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

By: Alexander (from Flanders)

Alexander (from Flanders) — Sat, 15 Mar 2014 06:18:16 +0000

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

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 03:37:26 +0000

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.

By: Dietlef Busch

Dietlef Busch — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 02:05:39 +0000

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!

By: Etienne

Etienne — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:26:51 +0000

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.

By: Dietlef Busch

Dietlef Busch — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:26:05 +0000

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!”

and

“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.

By: katana

katana — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:29:09 +0000

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.

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 16:11:29 +0000

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

By: truthspeech

truthspeech — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:50:52 +0000

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.

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 06:50:24 +0000

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.

By: Etienne

Etienne — Sun, 09 Mar 2014 06:10:57 +0000

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.