Talk:Hitler's Table Talk

message: 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)
thread_title: Paragraph on OSS outline widely misrepresents it sources.

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of editions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Questionable citation? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Heim's version. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Feb-April 1945 Hitler-Bormann transcripts, aka "Political Testament" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should lead not mention authenticity doubts?