Replies

"Strictly for the benefit of the lurkers, Table Talk was edited by Martin Bormann from original transcripts made by two scribes Bormann chose, and while it purports to be a record of Hitler's dinner time meanderings, there is no independent evidence of the veracity of the material."

You have been busy at the leftwing loony bin, the NoBelief site:

Hitler's Table Talk
http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm

You might consider venturing a little further than gleaning your sum of knowledge from a site that thinks 9/11 was perpetrated by George Bush.

Bormann was Hitler's shadow. He was a chain-smoking, alcoholic and meat eater, who constantly tried to give up all these things to be like his idol, Adolf Hitler.

It betrays a total and absolute ignorance of Bormann and Hitler to pretend that he would have purposefully and systematically rewritten Hitler's thoughts--which were being recorded for posterity. He wouldn't have dared. Not in a million years.

But more tellingly, the "two scribes" Heim and Picker, both survived Bormann and the war. Picker even went on to author other books. Either one of them could have easily come forward and said that "Table Talk" misrepresented their notes. They didn't.

Furthermore, most of the other participants in these conversations, such as Christa Schroeder, also lived long past the end of the war and the publication of Hitler's conversations. They also wrote books, gave interviews, etc. They could have (and would have) objected to any misrepresentation of Hitler's thoughts. They didn't.

However, I just picked "Table Talk" because it is the most concentrated form of Hitler's thoughts on the subject. But similar expressions also appear in his other books and of course his speeches.

I have presented quite lengthy and thorough documentation of my claims. You have just made assertions and the most ludicrous personal attacks.

You have revealed yourself to be the worst kind of propagandist and liar. All to promote your agenda.

Funny, isn't that what you claim your opponents here do?

(And for the record, I am an atheist and I probably accept more of Darwin's theories than that I reject. I also had never even heard of Intelligent Design until a few weeks ago. So you and your pals can save your "superior than thou" attacks.)

You are clearly mentally unbalanced and a waste of time.

I suggest anyone interested in the provenance of Table Talk, and in particular the English translation produced by Trevor-Roper, consult this link, which appears to be well-substantiated and thoughtful. In particular it shows convincingly that the Trevor-Roper version of Table Talk was not in fact a direct translation of the Bormann Vermerke (Bormann's edited notes) but a second-hand translation of the French version by Genoud. Genoud was a Nazi sympathizer, claimed to have worked closely with the PFLP for the destruction of Israel, and financed the defense of terrorist Carlos the Jackal. He donated allegedly half the proceeds of the salke of the work to Hitler's sister. Mr. Carrier draws the following conclusion.

Numerous other evidence like this confirms the general conclusion: the published English is from the French, not the German. This means that Stevens and Cameron must have lied to or misled Trevor-Roper, claiming they had translated Genoud's German manuscript. Moreover, the ultimate source for the doctored quotations is Genoud. The immediate and most important conclusion is that the Trevor-Roper edition, the only English version in print, is worthless. No one who quotes this text is quoting what Hitler actually said

I have myself taken steps to obtain the two published German language versions of the Table Talk; the Jochmann version of the Bormann Vermerke; and the Picker version of the notes that he and Heim took. Since I have a good reading knowledge of German, I will be able to report first hand on whether the anti-Christian quotations pasted here by Mr. Hill actually appear in the originals. I will report back on this piece of research, and publish it on my blog.

Two final notes: everyone should remember that Hugh Trevor-Roper also endorsed the authenticity of the fake Hitler diaries in 1983. However, the Trevor-Roper version of Table Talk does have the endorsement of David Irving. So it is clear that it does appeal to historical revisionists.