Hitler’s Duplicity Revealed: A Devout
Christian in Public,
but the Total Opposite Behind Closed Doors
An addendum to a previous article on ‘Hitler’s Table Talk’
in which Hitler’s Religious Views were discussed
Edited and Presented by Lasha Darkmoon
LD: The authenticity of Hitler’s Table Talk is proved beyond
dispute here, revealing in the process Hitler’s implacable hatred of Christianity.
is a follow-up article to Hitler’s Religious Views: Excerpts from Hitler’s Table Talk.
The present article consists of two very condensed
mini-articles by and about
David Irving in connection with Hitler’s
Table Talk. The first is a brief response by
Irving to a correspondent
on his website. It validates the Table Talk book and
enthuses about its
contents. The second mini-article, entitled ‘The Faking of Hitler’s
Testament’, relates to Irving’s dealings with the Swiss forger Francois Genoud.
This is followed by a fascinating 4-minute video which expands on Irving’s dealings
with the confidence trickster Genoud. It succeeds in drawing a sharp line between
the fraudulent material, now identified, and the authentic material, now fully available
The upshot of these notes is to set the reader’s mind at rest on two important
(1) There is no longer any reason to doubt the authenticity
of Hitler’s Table Talk.
(2) These informal dinner conversations
between Hitler and his closest associates,
which took place between 1941 and
1944, clearly reveal Hitler’s contempt for
Christianity — “an
evil invention of the Jews”.
who continue to believe that Hitler was a devout Christian are in for a crushing
disappointment. Hitler was not an atheist, but neither was he the exemplary Christian
pretended to be in his speeches and official pronouncements. All that was an act for
consumption. The image of devout religiosity Hitler needed to
to the German people was a calculated exercise in duplicity. (LD)
asks on Thursday, January 1, 2004
if it’s worth spending time reading Hitler’s
How good is Hitler’s
I PURCHASED a book Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941 to 1944. It is about 1.5 inches thick.
It has an introduction by H.R. Trevor-Roper and
translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens.
Can you please tell
me if you have read it and what your thoughts are. Assuming Hitler
did have these so called
“Table Talks”, do you believe that it was faithfully translated?
reason I ask you is that I do not trust much of anything, especially being burnt by
Speer’s book. I briefly discussed this with you about four or five years
ago during a
luncheon you had in Washington D.C.
I read a bit of the Table
Talk and I am already turned off because H.R. Trevor Roper
in an anti-Hitler diatribe in the beginning of the book, so it is difficult for
me to trust the translation. H.R. Trevor Roper should have written a book “Why I hate Hitler, even though I never
I respect your opinion; I read five of your books already.
The last one
was Dresden, a real crime and tragedy if there ever was one.
David Irving responds:
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).
table talk notes were originally taken by Heinrich Heim, the adjutant of Martin Bormann,
attended these meals at an adjacent table and took notes. (Later Henry Picker took
job). Afterwards Heim immediately typed up these records, which Bormann signed as accurate.
François Genoud purchased the files of transcripts from Bormann’s widow
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
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.
were expertly, and literately, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H.
though with a few (a very few) odd interpolations of short sentences
don’t exist in the original — the translator evidently felt justified in
insertions, to make the context plain.
is a difficult chore: I have translated four books, including Nikki Lauda’s
one can either produce a clinical, wooden, illiterate version, like Richard
Evans’ courtroom translations of Third Reich documents, or one can produce
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.
also took liberties with translating words like Schrecken, which
he translated as “rumour”
in the sense of “scare-story”. In my own view such translations
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
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
bedtime reading, as each “meal” occupies only two or three pages of
print. My original copy, purloined from my twin brother Nicholas,
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.
First published on David Irving’s site (January 1, 2004)
Reading Recommended by Irving
 Hitler’s War, by David Irving
 Hitler’s Table Talk (1941-1944): His Private Conversations (746 pages)
Hitler’s Table Talk July 24, 1942 (Hitler says he will ship all the Jews to Madagascar after the war)
 Radical’s Diary, re the contract that Lord Weidenfeld signed with Genoud for Hitler’s Table Talk: what he paid Hitler’s sister
 Michael Law asks Mr Irving about Genoud and Hitler’s Table Talk, and gets a full reply
 Items on Henry Picker and Table Talk
 Francois Genoud’s role in the composition
of the fake 1945 Bunkergespräche
(Table Talk,”testament”): The Faking of Hitler’s ‘Last Testament’.
THE FAKING OF HITLER’S LAST TESTAMENT
Seeking to disprove David Irving’s assertion
(1977) that there is no archival evidence
that Hitler even knew of the Final
Solution of the Jewish Problem, let alone ordered
the liquidation of millions
of Jews, some critics pointed to a passage in the book
edited by Hugh
Trevor Roper, Hitler’s Last Testament, allegedly based on a typescript
of Hitler’s informal mealtime remarks in 1945, analogous to the famous Hitler’s Table Talk.
There’s only one problem.
The document, first published in French in 1959 and in
English in 1961 as Hitler’s
Last Testament, is a FAKE.
Its owner, Swiss lawyer-activist
François Genoud, now dead, first showed it to David Irving
at a meeting at the Hotel
d’Angleterre in Geneva in 1971. At that time it was about fifty
pages of typescript,
typed on a small-face non-German typewriter on American-size
legal paper. What was very surprising
was that Genoud was willing to let German editor
Professor Eduard Baumgarten work
only from a French text, which he insisted must be
retranslated into German.
David Irving continued to press Genoud, expressing to him strong doubts, after discussions
with Hitler’s private staff, especially one who stated categorically that he had
never seen Hitler’s secretary Martin Bormann taking down such notes in 1945.
There was a further difficulty. Mr Irving had a transcript of the 1945 diary, now
Moscow, of Bormann (pictured); he also had a facsimile of the register of all the
guests at Hitler’s
February 1945 meals, kept by Hitler’s manservant Heinz Linge.
unquestionably genuine documents showed that Bormann was NOT
at several of the meals during which the “testament” showed he had
apparently taken notes; SOMETIMES HE WAS NOT EVEN IN BERLIN. (Emphasis added)
In 1979, Genoud phoned Mr Irving at his Paris hotel, and said: “I have a gift for
handed him a package. It contained a copy of the complete typescript of the Testament.
The package gift from Genoud raised a new problem. Every page was heavily amended
and expanded in somebody else’s hand-writing.
Irving, astonished, asked Genoud whose was the writing.
then finally admitted it was his own.
Later still, he admitted
in conversation with Mr Irving, that the entire typescript
was his own confection,
saying: “But it is just what Hitler would have said.”
(The unabridged article can be read here)