c4ts said:
Table Talk isn't a very reliable source on Hitler's beliefs, since they appear to be shifting all the time, and some may have been fabricated to make Hitler look more insane than he already was. Mein Kamph is better becasue Hitler wrote it himself, and much of it is anti-semetic ranting. If there is one thing we do know about Hitler's beliefs, it is that he was an anti semite, and Mein Kamph is consistent with that fact. I haven't read Table Talk, and I want to know if it is consistent with Hitler's views in Mein Kamph.
I think both the
"table talks" and
"Mein Kampf" are worth considering. Neither one should be accepted uncritically, but both are potentially good sources of clues to what Hitler's actual beliefs were.
I started with the "table talks" because Jedi had previously quoted material from them in support of his belief that Hitler was an atheist. It turns out Jedi does not actually consider them a good source (so I am puzzled by his initial use of them -- the only source he has quoted from so far). Even so, I think they are a good source to examine, so I'm glad he steered me to them.
You mention his anti-semitism as a good test for authenticity. The "table talks" pass that test with flying colors! I have largely left out his racial rants in reproducing passages, in order to focus on what he said about religion. Thus I've included his attacks on the Jewish
religion, but largely deleted his attacks on the Jewish
people. But the racial rants are there.
"Hitler's beliefs... appear to be shifting all the time." Hitler's beliefs as expressed in the "table talks" seem reasonably consistent over the 4-year span during which they were being recorded. They also seem quite consistent with his actions during that time. They are inconsistent with his
public utterances -- which is what I'd expect and why the "table talks are of interest." It is common with public figures that what they say publicly and what they express privately are often at variance, and the latter is what I put more reliance on.
"some may have been fabricated...". It seems well-established that Hitler did indeed conduct these after-dinner conversations and that there were indeed notes taken of Hitler's parts. So these are not "fabrications" in the sense that the "Hitler diaries" (or other phony materials that have been produced over the years) were.
There are, as I've noted before, more than 300 of these rambles in the volume, coming to about 600 pages. It seems unlikely that these were significantly doctored during the 4-year period they were being recorded, for several reasons. (1) No evidence of doctoring has been produced. (2) The remarks recorded in the table talks seem consistent with the remarks his contemporaries say he actually expressed in them. (3) If Hitler had looked over the notes and seen himself quoted as saying something significantly different than what he had actually said, he seems the kind of person to throw a rather nasty tantrum.
It's possible major revision was done after Hitler was dead, but again there is no evidence of any such thing. Altering that much material without leaving traces is difficult. Anything involving Hitler comes under heavy scrutiny; so far, in 50 years, no evidence of an effort to fabricate the material (or to alter it significantly) has come to light.
the most reasonable possibilities as far as inaccuracies in the "table talks" are that the note-taker may have written down some comments incorrectly and that some meanings have been altered in the translation. That would apply more easily to individual passages, however, than to the work as a whole.
So I would be cautious in placing too much reliance on any single passage from the table talks, especially brief comments (which would be more vulnerable to mistakes). But if something appears in a lengthy passage, and appears in several other places as well, it seems reasonable to accept it is something Hitler said to his associates following a meal.
In weighing the evidence about people's beliefs, I generally place more weight on what they are known to have confided in private to their close associates and less weight on what they have said in carefully controlled public statements. I would also place more weight on detailed statements than on brief ones.
For example, if a contemporary politician said
"I'm [for / against] gun control", I would pay less attention to that than to a statement explaining
which particular measures they supported and which ones they opposed, or giving
a detailed philosophy underlying their position. And I would place less credence in a statement made to a nominating convention about how sincere they were in their [support / opposition] than I would in pillow talk with a spouse explaining what they really felt and why. It's too bad Eva Braun died in the bunker; I would love to read her diary or her memoirs.
Mein Kampf presents an interesting challenges. On one hand, it is something Hitler wrote in order to sway people, and thus might be something to give less weight to. On the other hand, he wrote it before becoming a prominent public figure, and it may indeed be heart-felt rather than manipulative. I've never been able to wade all the way through it (although I should make another effort). I'm inclined to give more weight to what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf than to what he said later in his public speeches and press releases. By then he knew people were paying attention, and he said things for political purposes. Whether to give Mein Kampf more weight, less weight, or the same weight as the table talks is something to think about after examining both.
