VK Clark on ‘Table Talk’ fraudulence

[Admin disclaimer: The following article represents the views of Clark only. Our movement does not necessarily endorse these views.]

Genoud, Heim & Picker’s “Table Talk”: A Study in Academic Fraud & Scandal

By Weronika Kuzniar

 

 

Hitler’s Table Talk is a worthless primary source. There, I said it. And I’m not just saying this to evoke a reaction. I’m saying it because I really mean it. 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 (hereafter TT). Had it not been for the outstanding research at the low cost of just $50 taken up by historian Richard Carrier, we might still be in the dark about this, 64 years after TT’s first appearance in the English language. Sorry to bust this bubble, Hitler and Third Reich enthusiasts, but TT is worthless. In this article, I will establish three things: 1) that Hugh Trevor-Roper knowingly and willingly engaged in academic fraud for profit and prestige, 2) that TT is a worthless primary source, and 3) that renowned Hitler “experts”, both Revisionist and Mainstream, have failed the public regarding reliable Hitler primary sources.

Whose “table talks”?

Before we commence, a brief word about the texts in question is necessary. The so-called “table talks” were written down by Martin Bormann’s aides, Heinrich Heim and Henry Picker, from 1941 to 1944. Aside from Heim and Picker, there are two more “table talk” authors, Bormann himself, “who contributed at least four entries, and a man known only as Müller.”

Mr. Picker was the first to publish his “table talks,” and he did so in German only. They were published as Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1942, in 1951 and 1963, respectively. His book included some of Heim’s notes that he happened to come across, and which he then altered for his book.

According to Nilsson, François Genoud, who we will discuss later, published the first volume of a French version of the “table talks” a year later, following that up with a second volume in 1954. This French version (henceforth LP) “was not based on the same German original as Picker’s… but on a second manuscript that had purportedly been acquired by Genoud, the so-called Bormann-Vermerke” (henceforth B-V5). And even though the “form, content and provenance of the [B-V] remain obscure,” historian David Irving attested to this manuscript’s authenticity nonetheless. Adds Nilsson, LP eventually contained both Heim’s and Picker’s notes in subsequent volumes and editions. Genoud then had LP translated into English, by which time it had been “expanded to cover the whole period from 1941 to the end of 1944, and to include all of Heim’s and Picker’s notes said to have been in Genoud’s possession.”

Writes Nilsson in this regard: The German text, which the French and English editions are said to be based upon, was, for reasons that are unclear, not published until 1980. It was given the title Monologe im Führerhauptquartier… This edition does not contain Picker’s notes either due to a struggle over intellectual property rights. It does not help that both Heim’s and Picker’s original manuscripts seem to have been lost.

So far, Mr. Carrier is the only historian who has compared these various “table talks” in a systematic way. His conclusions have exposed the English and French “table talks” as “highly questionable,” particularly if they are based on the same manuscript used for Genoud’s Monologe. The English “table talks,” Carrier reveals, are based in whole or part on Genoud’s LP, “and… both the English and French editions contain additions to, and mistranslations of, the German texts that they are supposedly based on.” Nilsson himself “address[es] certain questions related to the authenticity of the B-V, as well as the accuracy of the translations,”all of which is pertinent to most historians’ claim that Hitler is the author/originator of the “table talks.” As we will soon see, he was not.

Indeed, there is a whole lot of mystery and very little certainty surrounding “Hitler’s” supposed “table talks”.

Hugh Trevor-Roper’s failings

Let’s begin with Hugh Trevor-Roper. Contrary to his respectable and honest public image, Trevor-Roper knowingly and willingly engaged in deception and fraud behind the scenes. The Hitler Diaries, proven to be a fraud, were not a unique fail for Trevor-Roper. In fact, as Swedish historian Mikael Nilsson has demonstrated, Trevor-Roper had a long trail of academic fails that he hid from the public eye.

His first fail is The Testament of Adolf Hitler, also known as Hitlers politisches Testament, first published in French in 1959, and in English in 1961. David Irving, and other historians such as Ian Kershaw, exposed this document, which was “acquired” and doctored by the notorious Nazi apologist and document peddler François Genoud, as a fraud. A fake.

Not surprisingly, I was attacked on Facebook for declaring that “Hitler’s Table Talk” is a “fraud,” which it is. The first attack reads: “Hitler’s table talk a fraud? based on what? what a BS. Have you ever red in in the original version? It is totally impossible to fake such prestigious thoughts that jump in all directions, but always in depth and related,,, you can not [sic] fake that, especially as their [sic] is no goal in faking it, they make hitler look better and there is not even a prooof [sic] of gas chambers or whatsoever in it. BASIC LOGIC APPLIED Bitte.” The second attack reads: “Did you read it? No you didn’t. Nor has [C] here. No single argument in the content that proves it is a fraud either just a statement. Not even a ball pen argument like Anne Franck hoaxers. The table talks are ingenious remarks from a well thought person on a host of topics impossible to fake. Are there transcrition [sic] error or some augmented passages, possibly. But even then, for what agenda. There is NONE.”

(*note: portions of original article skipped here viewable in the following link [along with it in its entirety] – Wilk Mocy Publishers)

…We still have neo-nazis touting the TT in its own dedicated podcast series, episodes 1 through 56. One neo-nazi writes on her website:

• How trustworthy is this text, since Martin Bormann assigned two of his aides to take the notes during meals, then turn them over to him for “checking” and safekeeping;

• Why it is valuable to study this book;

• Questions about the translation and translators – for example, did François Genoud tamper with the parts about Christianity;

• Of those offended by this book, Christians are #1 on the list, complaining that it does not agree with Hitler’s “public record” of positive remarks about Christianity in earlier years;

• David Irving and Albert Speer both confirmed that these recorded talks are authentically Hitler; Richard Carrier disagrees;

• Next week we’ll begin reading the text.

Indeed, the only aspect of TT with which most neo-nazis disagree is a few select entries about Christianity. Everything else is “legit” in their collective opinion. TT remains the most highly valued text next to Mein Kampf, also the result of extensive editing and external influence (such as that of Rudolf Hess and Max Amann), in the White Nationalist, Hitler worshiping community. We therefore owe it to these groups, and to the public at large, to tell them the truth about this text. It is not the words of Adolf Hitler.

(…continue article here: Wilk Mocy Publishers / Powerwolf Publications)

This entry was posted in Other. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to VK Clark on ‘Table Talk’ fraudulence

  1. NuminousSun says:

    Not that any of this makes much difference to myself considering I rarely ever speak on Hitler, but I thought I should say that in my opinion had Hitler known his name would damage National Socialism in the future he would have been the first to tell National Socialists not to use it, he did after all put a bullet through his own brain in a bunker…

    I don’t foresee Hitler coming up to much in my political discussions about the True Left for example…

    If what VK says is true then revisionists truly have their work cut out for them. Not sure if there’s anything else to say?

  2. NuminousSun says:

    I also think that because of the visceral hatred for Hitler by Jewry, they went so over the top with their propaganda against the man that true National Socialism can be presented to the unwashed masses under a different name, and most of them won’t know the difference. That video link someone posted not so long ago if Antifa protesters cheering Hitler’s points taken from his speeches proves this.

    Perhaps the true work of revisionism is to prove to “white” Westerners that they have Hitler all wrong, because it doesn’t feel like the rest of the non-”white” world really needs it at this point?

    Furthermore, when I hear someone use the word ” white” to identify themselves these days, my pen is already hovering over the ‘write-off’ checkbox so-to-speak. As AS mentioned in his last post by citing JAM’s latest correspondence, and adding a bit to it, from a strategic standpoint alone, who needs Wester “whites” in the fight against Jewry anyway, considering most of the world are non-”white”, not Judeo-Christian, and don’t have the same hang ups in discovering the truth that so many Westerner’s have?

  3. Steven says:

    Personally I wonder why on earth VK’s thing has even got on the Blog, cos honestly, she doesn’t basically say anything original of her own, but is basically verbatim reading the writings of someone who she openly says is a Jewish scholar… and to be honest, when she says this is going to affect neo-nazis, my experience of WN “nazis” is they basically all are very wary of the Table Talk, and it seems more likely to affect folks like us who want to see his broader perspective. Comparing Table Talk to Mein Kampf, especially in light of actually decisions and actions of Hitler and the Third Reich are evidence that the more narrow “tribalist” stuff in MK was mostly propaganda to appeal to the German people where they were at, as opposed to really the end-goal of where Hitler was attempting to take Germany…

    So anyway, we did have a bit of a discussion about this on the Discord earlier, and Gerulf had a few good statements about the whole thing. Also never in VK’s article does she actually really make any quotes from the Table Talk itself. Of course, she says all this stuff about this wheeling and that dealing – the whole thing of the translation being based on that guy’s French translation and actually not being allowed to use the “original German” is pretty suspicious, but of course, I’m only going off the evidence as presented by VK quoting directly from an article written by a Jewish scholar… So would be interesting to actually verify all this stuff…

  4. Steven says:

    Just noticed this has been added:

    [Admin disclaimer: The following article represents the views of Clark only. Our movement does not necessarily endorse these views.]

    Nice one :)

  5. Although I value greatly the research of Veronica Kuzniar-Clark, it’s hard to agree with her on the issue of Table Talk. Clark claims that Table Talk is mostly an invention of Picker and Heim, but apart from her own conjectures she does not bring up any hard evidence to support this hypothesis. On the other hand, the authenticity of Table Talk has been confirmed by Albert Speer, among others. As far as I know most historians consider Table Talk authentic, although many of them have pointed out that English translation is far from perfect. Therefore, it is recommended for historical research to use the German original instead of the Trevor-Roper edition. But even so, calling Table Talk “worthless” is a gross exaggeration. An example of a worthless historical source is Hermann Rauschning’s “Hitler Speaks”, a collected conversations, which were completely invented by the author. We now know beyond any doubt that Rauschning is a mere fraudster who claimed to have met Hitler more than houndred times while in reality he met him at most four times and never alone (but it didn’t stop him from writing a thick book about his made up conversations with Hitler).

    Personally, I really like Table Talk. When someone asks me about objective, non-biased books that will allow us to get know the real Hitler, not a monster created by Jewish-Allied propaganda, I always recommend them to read Table Talk in the first place. The careful reader will also notice that, contrary to popular belief, Table Talk is not anti-Christian but anti-Judeo-Christian. Whenever Hitler denounces “Christianity” in Table Talk, he is actually referring to Judeo-Christianity (for example, he accuses Saul-Paul of corrupting the true teachings of Jesus). The above claim may be substantiated by a fact that in Table Talk Hitler never attacks Jesus, he always speaks positively about him and speaks of him as an Aryan.

  6. anon says:

    @Aryan Militarism
    Did you even read the article? No, Table Talk is in her view not strictly an invention, but a bunch of highly distorted recollections – how accurate, we don’t know. And apart from her own conjectures she brings up peer-revieved research:
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/1432747?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022009415619689

  7. Phantom Wolf says:

    The gist of Carrier and Clark’s arguments is that the French/English translation of the Table Talk have been distorted, so the whole entire conversations (and not just the translations) should be considered worthless.

    My reply: You could say the same thing about the Bible. It contains obvious late century interpolations and the Luther Bible, KJV, etc. are horribly inaccurate and outdated. Does that invalidate the whole entire book or it’s translations? Certainly not.

    Only people who are too lazy to do the translating themselves and in dread of finding out the actual truth about Hitler want to wish away the Table Talks.

  8. Gallery Guy says:

    @AA

    Why exactly did you make this blog post? You just made this post with that disclaimer on top, and that’s it.

    It’s not like you asked to start a conversation about why indivuals should approve or disapprove Weronika Kuzniar’s claims on “T.T.” in the post and/or comments. You also didn’t even explicitly try to start a general conversation on the topic aforementioned in the same places.

  9. Jessa says:

    You all really should consider this very relevant Comment of NuminousSun, bc he has a point, in what i consider to have a negative affect on this network:

    NuminousSun says:
    July 19, 2017 at 7:13 pm

    Not that any of this makes much difference to myself considering I rarely ever speak on Hitler, …….!!!! but I thought I should say that in my opinion had Hitler known his name would damage National Socialism in the future he would have been the first to tell National Socialists not to use it, he did after all put a bullet through his own brain in a bunker…!!!!

  10. I’m actually more inclined to listen to VK due to here fantastic work on uncovering the multicultural Waffen-SS, but I agree with @AryanMilitarism. The document is at best heavily expurgated.

  11. Otto says:

    “Table Talk” see Hugh Trevor Roper.

  12. Also, why would you make this blog post knowing the majority of your quotes from Hitler on the main site (assumedly) come from Table Talk? Do you not regard Veronica Clark as a reliable source on the history of the Third Reich? Or is her assessment of Table Talk too much for you bear because it is a direct contravention of your Aryanist beliefs? I think we all deserve an explanation.

  13. William Eastfield says:

    >kids being blown apart in Palestine.
    >sixtybillion animals being raped, tortured and cannibalized daily.
    >a world spiraling into Zion.

    But don’t worry about all of that. Let us speak of WWII revisionism instead.

  14. Mza9 says:

    I would love to see the look on most peoples faces on their day of judgement when God asks, “Did you know what was being done in your name and for your benefit?”…. :D

    Most of ‘em better start praying that God doesn’t ask them that question. As for me, I already know I’m guilty. Sometimes I cannot help but think to myself, “Well, atleast I feel guilty”. That’s a start I guess?

    It’s unfortunate that Aryanism will always be burdened with revisionism, and revisionists who think they’ve found another revisionist site. The one major downfall of Aryanism.net in my mind….

  15. William Eastfield says:

    We should frankly pigeonhole revisionism until a later time. It simply isn’t appropriate to discuss revisionism while the world is on fire…

  16. William Eastfield says:

    Unless it’s the type of fire spoken of here:

    “I have cast fire upon the world, and see, I watch over it until it blazes up.”

  17. Robert Young says:

    @WE

    ‘Kids being blown apart in Palestine’

    Palestine doesn’t need a pro-rape and anti-black site like this to help them out. In fact, most nations do not need a site like this to help them out.

    Now, go fight with AS over your insecurities.

  18. William Eastfield says:

    @Rudolf Jungman

    >pro-rape
    Come on, don’t pretend that the idea of a meta-rapist who rapes rapists isn’t poetic justice and is almost (ironically) funny.

    >anti-black
    Read: anti-slave identity.

    >Now, go fight with AS over your insecurities.
    Can I talk over my insecurities with him during a slumberparty, instead?

  19. Mza9 says:

    Who is this Rudolf Jungman fellow and what does he do?

  20. William Eastfield says:

    He is a silly, silly Jew.

  21. hanjar says:

    When discussing corruption of anything it’s more important to point out how and why, and towards what end, rather than merely labeling it corrupted and therefore useless.

    If Table Talk is doctored, then how and why?

    A rightist would identify the parts that show Hitler opposed to racial abuse are the corrupted parts, whereas we identify the discrepancies as the unnecessary sleights and slurs added at the end of otherwise positively unifying paragraphs.

    Jews take it further by surrounding select cuts of TT with their own commentary focused exclusively on undermining every positive connection between NS, Islam and Christianity, with desperately rambling walls of fiction. Even highlighting the parts they feel will be the most divisive in red capslock.

    Example.

    https://arabracismislamofascism.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/hitlers-usuful-inferior-arab-race/

    “Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire. Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”
    http://www.andrewbostom.org/content/view/61/55/

    The roots of Arab Anti-Semitism – By David Greenberg – Slate Magazine Oct 31, 2001 … As he notes, anti-Semitism in Arab countries (and non-Arab Islamic states such as Iran) …. East—they were eager to make common cause with Hitler, despite Nazi belief that they, like the Jews, were inferior to Aryans. …
    http://www.slate.com/id/2057949/

    The third Reich & the Palestine question – Francis R. Nicosia – 2000 – History – 319 pages (Page 85)
    Most Arabs never realized that the Nazis would consider them racially inferior as well and that Germany had no intention of undermining British authority in …”

  22. Mza9 says:

    As usual Jews look like lying fools when the truth finally comes out:

    Hitler speaks on the plight of the Palestinians and of USA and British hypocrisy 1939 https://altcensored.com/watch?v=pmJnDKmUdj4

    Straight from Hitler’s mouth. Clearly Hitler did NOT see Arabs as inferior, not even close, at-least in this actual speech he gave.

    Such sloppy lies….

  23. Janus says:

    > A rightist would identify the parts that show Hitler opposed to racial abuse are the corrupted parts, whereas we identify the discrepancies as the unnecessary sleights and slurs added at the end of otherwise positively unifying paragraphs.

    There is always something disagreeable about the Table Talk. That’s why it’s best suited for putting distance between pretenders and genuine Hitler followers. Who cares how many self-proclaimed nationalistic movements have to be thwarted in the process to establish it’s reliability/authenticity.

    The fact that the Jews were the first to catch onto it’s divisiveness, and subsequently endeavor to either disprove or disregard it through multiple scholars exhibiting over-the-top severe bias – racial (A. J. P. Taylor), journalistic (William L. Shirer), anti-religious (Richard C. Carrier), or religious (Steigmann-Gall) – proves that they are already ten steps ahead of their enemies!

    > Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs.

    Speer’s testimony on the Arabs has corroboration from Christa Schroeder. Schroeder further supports the Table Talk statement about the Japanese/Islam religion not being founded in terrorism.

    > Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking
    Although this is misleading. This came after a meeting with Arab delegates.

    > Germany had no intention of undermining British authority in…

    In Palestine? Then this is true, iirc in that one well-known video speech and other speeches, he acknowledges their situation but nonetheless stresses that he would place Germany’s interests first. He was also supportive of Britain retaining it’s Indian colonies.

  24. Mza9 says:

    A powerful Germany undermines British authority everywhere! Why do you really think Churchill wanted to destroy the Third Reich, because it was anti-Jewish? lol!

    Ahmadinejad – An das deutsche Volk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I1X2uspk6c

  25. hanjar says:

    @Janus

    My problem with Hitler is well described in your last statement. He saw that many in his country were not of the disposition to sacrifice themselves to destroy the enemy. He’s talking to civilians who need to keep working with high morale, able to see a future. This is just realistic, like with his view on meat eating, he personally refrained from eating meat but did not expect to alienate and divide everyone by imposing veganism on everyone. So he would sometimes pander to weaker minds by inserting that their interests come first. He did it in Mein Kampf as well, despite exhortations to fight Jewry which pretty much means you’re in for a fight to the death anyway. If he was entirely expedient and only concerned with German interest, he would have simply got along with the Jews and ransacked the entire middle east.

    I take a different approach and clearly emphasize anti-interest sentiment as fundamental to overcoming manipulation.

  26. Janus says:

    > My problem with Hitler is well described in your last statement. He saw that many in his country were not of the disposition to sacrifice themselves to destroy the enemy.

    What do you mean here by sacrifice?

    > This is just realistic, like with his view on meat eating, he personally refrained from eating meat but did not expect to alienate and divide everyone by imposing veganism on everyone.

    Which he also did with Christianity.

    > So he would sometimes pander to weaker minds by inserting that their interests come first.

    He dispensed with propaganda geared towards Christians after the 1930s. The speeches pertaining to Palestine were as late as 1938. Why would he need to pander at that point?

    > If he was entirely expedient and only concerned with German interest, he would have simply got along with the Jews and ransacked the entire middle east.

    I’m not saying he was purely pragmatic, but before he met with Grand Mufti in 1941, he was mainly focused on German interests.

    > I take a different approach and clearly emphasize anti-interest sentiment as fundamental to overcoming manipulation.

    Does this tie in with Aryanist agenda or is it an independent inquiry?

  27. hanjar says:

    @Janus

    As you know, in Hitler’s indictment of Roosevelt he did show compassion for Palestinians, and condemnation for Zionist abuse, but he had to reassure the German civilians that he would not drag them into a similar situation, promising to prioritize and to not abandon Germans in Czechoslovakia.

    >He dispensed with propaganda geared towards Christians after the 1930s. The speeches pertaining to Palestine were as late as 1938. Why would he need to pander at that point?

    When faced with threat, most people are selfish, even those who ordinarily have good intentions. Promising people a better life [with intent to follow through with it] works better to motivate them. Rhetoric towards the SS would be different. With militarists you appeal to heroic feelings.

    Personally, though, I cannot describe how much I hate the idea of bribery. If someone offered me paradise on earth in exchange for looking away from the Palestinians, I would be so enraged that person should run for their life. The same goes for attempts to intimidate, you don’t feel threatened you go after the person for being so insolent. Anyone who gives in to a bribe or a threat is a slave. But then I am like the Japanese who were lured to attack Peal Harbor, hence not immune to manipulation. Offer me a heroic death and I am also given to temptation. But offer me life, happiness and paradise on earth and I’ll spit in your face.

  28. Janus says:

    > Rhetoric towards the SS would be different. With militarists you appeal to heroic feelings.

    That’s true.

    > But then I am like the Japanese who were lured to attack Peal Harbor, hence not immune to manipulation. Offer me a heroic death and I am also given to temptation. But offer me life, happiness and paradise on earth and I’ll spit in your face.

    AH claimed the kamikaze self-sacrifice of the Japanese was un-Germanic. According to your standards, Mohammed’s promises of paradise and the Japanese’s religion tendency towards happiness is un-Germanic.

  29. Mza9 says:

    @Janus:

    “AH claimed the kamikaze self-sacrifice of the Japanese was un-Germanic.”

    Where did you get that idea from, out of curiosity?

    Sonderkommando “Elbe” was the name of a World War II Luftwaffe task force assigned to bring down heavy bombers by ramming aircraft into them mid-air. The tactic aimed to cause losses sufficient to halt or at least reduce the Western Allies’ bombing of Germany.[1]

    The pilots were expected to parachute out either just before or after they had collided with their target. The chances of a Sonderkommando Elbe pilot surviving such a practice were low, at a time when the Luftwaffe was lacking sufficient numbers of well-trained pilots.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderkommando_Elbe

  30. Mza9 says:

    Just realized too, this very sentence identifies the fact that the Third Reich was actually an anti-Western entity, no revisionism needed:

    Sonderkommando “Elbe” was the name of a World War II Luftwaffe task force assigned to bring down heavy bombers by ramming aircraft into them mid-air. The tactic aimed to cause losses sufficient to halt or at least reduce the Western Allies’ bombing of Germany.

  31. Mza9 says:

    @Janus:

    Also, this sentence doesn’t make sense:

    “Mohammed’s promises of paradise and the Japanese’s religion tendency towards happiness is un-Germanic.”

    Doesn’t a heroic death lead to Mohammed’s promise of paradise?

    A man once told Buddha: “I want happiness”
    Buddha replied: “First remove ‘I’ that’s ego. Then remove ‘Want’ that’s desire. Now, you are left only with happiness.”

  32. Janus says:

    > Where did you get that idea from, out of curiosity?

    Hanna Reitsch was the one who proposed the idea of Germans carrying out kamikaze attacks, which were completely shot down by Hitler. Nicolaus von Below was the only one besides Hitler present for this. Leni Riefenstahl’s quote from Hitler, which I picked up much later, pretty much settles it: “we Germans are not Japanese kamikaze.”

    There’s a plethora of testimony I’ve documented here on this subject: https://hitlerianhylozoics.wordpress.com/#egoism

    I actually disagreed with Hitler on this matter, but he still seems justified in his assertion that it was far too early in the war for the Germans to resort to kamikaze tactics.

    Besides, Sonderkommando Elbe was established in 1945.

    > Doesn’t a heroic death lead to Mohammed’s promise of paradise?

    That depends, is it for taking lives or salvaging lives? Was Samson’s sacrifice heroic?

    > Buddha

    Substitute “happiness” with “greatness” for a moment. Remove egotism and desire and you’ll left with a hollow shell destined for mediocrity.

    The pursuit of greatness was discovered in Nero (though ill-regulated) and Wagner (who only admired Catholicism in Prague for this reason). According to Otto Strasser, Hitler said, “the idea of one nation called upon to rule the others is rooted in the mind of every great men.” All great things in the world wouldn’t have been possible without a dose of self-interest. It’s only when self-interest is taken to an excessive degree that it becomes harmful.

    What were Hitler’s views on the territorial war, the war over territory (not to be confused with colonialism)? He didn’t want to abolish it, did he? He considered such a conflict as the natural state of affairs.

  33. Mza9 says:

    @Janus:

    First you wrote:
    “AH claimed the kamikaze self-sacrifice of the Japanese was un-Germanic.”

    Secondly you wrote:
    “I actually disagreed with Hitler on this matter, but he still seems justified in his assertion that it was far too early in the war for the Germans to resort to kamikaze tactics.”

    So did he believe it to be “un-Germanic”, or did he assert it was “too early” to use kamikaze tactics? Which one is it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>