Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Debate: Table Talk authenticity

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Last Online
    43 Minutes Ago @ 07:14 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Gender
    Religion
    Hitlerism
    Posts
    298
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    49
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    89
    Thanked in
    64 Posts

    Debate: Table Talk authenticity

    Quote Originally Posted by Astragoth View Post
    Hitlers table talk is a known fraud stop referencing it. Hitler was a Christian and a catholic. I have the quotes to prove it.
    First things first: it has not been definitively established that the table talks, as a whole, is unreliable. The criticism is almost entirely drawn to the admittedly abortive English translation (which is not without it's merits) and focuses mainly on the religious discourses. It must be asked why non-religious quotations have not been factored in.

    The debate stems chiefly from the New Atheist Richard C. Carrier and atheistic websites such as nobeliefs.com, which are certainly not without their bias. Carrier overlooks that the original German retains plenty of anti-Christian passages, which are arguably more anti-Christian than the interpolations (i.e. "National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together" is actually National Socialism "und Kirche", which is particularly anti-Christian).

    It's peculiar how Christians will readily entertain the arguments of their most ardent adversaries when it conforms with their views. I must commend the theologian Richard Weikart for not falling for this trap. It's been over 70 years and people are still trying to denigrate Christianity or atheism using Hitler. It's better to deprive both sides of this ammunition by putting Hitler's religion outside of the conventional religions. In almost all of my attempts to reason with these militants, they remained utterly devoted to their biased portrayal of Hitler in their hatred for the opponent.

    Weikart proposed that it was pantheism, a notion which Carrier has challenged by pointing out that it was actually Hitler's assessment of the Japanese religion. It's worth noting that Hitler's favorite philosopher Schopenhauer deemed the word to be self-contradictory, a self-destroying notion. Nietzsche, who undoubtedly influenced Hitler's ideology, would have likewise concurred. It's interesting to read about Nietzsche's views on the catchphrases the other world, Nirvana, heaven, salvation, etc.
    In his private conversations, Hitler explicitly said he did know anything about the other world and considered the Mohammedan to be pious insofar as they did not deign to formulate god but regarded him as unknowable. In at least one speech (November 8, 1941), he stressed that he was a materialist insofar as it didn't matter to him which Christian sect would triumph over the other. From a superficial glance, he has the makings of an agnostic.

    I propose that Hitler's religion largely coincided with the scientific monism of Ernst Haeckel (which corresponds to the ancient views of the universe held by Julian, Chrysippus, Pythagoras, etc., not to claim Hitler as a pagan, as he likewise rejected paganism) and also the views of Herbert Spencer (it'd be inappropriate to label either as "Social Darwinism" since Darwin neglected to factor in laws of nature presiding over human community. Why should Darwin get credit for it?)

    I would also add that although the mainstream historian Ian Kershaw and the revisionist historian David Irving helped expose the culpability of the Swiss banker Francis Genoud in tampering with the Bormann Diktat, they have not brought the German Table Talks under scrutiny as far as I can tell.

    There are innumerable consistencies between his purported private conversations and Mein Kampf, speeches, various testimonies (from his subordinates, inner circle members, his childhood friend, as well as enemies). For instance, he declared that the British had never produced a composer like Beethoven (Table Talk entry June 24, 1943) in a November 8, 1939 speech. He told Otto Strasser that the Germans alone will be a people of warriors, the rest will be helots and explained how this mutual relationship would guarantee their peace and give them recompense, matching his formulation for the "natural order" given in Table Talk entry February 17, 1942. The frequency with which he referred to the Spartans and the helots is all-pervasive: several table talk entries, Zweites Buch, Platterhof hotel talks (hosted by Carolyn Yeager), and even a reference to the Spartan constitution in Otto Wagener's memoirs.

    Again I will ask, is it even fair to dismiss the authenticity of a work based solely on disputed religious statements? In my personal study of the table talks, I've uncovered several instances of fatal omissions and deliberate misrepresentations:

    Table Talk, February 22, 1942
    Everything has a cause, nothing comes by chance.
    In Jochmann's version, Hitler further proposes that physical illnesses can be traced to racial mixture.

    Table Talk, February 6, 1942
    I don't believe in idealism, I don't believe that a people is prepared to pay for ever for the stupidity of its rulers.
    In Jochmann's version, Hitler is not rejecting idealism itself, but an idealism that a people should be in eternal debt to others. He stressed the necessity of ideals in Mein Kampf.

    To conclude, my overall position on Hitler's religious attitude towards Christianity is that he was a Patron of the Church, not an adherent.

    --------

    Over time, I will be going through each of the quotes provided by the op below (my appraisal is in orange color).

    Updated on 4/10/19:

    Spoiler!

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Terminus For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Senior Member SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    7 Hours Ago @ 12:56 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    4,485
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,225
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,089
    Thanked in
    1,081 Posts
    You can find any number of quotes to support one theory or another, many of them contradictory, so a couple of dozen selective ones (going right back to 1922) really means nothing in the overall scheme of things.

    To begin with, it's important to check the context in which they were made and what sort of audience Hitler was addressing at the time.

    Also, you have to ask in which general direction things went after 1933, regardless of what Hitler may have said and to whom. I'll develop this later when I have more time, but many confessional youth organisations were incorporated into the Hitlerjugend during the early-mid 1930's. Josef Ratzinger, a former Pope, was himself forcibly enrolled into the HJ at one point.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SaxonPagan For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Senior Member SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    7 Hours Ago @ 12:56 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    4,485
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,225
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,089
    Thanked in
    1,081 Posts
    So, to continue .. there was more than a whiff of paganism in the HJ because its leader, Baldur von Shirac, was a Pagan himself. It goes without saying that he'd have wanted to stamp his own philosophy on the movement but he was sometimes a little diplomatic about this, like when trying to present himself as a ‘moderate’ to the British press and saying he just rejected the Jewish elements of the Old Testament. In truth, he probably rejected the whole lot though and for German audiences he often spoke of the incompatibility between Christianity and NS ideology.

    Anyway, this didn’t exactly hinder his career, any more than Heinrich Himmler, Alfred Rosenberg, Joseph Goebels, Martin Bormann & Reinhard Heydrich saw theirs held back by their (often extreme) Pagan beliefs. If William Schirer is to be believed, the National Socialists intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany and replace it with a mixture of old paganism (that of the early tribal gods) and the neo-paganism of the party’s leading members. I do have my doubts about Shirer, who was writing primarily for an American Christian public, but his claim is at least tenable.

    Hitler was a world statesman who could hardly declare these aims on the public record, but if you look at the direction in which things were moving you can get a clear overall picture. Nobody would seriously contend that the Church’s place in German society was as strong post-1933 as it had previously been. I think the furthest Hitler went, religion-wise, was to identify with something called Positive Christianity ... judge for yourself where that would have lead!

    For what it’s worth, here is another Wikepedia page about Hitler’s (supposed) religious beliefs. It generally tends towards Atheism, as well as confirming my own suspicions that he was essentially an opportunist who would say whatever was politically expedient. I don't see him as a defender of Christianity though, beyond the occasional outburst such as when he rails against the "godless Bolsheviks", for example.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SaxonPagan For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Senior Member J.Yaxley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 05:18 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Politics
    Ethno-Nationalism
    Posts
    286
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    246
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    499
    Thanked in
    211 Posts
    Hitler's Table Talk is often referred to as a fraud by those who take issue with Hitler's apparent anti-Christian comments and then decide that the entire book is fraudulent simply because they don't like it.

    That's not how history works. Determining whether a book is a hoax can only be done by examining the material & interviewing the author / accused forger. One person who has done this is David Irving (who is famous in revisionist circles). This is what he says about Hitler's Table Talk:

    For forty years or more noGerman original was published, as Genoud told me that hefeared losing the copyright control that he exercised onthem. I have seen the original pages, and they are signedby Bormann.


    They were expertly, andliterately, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H.Stevens, though with a few (a very few) oddinterpolations of short sentences which don't exist inthe original -- the translator evidently felt justifiedin such insertions, to make the context plain.


    Translation is a difficultchore: I have translated four books, including NikkiLauda's memoirs -- one can either produce a clinical,wooden, illiterate version, like Richard "Skunky"Evans' courtroom translations of Third Reichdocuments, or one can produce a readable, publishabletext which properly conveys the sense and language of theoriginal.


    Try translating for publicationthe Joseph Goebbels diaries -- written often in aBerlinese vernacular -- without running into trouble withthe courts! Louis Lochner succeeded in my viewmagnificently.
    Weidenfeld's translatoralso took liberties with translating words likeSchrecken, (see facsimile above), which hetranslated as "rumour" in the sense of "scare-story". Inmy own view such translations are acceptable, but theycaused a lot of difficulty at the Lipstadt Trial where Ifound myself accused of manipulating texts and distortingtranslations (because although I relied on the Weidenfeldtranslation, I had had access to the original document,and should have known that the actual word wasSchrecken).

    The Table Talks' content is moreimportant in my view than Hitler's Mein Kampf, andpossibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928).It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtuallyevery subject under the sun, while his generals andprivate staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend tolisten, to the monologues.

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/TableTalk010104.html


    TWENTYyears later, in about 1970, I found myself interviewing the mild-mannered, mouse-likelittle man who had actually written thesecompelling documents. Heinrich Heim
    had been the adjutant of Martin Bormann,who was the Führer's Secretary andmuch-feared leader of the Nazi Party.

    ...


    At the end of the war they filled halfa dozen ring binders, several thousandpages. These ring binders had been rescuedby Bormann's widow (cornered by Russiantroops in Berlin, he had killed himself onMay 2, 1945) and they came into the handsof a remarkable little Swiss entrepreneur,Franēois Genoud.I interviewed Genoud many years later, in about 1971.
    ...


    DESPITEour best endeavours, I was unable topersuade Genoud to part with the Germantext of the Bormann Letters. He was "verywilling to oblige in principle," but thatwas as far as he ever went with theseremarkable documents that he had acquired.He did provide me with the original Germantexts of the several Table Talks that Iused in Hitler's War (see the exampleat left). This enabled me toretranslate some of them into English,when I considered the translation to beinaccurate. This in turn led to anallegation from the late ProfessorMartin Broszat that I had misquotedHitler's Table Talk, because my quotationsdiffered from those contained in theWeidenfeld volume.

    As fate showed, where I stuck slavishlyto the original Weidenfeld translation itdid in fact cause even more seriouscondemnation; Weidenfeld's translator hadtaken liberties with his otherwiseexcellent translation, though not veryserious ones in my view, to make itreadable. But here and there he had put inlittle explanatory phrases and evensentences which did not exist in theoriginal transcript; and he had translatedone passage, "terror is a salutary thing"in a way which met with the disapproval ofthe Court in the Deborah Lipstadttrial.

    Judges and Queen's Counsel, who haveprobably never faced the basic dilemma oftranslating a literary work -- whether toproduce a wooden, exact translation of theGerman words, or to produce a readabletext which fully conveys the author'ssense, will not understand how angry Iwas, at this kind of nit-picking which wasused by Lipstadt in her defence.

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Table_Ta...g_memoirs.html
    So David Irving interviewed the individual who wrote the documents down (Heim), the individual who possessed the documents (Genoud), and Irving also came into possession of several of the original texts - and Irving says Hitler's Table Talk is one of the best sources on Hitler.

    That tells you quite a lot.


  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to J.Yaxley For This Useful Post:


  9. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Last Online
    43 Minutes Ago @ 07:14 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Gender
    Religion
    Hitlerism
    Posts
    298
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    49
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    89
    Thanked in
    64 Posts
    Update: Got the Toland/Engel quotation out of the way. This one's been a long time coming, you wouldn't believe how many people employ that quote to represent Hitler as a Catholic.

    Quote Originally Posted by SaxonPagan View Post
    Anyway, this didn’t exactly hinder his career, any more than Heinrich Himmler, Alfred Rosenberg, Joseph Goebels, Martin Bormann & Reinhard Heydrich saw theirs held back by their (often extreme) Pagan beliefs.
    Bormann had no known predilection for paganism and was clearly a rationalist/humanist type. The fact that he did not relent from including anti-pagan remarks in his table talks speaks for itself.

    If the Bormann Letters are authentic:

    His wife once brought up the Ragnarok myth in the Edda and how the German people were representing the forces of good/light, he sharply told her that it wasn't the good that triumphs in this world, but the strong over the weak. Also, his view of the afterlife was strictly materialistic: people live on in their names, photographs, legacy, every manifestation they've ever produced.

    Quote Originally Posted by SaxonPagan View Post
    If William Schirer is to be believed, the National Socialists intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany and replace it with a mixture of old paganism (that of the early tribal gods) and the neo-paganism of the party’s leading members. I do have my doubts about Shirer, who was writing primarily for an American Christian public, but his claim is at least tenable.
    I'll need some time to refamiliarize myself with Shirer's view on Hitler.

    According to this article, he was discredited by mainstream scholars as a sensationalist and had neglected to utilize recent research. Similar criticisms are documented on the wiki page for his book.
    Shirer's attempt to pin Hitler's anti-Semitism on Luther instead of Wagner simply fall short. Nowadays we have a Jew raising a fuss over the Judensau in Wittenberg and he basically said that Luther's anti-Semitism was more virulent than anything the "Nazis" had come up with.
    I think Shirer could find a snug place next to Toland as largely outdated, but I'll do some reading up on his book to make sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Yaxley View Post
    So David Irving interviewed the individual who wrote the documents down (Heim), the individual who possessed the documents (Genoud), and Irving also came into possession of several of the original texts - and Irving says Hitler's Table Talk is one of the best sources on Hitler.

    That tells you quite a lot.
    Well said!

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Terminus For This Useful Post:


  11. #6
    Senior Member SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    7 Hours Ago @ 12:56 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    4,485
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,225
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,089
    Thanked in
    1,081 Posts
    This theory is a bit offbeat but I sometimes wonder if the determination to subdue Hitler wasn't in part due to a fear of Paganism being (re)installed in a major European nation.

    Given Europe's troubling history of religious wars over the centuries the rise of neo-Paganism could have upset the precarious balance and, in time, become a huge problem.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SaxonPagan For This Useful Post:


  13. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    24 Minutes Ago @ 07:33 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Posts
    627
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    615
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    625
    Thanked in
    334 Posts
    “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.”
    David Irving replies:
    Hitler's Table Talk is the product of his lunch- and supper-time conversations in his private circle from 1941 to 1944. The transcripts are genuine. (Ignore the 1945 "transcripts" published by Trevor-Roper in the 1950s as Hitler's Last Testament -- they are fake).
    The table talk notes were originally taken by Heinrich Heim, the adjutant of Martin Bormann, who attended these meals at an adjacent table and took notes. (Later Henry Picker took over the job). Afterwards Heim immediately typed up these records, which Bormann signed as accurate.
    Franēois Genoud purchased the files of transcripts from Bormann's widow just after the war, along with the handwritten letters which she and the Reichsleiter had exchanged.
    For forty thousand pounds -- paid half to Genoud and half to Hitler's sister Paula -- George Weidenfeld, an Austrian Jewish publisher who had emigrated to London, bought the rights and issued an English translation in about 1949.
    For forty years or more no German original was published, as Genoud told me that he feared losing the copyright control that he exercised on them. I have seen the original pages, and they are signed by Bormann.
    They were expertly, and literately, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, though with a few (a very few) odd interpolations of short sentences which don't exist in the original -- the translator evidently felt justified in such insertions, to make the context plain.
    Translation is a difficult chore: I have translated four books, including Nikki Lauda's memoirs -- one can either produce a clinical, wooden, illiterate version, like Richard "Skunky" Evans' courtroom translations of Third Reich documents, or one can produce a readable, publishable text which properly conveys the sense and language of the original.
    Try translating for publication the Joseph Goebbels diaries -- written often in a Berlinese vernacular -- without running into trouble with the courts! Louis Lochner succeeded in my view magnificently.
    Weidenfeld's translator also took liberties with translating words likeSchrecken, (see facsimile above), which he translated as "rumour" in the sense of "scare-story". In my own view such translations are acceptable, but they caused a lot of difficulty at the Lipstadt Trial where I found myself accused of manipulating texts and distorting translations (because although I relied on the Weidenfeld translation, I had had access to the original document, and should have known that the actual word was Schrecken).The Table Talks' content is more important in my view than Hitler's Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.
    Along with Sir Nevile Henderson's gripping 1940 book Failure of a Mission, this was one of the first books that I read, as a twelve year old: Table Talk makes for excellent bedtime reading, as each "meal" occupies only two or three pages of print. My original copy, purloined from my twin brother Nicholas, was seized along with the rest of my research library in May 2002.
    I have since managed to find a replacement, and I am glad to say that -- notwithstanding the perverse judgment of Mr. Justice Gray --Hitler's Table Talk has recently come back into print, unchanged: Schrecken and all.
    “Hitler’s Table Talk” is a worthless primary source. The renowned “Hitler expert” Lord Dacre, better known as Hugh Trevor-Roper, knowingly and willingly engaged in a massive cover-up regarding “Hitler’s Table Talk”.Had it not been for the outstanding research of historian Richard Carrier, we might still be in the dark about this, 64 years after “Table Talk’s” first appearance in the English language.In this study, I will establish three things:1) that Hugh Trevor-Roper knowingly and willingly engaged in academic fraud for profit and prestige,2) that “Table Talk” is a worthless primary source, and3) that renowned Hitler “experts”, both Revisionist and Mainstream, have failed the public as regards Hitler primary sources.
    Like I said Hitler's table talk is a known fraud stop referencing it.

  14. #8
    Senior Member J.Yaxley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 05:18 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Politics
    Ethno-Nationalism
    Posts
    286
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    246
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    499
    Thanked in
    211 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Astragoth View Post
    Like I said Hitler's table talk is a known fraud stop referencing it.
    You're hilarious if you think that you have the authority to tell us who to reference. The source you posted is a book written by 'Weronika Kuzniar' aka a buffoon who never interviewed Heim, Genoud, or saw the documents (which Irving has).

    What's even more hilarious is that your source, Weronika Kuzniar, is the same idiot scam artist who wrote the 'Black Nazis' series:





    Within just six years of war the Nazis established the most ethnically, religiously, nationally, politically, and culturally diverse military force in Western history. How and why did this happen and why are historians still so reluctant to acknowledge this?
    Ms. Clark answers these questions, and many more!

    https://blacknazis.wordpress.com/
    You can call actual historian's work fraudulent, post links to obscure blogs, or use a woman who claims NS Germany was one of the most tolerant & diverse societies in Europe's history as your source. No one here cares because you are the troll and everyone knows it.

  15. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to J.Yaxley For This Useful Post:


  16. #9
    Senior Member J.Yaxley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Last Online
    4 Weeks Ago @ 05:18 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Politics
    Ethno-Nationalism
    Posts
    286
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    246
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    499
    Thanked in
    211 Posts
    In case he deletes it, click this link that Astragoth posted and you will see that Weronika Kuzniar is his source:


  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to J.Yaxley For This Useful Post:


  18. #10
    Senior Member SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    7 Hours Ago @ 12:56 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    4,485
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,225
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,089
    Thanked in
    1,081 Posts
    What's even more hilarious is that your source, Weronika Kuzniar, is the same idiot scam artist who wrote the 'Black Nazis' series:
    Hahaha!!! He probably read Weronika Kuzniar's books in his native Polish and some details got lost in the translation

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, November 28th, 2017, 04:29 AM
  2. Hitler's Table Talk
    By Grimm in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 07:06 PM
  3. Evidence suggesting authenticity of Valhöll
    By Leof in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Saturday, December 22nd, 2007, 09:40 PM
  4. My carved Table..
    By Mistress Klaus in forum Visual Arts & Aesthetics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 06:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •