Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

“Hitler’s Table Talk” Study Hour: Introduction – Episode 1


 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
21 Comments  comments 

21 Responses

  1. Lugh

    Pleased that your are giving this text the attention it deserves.
    The manner in which Christian offense may be there, but they should learn to take it easy for the sake of Europe.
    The atheist aspect of the Jewish program is largely a hijacking effort as many people in the age of science feel the Church has nothing to offer. Nietzsche and Wagner are demonized in the Frankfurt School more then Christianity.

  2. katana

    A good intro to the program by Carolyn and Ray.

    I’ve never heard Ray speak before although I have read his excellent article in the Barnes Review, “One Man’s Journey To ‘Holocaust Denial’”. Listening to him, he comes across as eminently well balanced, fair and careful in his approach in assessing a topic.

    And the topic of most interest re Hitler’s Table Talk, is not Hitler’s views on the best way to construct housing for the masses, but, naturally, his views on Christianity.

    Given Christianity’s long reign of State enforced combination of dominance, benevolence and sheer terror over European history I would expect Hitler to have a very realistic and negative view of organised Christianity.

    And given Christianity’s hold over the average German’s mind I would also expect Hitler to respect it, as an expression of the peoples’ culture, yet see it as something to be eventually, in good time, overcome.

    So, Hitler’s earlier public and later private views on Christianity aren’t contradictory, but rather complimentary.

    Hitler’s gigantic world shaking accomplishments and realizations about the enemy of humanity puts him, in my growing estimation, as the world’s greatest leader ever. To think that he didn’t understand the limitations of Christianity is to drag him down into ordinariness.

    Thanks Carolyn and Ray for teaming up and taking on this lengthy exercise in looking at Hitler’s private thoughts on a particularly crucial issue and also on his far ranging opinions on life in general.

  3. John Rees

    It seems that in the PDF the introduction and foreword by Hugh Trevor Roper are missing.


  4. Markus

    I will listen to each episode of Table Talks.

    This audio book/commentary radio show is perfect.

    I also studied Mein Kampf via audio book.

  5. Yes, John Rees, we said that on the program. But if you search for it at Google Books, you should be able to find it. Let us know.

    I just finished reading it – or I should say scanning it after the first page because it is too disgusting to read. It is nothing more than the typical post-war propagandistic bullshit (written in 1953) about the Hitler disordered personality, the Hitler deprived-in-every-way childhood, the Hitler compensatory behavior, and ends it’s way-too-many pages with the final sentence that Table Talk reveals Hitler as “the coarsest, cruelest, least magnanimous conquerer the world has ever known.”

    I’m sure that whoever posted the pdf removed T-R’s preface and forward on purpose, and it was a good decision since the forward is totally unhelpful, and as T-R admits in the preface, is outdated. This is why I’m not linking to it – I don’t recommend it and couldn’t even read it. Nobody would write such vile and stupid stuff today, except maybe the most rabid Jew. Which brings me to these British. Oh my God, they are as ruthless and destructive in lying about their enemies (those they conceive as such) as any Jew. No wonder the Jews found such a comfortable home there. You can hardly tell a Jew and an Englishman apart anymore.

    People like Paul Hickman and like Judith Long are exceptions. I know there are many more, but this is why I think it will take a revolution and stringing up and throwing out a lot of people. Going back to the 1950’s is not enough, as this forward by Trevor-Roper was written in the 1950’s.

  6. Dietlef Busch

    Dear Carolyn and Ray,

    I am rather gobsmacked to me mentioned in this interview, I rather aberatte from discussing this book (which I have yet to find any proof of photocopies of the originals) (perhaps you can give me a link? I will be most appreciative). My reasons are:-


  7. Dietlef,
    I deleted your “reasons” links because as soon as I looked at the first one, I got a virus alert from it. I naturally don’t want to pass it on.

    I sent to Ray the long comment which I did not post here, wherein you mostly go over what Richard Carrier wrote, which can be found on nobeliefs.com. Sorry if you thought Ray mentioned your name too many times; he obviously read it all and took it seriously. I could not find a definition for “aberatte” however, or even aberate.

    Proof of photocopies of the originals? Have you ever seen that for Mein Kampf? Or for any book you’ve read?

  8. Etienne

    Trevor-Roper also endorsed Hermann Rauschning’s Conversations with Hitler, which now turns out to have been a forgery. How would Bormann’s wife end up with semi-official documents? And if she did acquire them, how would she have the right to sell them, as she would not be the legal owner? However, there was another copy in existence, which speaks in its favor. I think there needs to be a comparison of things known to be Hitler’s views with the Table Talk to avoid over reliance on something so dubious.

  9. Dietlef Busch

    No problem mentioning my name Carolyn or Ray, if you allow me to explain please. This book has been used as a tool of the old Babylon Talmud doctrine, “diversity”, divide… and conquer a new generation. I posted the direct link to Carrier’s finds (keeping strongly in mind the “German originals” do not contain the anti-Christian, and he is not the first one to point this out), I posted the nobeliefs link on a previous post and as I recall, the first link was about Irving’s delusional views of history and as a reliable “source”, which I will not touch with a Maypole, but rather have it fall on his head 😀 aberrate (verb: stray from “normal” path) = depart from, differ, diverge.

    If you allow me to elaborate.

    Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf) versus David Irving as a “source” of “proof” of the “authenticity” of this “talks”? Here a view quotes on the “evil nazis” he is making money out of:-

    “Introduction: ‘Hitler’s War’ “Nobody that I knew of had attempted this before, but it seemed worth the effort: after all, Hitler’s war left forty million dead and caused all of Europe and half of Asia to be wasted by fire and explosives; it destroyed Hitler’s ‘Third Reich,’ bankrupted Britain and lost her the Empire….”

    “Hitler was a far less omnipotent Führer than had been believed, and his grip on his subordinates had weakened with each passing year…..”

    “I believe that I show in this book that the more hermetically Hitler locked himself away behind the barbed wire and minefields of his remote military headquarters, the more his Germany became a Führer Staat without a Führer.”

    “WRITING THIS BIOGRAPHY, I have lived in the evil shadow of Dr Joseph Goebbels for over six years.” (Irving’s own “acknowledgement”)

    “Even if the receding hairline, the Latin profile, the over-wide mouth, and the unusually large cranium are not clues enough, then the steel splint with its two ring like clamps to clutch the calf muscles, and the charred leather straps Even if the receding hairline, the Latin profile, the over-wide mouth, and the unusually large cranium are not clues enough, then the steel splint with its two ring like clamps to clutch the calf muscles, and the charred leather straps”(Goebbels. Mastermind of the Third Reich.)

    Irving is also a follower of “Darwinism” and pushed for this “strain” in his books.

    David Irving emphatically defends as authentic the Goebbels Diaries, which are proven to be at least partially forged, and may very well be entirely forged. The Goebbels Diaries are one of the most dubious documents, with one of the most dubious histories of all the WWII or post-WWII era documents purported to be the works of German National Socialist leaders. Many passages in the diary contain inaccurate dates, incorrect names, wrong locations, fabricated events, accounts of meetings at times when meetings are known to have not taken place, and other such discrepancies. Also, many of the passages in the diary are astoundingly contrary to Joseph Goebbels’ personality, spirit, and style of writing as shown in the texts of his works which are known to be authentic. In addition, some passages of the Diaries contain highly dubious statements, such as ‘confessory’ references to crimes against Jews, and implied references to systematic extermination—very convenient for the ‘Holocaust’ propagandists, given that no public document whatsoever exists showing any plan of systematic extermination of Jews. Despite these objections, discrepancies, and the document’s murky history (which are related in The Goebbels Diaries: A Fraud), Irving brushes off and dismisses any and all questions as to the diary’s authenticity.

    Furthermore, it is inconceivable that Hitler, who tried to maintain friendly relations with the Vatican and the Catholic Church, desired the unity of the Protestant and Catholic Churches, condemned the Away From Rome movement and the Kulturkampf, said that National Socialism was a “Christian movement”, vowed never to ally himself with anti-Christin political parties, openly presented himself as a defender of Christianity and Christian culture, tried to distance himself from the writings of anti-Christian NSDAP members such as Rosenberg, rebuked low-ranking and high-ranking government officials such as Bormann for their anti-Christian activities, scorned promoters of ancient Germanic paganism as instigators of harmful religious infighting, worked closely with many Catholic leaders, maintained close friendships with certain ecclesiastics, and was often photographed at churches and with clergy, would then intentionally dictate anti-Christian polemics for a future manifesto, completely destroying his own integrity and alienating nearly the whole of the German population, which was composed almost entirely of believing and practicing Catholics and Lutherans. Such a move would have completely discredited him in the eyes of the public as an opportunistic con artist, and would have been the epitome of political suicide, which would have meant the death of National Socialism in Germany. David Irving knows all this, yet he not only defends Table Talk as authentic, he even goes so far as to say that it is the most reliable work in understanding the true Adolf Hitler, and recommends it above all other works, including Mein Kampf.

    It must be noted that David Irving rejects Mein Kampf as a reliable source for understanding the beliefs and ideology of Adolf Hitler. Irving asserts that there is doubt that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, at least in totality, but also admits that he has never even read Mein Kampf. This makes David Irving quadruply suspect: He defends and recommends, as reliable, three forged and highly dubious works, with dubious histories, involving men of very questionable integrity, which confirm the official Jewish and Allied story that Hitler was an anti-Christian Slav-hater out to conquer the world, and at the same time he rejects as unreliable the one published work by Adolf Hitler which is known to be authentic. It is also strangely inconsistent that Irving defends as reliable the supposed secretive sequel to Mein Kampf, ‘discovered’ by a Jewish historian after the war, but rejects as unreliable the first Mein Kampf, published in several editions during Hitler’s own lifetime.

    As if all of this were not enough to cast great suspicion upon David Irving, Irving casts further suspicion upon himself with his official stance on the ‘Holocaust’: Irving asserts that a systematic extermination of Jews probably happened, but that if it happened, it happened without Hitler’s knowledge. While it is perfectly feasible to assume that some abuses and other activities were on occasion done by certain National Socialists without Hitler’s knowledge or consent, it a proven fact that the systematic extermination of Jews was not one of them; the extermination story has its origins in Jewish and Allied anti-German propaganda, and Irving knows this.

    Irving seems to have “special privileges” to all these “secret” dairies, Moscow archives and to Jewpiter and as with Hugh-Trevor Rope, the “translation” by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens and so forth, I will conclude:-

    Therefore Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf versus “David Who?”

    p.s. at katana, Christianity in its original form is not a religion, the Old Testament is a racialist historiology of previous European Empires who fell one after the other, because of “diversity, miscegenation, homosexuality, paedophilia etc and not abiding by the God’s eternal law of nature and instead followed the religious Babylon Talmudic priesthood doctrine”. Jesus Christ interpreted correctly from the Septuagint LXX, these very racial principles of history to His apostles and followers, which was then re-affirmed and emphasized in the New Testament. National Socialism reflected this for the German Nation and I have noticed, once you change anything from those Christian based principles, a “movement” falls apart.

  10. I have “allowed,” Dietlef, but I will not do so again. The value of Table Talk does not hinge on David Irving or on negative things that you can find he has said in all his books concerning Hitler.

    Irving says he read TT when he was 12 years old; it totally predates Irving and Irving had nothing to do with it. You might as well not listen to the shows because I will not post another of your too-long and not directly pertinent comments on them.

    And I might as well say right here that I am tired of other people, too, like RJ, misusing this comments section. So RJ, please get the message and stop. This is not a personal message center.

  11. How would Bormann’s wife end up with semi-official documents? And if she did acquire them, how would she have the right to sell them, as she would not be the legal owner?

    I find this a strange line of questioning. The documents were the property of Martin Bormann; she was his widow. At Hitler’s death, Bormann became the Party head (NSDAP), as I understand it-. Just who do you think the legal owner would be? The Americans or the Russians?

    If you think there needs to be a comparison of things “known to be Hitler’s views” with Table Talk (in which he expresses a variety of views, btw) you should prepare one. And why would we “over-rely” on what is in TT? We’re not supposed to find out what’s even in it, it seems! You Christians are really going ape over this book – I’ve never seen anything like it. We’re already familiar with the “worst” of the passages, so I don’t think there is anything to fear.

  12. Etienne

    The initial legal owner would be Hitler, the NSDAP or the German state, whom Bormann worked for, though they died or ceased to exist in 1945 leading to succession problems. The rights to Main Kampf passed to the State of Bavaria for example. To develop the comparison, Rainer Zitelmann cites many of Hitler’s words in his book Policies of Seduction. My impression is that they have a different tone from the Table Talk. There could be many reasons for that so I’m interested to hear more – it’s neither here nor there to me if Hitler fell out with the Church after 1938.

  13. Etienne – I disagree that Hitler ever considered himself the owner of those notes. It was Bormann’s project; Hitler left it as such, in his hands; he was not concerned about it. They were left locked in the vault in Bormann’s office. Hitler didn’t mention in his Last Will and Testament what should be done with them, did he? LOL. These notes were not in the same class as Mein Kampf, which was an already published book and definitely Hitler’s property. But look what happened to that! As you say, it’s owned by the enemy state.

    Once the end was in sight, Bormann delivered the notes to his wife for safekeeping, and she did a darn good job of being responsible about them. She was dying of cancer when she turned them over (not for free) to Genoud, who was a wealthy Swiss citizen and National-Socialist who had a good chance to keep them from being lost. How many National-Socialists at that time would have qualified to be able do that? Practically none. Thus I think your concern over this is downright weird.

    I looked up Ranier Zitelmann, he was born in 1957!! I would bet there are more of “Hitler’s words” in Otto Wagener’s book Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant than in Zitelmann, and Wagener was a very smart man who spent a lot of time in Hitler’s company. Hitler made a deep impression on him, thus he was able to reconstruct what Hitler said. The Hitler of Wagener seems pretty similar to the Hitler of Table Talk, as far as I can tell from what I read a few months ago. I just can’t imagine where Ranier Zitelman comes in. But I can tell you are not a Hitler admirer, Etienne.

  14. truthspeech

    Carolyn, you might be way ahead of this already, but eventually you will get to two or three instances in Table Talk where Hitler refers specifically to “extermination” of the jews. It should be remembered that the german word he used is faithful the ORIGINAL meaning of extermination, which is to expel from your borders. from “ex” meaning “out” and “terminus” meaning “border”. That’s original meaning of the english word extermination, but it’s been used so long as a more palatable euphemism for killing (such as with pests), that we’ve lost the original meaning.

  15. No, I’m not ahead of that, thanks for the warning and for your definition.

  16. katana

    p.s. at katana, Christianity in its original form is not a religion, the Old Testament is a racialist historiology of previous European Empires who fell one after the other, because of “diversity, miscegenation, homosexuality, paedophilia etc and not abiding by the God’s eternal law of nature and instead followed the religious Babylon Talmudic priesthood doctrine”. Jesus Christ interpreted correctly from the Septuagint LXX, these very racial principles of history to His apostles and followers, which was then re-affirmed and emphasized in the New Testament. National Socialism reflected this for the German Nation and I have noticed, once you change anything from those Christian based principles, a “movement” falls apart.

    Thanks Dietlef for that, but it falls on my deaf ears. It’s all too complicated theology that leads me and most people to see that it’s basically all mumbo jumbo. The type of talk that requires years of study and too many priests to explain.

    Christianity requires leaps of faith measured in kilometers nowadays. That said, Christianity, stripped of its mumbo jumbo, reduced to a skeleton, contains commonsense ideas with the right interpretation (always the right interpretation, with religion). Fighting for truth, honesty, decency and your own kind. I think the German soldiers in WW II fought and died for that.

    The Brits and US soldiers were also so motivated, yet were led by yids, resulting in a jewish engineered civil war to destroy ourselves.

  17. Dietlef Busch

    Excuse my bluntness katana, but that is the problem, one has to understand the terminology used by Catholics and by Protestants. Adolf Hitler uses terminology about “Christianity” as your typical run-of-the-mill “Protestant” and what he accused the Social Democrats of i.e. abusing Christianity siding with the enemy for political reasons, in this book, he is an bigger “bigot” than them. What the defenders of Table Talk do not comprehend; they claim to defend Hitler, while they are in fact destroying his integrity and legacy!

    Here are two quotes, one in the book “authentic” and one in a book “not authentic” by one and the same person Irving:-

    “I recently read an article from the pen of some Herr Doktor advocating the prohibition of the sale in the occupied territories of contraceptives. If any criminal lunatic should really try to introduce this measure I’d soon have his head off! In view of the extraordinary fertility of the local inhabitants (east Baltic), we should be only too pleased to encourage the women and the girls to practise the arts of contraception at all times. Far from prohibiting the sale of contraceptives, therefore, we should do our utmost to encourage it. We should call on the Jews for help ! With their unrivalled sense of commerce, they are the very people for the job!”


    “Yes, a depopulation policy. The great danger for the great white Nordic race was the tremendous biological fertility of the East Baltic races, which, like everything inferior, made up for poor quality by greater quantity, that is to say, by the fecundity of their women. Through the agrarian bolshevism of the post-war period, namely, the splitting up of the large estates among small peasant settlers, this fertility had been increased to an alarming extent”

    Same aim, differently worded.

  18. Etienne

    Sorry if I’m making a meal of this, but Zitelmann’s book is 450 pages and I’d say about 100 pages of that is direct quotes from Hitler’s speeches and writings for the press. He uses Heinrich Heim’s version of the Table Talk – so presumably he thinks it genuine – and rejects Rauschning. Zitelmann is a figure on the right of German academia who had some dealings with Germar Rudolf (see Rudolf’s intro to the Leuchter Reports) if you want to know more about him directly.

  19. Dietlef Busch

    Etienne there are NO figures on the “right” and a liberal, rich boy, he does not have the interested of Germany at heart and clearing the taint, but feeds on the same old “evil nazi” syndrome, little rich boy, out of his Rainer Zitelmann

    Same old mental constipation, pre-war and post-war propaganda occupied themselves with:

    “Editorial Reviews -From Kirkus Reviews
    Most studies of the Nazi regime, taking the bloodiest war and one of the most brutal massacres in history […..]”
    Hitler: The Policies of Seduction

    “Zitelmann has argued Hitler was much influenced by the Joseph Stalin’s modernization of the Soviet Union, and has argued that as Führer, consciously pursed a revolutionary modernization of German society”


    The Bonn-based historian Prof. Klaus Hildebrand reviewed the thesis for the German daily “Süddeutsche Zeitung” in its September 29, 1987, issue, saying: “To view Hitler—just like Stalin and Mao Zedong—as representatives of a permanent revolution or a modernising dictatorship reopens an academic debate that has been ongoing since the years between the wars of the twentieth century. To be welcomed in this context is that Zitelmann, critically controlling his sources and striving for objective balance, inquires with renewed vigour into Hitler’s motives while remaining fully aware of the fact that history fails to coincide with human intentions.”

    All of course, not possible without “The Table Talks”, we can just as well go on believing the Hollywood bullshit and accept the holohoax!

  20. Etienne – I read Zitelmann’s Wiki page; it was interesting but he seems to have left the history field for the financial field, in the end.
    You say he quotes from speeches and writings, but Otto Wagener and Hermann Giesler quote from being directly in his presence. Table Talk is also his direct conversation. That is more important to compare than what he wrote or said many years prior. Wagener is from 1930-33 and Giesler from 1940-45. Then there are the secretaries and adjutants and personal valets, pilots and drivers to consult too! Still, he sounds like an alright guy and I’m glad you introduced me to him.

  21. Alexander (from Flanders)

    I read the Table talk 8 or 10 years ago, and I look forward to the discussions about the book.

© the White network