly religious, it still got a religious character, even if statements are explicitly secular. It was probably already a bit like this in the NS-era. Although I doubt that it already had the depraved form it has today. That means people would also be more sensitive to things that are off the mark ethically. Honesty, integrity, 'family values' and acting respectfully were still held in higher regard than it is the case today, when compliance, appearance of success and competency count for more.

One was concerned about what kids would learn from authority figures like teachers, preachers and social club leadership. There was also more clarity in this and one could mostly rely on the leadership of organizations to do what was expected of them. Nowadays maximum outtake from positions is expected, which requires more control and care with whom one is dealing. Social trust is going out of the window that way. And well, there is an anything goes attitude. But back to the era. People compared the church leadership with ordinary folks and they found the former wanting in terms of character, honesty and integrity. Which was disappointing, since they were also held to a higher standard. In that light many NS-folks would also be disappointed by those and decide to distance themselves from this... viewing the churches rather as bad influences than good ones. That one needs to bear in mind, when dealing with those articles.