As someone who considered himself relatively well informed about WWII, Hitler, etc., I am actually a bit embarrassed about having only just become aware of Hitler’s Table Talk (pdf file).
I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but was struck almost immediately by two things. One was der Fuhrer’s apparent familiarity with some fairly nuanced aspects of Christianity and the New Testament. The other, and the basis for this post, is his vocabulary. Assuming there’s been a faithful translation (and that recondite English synonyms weren’t deliberately substituted), Adolf had a damned impressive vocabulary. I wouldn’t have expected the corporal to use words like “autarkic”, “inculpation”, “bumptious”, “inculcated”, “atavistic”, and so on. Remember, these were supposedly his spontaneous spoken statements, not writings in a book.
So, my question is: did the transcribers of his ‘table talk’ embellish or change Hitler’s words to make him seem more erudite and sophisticated?
I don’t have a German version at hand, but likely equivalents of “autarkic”, “inculpation”, “bumptious”, “inculcated”, “atavistic” would be *autark, Anschuldigung, aufgeblasen, eingetrichtert/eingebleut, atavistisch. * The first and last would be familiar for someone concerned with policy/racial ideology (remember that by the early 1940s Hitler had been a full-time politician for two decades), the others pretty common vocabulary. Not an improbable vocabulary for an intelligent Realschule dropout.
Someone growing up in a Catholic milieu in the late 19th/early 20th century would be very familiar with Christian ideas and institutions, too.
I don’t mean to challenge you, but do you really believe that words such as ‘inculpation’ and ‘bumptious’ are “pretty common” (relative to the expected norms and standards of pre-WWII west-central Europe)?
I do not know how common the original German words are, but I would imagine a politician who pretty much conquered most of Europe using nothing but the power of words would have a fairly extensive vocabulary, or at least not a stranger to the use of a thesaurus and well educated assistants when preparing his speeches.
Hitler accomplished a lot – and while I definitely do not agree with his politics – I cannot help but admit that his accomplishments are a result of some combination of luck and ability.
Remember, we’re talking the equivalent GERMAN words here, not the English ones. There are words in German (or any foreign language for that matter) that just don’t translate well, or translate best/directly to more obscure words in English. Depending on the needs of the populace where the language originated, they could have a fairly common word that’s never used here simply because the chance to use it is more frequent (not always the case of course, sometimes the reason an oddly specific word is used boils down “just 'cause”).
To illustrate (with an “out there” example): pretend no one ever talks about the color green in, say, Russia. The only people who know a word for the color are the educated elite (or word whores ;)), but in the US we talk about it every day. You use it in a book and the only good way to translate it is the obscure Russian word for “green,” people are impressed by your vocabulary even though the word is a one-dollar word every man woman and child recognizes and uses daily here.
I don’t think that’s at all the case here, though. Did you look at tschild’s equivalent German words? They look pretty close to me.
Why is it so hard to admit that Hitler was pretty damn eloquent? And though great eloquence might not necessarily correspond to intelligence, I don’t see any reason at all to think he was stupid.
Oh no, I’m one of the first people to admit Hitler was eloquent, and I’m one of the few people to admit I respect him and his achievements. Now he was a colossally terrible person, and I don’t AGREE with his ideologies by any means, and if I was in a room with him you’d probably have to keep me from smacking him a few hundred times, but he was smart and knew how to work the people and the system.
Anyway, I think the translator was the one inflating (or showing off his own vocabulary) here. For example, I would translate Anschuldigung as “accusation” instead of “inculpation,” and I heard it all the time (in movies/TV and chatting with friends in Germany). The only one that strikes me as the least bit odd is the second to last one. I’m not a native speaker though, so consider me relatively low on the “people whose interpretations matter” priority list.
To answer the MAIN question, yes, Hitler was eloquent, had good diction, good word choice, and very good delivery. I just don’t think the LISTED words would be anything to write home about.
ETA: Well, the first and last words aren’t as common, but they seem to fit with his political ideology so firmly that they don’t strike me as odd so much as “good words to use in sound bites.”
Hitler was not an educated man; as far as I know, he never attended a university. The books I have read (by intimates of Hitler), such as Conrad Heiden (“DER FUHRER”),all state that Hitler was a bit of a windbag. It wasn’t wise to argue with him-it could be quite dangerous. I can’t imagine that he was especially erudte, but, who really knows.
I have many friends who did not attend university and I say without any shame that some of them I consider more intelligent than myself who did go to uni.
Uni attendance does not equate with intelligence.
Yes Hitler was a windbag but by Og he certainly knew how to use that wind