Talk:Hitler's Table Talk

Needs to be expanded

This needs to be way expanded. There's way more than simply talk about religion and/or Christianity in that book (I would do it if I had the time and patience.) Historian932 (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. For a book with such staggering historical implications, it is quite silly for this Wikipedia page to even grant two sentences to the religious topic, let alone dominate it. We need a true historical university scholar or dean to properly adress this issue.

Why would you have a dean? A dean is a political position, not academic -- I mean the dean of a dept is likely to be an administrative hack, a campus politician.(EnochBethany (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

I agree there is much more that could be added to this entry on other topics, but someone with time and interest has to actually do that. For now, there is a good reason an extensive discussion is needed on the religion controversy: it is the single largest controversy surrounding the document, in fact the one reason that most people (by far) even learn of the Table Talk's existence (I am not speaking of scholars, but the population generally, although the latter are the predominant users of Wikipedia). Thus most of the readers of this article will be coming here specifically for that information. Accordingly, I have revised the controversy section to (1) explain this importance, and (2) remove the overt bias of (what I suspect to be) a Christian editor, by making numerous factual corrections and restoring accuracy. I think that should be sufficient to remove the "neutrality" flag. But I leave that to the Project members to decide. I think the section as it stands could be halved in length, but I believe it would be futile to try, since the "Hitler must have been an atheist" faction will just return and load the page up with their arguments again. Instead, I sought to integrate and balance what that faction has already inserted, so both views can be represented (as long as the claims remain accurate and correct; I suspect they will complain that they are now not accurate or correct, on the grounds that they do not agree with them, but at least Wikipedia standards will compel them to back their opinions up with source citations and quotations, and so it should proceed). I would add that this controversy is also important to scholars (and even laymen) interested in the text for other reasons, on the grounds that it exposes the unreliability of the only English version so far produced, thus alerting anyone interested that they have to work from the original German. RichardCarrier (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, this article is not sufficiently neutral. As much as Mr Carrier does not like the views of the "Hitler is an atheist" camp (perhaps because he doesn't like atheists to be linked to Hitler), theirs is still a viewpoint. An encyclopaedia article should not be used to promote the opinions of one sect in any controversy. It should give equal space to all opinions. If an opinion should have been incontrovertibly refuted, then the evidence should be given. Mr Carrier's latest edit of the Wikipedia article has some slotted-in personal opinions which do not fit inside an Encycopaedia article. These should be expunged. Accuracy and Correctness is dependent on the empirical information there is, not on Mr Carrier's antipathy towards religion, which is evident many times throughout the article. The selection of authors he chooses is too biased towards the atheist viewpoint, or the "Hitler is a Christian" viewpoint, that I am not surprised the other faction would wish to edit the article. I think what needs to be done is to remove the overt bias of Mr Carrier against Christianity as expressed in what amounts to an essay, not an exposition 202.156.11.11 (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Raphael (anonymous visitor)

Please clarify. What is it that you find so distasteful that you feel it must be expunged? Couldn't it be reworked into the article, along with other material? Secondly, I don't think atheism is really the issue. The controversy largely focuses upon whether Hitler was sincere in his public pronouncements of Christianity. This is where the Table Talk and other statements comes into play. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There are too many misinformed people (myself in the past, included) who thought that Hitler was anti-Christian based on totally inaccurate translations of various Table Talk lines. What RichardCarrier did was correct the record. There's no "viewpoint" about that. Blue Danube (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I find the excessive weight given to Carrier quite bizarre. There are literally, literally, hundreds of references to religion, Christianity, priests, clergy, pope, protestantism, and so forth in the Table Talk, and they all consistently establish Hitler as a harsh critic of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Quibbling over the translation of a few of these passages is, frankly, quite silly and proves nothing. The entire section on Carrier should be removed. It makes Wikipedia look profoundly stupid to anyone who knows anything about this subject. Just dispense with the matter by saying "While the English rendering of a few of the many passages critical of religion and Christianity is disputed (footnote to Carrier), serious scholars agree that the Table Talk accurately reflects Hitler's religious views." TwoGunChuck (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have now reduced this section again, and dramatically reduced the emphasis laid upon Richard Carrier's 2003 article. There are a number of reasons why I was concerned about the reliability and neutrality of this section:

1) Dr Carrier's article was now published nine years ago. It is hardly 'recent' and it has not led to any significant controversy, largely because its central thesis has been more or less universally rejected (see Richard Evans' trilogy on the Third Reich for a recent English language example that accepts the earlier theory of Hitler's anti-clericalism).

2) On examining it, I found it flawed in several crucial respects. On his website, Dr Carrier claims to have a 'translation knowledge' of German (whatever that is). But the actual translation for this article appears to have been done by Reinhold Mitschang. No further identification of who, what or how qualified this individual is, what his motives and agenda are, or how he was selected for this article are put forward. Therefore, not only does it strongly imply Dr Carrier cannot in fact speak German, but we cannot know how reliable the translation is in any case. He cites letters to himself that he has not published that conveniently support his thesis. At the time he was also working on a PhD thesis at Columbia, on science and natural philosophy in Rome. But that in itself is an issue - because he is not trained in modern history, and presumably wrote this as a hobby or a passion. So to describe him as 'an historian' even at the time (see below) is simply wrong in this context.

3) Dr Carrier cites David Irving in support of his thesis, saying 'Irving does not deny the Holocaust happened, only that Hitler knew of it. His account of Genoud's involvement with him is first person and credible.' (p. 575.) This flies in the face of the first rule of historical research on the Third Reich - assume Irving is lying unless you have hard evidence to the contrary. More importantly, it is factually inaccurate. Irving did argue that in the 1970s, by 2003 he had not only changed his tune but had had his views publicly and humiliatingly exposed during the course of a failed libel action at the High Court in London. It is inconceivable Dr Carrier did not know of this (especially since on the very next page he refers directly to the libel action itself). The action also established that Irving wilfully distorted documentation, conversations, the historical record and even photographs in order to peddle his lies and myths. Therefore the second point goes down as well. Again, any moderately competent historian would have known this. It was an international sensation and there are books about it in print today, not to mention a mass of material on the internet. The conclusion is, and must be, that he was grasping at straws to justify his argument.

4) The main reason why Dr Carrier's article is given such undue weight is because Dr Carrier himself wrote the entry. He claimed that it was to counter a 'Hitler was an atheist' bent to the original one. Unfortunately, this is now far too far balanced the other way. Hitler's religion is a complex area. It should not be left in the hands of blundering amateurs, be they Christian apologists or atheist bloggers. Dr Carrier is not an historian - he is a blogger and moreover, a blogger with a strident atheist and anti-clerical agenda to promote. His recent work has been consistently attacked for its tendentiousness and intellectual incoherence (see here) and he is very much on the scholarly margins.

The material he incorporated by Steigmann-Gall is reliable and although not generally accepted by scholars has much more intellectual coherence. I have left that in place. Hcc01 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

At least make an some empty sections to show that there was more topics. Jidanni (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Legacy of the book

While it is true the dictator liked to ramble on topics he knew little about, he also offers a wide array of insights into his thinking and world views. His racial theory and barbaric mindset are proved. For a self-educated individual to speak of such deep topics in an earthly way is impressive, although his tone is usually full of condescending self-serving delusions. Therefore anyone studying the war or the era must appreciate and respect the best piece literature we have of Hitler.

Um, isn't it all fake?

Paragraph on OSS outline widely misrepresents it sources.

The source used to demonstrate that Hitler wanted to "destroy Christianity" in this Wikipedia entry was a report by the U.S. Office of Strategic Services made in 1945, which was created to aid prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials. It collected data from already published material on the Third Reich and did not conduct interviews or gather original intelligence on its own, as the Wikipedia entry mistakenly implies (see p. ii, of the front matter). Due caution should be used when citing non-academic sources because editors are not necessarily in a position to judge the historical reliability of its claims. Government reports, for example, may contain tendentious or underlying political motivations. For example, an earlier report submitted by the same O.S.S., titled The Mind of Adolf Hitler (1943), made allegations accusing Adolf Hitler of being a coprophile (sexually gratified by being defecated or urinated on), being impotent, a homosexual, a masochist, and a pederast (a lover of young boys) [William Langer (1972) The Mind of Adolf Hitler. New York: Basic Books, pp. 124, 138, 178.] Secondary sources written by academic scholars should obviously be preferred. To its credit, the O.S.S. report cautioned, "The document is still seriously lacking in evidence of probative value, and is consequently ill suited to serve as the basis for an international discussion." Which would explain why nothing ever came of it, and why it was quietly tucked away only to be discovered in 1999 by a law student at Columbia University.

The Wikipedia entry also makes the assertion that the O.S.S. report "revealed plans to eliminate Christianity entirely." This is not true. The report stated that a "sector of the National Socialist party," wanted Christianity extirpated, but this attitude was largely confined to Alfred Rosenberg and his allies (p. 6). What the report actually argued was that the Nazis had a plan to undermine the Church's political influence, due to the growing resistance among the clergy, after the Nazis gradually reneged on its many promises (pp. 17-18). The O.S.S. report reveals that the Nazis preoccupation with the "Church Question" was centered around their desire to retain complete control over the German population, and had little to nothing to do with religious or confessional matters. Evidence of this plan, the report stated in the section titled "The Problem of Proof," was circumstantial and could only be inferred from "the systematic nature of the persecution itself." (p. 9.) "Direct evidence" however might be obtained by examining the "directives of the Reich Propaganda Ministry." However, if this evidence did not exist or was destroyed, the "questioning of Nazi newspapermen and local and regional propagandists might elicit the desired evidence" the report stated (p. 9).

The report also contains a section describing the persecutions of secular movements within the Reich. The report states that the Nazis "abolished the right to pursue anti-religious and anti-church propaganda. The Prussian government closed the so-called secular (weltliche) schools in which no religious instruction was given and re- established religious instruction in professional and vocation schools. All organizations of free-thinkers were forbidden." (p. 12) In any case, the entire paragraph relating to the O.S.S. outline consists of poor original research, it mischaracterizes the source material, and draws extraneous conclusions which are not even relevant to the article. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's Claim That He Was "Always Catholic" Is Not Reliable

He have very well said this to encourage Aryan Catholics to follow him. He was known for going beyond the anticlerical movement and persecuting Catholics too.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That is really speculation on your part. As for persecutions by the NSDAP, the party only went after clerics who publicly criticized aspects of National Socialism, or criticized their eugenics or racial policies. It is important to understand the difference between persecuting persons who happen to be religious, with persecuting persons because they are religious. There is a difference. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

To add to that, presuming it's accurate: "Hitler asserted, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."[22] Similarly Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber reported that Hitler "undoubtedly lives in belief in God....He recognizes Christianity as the builder of western culture."" --- How is that similiarly? He considered American culture conformist (and Christianity a religion of lies, as opposed to science, as mentioned in article), and you guys went to war. I don't think he was a fan. Moreover his 'God' was the 'natural laws of the universe'. He was some sort of pantheist. So the connection between these assertions seems baseless. SuperMudz (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If he said he was always Catholic, that may mean many things, such as that he was always what in other places would called a member ascribed to a Catholic parish (in Germany there is some general concept of Church membership). He'd have be asked whether he'd believed the Apostle's Creed and every dogma of the Church, regularly went to Church and Confessed (at least as far as his duties go), and strived to live in a Christian way. If the answer is no (and I don't see anyone presuming the answer would be yes), then we know what we have to understand as "always Catholic" in his sense.

As for Cardinal Faulhaber, I personally find the quote rather telling, and added an explanative footnote and hope it won't be deleted. Thing is, forgive me to say, but I know something of the Catholic jargon, which is, forgive me again, (in its ideal) objective, precise, non-partisan, and taking Catholic dogma for granted. Thus it might be misunderstood by someone who'd expect a partisan saying (partisan in the sense of "any comment that sounds positive is to be understood as an endorsement") taking Protestant dogma (such as "believers are religiously practicing, and good people, because the others do not really believe") and colloquialisms (taking "to believe in God" in the sense of accepting the entire Christian creed) for granted.

Hitler believed in God (i. e. some sort of Providence - it is a mark, by the way, of his Catholic upbringing that he always says "Providence", not "Fate" as we might expect from "Germanic" Nazi philosophy, and as other Nazi leaders did). Hitler certainly recognized Christianity for its part in building Western culture (and resented this influence). That - and no more! - is what Cardinal Faulhaber says, and I don't see how it can be sensibly dismissed (Hitler certainly had not more than contempt for Himmler's neo-polytheism, e. g.). That does not, on the other hand, make him a Christian, or a believer, or disprove an inimical stand towards Christianity (if such can be proven on other grounds).--185.17.207.88 (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Got to agree there. Hitler wasn't an atheist, not even an agnostic nor pagan. He was 100% Catholic, although of a more deistic variant garnished with some less main-stream catholic ideas. People need to realise that the Catholic Church isn't the monolithic block, it is sometimes painted as. It's quite diverse internally. There are regional differences, but there is also a broad spectrum of theologies floating inside. The Catholic critique of National Socialism wasn't on the ideas it represented as such, but on perceived exaggerations in terms of emphasis on folk, state, race, authority etc. And I'm sure the critiques would be able to find examples of this, since National Socialism did, just like the Catholic Church a broad spectrum of ideas as well. But we digress. To me the genesis of the table talks sounds elaborate, but still quite dubious. Why the shorthand, when other recording technology was available? Why have a secretary something like this -> the shorthand notes? Were the notes countersigned or authenticated by Hitler, etc. 105.0.2.37 (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

List of editions

The relationship of the original notebooks to the various editions is not at all clear. Maybe a diagram would help? Criticism of the early translations is also not very well focussed, and should be laid out clearly, along with a list of the newer, more reliable translations, should such things actually exist. Based on this article, it's impossible to tell whether there are in fact newer translations.Theonemacduff (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Questionable citation?

Citation number 53 references a man named David Brog and his book , In Defense of Faith: The Judaeo-Christian Idea and the Struggle for Humanity.

Right off the bat, it sounds exactly like a non-historical work. It sounds very religious. Does not fare much better when you realize that Brog has a vested interest in portraying Hitler as anything other than Christian by working as the Executive Director of Christians United For Israel. It is far from productive for someone in his position to declare that the greatest enemy of the Jewish people was a Christian. It would be productive, however, to try to cast doubt on those who would push such a thought.

If there has been no serious consideration of Carrier's work, so be it. But sources like Hastings (#54) should be cited over one's like Brog.

--Mackinz (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The point being that it's the only book of any sort that includes any meaningful discussion of Carrier's article - moreover, when you read it, it is actually quite a coherent discussion. Both Steigmann Gall and Hastings dismiss it in one line. Agreed, it's a religious text, rather than an historical one. But Carrier's article appears to be based on his own religious beliefs rather than any meaningful research or engagement with the facts. Your remarks on Brog, incidentally, while they are probably accurate, can apply with even more force the other way around to Carrier, never a man to let the facts or historiographical literature interfere with his views. If we're going to have religious apologetic works cited on the page, it's not surprising that other religious apologetic works will be cited on the other side. The bottom line is, it's a published book by a similar character with similar qualifications (at the time of writing) to Carrier, and with a similar (although opposite) agenda. I would suggest it's difficult to argue that Carrier should be on the page if Brog can't be.86.181.139.203 (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed it. It does not pass WP:HISTRS. It's not published from an academic press. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere does WP HISTRS say that sources must be from an academic press (and of course, if that were the only criterion, nothing published by Penguin, a publisher frequently cited on this page, could be included because that is not a scholarly press). True, academic presses are preferable for all sorts of obvious reasons. Encounter is certainly not an academic press, rather it is a minor house with a noted and very strong bias. But it's still a publishing house. It was also not used to make the main argument, rather to back a point supported by two other (undoubtedly scholarly) works, a method which is accepted under WP HISTRS. It is not as though it is a blog post. The issue is that it is the only book to discuss Carrier's article and its standing in any sort of depth. That of course is an indictment of how marginal the article is, but I still can't quite see what your objection is on those grounds. Could you elucidate?86.181.139.203 (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Carrier's thesis

Perhaps someone could identify how Hastings' citation supports the claim that "Carrier's thesis has never been accepted by historians."

I know for for example it is incorrect to say Steigmann-Gall rejected Carrier's thesis because Steigmann-Gall clearly expressed tentativeness regarding the reliability of the table-talk throughout chapter 7. Whoever provided this citation did not read Holy Reich carefully. He states, "the reliability of these conversations is coming under increasing scrutiny—one historian [Carrier] going so far as to suggest that portions of the Trevor-Roper version are actually fraudulent—I will examine Hitler's Table Talk due to the importance attached to it by that school which argues that Hitler's 'true feelings' about Christianity are to be found here." (p. 253, emphasis added). And on page 257 where he states, "Regardless of the question of the Table Talk's authenticity, Hitler's capacity for self-contradiction is well documented." He clearly did not reject Carrier's article by merely discussing the table-talk, but did so in lieu of the prominence placed in the views expressed therein. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not incorrect. You are confusing two problems - 1) historical scholarship, which requires a comprehensive knowledge of all material, and 2) historical conclusions, which require the balancing of material and selecting the most useful and/or reliable. Steigmann-Gall mentions there are issues. He notes Carrier's thesis. He argues that Table Talk cannot be totally relied on. But it's Kershaw that he uses to back that view. Moreover, he used the Table Talk in English translation despite Carrier's claim that anyone who did so was not quoting what Hitler actually said. In my view, that was a strange decision to take when he could have used the German originals. But it was one he did take, for whatever reason, and it formed an interesting plank of his argument.

With regard to Hastings, perhaps it's because he's the only scholar working in the field at present, other than Koehne, who doesn't mention Carrier at all? And he quite clearly rejects Carrier's thesis. That means (drumroll) that it has not been accepted by historians.

The problem is that Carrier's thesis goes way beyond what's permissible in terms of evidence. He tries, as Hastings notes, to entirely discredit the anti-Christian statements in Table Talk. This is because he needs to back his thesis that 'there is no doubt Hitler was a God-fearing Christian' which as has been repeatedly pointed out in divers places on Wikipedia and in y'know, rubbishy things like scholarly texts, is an untenable thesis, and not merely because of Table Talk. He can't speak German very well, so he muddles his translations (sometimes apparently wilfully). He asserts there are lines in Cameron/Stevens that don't appear elsewhere, then proceeds to translate them. He further mentions there are sins of omission. And in other surprise news, he announces the Pope is a Catholic. We've known that for decades, and it makes very little difference to the reliability of the texts themselves although it definitely raises questions about the translations and is the reason why all historians (except, strangely, for Steigmann-Gall - don't ask me why because I don't know) use the German originals for preference. But that is true of any translated source.

Is it possible, just for a moment, for you to look with a clear eye at the evidence and accept that Hitler was not a Christian in any meaningful definition of the word? I cannot understand why it matters to so many of the New Atheist movement to say he was - surely it is sufficient defence against the abuse to Christians to point out he was not an atheist, which is also clearly supported by a majority of scholarship? - but for some reason it does, and it's irritating to people like me who actually care about accurate scholarship to have to keep correcting these things. Carrier vandalised this article badly some years ago to push his own thesis and continues to push it with a number of extremely doubtful claims about its authenticity and impact. Isn't that enough? Why do his admirers have to join him in rejecting history for agenda pushing?

I frankly don't see the benefit of prizing this article above Kershaw, or Steigmann-Gall given that it is clearly fringe and the thesis was clearly not taken up. However, having a job to do, research to write and a life to lead I have frankly neither the time nor the energy to dispute it with you. Therefore, I am willing to accept your edits as they stand. Best wishes109.158.93.246 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with a number of your arguments. First, there is no evidence to support your claim that Steigmann-Gall is relying upon Kershaw's thesis while rejecting Carrier's. There is no text to support that view. Logically, it is also contradictory to argue that Steigmann-Gall is rejecting Carrier's thesis by merely discussing the Table Talk, while also arguing that Steigmann-Gall is accepting Kershaw's thesis while also discussing the Table Talk. Second, you are trying to infer extraneous conclusions from the fact Steigmann-Gall uses the English translation in his book. First, Steigmann-Gall's section on the table-talk was written prior to having knowledge of Carrier's paper. We know this because it is extracted from his doctoral dissertation, which was written, I believe, in 1999. Second, Steigmann-Gall states that he includes the discussion of the table-talk "due to the importance attached to it" by other scholars. And he does so by raising the problem of reliability, and provisionally putting those issues aside. He never claims the table-talk is reliable, and his qualifications repeatedly demonstrate that.

Now to Hastings. So the only basis for saying, "Carrier's thesis has never been accepted by historians" is because it has been rejected by one scholar? This is sloppy. A logical fallacy philosophers would call a "hasty generalization." A proper inference to draw is that Carrier's thesis has been rejected by Derek Hastings, and has been ignored or overlooked by many historians. But I suspect that doesn't sound as sexy. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Miguel, this is not "hasty generalization". Hitler's religious beliefs are profusely documented and have been very thoroughly studied by historians learned in this field, and if support among such experts for Carrier's "thesis" existed, it is reasonable to believe that some of these experts would have expressed agreement with his views. You can't expect serious historians specifically to refute every amateur historian's notions (and in this area Carrier is an amateur), especially in a field as rife with amateurs at this one. As for Steigmann-Gall, and the "Cultural Christian" nonsense, Hitler respected organizational skill and personal effectiveness. The Jesuits, the Catholic church in general, Jesus, Mohammad, and we could go on all day. This does not imply agreement with the political or religious views of the organization or individual, any more than admiration for the fighting skills of the Waffen SS implies agreement with Nazi ideology. Further, given Hitler's background it is natural that examples of Christian organization and effectiveness would be more familiar to him than examples from other religions and cultures, and would be more frequently cited. Any argument based on the frequency of such references compared to the frequency of references from other religions is thus easily explained as a simple sampling artifact. If examples were pulled at random from his memory, Christian examples would be far more common. TwoGunChuck (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've wandered off topic. The claim does not relate to the consensus regarding Hitler's religious beliefs, but rather Carrier's thesis that Trevor-Roper's English edition is problematic and ought to be dispensed with (for example). A tendentious editor attempted to use the opinion of a single historian to (erroneously) draw a broader conclusion about all historians. This is precisely what a hasty generalization is. Moreover, here is the citation we are given to infer that Hastings has "rejected" Carrier's thesis: "On Hitler's table talks in the early 1940s, which were saturated with deeply unflattering references to Christianity, see Picker and Ritter, Tischgespräche. For an attempt to undermine the reliability of the anti-Christian statements, see Carrier, 'Table Talk,' 561–76." That's it, believe it or not. But it is clear from the context that Hastings included the reference to Carrier's paper to shine light on his findings, and the citation appears to be positive. His choice of the word "attempt" is somewhat revealing, but it does not indicate a "rejection" as the Wiki editor insists. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid the tendentious editing appears to be more on your side Miguel. Some of this material is uncited. You included a reference to Steigmann-Gall accepting the Tischgesprache 'with qualification' which does not appear in the source. (You are, incidentally, almost correct but to explain that would require WP:SYN which we're not permitted to do.) You included a citation of Weinberg which went beyond what he actually said, and failed to note that he qualified it somewhat anyway.

Let's consider this dispassionately. A notorious atheist blogger comes up with a thesis on a document in a language which, his claims to the contrary, he obviously can't read, in company with a man who is a violinist whose competence in English is not established, makes a number of claims about a text that fly in the face of the expert consensus. The two other people who work in this field mention it in passing and ignore its conclusions. One translator and one former translator note that Carrier has raised some issues as a result of his work. The footnotes contain material which is clearly fraudulent (that Irving reference, which certainly did not represent Irving's own views). It should be noted that in a recent self-published reprint of his article (Hitler Homer Bible Christ) Carrier claimed 'My article has also broadly affected Hitler studies altogether, being cited now in leading monographs that rely on the Table Talk (such as Steigmann-Gall's 'The Holy Reich', who was able to read a proof of my article before publication)' (page 188). That's clearly far beyond any realistic interpretation of its impact - one citation in a monograph that as you yourself note subsequently rejects the findings of the article does not mean it has 'broadly affected' the field! So we have rapidly established, simply on Carrier's own work, that either he doesn't know what he's talking about or that his judgement is highly suspect or that he's not telling the truth. Yet this is a work you are pushing, and pushing hard, to the extent that it occupies roughly 20% of the article.

Now, I am certainly not going to argue that Carrier's work should be dropped. Some of his insights around the history of the manuscript are fairly useful, although he's fooling himself if he thinks he was the first to notice them (Martin Broszat commented on these as long ago as 1977, when he had to translate the English into German to use it in a review of Irving's Hitler's War). It is also, simply because of the profile Carrier (and indeed yourself) have given it on this page, that it be kept there so its flaws can be exposed in the cold hard light of day. What I am going to say, and am quite happy to keep arguing about, is that it is undoubted that his work as a whole cannot be trusted and should certainly not be given the colossal weight the New Atheist movement (e.g. the likes of Sherlock, Dawkins etc) give it. Therefore, it should also not be presented as the conclusion of a scholar among scholars, but as the work of a very biased amateur that because of its ideological content and Carrier's own efforts at self publicity including on this very page, has gained a completely unwarranted level of attention. I further agree entirely with TwoGunChuck that the mere fact it is mentioned in passing is a sign of how marginal it is.

So to sum up to your key objection: actual experts, including Kershaw and Evans, who are both fluent in German, both note that there are problems with the English language translation. Even Irving does that. Carrier goes a huge leap further forward and tries to claim that this means almost all the anti-religious remarks are fraudulent and that those that remain can be explained as those of a devout man impatient with his church. That is clearly not the case and certainly neither Kershaw, nor Evans, nor Weinberg would endorse such a view - even Steigmann-Gall and Werner Jochmann don't go that far, although Steigmann-Gall has an interesting sideline on some of the other, neglected remarks in Table Talk that show a different side to Hitler's religiosity. If the article reflects that view of Carrier, therefore, it is giving undue weight to a fringe theory. That is my key reservation about the article as it stands, and the big problem with your edits which appear - I chose that word carefully - designed to nudge it back to where it was four years ago when Carrier himself rewrote it to remove all material that disagreed with his thesis to push his own article as hard as he could, in defiance of scholarship, something he is still doing today.

I can see why the Carrier thesis might be superficially attractive to atheists - it must be irritating to be constantly told that either Hitler was an atheist or that his atheism caused his atrocities when both are clearly not true - but it cannot be pushed at the expense of scholarship, or scholarship emended to suggest support for the thesis, on this or any other page of WP. If you find that difficult to accept, or see scholarship as 'tendentious', I would strongly advise you to stay away from such pages.86.148.176.90 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware that there were sides or teams. When I included the phrase "with qualification" in my edit, I was not referencing Steigmann-Gall's 2007 paper, but rather the numerous qualifiers he included in his monograph The Holy Reich (e.g. 253, 257, 259). His qualifications were so conspicuous I didn't think I needed to provide a citation at the time (however I did provide two examples on the talk page earlier in the year).¹ For example, Steigmann-Gall states, "the reliability of these conversations is coming under increasing scrutiny—one historian [Carrier] going so far as to suggest that portions of the Trevor-Roper version are actually fraudulent—I will examine Hitler's Table Talk due to the importance attached to it by that school which argues that Hitler's 'true feelings' about Christianity are to be found here." (p. 253, emphasis added). Also, "Regardless of the question of the Table Talk's authenticity, Hitler's capacity for self-contradiction is well documented" (2003, 257). And, "However, even assuming that the portion of Table Talk concerning Christianity are authentic" (2003, 259). Steigmann-Gall raises the issue of authenticity more than once, and every time he does he includes a qualification. I find it curious therefore why you find the inclusion of the two words "with qualification" problematic?

    Second, I fail to see how I misrepresented Weinberg's appraisal of Carrier's paper. His opinion in this article was limited specifically to Carrier's hypothesis that the Trevor-Roper English translation is derived from Genoud's French and not Borman's German text. Based on his statement, "as Richard C. Carrier has shown, the English text of the table-talk that originally appeared in 1953 and is reprinted here derives from Genoud's French edition and not from one of the German texts." It is clearly accurate to say Weinberg believed Carrier's hypothesis was successfully demonstrated. How could it be otherwise? Furthermore I am somewhat puzzled why you feel the fact that the Bormann-Vermerke was published in German in 1980 "qualifies somewhat" Weinberg's appraisal. This fact has no relevance whatsoever to Carrier's specific argument. In fact, Carrier mentions this several times in his paper (pp. 562, 563, 564, 565, 567, 568, 573, 574), and even uses Jochmann's edition to buttress his case. The qualification you add to dismiss Weinberg's positive endorsement seems a bit contrived, to be honest.

    As for your criticism of Richard Carrier, I am tempted to ignore the remarks based on how personal and petty they are, but I will make a few brief comments. First, you are not in a position to say whether he is qualified to translate German, or to claim "he obviously can't read" it. More importantly, it's not even relevant that he can—so long as he has the ability to provide an accurate translation by whatever resources he has available. It really doesn't matter matter if Carrier consulted a text, or used the help of a colleague to construct the translation; so long as the translation was acceptable enough for the reviewers of the German Studies Review—who are fluent in German—and thereby qualified to authenticate his translation. Second, I am sympathetic to your comment about Carrier's appraisal of his own paper. I see little evidence that he has made the impact he claims. But it's also significant that his arguments have not been challenged either. In any case, your tangent has no relevance to the article, and I assume its only purpose was to ridicule Carrier. I will take it for what it was and move on. Miguel Chavez (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Original source of Hitler's Table Talk

Does anyone know what happened with the original documents Hitler's Table Talk was translated from? François Genoud passed away in 1996 and I have been unable to find any information on where the original documents went. This would clear up a lot on this contentious topic as there seems to be serious credibility issues with the various published translations. David Irving claims to have seen the documents himself (he even attempted to obtain them), and asserts R.H Stevens and Norman Cameron's translation to be most accurate, however Irving's credibility as a historian is dubious.--Bekamancer (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

They were published in 1980 by Werner Jochmann. That is in fact the basis for most modern texts of the Table Talk although for copyright reasons in English the 1953 edition is still preferred.86.148.176.90 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe Bekamancer is asking about the primary manuscripts, not Jochmann's published German text, which is missing many of Henry Picker's notebook entries, and were adulterated by the hand of Martin Bormann. As far as I am aware, no English translation is based on Jochmann's German edition (Cf. Weinberg 2003, p. xi). There is however a paper in press to be published in the Journal of Contemporary History by historian Mikael Nilsson, Uppsala University. He claims to "tie together the various published editions of the table monologues in English, French, and German, as well as their purported sources (i.e. original manuscripts) in order to trace influences, interpolations" based on "archival research in order to shed further, and much needed, light on the history of them and to make clear how they came about and how they reached us in the form that they now have." Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this something Richard Carrier and now Mikael Nilsson have addressed? Wouldn't it be prudent to include information from Professor Nilsson's latest boo, Hitler Redux: The Incredible History of Hitler's So Called Table Talks and to have a list of key publications including that book?

Heim's version.

How do we feel about Heinrich Heim's Monologe im Tischgesprache? Can we include the quote from its article regarding a historian's view of it? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC) @Mchavez: Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a copy of Werner Jochmann's German text, but there is no reliable English translation available. I'm not sure it would be appropriate for Wikipedia editors to publish their own amateur translations. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Problem

Good Day, Hitler hasn t said that ,,We don't want to educate anyone in atheist". It isn t true. Polish version:

Przekonuje nas o tym front bolszewicki. Nie znają żadnego boga, a przecież umieją umrzeć. Po pewnym czasie panowania narodowego socjalizmu będzie nie do pomyślenia, że mogłoby być inaczej. ( In English Version is now,,We don't want to educate anyone in atheist") Na dłuższą metę narodowy socjalizm i Kościół nie mogą istnieć obok siebie.

Na dłuższą metę narodowy socjalizm i Kościół nie mogą istnieć obok siebie. - Church and Nazism will not exist together

Nothing, and I have red a German Version, and it Polish version is true, just see

Wenn einer sagt: Der Mensch braucht eine Stätte, bei der er Trost und Hilfe sucht in derNot, - ich glaube das nicht! Daß die Menschheit diese Wege geht, ist eine Sache der Traditionund der Gewöhnung.Das lehrt uns die bolschewistische Front: sie kennen keinen Gott und doch verstehensie, zu sterben. Wenn derNationalsozialismus längere Zeit geherrscht hat, wird man sichetwas anderes gar nicht mehr denken können. <<<Auf die Dauer vermögen Nationalsozialismus und Kirche nicht nebeneinander zu bestehen.>>>

Auf die Dauer vermögen Nationalsozialismus und Kirche nicht nebeneinander zu bestehen - Google translate - In the long run are not able to coexist Nazism and Church.

You see? nothing And Im sorry but I can't speak english well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.88.31.149 (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Look just four paragraphs above on page 40 of the 1980 edition, "Zum Atheismus wollen wir nicht erziehen." Which literally translates to, "We do not want to educate atheism." Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Feb-April 1945 Hitler-Bormann transcripts, aka "Political Testament"

Does anybody know anything about this? I have the impression most historians think it's a forgery. But if so, what does that say about the credibility of the rest of the "Table Talk" and its provenance? https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13507486.2018.1532983

Should this be mentioned in this article? Or if not, where else?

https://archive.org/details/PoliticalTestamentOfAdolfHitler

JerryRussell (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Should lead not mention authenticity doubts?

I don't know about modern editions, but the only version I ever accessed in my local library 30 to 40 years ago had the honesty to say in its Introduction that there were many doubts about this text's authenticity. We mention such doubts at length in our article, but not in our lead, even though leads, according to WP:LEAD, are supposed to be an accurate summary of the contents of the article, and we thus do a disservice to any reader who only has time to read the lead (while presumably doing a major but unwarranted service to publishers, who presumably get to sell more copies if buyers are unaware of questions over the authenticity of the book or parts of it). Our articles are supposed to serve our readers, not mislead them for the financial benefit of publishers. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The summary sentence already at the start of the Controversies section has now been added (by me) to the lead. I think that probably adequately addresses the problems I have mentioned above. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)