Hitler's Table Talk

The history of the document is relatively complex as numerous individuals were involved, working at different times, collating different parts of the work. This effort spawned two distinct notebooks, which were translated into multiple languages and covered in some instances non-overlapping time-frames due to ongoing legal and copyright issues.Rosenbaum, Ron (1999). Explaining Hitler. New York: Harper Collins, [https://www.scribd.com/doc/288706131/Explaining-Hitler-Hitler-s-Table-Talk pp. 74–77.]

All editions and translations are based on the two original German notebooks, one by Henry Picker and another based on a more complete notebook by Martin Bormann (which is often called the Bormann-Vermerke). Picker was the first to publish the table talk, doing so in 1951 in the original German. This was followed by the French translation in 1952 by François Genoud, a Swiss financier and a principal benefactor of the Nazi diaspora. The English edition came in 1953, which was translated by R. H. Stevens and Norman Cameron and published with an introduction by historian Hugh Trevor-Roper.Sisman, Adam (2011). An Honourable Englishman: The Life of Hugh Trevor-Roper. New York: Random House, [https://books.google.com/books?id=DXdAispMpXwC&pg=PA227 pp. 227–230.] Both the French and English translations were purportedly based on the Bormann-Vermerke manuscript while Picker's volume was based on his original notes as well as the notes he directly acquired from Heinrich Heim spanning from 5 July 1941 to March 1942.Trevor-Roper, H.R. (2000). Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944. New York: Enigma Books, [https://books.google.com/books?id=fk-aXlliu6cC&pg=PR18 p. viii.] The original German content of the Bormann-Vermerke was not published until 1980 by historian Werner Jochmann.Jochmann, Werner (1980). [https://books.google.com/books?id=_TUJAQAAIAAJ Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1944.] Hamburg: Albrecht Knaus Verlag. However Jochmann's edition is not complete as it lacks the 100 entries made by Picker between 12 March and 1 September 1942.Trevor-Roper, H.R. (2000). Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944. New York: Enigma Books, [https://books.google.com/books?id=fk-aXlliu6cC&pg=PR19 p. x]. Both Heim's and Picker's original manuscripts seem to have been lost and their whereabouts are unknown.

Mikael Nilsson has noted that Hitler’s Table Talk were heavily edited notes often taken the next day by Bormann and his staff, and which were edited further post-war. Bormann would heavily revise the notes taken by the men to suit his views, and according to evidence was even willing to engage in an anti-Christian stance behind Hitler’s back. The ones entrusted to writing the notes down were Henry Picker and Heinrich Heim. Picker even noted Bormann would make him insert statements he hadn’t even heard, and Heim’s processes was similar. Francois Genoud, who possesed most of the table talks (he claimed that he lost them), engaged in distorting the Table Talks further. He was found to have also forged “Hitler’s Political Testament” (not to be confused with the one within the Last will and testament of Adolf Hitler) where he was likely motivated to insert pro-Arab and anti-colonial statements as being Hitler’s for his own agenda. Even the initial publishers of the Table Talks would make further distortions, such as deleting Hitler’s use of the word “Crusade” to describe Operation Barbarossa.{{cite book |last1=Nilsson |first1=Mikael |title=Constructing a Pseudo-Hitler? The question of the authenticity of Hitlers politisches Testament |date=3 September 2019 |pages=871–891 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13507486.2018.1532983#d1e843 |access-date=17 April 2025}}{{cite book |last1=Nilsson |first1=Mikael |title=Hitler Redux: The Incredible History of Hitler’s So-Called Table Talks |date=15 September 2020 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-17329-1 |pages=12, 88, 113, 143 and 197 |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hitler_Redux/_i34DwAAQBAJ?hl=en |access-date=17 April 2025 |language=en}}

Albert Speer, who was the Minister of Armaments for Germany, in his Spandau diaries, wrote that "Tischgesprache (Table Talk) published by Picker gives a good idea of Hitler's topics of conversation"Speer, Albert (1976). Spandau: The Secret Diaries. New York: Macmillan, [https://books.google.com/books?id=XLSa_RIDHMUC&pg=PA237 p. 237.] Speer stated that Hitler often spoke at length about his favorite subjects while dinner guests were reduced to silent listeners. In the presence of his "superiors by birth and education" Hitler made a sincere effort to "present his thoughts in as impressive manner as possible". Speer noted that "we must remember that this collection includes only those passages in Hitler's monologues—they took up one to two hours every day—which struck Picker as significant. Complete transcripts would reinforce the sense of stifling boredom".{{cite book |last1=Speer |first1=Albert |title=Inside the Third Reich |date=1970 |publisher=Simon & Schuster Inc. |location=New York City, New York, USA |page=237, footnote}} However Speer’s book gave a review of the Table Talks in 1960 where despite the general topics being accurate, it had been so heavily “edited” that Hitler was “unrecognizable” and that it gave the wrong impression, and that Hitler would never speak so freely under the circumstance. He noted Picker in particular stood out, instead of being unnoticed.{{sfn|Nilsson|2020|p=14}}

According to historian Max Domarus, Hitler insisted on absolute silence when he delivered his monologues. No one was allowed to interrupt or contradict him. Magda Goebbels reported to Galeazzo Ciano: "It is always Hitler who talks! He can be Führer as much as he likes, but he always repeats himself and bores his guests". Historian Ian Kershaw writes:

Some of the guests—among them Goebbels, Göring, and Speer—were regulars. Others were newcomers or were seldom invited. The talk was often of world affairs. But Hitler would tailor the discussion to those present. He was careful in what he said. He consciously set out to impress his opinion on his guests, perhaps at times to gauge their reaction. Sometimes he dominated the 'conversation' with a monologue. At other times, he was content to listen while Goebbels sparred with another guest, or a more general discussion unfolded. Sometimes the table talk was interesting. New guests could find the occasion exciting and Hitler's comments a 'revelation'. Frau Below, the wife of the new Luftwaffe-Adjutant, found the atmosphere, and Hitler's company, at first exhilarating and was greatly impressed by his knowledge of history and art. But for the household staff who had heard it all many times, the midday meal was often a tedious affair.

After the war, Speer referred to the table talks as "rambling nonsense", adding:

[Hitler] was that classic German type known as Besserwisser, the know-it-all. His mind was cluttered with minor information and misinformation, about everything. I believe that one of the reasons he gathered so many flunkies around him was that his instinct told him that first-rate people couldn't possibly stomach the outpourings.O'Donnell, James Preston (1978). The Bunker: The History of the Reich Chancellery Group. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. p. 399. {{ISBN|978-0-395-25719-7}}.

Although the table talk monologues are often considered authentic, contentious issues remain over aspects of the published works. These include the reliability of particular translated statements within the French and English editions,Nilsson, Mikael (2016). [http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:848815/FULLTEXT01.pdf "Hugh Trevor-Roper and the English editions of Hitler's Table Talk and Testament."] Journal of Contemporary History 51 (4): 788–812.Bucher, Rainer (2011). Hitler's Theology: A Study in Political Religion. London: Continuum, [https://books.google.com/books?id=FS8SBwAAQBAJ&pg=PR8 p. viii.]Prowe, Diethelm (2013). "Review Hitler by A.N. Wilson." Central European History 46 (02): [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8968995 437]Kershaw, Ian (2001). Hitler 1936–1945: Nemesis. London: Penguin, [https://books.google.com/books?id=B5fJYMxufVcC&pg=PA964 p. 964].Stoltzfus, Nathan (2016). Hitler's Compromises: Coercion and Consensus in Nazi Germany. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. [https://books.google.com/books?id=G0GJDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA305 305.] questions over the manner in which Martin Bormann may have edited his notesRich, Norman (1992). Hitler's War Aims. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, [https://books.google.com/books?id=1nPPbpXUZA0C&pg=PA270 p. 270.]Laqueur, Walter (1978). Fascism: A Reader's Guide. Berkeley: University of California Press, [https://books.google.com/books?id=2s8OaLD7y_oC&pg=PA177 p. 177.] and disputes over which edition is most reliable. François Genoud denied claims that he had inserted words into the original German manuscript, pointing out that it was close-typed apart from handwritten additions by Bormann and therefore such insertions would not have been possible.{{cite book|last=Bormann|first=Martin|title=Hitler's Table Talk: Introduction|year=2012|publisher=Ostara Publications|page=ii}}{{BSN|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable (WP:NOTRS).|date=June 2022}} Picker himself stated that Bormann “always exaggerated” Hitler’s tirades against jews and priests in the Table Talks notes.{{rp|191}}

Richard Evans expresses caution when using the English edition, describing it as "flawed (and in no sense 'official')" and adding that it needed to be compared to the 1980 German edition to ensure it was accurate before being used.{{cite book|last1=Evans|first1=Richard J. | author-link = Richard J. Evans|title=Telling Lies About Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial|date=2002|publisher=Verso|location=London|page=81}} Ian Kershaw also notes that the English edition is imperfect, with a tendency to miss words, leave out lines, or include phrases not found in the German text.Kershaw, Ian (2001). Hitler 1936–1945: Nemesis. London: Penguin, [https://books.google.com/books?id=B5fJYMxufVcC&pg=PA964 p. 964] He uses the original German sources for reference, advising "due caution" in using the English translations.Kershaw, Ian (2000). Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris. London: Penguin, [https://books.google.com/books?id=nV-N10gyoFwC&pg=PR14 p. xiv.]

In 2016, historian Mikael Nilsson argued that Hugh Trevor-Roper failed to disclose source-critical problems, including evidence that significant portions of the English translation were translated directly from Genoud's French edition and not the original German Bormann-Vermerke as claimed by Trevor-Roper in his preface. Nilsson maintains that this information was likely known to Trevor-Roper because it was laid out in the publishing contract that the "translation into English will be made on the basis of the French version by François Genoud". Nilsson concludes that "the translation process was highly doubtful; the history of the manuscript from conception to publication is mysterious at best, and it is impossible to be sure that the majority of the entries are in fact authentic (that is, actual statements by Hitler as opposed to things he could have said)". For this reason, Nilsson argues that Hitler should not be listed as its author because it is not clear "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".{{Cite journal|last=Nilsson|first=Mikael|date=2019-09-03|title=Constructing a Pseudo-Hitler? The question of the authenticity of Hitlers politisches Testament|journal=European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire|volume=26|issue=5|pages=871–891|doi=10.1080/13507486.2018.1532983|s2cid=149705671 |issn=1350-7486|doi-access=free}} Nilsson would develop this argument further in his 2020 book which further demonstrated the source-critical problems of Hitler's Table Talk and revealed that The Testament of Adolf Hitler was a forgery by Francois Genoud.{{Cite book |last=Nilsson |first=Mikael |title=Hitler redux: the incredible history of Hitler's so-called table talks |date=2021 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-367-35305-6 |series=Routledge studies in fascism and the far right |location=London}} Mikael Nilsson concludes his book with the following statement: “However, and this is very important, the results presented in this book should absolutely not be interpreted as meaning that the table talks are not authentic. They really are, at least for the most part, memoranda of statements that Hitler made at some point or another in his wartime HQs. They were made by either Heim, Picker, Müller, or Bormann, although there are also some notes that have no name attached to them.”;{{Cite book |last=Nilsson |first=Mikael |title=Hitler redux: the incredible history of Hitler's so-called table talks |date=2021 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-367-35305-6 |series=Routledge studies in fascism and the far right |location=London}}{{rp|388}} essentially Nilsson's view is that the German version is a second-hand version of the original notes of the time, most of which were in the possession Genoud, but their derivations reflect bias of the writers and unreliable accounting of what Hitler said, and can't even be checked against the original notes that have been lost. Many years later Albert Speer recalled that on one occasion when Hitler expressed hope even after 1942 that the Catholic and Protestant Churches could be reunited under him as head of state and the church similar to the Anglican Church of England, but that Martin Bormann did not record this as he would other statements from Hitler.{{cite book |last1=Speer |first1=Albert |title=Inside the Third Reich |date=April 1997 |publisher=Simon and Schuster |isbn=978-0-684-82949-4 |page=95 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XLSa_RIDHMUC |access-date=3 July 2024 |language=en}}

{{Further|Adolf Hitler's religious views|Religious aspects of Nazism}}

Hitler's Table Talk reveals he continued to wish for a unified Protestant Reich Church of Germany for some time after 1937, which had largely proven unsuccessful.Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2003). [https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/12631/1/NQ41317.pdf The Holy Reich: Nazi conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945], [https://books.google.com/books?id=RreXLeUG_AIC&pg=PA255 pp. 255–256.] This was in line with his earlier policy of uniting all the Protestant churches so they would purvey the new racial and nationalist doctrines of the regime and act as a unifying rather than divisive force in Germany.{{cite book|last=Evans|first=Richard J.|title=The Third Reich in Power 1933–39|url=https://archive.org/details/thirdreichinpowe00evan|url-access=registration|year=2005|publisher=Penguin|location=London|isbn=0-7139-9649-8|pages=[https://archive.org/details/thirdreichinpowe00evan/page/220 220–260]}} By 1940, many historians believe Hitler had abandoned even the syncretist idea of a positive Christianity.Poewe, Karla (2006). New Religions and the Nazis. New York: Routledge, [https://books.google.com/books?id=rsR_Mrh2QSkC&pg=PA28 p. 28]. According to Thomas Childers, after 1938 Hitler began to publicly support a Nazified version of science, particularly social Darwinism, at the core of Nazi ideology in place of a religious one,Peukart, Detlev (1993). "The Genesis of the 'Final Solution' from the Spirit of Science." [https://books.google.com/books?id=jS1oAAAAMAAJ Reevaluating the Third Reich.] Eds. Thomas Childers and Jane Caplan. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishing, pp. 234–252. a development that many historians regard is reflected in his increasingly hostile remarks towards Christianity in the Table Talk.Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2003). The Holy Reich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=RreXLeUG_AIC&pg=PA252 252]–[https://books.google.com/books?id=RreXLeUG_AIC&pg=PA254 254] Historian Richard Weikart characterised Hitler's belief in "evolutionary ethics as the expression of the will of God" who routinely "equated the laws of nature and the will of Providence".Weikart, Richard (2009). Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. [https://books.google.com/books?id=-rnFAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA40 40] Nilsson's book "Hitler's Redux" also casts doubt on the veracity of Hitler's statements quoted on religion and other topics and in particular the use of the word "Christianity" and the quotes of Hitler's condemnation of it, which are likely to have been Bormann's, Picker's, and Genaud's words and additions rather than Hitler's actual words."Hitler's Redux", Kindle version, Loc 942. 961, 964, 978. 991, 1179-1182 In addition, similar issues have been raised about a lack of authenticity in the so-called "Hitler's Political Testament".{{cite journal |last1=Nilsson |first1=Mikael |title=Constructing a Pseudo-Hitler? The question of the authenticity of Hitlers politisches Testament |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13507486.2018.1532983 |journal=European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire |access-date=3 July 2024 |pages=871–891 |language=en |doi=10.1080/13507486.2018.1532983 |date=3 September 2019|volume=26 |issue=5 |doi-access=free }}

In the Table Talk, Hitler is quoted as praising Julian the Apostate's Three Books Against the Galilaeans, an anti-Christian tract from 362. In the entry dated 21 October 1941, Hitler is alleged to have stated:

When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn't know that Julian the Apostate had passed on such clear-sighted judgment on Christianity [...] the Galilean, who later was called Christ, intended something quite different. The Galilean was and must always be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against the Jews [...] and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore—of a whore and a Roman soldier. The decisive falsification of Jesus's teachings was the work of St. Paul [...] or Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely.Trevor-Roper, Hugh, ed. (2000). [https://archive.org/details/HitlerTableTalk Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944.] Trans. Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. New York: Enigma Books, [https://books.google.com/books?id=fk-aXlliu6cC&pg=PA76 p. 76.]

The Table Talk also attributes to Hitler a confidence in science over religion: "Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar".{{cite book|last=Norman Cameron|first=R.H. Stevens|title=Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944: His Private Conversations|year=2000|publisher=Enigma Books|location=New York|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=fk-aXlliu6cC&pg=PA49 61.]}} In Jochmann (1980) this is quoted as, "Mag die Wissenschaft jeweils nach eintausend oder nach zweitausend Jahren zu einem anderen Standpunkt kommen, so war ihr früherer Standpunkt nicht verlogen; die Wissenschaft lügt überhaupt nicht, sie bemüht sich, nach den Grenzen, die jeweils ihrer Einsicht gezogen sind, eine Sache richtig zu sehen. Sie stellt nicht bewußt falsch dar. Das Christentum lügt: Es ist in einen Konflikt mit sich selbst hineingeraten." Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1944. Hamburg: Albrecht Knaus Verlag, p. 84. However, Hitler insisted: "We don't want to educate anyone in atheism".Trevor-Roper, H.R. (2013) [https://archive.org/details/HitlerTableTalk Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944.] [https://books.google.com/books?id=fk-aXlliu6cC&pg=PA7 p. 7.] In Jochmann (1980) this is quoted as, "Zum Atheismus wollen wir nicht erziehen." [http://www.answers.org/apologetics/Adolf-Hitler-Monologe-im-Fuehrerhauptquartier-1941-1944.pdf Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1944.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190827005934/http://www.answers.org/apologetics/Adolf-Hitler-Monologe-im-Fuehrerhauptquartier-1941-1944.pdf |date=2019-08-27 }} Hamburg: Albrecht Knaus Verlag, p. 40. Of the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament, Hitler affirms his belief that they "are a code of living to which there's no refutation. These precepts correspond to irrefragable needs of the human soul; they're inspired by the best religious spirit, and the Churches here support themselves on a solid foundation".Trevor-Roper, Hugh, ed. (2013). [https://archive.org/details/HitlerTableTalk Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944.] Trans. Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. New York: Engima Books, [https://books.google.com/books?id=fk-aXlliu6cC&pg=PA67 p. 67.]

In 2003, two challenges appeared to a previous consensus view. One was from Richard Steigmann-Gall as part of his wider thesis that "leading Nazis in fact considered themselves Christian" or at least understood their movement "within a Christian frame of reference".Steigmann-Gall (2003), [https://books.google.com/books?id=RreXLeUG_AIC&pg=PA3 p. 3.] He argues that several passages in the Table Talk reveal Hitler to have a direct attachment to Christianity,Steigmann-Gall (2003), p. 255. to be a great admirer of Jesus,Steigmann-Gall (2003), [https://books.google.com/books?id=RreXLeUG_AIC&pg=PA254 pp. 254–255.] and "gave no indication that he was now agnostic or atheistic", a worldview Hitler continued to denigrate the Soviet Union for promoting.Trevor-Roper, H.R. (2013). Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944. New York: Enigma Books, pp. 77, [https://books.google.com/books?id=fk-aXlliu6cC&pg=PA68 87], 721. Steigmann-Gall maintains that Hitler's "view of Christianity is fraught with tension and ambiguity" and Hitler's Table Talk shows an "unmistakable rupture" with his earlier religious views,Steigmann-Gall (2003), [https://books.google.com/books?id=RreXLeUG_AIC&pg=PA253 p. 253.] which Steigmann-Gall characterises as Christian.Steigmann-Gall (2003), [https://books.google.com/books?id=RreXLeUG_AIC&pg=PA26 pp. 26–28.] He attributes this to Hitler's anger at his failure to exert control over the German churches and not anger at Christianity itself.Steigmann-Gall (2003), [https://books.google.com/books?id=RreXLeUG_AIC&pg=PA253 p. 253], [https://books.google.com/books?id=RreXLeUG_AIC&pg=PA265 cf. 265.] Steigmann-Gall's wider thesis proved highly controversial,{{cite journal|last=Evans|first=Richard J.|title=Nazism, Christianity and Political Religion: A Debate|journal=Journal of Contemporary History|date=January 2007|volume=42|issue=1 |pages=5–7|doi=10.1177/0022009407071627|s2cid=161944724|url=http://jch.sagepub.com/content/42/1/5.extract|url-access=subscription}} although as John S. Conway pointed out, the differences between his thesis and the earlier consensus were mostly about the "degree and timing" of Nazi anti-clericalism.{{cite web|last=Conway|first=John|title=Review of The Holy Reich|date=June 2003|url=http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=7658|publisher=H-Net reviews|access-date=9 November 2013}}

In the same year, the historical validity of remarks in the English and French translations of the table-talk were challenged in a new partial translation by Richard Carrier and Reinhold Mittschang, who went so far as to call them "entirely untrustworthy",{{Cite journal |last=Carrier |first=Richard C. |date=2003 |title="Hitler's Table Talk": Troubling Finds |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1432747?searchText=%22'Hitler's+Table+Talk':+Troubling+Finds%22&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch?scope=eyJwYWdlTmFtZSI6ICJHZXJtYW4gU3R1ZGllcyBSZXZpZXciLCAicGFnZVVybCI6ICIvam91cm5hbC9nZXJtc3R1ZHJldmkiLCAidHlwZSI6ICJqb3VybmFsIiwgImpjb2RlcyI6ICJnZXJtc3R1ZHJldmkifQ%253D%253D&Query=+%2522%2527Hitler%2527s+Table+Talk%2527%253A+Troubling+Finds&so=rel&ab_segments=0/basic_phrase_search/control&refreqid=fastly-default:66d5e3ae52399637a154d8a75725e48b |journal=German Studies Review |volume=26 |issue=3 |pages=561–576 |doi=10.2307/1432747 |issn=0149-7952|url-access=subscription }} suggesting they had been altered by Genoud.{{Cite journal |last=Carrier |first=Richard C. |date=2003 |title="Hitler's Table Talk": Troubling Finds |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1432747?searchText=%22'Hitler's+Table+Talk':+Troubling+Finds%22&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch?scope=eyJwYWdlTmFtZSI6ICJHZXJtYW4gU3R1ZGllcyBSZXZpZXciLCAicGFnZVVybCI6ICIvam91cm5hbC9nZXJtc3R1ZHJldmkiLCAidHlwZSI6ICJqb3VybmFsIiwgImpjb2RlcyI6ICJnZXJtc3R1ZHJldmkifQ%253D%253D&Query=+%2522%2527Hitler%2527s+Table+Talk%2527%253A+Troubling+Finds&so=rel&ab_segments=0/basic_phrase_search/control&refreqid=fastly-default:66d5e3ae52399637a154d8a75725e48b |journal=German Studies Review |volume=26 |issue=3 |page=565 |pages= |doi=10.2307/1432747 |issn=0149-7952|url-access=subscription }} They put forward a new translation of twelve quotations based on Picker and Jochmann's German editions as well as a fragment from the Bormann-Vermerke preserved at the Library of Congress. Carrier maintains that much of Trevor-Roper's English edition is actually a verbatim translation of Genoud's French and not the original German. Carrier's thesis is that an analysis between Picker's original German text and Genoud's French translation reveals that Genoud's version is at best a poor translation, and in certain places contains "blatant distortions". Many of the quotations used to support arguments in favor of Hitler's disdain for Christianity are derived from the Genoud–Trevor-Roper translation. Carrier argues that no one "who quotes this text is quoting what Hitler actually said".

In the new foreword to the Table Talk, Gerhard Weinberg commented that "Carrier has shown the English text of the table-talk that originally appeared in 1953 and is reprinted here derives from Genoud's French edition and not from one of the German texts".Weinberg, Gerhard (2003). [https://books.google.com/books?id=fk-aXlliu6cC&pg=PR9 Foreword] In Hugh Trevor-Roper, ed. 2003. Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944. New York: Engima Books, [https://books.google.com/books?id=fk-aXlliu6cC&pg=PR11 p. xi] Citing Carrier's paper Diethelm Prowe remarked that Trevor-Roper's Table Talk "has been proven to be wholly unreliable as a source almost a decade ago". Rainer Bucher referencing the problems raised by Carrier described the English translation as "not only of dubious origin but also of dubious intent and ideological underpinning", choosing instead to rely on both Picker and Heim's German editions. Derek Hastings references Carrier's paper for "an attempt to undermine the reliability of the statements".{{cite book|last=Hastings|first=Derek|title=Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism: Religious Identity and National Socialism|year=2010|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=c5oiGxk6Dz4C&pg=PT257 251]}} Carrier's thesis that the English translation should be entirely dispensed with{{Cite journal |last=Carrier |first=Richard C. |date=2003 |title="Hitler's Table Talk": Troubling Finds |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1432747?searchText=%22'Hitler's+Table+Talk':+Troubling+Finds%22&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch?scope=eyJwYWdlTmFtZSI6ICJHZXJtYW4gU3R1ZGllcyBSZXZpZXciLCAicGFnZVVybCI6ICIvam91cm5hbC9nZXJtc3R1ZHJldmkiLCAidHlwZSI6ICJqb3VybmFsIiwgImpjb2RlcyI6ICJnZXJtc3R1ZHJldmkifQ%253D%253D&Query=+%2522%2527Hitler%2527s+Table+Talk%2527%253A+Troubling+Finds&so=rel&ab_segments=0/basic_phrase_search/control&refreqid=fastly-default:66d5e3ae52399637a154d8a75725e48b&seq=1 |journal=German Studies Review |volume=26 |issue=3 |page=574 |pages= |doi=10.2307/1432747 |issn=0149-7952|url-access=subscription }} is not accepted by Steigmann-Gall, who despite referencing the controversies raised by Carrier, "ultimately presume[d] its authenticity".{{Cite journal |last=Steigmann-Gall |first=Richard |date=2007 |title=Christianity and the Nazi Movement: A Response |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036441?searchText=%22Christianity%20and%20the%20Nazi%20Movement%22&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%25E2%2580%259CChristianity+and+the+Nazi+Movement%25E2%2580%259D&so=rel&ab_segments=0/basic_phrase_search/control&refreqid=fastly-default:8cc250161f2d4b3c63b8d804542dbe6f |journal=Journal of Contemporary History |volume=42 |issue=2 |pages=185–211 |issn=0022-0094}} Johnstone has noted that Richard Carrier has proved that only 4 of the 42 comments in the Table Talks about the malevolent influence of Christianity were false, without discussion of the rest, and that therefore, Carrier has been far from successful in demolishing the image of Hitler's non-Christian character.Johnstone, Nathan. The New Atheism, Myth, and History: The Black Legends of Contemporary Anti-Religion. Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, 90. There have been no published rebuttals to Nilsson's work.

Between 1941 and 1944, the period in which the Table Talk was being transcribed, a number of Hitler's intimates cite him expressing negative views of Christianity (while often using their own words to describe it), including Joseph GoebbelsSteinberg, Jonathan (2002). All Or Nothing: The Axis and the Holocaust, 1941–1943. London: Routledge Press, [https://books.google.com/books?id=LIgoGnRb1hcC&pg=PA234 p. 234.] and BormannBullock, Alan (1991). [https://books.google.com/books?id=jZIiAQAAIAAJ Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives]. New York: Vintage Books, p. 382. (both of whom had expressed negative views themselves). Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber reported that after speaking with Hitler in 1936, he "undoubtedly lives in belief in God [...] He recognizes Christianity as the builder of western culture". Ian Kershaw concludes that Hitler had deceived Faulhaber, noting his "evident ability to simulate, even to potentially critical church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity".Kershaw, Ian (2001). The "Hitler Myth": Image and reality in the Third Reich. Oxford: Oxford University Press, [https://books.google.com/books?id=W4sUi6omc3cC&pg=PA109 p. 109.]

A widespread consensus among historians, sustained over a long period of time following the initial work of William Shirer in the 1960s,{{cite book|last=Shirer|first=William|title=The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich|orig-year=1960|year=1998|publisher=Arrow Books|location=London|isbn=978-0-09-942176-4|pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=6QngAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA234 234–240]}} maintains that Hitler was anti-clerical.{{cite journal|last=Piper|first=Ernst|title=Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich (extended review)|journal=Journal of Contemporary History|date=January 2007|volume=42|issue=1|pages=47–57, esp. 49–51|jstor=30036428|doi=10.1177/0022009407071631|s2cid=159472257}} This continues to be the mainstream position on Hitler's religious views{{cite book|last=Hastings|first=Derek|title=Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism|year=2010|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=vSjGYvRqFYAC&pg=PA181 181]}} and these views continue to be supported by quotations from the English translation of the Table Talk. Michael Burleigh contrasted Hitler's public pronouncements on Christianity with those in Table Talk, suggesting that Hitler's real religious views were "a mixture of materialist biology, a faux-Nietzschean contempt for core, as distinct from secondary, Christian values, and a visceral anti-clericalism".{{cite book|last=Burleigh|first=Michael|title=The Third Reich – A New History|year=2001|publisher=Pan Books|location=London|isbn=978-0-330-48757-3|pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=q3BfUcJIYtQC&pg=PA717 716–717]}} Richard Evans also reiterated the view that Nazism was secular, scientific, and anti-religious in outlook in the last volume of his trilogy on Nazi Germany, writing that "Hitler's hostility to Christianity reached new heights, or depths, during the war", citing the 1953 English translation of Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944.

• Hitler and Mannerheim recording
• Last will and testament of Adolf Hitler

{{Reflist|30em}}

• [https://archive.org/details/HitlersTableTalk_1941_1944/mode/2up Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944] at Archive.org
• [https://archive.org/details/hitlers-tischgespraeche/mode/2up Original German edition], also at Archive.org

{{Adolf Hitler}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:Martin Bormann

Category:German-language literature

Category:1951 non-fiction books

Category:Books by Adolf Hitler

Category:Books published posthumously