← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 20102 | Posts: 15 | Started: 2005-09-09
2005-09-09 07:41 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/tabletalk/tabletalk.html]Hitler's Table Talk[/URL]
Hitler's Table Talk
Excerpt from the exciting new book The Real Hitler
Coming Soon!
We have demonstrated in a variety of ways that the public record illustrates and proves the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and indeed of the true National Socialist movement. We have further shown that many popular historians are now admitting this fact. Yet, detractors to these facts often point to a number of alleged quotations of Hitler contained in so-called private records, most of which, after wide circulation and publicity, have been admitted or proven to be forgeries and spurious in nature. These sources are at best hearsay and are of such a dubious nature and have such questionable chains of transmission that none of them could ever be used as evidence in a court of law. On the other hand, in the public record, including Mein Kampf, published during Hitler's lifetime, his large number of speeches, preserved on film, audio recordings, and newspaper accounts, the official publications and proclamations of the NSDAP party, and even letters which bear Hitler's signature, we find nothing to contradict what we have stated so far. It is only in these questionable sources, published after the war and after Hitler's death, that we find the supposed evidence that Hitler was not a Christian. Thus, it is necessary to deal with these spurious sources and set the record straight. The most popular of these sources is Hitler's TableTalk, with a popular English translation by Cameron and Stevens and with an introduction by H.R. Trevor-Roper. In fact, this is the only complete English translation available. The following is illustrative of the types of quotations that are popularly cited, all from the Trevor-Roper edition:
If my presence on earth is providential, I owe it to a superior will. But I owe nothing to the Church that traffics in the salvation of souls, and I find it really too cruel. ... Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn't, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance. ... What is important above all is that we should prevent a greater lie from replacing the lie that is disappearing. The world of Judeo-Bolshevism must collapse.I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors * but to devote myself deliberately to error, that is something I cannot do. I shall nevercome personally to terms with the Christian lie.
But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.
However, the Table-Talk also is filled with many quotations like the following:
We don't want to educate anyone in atheism.An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state ofthe animal).
It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish thanto re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianityimplanted itself.
So we appear to be presented with two different extremes in the same document. It should further be pointed out that nowhere in the Table-Talk does it record Hitler denouncing Jesus Christ or his own Christian faith.
It is very likely that the Table-Talk is indeed based upon actual statements of Hitler, but given the numerous internal inconsistencies and statements that appear to contradict the public and published statements of Hitler, we need to determine if these writings have undergone editing or interpolations. To do this, we must understand how this book came to be.
It first should be stated that not one of the conversations supposedly preserved in the Table-Talk is preserved in any other form such as audio, film, or radio broadcast, and that none of these purported conversations were published during Hitler's lifetime.
The reported source of the documents is from stenographers chosen by Martin Bormann to record these conversations. This presents the first potential problem with the documents. Bormann was not a Christian and he maintained his deistic agenda, all the while walking a fine line in his own statements to avoid losing favor with Hitler.
Bormann issued the following directive:
Please keep these notes most carefully, as they will be of very great value in the future. I have now got Heim to make comprehensive notes as a basis for these minutes. Any transcript which is not quite apposite will be re-checked by me.In other words, Bormann reserved for himself editorial rights over the notes which were taken, and as we will see, he frequently made use of this self-claimed right.
The stenographers used were Heinrich Heim and Henry Picker. The documents were then given to Bormann, and this could have provided anopportunity for Bormann to edit them as he wished or perhaps insert statements that were more to his liking. At some point, Bormann supposedly made two copies of the documents, one of which was kept at Munich, and another sent to Berchtesgaden. The copy at Munich was reportedly burned at the end of the war. The copy at Berchtesgaden is supposedly the source of the published version we have today. It was known as the Bormann Vermerke or Bormann Notes,and this text belonged to François Genoud, who first published the text. Genoud was a Swiss banker who claimed to be a Nazi, but his real motivations are highly questionable. He was known to peddle in many so-called Nazi texts, not a few of which have proven to be complete forgeries. He bought the manuscript from an Italian official in 1948, whore portedly acquired it from Bormann's wife Gerda, who went to Italy after the war.
There appears also to be a forty-two-page fragment of the manuscript reportedly burned in Munich in the United States Library of Congress, placed there by a Mr. Joseph Schrasberger, who supposedly found the document in Munich after the war.
The stenographer Henry Picker, who replaced Heim, served in that capacity for only a very short time (March 21, 1942 to August 2, 1942). He claimedto have kept a copy of the notes he made during that time and also a copy of the notes Heim had made before him. He had no notes past August 2, 1942, when Heim returned. He claims that Bormann did not edit the notes that he personally made, though the notes given to him from Heim had likely been edited or influenced by Bormann to some degree. Indeed, Picker said that "no confidence can be placed inBormann's editing of it," and also spoke of"Bormann's alterations..." (Trevor-Roper.) Nevertheless, Picker kept the notes he had been given by Heim and his own notes.
Thus, there are three sources in German for the Table-Talk: the Bormann Notes copy of Genoud, which contains the full brunt of Bormann's editings; the fragment of the Bormann Notes in the Library of Congress; and the limited German text of Picker.
Today, according to Richard Carrier and other sources, there are four main published versions of the Table-Talk. The first published was the German manuscript of Picker, which contains no entries subsequent to August 1942, and has only five months of entries which Picker attests are free of Bormann alterations. The second to be published was a French translation by Genoud of his copy of the Bormann Notes. The third was the English translation of Stevensand Cameron, edited by Trevor-Roper. This was a translation of the Genoud's French translation, and was not based upon the German. The fourth and last edition was a printing of Genoud's German original, prepared by Werner Jochmann.
Before we can begin to sort through whatever alterations Bormann himself may have made to the text, it first should be pointed out how faulty the Trevor-Roper edition is, and the Genoud French translation upon which it is based. Carrier has described the Trevor-Roper edition as "worthless," and in fact, he has shown that all of the major anti-Christian passages commonly cited by historians,including the three at the beginning of this chapter, are frauds and are not contained in the original German, in his article "Hitler's Table-Talk: Troubling Finds." Let us look at these three popular quotes one by one, in light of Carrier's article. The first, often quoted passage is,
If my presence on earth is providential, I owe it to a superior will. But I owe nothing to the Church that traffics in the salvation of souls, and I find it really too cruel. I admit that one cannot impose one's will by force, but I have a horror of people who enjoy inflicting sufferings on others' bodies and tyranny upon others' souls.Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn't, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance. Man must be put in a position to develop freely the talents that God has given him.
What is important above all is that we should prevent a greater lie from replacing the lie that is disappearing. The world of Judeo-Bolshevism must collapse.
This quote is supposedly from February 27, 1942, when Heim was stenographer. Carrier provides the German of Jochmann and Picker which agrees, except in a difference of one word, then his own translation of that German:
I am here due to a higher power, if I am necessary for anything. Leave aside that she is too cruel for me, the beatifying Church! I have never found pleasure in maltreating others, even if I know it isn't possible to stand your ground in the world without force. Life is only given to those who fight for it the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself!The time in which we live indicates the collapse of this idea. It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance.
We are growing into a sunny, really tolerant worldview: Man shall be able to develop his God-given talents. We must only prevent a new, even greater lie from arising: that of the Jewish-Bolshevist world. That's what I must destroy.
The difference in these two passages is astounding! There is no mention of a "disease of Christianity" which will end, but rather Hitler speaks in general of his then present world order. He does not mention that he "owes nothing to the Church." He boldly states that he is "here due to a higher power," rather than saying "If I am here..." Rather than speak of Moses condescendingly, he identifies with Moses in his desire to see the Promised Land. He envisions a world free of Jewish-Bolshevism where men will be able to develop fully their God-given talents. So the English edition of Trevor-Roper contains here a complete fabrication, and this fabrication, particularly the line about "the disease of Christianity," is perhaps the most frequently quoted passage by those who attempt to deny the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Movement.
Carrier points out that in the same entry in the German, the English and French translations have also omitted an important line. In the same conversation, Hitler said,
Das, was der Mensch vor dem Tier voraushat, der vielleicht wunderbarste Beweis für die ÃÅberlegenheitdes Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, das es eineSchöpferkraft geben muss!.............................. [CENTER](Click [URL=[URL=http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/tabletalk/tabletalk.html]Hitler's Table Talk[/URL] for rest)[/CENTER] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [I](Interesting book, and interpretation of Hitler, although the organization publishing it doesn't seem real well known to me - Okie) [/I] --- ### Petr *2005-09-09 13:15* | [User Profile](/od/user/1012) I am frankly not much interested in trying to "rehabilitate" Hitler from a Christian viewpoint - pagans can keep him for all I care. I have also read Joseph Goebbels' diaries and they more or less confirm the character that comes out of [I]Table Talks[/I]. Petr --- ### Okiereddust *2005-09-09 16:50* | [User Profile](/od/user/29) [QUOTE=Petr]I am frankly not much interested in trying to "rehabilitate" Hitler from a Christian viewpoint - pagans can keep him for all I care. From a Christian standpoint one certainly isn't going to turn him into a choirboy. But from a western standpoint I think the importance of his viewpoints to western nationalism still can't be dismissed, if for only the fact that he and National Socialism are still arguably the only effective leaders/movements the west has had against internationalism in modern times. > I have also read Joseph Goebbels' diaries and they more or less confirm the character that comes out of [I]Table Talks[/I]. Petr[/QUOTE]Again, he was no choirboy. But I don't see you quoting Goebbel's diaries. The tone as well as the substance is quite important really in religious matters. AsI think you said before yourself, the struggle within Germany over the nature of NS was quite intense. One of the strongest aspects of this struggle was between those who interpreted it in continuation with that of the old Germany/Second Reich, and those like Bormann and Goebbels who leaned to an almost Soviet type interpretation. We see it today I think continuing in the nationalst movement between the VNNers and the various factions of dissent from them. --- ### Petr *2005-09-09 17:21* | [User Profile](/od/user/1012) [COLOR=Red][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "the fact that he and National Socialism are still arguably the only effective leaders/movements the west has had against internationalism in modern times."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR] You seem to be buying into self-congratulatory Nazi propaganda - ever heard of Carl Gustaf Mannerheim, Corneliu Codreanu, Francisco Franco, Augusto Pinochet or Vladimir Putin for that matter? They were all quite successful, and none of them was a card-carrying "National Socialist", and in his diaries Goebbels actually badmouths Franco as a bourgeois, clerical-minded wimp. You may want to check this thread again on my distinction between Nazism and traditionalist reaction: [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19265&highlight=mannerheim[/url] Petr --- ### Okiereddust *2005-09-09 19:23* | [User Profile](/od/user/29) [QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Red][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "the fact that he and National Socialism are still arguably the only effective leaders/movements the west has had against internationalism in modern times."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR] You seem to be buying into self-congratulatory Nazi propaganda Yeah, I might want to rephrase that. It is still by far the largest and most popular unabashadly nationalist movent in modern times the west has had. Effctiveness? That, true, is questionable at best in some of the larger senses of the word. [QUOTE] - ever heard of Carl Gustaf Mannerheim, Corneliu Codreanu, Francisco Franco, Augusto Pinochet or Vladimir Putin for that matter They were all quite successful, and none of them was a card-carrying "National Socialist", and in his diaries Goebbels actually badmouths Franco as a bourgeois, clerical-minded wimp.?[/QUOTE]I have heard of Mannerheim, I doubt if any others here have. Codreanu escapes me most definitely. All of the above of course are vastly more limited in political success than NS, controlling smaller realms, with much less well-defined movements, in a much less firm way. Of course their much more limited success also seemed to create a much less spectacular failure ([I]gotterdang[/I]) at the end > You may want to check this thread again on my distinction between Nazism and traditionalist reaction: [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19265&highlight=mannerheim[/url] Petr[/QUOTE]No doubt, there definitely is a side to NS that needs to be guarded against. I think all but the most hardcore NSers today will acknowledge that. I'll have to check that thread again. Sometime it is good to be content with more limited success. The fact of the matter is, it's success, popularity and autonomy from its enemies, at least for a time, were realities, where for most of the others at least that sort of succes remained a pipe dream. If for no other purpose, nationalists will continue to look at the third Reich, even if it must always be done with scrutiny. While its failures must be acknowledged, I don't think any positive purpose, for us at least, is served by demonizing it unnecessarily. To that end, I think it is worrhwhile that we guard ourself against efforts to make us do just that. Quite possibly the distortions in [I]Table Talk [/I] belong in that category to some extent, even if David Irving has apparently vouched at least in a limited way for their authenticity. No one historian is infallible. --- ### Esoterist *2005-09-09 19:47* | [User Profile](/od/user/1359) Joseph Goebbels *15 November.* [...] In the last analysis we are all mad if we have an idea. Fanatics of love: the capacity for self-sacrifice. Life is an act of sacrifice for the sake our neighbor. And my neighbor is he who has the same blood. Blood is still the best and most durable cement. How unspeakably difficult is the torment of vision. What constitutes the modern German is not so much cleverness and intellect, as the new principle, the ability to give oneself to a cause unreservedly, to sacrifice oneself, to devote oneself to one's people.[...] **Now I have found the word: we modern Germans are something like Christ-socialists [*Christussozialisten*].** ** Christ is the genius of love, and as such the diametrical opposite of Judaism, which is the incarnation of hatred. The Jew represents the anti-race among the races of the earth. He has the same function as a poisonous bacillus has in the human organism: to mobilize the resistance of healthy forces or ensure that a living being whose days are numbered dies more quickly and more peacefully.[...]** ** In Christ the idea of sacrifice first took visible form. Sacrifice is intrinsic to the very nature of true socialism. Devote oneself to the cause of others. Naturally the Jew cannot begin to understand this. His socialism means: sacrifice others for one's own sake.** ** This is what Marxism produces in practice.[...]** ** The battle which we are fighting today till victory is secured, or to the bitter end, is in the deepest sense a battle between Christ and Marx.** ** Christ: the principle of love** ** Marx: the principle of hatred.** [right][Michael: Diary of a German Destiny][/right] --- ### Franco *2005-09-09 20:17* | [User Profile](/od/user/203) [QUOTE=Okiereddust]From a Christian standpoint one certainly isn't going to turn him into a choirboy. But from a western standpoint I think the importance of his viewpoints to western nationalism still can't be dismissed, if for only the fact that he and National Socialism are still arguably the only effective leaders/movements the west has had against internationalism in modern times. Again, he was no choirboy. But I don't see you quoting Goebbel's diaries. The tone as well as the substance is quite important really in religious matters. AsI think you said before yourself, the struggle within Germany over the nature of NS was quite intense. One of the strongest aspects of this struggle was between those who interpreted it in continuation with that of the old Germany/Second Reich, and those like Bormann and Goebbels who leaned to an almost Soviet type interpretation. We see it today I think continuing in the nationalst movement between the VNNers and the various factions of dissent from them.[/QUOTE] Yes, Okie. Hitler's anti-Jewish, anti-international ideas are important. Whether Hitler was Christian or not seems, to me, a moot point now. ---------------- --- ### Hamilton *2005-09-11 20:18* | [User Profile](/od/user/1764) The cited passages aren't even necessary to show that Hitler was an enemy of Christianity. His clear pro-Muslim stance is more than enough. Anyone who would wish Islam upon Europeans is no friend of Western Man. --- ### madrussian *2005-09-11 20:52* | [User Profile](/od/user/15) Where do you get this Islam nonsense? The same line is usually pushed by the zhids. --- ### Hamilton *2005-09-11 21:00* | [User Profile](/od/user/1764) [QUOTE=madrussian]Where do you get this Islam nonsense? The same line is usually pushed by the zhids.[/QUOTE] Truth is truth even if a zhid says it. Albert Einstein's theories aren't false just because he was a Jew. As for Hitler's pro-Muslim stance, even aside from *Table Talk*, check out Speer's *Inside the Third Reich*. Or just look at his cozying up to muftis and mullahs. Muslims served under the Nazi flag. [img]http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/images/photos/mufti.jpg[/img] ** "****[color=#000000]**The picture above shows Bosnian Muslim SS-soldiers in their Handschar Muslim uniforms. Please note the SS skull on their Muslim Fez. The runic SS letters on the collar has been replaced with the Muslim scimitar and a swastika. The Muslim SS-soldiers were served food without pork and could pray according to Islamic precept. So much for Nazi ethnic intolerance." [url]http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Racecard/moslem_nazis.htm[/url]** [/color]** --- ### madrussian *2005-09-11 21:05* | [User Profile](/od/user/15) yeah, so? Where did he "wish Islam on Europe", Einstein? --- ### Hamilton *2005-09-11 21:10* | [User Profile](/od/user/1764) [QUOTE=Okiereddust]Yeah, I might want to rephrase that. It is still by far the largest and most popular unabashadly nationalist movent in modern times the west has had. I don't agree. You can't have German nationalism without recognizing Christianity's vital role, which was integral to the development of the German nation. You certainly can't be pro-Muslim and a genuine German Nationalist. What exactly was nationalist about allying with Japan, recruiting Muslims to fight against Christians, and attacking just about every western country? > Effctiveness? That, true, is questionable at best in some of the larger senses of the word. What an understatement. Even if Nazism was an "anti-Jewish survival strategy," it is certainly a failed one. I guess the "mirror image of Judaism" didn't scale up well for a large, industrialized, gentile nation. At any rate isn't it clear that Nazism is not exactly something with which nationalists should *want* to be associated? That is what *really* plays right into the hands of the "zhids." If America is to have a successful blood and soil movement, we have to realize that America's heroes need to be revered. The worst possible way to do that would be to honor Nazism, which our ancestors died fighting. --- ### Petr *2005-09-11 21:45* | [User Profile](/od/user/1012) [COLOR=Red][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "Where did he "wish Islam on Europe", Einstein?"[/B] [/I][/FONT][/COLOR] In here: [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18584&page=2&pp=15&highlight=poitiers[/url] [COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Georgia]"[B]Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -Already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity!- Then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so."[/B] (August 28, 1942) "[I]Hitler's Table Talk; 1941-1944[/I]" translated by N. Cameron and R.H. Stevens, Enigma Books (1953)[/FONT][/COLOR] Petr --- ### Okiereddust *2005-09-12 04:26* | [User Profile](/od/user/29) [QUOTE=Hamilton]I don't agree. You can't have German nationalism without recognizing Christianity's vital role, which was integral to the development of the German nation. You certainly can't be pro-Muslim and a genuine German Nationalist. What exactly was nationalist about allying with Japan, recruiting Muslims to fight against Christians, and attacking just about every western country? Well you have a little laundry list there, all of whose items we've discussed at length before here. When he list is looked at exhaustively and There definitely were some things, in the struggle that were less than ideal. But there are in any the matters on any nation. That certainly doesn't mean the nation, or the movement that leads it, is automatically illegitimate. [QUOTE] What an understatement. Even if Nazism was an "anti-Jewish survival strategy," it is certainly a failed one. I guess the "mirror image of Judaism" didn't scale up well for a large, industrialized, gentile nation. At any rate isn't it clear that Nazism is not exactly something with which nationalists should *want* to be associated? That is what *really* plays right into the hands of the "zhids."[/QUOTE]It depends what you mean of course, by Nazism, and by associating with it. I've argued sort of anti-Nazi Nationalist position myself, and for my trouble got a typical reaction from the Hitlerite types. > If America is to have a successful blood and soil movement, we have to realize that America's heroes need to be revered. The worst possible way to do that would be to honor Nazism, which our ancestors died fighting.[/QUOTE]Depends what you mean by honor Nazism. Buchanan has been accussed of same for various things he said such as about Hitler, and for isolationism in [I]Republic Not An Empire [/I]. Surely this is not what you mean. Refusing to reflexively and absolutely demonize something is not the same as "honoring" it. --- ### vytis *2005-09-12 18:38* | [User Profile](/od/user/1325) [QUOTE=Okiereddust] I have heard of Mannerheim, I doubt if any others here have. Codreanu escapes me most definitely.[/QUOTE]Corneliu Codreanu (1899-1938) was born in Romania. This devout Christian and fearless National Socialist, founded The Legion of Michael the Archangel aka The Iron Guard on June 24, 1927. During the night of November 29, 1938, Codreanu and thirteen Legionaires were brutally murdered by Romanian government soldiers. According to an article in The Best of Attack and National Vanguard p.123: "Codreanu deserved to be remembered and honored everywhere. No one served his people with a purer love; no one fought his people's enemies with a more implacable hatred. Corneliu Codreanu is a hero not only for Romanians, but for the White world." ---