New Book on Hitler's Table Talks

[fireofice]

Hitler Redux: The Incredible History of Hitler’s So-Called Table Talks

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.

https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Redux-Inc ... 08G5C8HSM/

More commentary on the book here:

Hitler’s Table Talk: The Definitive Account
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18147

This may have some implications for revisionism.

[fireofice]

Some objections I have to Carrier's article:

the myth that it reveals Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust (in fact the notes comprising the Table Talk assiduously avoid and thus lack any reference to secret military or civil policy at all, demonstrating such were among the subjects Hitler avoided discussing when these notes were made)

OK, but "the holocaust" isn't just a "secret military or civil policy" like secret covert plans or something. The holocaust is pretty much a way bigger deal than any other "secret military or civil policy". You would think something like this on this large of a scale would be mentioned if it happened.

One thing I learned from Nilsson’s book is perhaps something I should have figured all along: Nazis are liars. This is so reliable a prediction I think we can fairly assert it as a Law of the Universe, “If there is a Nazi, they are a liar.” Nilsson proves this repeatedly.

I have no doubt that Nazis lied. Hoess's lies being pretty big whoppers in my view. Oh wait, I'm sure that's a time when he thinks Nazis were telling the truth. So do Nazis always lie or are they sometimes trustworthy? In my view, Nazis sometimes lied and sometimes told the truth, just like all other normal people. And Carrier shouldn't pretend that the Allies themselves never lied.

[fireofice]

Another example pertains to the Holocaust, where Nilsson finds a statement attributed to Hitler in the Table Talk derives from Genoud’s French which altered the surviving German into making Hitler refer to his extermination of the Jews as a “rumor.” In the German, it is stated as a fact (Nilsson, p. 257).

Well this wouldn't really matter either way, since this would line up with Hitler's "prophecy" and doesn't really add anything new. This is perfectly in line with the revisionist explanations given for that.

[Otium]

Going through the article I'm noticing a few discrepancies.

The original German notes have supposedly been lost, yet this author is citing them as if they haven't been. So I'm wondering which notes they actually have, and which they don't. If they're going to be criticizing the Table Talks in comparison to original German notes, then they'd better have those notes.

The article seems to be very interpretive as well, for example this paragraph:

This goes far beyond what I uncovered in GSR, that Genoud faked Hitler’s attacks on “Christianity” (the ones Christians keep quoting; those were written by Genoud, and translated by others at his insistence into English and passed off as a translation of the German). When we get back to the source text, the “original” German edited by Bormann, it becomes clear that Hitler was a believing Christian (see my article No, Hitler Wasn’t a Pantheist), albeit having adopted the stance of the peculiar Nazi sect called Positive Christianity. Whereas publicly he remained a Catholic, privately he ridiculed Catholicism as a perversion of the true Christian message and the Vatican as really just a corrupt, ridiculous, power-hungry institution; in other words, pretty much the position of almost any Protestant of his day. Hitler’s views thus correctly got at in what German survives of the Table Talk simply echo views that “were developed and present already in Mein Kampf, and thus contain essentially nothing new at all” (Nilsson, p. 41). His hostility was always against not Christianity but institutionalized religion, “the Church,” as something the state needed to do away with, and replace with every man’s free exercise of an “enlightened” personal Christian faith, in service to the state (very much similar to White Evangelical Christianity today). This context in turn becomes essential to interpreting the more vague passages in the German text, where often the German word Christentum, frequently today translated as “Christianity,” clearly in context always meant for Hitler only Catholicism; likewise the coinage Judenchristentum (Nilsson, pp. 41-42), as Hitler often explained Catholicism to be a Jewish corruption of the original “Aryan” Christianity, under the tainting influence of the “Jewish” Paul. In turn, the German text preserves Hitler’s clear condemnation of atheism (Nilsson, pp. 42-43).

Nothing is offered here in the way of proof of Hitler's alleged Christian beliefs. It seems as if this Richard person is citing a lack of evidence of Hitler's anti-Christian beliefs, if indeed the entries of the Table Talk are fraudulent (they probably are), but that doesn't make Hitler a Christian. This assertion would need to be substantiated with evidence, not inferred from a flawed source.

Speaking of a flawed source. The author of the article seems to have no problem citing the Table Talks in certain places to evidence a claim.

The thing that concerns me, is that this person, and all of those who have a gripe with the Table Talks, have a religious agenda, and due to the articles lack of detail it's hard to say how true any of the statements are. Especially because I've read the Table Talks and haven't noticed any staunch rejection of spiritualism as a whole on Hitler's part, but an inclination towards Deism or Pantheism (you don't even need to label it). Hitler doesn't ever say that he's an Atheist, he in fact declares the very opposite:

An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure science.

Adolf Hitler, 14 October, 1941., Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944: His Private Conversations (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), Pp. 59.

I'm having a hard time believing what the author asserts, that the Table Talks were manipulated by Nazis to make Hitler appear to be an Atheist...

Having skimmed through another one of this guys articles, the one regarding Richard Weikart, I noticed he doesn't provide any evidence that Hitler was Christian, only that Hitler's ideas of religion weren't inconsistent with certain denominations or sects of the Christian religion (eg. Hitler's belief in an afterlife for the "the most illuminated spirits,"). But he makes the mistake of equating this with a belief in Christianity held by Hitler, which he admits might be distorted or perverted in some ways. He also conflates his opinion with fact, for example stating that Deism and Pantheism are just less extreme forms of Atheism. I'm not convinced of his argument thus far.

At some point I'll read through the book on the Table Talks to try and answer any of the questions and suspicions I have about it. I'll probably make posts if I have anything to say on the matter.

[fireofice]

Yeah, Carrier does seem to be saying that we have German originals. We may perhaps need to read the book before jumping to any conclusions.

His position on Hitler's Christianity seems to be that since Hitler claimed to admire Jesus as an Aryan fighter against the Jews, this makes him a Christian, although a very unorthodox one. Kind of like how Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are "Christian" but are so in a way that is unorthodox and would be considered to be very unchristian by most self described orthodox Christians. And it is indeed true that Hitler and the Third Reich promoted this form of Christianity to the public, called "Positive Christianity". However, it isn't entirely clear if Hitler himself believed in this. We have memoirs and diaries from Goebbels and others who personally knew Hitler who said that Hitler despised Christianity. Now it is possible that all that was meant by "Christianity" by Hitler was orthodox Christianity, but not his unorthodox version of it. But we can't know that for sure. Also, the fact that Hitler admired Jesus as an Aryan anti-Semite does not necessarily mean he was a Christian. There are non Christian atheists who claim to admire Jesus as well.

So I would say that the most we can say about whether Hitler adhered to this unorthodox version of Christianity is to chalk it up to a "maybe", but we can't really say it with the amount of confidence Carrier seems to project.

[Otium]

So I would say that the most we can say about whether Hitler adhered to this unorthodox version of Christianity is to chalk it up to a "maybe", but we can't really say it with the amount of confidence Carrier seems to project.

Yes absolutely. In Germany too there were many publications which object to Christianity, so Hitler certainly didn't prosecute those who were outright hostile to Christianity. Carrier seems to be off in his own world, kind of tunnel visioning this very specific idea.

Regarding something I said before:

He also conflates his opinion with fact, for example stating that Deism and Pantheism are just less extreme forms of Atheism.

What he does here, is state that because (to him) Deism and Pantheism is a form of Atheism, therefore Hitler must have been a Christian by default, because he clearly believed in some spiritual facets that can accord with Christianity and in his view contradict what could be considered Pantheism or Deism. So he seems to operate using this kind of self-confirmatory logic. It's a bit tough to explain I must say.

[stinky]

the myth that it reveals Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust (in fact the notes comprising the Table Talk assiduously avoid and thus lack any reference to secret military or civil policy at all, demonstrating such were among the subjects Hitler avoided discussing when these notes were made)

Allow a novice to interject & please excuse my stupidity if I have missed something here;

Is the assertion being made by this Carrier chap that since Hitler didn't talk about 'X & Y', it was because he avoided talking about them, and therefore that applies also to 'Z'?

[Moderator]

Related and cited at this forum:

'Table Talk, Picker':
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Table_Talk/Picker.html
'Genoud, Heim & Picker’s Hitler’s “Table Talk”: A Study in Academic Fraud & Scandal':
https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4880
'The Faking of Hitler’s “Last Testament” ':
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Testam ... enoud.html
'How Historian Rees Falsifies and Invents' :
https://codoh.com/library/document/4917/?lang=en
'Rauschning debunked':
https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relev ... Rauschning
M1

[Hektor]

Who wrote the "Table Talks" and why would one have to take them serious?
To me they sounded like someone tried to make Hitler say things that somehow suited the actual author. One quickly gets the impression it is self-serving snippets e.g. like the Hadith in Islam.

[LeónOcta]

It must be remembered that these are not the only conversations of Hitler with others that were telegraphed. There are also the conversations that he had with his generals (1942-1945), something that at that time could be much more dangerous to publish than conversations at tea time (regardless of any other social convenience). The decision to start telegraphing these conversations seems to have been made at roughly the same time as Hitler's Table Talk and I honestly think it makes sense that they would consider recalling more intimate Hitler events with the idea of ​​publishing them in the future.
If I'm not mistaken, it was normal at that time books (short or long) that spoke of the intimate environment of some important figure (Goebbels spoke of publishing his diaries), even as a forgery (The English printed a "Hitler's waitress", obviously fake). However, this is another one of those cases that sounds too sophisticated to be true.

We can talk about words modified by translators, but I don't think that alters the general messages of the writings. Remember that destroying these texts has another political importance apart from the Holocaust.
Sorry for my english

[fireofice]

Here's an article by TIm O'Neill responding to some of Carrier's arguments on Hitler's supposed Christianity.

https://historyforatheists.com/2021/07/ ... christian/

If the name of the author sounds familiar, it's because his arguments for holocaust orthodoxy have been addressed here before. Looking at his website, he seems to be knowledgeable about history in general, but becomes so irrational on the holocaust topic that he starts making really bad arguments that a simple amount of research would show is wrong.

viewtopic.php?t=8165
viewtopic.php?t=8166
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9066

But I guess he and his rival Carrier have that in common.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13933

[Pia Kahn]

I find Carrier's prose hard to digest.

I tried to read the article and turned away with disgust. I find his style aggressive, opinionated, intolerant - the opposite of calm and well-balanced.

So I skipped to his résume at the end of his article. So the table talks are not verbatim the words of Adolf Hitler and cannot be trusted. This is valuable information.

I trust that "Hitler Redux" by Mr. Nilson is indeed readable, so I may acquire the book.

[Otium]

I find Carrier's prose hard to digest.

I tried to read the article and turned away with disgust. I find his style aggressive, opinionated, intolerant - the opposite of calm and well-balanced.

So I skipped to his résume at the end of his article. So the table talks are not verbatim the words of Adolf Hitler and cannot be trusted. This is valuable information.

I trust that "Hitler Redux" by Mr. Nilson is indeed readable, so I may acquire the book.

Nilsson isn't much better than Carrier.

For example, Nilsson, purely based on his own conjecture, calls Hitler a liar for writing in Mein Kampf that he read Schopenhauer during WW1, or had his volumes with him during the war. He furnishes no evidence of this, other than his own opinion (IIRC) that the books would've been too cumbersome to carry around. His conclusion is that Hitler must have been "lying" about it. Such a seemingly inconsequential factoid ignites Nilsson's ire to make Hitler look bad in any way he can, no matter how small.

Also, it seemed to me that his primary focus is on the English version of the Table Talks which may not be that great, otherwise he does cite from Picker and Heim's versions to back up his statements that the English one errs in places. Which is fine. If the German versions are more reliable, albeit not perfect, then they should be translated properly into English.

I think, and don't quote me on this, I might be misremembering, but Nilsson does seem to have located some original notes and makes use of them? But this doesn't stop him from attempting to contradict them and thereby state that the person who took the notes was lying about Hitler's words. Again, conjecture, he has no clue because at the end of the day Nilsson wasn't there to hear Hitler say any of the things he's purported to have said.

[fireofice]

Video by TIK responding to Nilsson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8EWd-IH6HI

[Otium]

Video by TIK responding to Nilsson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8EWd-IH6HI

He pretty much says, in a longer format, what I had been saying about how calling the TT a 'forgery' is not true. Obviously some notes are missing, which is a problem for verifying details and thus, should be used with caution. Any and all notes that exist should be compiled to create a new volume.

What's funny about Tik's video is that Tik says the following:

"There are no reliable sources, and those 'more reliable' sources are still unreliable. But even still you don't get to just dismiss some sources in favour of others, that leads us down a bad road. You cannot selectively quote, nor can you selectively pick the sources you're going to use; you have to use all the sources that you can, even the ones you don't like. Otherwise you cannot come to a rational, all-round conclusion that has considered all sides of an argument. The only way to know the truth is to have a serious debate over it, and without the debate, without the back and forth you cannot see the flaws in your own argument. History therefore, lies in the heart of the debate; and you cannot have a debate if you're not listening to your opponent, or reading from sources you don't like."

- Tik

Timecode: 26:39 - 27:33

Obviously the hypocrisy is rife. I recall during the Irving trial on the topic of Kristallnacht, Richard Evans dismissed Nikolaus von Below as being 'a Nazi' and on that basis 'unreliable', a tactic he has used without end to dismiss sources he doesn't like which contradict him.

And obviously, and most importantly, Tik doesn't take his own advice and will refuse to debate the Holocaust, and will no doubt try to dismiss sources he doesn't like in connection with it. In-fact, he dismisses revisionism entirely without any kind of debate. So much for the 'heart of history' lying in debate.

The funniest part is this:

"All sources are problematic, therefore, if we were being nihilistic in the way we view our history we would say that the whole of of history if flawed, and therefore all the narratives are wrong too and we cannot know the truth about the past. And, that's right, but for the wrong reasons. History is not the study of the past, it is the study of the record of the past; and that's not the same thing. Unless a God of some kind descends from the heavens and provides us with the objective truth, we cannot ever know the objective truth. There is no objective truth in history. It is subjective in nature, each individual goes through their own journey, a pilgrimage through history to discover whatever they consider to be the truth. It's their truth. They may impart that knowledge unto others, but ultimately it's down to those individuals to discover their own truth for themselves. The primary sources are the road beneath their feet, and the people they meet on the way are the historians pointing you in certain directions; but ultimately you must make the journey alone.

And to make sure that what we see is right, that we're not coming to the wrong conclusions, we've got to bounce ideas off each other. Our collective interpretation might still be wrong, but we have no other choice, we just [sic] we can't jump in a time machine and go back and watch Hitler have dinner, nor can we ask God to tell us what he said. So until we invent the time machine - or as Carrier puts it - the Jesus reappears, we're kinda stuck with bouncing ideas off each other to try and find out what's right. It's a free market of ideas, rather than this central planet, objective truth rubbish. There is no objective truth, value is subjective and so is the truth. It's down to the individual to discover the truth for themselves, and then realise that other people may have different truths. And that's fine."

- Tik

Timecode: 29:09 - 31:18

Everything Tik says he doesn't actually believe, even though he must really think he does.

He's a libertarian, so this kind of platitude dribbling rubbish that he, and other such people don't ever adhere to themselves is par for the course. Hypocrisy really is the defining trait of libertarians, because their ideology is self-defeating when exposed to a real 'free market of ideas' in which ideas which don't hold the same reverence for this 'free market' are allowed to operate and thus destroy libertarianism using its own ideology against them. Tik knows this, which is why he wouldn't ever demand that social media platforms should be open to 'Fascists and Nazis' to discuss their ideas, or for such people to be taken serious politically and allowed to organize in a legitimate way, etc. Nor would he abhor the laws which throw people in prison for questioning the Holocaust, nor the academic institutions which refuse to publish research that contradicts them despite adhering to the academic standards required. Tik doesn't advocate for these things on the basis of the above principles he himself outlined, because in his heart he's just as much of a totalitarian as he perceives Hitler to have been. A really uncomfortable thought for him, and those like him I'm sure.

If Tik did believe what he said, then he'd actually debate the Holocaust rather than simply dismiss people who question it. At the very least he wouldn't be okay with them being persecuted and repressed. He cannot even dismiss them by his own logic for being 'Nazis', even if that were true. The free market of ideas doesn't, or rather, shouldn't discriminate.

Tik and his 'high minded' tripe (not an issue in itself) is bothersome because of how dishonest Tik actually is, it'd be better and more respectable if he was self aware enough to admit that in reality he doesn't abide by any of these principles, at least not consistently. He is, when all is said, a totalitarian just like everyone else. That's really the human condition.