0
3

[–] Kattie [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Any historian’s work is only as good as his criteria for accepting documents and other data as valid, his criteria for highlighting or accepting this or that fact from the huge mass of historical data, and his inferences.

0
2

[–] BigFatDaddy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Not if they're jews.

0
2

[–] kulturkampf 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Overall, this was a good read. I appreciated the content.

The title, though, seemed like it must have been written before the actual content and never revised, and doesn't seem to really be definitively answered. This is a common enough problem, though, and all bloggers have run into this kind of thing before.

Still, it’s striking how frankly brutal the Table Talk is: Moscow and Leningrad are to be razed, the inhabitants of the Crimea are to be expulsed to make way for German settlers, and the Slavs – at best – are to be forcibly kept in a permanent state of backwardness and neglect in the countryside. Given that none of the parties involved appear to have had an incentive to harden Hitler’s message, this suggests authenticity.

This really speaks to the legitimacy of the Table Talk book, IMO. Who would want that out there on the behalf of Hitler? And since the people involved with it were presumably sympathetic to him, it makes sense to conclude that it may largely be legitimate.