Christ sein und Nazi? 🤔

[Superior_Molecule]

Warum sind eigentlich so viele Christen auf dem Forum Nazis? Mann kann nicht beides gleichzeitig sein. Ist das eine spezielle Form des Autismus?

 

[FoidGetter]

Warum sind eigentlich so viele Christen auf dem Forum Nazis? Mann kann nicht beides gleichzeitig sein. Ist das eine spezielle Form des Autismus?

warum sollte man nicht beides sein können

 

[Superior_Molecule]

warum sollte man nicht beides sein können

Kurz gesagt, Ein Nazi zu sein bedeutet auch voller Hass gegen andere Menschen zu sein die anders aussehen oder eine andere Herkunft haben, Jedoch stand Jesus dafür jeden zu lieben egal woher er kommt Gibt noch viele weitere Sachen, wie den holocaust, Verherrlichung des Krieges und Ausbeutung anderer Menschen.

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

Warum sind eigentlich so viele Christen auf dem Forum Nazis? Mann kann nicht beides gleichzeitig sein. Ist das eine spezielle Form des Autismus?

Sag mir wieso das nicht geht?

 

[Superior_Molecule]

Sag mir wieso das nicht geht?

Rassenideologie und hass Verbreitung. Die Nazis währen die ersten die in die Hölle kommen Lol

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

Rassenideologie und hass Verbreitung. Die Nazis währen die ersten die in die Hölle kommen Lol

Kannst du mir die Rassenideologie der Nazis aufzeigen, mit ihren eigenen Dokumenten? Hassverbreitung gegenüber wem? Deine dritte Aussage ist sowieso geisteskrank, da muss ich auch nicht weiter drauf eingehen

 

[Superior_Molecule]

Kannst du mir die Rassenideologie der Nazis aufzeigen, mit ihren eigenen Dokumenten? Hassverbreitung gegenüber wem? Deine dritte Aussage ist sowieso geisteskrank, da muss ich auch nicht weiter drauf eingehen

Ich bin der festen Überzeugung, das du geistig behindert bist.

 

[marlx]

Kurz gesagt, Ein Nazi zu sein bedeutet auch voller Hass gegen andere Menschen zu sein die anders aussehen oder eine andere Herkunft haben, Jedoch stand Jesus dafür jeden zu lieben egal woher er kommt Gibt noch viele weitere Sachen, wie den holocaust, Verherrlichung des Krieges und Ausbeutung anderer Menschen.

Ein nazi zu sein heißt nicht alle anderen Menschen zu hassen Nazi = Nationalsozialist es ist eine Politische Richtung, nur weil eine Gruppe die Nationalsozialisten waren etwas gemacht hat definiert es nicht den Rest

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

Ich bin der festen Überzeugung, das du geistig behindert bist.

Wieso möchtest du plötzlich doch keinen intellektuellen Diskurs mit mir eingehen Herr Alleswisser?

 

[Superior_Molecule]

Wieso möchtest du plötzlich doch keinen intellektuellen Diskurs mit mir eingehen Herr Alleswisser?

Willst du mir allerernstes sagen, Das es keine Hassverbreitung bei den Nazis gab?

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

Willst du mir allerernstes sagen, Das es keine Hassverbreitung bei den Nazis gab?

Ich habe gefragt „Hassverbreitung gegenüber wem?“ du Idiot, flüchte nicht und versuch nicht mich zum Antworten zu bringen wenn du keine Antworten liefern kannst iqlet

 

[JesusRettet_]

Kurz gesagt, Ein Nazi zu sein bedeutet auch voller Hass gegen andere Menschen zu sein die anders aussehen oder eine andere Herkunft haben, Jedoch stand Jesus dafür jeden zu lieben egal woher er kommt Gibt noch viele weitere Sachen, wie den holocaust, Verherrlichung des Krieges und Ausbeutung anderer Menschen.

du glaubst aber auch wirklich alles was man dir sagt oder

 

[Superior_Molecule]

Ein nazi zu sein heißt nicht alle anderen Menschen zu hassen Nazi = Nationalsozialist es ist eine Politische Richtung, nur weil eine Gruppe die Nationalsozialisten waren etwas gemacht hat definiert es nicht den Rest

Da hast du recht, jedoch verfolgen die meisten Nationalsozialisten immernoch dem gleichen Bild wie in der NS zeit

 

[Superior_Molecule]

Ich habe gefragt „Hassverbreitung gegenüber wem?“ du Idiot, flüchte nicht und versuch nicht mich zum Antworten zu bringen wenn du keine Antworten liefern kannst iqlet

Gegenüber den „minderen“ Rassen

 

[Superior_Molecule]

du glaubst aber auch wirklich alles was man dir sagt oder

Inwiefern?

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

Gegenüber den „minderen“ Rassen

Gut, jetzt zeigst du mir bitte aus den Dokumenten der Nazis dass das so stimmt, wirklich authentische Werke wie Reden vom Führer, SS-Handblätter o.Ä. Ich kann dir nähmlich aufweisen dass es nicht so ist, danke

 

[Superior_Molecule]

Gut, jetzt zeigst du mir bitte aus den Dokumenten der Nazis dass das so stimmt, wirklich authentische Werke wie Reden vom Führer, SS-Handblätter o.Ä. Ich kann dir nähmlich aufweisen dass es nicht so ist, danke

Würde mich ehrlich interessieren, bin auf dem Thema noch nicht so belesen und würde gerne wissen was ihr so dazu sagt

 

[JesusRettet_]

Inwiefern?

wenn du denkst das nazi sein sofort ohne frage bedeutet vollen Hass gegen Menschen die anders aussehen oder einer anderen Herkunft zugehörig sind zu haben, dann merkt man einfach direkt dass du kaum mal selber recherchiert hast und meistens einfach das glaubst was dir die medien auftischen

 

[Superior_Molecule]

wenn du denkst das nazi sein sofort ohne frage bedeutet vollen Hass gegen Menschen die anders aussehen oder einer anderen Herkunft zugehörig sind zu haben, dann merkt man einfach direkt dass du kaum mal selber recherchiert hast und meistens einfach das glaubst was dir die medien auftischen

Wollte Mal sehen wie Leute auf dem Forum darauf reagieren, wenn du willst kannst du gerne mal erklären was der Nationalsozialismus für dich bedeutet in deinem eigenen Worten

 

[JesusRettet_]

Wollte Mal sehen wie Leute auf dem Forum darauf reagieren, wenn du willst kannst du gerne mal erklären was der Nationalsozialismus für dich bedeutet in deinem eigenen Worten

war ein guter zweck eigentlich. in deutschland hat sich damals der lebensstandard enorm erhöht, nachdem juden den wirtschaftscrash verursacht haben und die wichtigsten banken und medien übernahmen. war ein letzter richtiger versuch die aufzuhalten.

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

Würde mich ehrlich interessieren, bin auf dem Thema noch nicht so belesen und würde gerne wissen was ihr so dazu sagt

Dafür warst du aber eben noch ziemlich voreingenommen, würdest du nicht sagen?

 

[Superior_Molecule]

Dafür warst du aber eben noch ziemlich voreingenommen, würdest du nicht sagen?

Naja Also das es einen Hass bei den Nazis gab, kann man ja nicht leugnen. Würde trotzdem gerne wissen welche Argumente bzw Beweise du dagegen hast, bin offen dafür.

 

[Superior_Molecule]

war ein guter zweck eigentlich. in deutschland hat sich damals der lebensstandard enorm erhöht, nachdem juden den wirtschaftscrash verursacht haben und die wichtigsten banken und medien übernahmen. war ein letzter richtiger versuch die aufzuhalten.

Würdest du sagen, das man es auch anders hätte lösen können oder das es der einzige Ausweg war?

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

Naja Also das es einen Hass bei den Nazis gab, kann man ja nicht leugnen. Würde trotzdem gerne wissen welche Argumente bzw Beweise du dagegen hast, bin offen dafür.

Arischer Abstammung (deutschblütig) ist demnach derjenige Mensch, der frei von einem, vom deutschen Volke aus gesehen, fremdrassigen Blutseinschlage ist. Als fremd gilt hier vor allem das Blut der auch im europäischen Siedlungsraume lebenden Juden und Zigeuner, das der asiatischen und afrikanischen Rassen und der Ureinwohner Australiens und Amerikas (Indianer), während z.B. ein Engländer oder Schwede, ein Franzose oder Tscheche, ein Pole oder Italiener, wenn er selbst frei von solchen, auch ihm fremden Blutseinschlägen ist, als verwandt, also als arisch gelten muß, mag er nun in seiner Heimat oder in Ostasien oder in Amerika wohnen oder mag er Bürger der U.S.A. oder eines südamerikanischen Freistaates sein.

Deutsches Ahnenpass-Gesetz

Hass ist es nicht, es ist eine bewusste Distinktion, deutlich unterschiedlicher Ethnien, wie hier angeführt

Hier auch nochmal:

Das deutsche Blut bildet keine eigene Rasse. Das deutsche Volk besteht aus Vertretern verschiedener Rassen. Aber all diese Rassen zeichnen sich dadurch aus, dass ihr Blut untereinander verträglich ist und eine Mischung dieses Blutes, im Gegensatz zu Blut, das nicht mit ihnen verwandt ist, keine Hindernisse und Spannungen verursacht. Zum deutschen Blut kann man zweifellos das Blut jener Völker gleichsetzen, deren rassische Zusammensetzung mit dem deutschen Volk verwandt ist. Dies gilt für alle Menschen, die die Länder Europas bewohnen. Blut, das mit dem deutschen verwandt ist, wird in alle Richtungen gleichermaßen betrachtet. Daher können Bürger des Reiches Vertreter von Minderheiten werden, die in Deutschland leben, zum Beispiel Polen, Dänen usw.

Robert Ley, Organisationsbuch der NSDAP

 

[JesusRettet_]

Würdest du sagen, das man es auch anders hätte lösen können oder das es der einzige Ausweg war?

natürlich hätte man es auch anders versuchen können aber das hätte genauso gescheitert, würde ich sagen

 

[Ahmed88]

The fact that hitler, deemed christianity as a lesser religion then other religions, just makes it worse

 

[Superior_Molecule]

Deutsches Ahnenpass-Gesetz

Hass ist es nicht, es ist eine bewusste Distinktion, deutlich unterschiedlicher Ethnien, wie hier angeführt

Hier auch nochmal:



Robert Ley, Organisationsbuch der NSDAP

View attachment 4930960

Man hat doch Zigeuner und Juden in Konzentrationslager gesteckt. Der Generalplan Ost war dafür gedacht, die Zivilbevölkerung der Sovietunion zu vertreiben und zu töten für den „Lebensraum“. Zudem finden man in Hitlers Buch „Mein Kampf“ in Band 1 Kapitel 11 „Das Ergebnis jeder rassenmischung ist also das Absinken des Niveau der höheren rasse“. Das zeigt doch, das Adolf Hitler die Menschen in rassen unterteile, und auch niedere „rassen“ verurteilt, oder nicht?

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

The fact that hitler, deemed christianity as a lesser religion then other religions, just makes it worse

Nigga don‘t let me start with it

 

[Ahmed88]

Nigga don‘t let me start with it

Start with what?
It's true

 

[Superior_Molecule]

natürlich hätte man es auch anders versuchen können aber das hätte genauso gescheitert, würde ich sagen

Man hat doch Zigeuner und Juden in Konzentrationslager gesteckt. Der Generalplan Ost war dafür gedacht, die Zivilbevölkerung der Sovietunion zu vertreiben und zu töten für den „Lebensraum“. Zudem finden man in Hitlers Buch „Mein Kampf“ in Band 1 Kapitel 11 „Das Ergebnis jeder rassenmischung ist also das Absinken des Niveau der höheren rasse“. Das zeigt doch, das Adolf Hitler die Menschen in rassen unterteile, und auch niedere „rassen“ verurteilt, oder nicht?

Dazu kommt ja noch, das behinderte Kinder ungebraucht worden sind, und Menschen mit einer anderen Meinung direkt inhaftiert bzw. Ebenfalls in ein Konzentrationslager geschickt worden sind. Bin mir ziemlich sicher das Jesus Christus nicht für all dies stand

 

[armemann]

Gut, jetzt zeigst du mir bitte aus den Dokumenten der Nazis dass das so stimmt, wirklich authentische Werke wie Reden vom Führer, SS-Handblätter o.Ä. Ich kann dir nähmlich aufweisen dass es nicht so ist, danke

Dafür braucht man nichts auf Papier, man braucht sich nur anzuschauen, was sie mit Menschen anderer Glaubensrichtungen und Rassen gemacht haben…

 

[Superior_Molecule]

Dafür braucht man nichts auf Papier, man braucht sich nur anzuschauen, was sie mit Menschen anderer Glaubensrichtungen und Rassen gemacht haben…

Zudem muss man auch betrachten, das sehr viele Nazis so schnell wie möglich alle Beweise verbrannt haben damit sie nicht verfolgt werden können.

 

[armemann]

Außerdem haben die Nazis das Christentum sowieso verachtet, wie soll man dass dann kombinieren

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

Man hat doch Zigeuner und Juden in Konzentrationslager gesteckt. Der Generalplan Ost war dafür gedacht, die Zivilbevölkerung der Sovietunion zu vertreiben und zu töten für den „Lebensraum“. Zudem finden man in Hitlers Buch „Mein Kampf“ in Band 1 Kapitel 11 „Das Ergebnis jeder rassenmischung ist also das Absinken des Niveau der höheren rasse“. Das zeigt doch, das Adolf Hitler die Menschen in rassen unterteile, und auch niedere „rassen“ verurteilt, oder nicht?

Es waren Arbeitslager, die gibt es auch heute, nur in moderner Form

Ich würde dir raten das unverfälschte Buch „Mein Kampf“ zu lesen und nicht eine, der 500 verschiedenen Ausgaben heutzutage lol

Rassen sind nichts verkehrtes, ist einfach nur die größtmögliche Unterteilung einer Ethnie, nähmlich der Hautfarbe und dem geographischen Punkt nach. Niedere Rassen sind nur Rassen die weniger geschafft haben, man kann nicht leumden dass die Weißen, den anderen gegenüber, weit überlegen sind haha

Das mit dem Generalplan Ost stimmt ebwnso nicht, es gibt kein einziges Dokument darüber, wie die Bevölkerung ausgelöscht werden soll, ein Bevölkerungsaustausch stattfinden soll oder was auch immer du im Kopf hast.

Drei Regionen hätten eingedeutscht werden sollen, nähmlich: Ingermanland, Gotengau und die Memel-Narew Region.

Von Lebensraum war nie die Rede btw

Hier zum Beispiel die Pläne für die eroberten Gebiete im Osten, sehr schlimm!!!

Aus dem Dokument über den Generalplan Ost, scheint mir ziemlich zivilisiert:

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

Start with what?
It's true

It‘s not nigga

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

Zudem muss man auch betrachten, das sehr viele Nazis so schnell wie möglich alle Beweise verbrannt haben damit sie nicht verfolgt werden können.

Ja genau

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

Dazu kommt ja noch, das behinderte Kinder ungebraucht worden sind, und Menschen mit einer anderen Meinung direkt inhaftiert bzw. Ebenfalls in ein Konzentrationslager geschickt worden sind. Bin mir ziemlich sicher das Jesus Christus nicht für all dies stand

Ist halt ebenso eine Lüge lol, wenn du blind glaubst, ist es nicht mein Problem

Heutzutage werden Menschen mit anderen Meinungen, die nicht dem Narrativ ensprechen, auch inhaftiert, merkst du was?

 

[armemann]

Ist halt ebenso eine Lüge lol, wenn du blind glaubst, ist es nicht mein Problem

Heutzutage werden Menschen mit anderen Meinungen, die nicht dem Narrativ ensprechen, auch inhaftiert, merkst du was?

Hahhaha das is crazy, einfach alles was einem nicht passt sind fake news
Einfach der neue trump auf dem forum
Außerdem warum nur JFL auf meinen post reagiert und nicht widerlegt wie du es ja stets selbst erwartest

 

[armemann]

Ist halt ebenso eine Lüge lol, wenn du blind glaubst, ist es nicht mein Problem

Heutzutage werden Menschen mit anderen Meinungen, die nicht dem Narrativ ensprechen, auch inhaftiert, merkst du was?

Aktion T4 sowie zehntausende Bundesakten nur ausgedacht?
Lächerlich

 

[truewarlord]

warum sollte man nicht beides sein können

@Akuzy
hab das gerade gelesen und das passt dazu das er in tier 5 gehört

 

[Akuzy]

hab das gerade gelesen und das passt dazu das er in tier 5 gehört

Das ist für seine Verhältnisse nur die Spitze des Eisbergs

 

[Ahmed88]

It‘s not nigga

He classified christianity as weak and overly compassionate, and don't even get me started on heinrich himmler and alfred rosenberg

 

[FoidGetter]

@Akuzy
hab das gerade gelesen und das passt dazu das er in tier 5 gehört

du nigga ich hab nie gesagt das es geht ich wollte einfach nur gründe haben

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

Hahhaha das is crazy, einfach alles was einem nicht passt sind fake news
Einfach der neue trump auf dem forum
Außerdem warum nur JFL auf meinen post reagiert und nicht widerlegt wie du es ja stets selbst erwartest

Ich widerlege wortwörtlich die ganze Zeit die claims, hab leider auch ein Leben außerhalb des Forums, weshalb ich auch nicht auf alles ins Detail eingehe lol

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

He classified christianity as weak and overly compassionate, and don't even get me started on heinrich himmler and alfred rosenberg

We can debate on that lol, I assume you‘ll cite Table Talks JFL

 

[Ahmed88]

We can debate on that lol, I assume you‘ll cite Table Talks JFL

What's wrong with table talks lmao
They are valid sources
But sure go ahead

 

[Jesus_ist_König]

Ja, finde ich auch. Man sollte Leute nicht töten bzw. sich nicht rächen, denn die Rache gehört Gott und man soll diese nicht übernehmen, jedoch ist es ein mangel an Liebe, wenn man zusieht wie der Judentum die Welt insgeheim radikalisiert und somit den Frieden zerstört.

 

[hellenic_shovinist]

What's wrong with table talks lmao
They are valid sources
But sure go ahead

They aren‘t a fucking valid source lol

THE VARIOUS PUBLISHED VERSIONS

Henry Picker was the first to publish his version of the notes in 1951, under the title Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1942. This edition included not only Picker's own notes but also some of Heinrich Heim's. The publication was thematically organized by historian Gerhard Ritter and released by Athenäum Verlag in cooperation with the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich.

The first edition, however, was not the last. In 1963, a second edition with the same title was released, this time arranged chronologically and edited by historian Percy Ernst Schramm. This chronological structure provided a different perspective on the content, enhancing its historical value.

In 1952, François Genoud published the first volume of Libres propos sur la guerre et la paix, with the second volume following in 1954. Genoud's edition was based on another manuscript known as the Bormann-Vermerke, which he had acquired after the war. This manuscript largely consisted of Heim's notes but also contained contributions from Picker, Bormann, and Müller. Genoud's efforts went beyond the French editions; in 1953, he published an English version titled AH's Table Talk 1941-1944, introduced and assisted by Hugh R. Trevor-Roper. Additionally, Genoud published an Italian single-volume edition in 1954, broadening the reach of the content across different languages.

The final major edition of these table talks came in 1980 with the German release of Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944, edited by historian Werner Jochmann. However, unlike the earlier editions, Monologe did not include Picker's notes due to a copyright dispute. This omission marked a significant difference between the German edition and its predecessors, with Picker's contributions left out of this particular publication.

It was only recently that a serious attempt to critically investigate the various editions and translations was published. In a 2003 article in German Studies Review, Richard C. Carrier compared the English, French, and German versions of the table talks and concluded that historians have a significant amount of source-critical work to undertake before any of the German editions can be regarded as an authoritative record of AH's statements.

Carrier's comparison of the different editions yielded concerning results. He demonstrated that Genoud had added statements in several instances, often making AH appear more critical of Christianity than in the German editions. Furthermore, Carrier proved that Trevor-Roper's English edition was at least partially translated from Genoud's French version, raising further questions about the accuracy and reliability of the English text.

Richard C. Carrier, ‘Adolf Hitler‘s Table Talk: Troubling Finds‘, German Studies Review 26 (2003), pp. 561-76

THE PUBLICATION OF HENRY PICKER'S AH'S TISCHGESPRÄCHE IN 1951

The involvement of the Institute for Contemporary History (IfZ) in the controversial Tischgespräche affair began almost immediately after its formation. In late January 1951, Gerhard Ritter was contacted by Paul W. Junker, the director of the Bonn-based publisher Athenäum Verlag. In his introductory letter, Junker announced the acquisition of a manuscript containing notes from speeches delivered by Hitler during meals at the Führer's headquarters. The letter began in the following way:

Honourable Professor, I come today with an offer for you: We have acquired a manuscript that contains notes from the speeches regarding a series of problems held by AH during dinner at the Führer headquarters. These notes were made by two government clerks from the Department of the Interior on AH's orders. It is an extremely interesting document that sheds light on the history of National Socialism, and it is particularly characteristic of Adolf Hitler's personality.

Nilsson, Mikael, Adolf Hitler Redux: The Incredible History of Adolf Hitler‘s So-Called Table Talks, pp. 58-59

However, the issue of the text's authenticity soon emerged due to the multiple editorial manipulations made by Heinrich Picker, one of the authors of the transcripts. Picker made numerous stylistic interventions, often without any real necessity dictated by the original manuscript, but rather for aesthetic or readability reasons. Each draft of the text underwent small changes, suggesting a transformation of the content from a historical document into a literary text. This process raised fundamental questions about the reliability of the transcripts, especially for those wishing to conduct a thorough analysis of Hitler‘s ideological thinking. In fact, even a single altered word could radically change the meaning of a statement, making the interpretation of his thoughts uncertain.

Ibid., page 70

The editorial changes were not limited to the content. The organization of the text was also altered. Ritter, for example, expressed dissatisfaction with the titles and subtitles inserted by Picker, judging them inappropriate and personally taking the liberty of correcting them. Although Picker accepted many of Ritter's proposed revisions, the final result did not fully satisfy him, and he sought further improvements.

Ibid., pp. 60, 70-71

An additional issue arose with Picker's own narrative consistency. He claimed, on one hand, that he had made most of the notes without explicit requests from Martin Bormann, but on the other hand, he acknowledged that on at least one occasion, Bormann had specifically instructed him to transcribe Hitler's words. This statement suggests, as noted by Matthias Rheindorf, that Bormann's orders were not exceptional but rather recurring. Therefore, Picker seems to have deliberately omitted the systematic role of Bormann in the production of the notes, raising doubts about his transparency toward readers.

Ibid., page 63

Compounding the issue further is the contradiction between the claim that the notes had been authorized by an unspecified figure, and the simultaneous denial of Hitler's direct involvement. This contradiction becomes more pronounced when Picker claims that Hitler had "acknowledged" the accuracy of his transcripts. However, it remains unclear to whom this recognition was directed and in what context it occurred. Rheindorf found no satisfactory answer to this within the Tischgespräche, while the apparent inconsistency went unnoticed by both Ritter and the If.

Ibid., page 63

Ultimately, the analysis of the publication of the Tischgespräche highlights a series of serious source-critical and historiographical issues. From the outset, the work stirred strong controversies, with accusations directed at the IfZ and Gerhard Ritter for allowing the publication of a text perceived by many as a form of glorification of Hitler, lacking an appropriate critical apparatus. The difficulties Ritter encountered, compounded by Picker's opposition to any form of explanatory commentary, reveal the complexity of the editorial context. Further problems emerged when unauthorized excerpts were published in the magazine Quick, which sparked indignation within the IfZ.

Ibid., page 103

The second edition of Picker's Tischgespräche, published in 1963 and edited by Percy Ernst Schramm, raises significant historiographical concerns regarding the authenticity of Hitler's so called table talks. When historians cite these conversations- regardless of the edition, they are not quoting Adolf Hitler directly, but rather a reconstruction of what he may have said. The spirit of the statements may reflect Hitler's views, but the actual words often do not. Furthermore, since the original notes or audio recordings are not available, there is no way of knowing when the quotes were remembered or recorded verbatim.

Ibid., page 98

The 1963 edition introduced several key changes compared to the original 1951 publication. One notable alteration was the chronological organization of the notes. However, it also included entries and segments that were not present in Ritter's earlier edition. Some of these additions exhibit clear signs of being literary inventions, likely created after 1951. A close comparison with the manuscript on which the edition was based-referred to as Ms. 63-makes these editorial interventions evident.

Ibid., page 98

For instance, a note dated 2 May 1942 claims to capture a conversation that occurred during a train journey from the Berghof to the Wolf's Lair, in which Adolf Hitler supposedly spoke about the centrality of the Berghof in his regime. In Ms. 63, the entry reads:

"I introduced myself to Ribbentrop at the Berghof"

with handwritten edits modifying it to:

"At the Berghof I also introduced myself to Minister Ribbentrop" In the published 1963 edition, the latter version appears. However, this statement is demonstrably false, as Hitler met Ribbentrop-who became Foreign Minister in 1938-as early as 1932 in Berlin. This fabricated detail highlights how Picker altered the text during the manuscript preparation process.

Ibid., page 99

Another noteworthy example involves a quote in which Hitler supposedly declared himself a true Christian for encouraging antisemitic education among German youth. This particular statement does not appear in the Table Talk, which might suggest that Picker invented it. This passage reads:

"In recognizing the importance of this spectacle, and by encouraging it, who can say that I do not act irreproachably Christian!"

Yet, the same sentence is found in Libres propos, indicating that it was indeed part of the version Picker submitted to Bormann in 1942 and was later omitted from Table Talk for unknown reasons.

Ibid., page 102

It is also established that the 1951 edition of Tischgespräche was heavily redacted-far more than Ritter disclosed to readers. It is possible Ritter was unaware of the full extent of Picker's editorial revisions. The alterations made in Ms. 63, some of which appear in the 1963 edition, occasionally bring the text closer to the "original" source, but in many cases, they move it further away.

Ibid., page 102

Ultimately, the subsequent 1963 edition, which has never been critically analyzed until now, reveals significant changes made by Picker compared to the 1951 version-changes that, while seemingly minor, seriously compromise the text's fidelity to the original statements. The lack of critical reflection on these edits, even by the editor Percy Ernst Schramm, points to a broader lack of attention to accuracy by those who have relied on the Tischgespräche without questioning how trustworthy it really is. For this reason, anyone referring to the Tischgespräche should be very cautious: it's often unclear what is actually being quoted, and the reliability of the words attributed to Adolf Hitler remains highly questionable.

Ibid., page 103

THE MYSTERY OF THE BORMANN NOTE FACSIMILE

The mystery surrounding the facsimile of Bormann's note is tied to his focus on political issues he considered most pertinent, such as J, the Volk, and Church- related matters. According to Picker, Bormann was primarily interested in notes regarding these topics, which he believed were essential to his political agenda. On several occasions, Bormann wrote notes himself, although these were not included in Genoud's manuscript. One such note, dated at the end of November 1944, dealt with Jews and Christianity.

Picker asserts that the notes Bormann made were from memory and that, as they were intended to align with his political objectives, he edited them to serve his purposes. He may have also dictated parts of these notes to ensure a sharper formulation.

Ibid., page 95

Translation:

During a tea conversation yesterday evening, the Führer said, e.g.: Jesus was certainly not a Jew. Jesus fought against the pernicious materialism of his time, and thus against the Jews. Saul-Paul cleverly falsified the Christian idea: from the challenge against the deification of money, from the challenge against Jews selfishness, jewish materialism became the supporting idea of the infatuated, the slaves, the oppressed, the ones in money and goods, against the ruling class, against the superior race, "against the oppressors"! Paul's religion, and the Christianity represented from then on, was nothing more than communism!

BArch NS 6/133

While Picker's account is valuable, it is not necessary to rely solely on his word. Bormann himself confirmed in the facsimile that any note which did not align with his memory was edited by him. This statement is further corroborated by Peter Longerich's research, which shows that Bormann consistently edited the notes to better align with his own agenda, often tailoring Hitler's words to fit his political needs. Longerich also demonstrates that as Bormann grew more confident in understanding Hitler's mindset, he began to assert Hitler's views on various matters without consulting him directly.

Nilsson, Mikael, Adolf Hitler Redux: The Icredible History of Adolf Hitler‘s So-Called Table Talks, page 9

 

[Ahmed88]

They aren‘t a fucking valid source lol

THE VARIOUS PUBLISHED VERSIONS

Henry Picker was the first to publish his version of the notes in 1951, under the title Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1942. This edition included not only Picker's own notes but also some of Heinrich Heim's. The publication was thematically organized by historian Gerhard Ritter and released by Athenäum Verlag in cooperation with the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich.

The first edition, however, was not the last. In 1963, a second edition with the same title was released, this time arranged chronologically and edited by historian Percy Ernst Schramm. This chronological structure provided a different perspective on the content, enhancing its historical value.

In 1952, François Genoud published the first volume of Libres propos sur la guerre et la paix, with the second volume following in 1954. Genoud's edition was based on another manuscript known as the Bormann-Vermerke, which he had acquired after the war. This manuscript largely consisted of Heim's notes but also contained contributions from Picker, Bormann, and Müller. Genoud's efforts went beyond the French editions; in 1953, he published an English version titled AH's Table Talk 1941-1944, introduced and assisted by Hugh R. Trevor-Roper. Additionally, Genoud published an Italian single-volume edition in 1954, broadening the reach of the content across different languages.

The final major edition of these table talks came in 1980 with the German release of Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944, edited by historian Werner Jochmann. However, unlike the earlier editions, Monologe did not include Picker's notes due to a copyright dispute. This omission marked a significant difference between the German edition and its predecessors, with Picker's contributions left out of this particular publication.

It was only recently that a serious attempt to critically investigate the various editions and translations was published. In a 2003 article in German Studies Review, Richard C. Carrier compared the English, French, and German versions of the table talks and concluded that historians have a significant amount of source-critical work to undertake before any of the German editions can be regarded as an authoritative record of AH's statements.

Carrier's comparison of the different editions yielded concerning results. He demonstrated that Genoud had added statements in several instances, often making AH appear more critical of Christianity than in the German editions. Furthermore, Carrier proved that Trevor-Roper's English edition was at least partially translated from Genoud's French version, raising further questions about the accuracy and reliability of the English text.

Richard C. Carrier, ‘Adolf Hitler‘s Table Talk: Troubling Finds‘, German Studies Review 26 (2003), pp. 561-76

THE PUBLICATION OF HENRY PICKER'S AH'S TISCHGESPRÄCHE IN 1951

The involvement of the Institute for Contemporary History (IfZ) in the controversial Tischgespräche affair began almost immediately after its formation. In late January 1951, Gerhard Ritter was contacted by Paul W. Junker, the director of the Bonn-based publisher Athenäum Verlag. In his introductory letter, Junker announced the acquisition of a manuscript containing notes from speeches delivered by Hitler during meals at the Führer's headquarters. The letter began in the following way:



Nilsson, Mikael, Adolf Hitler Redux: The Incredible History of Adolf Hitler‘s So-Called Table Talks, pp. 58-59

However, the issue of the text's authenticity soon emerged due to the multiple editorial manipulations made by Heinrich Picker, one of the authors of the transcripts. Picker made numerous stylistic interventions, often without any real necessity dictated by the original manuscript, but rather for aesthetic or readability reasons. Each draft of the text underwent small changes, suggesting a transformation of the content from a historical document into a literary text. This process raised fundamental questions about the reliability of the transcripts, especially for those wishing to conduct a thorough analysis of Hitler‘s ideological thinking. In fact, even a single altered word could radically change the meaning of a statement, making the interpretation of his thoughts uncertain.

Ibid., page 70

The editorial changes were not limited to the content. The organization of the text was also altered. Ritter, for example, expressed dissatisfaction with the titles and subtitles inserted by Picker, judging them inappropriate and personally taking the liberty of correcting them. Although Picker accepted many of Ritter's proposed revisions, the final result did not fully satisfy him, and he sought further improvements.

Ibid., pp. 60, 70-71

An additional issue arose with Picker's own narrative consistency. He claimed, on one hand, that he had made most of the notes without explicit requests from Martin Bormann, but on the other hand, he acknowledged that on at least one occasion, Bormann had specifically instructed him to transcribe Hitler's words. This statement suggests, as noted by Matthias Rheindorf, that Bormann's orders were not exceptional but rather recurring. Therefore, Picker seems to have deliberately omitted the systematic role of Bormann in the production of the notes, raising doubts about his transparency toward readers.

Ibid., page 63

Compounding the issue further is the contradiction between the claim that the notes had been authorized by an unspecified figure, and the simultaneous denial of Hitler's direct involvement. This contradiction becomes more pronounced when Picker claims that Hitler had "acknowledged" the accuracy of his transcripts. However, it remains unclear to whom this recognition was directed and in what context it occurred. Rheindorf found no satisfactory answer to this within the Tischgespräche, while the apparent inconsistency went unnoticed by both Ritter and the If.

Ibid., page 63

Ultimately, the analysis of the publication of the Tischgespräche highlights a series of serious source-critical and historiographical issues. From the outset, the work stirred strong controversies, with accusations directed at the IfZ and Gerhard Ritter for allowing the publication of a text perceived by many as a form of glorification of Hitler, lacking an appropriate critical apparatus. The difficulties Ritter encountered, compounded by Picker's opposition to any form of explanatory commentary, reveal the complexity of the editorial context. Further problems emerged when unauthorized excerpts were published in the magazine Quick, which sparked indignation within the IfZ.

Ibid., page 103

The second edition of Picker's Tischgespräche, published in 1963 and edited by Percy Ernst Schramm, raises significant historiographical concerns regarding the authenticity of Hitler's so called table talks. When historians cite these conversations- regardless of the edition, they are not quoting Adolf Hitler directly, but rather a reconstruction of what he may have said. The spirit of the statements may reflect Hitler's views, but the actual words often do not. Furthermore, since the original notes or audio recordings are not available, there is no way of knowing when the quotes were remembered or recorded verbatim.

Ibid., page 98

The 1963 edition introduced several key changes compared to the original 1951 publication. One notable alteration was the chronological organization of the notes. However, it also included entries and segments that were not present in Ritter's earlier edition. Some of these additions exhibit clear signs of being literary inventions, likely created after 1951. A close comparison with the manuscript on which the edition was based-referred to as Ms. 63-makes these editorial interventions evident.

Ibid., page 98

For instance, a note dated 2 May 1942 claims to capture a conversation that occurred during a train journey from the Berghof to the Wolf's Lair, in which Adolf Hitler supposedly spoke about the centrality of the Berghof in his regime. In Ms. 63, the entry reads:

"I introduced myself to Ribbentrop at the Berghof"

with handwritten edits modifying it to:

"At the Berghof I also introduced myself to Minister Ribbentrop" In the published 1963 edition, the latter version appears. However, this statement is demonstrably false, as Hitler met Ribbentrop-who became Foreign Minister in 1938-as early as 1932 in Berlin. This fabricated detail highlights how Picker altered the text during the manuscript preparation process.

Ibid., page 99

Another noteworthy example involves a quote in which Hitler supposedly declared himself a true Christian for encouraging antisemitic education among German youth. This particular statement does not appear in the Table Talk, which might suggest that Picker invented it. This passage reads:

"In recognizing the importance of this spectacle, and by encouraging it, who can say that I do not act irreproachably Christian!"

Yet, the same sentence is found in Libres propos, indicating that it was indeed part of the version Picker submitted to Bormann in 1942 and was later omitted from Table Talk for unknown reasons.

Ibid., page 102

It is also established that the 1951 edition of Tischgespräche was heavily redacted-far more than Ritter disclosed to readers. It is possible Ritter was unaware of the full extent of Picker's editorial revisions. The alterations made in Ms. 63, some of which appear in the 1963 edition, occasionally bring the text closer to the "original" source, but in many cases, they move it further away.

Ibid., page 102

Ultimately, the subsequent 1963 edition, which has never been critically analyzed until now, reveals significant changes made by Picker compared to the 1951 version-changes that, while seemingly minor, seriously compromise the text's fidelity to the original statements. The lack of critical reflection on these edits, even by the editor Percy Ernst Schramm, points to a broader lack of attention to accuracy by those who have relied on the Tischgespräche without questioning how trustworthy it really is. For this reason, anyone referring to the Tischgespräche should be very cautious: it's often unclear what is actually being quoted, and the reliability of the words attributed to Adolf Hitler remains highly questionable.

Ibid., page 103

THE MYSTERY OF THE BORMANN NOTE FACSIMILE

The mystery surrounding the facsimile of Bormann's note is tied to his focus on political issues he considered most pertinent, such as J, the Volk, and Church- related matters. According to Picker, Bormann was primarily interested in notes regarding these topics, which he believed were essential to his political agenda. On several occasions, Bormann wrote notes himself, although these were not included in Genoud's manuscript. One such note, dated at the end of November 1944, dealt with Jews and Christianity.

Picker asserts that the notes Bormann made were from memory and that, as they were intended to align with his political objectives, he edited them to serve his purposes. He may have also dictated parts of these notes to ensure a sharper formulation.

Ibid., page 95

View attachment 4931718

Translation:



BArch NS 6/133

While Picker's account is valuable, it is not necessary to rely solely on his word. Bormann himself confirmed in the facsimile that any note which did not align with his memory was edited by him. This statement is further corroborated by Peter Longerich's research, which shows that Bormann consistently edited the notes to better align with his own agenda, often tailoring Hitler's words to fit his political needs. Longerich also demonstrates that as Bormann grew more confident in understanding Hitler's mindset, he began to assert Hitler's views on various matters without consulting him directly.

Nilsson, Mikael, Adolf Hitler Redux: The Icredible History of Adolf Hitler‘s So-Called Table Talks, page 9

Wasn't this debunked a while ago?
And did you copy paste this of somewhere, this is being flagged as ai

The claim that the existence of multiple editorial traditions of Hitler’s Table Talk linked to Henry Picker, François Genoud, and Werner Jochmann invalidates its historical utility rests on a misconceived epistemology of sources. Within modern historiography and textual criticism, especially when dealing with reconstructed utterances from closed authoritarian environments, textual multiplicity is not an aberrant defect that nullifies evidentiary status but an endemic feature of transmission ecology. The coexistence of variant recensions, editorial recalibration, and translational mediation is precisely the condition under which source criticism operates. Historical validity is therefore not predicated on textual immaculacy but on the capacity to reconstruct stable semantic continuities across layered and partially independent textual traditions.





In the case of the Table Talk corpus, methodological scrutiny is necessarily differential and stratigraphic. The analytical task is to disaggregate persistent thematic invariants, those conceptual constellations that recur across the Picker manuscript base, the Genoud mediated Franco German translation chain, and the later Jochmann critical redaction, from contingent interpolations introduced through editorial intervention, mnemonic distortion, or ideological reframing. This requires a comparative philological framework in which convergence across independent transmission vectors is treated as epistemically significant, while isolated divergences are interpreted as potential artefacts of redactional contamination. Under such a framework, textual heterogeneity becomes analytically productive rather than disqualifying, functioning as a diagnostic map of transmission layers rather than as a nullifying defect.





The invocation of Richard C. Carrier is frequently misconstrued as a blanket repudiation of the corpus. In fact, Carrier’s intervention is more precisely hermeneutic and methodological. His critique centres on translational asymmetry, particularly the demonstrable dependence of certain English language editions upon François Genoud’s French rendering rather than direct engagement with German source material. This introduces a cascading degradation of evidentiary fidelity across linguistic strata. However, this observation operates within a well established philological principle: the epistemic weight of a textual witness diminishes in proportion to the number of intermediary translational and editorial filters separating it from its urtext. Carrier’s position is therefore not eliminative but hierarchically corrective, advocating a prioritisation of German primary strata over derivative translational offshoots.





Equally untenable is the assertion that the corpus is epistemically void due to its non stenographic character. The notes attributed to Martin Bormann, Heinrich Heim, and related compilers were never produced under conditions of mechanical transcription or acoustic preservation. They belong instead to the genre of mediated political reportage, in which immediacy is inevitably refracted through mnemonic selection, cognitive compression, and situational interpretation. Within established historiographical practice, such materials are not discarded as failed transcripts but reclassified as second order documentary artefacts. Their reliability is assessed through triangulation: internal consistency across entries, recurrence of motifs across independent witnesses, and external corroboration with contemporaneous ideological and administrative documentation.





Consequently, scholarly engagement with the Table Talk tradition is neither credulous acceptance nor wholesale rejection but epistemically tiered utilisation. Historians isolate cross textual invariants, privilege German linguistic base texts over translational derivatives, and evaluate thematic claims against parallel ideological corpora, including the doctrinal writings of Alfred Rosenberg and the institutional praxis associated with Heinrich Himmler. The evidentiary significance of the material thus derives not from any singular editorial instantiation but from the polycentric convergence of recurrent conceptual structures across independently mediated archival channels.


Dw, if some parts sound different, i copy pasted some of it off places

 

[Goev Croft]

Warum sind eigentlich so viele Christen auf dem Forum Nazis? Mann kann nicht beides gleichzeitig sein. Ist das eine spezielle Form des Autismus?

religion und staat sollte man nicht zussamen tun wenn man was aus seinen land was erfolgreiches machen will