Another Bad Document: Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech

[Callafangers]

I think documents that have provenance, are corroborated by other evidence, and have no signs of fabrication, are legit, meaning they didn't "appear" but were written, stored away, found and presented at a later date. This is in keeping with historical practice.

The OKW files (798-PS and 1014-PS) were [allegedly] pulled directly from German files with a relatively minimal chain of custody, captured during the war. This puts them ahead of the Boehm report, which appears only post-war for Raeder's defense (with Boehm as its only witness), quite convenient for Boehm.


EDIT: correction of names.

[bombsaway]

I think documents that have provenance, are corroborated by other evidence, and have no signs of fabrication, are legit, meaning they didn't "appear" but were written, stored away, found and presented at a later date. This is in keeping with historical practice.

The OKW files (798-PS and 1014-PS) were [allegedly] pulled directly from German files with a relatively minimal chain of custody, captured during the war. This puts them ahead of the Boehm report, which appears only post-war for Boehm's defense (with Boehm as its only witness), quite convenient for Boehm.

OKW files also "appeared" post-war. Boehm report was pulled from Raeder's files. This issue of "convenience" is funny to me considering their motives were to put Boehm's report forward by the defense because something like 798-PS (which you think is more reliable) has Hitler saying things like "I am only afraid that at the last moment some swine or other will yet submit to me a plan for mediation."

[Callafangers]

OKW files also "appeared" post-war. Boehm report was pulled from Raeder's files. This issue of "convenience" is funny to me considering their motives were to put Boehm's report forward by the defense because something like 798-PS (which you think is more reliable) has Hitler saying things like "I am only afraid that at the last moment some swine or other will yet submit to me a plan for mediation."

That's much more believable, since after repeated rejections of legitimate peace offers, any of the Allies submitting a supposed plan for mediation "last moment" would likely be doing so disingenuously in an attempt to salvage their own appearance, knowing they have no actual intent in reconciliation but putting Hitler into a precarious PR position.

The bottom line is that none of these versions have a reliable chain of custody or verifiable provenance. They are all purported to be notes or summaries, not verbatim transcripts, leaving ample room for errors, omissions, or even fabrication. The inconsistencies and contradictions between them only deepen our doubts. Most suspicious are the versions that emerged post-war under questionable circumstances, like the Lochner version with its tall tale of origins, or the Boehm version conveniently produced for Raeder's defense at Nuremberg. The burden of proof must be on demonstrating authenticity, not on proving fakery - and that burden simply has not been met for any of these documents. Historians who rely on them as definitive are building houses of cards.

You'll throw out more words, bombsaway, because that is what you do, to portray an illusion of ongoing debate, suggesting it is complex when it isn't. This is what the Zionists/Israelis do to the narrative on Israel-Palestine. They try to portray it as "complex, multifaceted, hard to understand", when they are simply bombing and terrorizing all of the men, women, and children of Palestine until they all flee the region or die within it (allowing Israel to annex it). By 'splitting hairs' to keep the debate going when your position no longer holds weight, you aim to give the impression to the layman reader that you still have a leg to stand on when, to any informed researcher, you clearly do not. You have done this in dozens of threads by now, sometimes extending through many pages within.

How is the weather in Israel, by the way?

[bombsaway]

It's pretty simple. In 798-PS Hitler doesn't want mediation (which might grant him Danzig and other places but avert the invasion). He did this because he wanted to invade, he wanted a huge chunk of Poland. What doesn't make sense is your position. What was Boehm and Raeder's angle with all of this?

This Israel stuff is rich because I take an extreme anti-Israeli position. I think the country as a whole should be sanctioned by the US. If you want we can talk about it in an appropriate thread.

[curioussoul]

Callafangers, have you read the book Hitler Redux: The Incredible History of Hitler’s So-Called Table Talks by Swedish historian Mikael Nilsson? It's an impressive work because he literally spent years in archives and libraries tracking down the origins of the Table Talks and studying their authenticity. He goes through some of things you've discussed in this thread. I read it during the pandemic and was impressed by Nilsson's primary research, even contemplating contacting him to see what his general thoughts were on the historicity of the Holocaust. The book doesn't really touch in the Holocaust at all, but his historiographic approach to the Table Talks was very much similar to revisionist approaches to the Holocaust.

Here's the synopsis of the book in case you're interested:

After Hitler's death, several posthumous books were published which purported to be the verbatim words of the Nazi leader – two of the most important of these documents were Hitler's Table Talk and The Testament of Adolf Hitler. This ground-breaking book provides the first in-depth analysis and critical study of Hitler’s so-called table talks and their history, provenance, translation, reception, and usage.

Based on research in public and private archives in four countries, the book shows when, why, where, how, by and for whom the table talks were written, how reliable the texts are, and how historians should approach and use them.

[Callafangers]

It's pretty simple. In 798-PS Hitler doesn't want mediation (which might grant him Danzig and other places but avert the invasion). He did this because he wanted to invade, he wanted a huge chunk of Poland. What doesn't make sense is your position. What was Boehm and Raeder's angle with all of this?

Raeder and Boehm aimed to exonerate themselves and the Wehrmacht leadership from direct complicity in any planned atrocities or aggressive war policies. They preferred Boehm's version (obviously) because it aligned with their defense against charges of war crimes and conspiracy to wage aggressive war.

This Israel stuff is rich because I take an extreme anti-Israeli position. I think the country as a whole should be sanctioned by the US. If you want we can talk about it in an appropriate thread.

Ah, so you're one supporting the diaspora, then (that is, supporting Jewish control globally, outside of Israel)? That makes sense. Shalom.

[Callafangers]

Callafangers, have you read the book Hitler Redux: The Incredible History of Hitler’s So-Called Table Talks by Swedish historian Mikael Nilsson? It's an impressive work because he literally spent years in archives and libraries tracking down the origins of the Table Talks and studying their authenticity. He goes through some of things you've discussed in this thread. I read it during the pandemic and was impressed by Nilsson's primary research, even contemplating contacting him to see what his general thoughts were on the historicity of the Holocaust. The book doesn't really touch in the Holocaust at all, but his historiographic approach to the Table Talks was very much similar to revisionist approaches to the Holocaust.

Here's the synopsis of the book in case you're interested:

After Hitler's death, several posthumous books were published which purported to be the verbatim words of the Nazi leader – two of the most important of these documents were Hitler's Table Talk and The Testament of Adolf Hitler. This ground-breaking book provides the first in-depth analysis and critical study of Hitler’s so-called table talks and their history, provenance, translation, reception, and usage.

Based on research in public and private archives in four countries, the book shows when, why, where, how, by and for whom the table talks were written, how reliable the texts are, and how historians should approach and use them.

I bought the book some time ago, have not read it, just flipped through at the time (I bought it to research a particular reference to one of the alleged Table Talks conversations). But from what I read, yes, I agree with you its an important work, and is a pretty solid "nail in the coffin" for any argument reliant on the Table Talks (which were a common reference by historians to the question of Hitler's own ideology/beliefs, prior to this book becoming published ).

[fireofice]

Callafangers, have you read the book Hitler Redux: The Incredible History of Hitler’s So-Called Table Talks by Swedish historian Mikael Nilsson? It's an impressive work because he literally spent years in archives and libraries tracking down the origins of the Table Talks and studying their authenticity. He goes through some of things you've discussed in this thread. I read it during the pandemic and was impressed by Nilsson's primary research, even contemplating contacting him to see what his general thoughts were on the historicity of the Holocaust. The book doesn't really touch in the Holocaust at all, but his historiographic approach to the Table Talks was very much similar to revisionist approaches to the Holocaust.

Here's the synopsis of the book in case you're interested:

After Hitler's death, several posthumous books were published which purported to be the verbatim words of the Nazi leader – two of the most important of these documents were Hitler's Table Talk and The Testament of Adolf Hitler. This ground-breaking book provides the first in-depth analysis and critical study of Hitler’s so-called table talks and their history, provenance, translation, reception, and usage.

Based on research in public and private archives in four countries, the book shows when, why, where, how, by and for whom the table talks were written, how reliable the texts are, and how historians should approach and use them.

I bought the book some time ago, have not read it, just flipped through at the time (I bought it to research a particular reference to one of the alleged Table Talks conversations). But from what I read, yes, I agree with you its an important work, and is a pretty solid "nail in the coffin" for any argument reliant on the Table Talks (which were a common reference by historians to the question of Hitler's own ideology/beliefs, prior to this book becoming published ).

Nilsson does not argue that the Table Talks are entirely unreliable. This is what he says:

However, and this is very important, the results presented in this book should absolutely not be interpreted as meaning that the table talks are not authentic. They really are, at least for the most part, memoranda of statements that Hitler made at some point or another in his wartime HQs.

The Table Talks are authentic. Of course, they are flawed like all sources are (no source is perfect). But they are good faith attempts by the authors to record what Hitler said. The Table Talks as a whole support the revisionist position on the holocaust.

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/plan- ... adolf/571/

[bombsaway]

Raeder and Boehm aimed to exonerate themselves and the Wehrmacht leadership from direct complicity in any planned atrocities or aggressive war policies. They preferred Boehm's version (obviously) because it aligned with their defense against charges of war crimes and conspiracy to wage aggressive war.

What was their defense exactly?

[Callafangers]

Nilsson does not argue that the Table Talks are entirely unreliable. This is what he says:

However, and this is very important, the results presented in this book should absolutely not be interpreted as meaning that the table talks are not authentic. They really are, at least for the most part, memoranda of statements that Hitler made at some point or another in his wartime HQs.

The Table Talks are authentic. Of course, they are flawed like all sources are (no source is perfect). But they are good faith attempts by the authors to record what Hitler said. The Table Talks as a whole support the revisionist position on the holocaust.

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/plan- ... adolf/571/

To say they are 'authentic' distracts from how problematic they have been in historiography, which Nilsson also describes:

The table talks have been used by almost every historian writing about Hitler,
National Socialism, and Nazi Germany since 1951. Still, before this book there was
no in-depth, source-critical study of these important sources. They were said to
contain Hitler’s honest and private statements to a small circle of confidants writ-
ten down using stenography at his FHQs, and historians have cited these sources as
if they contained Hitler’s words ad verbatim. This book has shown all of this to be
either factually wrong or mistaken.

The idea that the table talks contain Hitler’s words as they were actually spoken
to his entourage in the various military HQs during the war must, as a result, be
considered to have been conclusively disproven. The table talks are not that kind of
sources, since they, contrary to what has been assumed by prior research, were not
the product of stenographic notes. Instead, they were (as in the case of the nightly
monologues) re-constructed entirely from memory, and sometimes partly from so-
called supporting words. Heim’s proof pages show that they were not only edited
later on – text was added, taken out, or moved around – and sometimes finished
long after the date on them. Nor was Hitler more honest in these statements; the
evidence is that lies from Mein Kampf are repeated in the table talks even though
many of those present must have known that what he said was not true.
So, what does this mean for the table talks as a historical source material?
Well, in fact, what we have are only representations and recollections of Hitler’s
utterances. This means that they are not Hitler’s words and that they cannot, and
should not, be quoted as such.

[fireofice]

To say they are 'authentic' distracts from how problematic they have been in historiography, which Nilsson also describes:

The table talks have been used by almost every historian writing about Hitler,
National Socialism, and Nazi Germany since 1951. Still, before this book there was
no in-depth, source-critical study of these important sources. They were said to
contain Hitler’s honest and private statements to a small circle of confidants writ-
ten down using stenography at his FHQs, and historians have cited these sources as
if they contained Hitler’s words ad verbatim. This book has shown all of this to be
either factually wrong or mistaken.

The idea that the table talks contain Hitler’s words as they were actually spoken
to his entourage in the various military HQs during the war must, as a result, be
considered to have been conclusively disproven. The table talks are not that kind of
sources, since they, contrary to what has been assumed by prior research, were not
the product of stenographic notes. Instead, they were (as in the case of the nightly
monologues) re-constructed entirely from memory, and sometimes partly from so-
called supporting words. Heim’s proof pages show that they were not only edited
later on – text was added, taken out, or moved around – and sometimes finished
long after the date on them. Nor was Hitler more honest in these statements; the
evidence is that lies from Mein Kampf are repeated in the table talks even though
many of those present must have known that what he said was not true.
So, what does this mean for the table talks as a historical source material?
Well, in fact, what we have are only representations and recollections of Hitler’s
utterances. This means that they are not Hitler’s words and that they cannot, and
should not, be quoted as such.

Yes they are not stenographic notes. They are not the exact words of Hitler as memory is not completely perfect. Others who remembered Hitler saying something different tried put their own edits and corrections on what they recall. And not everything Hitler says can be taken at face value. That is all true. That doesn't mean they are inauthentic. They have to be read critically but they are still useful. Some of his statements for example are corroborated by other sources listening to the same thing. When that happens, you can be pretty sure the statements in the Table Talk are authentic. One example, Hewel's diary and the Table Talks record the same conversation about Christianity being "rebellion against creation" on Oct 10, 1941. When that happens, we can be more sure such statements are authentic.

[Callafangers]

Yes they are not stenographic notes. They are not the exact words of Hitler as memory is not completely perfect. Others who remembered Hitler saying something different tried put their own edits and corrections on what they recall. And not everything Hitler says can be taken at face value. That is all true. That doesn't mean they are inauthentic. They have to be read critically but they are still useful. Some of his statements for example are corroborated by other sources listening to the same thing. When that happens, you can be pretty sure the statements in the Table Talk are authentic. One example, Hewel's diary and the Table Talks record the same conversation about Christianity being "rebellion against creation" on Oct 10, 1941. When that happens, we can be more sure such statements are authentic.

It's still pretty speculative as to his true meaning behind any of it, I think, unless corroborated by Hitler's own spoken word or writings to some degree. Hitler spoke (and felt) positively about Christianity until later in the war, once it became clear that the stubborn ignorance of the global denominations (and the division between the churches within Germany) were making it easy for his enemies to defame Germany therein. He increasingly (and more openly) began to express bitterness toward Christian organizations who had betrayed him and his people (although note that persecution of Christians in general never took place in any of Germany's territories). So it does seem possible he may have said something oppositional toward Christianity even earlier in the war, just hard to draw conclusions about the precise nature of it, which I think limits some of its value. I.e. was this statement about Christianity as "rebellion against creation [or natural law]" really a rejection of all Christianity -- or just of the groups he was dealing with at that time, in context?

As for the table talks more generally, I do want to finish that book sometime, but I will defer to you for further insights in the meantime. My main concern is that if we don't have precision, it becomes difficult and perhaps counter-productive to attempt to draw inferences from any of it, since the confidence can't reasonably be there. However intriguing any revelation that could come from it, we just don't know.

[fireofice]

It's still pretty speculative as to his true meaning behind any of it, I think, unless corroborated by Hitler's own spoken word or writings to some degree. Hitler spoke (and felt) positively about Christianity until later in the war, once it became clear that the stubborn ignorance of the global denominations (and the division between the churches within Germany) were making it easy for his enemies to defame Germany therein. He increasingly (and more openly) began to express bitterness toward Christian organizations who had betrayed him and his people (although note that persecution of Christians in general never took place in any of Germany's territories). So it does seem possible he may have said something oppositional toward Christianity even earlier in the war, just hard to draw conclusions about the precise nature of it, which I think limits some of its value. I.e. was this statement about Christianity as "rebellion against creation [or natural law]" really a rejection of all Christianity -- or just of the groups he was dealing with at that time, in context?

I plan on starting a thread on Hitler's relation to Christianity some time in the future. For now I'll say that I disagree with your assessment that he only became anti-Christian later. You can find anti-Christian statements in Mein Kampf. Most historians believe he wasn't a Christian, with only a handful arguing otherwise. Even the handful who argue he was a Christian acknowledge that he was far from Orthodox and would have been considered a heretic (like Marcion) by most Christians throughout history. I personally don't find these attempts to argue he was a Christian in any real sense very compelling. But I'll leave that for another time.

[curioussoul]

To say they are 'authentic' distracts from how problematic they have been in historiography, which Nilsson also describes:

The table talks have been used by almost every historian writing about Hitler,
National Socialism, and Nazi Germany since 1951. Still, before this book there was
no in-depth, source-critical study of these important sources. They were said to
contain Hitler’s honest and private statements to a small circle of confidants writ-
ten down using stenography at his FHQs, and historians have cited these sources as
if they contained Hitler’s words ad verbatim. This book has shown all of this to be
either factually wrong or mistaken.

The idea that the table talks contain Hitler’s words as they were actually spoken
to his entourage in the various military HQs during the war must, as a result, be
considered to have been conclusively disproven. The table talks are not that kind of
sources, since they, contrary to what has been assumed by prior research, were not
the product of stenographic notes. Instead, they were (as in the case of the nightly
monologues) re-constructed entirely from memory, and sometimes partly from so-
called supporting words. Heim’s proof pages show that they were not only edited
later on – text was added, taken out, or moved around – and sometimes finished
long after the date on them. Nor was Hitler more honest in these statements; the
evidence is that lies from Mein Kampf are repeated in the table talks even though
many of those present must have known that what he said was not true.
So, what does this mean for the table talks as a historical source material?
Well, in fact, what we have are only representations and recollections of Hitler’s
utterances. This means that they are not Hitler’s words and that they cannot, and
should not, be quoted as such.

Yes they are not stenographic notes. They are not the exact words of Hitler as memory is not completely perfect. Others who remembered Hitler saying something different tried put their own edits and corrections on what they recall. And not everything Hitler says can be taken at face value. That is all true. That doesn't mean they are inauthentic. They have to be read critically but they are still useful. Some of his statements for example are corroborated by other sources listening to the same thing. When that happens, you can be pretty sure the statements in the Table Talk are authentic. One example, Hewel's diary and the Table Talks record the same conversation about Christianity being "rebellion against creation" on Oct 10, 1941. When that happens, we can be more sure such statements are authentic.

But Nilsson demonstrates the motivations behind the people who ended up publishing Hitler's supposed Table Talks after the war, which included twisting key statements attributed to Hitler to support their own agendas. This discredits the entire corpus. As a result, almost nothing can be taken at face value. Did the Table Talks happen? Yes. Are they reliable as published? No.

[fireofice]

But Nilsson demonstrates the motivations behind the people who ended up publishing Hitler's supposed Table Talks after the war, which included twisting key statements attributed to Hitler to support their own agendas. This discredits the entire corpus. As a result, almost nothing can be taken at face value. Did the Table Talks happen? Yes. Are they reliable as published? No.

I am not convinced that Nilsson demonstrated any instances of intentional deception rather than their biases influencing their memory of what Hitler said. Regardless, there are statements Hitler made that are corroborated by other sources of people who were also there, like the Hewel diary I mentioned. The claim that the Table Talks were completely fabricated (that they just ignored Hitler's monologuing and just wrote their own thing entirely) seems very unlikely to me.