Whose “Table Talks”?

Before we commence, a brief word about the texts in question is necessary. The so-called “table talks” were written down by Martin Bormann’s aides, Heinrich Heim and Henry Picker, from 1941 to 1944. Aside from Heim and Picker, there are two more “table talk” authors, Bormann himself, “who contributed at least four entries, and a man known only as Müller.”[3]

Mr. Picker was the first to publish his “table talks,” and he did so in German only. They were published as Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1942, in 1951 and 1963, respectively. His book included some of Heim’s notes that he happened to come across, and which he then altered for his book.

According to Swedish historian Mikael Nilsson, François Genoud, whom we will discuss later, published the first volume of a French version of the “table talks” a year later, following that up with a second volume in 1954. This French version (henceforth LP)[4] “was not based on the same German original as Picker’s… but on a second manuscript that had purportedly been acquired by Genoud, the so-called Bormann-Vermerke” (henceforth B-V[5]). And even though the “form, content and provenance of the [B-V] remain obscure,”[6] historian David Irving attested to this manuscript’s authenticity nonetheless.[7] Adds Nilsson, LP eventually contained both Heim’s and Picker’s notes in subsequent volumes and editions. Genoud then had LP translated into English, by which time it had been “expanded to cover the whole period from 1941 to the end of 1944, and to include all of Heim’s and Picker’s notes said to have been in Genoud’s possession.”[8]

Writes Nilsson in this regard:[9]

“The German text, which the French and English editions are said to be based upon, was, for reasons that are unclear, not published until 1980. It was given the title Monologe im Führerhauptquartier... This edition does not contain Picker’s notes either due to a struggle over intellectual property rights. It does not help that both Heim’s and Picker’s original manuscripts seem to have been lost.” (Emphasis added)

So far, Mr. Carrier is the only historian who has compared these various “table talks” in a systematic way. His conclusions have exposed the English and French “table talks” as “highly questionable,” particularly if they are based on the same manuscript used for Genoud’s Monologe. The English “table talks,” Carrier reveals, are based in whole or part on Genoud’s LP, “and… both the English and French editions contain additions to, and mistranslations of, the German texts that they are supposedly based on.” Nilsson himself “address[es] certain questions related to the authenticity of the B-V, as well as the accuracy of the translations,”[10] all of which is pertinent to most historians’ claim that Hitler is the author/originator of the “table talks.” As we will soon see, he was not.[11]

Indeed, there is a whole lot of mystery and very little certainty surrounding “Hitler’s” supposed “table talks.”

Hugh Trevor-Roper’s Failings

Let’s begin with Hugh Trevor-Roper. Contrary to his respectable and honest public image, Trevor-Roper knowingly and willingly engaged in deception and fraud behind the scenes. The Hitler Diaries, proven to be a fraud, were not a unique fail for Trevor-Roper. In fact, as Nilsson has demonstrated, Trevor-Roper had a long trail of academic fails that he hid from the public eye.

His first fail is The Testament of Adolf Hitler,[12] also known as Hitlers politisches Testament, first published in French in 1959, and in English in 1961. David Irving and other historians such as Ian Kershaw, exposed this document, which was “acquired” and doctored by the notorious NS apologist and document peddler François Genoud, as a fraud. A fake. One look at the doctored text should have dissuaded Trevor-Roper from even considering its authentication and subsequent publication:

Yet, publish it he did.

Unlike Trevor-Roper, Irving even compared the marginal handwriting to that of Genoud in a letter he had received from him. It is a perfect match:

Irving noted in this regard:[15]

“In 1979, Genoud phoned Mr Irving at his Paris hotel, and said: ‘I have a gift for you.’ He handed him a package. It contained a copy of the complete typescript of the Testament. The package gift from Genoud raised a new problem. Every page was heavily amended and expanded in somebody’s hand-writing. Mr Irving, astonished, asked Genoud whose was the writing. Genoud admitted it was his own. Later still, he admitted in conversation with Mr Irving that the entire typescript was his own confection, saying: ‘But it is just what Hitler would have said, isn’t it?’”

Et tu, Mr. Irving?

It is a mystery, then, why Irving failed to subject TT[16] to the same degree of scrutiny that he aptly applied to The Testament, and later on to the Hitler Diaries. Nilsson writes of Irving, Trevor-Roper, and the fraudulent Testament:[17]

“[… W]hen answering a question regarding this point coming from David Irving in late 1967 (Irving thought it was a forgery) [Trevor-Roper] stated that the style and context, Bormann’s signature, and Genoud’s story about how the document came to him, and the fact that Trevor-Roper could not see the motives for Genoud to produce a forgery, all pointed towards authenticity. Trevor-Roper did admit, though, that it was difficult to penetrate the mind of the perfect forger, and that highly qualified scholars had devoted enormous amounts of time to producing forgeries for nothing more than the private satisfaction of having fooled the experts. Because of this, Trevor-Roper wrote, one could not ‘reason confidently in such a matter’. As the evidence stood, however, he was inclined to believe it was genuine. Nevertheless, in public Trevor-Roper did in fact ‘reason confidently’ with regard to Genoud’s documents; in fact he never even hinted at any doubts or problems relating to them. By May 1969, after thinking about Irving’s objections a good deal, he had become even surer about its authenticity.” (Emphasis added)

We now know that Genoud, who lied to Trevor-Roper and to Mr. Irving’s faces about the authenticity of The Testament, also lied about the authenticity of his TT. Genoud (and partner Hans Rechenberg) told historian and sociologist Eduard Baumgarten, whom Genoud was also trying to hoodwink into accepting The Testament as authentic,[18]

“that Trevor-Roper had brought with him a colleague from Oxford who had examined the photocopy and concluded it was genuine. The photocopy had been returned the same day, according to Genoud and Rechenberg… However, this was a lie (and it was not the only lie about this meeting they had fed to Baumgarten). Trevor-Roper had not brought anyone with him and he had only been allowed to see the document in the hotel in Paris.”

What, then, could possibly have compelled Mr. Irving to write the following unequivocal endorsement of TT, when in fact he had doubted The Testament’s authenticity[19] contrary to the opinion of Trevor-Roper (who had likely deceived Mr. Irving, as suggested by Nilsson’s assessment of their exchanges concerning The Testament)[20].

About TT’s authenticity, Irving writes on his website:[21]

“HITLER’S Table Talk comes from the original Bormann Vermerke which the late François Genoud purchased from Bormann’s widow Gerda Bormann. They were actually typed from notes taken by the stenographer Heinrich Heim, whom I interviewed and who confirmed the procedure in detail. Each day’s entry was initialled by Bormann at the end. They are genuine, in the first person, and highly reliable.^[22]

2. Henry Picker took over as Bormann’s secretary/adjutant from Heim. He found a lot of Heim’s notes in his desk and rewrote them in reported speech and published them and his own notes as Hitlers Tischgespräche. Good, but less reliable.”

This is untrue. Heim’s notes have never been authenticated, so Irving cannot possibly claim they “are genuine.” The notes are not in the “first person.” If Heim told Irving they were, then Heim lied. Indeed, Heim testified in court that he rarely took any notes while in Hitler’s presence, and most were written the next day or even days later based on his memory. As such, they are not “highly reliable.” We have Mr. Nilsson to thank for exposing all this. Without the following testimony from Heim, we might still be in the dark and dependent on Irving’s faulty assessment.

Richard Carrier writes pertaining to the reliability of Heim’s notes:[23]

“[… N]one of the material in the Table Talk consists of the words of Hitler. No one was stenographically recording what he said as he said it. Rather, Heim and Picker, separately, simply hung out with Hitler during these rants, and then the next day wrote down their own thoughts about what he had said (as if in Hitler’s voice). So these are actually the words of Picker and Heim—not Hitler. (And in some cases of Martin Bormann, as the Monologe explicitly shows some entries and alterations were made by him.) Worse, after Heim wrote down his thoughts a day later based on his loose memory of what he thought Hitler said (which means in Heim’s own words, not actually Hitler’s), and had them typed out, he then went back and hand-wrote lengthy and elaborate changes and additions. Those revisions appear in the Monologe, but not in Picker’s edition.”

At least we can thank Mr. Heim, post facto, for embellishing his original “first person in Hitler’s own words” notes. Had he not done this we might never have caught this fraud. As well, we might still be wading through dark waters had Mr. Henry Picker not appropriated Heim’s notes and claimed them as his own. At any rate, this whole scandalous fiasco has been blown wide open with all the courtroom testimony surrounding intellectual-property rights and TT, which only Nilsson has examined to date.

Carrier reports on this courtroom bombshell:[24]

“[… T]hose changes and additions were not the words of Hitler. They were just more things in afterthought, sometimes days or weeks later, Heim wanted to add. But even the original drafts were not literally the words of Hitler. Picker thought Heim had been transcribing live dictation because Picker found (and used for his edition) Heim’s stenographic notes. But Heim testified in court that he only wrote his notes down in steno the next day, from memory (and sometimes some scribbled notes to himself on the occasion of a rant). Picker never knew that Heim had then typed them out (producing a slightly different German text even where Picker and Monologe agree, thus explaining those deviations) and then revised them further from his own handwritten notes—producing a more final edition under the also-meddling hand of Martin Bormann. It is that latter that came into Genoud’s possession, and was eventually published as the Monologe. Thus, more or less, all the discrepancies are now explained.”

May I ask again how Mr. Irving can possibly proclaim that TT is “genuine, in the first person, and highly reliable”? He was right about the Hitler Diaries being fraudulent, contrary to the “expert opinion” of Lord Dacre who had stunningly based its authentication on its own internal validity. In other words, because it sounded like Hitler, well, it must be Hitler! When the paper was later tested and the fraud exposed, Lord Dacre’s prestige took a massive blow. Imagine if Irving or some other notable historian, whether revisionist or mainstream, had exposed Lord Dacre’s other frauds? The fact that Trevor-Roper had two strikes against him – The Testament fraud and the Hitler Diaries fraud – ought to have raised many more eyebrows than have been raised vis-à-vis TT. Yet, where are the critics other than Mr. Carrier and Mr. Nilsson? We still have someone touting the TT in its own dedicated podcast series, Episodes 1 through 56. One revisionist writes on her website:[25]

“∙ How trustworthy is this text, since Martin Bormann assigned two of his aides to take the notes during meals, then turn them over to him for ‘checking’ and safekeeping;

∙ Why it is valuable to study this book;

∙ Questions about the translation and translators – for example, did François Genoud tamper with the parts about Christianity;

∙ Of those offended by this book, Christians are #1 on the list, complaining that it does not agree with Hitler’s ‘public record’ of positive remarks about Christianity in earlier years;

∙ David Irving and Albert Speer both confirmed that these recorded talks are authentically Hitler; Richard Carrier disagrees;

∙ Next week we’ll begin reading the text.”

Indeed, the only aspect of TT with which most National Socialists disagree is a few select entries about Christianity. Everything else is “legit” in their collective opinion. TT remains the most highly valued text next to Mein Kampf, also the result of extensive editing and external influence (such as that of Rudolf Hess and Max Amann)[26], in the White-Nationalist, Hitler-worshiping community. We therefore owe it to these groups, and to the public at large, to tell them the truth about this text. It is not the words of Adolf Hitler.

Again, I hope that Mr. Irving was simply (and naively) duped into accepting TT as reliable by Heinrich Heim and Hugh Trevor-Roper.[27] I hope that Irving went along with Heim’s claims and Trevor-Roper’s opinion because he really believed these two men. Otherwise, if Irving was ever privy to either man’s lies or doubts, then he is equally guilty of fraud for the sake of profit and prestige.

At any rate, now that the “cat’s out of the bag,” Mr. Irving needs to announce the truth about TT. He needs to admit that Heim lied to him about his “authentic” notes. Irving owes it to the revisionist community, which places much faith in his scholarship and opinion. Irving will not be hurt by this. Irving initially correctly suspected two frauds before anyone else did: the Hitler Diaries (forged by Konrad Kujau) and The Testament (forged by François Genoud). He can afford to have been incorrect about TT, because nearly every historian was (and still is). The only person who stands to be ruined by these revelations is Trevor-Roper. Trevor-Roper lied about no fewer than three Hitler primary sources: The Testament, the Hitler Diaries, and Table Talk.

The most likely explanation for Irving’s endorsement of TT above is that he was effectively deceived and influenced by the ‘expert opinion’ of Hugh Trevor-Roper and other mainstream historians who likewise accepted it,[28] with or without question. Much to his credit, Irving doubted The Testament’s authenticity from the get-go, and he had informed Trevor-Roper of his doubts; but he appears to have been persuaded otherwise by Trevor-Roper regarding TT. How else could Mr. Irving endorse a Genoud document which had no original manuscript to back it? Nilsson’s research uncovered that there is no original German manuscript for TT as it currently exists. The English edition of TT is in fact a mish-mash of Genoud’s French version (which was back-translated into German!), 40 pages of Heim’s notes (which have not yet been authenticated),[29] and Henry Picker’s notes and embellishments of some of Heim’s notes (also for which there is no original manuscript). The only original transcripts we have are a stack of 40 pages of stenographer Heinrich Heim’s notes, which were seized by the Allies and placed in the Library of Congress.

It is possible that Mr. Irving has an alternative motive for accepting TT as totally reliable, but unless he states his motive publicly, the above is my best guess. He was convinced by Trevor-Roper’s endorsement of it based on Trevor-Roper’s claim to have seen and authenticated the German original. In fact, Trevor-Roper lied about ever seeing and authenticating an original of TT.[30]

Mr. Carrier, perhaps a shrewder and bolder critic of Lord Dacre, unabashedly writes on his website:[31]

“[W…]hen Trevor-Roper lists problems with the text [in his introductory TT essay “The Mind of Adolf Hitler”], he does not mention that the French was used anywhere in it or that there was anything problematic about the translation process at all. Indeed, in the original preface from 1953, no mention was made even of there being a French edition, much less that one was used at any point instead of the original German—which is a remarkable thing to omit.”

“Well, Thank You, Dr. Carrier”

We will now address how we have been let down, “bigly”, by revisionists and mainstream historians alike. Had it not been for a simple request to expose a few suspect Hitler quotes about Christianity back in 2003, we might still be “in the dark” about TT. Mr. Carrier writes pertaining to this:[32]

“When I discovered that in fact the English was coming from the French, for all entries that at the time existed in French, all the leading experts I consulted were surprised by my findings: all the peer reviewers and editors at GSR [German Studies Review]; Gerhard Weinberg, author of the famous 1952 Guide to Captured German Documents (the expert I spoke to on German documents in preparing the GSR article at the advice of GSR’s editor); Richard Steigmann-Gall, historian and expert on Hitler’s religious beliefs, and author of the book that now cites me; and of course Dr. Mikael Nilsson; but even, sort of, Hugh Trevor-Roper himself.”

I myself noticed, after consulting Pastor V. S. Herrell’s The Real Hitler,[33] that Hitler was literally contradicting himself from day to day. This was especially noticeable relating to the subject of women and Christianity in TT. Hitler did tailor his remarks to his audience, true. And he contradicted himself on occasion like we all do. But the anti-woman and anti-Christian statements he allegedly made during his table talks were too much even for Hitler admirers! Even they suspected that something was amiss. I did too. In fact, I wrote a few essays on the subject of TT and Hitler’s Christianity back in 2006 when I still had my “Adolf Hitler Research Society” website.

As well, I wondered how it was that Louis Kilzer could claim that Bormann had insisted upon the utmost secrecy when recording Hitler’s words. Hitler could not know under any circumstances, writes Kilzer in Hitler’s Traitor. If Heim and Picker (and for a brief time Werner Koeppen, according to Toland and Kilzer) had been taking their notes in Hitler’s presence and in the first person, then how could they possibly conceal what they were doing? It didn’t make sense to me. But now we know from Heim’s court testimony, and from the research of Nilsson, that neither Heim nor Picker ever took but a few select notes in Hitler’s presence. Heim testified that he wrote his notes the next day or days later, and that Bormann signed off on them as though they were Hitler’s own words. Aside from an occasional scribble on a piece of note paper made in Hitler’s presence, they were never Hitler’s words, but the words of Heim and Picker simply recalling what Hitler had said (or what they thought he said). Since Picker’s notes are based in part on Heim’s stolen notes, which were then embellished and altered, neither man’s notes can be said to be the words of Adolf Hitler. The truth is that Picker’s and Heim’s notes are no more reliable or true to Hitler himself than the recollections of any of Hitler’s adjutants, such as Heinz Linge, Traudl Junge, Christa Schroeder, Otto Wagener, Kurt Luedecke, Ernst Hanfstaengl, etc. All of these recollections are based on human memory and notes that were occasionally written down for later reference. Albert Speer testified to Bormann occasionally jotting such notes; Otto Wagener claimed to have jotted down such notes; and Heinrich Heim admitted that he had only sometimes taken notes as Hitler spoke.

Repercussions of this Scandal

The collapse of TT and its exposure as a fraud makes the actual stenographic record of Hitler’s military conferences and utterings more valuable, along with his speeches behind closed doors. Two documents which come to mind include Hitler’s 1944 speech to officers and generals at Platterhof[34] and the published text Hitler and His Generals.[35]

In any case, Nilsson nailed it when he wrote, “it is not clear who the real author” of TT is. “We simply do not know how much of it is Hitler’s words as they were spoken, and how much is a product of the later recollection and editing process.”[36]

And that’s the final word on TT as a primary source. It is worthless until every single original manuscript upon which it is based has been located and authenticated insofar as that is even possible, systematically assessed by a team of Hitler experts, freshly collated to include also the notes taken by Werner Koeppen, and then retranslated (into English, etc.)

As Richard Carrier astutely concludes:[37]

“Here we have, within literally just days, the actual words of Hitler being distorted and filtered through the faulty memories, wishes and interpretations, and deliberate alterations, of several parties. And this was not even oral transmission, but in writing! Picker relayed slightly different memories than Heim’s, and even relayed the incomplete memories of Heim, who was continuing to ‘alter the text’ after transmitting an earlier version of it to Picker. And then, within mere years, less than a decade in fact, these distorted texts were altered even further, when they were translated into other languages.”

Picker & Heim’s “Table Talks” Must Be Checked against Koeppen’s Notes

Neither Carrier’s nor Nilsson’s assessments include the steno notes purportedly taken by Werner Koeppen, Alfred Rosenberg’s FHQ[38] liaison. Author Louis Kilzer writes[39] that Koeppen jotted notes while Hitler spoke, including top-secret military information. If true, any future editions of TT must be checked against Koeppen’s notes for the sake of validity. Depending on which person was taking notes while Koeppen was also present before Hitler, his – i.e., Picker’s or Heim’s notes – notes should match closely with those of Koeppen if they are to be accepted as reliable. Otherwise, future editions must admit, readily and openly in the introduction, that TT is uncorroborated and therefore unreliable as an account of Hitler’s own words. All entries based on Genoud’s French manuscript must be eliminated from any future editions.

Since I have not yet been able to examine the book that appears to contain Koeppen’s notes, I am not sure who authenticated them—if anyone has. Historian John Toland appears to have taken Koeppen seriously, as he references him extensively in his Hitler biography.

Toland writes of Koeppen:[40]

“Since early July [1941], at Rosenberg’s behest, he had been circumspectly recording the Führer’s table conversations. Koeppen assumed Hitler knew what he was doing and would furtively jot down notes on his paper napkin, then immediately after the meal write out only those parts of the conversation he could distinctly remember. An original and one copy of his records were forwarded to Berlin by courier.”

Kilzer believes that Koeppen was a spy with possibly nefarious intent.[41] While I am unsure about this, I do find it odd that an unnamed “courier” was passing on secret notes to Berlin which included “military matters.” Heim’s notes contained no military information “for security,” as he would later assert. However, there are more relevant problems with Koeppen’s and Heim’s claims as documented by Toland. For instance, Koeppen “assumed Hitler knew what he [Koeppen] was doing,” but according to historian Ian Kershaw, who also attests to the validity of TT, Hitler’s secretaries never noticed any direct notetaking going on in Hitler’s presence.

Nilsson writes in footnote 60 of his article:[42]

“Ian Kershaw states that the ‘tone of the monologues is unmistakingly Hitler’[!] But he also notes that Hitler’s many secretaries seem to have been unaware of these being taken down by anyone. At least one of them questioned their authenticity although she thought it might be a compilation of Hitler’s thoughts. She even ruled out the possibility of Bormann having recorded Hitler’s words precisely because of the fact that Hitler hated ad verbatim records of his off the cuff statements.”

Wow. Now we have to question Mr. Kershaw’s expertise as well as Koeppen’s reliability. And, of course, Koeppen’s one and only book[43] must be carefully scrutinized to determine how useful it is as a record of what Hitler allegedly said. I cannot say whether there is an original, authenticated Koeppen manuscript. If there is one, it needs to be checked against his book. In addition, Koeppen’s original manuscript and subsequent book must be established as reliable or not. If it is reliable, it would serve as an excellent comparison text in relation to Heim’s and Picker’s notes. There is still much work to be done.

In Biography, Toland avows that Koeppen’s notes corroborate Heim’s. Perhaps they do,[44] but this avowal by Toland brings up a second problem with his (Toland’s) reliance on Heim. Toland claims that Heim took down “copious notes on index cards which he hid in his lap” because he “wanted more accurate results” than Martin Bormann had requested.[45] Bormann explicitly requested that Heim “rely on his memory” so that “Hitler wouldn’t know” he was being clandestinely recorded. Why, then, did Heim attest in court under oath that he recorded his notes the next day and even significantly embellished them post facto? “[Heim’s extensive] revisions appear in the Monologe, but not in Picker’s edition,” writes Carrier. He then adds that[46]

“[…] Heim testified in court that he only wrote his notes down in steno the next day, from memory (and sometimes some scribbled notes to himself on the occasion of a rant). Picker never knew that Heim had then typed them out (producing a slightly different German text even where Picker and Monologe agree, thus explaining those deviations) and then revised them further from his own handwritten notes—producing a more final edition under the also-meddling hand of Martin Bormann.”

We can only conclude from this that Heim lied and that Toland believed his lies. Again, it is a scholarly blessing that Picker decided to steal some of Heim’s original notes and include them in his book as his own recordings, otherwise we might never have exposed Heim as the serial fabricator he was.

Concluding remarks

We have now come full circle in this article. We have established that Hugh Trevor-Roper (Lord Dacre) knowingly and willingly lied to the public for the sake of profit and personal prestige as the world’s foremost “Hitler expert.”

We learn this from Genoud himelf (in a letter to Lord Dacre):[47]

“The only thing that should count is, in my opinion, the historical value of these documents that we are talking about. Accordingly, it seems to me to be essential that your testimony can be put forth. You are unanimously recognized as the most qualified specialist in this matter, and I am sure that your objective opinion would have immense weight.”

And it did.

Here is my own assessment of TT while I was studying for my bachelor’s degree. I naively trusted the ‘establishment expertise’ of Lord Dacre like millions of other students worldwide—all duped by this fraud.

I had written on my former website back in 2006:[48]

“The table talks may portray a Hitler who had qualms with church and clergy, but they do not at all portray an agnostic, atheistic, or non-Christian Hitler. The table talks are most likely absolutely genuine. The only table talks that have been disputed, as to their credibility, are the final 1945 table talks. They are sold as a book entitled, The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents. These are the only table talks that might qualify as embellished or fraudulent… Moreover, it is my belief that historian Hugh Trevor-Roper would have been privy to fraudulent documents. He was certainly a credible and high quality historian. His discretion can be trusted over most others. I must say, though, that he did not notice that the so-called ‘Hitler diaries’ were written on new age paper; also, he overlooked the fact that Hitler never wrote anything down. So, he is not totally reliable, but mostly reliable. Historian David Irving exposed the fraudulent diaries, and he claims that the final 1945 table talks are fraudulent.” (Emphasis added)

As we can all see, I too trusted the expertise and word of Hugh Trevor-Roper.

Next, we have exposed the TT as a worthless primary source.[49] Nilsson judiciously concludes that “it is not clear who the real author of the words printed in these books is. We simply do not know how much of it is Hitler’s words as they were spoken, and how much is a product of the later recollection and editing process.” Unless and until this is resolved, the TT must be discarded as a genuine primary source. It has never been genuine.

Fortunately, I came across the excellent work of the “two Richards”, Richard Steigmann-Gall (author of The Holy Reich[50]) and Richard Carrier (author of “Hitler’s Table Talk: Troubling Finds”[51]). I owe it to these two researchers that I myself began to seriously question the authenticity of TT.

After reading the work of these two, I wrote on my website the following analysis of TT and its obvious problems:[52]

“Issues with Bormann’s Table-Talk

Even though there is a marked duality in Hitler’s thoughts regarding the Christian religion within the various table talks, one cannot help but affirm that he maintained a consistent, positive, enthusiastic, and conciliatory attitude toward Christianity—at least up until the point of the table talks, as recorded by Martin Bormann.

[…] As a final point on this matter, the anticlerical, anti-paganist, anti-Christian, Martin Bormann ‘was indeed motivated not by a committed ideological opposition to Christianity, but by an attempt to outdo other Nazis, to shame them and thereby bring them under his control. His extremism transgressed the views of radicals like Rosenberg and even Hitler himself and seemed at times to flirt with atheism. In his attempted forays into ideology, he never mentioned Jesus, Luther, or positive Christianity [he was careful to avoid certain topics, obviously]. He seems to have outdone the party’s anti-Christians at their own game. Given the many attempts within the party to curb him, it is safe to conclude that, without Bormann, Nazism would not have received quite the same anti-Christian reputation. He remained a party functionary first and foremost. His obsession with the churches, although very real, was as much about asserting his position in the party as it was about a true ideological commitment to Nazism. The singularity of this obsession, most likely based on a febrile need for Hitler’s affection and a mounting hatred for his in-laws, arguably constituted a departure from Nazism as much as its most radical expression.’[53]”

And we have this similar analysis from my website back in 2006:[54]

“Hitler according to Martin Bormann’s Hitler’s Table-Talk: 1941-1944, Orig. pub. date 1953, this edition 2000, intro. by Hugh Trevor-Roper

Martin Bormann’s stenographically recorded memoirs are not completely reliable for a few notable reasons. Firstly, Bormann was a staunch and rabid anti-Christian. He was personally responsible for attacks against the Churches during Hitler’s presidency, along with Alfred Rosenberg. But even Rosenberg was not as opposed to the Churches as Bormann had been. Bormann is also known to have withheld numerous Jewish clemency applications from Hitler because he did not want them to get through to the Führer [see Bryan Rigg’s Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers].

Secondly, Bormann oftentimes interjected his own commentary here and there throughout these ‘table-talks.’ Thus, we have to assume that he may have altered some of the arguments allegedly put forth by Hitler. These conversations were subject to Bormann’s personal alteration, deletion, and manipulation after they were recorded. They should be read with caution, just as Robert McNamara’s In Retrospect should be read with caution. Indeed, Mr. McNamara cleverly indicts everyone in the Johnson administration—including the Joint Chiefs, whose job it was to win the Vietnam War—except himself.

Additionally, Hitler never attacks so many people or subjects—namely Jews and Christianity—with such virulent vehemence as he does in this particular set of memoirs. Bormann’s memoirs remain in stark opposition and contradiction to dozens of other sets of memoirs, many of which were written by individuals who had no reason to portray a decent portrait of Hitler.

Furthermore, Hitler is not portrayed as [as] eloquent a speaker as he had been in other memoirs. He comes off as somewhat crude and roughshod in this tract; thus, one may confidently assume that the stenographer left out a good portion of what Hitler had actually said. Numerous accounts of Hitler’s incredible speaking ability and eloquent conversational standards can affirm this.

Lastly, we have to be careful with regards to translation. Translators are also subject to their own personal biases and, oftentimes, they will choose the wrong word or phrase, or an inaccurate word or phrase for the English translation. One example that comes to mind is the difference between the translation of the German term that Hitler had used in Mein Kampf, versus, the term used in his personal notes, to describe the situation in the Rhineland while it was under French occupation. Ralph Mannheim translated Hitler’s term as N*ggerization (in Mein Kampf), whereas Werner Maser translated Hitler’s term as Negrification (in Hitler’s Letters and Notes). Any intelligent person can see that there is a stark difference between these two terms. So, bear in mind, the translator of Table-Talk may have also allowed his own personal bias, against Hitler’s person, to affect his English translation.”

Not bad for a bachelor’s-level writer. My egoism aside, I was not far off in my assessment. In fact, not even Nilsson lets Lord Dacre’s translator off the hook. With reference to this he writes:[55]

“Apparently […] Stevens was not as good a translator as they thought. Weidenfeld [the publisher of TT] used him also for the translation of the Bormann letters only a little over half a year later but then felt obliged to correct his translations by using another translator. ‘Mr. Weidenfeld considers the translation now to be reliable as Col. Stevens’s version has been entirely revised by, I believe, Ilsa Barea’, said a letter then from the publisher to Trevor-Roper. However, Trevor-Roper still thought there were mistranslations, something that worried the publisher quite a bit.” (Emphasis added)

But this isn’t the only alarming aspect of TT’s byzantine translation process. Stevens was likely a fine German-to-English translator, but when Lord Dacre compared his translation with Heim’s and Picker’s

German notes, he must have balked at the numerous incongruities. Indeed, Stevens never referred to an “original manuscript,” but only to “the original German.”[56] Apparently that “original German” was Genoud’s own back-translated version based on his French edition. This is the only logical explanation as to why one of the German editions, the one that Stevens must have worked from,[57] perfectly matched Genoud’s French edition. Lord Dacre was allegedly “hoodwinked” by this back-translated edition.[58] Now it makes sense why Genoud demanded that Lord Dacre and his team agree to the following stipulation:[59]

 

“III. The translation into English will be made on the basis of the French version by François Genoud and it is agreed that the licensor will permit the translator appointed by the licensee to examine at any time in Switzerland the original German version insofar as this is required by the work of translation.” (Emphasis added)

Since Genoud authorized consulting “the original German” in the proviso above, it is probable that Stevens used it. And this would have been Genoud’s back-translated German edition, which, like the English edition Stevens was working on, was also “made on the basis of the French version by François Genoud.”[60] If this conclusion is correct, then Genoud effectively made fools of them all.

Nilsson similarly concludes:[61]

“[It] appears to be that the translation was not checked against Genoud’s original manuscript but against a different German text, one that Genoud most likely had re-translated into German from his French version […Publisher] Weidenfeld never said that the text had been checked against the Bormann-Vermerke, but only that it had been checked against ‘the original German’.” (Emphasis original)

In conclusion, this article has revealed that both revisionist and mainstream historians have failed the public. Not a single one of them ever looked into the convoluted history of TT and exposed it until 2003. We have Richard Carrier to thank for that. And now we have Mikael Nilsson to thank for taking Carrier’s research much further. While David Irving was the public’s best hope for exposing TT for the fraud it was and remains,[62] he either naively fell prey to Lord Dacre’s lies about TT or he deliberately protected Lord Dacre so as to prevent the decimation of his reputation. Either way it’s bad. And what makes it worse is that Irving still attests to TT’s validity and reliability despite the excellent and well-known work of Richard Carrier. That is unacceptable.

The public must be able to rely on expert historians who authenticate primary sources. Hugh Trevor-Roper’s scandalous behavior behind the scenes has shattered the image of this Hitler expert, revealing instead a man who lied, omitted and pretended for the sake of fame and money.

Pertaining to this, Nilsson concludes:[63]

“Trevor-Roper gained financially as an expert validator of Hitler documents – thanks in part to Genoud’s material. And Genoud’s documents increased considerably in value after Trevor-Roper had gone on record attesting to their authenticity. Trevor-Roper’s career as a Hitler expert had in fact started already when he published his famous book The Last Days of Hitler in 1947, a book that had propelled him to fame. This financial interest, too, may be part of the explanation for Trevor-Roper’s tendency to leave out critical information when it came to these documents.”

Nilsson’s upcoming publication on Trevor-Roper and TT is going to send a shockwave of distrust through the World War II/Third Reich historical community. Further compounding the problem of this scandal surrounding TT is that only one historian[64] prior to Mr. Carrier ever even bothered to investigate the authenticity or translation process of TT. One. And he met an untimely death before he could publish his research. Richard Carrier is the only historian besides this man to have done so—50 years later! And yet, we are expected to unquestioningly accept the authenticity of Hitler’s Second Book, The Goebbels Diaries, etc.?

Yes. The “experts” still expect us to trust them even after reading the following on Mr. Carrier’s website:[65]

“When I discovered that in fact the English [TT…] all the leading experts I consulted were surprised by my findings: all the peer reviewers and editors at GSR; Gerhard Weinberg, author of the famous 1952 Guide to Captured German Documents (the expert I spoke to on German documents in preparing the GSR article at the advice of GSR’s editor); Richard Steigmann-Gall, historian and expert on Hitler’s religious beliefs…” (Emphasis added)

These “experts” could stand to learn a thing or two from “Grub Street.”[66] Anyone who has ever relied on TT and the “expertise” and “honesty” of Hugh Trevor-Roper will now have to revise or discard their research as a direct result of his clandestine chicanery. Those historians who are deceased will have to have their research amended or pulled from print to accommodate Mikael Nilsson’s trailblazing revelations. And those of us who conduct scholarly or amateur research on Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich today will have to slowly rebuild our trust in the (other) “experts” insofar as that is still possible. The profession and its so-called “experts” have a long road ahead of them. In fact, they may never recover from this. Public trust is not easily regained once it is lost.

I, for one, am putting more of my faith and hope in “Grub Street.”

---

Biographical Note

Weronika Kuzniar (also known as Veronica K. Clark) earned her bachelor’s degree with High Honors in Liberal Studies w/Global Political Science in 2005 from California State University San Marcos in North San Diego; her master’s degree with Honors in Military History in 2009 from Norwich University; and she completed a year of doctoral (PsyD) courses with a 4.00 GPA in 2010 at the University of the Rockies. She has translated, edited, written and/or published more than 35 scholarly works and books to date. Visit her on the Web at https://wilkmocy.com.

Hitler’s Most Significant Speech: Collector’s Edition: https://amazon.com/dp/1507618654/

Her most current works on Amazon.com: https://amazon.com/Weronika-Kuzniar/e/B014GA75MA/
On Facebook: https://facebook.com/PowerwolfPodcasts
On Twitter: https://twitter.com/WeronikaKuzniar
On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVNYpUJc8qlMhE34hCXJxOA

---

Notes

[1]	Historian Mikael Nilsson writes: “In his introduction to Table Talk in 1953 Trevor-Roper stated that it had been translated from the original German manuscript.” This was a lie. From Mikael Nilsson, “Hugh Trevor-Roper and the English Editions of Hitler’s Table Talk and Testament,” Journal of Contemporary History 51, no. 4 (2016): 789, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022009415619689 (accessed June 14, 2017).
[2]	Richard Carrier, “Hitler’s Table Talk: Troubling Finds,” German Studies Review 26, no. 3 (October 2003).
[3]	Nilsson, 790. Was “Müller” possibly a pseudonym for Werner Koeppen, Alfred Rosenberg’s aide? He too allegedly took steno notes beginning in 1942. (More on him later.)
[4]	Libres propos sur la guerre et la paix (LP for short)
[5]	Nilsson’s research (see p. 806) suggests that Genoud’s B-V consisted exclusively of Heim’s notes, which are unauthenticated, lacking any original versions (minus approximately 40 typed pages seized by the Allies and ultimately returned to Germany), and had been altered and embellished by Heim after they had originally been recorded by him.
[6]	Ibid., 790.
[7]	Hugh Trevor-Roper may be the impetus behind Irving’s subsequent acceptance of the B-V as authentic. Nilsson cautiously notes about this document: “It is still highly uncertain if, or at what point, Trevor-Roper got to see the Bormann-Vermerke and, if he did, how much of it he was allowed to look at. He certainly had no opportunity to undertake a proper investigation of the manuscript or to compare it with the various versions already in print.” (793)
[8]	Ibid., 790-791.
[9]	Ibid., 791.
[10]	Ibid.
[11]	Not surprisingly, I was attacked on Facebook for declaring that “Hitler’s Table Talk” is a “fraud,” which it is. The first attack reads: “Hitler’s table talk a fraud? based on what? what a BS. Have you ever red in in [sic] the original version? It is totally impossible to fake such prestigious thoughts that jump in all directions, but always in depth and related… you can not [sic] fake that, especially as their [sic] is no goal in faking it, they make hitler look better and there is not even a prooof [sic] of gas chambers or whatsoever in it. BASIC LOGIC APPLIED Bitte.” The second attack reads: “Did you read it? No you didn’t. Nor has [C] here. No single argument in the content that proves it is a fraud either just a statement. Not even a ball pen argument like Anne Franck hoaxers. The table talks are ingenious remarks from a well thought person on a host of topics impossible to fake. Are there transcrition [sic] error or some augmented passages, possibly. But even then, for what agenda. There is NONE.”
[12]	Published with an introduction attesting to its authentication and validity by Hugh Trevor-Roper: The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents, February-April 1945, trans. Colonel R. H. Stevens (London, GB: Cassell & Company, Ltd, 1961).
[13]	David Irving, “The Faking of Hitler’s ‘Last Testament’,” Focal Point Publications, http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Testament/byGenoud.html (accessed June 17, 2017).
[14]	Ibid.
[15]	Ibid.
[16]	I.e., the Bormann Vermerke (“genuine notes on Hitler’s Table Talk”) also transmitted to Irving by Genoud.
[17]	Nilsson, 802.
[18]	Ibid., 805.
[19]	Like the typed Bormann Vermerke photocopies transmitted to Irving, The Testament photocopies also contained Bormann’s signature as a sign of authentication. The Testament was “a typed copy of a typed copy of a photocopy,” nevertheless, Trevor-Roper told Baumgarten that “he did remember seeing Bormann’s signature on each page.” Both men used this signature as validation of The Testament’s authenticity even though it was a triple copy of a non-existent original. (807) Irving used the same validation method to assess the Bormann Vermerke given to him by Genoud. How does Bormann’s signature authenticate TT but not The Testament? The truth is that Irving was never shown the original TT manuscript, only copies. Recall that Irving writes on his website, “They were actually typed from notes taken by the stenographer Heinrich Heim, whom I interviewed and who confirmed the procedure in detail. Each day’s entry was initialled by Bormann at the end.” Irving admits here that he was shown copies, not originals of TT. He then says that Heim only confirmed the procedure, not the copies Irving received from Genoud. It is not even certain if Heim ever saw these copies of Irving’s. And how can Irving be sure of the authenticity of copies of typed notes if Bormann’s signature was only a copy of his signature as it also appeared in the copies of The Testament?
[20]	See Nilsson, 802.
[21]	David Irving, “Letters to David Irving on this Website,” Focal Point Publications, http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Law200603.html (accessed June 16, 2017). The applicable fan letter asks, “Is the book commonly know [sic] in the English-speaking world as the Hitler’s Table Talk an English translation of François Genoud’s French text? And how reliable is it?” David Irving should have answered this question 100% in the affirmative, that the English edition of TT is indeed based on Genoud’s French edition. As it stands, Irving did not. Furthermore, in this same exchange Irving attests to Heim’s notes as “highly reliable,” which they are not.
[22]	Contrast Irving’s assessment with that of Nilsson: “Much the same could naturally be said today about Genoud’s other manuscript, the Bormann-Vermerke, and thus about both Table Talk and Monologe. That too is lost in its original form, except for the few notes now deposited in the Bundesarchiv; the translation process was highly doubtful; the history of the manuscript from conception to publication is mysterious at best, and it is impossible to be sure that the majority of the entries are in fact authentic (that is, actual statements by Hitler as opposed to things he could have said).” (801)
[23]	Richard Carrier, “Hitler’s Table Talk: An Update,” richardcarrier.info, http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10978 (accessed June 17, 2017).
[24]	Ibid.
[25]	Carolyn Yeager, “‘Hitler's Table Talk’ Study Hour,” carolynyeager.net, http://carolynyeager.net/tabletalk.
[26]	MK was edited by Max Amann (publisher), Hess and others (reputedly including Father Bernhard Stempfle). See Karl Dietrich Bracher, The German Dictatorship: The Origins, Structure and Effects of National Socialism (Austin, TX: Holt Rinehart & Winston, 1972), 111; Roy Conyers Nesbit and Georges van Acker, The Flight of Rudolf Hess: Myths and Reality (Stroud, UK: The History Press, 2011), 19.
[27]	A man who hid his doubts from nearly everyone, including Irving, which Nilsson has proven.
[28]	Lord Dacre “never let his readers (be it the lay public or professional historians, apart from a few friends) know about [his doubts].” (Nilsson, 809)
[29]	“The closest we get to the original Heim notes are approximately 40 pages, dated January 1942, that were initially stored at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. (since returned to the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz, Germany). However, nobody knows if these are authentic or not, even if the evidence so far indicates that they are.” (Ibid., 791)
[30]	Nilsson: “… Trevor-Roper was not shown the original manuscript.” (792) Confirmed by the following footnote by Nilsson: “Trevor-Roper to Baumgarten, 24 January 1975; CCLO; HTRP; VSD 6/6/1. It is not at all clear what text Trevor-Roper saw since he had no possibility of examining it properly or comparing it to the version that was later published.” (807)
[31]	Carrier, “Hitler’s Table Talk,” http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10978.
[32]	Ibid.
[33]	Currently unavailable and no longer in print.
[34]	Published by Wilk Mocy Publishers as Hitler’s Most Significant Speech and available in a “Collector’s Edition” from Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Most-Significant-Speech-Collectors/dp/1507618654.
[35]	Helmut Heiber and David M. Glantz, eds., Hitler and His Generals: Military Conferences 1942-1945, trans. Roland Winter, Krista Smith and Mary Beth Friedrich, First English language ed. (New York: Enigma Books, 2004): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/192963109X/
[36]	Nilsson, 789.
[37]	Carrier, “Hitler’s Table Talk,” http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10978.
[38]	The Führer Headquarters, abbreviated FHQ, is a common name for the official headquarters used by Adolf Hitler and the German commanders and officials throughout Europe in World War II.
[39]	Based on John Toland’s research as presented in Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, First Anchor Books edition (New York, NY: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1992).
[40]	Toland, 682.
[41]	See Louis Kilzer, Hitler’s Traitor: Martin Bormann and the Defeat of the Reich (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 2000). Kilzer’s suspicions are valid. Why did Bormann suddenly decide that Hitler’s casual jabber would be so important for posterity? Why not in 1939 when the war actually started? Why 1941? Furthermore, is it just coincidence that Soviet spy “Werther” started leaking classified, top-secret military and related information to the Lucy apparat of the Red Orchestra right around the time that Koeppen appeared as a “circumspect” notetaker? These are valid questions we need to be asking and trying to answer. The fact that Heim claimed to openly defy Bormann’s order to maintain absolute secrecy is similarly suspect. “Bormann was taken aback,” claimed Heim, “but he gave [me] tacit approval to continue taking notes” nevertheless. (Toland, 682).
[42]	I. Kershaw, Hitler… , 1024.
[43]	I.e., Herbst 1941 im "Führerhauptquartier": Berichte Werner Koeppens an seinen Minister Alfred Rosenberg / hrsg. und kommentiert von Martin Vogt.
[44]	I intend to get Koeppen’s book as soon as I can to conduct my own investigation into its contents.
[45]	Bormann’s request is strange in itself. Toland writes about this: “Shortly after their arrival at Wolfsschanze, Bormann had suggested almost offhandedly to Heinrich Heim, his adjutant, that he surreptitiously note down what the Chief [Hitler] said. So Hitler wouldn’t know he was being put on record, Bormann instructed his adjutant to rely on his memory. But Heim wanted more accurate results[!] and on his own initiative[!] he began making copious notes on index cards which he hid on his lap.” (Toland, 682) Let’s recap: Bormann carelessly made the request to start secretly recording top-secret information against Hitler’s wishes, which his subordinate Heim then took up with such alacrity that he wrote meticulous notecards in defiance of his superior’s request? Very unusual.
[46]	Carrier, “Hitler’s Table Talk,” http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10978.
[47]	Nilsson, 792.
[48]	AHRS, 2006. This website has been defunct since 2009, so no URL is available. Though, I still have the “html” files on my PC.
[49]	As TT currently stands in its many formats, it is worthless.
[50]	Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, First paper back edition (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
[51]	Richard Carrier, “Hitler’s Table Talk: Troubling Finds,” German Studies Review 26, no. 3 (October 2003).
[52]	AHRS, 2006.
[53]	Steigmann-Gall, 251.
[54]	AHRS, 2006.
[55]	Nilsson, 793.
[56]	Ibid., 794. According to Nilsson, “Stevens did in fact translate a German text.” (793)
[57]	Stevens passed away before anyone, including Lord Dacre, could ask him to clarify this matter. Though Stevens himself wrote “that he would ‘have preferred to translate direct from the original German’,” in relation to The Testament, ‘(as [he] did in [his] share of Hitler’s Table Talks)’.” (798) Why Lord Dacre would use a sub-standard translator for the single most-important Hitler source in the world at the time is beyond comprehension. The more likely explanation for Stevens’s poor translation is that he had only worked from Genoud’s French and German editions, not ever from Picker’s or Heim’s notes. Indeed, Lord Dacre thought there were still mistranslations even after Stevens’s translation was completely reworked. Why would Lord Dacre think this unless he had compared Stevens’s translation to the notes of Picker and/or Heim?
[58]	Nilsson explains how Genoud back-translated The Testament as well. (796)
[59]	Ibid., 794.
[60]	Trevor-Roper “did not mention any of this to his readers,” writes Nilsson. “[He] did not utter a single syllable about any of these facts in his preface to Table Talk dated 16 March 1953. Instead he unequivocally stated that: ‘The text used for this edition of Hitler’s Table-Talk is the text of the original Bormann-Vermerke’… ” (794)
[61]	Ibid., 795.
[62]	Unlike Irving, Nilsson rightly questions the B-V. “… [T]he authenticity of Genoud’s Bormann-Vermerke could by no means be taken for granted since it had never been critically examined [emphasis added].” (805)
[63]	Ibid., 810.
[64]	A German in the 1950s
[65]	Carrier, “Hitler’s Table Talk,” http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10978.
[66]	“Until the early 19th century, Grub Street was a street close to London's impoverished Moorfields district that ran from Fore Street east of St Giles-without-Cripplegate north to Chiswell Street. Famous for its concentration of impoverished “hack writers”, aspiring poets, and low-end publishers and booksellers, Grub Street existed on the margins of London’s journalistic and literary scene.” From “Grub Street,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grub_Street.

---

Article Addendum

Koeppen, Heim & Picker’s “Table Talk”:
Comparative Textual Analysis

Berichte Werner Koeppens

(September 1941 notes of Werner Koeppen)[67]

1) Am 17.9. abends habe ich dem Führer das Heft 1-2 Weltkampfes, die beiden übersetzten Artikel aus der Zeitschrift “Novoje Slowo”, sowie das Heft 3 der “Deutschen Siedlungen” in der Sowjetunion (Ukraine mit Krim) übergeben. Der Führer interessierte sich besonders für das letztere.

2) Am 17.9. nachmittags habe ich Reichsleiter Bormann die Schreiben des Reichsministers über die 7. Kammer, den Fall Frank sowie die Ausarbeitung über Nationalsozialismus und Christentum übergeben. Desgleichen machte ich dem Reichsleiter Mitteilung davon, daβ Dr. Stellrecht zum Nachfolger von Stabsleiter Urban vorgesehen sei, und sich in dieser Eigenschaft in Kürze bei Reichsleiter Bormann melden wolle, und daβ bei dieser Gelegenheit auch seine Umstufung vom Obergebietsführer zum entsprechenden politischen Dienstgrad vorgenommen werden solle. Der Reichsleiter ging, anscheinend erfreut, sehr bereitwillig auf alles ein, und sagte, daβ er Dr. Stellrecht bei seinem nächsten Aufenthalt in Berlin in etwa 10 Tagen sprechen wolle. Es wäre non von groβer Wichtigkeit, daβ der von mir angekündigte Brief des Reichsministers an Reichsleiter Bormann uber diese Angelegenheit auch in den nächsten Tagen hier im FHQ eingeht.

3) [September 16^th omitted]

4) Am 17.9. nachmittags war der Reichsauβenminister mit Groβadmiral Raeder und dem Chef der U-Bootwaffe Dönitz beim Führer, um die durch die amerikanische Erklärung über den bewaffneten Geleitschutz nach Island, entstandene Lage und sich daraus ergebenden Folgerungen für den Krieg im Atlantik zu besprechen.

5) Mittagstaffel 17.9

Gäste: keine.

Der Führer sprach über die Bedeutung des eroberten Erzgebietes von Kriwoi-Rog. Wenn die völlige Wiederherstellung der riesigen Anlagen vielleicht auch ein Jahr dauern wird, so muβ doch beschleunigt und mit Hochdruck an die Ausbeute der Erzlager gegangen werden. Die Erzeugung von ca. 1 Million to Eisen und Erze pro Monat löse praktisch alle Kalamität auf dem Gebiet der Bedarfsdeckung, den in irgendwelcher Beziehung zu dem Vorhandensein von Eisen in genügendem Maβe stehe doch alles.

6) Abendtafel 17.9

Gäste: Chef der U-Bootwaffe Dönitz.

Infolge der groβen Zahl der Gäste von Marine war ich während des Abendessens für den Raum 2 eingeteilt.

7) Zum Mittag des 18.9. wird Reichskommissar Koch und für den späten Nachmittag Gauleiter Terboven zu Besprechungen beim Führer erwartet.

8) Militärische Lage 18.9.

Die Stimmung im Hauptquartier über die militärische Lage im Osten ist auβerordentlich zuversichtlich. Endlich scheint die Front an den meisten Stellen entsheidend in Bewegung zu kommen, während die herangeführten russischen Reserven in punkto[!] Ausrüstung und Ausbildung immer schlechter werden. Vor Odessa sind die Rumänen wieder etwas vorangekommen. Das ganze Gebiet zwischen dem Unterlauf des Dnjeprs und der Halbinsel Krim ist fest in unserer Hand. Es ist dem Russen allerdings gelungen, einen Teil seiner Truppen von der Tendra-Bucht aus zu Schiff nach Sewastopol zu bringen. Ein Handstreich der Leibstandarte auf die Landenge bei Perekop wurde wegen des dortigen sehr starken und tiefen Befestigungsgürtels nicht ausgeführt. Dagegen gelang es, das Asowsche Meer nördlich Genitschesk zu erreichen und viel Gefangene zu machen. Ostwärts Saporoshje gehen die Russen fluchtartig zurück. Die Besetzung der Krim von Osten und Norden ist in Vorbereitung. Der gröβte Erfolg aber zeichnet sich ab durch die Vereinigung der über Romny von Norden vorstoβenden Panzern mit denen des Brückenkopfes von Krementschug. Dieser riesige Kessel ostwärts Kiew ist in völliger Auflösung. Von allen Seiten stoβen unsere Truppen vor und bilden immer neue kleinere Kessel unter den völlig verwirrten Russen. Bei der Heeresgruppe Mitte ist Timoschenko auch endgültig im Abschnitt nördlich und südlich Jelnja zur Verteidigung übergegangen und gibt den ermatteten Divisionen die ersehnte Ruhepause. Vor Petersburg und an der finnischen Front weitere erbitterte Kämpfe. Es ist gelungen auf der Insel Ösel einen Brückenkopf zu bilden, so daβ auch diese Angelegenheit in Kürze erledigt sein dürfte.

1) Mittagstafel 18.9.

Gäste: Reichsminister Dr. Lammers, Reichskommissar Koch.

Ich sprach mit Dr. Lammers wegen der Denkschrift von Staatssekretär Stuckart über die neue Grenzziehung im Osten und Dr. Lammers versicherte mir, daβ er sie dem Führer nicht vorlegen werde, bevor er mit dem Reichsminister darüber gesprochen habe. Dr. Lammers wird wahrscheinlich am 21. oder 22.9 nach Berlin kommen und dann den Reichsminister zu einer persönlichen Rücksprache aufsuchen.

Das Tischgespräch drehte sich im wesentlichen über das Thema “Freie Ukraine”, ohne besondere neue Argumente aufzuweisen. Sowohl der Führer als auch der Reichskommissar lehnen eine freie Ukraine ab. Die Slawen seien eine Kaninchenfamilie, die von sich aus niemals über den Verband der Familie hinausgehen werden, wenn sie nicht von einer Herrenschicht dazu gezwungen werden. Allgemeine Desorganisation sei der ihnen naturgemäβe und erstrebenswerte Zustand. Alles ihnen aufgepfropfte Wissen bleibe bestenfalls ein Halbwissen das sie unzufrieden und anarchistisch mache. Eine Gründung einer Universität in Kiew müsse schon aus diesem Grunde abgelehnt werden. Auβerdem werde von der Stadt Kiew kaum etwas stehen bleiben. Die Tendenz des Führers, der die Zerstörung der russischen Groβstädte als Voraussetzung der Dauer unserer Macht in Ruβland ansieht, wurde durch den Reichskommissar noch gefestigt, der die ukrainische Industrie nach Möglichkeit zerschlagen will, um das Proletariat auf das Land zurückzubringen. Die Absatzmöglichkeit auf dem russischen Markt mit Gebrauchs- und Fertigwaren werde der sächsischen Industrie einen ungeahnten Aufschwung geben. Wenn man dann noch die unentbehrlichen Genuβmittel Alkohol und Tabak in Staatsmonopol nähme, habe man die Bevölkerung in den besetzten Gebieten restlos in der Hand. Koch betonte, daβ man von Anfang an hart und brutal sein müsse, und nicht in den Fehler von 1917/18 verfallen dürfe, mal nachgiebig und mal hart zu sein. General Eichhorn sei bezeichnenderweise nicht von Bolschewiken, sondern von ukrainischen Nationalisten ermordet worden. Der Führer stellte die englische Herrschaft in Indien als das erstrebenswerte Ziel unserer Verwaltung im Osten dar. Innerhalb des deutschen Volkes höchste Volksgemeinschaft und Möglichkeit der Bildung für jedermann, nach auβen aber absoluter Herrenstandpunkt.

2) Reichskommissar Koch wird seinen Vortrag beim Führer erst am 19.9 nachmittags haben, da zu der Besprechung auch Generalfeldmarschall Keitel anwesend sein soll, der am 18.9 zur Heeresgruppe Nord nach Pleskau geflogen war. Die Stimmung im FHQ ist für Koch sehr günstig, alle halten ihn für den geeigneten Mann und “zweiten Stalin”, der seine Aufgabe auf das beste lösen wird.

3) Von der Besprechung des Führers mit Dr. Lammers und anschlieβend mit Gauleiter Terboven, die nicht sehr lange gewesen sind, konnte ich nichts in Erfahrung bringen.

4) Abendtafel 18.9

Gäste: keine.

Der Führer erzählte eine Reihe von Geschichten aus der Endzeit des Parlamentarismus in den Jahren 1932/3. Der gefährlichste Gegner, der auch wirklich eine Reihe von Männern von Format hervorgebracht habe, sei ohne Zweifel das Zentrum gewesen. Man habe Brüning nicht als einen prinzipiell antinationalen Mann ansprechen können; sein gröβter Fehler sei es vor allem gewesen, daβ er versucht habe über Erfolge in der Auβenpolitik eine Besserung der Lage im Innern durch Steigerung seiner Popularität herbeizuführen, während der Führer genau den umgekehrten Weg gegangen sei in der Erkenntnis, daβ die Auβenpolitik nie erfolgreich sein kann, wenn innenpolitisch die Voraussetzungen dazu fehlen. Brüning sei etwas krankhaft veranlagt gewesen, denn welcher gesunde Mensch wählt zu seiner ständigen Wohnung freiwillig ein Krankenhaus? Die gröβte Korruption habe in den Parteien der Mitte geherrscht, deren Politiker samt und sonders bestechliche und käufliche Subjekte gewesen seien. Den führenden Sozialdemokraten (Braum, Severing, Löbe) habe man dies in keiner Weise nachsagen können. Deswegen sei von ihnen auch kaum jemand ins Konzentrationslager gewandert. Auch Braun hätte es nicht nötig gehabt, ins Ausland zu fliehen. Der Führer ist der Ansicht, daβ diese ehemaligen Sozialdemokraten heute schon längst überzeugte Anhänger des 3. Reiches sind. Severing hat schon zur Saarabstimmung und jetzt wieder zum Ausbruch des Krieges dem Führer freiwillig angeboten, Aufrufe an die ehemals sozialdemokratischen Arbeiter zu erlassen. Der Führer hat dies aus prinzipiellen Gründen abgelehnt. Dagegen war die kommunistische Reichstagsfraktion ein Treffpunkt von Schwerverbrechern und Kriminellen. Torgler sei in der Fraktion schon unangenehm aufgefallen, da von ihm bekannt war, daβ er noch keinen Einbruchsdiebstahl begangen hatte. Der Führer machte sich dann noch lustig über die Abfassung von deutschnationalen Aufrufen, die sich schon immer durch schlechtes Deutsch auszeichneten und an denen dann noch die ganze Parteifraktion herumdokterte, so daβ das Ergebnis einfach unbrauchbar war. Aus diesem Grunde gab der Führer bei der Harzburger Tagung auch neben Hugenberg einen eigenen Aufruf heraus. Selbst in dem ersten Kabinett nach dem 30. Januar 1933 versuchten die Deutschnationalen noch, derartige gemeinsame Aufrufe und Proklamationen zu fabrizieren, bis sie der Führer eindeutig darüber belehrte, daβ er als Kabinettschef das allein mache, da er auch die Verantwortung trage.

My translation

1) On 17.9 [September 17^th] in the evening, I handed the Führer 1-2 “Der Weltkampf” booklets, the two translated articles from the magazine “Novoje Slowo”, as well as issue 3 of the “German settlements” in the Soviet Union (Ukraine with Crimea). The Führer was particularly interested in the latter.

2) On 17.9 in the afternoon, I passed on to Reichsleiter Bormann the writing of the Reich Minister of the 7th Chamber on the case of Frank, as well as on the development of National Socialism and Christianity. Likewise, I informed the Reichsleiter that Dr. Stellrecht was to be successor to Stabsleiter [Gotthard] Urban, and who would soon be reporting to Reichsleiter Bormann in this capacity, and [furthermore] that on this occasion he should also be changed from Obergebietsführer to the appropriate political rank. The Reichsleiter apparently gladly accepted everything, and said that he would discuss this with Dr. Stellrecht during his next stay in Berlin in about 10 days. The letter of the Reich Minister to Reichsleiter Bormann, which I had announced, was not of great importance and would also be discussed here in the FHQ over the next few days.

3) [September 16^th not applicable]

4) On 17.9 in the afternoon, the Reich Foreign Minister with Groβadmiral Raeder and the head of the U-Bootwaffe Dönitz were at the Führer’s to discuss the situation resulting from the American declaration on the armed escort to Iceland, and the resultant consequences for the war in the Atlantic.

5) Lunch start 17.9

Guests: none.

The Führer spoke of the importance of the conquered Ore Mountains of Krivoi Rog. If the complete restoration of the giant plants is to last for a year, it must be accelerated and carried out with high pressure on the yield of ore deposits. The production of about one million tons of iron and ore per month solves virtually all calamities in the field of supply, which, in any case, is related to the presence of iron in sufficient supply, which is everything.

6) Evening table 17.9

Guests: Chief of the U-Bootwaffe Dönitz.

As a result of the large number of guests from the Navy, I was allocated to Room 2 during the evening meal.

7) At noon on the 18^th of September, Reichskommissar Koch, and for the late afternoon Gauleiter Terboven, were expected to meet with the Führer.

8) Military situation 18.9.

The mood in the headquarters regarding the military situation in the East is extremely confident. At last, the front seems to be rapidly advancing in most places, while the Russian reserves which have been produced are becoming poorer in terms of equipment and training. Before Odessa, the Romanians are a bit ahead. The entire area between the lower reaches of the Dnieper River and the Crimean Peninsula is firmly in our hands. However, the Russians succeeded in bringing some of their troops from the Gulf of Tendra (Tendra Bay) to Sevastopol. A takeover (coup) by the Leibstandarte on the Isthmus of Perekop was not carried out owing to the very strong and deep rings of defense there. On the other hand, it was possible to reach the Sea of Azov, north of Henichesk, and to take many prisoners. On the way to Zaporizhia, the Russians are bolting. The occupation of the Crimea from the east and north is underway. The greatest success, however, is marked by the unification of the tanks which were advancing over Romny from the north with those of the bridgehead at Kremenchug[!] This huge pocket[68] east of Kiev is in total dissolution. On all sides, our troops are pushing forward and forming ever new smaller pockets among the completely confused Russians. Next to Army Group Center, Timoshenko has also assumed the defensive in the section north and south of Yelnya, giving the weakened divisions long-awaited rest. Before Petersburg and on the Finnish front more fierce fighting ensued. It has been possible to form a bridgehead on the island of Ösel, so that this matter will soon be settled.

1) Lunch table 18.9.

Guests: Reichsminister Dr. Lammers, Reichskommissar Koch.

I spoke with Dr. Lammers regarding the memorandum of State Secretary Stuckart on the new frontier in the East, and Dr. Lammers assured me that he would not submit it to the Führer before he discussed this with the Reich Minister[69]. Dr. Lammers will probably come to Berlin on the 21st or 22nd, and then visit the Reichsminister for a personal consultation.

The table discussion [i.e. “table talk”] was essentially about the subject of “Free Ukraine,” without offering any new arguments. Both the Führer and the Reichskommissar reject a free Ukraine. The Slavs were a rabbit family, which by their very nature would never go beyond the union of the family if they were not compelled [otherwise] by a ruling class. General disorganization is their natural and desirable state. All knowledge imparted to them would, at best, remain a half-knowledge, making them dissatisfied and anarchistic. A founding of a university in Kiev must be rejected for this reason. In addition, it would hardly stop at the city of Kiev.[70] The tendency of the Führer, who regards the destruction of Russian cities as a prerequisite of the duration of our power in Russia, was still reinforced by the Reichskommissar, who, as far as possible, wanted to crush Ukrainian industry to lure the proletariat back into the countryside. The possibility of sales of consumer goods and finished goods on the Russian market will give Saxon industry an unprecedented boom. If the requisite consumption of alcohol and tobacco were to be taken as a monopoly of the state, then the population in the occupied territories would be completely in control. Koch stressed that one had to be hard and brutal right from the start, and not succumb to the flaw of 1917/18; one must be acquiescent at times and sometimes hard. General Eichhorn was murdered not by Bolsheviks but by Ukrainian nationalists. The Führer epitomized English rule in India as the most desirable goal of our administration in the East. Within the German people there would be the highest sense of national community and the possibility of education for all, but among outsiders the absolute ruler’s point of view [must prevail].

2) Reichskommissar Koch will have his talk with the Führer only on the afternoon of the 19^th of September (19.9) since Field Marshal Keitel, who had flown to Pleskau on 18 September, was to be present for the meeting. The mood at FHQ is very favorable for Koch, as all consider him the appropriate man and “second Stalin,” who will solve his task to the best of his ability.

3) From the Führer’s meeting with Dr. Lammers and then with Gauleiter Terboven, neither of which were very long, I could not find out anything.

4) Evening table 18.9

Guests: none.

The Führer told a series of stories from the end of the period of parliamentarianism in the years 1932/3. The most dangerous opponent, who had actually produced a number of respectable men, was undoubtedly the center. Brüning could not be regarded as a principally anti-nationalist man; his biggest mistake was that he attempted to improve the domestic situation by increasing his popularity via foreign policy successes, while the Führer had followed exactly the opposite course, recognizing that foreign policy can never be successful[71] if the prerequisites for [success] are missing. Brüning was somewhat morbid, for what healthy man voluntarily chooses a hospital for his permanent home? The greatest corruption prevailed in the parties of the center, whose politicians were all bribed and bought-off. The leading Social Democrats (Braun, Severing, Löbe) could not deny this in any way. That’s why hardly any of them have migrated from the concentration camps. Braun, too, would not have needed to flee abroad. The Führer is of the opinion that these former Social Democrats are now already convinced adherents of the Third Reich. Severing already voluntarily offered to the Führer submission of the former Social Democratic workers to the Saar Agreement and, again, to the outbreak of the war. The Führer rejected this on principle. On the other hand, the communist parliament was a meeting place for serious criminals and thieves. Torgler was already uncomfortable in the faction because he knew that he had not yet committed a burglary. The Führer then made fun of the drafting of German-national calls, which had always been characterized by bad German, and [since] the whole party faction was still drifting around, the result was simply useless. For this reason, the Führer gave a special appeal to Hugenberg. Even in the first cabinet after January 30, 1933, the German Nationalists still attempted to produce such joint appeals and proclamations until the Führer had clearly stated that he was to be the sole cabinet minister, since he was also responsible.

Problem #1: Footnote 224 in Koeppen:

“Entsprechend auch Hitlers Wendung gegen unterschiedliche Reiseklassen auf Schiffen und in Zuegen; Heims Aufzechnung vom 22/23 September 1941.”

Trans.: “Correspondingly also Hitler’s phrase against different classes on ships and in trains; Heim’s list of 22/23 September 1941.”

While this entry is “parallel” in a general sense, we must remember that Koeppen ostensibly recorded his notes the same day he heard Hitler speak on any given subject. Koeppen’s record is for the 18^th of September 1941, not for the 22/23^rd of September 1941. As such, it is possible that Heim copied (or got ideas for his notes from) Koeppen. Heim’s “parallel” notes were written after Koeppen’s, not before.

Problem #2: Footnote 225 in Koeppen:

“Vgl. die Parallelaufzeichnung Heims (wie Anm. 198, dort: S. 63) sowie Dok. XXI, 2); s.a. die Aufzeichnung Henry Pickers 11.4.1942 abends, in Tischgespräche, S. 271.

Trans.: “See the parallel recording by Heim; also, Henry Picker’s recording on 11 April 1942 in the evening.”

This above footnote is placed at the end of this sentence in Koeppen’s Berichte:

“Innerhalb des deutschen Volkes höchste Volksgemeinschaft und Möglichkeit der Bildung für jedermann nach aussen aber absoluter Herrenstandpunkt.”

Trans.: “Within the German people the highest national community and the possibility of education for everyone, but outwardly an absolute master’s point of view.”

The “parallel” recording by Heim, presumably the entry of 17 September 1941, evening, and the night of 17-18 (since these dates correspond most closely with 18.9 in Koeppen) is just over 3 pages long in the English edition of TT. His notes are only “parallel” insofar as the general topics of Russia and Ukraine are discussed. Indeed, Heim makes no mention of Brüning or any of the other topics in that particular Koeppen recording nor does Heim mention Hitler’s interest in the “Der Weltkampf” periodicals he was given. As well, Koeppen does not feature Hitler describing the Slavs as a “born slave mass.” In fact, neither Koeppen’s nor Heim’s entries is completely clear regarding who said what about the Russians and Ukrainians. We must assume after comparing the two entries that Hitler compared Ukrainians to rabbits insofar as their ability to run and organize a state is concerned, that Russia needed to be forcibly conquered, and that the people be treated harshly at first. But, even so, we cannot be certain that these words are Hitler’s and not Koch’s, or that they are Hitler verbatim. The general subject matter is parallel, but the entries are dissimilar. As well, Koeppen and Heim agree only in a general sense even when discussing British rule in India.

Here is the 17^th/18^th September 1941 Heim entry (as featured in Monologe) and as featured in the hardcover Trevor-Roper English edition of TT (in full) for purposes of comparison with Koeppen’s 17./18.9 “Berichte” featured above:

As for Picker’s “parallel” entry of April 11, 1942 (abends), it consists of mostly unrelated content. Picker’s notes, which may be among those hijacked from Heim’s originals prior to their subsequent amendment, discuss Rosenberg’s book “Mythos”, Cardinal Faulhaber, and the Church (Tischgespräche im Bild, p. 145). What’s more, even if his content had matched that of Koeppen’s from 18 September 1941, is it not odd that Picker’s “parallel” notes came so long after those of Koeppen (about 7 months later)? While it would be possible for Hitler to discuss the same topic or subject matter more than once, it is also possible that Picker and or Heim copied Koeppen, or selectively “lifted” his notes for their own (subsequent) recordings.

Here is the full excerpt from Henry Picker’s book
Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier:

11.4.1942 abends
(Wolfsschanze)

Beim Abendessen betonte der Chef, daβ Rosenbergs »Mythus« nicht als ein parteiamtliches Werk angesehen werden könne. Er, der Chef, habe es seinerzeit ausdrücklich abgelehnt, diesem Buch parteipäpstlichen Charakter zu geben, da schon sein Titel schief sei. Denn man könne nicht sagen, daβ man den »Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts«, also etwas Mystisches, gegen die Geistesauffassungen des 19. Jahrhunderts stellen wolle, sondern müsse als Nationalsozialist sagen, daβ man den Glauben und das Wissen des 20. Jahrhunderts gegen den Mythus des 19. Jahrhunderts stelle.

Bemerkenswert sei, daβ die Hauptleserschaft diesel Rosenbergschen Werkes nicht unter den Altparteigenossen zu suchen sei. Man habe in der ersten Zeit nach dem Erscheinen sogar die gröβten Schwierigkeiten gehabt, um überhaupt die Erstlingsauflage absetzen zu können. Erst als das Werk in einem Hirtenbrief erwähnt worden sei, sei es gelungen, die ersten 10 000 Exemplare loszuwerden. Daβ der Münchner Kardinal Faulhaber so dumm gewesen sei, auf einer Bischofskonferenz Zitate aus dem

300

»Mythus« anzuführen und anzugreifen, habe erst die zweite Auflage ermöglicht. Als das Buch dann auf den Index gekommen sei, da man eine Häresie der Partei unterstellt habe, sei die Nachfrage nach dem Buch weiter gestiegen. Und als dann von der Katholischen Kirche all die Kampfschriften gegen die Rosenbergschen Gedankengange mit all ihren Erwiderungen herausgekommen seien, sei die Auflagenziffer auf 170 000 beziehungsweise 200 000 hinaufgeklettert.

Er, der Chef, freue sich immer, wenn er feststellen müsse, daβ eigentlich nur unsere Gegner in dem Buch richtig Bescheid wüβten. Ebenso wie viele Gauleiter habe auch er es nämlich nur zum geringen Teil gelesen, da es seines Erachtens auch zu schwer verständlich geschrieben sei.

Beim Abendessen führte der Chef aus, daβ nicht die individuelle Freiheit ein Zeichen einer besonders hohen Kulturstufe sei, sondern die Beschränkung der individuellen Freiheit durch eine möglichst viele gleichrassige lndividuen umfassende Organisation.

Wenn man den Menschen ihre individuelle Freiheit lasse, so benähmen sie sich wie die Affen. Keiner wolle dulden, daβ der andere mehr habe als er. Und je näher sie zusammenwohnten, desto gröβer sei die Feindschaft unter ihnen. Je mehr man die straffen Zügel der staatlichen Organisation lockere und der individuellen Freiheit Raum gebe, desto mehr lenke man die Geschicke des Volkes in die Bahnen kulturellen Rückschritts.

Über die ewige Rederei von Gemeinschaft könne er nur lächeln, da die groβen Schwätzer meinten, Gemeinschaft lasse sich zusammenreden. Wenn in seiner Heimat die Bauernjungens und Bauernknechte von den umliegenden Gehöften im Krug zusammengekommen seien, sei dieser Ausdruck des Geselligkeitsgefühls mit zunehmendem Alkoholgenuβ in eine immer stärkere Rauferei und Messerstecherei ausgeartet. Erst das Erscheinen des Gendarms habe die ganze Gesellschaft zu einer einzigen groβen Gemeinschaft zusammengeschweiβt.

Gemeinschaft lasse sich eben nur durch Gewalt schaffen und erhalten.

Man dürfe deshalb Karl den Groβen nicht verurteilen, wenn er die von ihm für das deutsche Volk für erforderlich gehaltene - staatliche Organisation durch Gewalt zusammengebracht hätte.

Und wenn Stalin beim russischen Volk in den vergangenen Jahren

301

Methoden angewandt habe, wie sie damals Karl der Groβe beim deutschen Volk angewandt hätte, so dürfe man mit Rücksicht auf den derzeitigen kulturellen Stand der Russen nicht den Stab darüber brechen. Auch Stalin habe aus der Erkenntnis heraus gehandelt, daβ man die Russen zu einer straffen staatlichen Organisation zusammenfassen müsse, wenn man den Daseinskampf der gesamten in der UdSSR vereinigten Völkerschaften politisch sichern und Leistungen für den einzelnen ermöglichen wolle, die er aus eigener Kraft - wie zum Beispiel Erkenntnisse der medizinischen Wissenschaft - nicht schaffen könne.

Für die Beherrschung der von uns im Osten des Reichs unterworfene Völker müsse es deshalb oberster Grundsatz sein, den Wünschen nach individueller Freiheit weitgehendst zu entsprechen, jede staatliche Organisation zu vermeiden und die Angehörigen dieser Völkerschaften dadurch auf einem möglichst niedrigen Kulturniveau zu halten.

Man müsse stets davon ausgehen, daβ diese Völker uns gegenüber in erster Linie die Aufgabe haben, uns wirtschaftlich zu dienen. Es müsse daher unser Bestreben sein, mit alien Mitteln wirtschaftlich aus den besetzten russischen Gebieten herauszuholen, was sich herausholen lasse.

Einen Anreiz zur Ablieferung ihrer landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugnisse und zur Zurverfügungstellung ihrer Arbeitskraft im Bergbau und in der Rüstungsfabrikation könne man dadurch für sie in ausreichendem Maβe schaffen, daβ man ihnen Industrieprodukte usw. nach Wunsch in Verkaufsmagazinen zum Kauf bereithalte.

Wenn man sich darüber hinaus um das Wohl jedes einzelnen kümmern wolle, so würde man ohne eine Staatsorganisation nach dem Muster unserer staatlichen Verwaltung nicht auskommen und lediglich Haβ gegen uns erzeugen. Denn je primitiver die Menschen seien, desto stärker empfänden sie jede Einschränkung ihrer persönlichen Freiheit als Zwang. Hinzu komme, daβ man ihnen mit einer staatlichen Verwaltungsorganisation eine Möglichkeit an die Hand gebe, sich zu einer groβen Einheit zusammenzufinden und diese Organisation eventuell sogar gegen uns zum Einsatz zu bringen. Das höchste, was man ihnen an Verwaltungsorganisation zugestehen könne, sei deshalb die Gemeindeverwaltung, und auch die nur insoweit, als es zur Erhaltung der Arbeitskraft, das heiβt zur Sicherstellung der täglichen Bedürfnisse des einzelnen, erforderlich sei.

Auch die Bildung von Dorfgemeinschaften müsse man aber so gestal-

302

len daβ sich keine Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen benachbarten Dorfgemeinschaften herausbilden könnten. Auf jeden Fall sei deshalb die Schaffung einheitlicher Kirchen für gröβere russische Gebietsteile zu verhindern. In unserem Interesse könne es lediglich liegen, wenn jedes Dorf seine eigene Sekte habe, die ihre eigenen Gottesvorstellungen entwickle. Selbst wenn sich auf diese Weise in einzelnen Dörfern Zauberkulte, wie bei den Negern und Indianern, bilden sollten, könnten wir das nur begrüβen, weil es die Zahl der trennenden Momente im russischen Raum nur vermehre.

[Editor’s notes omitted.]

Wenn er vorhin gesagt habe, daβ jeder Aufbau einer groβen Staatsverwaltung zu unterbleiben habe und unsere Kommissare sich dort lediglich mit der Beaufsichtigung und Wirtschaftslenkung zu befassen hätten, so sei damit selbstverständlich auch jede andere Organisationsform für die unterworfenen Völker verneint.

Es solle daher ja kein Lehrer daherkommen und plötzlich den Schulzwang für die unterworfenen Völker verkünden wollen. Kenntnisse der Russen, Ukrainer, Kirgisen und so weiter im Lesen und Schreiben könnten uns nur schaden. Denn sie ermöglichten es helleren Köpfen, sich ein gewisses Geschichtswissen zu erarbeiten und damit zu politischen Gedankengängen zu kommen, die irgendwie immer ihre Spitze gegen uns haben müβten.

Es sei viel besser, in jedem Dorf einen Radiolautsprecher aufzustellen, um den Menschen auf diese Weise Neuigkeiten zu erzählen und Unterhaltungsstoff zu bieten, als sie zur selbständigen Erlangung politischer, wissenschaftlicher und so weiter Erkenntnisse zu befähigen. Man solle es sich daher auch ja nicht einfallen lassen, den unterworfenen Völkern im

303

Radio Dinge über ihre Vorgeschichte zu erzählen, man müsse ihnen vielmehr durch den Rundfunk Musik und noch einmal Musik vermitteln Denn lustige Musik fördere die Arbeitsfreude. Und wenn die Leute viol tanzen könnten, so werde auch das nach unseren Erfahrungen in der Systemzeit allgemein begrüβt werden.

Das einzige, was in den besetzten russischen Gebieten organisiert werden müsse, sei der Verkehr. Denn die verkehrsmäβige Aufschlieβung des Landes sei eine der wesentlichsten Vorbedingungen zu seiner Beherrschung und wirtschaftlichen Ausnutzung. Das Verkehrspunkt-System müβten deshalb auch die Unterworfenen lernen. Das sei aber auch dam einzige Gebiet, auf dem man sie von uns aus »bilden« müsse.

Was die Hygiene der unterworfenen Bevölkerung angehe, so könnten wir kein Interesse daran haben, ihnen unsere Erkenntnisse zu vermitteln und dadurch ihnen eine von ihnen absolut nicht gewünschte Basis für einen ungeheuren Bevölkerungszuwachs zu geben. Er verbiete deshalb, für diese Gebiete Sauberkeitsaktionen unserer Art durchzuführen. Auch der Impfzwang dürfe in ihnen nur für Deutsche gelten. Deutsche Ärzte seien nur für die Behandlung Deutscher in den deutschen Siedlungen einzusetzen. Auch sei es Unsinn, die unterworfenen Völkerschaften mit unserem Wissen auf dem Gebiet der Zahnheilkunde beglücken zu wollen. Man müsse dabei aber vorsichtig zu Werke gehen, damit unsere Tendenz nicht auffalle. Wenn also ein Zahnkranker absolut von einem Arzt behandelt sein wolle, gut, dann müsse man auch einmal eine Ausnahme machen.

Der gröβte Unsinn, den man in den besetzten Ostgebieten machen könne, sei der, den unterworfenen Völkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschichte lehre, daβ alle Herrenvölker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Völkern Waffen bewilligt hätten.

Ja, man könne geradezu sagen, daβ die Auslieferung von Waffen an die unterworfenen Völker eine Conditio sine qua non für den Untergang der Herrenvölker sei. Es sei deshalb nötig, daβ wir die Aufrechterhaltung der Sicherheit und Ordnung durch eigene Truppen im gesamten besetzten russischen Raum gewährleisten. Die besetzten Ostgebiete müβten deshalb von einem Netz von Militärstützpunkten durchzogen sein. Alle Deutschen, die in diesem Raum leben, müβten persönlichen Kontakt mit ihnen haben, das heiβt, sich persönlich mit ihnen verbunden fühlen. Im übrigen müβten sie so straff organisiert sein, daβ eine auf weite Sicht

304

hinaus geplante deutsche Siedlungspolitik einen immer stärker werdenden deutschen Volkstumskeil in den von uns unterworfenen Raum vortreiben könne.

305

Koeppen vs. Heim

Neither Koeppen nor Heim can be considered a reliable steno reporter of Hitler’s words. While the selected Koeppen/Heim entries featured in this book do corroborate each other vis-à-vis certain subject matter, and in some cases specific topics of discussion (e.g., British rule in India, future exploitation of Russian labor, the dangers of educating Ukrainians, the need for a German ruling class in the east), they do not agree enough content-wise or date-wise to consider either 100% reliable. Neither Koeppen nor Heim features Hitler’s words as he said them.

So, what value, if any, do these select entries possess? Well, taken together, they appear to provide us with a general idea of what Hitler and his guests discussed as a group on 17/18.9, but we have no way to determine what Hitler actually said or did not say with absolute certainty. As such, we have no basis for calling any of this “Hitler’s” table talk. The title “recollections of Hitler” is more appropriate for these so-called “table talks.” And even this title would only be appropriate if Heim’s and Koeppen’s ‘original manuscripts’ are authentic.

Koeppen vs. Picker

And what about Picker’s “parallel entry” of 1942, which is supposed to authenticate Koeppen’s 1941 entry in the opinion of historian Martin Vogt? Well, we cannot rule out the possibility that Picker copied Koeppen’s report, since Picker 1) lied about taking steno notes in the first person as Hitler spoke, 2) is known to have hijacked/copied some of Heim’s notes, and 3) recorded his entry in April 1942, while Koeppen’s similar entry was recorded in September 1941 (7 months prior). Since Heinrich Heim lacks an entry for the date of 11 April 1942, we have no way of corroborating Heim in relation to Picker on that day.

For instance, had Heim recorded his own entry independent of Picker on that day, what might it have looked like when compared to Picker’s? Would it also have been “parallel” to Koeppen’s September 1941 entry? We will never know.

To sum up, we cannot rule out the possibility that Mr. Picker lifted part of Koeppen’s September 1941 entry for his own in 1942. If Picker did copy Koeppen in any way, then it is one possible explanation for the “parallel entries”. Maybe Hitler did discuss some of the same topics, and in a similar manner, on these two separate occasions. But even if this is the case, this does not prove either Picker’s or Koeppen’s reliability or authenticity. It is an irrelevant comparison.

Whose “table talk” (redux)?

None of these records is a true steno record. Otherwise, Heim’s, Picker’s and Koeppen’s same-day entries would be identical, or close to identical, and they would present Hitler’s verbatim utterances. Yet, Koeppen discusses things that Heim/Picker do not and vice versa. There are omissions and variations of Hitler’s words on the part of both Koeppen and Heim (and Picker). And, of course, there are other serious problems associated with Heim and Picker, which we have already discussed. Be that as it may, as further evidence I offer a few more examples.

Select “Table Talk” variations

These are all supposed to be the same exact entry, yet all three are different. (The underlined text denotes variances between the Heim and Picker entries.)

Monologue

(based on Heim’s notes)[72]

Führerhauptquartier
11. 11. 1941, abends
H/Fu.

Ich habe immer die Auffassung vertreten, die Partei tut gut, sich von der Kirche fernzuhalten; Feldgottesdienste hat es bei uns nie gegeben. Lieber, sagte ich mir, lasse ich mich selber eine Zeitlang ex-kommunizieren oder verbannen. Die Freundschaft der Kirche kommt einem teuer zu stehen, denn — habe ich Erfolg, so muβ ich mir nachher sagen lassen: Durch den Segen der Kirche hast du’s erreicht! Da mache ich die Sache doch lieber ohne Segen, und es wird mir keine Rechnung vorgelegt!

Ruβland war der bigotteste Staat, den es gibt. Alles war mit religiösen Zeremonien verbunden. Das hat die Russen aber nicht gehindert, Prügel zu bekommen. Das Gebet der 140 Millionen Russen hat offenbar weniger genützt beim lieben Gott als das der zahlenmäβig viel kleineren japanischen Nation. Genau so war im Weltkrieg das Gewicht ihrer Gebete offenbar geringer als das unserer Gebete. Aber nicht einmal im Innern vermochten die Pfaffen die Erhaltung des bestehenden Zustandes zu sichern: es kam der Bolschewismus! Ja, die pfäffisch-reaktionaren Kreise haben dazu mitgeholfen. Rasputin haben sie beseitigt und damit eine Kraft, welche dem slawischen Element einer gesunden Lebensbejahung Geltung verschafft hätte. Hätten sich 1919/20 nicht Nationalisten als Freiwillige gefunden, so wäre auch bei uns das Priestertum dem Bolschewismus zum Opfer gefallen.

Die Pfaffen werden gefährlich, wenn es einem Staat schlecht geht; dann sammeln sie die negativen Elemente und schaffen damit Un-

134

ruhe. Was haben die Päpste doch den deutschen Kaisern für Schwierigkeiten bereitet! Gem würde ich sämtliche Pfaffen antreten lassen, damit sie dafür sorgen, daβ so ein englischer oder ein russischer Flieger nicht kommt. Aber dem Staat nützt momentan mehr, wer die Pak [Panzerabwehrkanone] macht, als wer mit dem Wedel herumgeht.

In den romanischen Ländern ist es immer an der Kippe gewesen, daβ der Bolschewismus durch eine Radikalkur beseitigt, was an sich nicht mehr haltbar ist. Als im Altertum die Plebejer für das Christentum mobilisiert wurden, hatte die Intelligenz mit den antiken Kulten nichts mehr zu tun. Heute kann niemand mehr die Lehre der Kirche ernst nehmen, der mit der Naturforschung vertraut ist. Was im Widerspruch steht zu den Naturgesetzen, kann nicht von Gott sein, und der liebe Gott macht mit dem Blitzstrahl auch vor der Kirche nicht Halt. Die ganz wesentlich auf antiken Vorstellungen aufgebaute religiöse Philosophie steht unter dem Niveau der heutigen Menschheit. In Italien und Spanien endet das mit dem Gurgelabschneiden. Das will ich für uns nicht.

Was sind wir glücklich, daβ der Parthenon noch steht, das Pantheon und die anderen Tempel, obwohl wir mit der religiösen Seite dieser Bauten gar nichts mehr zu tun haben. Wie schön wäre es, wenn wir mehr davon noch hätten! Wir würden deshalb heute nicht in Gefahr sein, Zeus anzubeten. Bei uns ist es ähnlich: Wir haben aus dem Mittelalter keine anderen Dokumente groβer Art. Mit einem Bildersturm beseitige ich alles, was seit dem 5. bis 17. Jahrhundert bei uns entstanden ist. Ich schaffe eine Lücke, und um wie vieles würde die Welt ärmer!

Ich weiβ nichts über das Jenseits und bin ehrlich genug, das zu bekennen. Andere behaupten, davon etwas zu wissen, ohne daβ ich ihnen nachweisen kann, es sei anders. Einem Bauernweibchen will ich meine Philosophie nicht aufzwingen. Die Lehre der Kirche ist auch eine Art Philosophie, wenn auch nicht nach der Wahrheit strebend. Nachdem die Menschen groβe Dinge nicht mitdenken können, so schadet das nichts. Irgendwie mündet das alles ein in eine Erkenntnis der Hilflosigkeit des Menschen dem ewigen Naturgesetz gegenüber. Das ist nicht schädlich, wenn wir nur zu der Erkenntnis kommen, daβ die ganze Rettung des Menschen darin liegt, daβ er die göttliche Vorsehung zu begreifen versucht und nicht glaubt, er könne sich gegen das Gesetz aufbäumen. Wenn der Mensch sich also demütig den Gesetzen fagt, dann ist das wunderbar.

Nachdem alle Erschütterungen von Übel sind, hielte ich es für das schönste, wenn wir die Einrichtung allmählich durch eine geistige Aufklärung überwinden und schmerzlos machen, zu einer gewissen Milde bringen. Das allerletzte könnten Frauenklöster sein! — Eine

135

Verinnerlichung ist für die Menschheit etwas ganz Wunderbares. Es handelt sich nur darum, daβ man das Giftige herausbringt. In dieser Hinsicht ist in den letzten paar Jahrhunderten schon viel geschehen. Man muβ den Pfaff en klarmachen, daβ ihr Reich nicht von dieser Welt ist. Wunderbar, wie Friedrich der Groβe sich gegen den Versuch wendet, in den Staat hineinzuregieren! Die Randbemerkungen, die er an Eingaben von Pastoren hinschreibt, das sind zum Teil salomonisch weise Urteile, die vernichtend sind. Jeder General sollte das in die Hand bekommen. Man schämt sich, wie langsam die Menschheit vorwärts geht! Das Haus Habsburg hat in Joseph II einen schwachen Nachahmer Friedrichs des Groβen hervorgebracht. Wenn ein Haus in Jahrhunderten nur einen Geist hervorgebracht hat, wie Friedrich den Groβen, so ist es gerechtfertigt vor der Geschichte.

Im Weltkrieg haben wir es erlebt: Der Staat, der einzig wirklich religiös war, war Deutschland, und gerade der Staat hat verloren! Es ist ja auch so eine widerwärtige Heuchelei, wenn heute dieser Erzfreimaurer Roosevelt von Christentum spricht. Alle Kirchen müβten aufstehen, das zu verbieten, nachdem er doch jeder christlichen Auffassung diametral handelt! Die Zeitenwende des Untergangs der Kirchen ist gekommen. Es dauert noch einige Jahrhunderte, dann geschieht durch Evolution, was nicht durch Revolution geschieht. Jeder Gelehrte, der etwas Neues entdeckt, haut ein Stück von deren Basis weg. Es tut einem oft leid, daβ man in einer Zeit lebt, in welcher einem noch nicht bewuβt ist, wie die neue Welt aussehen wird. Eines aber kann ich den Fleischfressern sagen: Die neue Welt wird vegetarisch sein!

136

Hitlers Tischgespräche im FHQ

(based on Picker’s notes and select notes that Picker hijacked from Heim)[73]

11. 11. 1941 abends
(Wolfsschanze)
Aufnahme: Heim. F. d. R: Picker[74]

Die Partei tut gut, sich von der Kirche fernzuhalten. Feldgottesdienste hat es bei uns nie gegeben. Lieber - sagte ich mir - lasse ich mich eine Zeitlang exkommunizieren oder bannen. Die Freundschaft der Kirche kommt einem teuer zu stehen. Denn habe ich Erfolg, so muβ ich mir nachher sagen lassen: Durch den Segen der Kirche hast du es erreicht. Da mache ich die Sache schon lieber ohne Segen, und es wird mir keine Rechnung vorgelegt.

Ruβland war der bigotteste Staat, den es gibt. Alles war mit religiösen Zeremonien verbunden. Das hat die Russen nicht gehindert, Prügel zu bekommen. Das Gebet der 140 Millionen Russen hat zum Beispiel beim russisch-japanischen Krieg (1904/05) offenbar weniger genützt als das der zahlenmäβig viel kleineren japanischen Nation. Genau so war im Ersten Weltkrieg das Gewicht ihrer Gebete geringer als das unserer Gebete. Aber nicht einmal im Innern vermochten die Pfaffen die Erhaltung des bestehenden Zustandes zu sichern. Es kam der Bolschewismus. Ja, die politisch-reaktionären Kreise haben dazu mitgeholfen: Rasputin haben sie beseitigt und damit eine Kraft, welche dem slawischen Element einer gesunden Lebensbejahung Geltung verschafft hätte.

Hätten sich nicht 1919/20 Nationalisten als Freiwillige gefunden, so wäre auch bei uns das Priestertum dem Bolschewismus zum Opfer gefallen. Die Pfaffen werden gefährlich, wenn es einem Staat schlechtgeht. Dann sammeln sie die negativen Kräfte und schaffen damit Unruhe; was haben die Päpste doch den deutschen Kaisern fur Schwierigkeiten bereitet! Gern würde ich sämtliche Pfaffen antreten lassen, damit sie dafür sorgen, daβ so ein englischer oder russischer Flieger nicht kommt. Aber dem Staat nützt momentan mehr, wer die Pak (Panzerabwehrkanone) macht, als wer mit dem Wedel herumgeht. In den romanischen Ländern ist es immer an der Kippe gewesen, daβ der Bolschewismus durch eine Radikalkur beseitigt, was an sich nicht mehr haltbar ist.

Als im Altertum die Plebejer für das Christentum mobilisiert wurden,

103

hatte die Intelligenz mit der antiken Kultur nichts mehr zu tun. Heute kann niemand mehr die Lehre der Kirche ernst nehmen, der mit der Naturforschung vertraut ist: Was im Widerspruch steht zu den Naturgesetzen, kann nicht von Gott sein, und der liebe Gott macht mit dem Blitzstrahl auch vor der Kirche nicht halt. Die ganz wesentlich auf die antiken Anschauungen aufgebaute religiöse Philosophie steht unter dem Niveau der Wissenschaft der heutigen Menschheit. In Italien und Spanien endet das mit dem Gurgelabschneiden.

Das will ich für uns nicht. Was sind wir glücklich, daβ der Parthenon noch steht, das Pantheon und die anderen Tempel, obwohl wir mit der religiösen Seite dieser Tempel gar nichts mehr zu tun haben. Wie schön wäre es, wenn wir noch mehr davon hätten! Wir würden deshalb nicht in Gefahr sein, Zeus anzubeten.

Bei uns ist es ähnlich: Wir haben aus dem Mittelalter keine anderen Dokumente groβer Art als die der Kirche. Mit einem einzigen Bildersturm beseitige ich alles, was seit dem 5. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert bei uns entstanden ist. Ich schaffe eine Lücke! Und um wie vieles würde die Welt dadurch ärmer!

Ich weiβ nichts über das Jenseits und bin ehrlich genug, das zu bekennen. Andere behaupten, davon etwas zu wissen, ohne daβ ich ihnen nachweisen kann, es sei anders.

Einem Bauernweiblein will ich meine Philosophie nicht aufzwingen. Die Lehre der Kirche ist such eine Art der Philosophie, wenn auch nicht nach Wahrheit strebend. Da die Menschen groβe Dinge nicht mitdenken können, schadet das nichts. Irgendwie mündet das alles in einer Erkenntnis der Hilflosigkeit des Menschen dem ewigen Naturgesetz gegenüber. Das ist nicht schädlich, wenn wir nur zu der Erkenntnis kommen, daβ die ganze Rettung des Menschen darin liegt, daβ er die göttliche Vorsehung zu begreifen versucht und nicht glaubt, er könne sich gegen das Gesetz aufbäumen. Wenn der Mensch sich also demütig den Gesetzen fügt, so ist das wunderbar.

Nachdem alle Erschütterungen von Übel sind, erachte ich es für das schönste, wenn wir die Einrichtung der Kirche allmählich durch eine geistige Aufklärung überwinden und schmerzlos machen könnten. Das allerletzte könnten Frauenklöster sein.

Eine Verinnerlichung ist für die Menschen etwas ganz Wunderbares. Es handelt sich nur darum, daβ man das Giftige herausbringt. In dieser

104

Hinsicht ist in den letzten paar Jahrhunderten schon viel geschehen. Man muβ ihnen, den Männern von der Kirche, klarmachen, daβ ihr Reich nicht von dieser Welt ist. Wunderbar, wie Friedrich der Groβe sich gegen ihren Versuch wendet, in den Staat hinein zu regieren. Die Randbemerkungen, die er an Eingaben von Pastoren hinschreibt, das sind zum Teil salomonisch weise Urteile, die vernichtend sind. Jeder General sollte dies in die Hand bekommen. Man schämt sich, wie langsam die Menschheit vorwärts geht. Das Haus Habsburg hat in Joseph II einen schwachen Nachahmer Friedrichs des Groβen hervorgebracht. Wenn ein Haus in Jahrhunderten nur einen Mann wie Friedrich den Groβen hervorbringt, so ist es gerechtfertigt vor der Geschichte.

Im Weltkrieg haben wir es erlebt: Der Staat, der einzig religiös war, war Deutschland; und gerade der Staat hat verloren. Es ist ja auch so eine widerwärtige Heuchelei, wenn heute dieser Erzfreimaurer Roosevelt vom Christentum spricht: Alle Kirchen müβten aufstehen, das zu verbieten, nachdem er doch jeder christlichen Auffassung diametral zuwiderhandelt. Die Zeitwende des Untergangs der Kirche ist gekommen. Es dauert noch einige Jahrhunderte, dann geschieht durch Evolution, was nicht durch Revolution geschieht. Jeder Gelehrte, der etwas entdeckt hat, haut ein Stück von der Basis weg. Es tut einem oft leid, daβ man in einer Zeit lebt, in der einem noch nicht bewuβt ist, wie die neue Welt aussieht.

105

Hitler’s Table Talk

(Trevor-Roper’s English ed.)[75]

11th November 1941, evening

Friendship of the Church costs too much—The Church is the enemy of the State—The monuments of Christian civilisation—Roosevelt’s hypocrisy—The decadence of religion.

I’ve always defended the point of view that the Party should hold itself aloof from religion. We never organised religious services for our supporters. I preferred to run the risk of being put under the ban of the Church or excommunicated. The Church’s friendship costs too dear. In case of success, I can hear myself being told that it's thanks to her. I’d rather she had nothing to do with it, and that I shouldn’t be presented with the bill!

Russia used to be the most bigoted State of all. Nothing happened there without the participation of the Orthodox priests. That didn’t prevent the Russians from getting beaten. It seems that the prayers of a hundred and forty million Russians were less convincing, before God, than those of a

122

smaller number of Japanese. It was the same thing in the first World War. Russian prayers had less weight than ours. Even on the home front, the cowls proved incapable of ensuring the maintenance of the established order. They permitted the triumph of Bolshevism.

One can even say that the reactionary and clerical circles helped on this triumph, by eliminating Rasputin. They thus eliminated a force that was capable of stimulating the healthy elements in the Slav soul.

But for the Nationalist volunteers of 1919-20, the clergy would have fallen victim to Bolshevism just as much in Germany as they did in Russia.

The skull-cap is a danger to the State when things go badly. The clergy takes a sly pleasure in rallying the enemies of the established order, and thus shares the responsibility for the disorders that arise. Think of the difficulties the Popes continually caused the German emperors!

I would gladly have recourse to the shavelings, if they could help us to intercept English or Russian aircraft. But, for the present, the men who serve our anti-aircraft guns are more useful than the fellows who handle the sprinkler.

In the Latin countries, we've often been within a hair’s breadth of seeing Bolshevism triumph, and thus administer the death-blow to a society that was always on the point of collapse.

When, in ancient Rome, the plebs were mobilised by Christianity, the intelligentsia had lost contact with the ancient forms of worship. The man of to-day, who is formed by the disciplines of science, has likewise ceased taking the teaching of religion very seriously. What is in opposition to the laws of nature cannot come from God. Moreover, thunderbolts do not spare churches. A system of metaphysics that is drawn from Christianity and founded on outmoded notions does not correspond to the level of modern knowledge. In Italy and in Spain, that will all end badly. They’ll cut each other’s throats.

I don’t want anything of that sort amongst us.

We can be glad that the Parthenon is still standing upright, the Roman Pantheon and the other temples. It matters little that the forms of worship that were practised there no longer mean anything to us. It is truly regrettable that so little is left

123

of these temples. The result is, we are in no risk of worshipping Zeus.

Amongst us, the only witnesses of our greatness in the Middle Ages are the cathedrals. It would be enough to permit a movement of religious persecution to cause the disappearance of all the monuments that our country built from the fifth to the seventeenth century. What a void, and how greatly the world would be impoverished!

I know nothing of the Other World, and I have the honesty to admit it. Other people know more about it than I do, and I’m incapable of proving that they’re mistaken. I don’t dream of imposing my philosophy on a village girl. Although religion does not aim at seeking for the truth, it is a kind of philosophy which can satisfy simple minds, and that does no harm to anyone. Everything is finally a matter of the feeling man has of his own impotence. In itself, this philosophy has nothing pernicious about it. The essential thing, really, is that man should know that salvation consists in the effort that each person makes to understand Providence and accept the laws of nature.

Since all violent upheavals are a calamity, I would prefer the adaptation to be made without shocks. What could be longest left undisturbed are women’s convents. The sense of the inner life brings people great enrichment. What we must do, then, is to extract from religions the poison they contain. In this respect, great progress has been made during recent centuries. The Church must be made to understand that her kingdom is not of this world. What an example Frederick the Great set when he reacted against the Church’s claim to be allowed to interfere in matters of State! The marginal notes, in his handwriting, which one finds on the pleas addressed to him by the pastors, have the value of judgments of Solomon. They’re definitive. Our generals should make a practice of reading them daily. One is humiliated to see how slowly humanity progresses.

The house of Habsburg produced, in Joseph II, a pale imitator of Frederick the Great. A dynasty that can produce

124

even one intellect in the class of Frederick the Great’s has justified itself in the eyes of history.

We had experience of it during the first World War: the only one of the belligerents that was truly religious was Germany. That didn’t prevent her from losing the war. What repulsive hypocrisy that arrant Freemason, Roosevelt, displays when he speaks of Christianity! All the Churches should rise up against him—for he acts on principles diametrically opposed to those of the religion of which he boasts.

The religions have passed the climacteric; they’re now decadent. They can remain like that for a few centuries yet. What revolutions won’t do, will be done by evolution. One may regret living at a period when it’s impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future will assume.

But there’s one thing I can predict to eaters of meat, that the world of the future will be vegetarian!

125

As one can see, these entries are not identical. As well, the English entry is based on Heim’s entry, not Picker’s. Why is that the case if Picker was allegedly utilized to “validate” Heim (i.e., Für die Richtigkeit (for accuracy), F. d. R.)?

These three entries should also be identical:

Hitlers Tischgespräche (Picker)

22. 2. 1942 nachts
(Wolfsschanze)
Aufnahme: Heim. F. d. R.: Picker

Unser Presseapparat ist schon etwas Wunderbares. Das Pressegesetz hat dafür gesorgt, daβ Meinungsverschiedenheiten zwischen Männern der Regierung nicht vor dem Volk mehr ausgekämpft werden. Dazu ist die Presse nicht da.

[Editor’s commentary removed.]

Wir haben aufgeräumt mit der Vorstellung, als gehore es zur staatspolitischen Freiheit, daβ jeder aussprechen kann, was er Lust hat. Mehr als die Hälfte der deutschen Blätter hat Amann in der Hand. Wenn ich Lorenz rule und ihm in einigen Sätzen meine Einstellung gebe, so findet man das morgen um ein Uhr in jedem deutschen Blatt.

152

Körperlich so klein, ist Dr. Dietrich doch ein hervorragend geschickter Fachmann. Er schreibt nicht gut, aber seine Reden sind oft ganz ausgezeichnet. Ich bin stolz darauf, daβ es mit diesen paar Mann mir möglich ist, auch einmal - wie es am 22. Juni 1941 geschah - das Steuer um 180 Grad herumzuwerfen. Das macht uns kein Land nach.

Die illustrierten Blätter haben einen schönen Aufschwung genommen. Um mit den angelsächsischen Illustrierten im Ausland zu konkurrieren, müβte die »Leipziger Illustrierte« im Inhalt wieder fesselnder werden. Gut sind die »Berliner«, die »Münchner« und die »Wiener Illustrierte«, vor allem auch der »IB« (Illustrierter Beobachter). Durch die politischen Reportagen aus Archiven hat sich vor etlichen Jahren die »Kölner Illustrierte« hervorgetan. Am ehesten konnte die »Deutsche Illustrierte« entbehrt werden.

Prachtvoll ist die Zeitung »Das Reich«. Im Frieden müssen wir noch eine dem »Reich« entsprechende Sonntagszeitung für das Land bekommen. Sie erscheint am Samstag und liegt den Bauern am Sonntag vor. Sie soll viel Bildwerk enthalten, so gesetzt sein, daβ sie leicht zu lesen ist, und auch einen Roman bringen, damit die Dirndln was davon haben.

Die Engländer tun sich leicht, was Bild- und Lesestoff angeht: Aus aller Welt strömt es ihnen unerschöpflich zu. Aber wir werden jetzt auch weiterkommen.

153

Monologe (Heim)

Führerhauptquartier
22./23. 2. 1942, nachts

Unser Presseapparat ist schon etwas Wunderbares. Das Pressegesetz hat dafür gesorgt, daβ Meinungsverschiedenheiten zwischen Männern der Regierung nicht vor dem Volk mehr ausgekämpft werden. Dazu ist die Presse nicht da! Wir haben aufgeräumt mit der Vorstellung, als gehörte es zur staatspolitischen Freiheit, daβ jeder aussprechen kann, was er Lust hat. Mehr als die Hälfte der deutschen Blätter hat Amann in der Hand. Wenn ich jetzt Lorenz zu mir rufe und ihm in einigen Sätzen meine Einstellung gebe, so findet man das morgen um ein Uhr in jedem deutschen Blatt. Der kleine Mann, der Doktor Dietrich, ist doch ein hervorragend geschickter Fachmann. Er schreibt nicht gut, aber seine Reden sind oft ganz ausgezeichnet. Ich bin stolz darauf, daβ es mit dienen paar Mann in meinem Hauptquartier möglich ist, auch einmal, wie es am 22. Juni geschah, das Steuer um einhundertachtzig Grad herumzuwerfen; das macht uns kein Land nach!

Die Illustrierten Blätter haben einen schönen Aufschwung genommen. Um mit den angelsächsischen Illustrierten im Ausland zu konkurrieren, müβte die Leipziger Illustrierte im Inhalt wieder fesselnder werden. Gut sind die Berliner, die Münchner und die Wiener Illustrierte, vor allem auch der I[llustrierte] B[eobachter]. Durch die politischen Reportagen aus Archiven hat sich vor etlichen Jahren die Kölner Illustrierte hervorgetan. Am ehesten könnte die Deutsche Illustrierte entbehrt werden. Prachtvoll ist »Das Reich«. Im Frieden müssen wir noch eine dem »Reich« entsprechende Sonntagszeitung für das Land bekommen. Sie erscheint am Samstag und liegt dem Bauern am Sonntag vor. Sie soll viel Bildwerk enthalten, so gesetzt sein, daβ sie leicht zu lesen ist, und auch einen Roman bringen, damit die Dirndln was davon haben. Die Engländer tun sich leicht, was Bild und Lesestoff angeht. Aus aller Welt strömt es ihnen unerschöpflich zu. Aber wir werden jetzt auch weiterkommen.

Der Glanz von Wien und das, was wir den Charme der Stadt nennen, erklärt sich aus ihrer Vergangenheit, fünfhundert Jahre Kaiserresidenz!, aus ihrem Reichtum und daraus, daβman über fremde Völker dort zu herrschen hatte.

Ich war so arm in meinen Wiener Jahren, daβ ich mir nur die allerbesten Vorstellungen hab’ leisten können, und so erklärt sich, daβ ich den Tristan damals schon dreiβig bis vierzig Mal gehört habe in seiner allerersten Besetzung, dazu Verdi und einiges wenige andere, nicht aber, was drum und dran gespielt wurde.

294

Trevor-Roper

(softcover English ed. of Hitler’s Table Talk)[76]

Night of the 22-23 February 1942

The principal newspapers of the Party—Tristan and other pieces at Vienna.

The organization of our press has truly been a success. Our law concerning the press is such that divergences of opinion between members of the Government are no longer an occasion for public exhibitions, which are not the newspapers’ business. We’ve eliminated that conception of political freedom according to which everybody has the right to say whatever comes into his head. Amann controls more than half of the German press.

It’s enough for me to send for Lorenz and inform him of my point of view, and I know that next day all the German newspapers will broadcast my ideas. Our little Dr. Dietrich is an extremely clever man. He doesn’t write well, but his speeches are often first-rate. I’m proud to be able to think that, with such collaborators at my side, I can make a sheer about-turn, as I did on 22nd June last, without anyone’s moving a muscle. And that’s a thing that’s possible in no country but ours.

251

Our illustrated newspapers have greatly improved. But, to compete abroad with the Anglo-Saxon weeklies, the Lekiger Illustrierte should be more eye-catching. The Berliner, the Münchener and the Wiener are well-made illustrated papers—the JB [sic] still better. The Kölner gained the limelight some years ago thanks to the documents it published. On the other hand, we could easily do without the Deutsche Illustrierte. Das Reich is a great success.

When peace has returned, we shall need, as a pendant to Das Reich, a Sunday weekly for people in the country. It should be easy to read, should have a serialized novel—so that young girls should likewise get their share—and should be copiously illustrated.

The English newspapers are in a privileged position as regards both the text and the photographic documentation. From all parts of the world, their material reaches them in floods. We ourselves shall be enabled by our new conquests to make progress in that field.

The brilliance, and what’s called the charm, of Vienna are explained by a long past. For five centuries Vienna was the capital of an empire.

I was so poor, during the Viennese period of my life, that I had to restrict myself to seeing only the finest spectacles. Thus I heard Tristan thirty or forty times, and always from the best companies. I also heard some Verdi and other works—leaving out the small fry.

252

As one can see, the underlined portions of Heim’s entry on this date are not present in Picker’s same entry. This particular English-edition entry is therefore based on Heim’s notes, not on Picker’s. And lest we forget it, neither man’s original records in his own respective handwriting, exists. In fact, we do not even have the typed ‘originals’, other than the 40 Heim pages which were previously discussed.

To conclude, one final comparison:

Picker on December 13, 1941:

“Es ist gut, dass ich die Pfaffen nicht hineingelassen habe in die Partei. Am 21. März 1933 – Potsdam – war die Frage: Kirche oder nicht Kirche? Ich hatte den Staat gegen den Fluch der beiden Konfessionen erobert. Wenn ich damals angefangen hätte, mich der Kirche zu bedienen – wir sind an die Gräber gegangen, während die Männer des Staates in der Kirche waren–, so würde ich heute das Schicksal des Duce teilen. Für sich ist er ein Freigeist. Aber er hat mit Konzessionen begonnen… Ich würde im Vatikan einmarschieren und die ganze Gesellschaft herausholen. Ich würde dann sagen: “Verzeihung, ich habe mich geirrt!” – Aber sie wären weg!”

Trans.: “It is good that I did not let priests into the party. On 21 March 1933 - Potsdam - the question was: Church or no church? I had conquered the state despite the curse of the two confessions. If I had begun to serve the church – we went to the graves, while the men of the state were in the church – I would now be sharing the fate of the Duce. He is a free-thinker. But he has begun with concessions... I would enter the Vatican and throw the whole lot of them out. I’d say, “Excuse me, I’ve been wrong!” – But they would [already] have been out [gone]!”

Trevor-Roper/Stevens:

“What a happy inspiration, to have kept the clergy out of the Party! On the 21st March 1933, at Potsdam, the question was raised: with the Church, or without the Church? I conquered the State despite the malediction pronounced on us by both creeds. On that day, we went directly to the tomb of the kings whilst the others were visiting religious services. Supposing that at that period I’d made a pact with the Churches, I’d to-day be sharing the lot of the Duce. By nature the Duce is a free-thinker, but he decided to choose the path of concessions. For my part, in his place I’d have taken the path of revolution. I’d have entered the Vatican and thrown everybody out—reserving the right to apologise later: “Excuse me, it was a mistake.” But the result would have been, they’d have been outside!”

---

Notes

[67]	Werner Koeppen, Herbst 1941 im “Führerhauptquartier”: Berichte Werner Koeppens an seinen Minister Alfred Rosenberg, ed. Martin Vogt (Koblenz, DE: Bundesarchiv, 2002), 18-27. Translated by Weronika Kuzniar.
[68]	“In German the word Kessel (literally a cauldron) is commonly used to refer to an encircled military force, and a Kesselschlacht (cauldron battle) refers to a pincer movement. The common tactic which would leave a Kessel is referred to Keil and Kessel (Keil means wedge).” See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_(military).
[69]	presumably Herr Stuckart
[70]	The meaning here appears to be that the influence of such a university and education would hardly be limited to the city of Kiev. Ideas and knowledge spread, as we know.
[71]	i.e., the path to success or the successful course of action to win the people
[72]	Heinrich Heim, Adolf Hitler - Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944: Aufgezeichnet von Heinrich Heim, ed. Werner Jochmann (München, DE: Orbis Verlag, 2000). Note: Applicable page numbers are included in the text.
[73]	Henry Picker, Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier (München, DE: Propyläen Verlag, 2003). Note: Applicable page numbers are included in the text.
[74]	Trans.: Recording by Heim. F. d. R (for the accuracy!): Picker. Notice that this Picker entry differs markedly from that of Heim above? And the editor/publisher is trying to pass this off as, “for the sake of accuracy we have Mr. Picker”? If both men steno recorded Hitler as he spoke in the first person, then why the discrepancies between these two entries? There should not be any differences. This same rule applies to the entries of Werner Koeppen. Though, to Koeppen’s credit he never claimed to record Hitler word for word. His records are just reports of FHQ meetings and conversations.
[75]	Martin Bormann and Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table-Talk 1941-1944: His Private Conversations, ed. Hugh Trevor-Roper, trans. Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens (New York, N. Y.: Enigma Books, 2000). Note: Applicable page numbers are included in the text.
[76]	Heim, Heinrich, and Picker, Henry, Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: His Private Conversations, ed. Hugh Trevor-Roper, trans. Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, New Updated Edition (New York, N. Y.: Enigma Books, 2008).