"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. It reveals the crucial role of the mysterious Swiss Nazi Francois Genoud as well as some very poor judgement from several famous historians in giving these dubious sources more credibility than they deserved. The book sets the record straight regarding the nature of these volumes as historical sources - proving inter alia The Testament to be a clever forgery - and aims to establish a new consensus on their meaning and impact on historical research into Hitler and the Third Reich. This path-breaking historical investigation will be of considerable interest to all researchers and historians of the Nazi era"--
Mikael Nilsson disputerade 2007 och är sedan 2017 docent i historia. Han forskade under många år om bland annat svenskt militärtekniskt samarbete med USA, samt amerikansk propagandaverksamhet i Sverige under kalla kriget, men har sedan 2015 kommit att specialisera sig på Hitler och nazismen. Sedan 2003 har han forskat och undervisat på KTH, Försvarshögskolan, Stockholms universitet samt Uppsala universitet. Nilsson har tidigare publicerat 17 vetenskapliga artiklar i internationella tidskrifter, samt tre böcker. Den tredje av dessa, Hitler Redux, en källkritisk granskning av Hitlers så kallade bordssamtal, publicerades av Routledge hösten 2020.
A very interesting example of the sort of textual criticism that is rarely applied to historical works - you'll certainly look more doubtfully at history books after reading it. However, it's dragged down by several lengthy sections where the author attempts to catch Hitler in a lie, which feel unnecessary - did anyone really think Hitler told the unvarnished truth in private?