A Christian perspective on “Table Talks”

We have demonstrated in a variety of ways that the public record illustrates and proves the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and indeed of the true National Socialist movement. We have further shown that many popular historians are now admitting this fact. Yet, detractors to these facts often point to a number of alleged quotations of Hitler contained in so-called private records, most of which, after wide circulation and publicity, have been admitted or proven to be forgeries and spurious in nature. These sources are at best hearsay and are of such a dubious nature and have such questionable chains of transmission that none of them could ever be used as evidence in a court of law. On the other hand, in the public record, including Mein Kampf, published during Hitler’s lifetime, his large number of speeches, preserved on film, audio recordings, and newspaper accounts, the official publications and proclamations of the NSDAP party, and even letters which bear Hitler’s signature, we find nothing to contradict what we have stated so far. It is only in these questionable sources, published after the war and after Hitler’s death, that we find the supposed evidence that Hitler was not a Christian or that National Socialism was not based on Christian Principles (see: link Christian Principles in National Socialism) & The Problem With David Irving and the spurious Table Talks

Thus, it is necessary to deal with these spurious sources and set the record straight. The most popular of these sources is Hitler’s Table Talk, with a popular English translation by Cameron and Stevens and with an introduction by H.R. Trevor-Roper. In fact, this is the only complete English translation available.

The following is illustrative of the types of quotations that are popularly cited, all from the Trevor-Roper edition:

“If my presence on earth is providential, I owe it to a superior will. But I owe nothing to the Church that traffics in the salvation of souls, and I find it really too cruel. … Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance. … What is important above all is that we should prevent a greater lie from replacing the lie that is disappearing. The world of Judeo-Bolshevism must collapse.”

“I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors ­ but to devote myself deliberately to error, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie.” [also part of this sentence: I adopted a definite attitude on the 21 st March 1933 when I refused to take part in the religious services, organised at Potsdam by the two Churches, for the inauguration of the new Reichstag.]

In German: “Ich persönlich werde mich einer solchen Lüge niemals fügen, nicht weil ich andere ärgern will, sondern weil ich darin eine Verhöhnung der ewigen Vorsehung erkenne. Ich bin froh, daß ich mit denen keine innere Verbindung habe. … Wie wir am 21. März 1933 zur Kirche gehen sollten, habe ich mich geweigert. Ich habe mich nie in der Partei nie darum gekümmert, welcher Konfession meine Umgebung war. Ich möchte nicht im Umkreis von zehn Kilometern einen Pfaffen sehen, wenn ich heute beerdigt werde. Wenn mir ein solcher helfen könnte, dann würde ich an der Vorsehung verzweifeln. Ich handle entsprechend dem, was ich erkenne und begreife. Ich kann nicht verhindern, daß so einer still betet, aber Fluch dulde ich nicht, und auf deren Gebet verzichte ich.” [attention: yenta yeager]

Must be “Hitlers’ ghost here:

Tag von Potsdam, Rede Hitler in Garnisonkirche. Reichspräsident von Hindenburg tod! Der historische Tag von Potsdam am 21. März 1933. Reichspräsident von Hindenburg in der Garnisonkirche während der großen Rede Adolf Hitlers.

Tag von Potsdam, Rede Hitler in Garnisonkirche. — Der historische Tag von Potsdam am 21. März 1933.
Reichspräsident von Hindenburg in der Garnisonkirche während der großen Rede Adolf Hitlers. Inside the Garrison Church – Hitler speaks as President Hindenburg (lower right) and Germany’s old guard listen.

(The above event in German: “Das Programm sah nach dem Staatsakt in der Garnisonkirche für den Reichspräsidenten und die evangelischen Abgeordneten einen Gottesdienst in der Nikolaikirche vor, für die katholischen einen in der Peter-und-Paul-Kirche und, nach einem Triumphmarsch durch die Stadt, den anschließenden Festakt in der Garnisonkirche.) — The Day of Potsdam (FOUR CHURCHES) took place at the tomb of Frederick the Great, with a ceremony marking the beginning of the Third Reich. The First Reich had been the Empire of Karl der Grosse (Charlemagne), and the Second Reich had been the German Empire (1871–1918). Hitler, President Hindenburg, and former Crown Prince Wilhelm appeared together in a ceremony choreographed by the Ministry of Propaganda to symbolize the transition between Germany’s past before World War I, to its future under National Socialist rule.

Outside the church, a bemused Chancellor Hitler chats with the Kaiser's son and heir, Crown Prince Wilhelm.

Outside the church, a bemused Chancellor Hitler chats with the Kaiser’s son and heir, Crown Prince Wilhelm.

“But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.”

However, the Table-Talk also is filled with many quotations like the following:

“We don’t want to educate anyone in atheism.”

“An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal).”

“It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself.”

So we appear to be presented with two different extremes in the same document. It should further be pointed out that nowhere in the Table-Talk does it record Hitler denouncing Jesus Christ or his own Christian faith.

It is very likely that the Table-Talk is indeed based upon actual statements of Hitler (taken from other sources), but given the numerous internal inconsistencies and statements that appear to contradict the public and published statements of Hitler, we need to determine if these writings have undergone editing or interpolations. To do this, we must understand how this book came to be.

It first should be stated that not one of the conversations supposedly preserved in the Table-Talk is preserved in any other form such as audio, film, or radio broadcast, and that none of these purported conversations were published during Hitler’s lifetime.

The reported source of the documents is from stenographers chosen by Martin Bormann to record these conversations. This presents the first potential problem with the documents. Bormann was not a Christian and he maintained his deistic agenda, all the while walking a fine line in his own statements to avoid losing favour with Hitler.

Bormann issued the following directive:

Please keep these notes most carefully, as they will be of very great value in the future. I have now got Heim to make comprehensive notes as a basis for these minutes. Any transcript which is not quite apposite will be re-checked by me.

In other words, Bormann reserved for himself editorial rights over the notes which were taken, and as we will see, he frequently made use of this self-claimed right.

The stenographers used were Heinrich Heim and Henry Picker. The documents were then given to Bormann, and this could have provided an opportunity for Bormann to edit them as he wished or perhaps insert statements that were more to his liking. At some point, Bormann supposedly made two copies of the documents, one of which was kept at Munich, and another sent to Berchtesgaden. The copy at Munich was reportedly burned at the end of the war. The copy at Berchtesgaden is supposedly the source of the published version we have today. It was known as the Bormann Vermerke or Bormann Notes, and this text belonged to François Genoud, who first published the text.

Genoud was a Swiss banker who claimed to be a “Nazi”, but his real motivations are highly questionable. He was known to peddle in many so-called “Nazi” texts, not a few of which have proven to be complete forgeries. He bought the manuscript from an Italian official in 1948, who reportedly acquired it from Bormann’s wife Gerda, who went to Italy after the war.

There appears also to be a forty-two-page fragment of the manuscript reportedly burned in Munich in the United States Library of Congress, placed there by a Mr. Joseph Schrasberger, who supposedly found the document in Munich after the war.

The stenographer Henry Picker, who replaced Heim, served in that capacity for only a very short time (March 21, 1942 to August 2, 1942). He claimed to have kept a copy of the notes he made during that time and also a copy of the notes Heim had made before him. He had no notes past August 2, 1942, when Heim returned. He claims that Bormann did not edit the notes that he personally made, though the notes given to him from Heim had likely been edited or influenced by Bormann to some degree. Indeed, Picker said that “no confidence can be placed in Bormann’s editing of it,” and also spoke of Bormann’s alterations…” (Trevor-Roper.) Nevertheless, Picker kept the notes he had been given by Heim and his own notes.

Thus, there are three sources in German for the Table-Talk: the Bormann Notes copy of Genoud, which contains the full brunt, of Bormann’s editing’s; the fragment of the Bormann Notes in the Library of Congress; and the limited German text of Picker.

Today, according to Richard Carrier (yes, we know he is an atheist, like you yenta) [but, this is NOT about his “atheism” or yours, IT IS ABOUT THE RELIABILTY OF HIS TRANSLATION FROM GERMAN TO ENGLISH) and other sources, there are four main published versions of the Table-Talk.

The first published was the German manuscript of Picker, which contains no entries subsequent to August 1942, and has only five months of entries which Picker attests are free of Bormann alterations. The second to be published was a French translation by Genoud of his copy of the Bormann Notes. The third was the English translation of Stevens and Cameron, edited by Trevor-Roper. This was a translation of the Genoud’s French translation, and was not based upon the German. The fourth and last edition was a printing of Genoud’s German original, prepared by Werner Jochmann.

Before we can begin to sort through whatever alterations Bormann himself may have made to the text, it first should be pointed out how faulty the Trevor-Roper edition is, and the Genoud’s French translation upon which it is based.

Carrier has described the Trevor-Roper edition as “worthless,” and in fact, he has shown that all of the major anti-Christian passages commonly cited by historians, including the three at the beginning of this chapter, are frauds and are not contained in the original German, in his article “Hitler’s Table-Talk: Troubling Finds.”

Let us look at these three popular quotes one by one, in light of Carrier’s article. The first, often quoted passage is:-

“If my presence on earth is providential, I owe it to a superior will. But, I owe nothing to the Church that traffics in the salvation of souls, and I find it really too cruel. I admit that one cannot impose one’s will by force, but I have a horror of people who enjoy inflicting sufferings on others’ bodies and tyranny upon others’ souls.

Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance. Man must be put in a position to develop freely the talents that God has given him.

What is important above all is that we should prevent a greater lie from replacing the lie that is disappearing. The world of Judeo-Bolshevism must collapse.”

This quote is supposedly from February 27, 1942, when Heim was stenographer. Carrier provides the German of Jochmann and Picker which agrees, except in a difference of one word, then his own translation of that German:

“I am here due to a Higher Power, if I am necessary for anything. Leave aside that she is too cruel for me, the beatifying Church! I have never found pleasure in maltreating others, even if I know it isn’t possible to stand your ground in the world without force. Life is only given to those who fight for it the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself!

The time in which we live indicates the collapse of this idea. It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance.

We are growing into a sunny, really tolerant worldview: Man shall be able to develop his God-given talents. We must only prevent a new, even greater lie from arising: that of the Jewish-Bolshevist world. That’s what I must destroy.”

The difference in these two passages is astounding!!!!

There is no mention of a “disease of Christianity” which will end, but rather Hitler speaks in general of his then present world order. He does not mention that he “owes nothing to the Church.” He boldly states that he is “here due to a Higher Power,” rather than saying “If I am here…” Rather than speak of Moses condescendingly, he identifies with Moses in his desire to see the Promised Land. He envisions a world free of Jewish-Bolshevism where men will be able to develop fully their God-given talents. So the English edition of Trevor-Roper contains here a complete fabrication, and this fabrication, particularly the line about “the disease of Christianity,” is perhaps the most frequently quoted passage by those who attempt to deny the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Movement.

Carrier points out that in the same entry in the German, the English and French translations have also omitted an important line. In the same conversation, Hitler said,

“Das, was der Mensch vor dem Tier voraus hat, der vielleicht wunderbarste Beweis für die Überlegenheitdes Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, das es eine Schöpferkraft geben muss!”

Or in Carrier’s translation:-

“What man has over the animals, possibly the most marvellous proof of his superiority, is that he has understood there must be a Creative Power!”

The blatant omission of this passage is proof-positive that the mistranslation of the above passage was a deliberate attempt to take a pro-Christian statement of Hitler and turn it into an anti-Christian statement. This is why it was necessary to entirely omit the above passage, so that the inconsistency of the entry would not be readily apparent.

The second often-quoted passage that Carrier deals with is:-

“I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors ­ but to devote myself deliberately to error that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. In acting as I do, I’m very far from the wish to scandalize. But I rebel when I see the very idea of Providence flouted in this fashion. It’s a great satisfaction for me to feel myself totally foreign to that world.”

But again, the actual German is quite different.

Carrier’s translation:-

“I know that humans in their defectiveness will do a thousand things wrong. But to do something wrong against one’s own knowledge, that is out of the question! One should never personally accept such a lie. Not because I want to annoy others, but because I recognize therein a mockery of the Eternal Providence. I am glad if I have no internal connection with them.”

Again, the favourite sentence of liars is, “I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie.” But this sentence is not in the original German at all! It apparently was inserted into the French by Genoud’s (“Je ne m’accommoderai personnellement jamaisdu mensonge Chrétien“) and then copied into the Trevor-Roper English edition.

Thus, so far, we have an example of the perversion of the text in translation, omission from the original, and addition to the original.

The last example is:-

“But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery”

But Picker’s German contains four important words that have been omitted by Genoud and Trevor-Roper. The English should be:- “The Christianity that teaches Transubstantiation is the maddest thing ever concocted by a human brain in its delusion, a mockery of all that is godly.”

According to this, Adolf Hitler did not say that Christianity was an invention of sick brains, but that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was the invention of sick brains.

However, even this point is controversial as Adolf Hitler remained a devout Catholic, was never ex-communicated and the “statement” is rather the view of a bigoted “Protestant”.

In nearly every other supposedly negative statement about Christianity contained in the Table-Talk, the statements are not about Christianity but about perversions of Christianity.

In fact, the Table Talk makes it clear that Hitler, as time went on, was becoming decreasingly optimistic about the chances of a successful reformation of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, not once is Hitler’s belief in Jesus Christ or his own Christianity a question. But he did come to more and more question the Church.

Thus, in dealing with the Table-Talk, we have many problems. (like the problem with promoters of this mongrelized book, such as the never-ending trouble-maker Yenta Yeager, not to mention her affiliates Hadding Scott, Tanstaafl [married to a Jew] who kicked her out of thewhitenetwork (LOL) and her Polish Shoah Friend [who stand in defense of his “comrade Ilya Ehrenburg”] [The very same Pole who by the way, dug out a so-called speech of Adolf Hitler on behalf of Yenta Yeager –  “found” by the Jew Reginald H Phelps, a (once) dean at Harvard (1949-1975), as to be an “authentic” Adolf Hitler speech? It was actually Ferdinand [von] Wiegand (according to the “original” pamphlet of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte) who had it typed up [Erste Schriftführer der Partei, Ferdinand [von] Wiegand, der die Herstellung des Manuskripts bewirkte] (why did yeager not include this?), he was expelled from the party for molesting BDM girls! The very same Phelps who sat on the board of the allied controlled syke-war machine “Institut für Zeitgeschichte”, the very same Phelps (and Jack M. Stein another Jew involved), who were responsible of what “German lessons” are supposed to be taught from kindergarten to twelve grade to anyone studying German in the USAssr & EUssr]). These lot will fall in the category of Table Talks’ “I don’t see much future for the Americans. It’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social of social inequalities . . . Everything about the behavior of American society reveals that it’s half Judaized, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold together – a country where everything is built on the dollar?”

As to my person, herewith my answer to you Yenta, in the words of Rudolf Heß

„Ich verteidige mich nicht gegen Ankläger, denen ich das Recht abspreche, gegen mich und meine Volksgenossen Anklage (inklusiv meiner Ahnen und mir) zu erheben. Ich setze mich nicht mit Vorwürfen auseinander, die sich mit Dingen befassen, die innerdeutsche Angelegenheiten sind und daher Ausländer nichts angehen. Ich erhebe keinen Einspruch gegen Äußerungen, die darauf abzielen, mich oder das ganze deutsche Volk in der Ehre zu treffen. Ich betrachte solche Anwürfe von Gegnern als Ehrenerweisung. Es war mir vergönnt, viele Jahre meines Lebens unter dem größten Sohne zu wirken, den mein Volk in seiner tausendjährigen Geschichte hervorgebracht hat. Selbst wenn ich es könnte, wollte ich diese Zeit nicht auslöschen aus meinem Dasein. Ich bin glücklich, zu wissen, daß ich meine Pflicht getan habe meinem Volk gegenüber, meine Pflicht als Deutscher, als Nationalsozialist, als treuer Gefolgsmann meines Führers. Ich bereue nichts. Stünde ich wieder am Anfang, würde ich wieder handeln wie ich handelte, auch wenn ich wüßte, daß am Ende ein Scheiterhaufen für meinen Flammentod brennt. Gleichgültig was Menschen tun, dereinst stehe ich vor dem Richterstuhl des Ewigen. Ihm werde ich mich verantworten, und ich weiß, er spricht mich frei.”

First, the only English translation available, the Trevor-Roper edition, is hopelessly corrupt; it is a translation of Genoud’s translation, and Genoud’s translation has been purposefully altered. What did this Swiss banker who claimed to be a “Nazi” really have planned? At best, he was a confused atheist who sought to de-Christianize National Socialism, á la Bormann; but at worst, and probably more realistic, he was an agent of the Jew propagandists who spent much of his personal fortune buying up Nazi relics and distributing supposedly authentic texts like the Table-Talk.

The pseudo-historian David Irving has stated that Genoud admitted that he personally forged a document called Hitler’s Last Testament. Genoud also spent years in court trying to sew-up copyrights to the Table-Talk to ensure that his perversion of the document would be the only one available. Indeed Picker’s German text was not complete, so that left Genoud plenty of room to falsify the text all he wanted. It was not until 1980 that Jochmann’s complete German text was published, but even this is merely a printing of a text that the forger Genoud had in his possession for nearly thirty years, plenty of time to corrupt the post 1942 entries all he wanted, since he knew that his manuscript was the sole source for these entries.

Then there is the issue of Bormann. To what extent did he pervert the Table-Talk and the notes of Heim? Again, there exists only five months’ worth of entries in Picker’s text which have not in some way been influenced by Bormann; and of course we are assuming that Picker, who was selected by Bormann for the position as stenographer, was not his willing accomplice, who only later sought to distance himself and his text from Bormann and therefore Genoud’s text, since the two were involved in a potentially lucrative copyright dispute. Many scholars and historians have elucidated places in the text where Bormann has clearly edited it or added his own comments. Carrier comments on an alteration by Bormann that tried to make Hitler’s mention of God appear deistic and not theistic. How far did Bormann take this perversion? It is clear that Bormann is responsible for two statements in the Table-Talk that are anti-Paul. But how much and how often Bormann has perverted the text will forever remain unclear.

Finally, we must also wonder how complete and accurate the notes of Heim and Picker are. These documents were written in shorthand, often in very abbreviated format, only later to be fleshed out by Bormann. How much did they miss while trying to take down the dictation of the fast-speaking Hitler? And how did these missing parts affect the context of what was being said? Also, the Table-Talk does not record when the conversation was meant to be sarcastic or joking. Are we to believe that Hitler never spoke in jest or sarcasm?

The answer to these many questions will never be known. Thus, what importance can the Table-Talk be? It is of importance only when it agrees with the public record. If in any point it provides new information that does not correspond with the public record of Hitler and National Socialism, it cannot be trusted, particularly when we can identify a cause for such a perversion, such as Bormann’s deism.

There are many other sources of quotations and statements from Hitler. After the war, literally dozens of people who purportedly met Hitler wasted no time in writing their accounts of Hitler (ed note: The Third Reich and National Socialism is quickly becoming the era of the most avid (secret) Diary and Memoir keepers of the century. Something like the constant appearance of the spurious books of the “Bible”). Most of these were written without the benefit of any notes and were supposed to contain accurate remembrances of what someone may have heard Hitler say 10, 20, or even 30 years earlier. Needless to say, this is an almost impossible task. Psychologists have studied people’s memories and found that people are more likely to invent than to recreate. So, even if someone were trying to be honest and accurately record what they thought Hitler might have said 20 years earlier, it is more likely that they will create what they thought Hitler might have said, based upon their own prejudices and certainly affected by how the Jewish media had painted Hitler over the years.

More than this, however, it must be understood that all of these books and articles that were reported to contain the intimations of Adolf Hitler were being financed and published by Jewish-controlled publishing companies. So only those books that contained something of value to the Jews were likely to find a publisher.

Nevertheless, there are some sources of private conversations of Hitler that can be given more credence than others. In order for a source to be even halfway reliable, it must be based upon notes or diaries made at the time of the conversation. Even then, those notes run the risk of incorporating the author’s personal biases. Still, these types of sources have proven to be much more reliable; though another caveat is that the original author of those notes or authors should be the one, while still living, to publish them. This is because there have been a whole line of forgeries that have made it to print. So it is necessary for a verifiable chain of custody to exist.

Thus, in general, all sources of sayings, quotations, or conversations of Hitler that did not come from Hitler himself should be held in question. In Mein Kampf and the thousands of speeches of Adolf Hitler, as well as various other notes and documents in his hand or bearing his signature, there is more than enough information to know what Hitler thought, and anything contradictory to that public body of information should be discarded.

An example of just how daring forgers will go is The Hitler Diaries. In 1981, the editor of the German magazine Stern paid $2,000,000 to buy a 62 volume set of diaries that were reported to be Hitler’s personal diaries. Two independent handwriting experts confirmed that they were authentic based upon a sample of Hitler’s handwriting they were given. Rupert Murdoch, the Zionist Jewish owner of Fox television and dozens of other media outlets, bought the translation rights to the diaries, and after authentication by his own expert, began publishing them in his British Sunday Times in 1983. Later that year, the West German police examined the paper and inks and bindings of the diaries. They found that the paper contained a chemical invented in 1954. The bindings contained polymers that did not exist during Hitler’s life. And all four of the inks used throughout the diaries did not exist during Hitler’s lifetime. As it turned out, handwriting experts had been fooled because the handwriting sample they were provided that was supposed to contain authentic handwriting of Hitler was actually made by the forger, and provided to them by Stern staff journalist Gerd Heidemann, who was an accomplice of the forger, Konrad Kujau. Both were sentenced to prison. It should be noted that Hugh Trevor-Roper, the editor of the previously discussed English edition of the Table-Talk, was one of the original “experts” who said that the diaries were authentic. He had published an article in The Sunday Times testifying to their authenticity.

Was this elaborate forgery just an attempt to make some money, as it was initially claimed? Apparently not. In 2002, Der Spiegel published evidence that showed that Gerd Heidemann had been a member of the Stasi, which was the East German equivalent of the CIA. Heidemann was in fact a Communist agent, positioned in the West German media. He had been working for them for 30 years when the forgeries were published. Heidemann had been a deeply planted agent, who gained many inroads into the circles of former National Socialists, befriending men such as former SS official Klaus Barbie, Wolf Hess, the son of Rudolph Hess, and even dating Edda Göring, the daughter of Hermann Göring. Starting in 1978, his file indicates that he began working for the Stasi’s foreign espionage department. Apparently, his first assignment was this failed coup by the Communist Jews to forever claim for themselves the right to tell people what Hitler really thought, as revealed in his own personal diaries.

The Hitler Diaries is but the most famous example of such forgeries, but by no means the only example. The fraud failed because the Jews were too brazen. They have learned that it is much easier to corrupt existing documents or forge writings by lesser-known figures than Hitler. But these and other attempts, some exposed, some not, all serve to muddy the water and serve as source material for Jewish historians.

Albert Speer is another unfortunate example. His memoir, Inside the Third Reich, is a favourite of the Jewish propagandists. Yet, the diaries appear to have been corrupted. David Irving first inquired of Speer in 1966 why the English edition of the book differs so greatly from the German edition. Speer confided that the book had been thoroughly re-written by staff-members of the publishing company, a fact that Irving later confirmed from the publishers. Speer told Irving in 1979, when Irving asked him why he did not publish the original book, “That would be impossible. That manuscript was quite out of keeping with the modern nuances. Even the captions to the chapters would have caused difficulties.”

Irving has also documented in his introduction to Hitler’s War a number of other forged or heavily tampered-with documents. Here, we will provide just a brief list.

– Works by Konrad Heiden, Hans Bernard Gisevius, Erich Kordt, and Fritz Wiedemann have also proven to be concoctions.

– Carl Jakob Burckhardt’s diary.

– Hermann Rauschning’s Conversations with Hitler is largely embellished and fictional.

– Fritz Thyssen’s I Paid Hitler.

– The forged Christa Schroeder diary, actually written by Albert Zoller.

– Large sections of The Testament of Adolf Hitler are probably fictitious.

– The diaries of Vice Admiral Wilhelm Canaris.

– Eva Braun’s diaries (forged from the diary of Countess Irma Larisch-Wallersee). There did exist an authentic diary of Braun, which was recovered after the war, but this diary disappeared shortly thereafter and has never been seen again.

– The diary of Feliz Kersten, the reported masseuse of Himmler and Ribbentrop, is also a complete fraud.

– There are obvious corruptions and frauds in Count Galeazzo Ciano’s famous diaries.

– Luftwaffe Chief of Staff Karl Koller’s published diary is a forgery.

And the list goes on. Even authentic diaries, memoirs, or accounts are likely to contain corruptions or interpolations from the publishers, even if the author is alive, such as Speer’s Inside the Third Reich, or even David Irving’s Hitler’s War, which, when translated to German, was altered significantly by the German publisher.

The number of corruptions and forgeries seems almost endless. Even authentic documents, accurately published, often times contain old lies and fraudulent claims that have been put forth by the Jewish propaganda machine since the 1920’s. Thus, the reliable sources are few, but they are sufficient to accurately piece together an authentic account of Hitler and the Third Reich.

As a last personal note:

“This was and will always be a religious war, finally one sees that clearly. A war between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, Christ and Anti-Christ.” (1919, Dietrich Eckart stated about World War I in (“Auf Gut Deutsch”)

People have NO CLUE how firm these men in the NSDAP were rooted in Christianity and it was their zeal and love for Christianity that inspired them. You cannot be a National Socialist and not be a Christian! They are inseparable!

“We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian.” – Adolf Hitler

Gottfried Feder wrote:
“The same must be said of all the coarse, stupid attacks on Christianity. Expressions such as “Christianity has only done harm” merely show that the man who utters them has neither human and political intelligence. It is wrong to abuse in general terms the greatest phenomenon in European history to abuse in general terms because of the perversities, erroneous ideas and defaults of individuals. The Christian Religion has uplifted and strengthened millions and millions, and brought them to God by the way of suffering.”


The Problem With David Irving and the spurious Table Talks

The MOST divisive creation of the JEWS to tear the German Nation apart and the Adamic Race’ (Europeans [White]) to pieces and steer us away from God’s Eternal Laws as per instructed in the Holy Scriptures in what the National Socialists referred to as positive Christianity!

David Irving, the famous English “historian” (has no formal qualifications), has come under suspicion by some in the ‘Holocaust’ Revisionist movement, including myself, and with good reason. Some people suggest that David Irving’s arrest and conviction, in itself, proves that David Irving is a Jewish agent or operative. Those who follow this argument allege that David Irving’s arrest and conviction was staged, with his full knowledge and consent, for the purpose of scaring others into not publishing or distributing ‘Holocaust’ Revisionist material. I do not buy this argument. If we were to follow this line of thinking, then it would have to be said that everyone who has ever been arrested or silenced for exposing the ‘Holocaust’ is a Jewish agent. David Irving’s arrest and conviction, in itself, does not raise an ounce of suspicion in me. What does raise much suspicion, however, is David Irving’s very poor—and very questionable—literary criticism; poor to the point of seeming deception. If David Irving is to be considered a Jewish agent, he should only be considered so in light of his apparent deceptive literary criticism and writings which serve Jewish interests, apart from his arrest and conviction. Explained below are the problems with David Irving.

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

David Irving also emphatically defends as authentic the work known as the Zweites Buch or Second Book, also known as Hitler’s Secret Book. The book is alleged to be a secret sequel to Mein Kampf, which Hitler supposedly kept hidden from the public and never published. The history of this document is dubious (related in Review of Hitler’s Second Book), and the contents of the document are almost as dubious as its history. In the book, Hitler is supposed to have said that the Slavs are subhumans, and that Germany needed to conquer and annex Russia, then invade the United States, and eventually dominate the world, just as Allied propaganda depicts. The book was first ‘discovered’ by an American soldier in 1945, before disappearing into obscurity. It was later ‘rediscovered’ in 1958 by Gerhard Weinberg, a Jewish historian and ‘Holocaust’ propagandist renown for his anti-Hitler and anti-“Nazi“ writings. Weinberg, an expert sensationalist who claims that Hitler intentionally exterminated millions of Jews in Europe and planned to murder every other Jew in the world, also defended as authentic the Hitler Diaries, which are now admitted by all to be forgeries. In light of these facts, it should be noted that David Irving says that Gerhard Weinberg is “a very reliable historian”. Needless to say, the Second Book has never been proven to have been written by Hitler. Additionally, the official background story of the book, i.e. its supposed suppression by Hitler, the extravagant content which confirms Allied propaganda, and the history of the manuscripts, involving men of very questionable integrity and judgement, makes the work questionable to say the least.

David Irving also defends as authentic, at least in part, Hitler’s Table Talk, a highly unreliable work. To his credit, Irving was the first to point out that the French and English editions of Table Talk are partially forged, being based on the French forgeries of Francois Genoud, a Swiss banker, rather than on the original German. Irving has also pointed out that Francois Genoud is the same man who forged Hitler’s Last Testament, also known as Hitler’s Political Testament, or the Hitler-Bormann Documents, which, together with Table Talk, comprise the at least partially forged Bormann Notes (Die Bormann Vermerke). This being so, Irving insists upon the authenticity of the original German. Some background to Table Talk is necessary to understand the cloud of suspicion that must hang over Irving for this position.

Table Talk purports to be a word-for-word account of various private conversations Hitler had with his colleagues and inner circle. According to the official story, the recording of these conversations was initially instigated by Martin Bormann, who had the conversations transcribed by stenographers, with Hitler’s knowledge and consent, for the purpose of publishing them in the future as an exposition or manifesto of National Socialist ideology. Table Talk has become famous among WWII historians and Hitler biographers, as well as among pro-Christian and anti-Christian polemicists, mainly for the religious statements, especially the anti-Christian statements, attributed to Hitler. Most of the anti-Christian statements have been exposed, even by Irving himself, as being forged by Francois Genoud, and do not appear in the original German manuscripts. However, even in the original German there are still a few statements attributed to Hitler which mock and ridicule Christianity, especially Catholicism, and also German Protestantism. It is far from certain, however, that the original German is authentic and reflects the actual statements of Hitler, which clearly contradict what Hitler said publicly in authentic writings and speeches.

According to the “official story”, Hitler gave his consent for Bormann to document his conversations, but it was Bormann’s project; he was in charge of having the conversations transcribed, and he was in charge of proofreading and editing the texts. If it be accepted that the original German is authentic—authentic in the sense that it is indeed what was approved of by Martin Bormann and transcribed by his hand-chosen stenographers, Henry Picker and Heinrich Heim—it still does not follow that the statements attributed to Hitler are authentic or accurate. According to the official story, the manuscripts of these conversations, of which two are still in existence, were approved of and signed only by Martin Bormann, as he was in charge of the project. The text did not come from Hitler’s own pen, and the manuscripts were neither seen, nor signed, nor authenticated or approved of by Hitler himself. Even if it be accepted that the original German manuscripts are authentic—authentic in the sense of being the text which was edited, approved of, and signed by Bormann—Table Talk, at best, can only ever be hearsay from a second-hand source.

As has been pointed out, the anti-Christian religious statements in Table Talk are diametrically opposed to all of Hitler’s public actions, speeches, authentic published writings, and professed beliefs. They are perfectly consistent, however, with the anti-Christian views of Martin Bormann, a leading member of the anti-Christian wing within the National Socialist Party (NSDAP). Given that the transcripts had to go through Bormann, it is not at all improbable that Bormann himself, as editor, inserted the anti-Christian statements, and possibly other statements, into the transcripts. Table Talk, as has been pointed out, is riddled with forgeries, surrounded by men of questionable intentions, is highly unreliable, and, even if accepted, still can never be anything more than hearsay from a second-hand source.

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

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

As if all of this were not enough to cast great suspicion upon David Irving, Irving casts further suspicion upon himself with his official stance on the ‘Holocaust’: Irving asserts that a systematic extermination of Jews probably happened, but that if it happened, it happened without Hitler’s knowledge. While it is perfectly feasible to assume that some abuses and other activities were on occasion done by certain National Socialists without Hitler’s knowledge or consent, it a proven fact that the systematic extermination of Jews was not one of them; the extermination story has its origins in Jewish and Allied anti-German propaganda, and Irving knows this. Although he does not dogmatically assert that an extermination took place, he nevertheless takes an official stance of uncertainty, leaving open the possibility that an extermination did not place, while saying that it probably did happen. This stance of uncertain probability, as if it were not already a proven fact that there was no systematic extermination, together with his defence and promotion of forged and questionable works, and his rejection of authentic works, strongly suggests that, despite authoring some truthful and valuable works, David Irving is working in the interests of the Jews, intentionally spreading lies and misinformation among sincere ‘Holocaust’ and WWII Revisionists, for reasons only he can answer.

Also see: A Christian Perspective on “Table Talks”