Bertram Cabot: The claim that Speer’s memory was garbled is a shift from your claim that the was trying to cover up.

I never said anything about a cover up. From the very first comment I said his memory was garbled and unreliable, and proposed a possible psychological reason that may have affected it. I then even gave evidence that his memory was garbled, by comparing what he said to what Hitler actually said, showing his confusion, likely the result of decades of remorseful cognitive dissonance coloring how he remembered what happened.

but regardless he was indisputably an eyewitness to what Hitler said.

So is Hitler. And his bunker stenographers (from one of whom we have the transcripts directly). And Bormann, BTW, who notably did alter what Hitler said, almost immediately after he said it (thus showing that “being an eyewitness to what Hitler said” does not in fact mean much). I discuss Bormann’s “edits” to the Table Talk in the GSR article (and I’ll discuss them again at my talk in Walnut Creek this month).

he allies would not have let him publish it while he was in prison

Your evidence for this statement?

the preponderance of evidence is that Hitler despised Christianity.

What preponderance of evidence? Almost every single item the evidence, and all of the best evidence (e.g. the unedited Table Talk), confirms Hitler was a sincerely believing Christian who endorsed the entire program of Positive Christianity and intended to maintain the Church in line with the state. You can’t overcome all that evidence with one, decades-late, garbled memory of one psychologically shattered guy, who contradicts himself in the very same memoir (as I quoted above, he says Hitler intended to continue supporting the church, and even hoped the Catholic and Protestant churches could be reunited).

That’s how historical reasoning works. Strong evidence trumps weak. And quantity of independent sources trumps uncorroborated individuals. You are doing exactly the opposite. And that’s insane.

And that he would not hesitate to destroy it

You have presented no evidence of this whatever; not even Speer or Goebels say any such thing (as I’ve already noted).

It is evident to me you do not respond to evidence or logic.

Your attacks on on Speer’s memory and or his veracity could of course be made of any eyewitness, but making those assertions about a witness does not make them so. Inside the third Reich was written from some 1300 pages of notes compiled during his prison stay…it was not simply composed over 20 years after the fact as you imply. Moreover, the allies would not have let him publish it while he was in prison; that’s why he set to work on it after he got out in 1966…only 21 years after the war…and got it published in 1969, not an unusual length of time for publication.

What we do see is what something you touched on indicates, that Hitler said one thing in public and another in private…and the preponderance of evidence is that Hitler despised Christianity. And that he would not hesitate to destroy it when he had the chance…but that would have to wait until he had won the war.

Exactly as Speer indicated.

And its not just Speer, you still have Goebbels. DR. Goebbels.

Bertram Cabot: And the comments that you do accept from Speer indicate that Hitler wanted to control and use the church, not that he believed any of it.

You are moving the goal posts. The claim made was that Speer confirms Hitler was thoroughly anti-Christian and intended to destroy Christianity and the church. Note that it is that claim which Speer’s text does not corroborate. Speer was not a telepath. So if you want to know what Hitler actually believed you should look at what Hitler himself said in the candid remarks in the Table Talk (because unlike Speer, Hitler did know what was going on in Hitler’s head), and there he reveals his true beliefs, which were certainly very religious, but aligned with the ideology of Positive Christianity and his intention that the church should be subordinate to the state. Wishing to control the church is not the same as intending to destroy the church. Indeed, wishing to use the church is the exact opposite of wishing to destroy it.

When we compare what Speer says, decades later, from a colored memory, with what Hitler said, directly recorded by transcript, it is obvious that Speer’s memory has become garbled, as we can see how it is close to what Hitler really did say but deviates from it in the very key respects I noted. And the fact that Hitler’s remarks in the Table Talk are candid and reveal his true mind we can confirm from the fact that they boldly contradict what he was saying in public (where he staunchly played up his loyal Catholicism; unlike in the Table Talk where he tears the Catholic church up with loads of snide criticism identical to what a bigoted Protestant would say, while defending beliefs that align with the Nazi Protestant movement of Positive Christianity).

Speer was as “eyewitness” as you can get. You need more than your speculations to discredit his remarks about Hitler. And they are consistent with what Goebbels wrote in his diaries.

As to an earlier publication of Inside the Third Reich, that is questionable, since he had to prepare the material and find a suitable publisher for the Memoirs of a convicted War Criminal…perhaps not as easy in the Germany of circa 1970 as today.

But if Speer was as anxious to “throw tomatoes” at Hitler, as you put it, he would hardly have taken the degree of responsibility he did at Nuremberg but instead have simply blamed it all on Hitler…as others on trial with him, such as Raeder and Doenitz did. (And both of whom consequently served less time than Hitler did.)

And the comments that you do accept from Speer indicate that Hitler wanted to control and use the church, not that he believed any of it.

Fact it, Speer was an eyewitness to these events…and he can’t be simply dismissed as easliy as you seem to want.

Bertram Cabot: That he felt guilty is irrelevant

No, it’s not. As they say in law, it goes to bias. He wants to establish himself (even in his own mind) as reformed and misled. Thus the more he can scandalize Hitler, the more he will appear to be on the tomato-throwing side, and thus like us, not Hitler’s best friend. His memories will thus be colored and altered by how he wants to see the past. This doesn’t mean he will have completely fabricated memories. But it does mean there will be a distortionary trend in one particular direction that we, as historians, must take into account.

But is is also odd that you find Speer unreliable, since Hector Avalos quotes him for support in his article edited by your pal John Loftus.

Surely you are not a high school student. You know how to evaluate sources. It’s not as if a source is “wholly 100% unreliable on every single thing it says” or “wholly 100% reliable on every single thing it says.” Avalos uses Speer on a point that goes against Speer’s bias (The Christian Delusion, p. 381). Not so this case. Thus the two cases are not analogous.

Indeed, it is instructive to see what Avalos quotes Speer saying:

Even after 1942 Hitler went on maintaining that he regarded the church as indispensable in political life. He would be happy he said in one of those teatime talks at Obersalzberg, if someday a prominent churchman turned up who was suited to lead one of the churches–or if possible both the Catholic and Protestant churches reunited.

That we can confirm is an accurate understanding, because it’s similar to what Hitler himself says in the Table Talk. Whereas Speer’s statement about Christians being “flabby” and Muslims better is garbled (what Hitler himself said was significantly more nuanced) and more in line with a memory keen on discrediting Hitler (and therefore suspect, especially as it contradicts what even better sources say–namely, Hitler himself).

Bertram Cabot Speers memoir was not written AFTER he got out of prison, it was written while he was in prison and smuggled out in installements.

Source, please?

Speer himself implies in his foreword that he did not begin writing until after he left prison. I can’t imagine what the point would be of smuggling the book out only to not publish anything until four years after he was released from prison. It’s not like anyone could have prevented earlier publication.

They were published after his release, of course, as the allies would not have allowed it while he was in prison.

That he felt guilty is irrelevant; he WAS guilty and took a lot of responsibility at Nuremberg, unlike many of the other defendants who blamed Hitler for the whole thing.

But is is also odd that you find Speer unreliable, since Hector Avalos quotes him for support in his article edited by your pal John Loftus.

I guess if Avalos references him, he is reliable, but if I reference him he is unreliable.

Thats a characteristic of yours, Dr. Carrier…everything that conflicts with your interpretations always HAS to be some kind of forgery or lie. Odd how that always works in your favor.

As to Dr. Goebbles, Dr. Carrier, (love those Ph.D.’s, hope to have one of my own!) I will have to dig out my copy of the Goebbles diaries and check out the context but I am pretty sure he despised Christianity in general, not just Catholocism…and even if you are correct, it indicates that Hitler despised Catholocism as well.