The Table Talk of Hitler - Essay Example

Hitler's table talk, between the period 1941 and 1944, is quite fascinating revealing views of Hitler on several issues that prevailed during the time. It is worth exploring some of the contemporary issues such as nature, religion, God, Christianity, or Church and judiciary.

                Hitler's view on nature and its acts is worth quoting, "At the end of the last century, the progress of science and technique led liberalism astray into proclaiming man's mastery of nature, and announcing that he would soon have dominion over space. But a simple storm is enough—and everything collapses like a pack of cards” (Table talk, 5). How true his observations are! In fact, it proves that he has high regard for nature’s doings. He considers it a necessity to know about the laws that govern human life. He is quite categorical in stating that “the laws of nature will guide us on the path of progress”.  

              While he reveres highly on nature’s laws and endorses the notion of a god or almighty in the minds of people as a natural afterthought, he is strongly opposed to the idea of priesthood and their rule on humans because any religious establishment such as Church creates fear in minds of the people enforcing their ideas to exploit them. His understanding of human psychology is profound when he says “every man needs a refuge where he can find consolation and help in unhappiness" (6). But at the same time, he strongly discards the idea of creating fear in name of religion during childhood because that is not a good way of upbringing.

                He clearly believes that Christianity has no role to play as far as governing is concerned. Though Churches are powerful institutions exerting a huge influence on people yet he is not ready to form a pact with the church because that cannot offer any lasting benefits. He believes in keeping party matters separate from individuals' religious beliefs. He believes in dealing with Catholics and Protestants carefully so as to avoid any trouble in the long run. He endorses the fact that human beings are afraid of many unknown things that are imbibed in nature and for which no plausible explanation is available. He is pretty sure that with the advancement of science, many unanswered queries of metaphysical nature will get resolved in due course of time and that is why it is prudent not to confront the Churches upfront. The myths created by Christianity will crumble on their own as science progresses further.  He further says that the person closer to Nature will soon find them opposing Churches ((59-61).

                Does this mean that the concept of God, according to Hitler, should disappear along with Christianity? No, certainly not as he says that that is not desirable. He believes that the political establishment should never acquire any religious faith. He categorically says, "Religion is in perpetual conflict with the spirit of free research" (83). When one tries to eliminate a religious belief by force, another form of worshipping takes its place. He is a strong proponent of truth and advocates that the young generation be taught about truth and nothing else. The church has its hidden motives while doing certain acts. According to him, a pious person in the true sense is not the one that sees God at only a few places and not everywhere. On the concept of God, he states Russians can certainly oppose priests but they have no right to demolish the concept of a supernatural force. He acknowledges that creative force is at work all around and it is a big human folly to deny it. On ‘Russian atheism’, he says it is better to have a false belief rather than having no belief at all.

                He tries to distinguish science and religion stating "Science does not claim to know the essence of things" (84). He means to say that religion often tells so many things doggedly unlike science where based on new findings, the past notion is quickly revised. He is pretty sure that the dogma of Christianity will fall apart in the coming years with the advancement of science.

                He notices several drawbacks in the German Judiciary during those years. He says, "The higher court forms its judgment on the basis of the evidence given before the lower court, and this practice has many drawbacks” (113). His observation on the German Judiciary is noteworthy when he states that in none of the cases, where he is involved, higher courts have ever changed any of the verdicts given by the lower courts. He suggests that the higher court needs to investigate the cases independent of the lower court’s findings and give a fresh judgment. He opines that the judge's role is to find the truth and not to complete a procedure.

                Thus, Hitler's table talk provides a great insight on numerous aspects that anyone will find of importance even today.