Hitler's TableTalk:Troubling Finds

RichardC. Carrier
ColumbiaUniversity
Hitlerwas passionatelyhostile to Christianity:"Ishallnevercome to termswith
the Christian lie.... Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of
Christianity.It will last anotherhundredyears,two hundredyearsperhaps.My
regretwill have been thatI couldn't, like whoever the prophetwas, behold the
promised land from afar." He accepted a broadly Nietzschean account of
Christianityas a conspiracy of Jews for a slave revolt against their Roman
conquerors:"Christianityis a prototypeof Bolshevism:the mobilisationby the
Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of underminingsociety."
Jonathan Glover'
This is a claim often made, employing the same or similar quotations. But the
quotationsare largely false. Hitlerdid criticize priests and the Churchand certain
Christiandogmas quite a bit, but so do god-fearingChristians.Hitler never went
quiteas faras these statementsimply. HasGloverbeen dupedby a shamdocument?
His source is Hitler's Table Talk, a curious text whose story remains to be
adequately told by historians of the era. The need for furtherresearch will be
emphasizedby the findings presentedhere.2
What is the Table Talk?
The Table Talkis purportedlya transcriptionfrom notebookswrittenin shorthand
by at least two secretariesto Hitler, HeinrichHeim and Henry Picker, who were
instructedby Hitler's right-handman Martin Bormann to record for posterity
whateverHitlersaidin his bunkerin Berlin,usuallyduringmeals ortea. In addition
to official matters,they recordedthingshe saidoff the cuff, each logged by dateand
time (like "morning,""afternoon,"or "evening").So farall accountsagree.Beyond
this is some confusion thatan enterprisinghistorianwill some day have to sortout.

562

German Studies Review 26/3 (2003)

That may be difficult, since much is said by Genoud andTrevor-Roperwithout a

word as to how they know it. No sources or documentsare cited.
One mightreadilyquestionthe authenticityof such a text, given the conflicting
versionsandquestionablechainsof custodyin this case andthe abundanceof other
forged works purportingto reveal the secret thoughtsor plans of Hitler. But it is
likely the notes were real.Therearetwo completely independentmanuscripts,and
a fragmentof a third;and all agreein such a way as to corroboratethe existence of
a genuine original. The fragmentconsists of forty-two typed pages in the Adolf
HitlerCollection at the U.S. Libraryof Congress, which are probablyauthentic.3
Scribbledin handwritingatopthe firstpage of these is the brief remark:"Foundby
Mr.Jos. Schrasberger,4
Miinchen,HerzogWilhelmStraBe4."This is probablypart
of the lost copy of the Bormannmanuscript(discussed below). Finally, Werner
Jochmann'sedition of the text includes an introductionciting notes and letters
confirmingthe Table Talkwas indeed being made and collated duringthe war.
Picker, of course, was an eyewitness to this affair, and says in his first
introduction(33-34) thatHeim hadbeen authorizedby Bormannto go beyond his
official duty to transcribeHitler's spoken orders and decisions and to include
whateverelse interestedhim, and this authoritypassed to Picker duringHeim's
brief absence. Picker says Hitler actually looked over his recordon occasion and
approvedit as accurate,yet didn'trealize how often these notes were being taken.
He also reportsthat the official notebooks collated by Bormannwere lost in the
"confusion of the surrender."These would turn up a year later in Genoud's
possession, andsome pages from a copy of this apparentlyendedup in the Library
of Congress. But Picker retainedhis own original notes and those made by Heim
before him.
Trevor-Roper'sedition claims to be workingfrom a version of the notebooks
extensively editedandcollatedby MartinBormann,called theBormannVermerke
("BormannNotes"), which until recently existed only in the privatecollection of
Franqois Genoud. Genoud relates in his 1952 preface that the thousand-page
monstrosity had a note at front in Bormann's handwriting:Bitte diese-spdter
aufierstwertvollen-Aufzeichnungensehr gut aufheben,"Pleasepreservewith the
greatestcare these notes of a capital interestfor the future"(Jochmannpublishes
afacsimileof thisnoteoppositehistitlepage).Accordingto Jochmann'sintroduction,
these were to be the "official"notebooks,collated andeditedfromthe originalsby
Bormannand published as a definitive partymanifesto for the victorious Reich.
Unlike Picker's, the Bormanntext continues to 1944. Since Picker received his
copy of the notes from Heim upon replacinghim until Heim returned,he did not
have access to the remainingnotes taken after this tenure.
Jochmannand Trevor-Roper(in the preface to his third edition) both relate
was sent piecemeal from
(amongmany otherdetails) thatthe Bormann-Vermerke
Bormannto his wife Gerda.Anothercopy reportedlywent to an office in Munich,
which was likely destroyedby allied bombing, apartfrom the pages recoveredby

Richard C. Carrier

563

Schrasberger.Gerdafled to Italy with her collection of the notes in 1945 and died
there in a detention camp in 1946. A local Italian official then acquired the
manuscript,whichhe sold to Genoudaround1948.5Thatmanuscriptis thebasis for
Jochmann'stext, as well as Genoud's and Trevor-Roper'stranslations.
Which Version Should We Trust?
Thereareso manypublishedversionsandeditionsof these notes I gave up attempts
to track them all. In general, there are four major versions, each with its own
advocate: Henry Picker (1951, 1963, 1976), Francois Genoud (1952), H. R.
Trevor-Roper(1953, 1973, 2000), and WernerJochmann(1980). Of these only
two offer the originalGerman(PickerandJochmann).Genoud,a Swiss bankerand
lifetime Nazi, offers his own Frenchtranslation.HistorianTrevor-Roperpresents
the English translationof R. H. Stevens and NormanCameron.
From the isolated comparisonsI made, Trevor-Roper'sEnglish appearsto be
an almost verbatimtranslationof Genoud's French.Yet the title "Hitler'sTable
Talk"is a direct English translationof Picker's title, not Genoud's,6and TrevorRoper's preface claims the translationwas made from the German original of
MartinBormann.Genoud's version ends in 1942 (his prefacedeclaresan intentto
publishthe restin a second volume, which nevertranspired),as does Picker's (who
did not have any material beyond 1942), while Trevor-Roperand Jochmann
continue with entries up to 1944.7
Assuming any publishedtext is a genuinecopy of these notes, Picker's edition
(especiallywhereit agreeswithJochmann)carriesthestrongestclaimto authenticity.
It contains the actual German,and was the first to be published, a year before
Genoud,andthoughGenoudprocureda lengthybutessentiallytrivialprefacefrom
Robert d'Harcourtof the Academie Franqaise,Picker had the involvement and
auspices of a major university and Hitler historian:"Arrangedon behalf of the
GermanInstitutefor the Historyof NationalSocialism, initiatedandpublishedby
GerhardRitter, professor of history at the University of Freiburg."8Moreover,
Pickerwas one of the actualstenographers(from21 March1942 to 2 August 1942),
and thus transcribedmany of the notes himself in the very presence of Hitler,
makinghim an eyewitness with access to the notebooksof his predecessorHeim,
which he says he acquireddirectly,bypassing the editing of Bormann.
Picker's second andthirdeditions also containseveraltestimonialsto the text's
accuracyandauthenticityby fellow bunkerofficers, includingGerhardEngel, and
also a testimonialby historianWalterMedigerwho checkedthe firsteditionagainst
Picker's own transcriptsand "made corrections"accordingly, testifying to the
accuracyof the new edition in relationto those notes. Picker assertedin his first
edition that [translatingPicker's German]"a sufficient numberof the staff at the
FHQ lives to be able to testify to the authenticityof the recordingsof the table
discussions,since Hitlerspokerarelyattableon militaryaffairs,"andto demonstrate
his personalknowledge he gives a detaileddescriptionof the bunkerand meeting

564

German Studies Review 26/3 (2003)

room,andwho was presenton Hitler's staff at the time. Addingfurthercredibility,

Picker's text reads like a quick stenograph,with some things missing between
entries,which are often short,with no time for any explanationor context (which
Bormannon occasion added).Even the sentencesthemselvesareoften concise and
sometimes missing simple words like pronouns.
Finally, Jochmannpresentsthe text of the Bormannmanuscriptemployed by
Genoudand(supposedly)Trevor-Roper's translators,andit agreeswithPickerand
the pages recoveredfrom Munichto such a detailedextent thatwe can be assured
all three texts have a common ancestor, which must be the actual bunkernotes
themselves. Nevertheless,even at best, they arethe hasty notes takenon the fly by
a second party,not necessarily a true verbatimrecordof what Hitler said (all the
editorsunderplaythis fact, except Jochmann,who emphasizes it).
The work of WernerJochmannpresentsnot only some sound scholarshipon
the TableTalk,butanimportantversionof the text. The differencesfromPickerare
mostly minor variationsin wording that have no substantialeffect on meaning,
though some deviations are more significant (e.g., sometimes one text contains
entire entries lacking in the other). Jochmann supportshis text's authorityby
includingphotocopies of typed pages, as well as handwrittennotes by Heim and
Bormann, and other items. Jochmann also relates his own version of events
regardinghow the notes came to be made, and otherdetails, thoughunlike Picker,
who draws on his own recollections, or Genoud and Trevor-Roper,who cite no
sources at all, Jochmannreconstructsevents from letters and documents. How
successfully orjudiciously he accomplishesthis I did not attemptto judge, but no
one else has done as much.
Jochmannseems convinced that the Bormann-Vermerkecontains the Heim
originals,andthusit is Pickerwho was careless wheneverthey disagree.But since
Picker's second edition was independentlychecked and certified, against notes
direct from Heim, while Jochmannis working from later draftsthat had passed
throughthe editing of Bormannandhis secretaries,it does not seem plausiblethat
Jochmann'stext can claim greateraccuracy than Picker's. But I will leave this
debate for others to resolve.
WhatJonathanGloverdidn'tknow is thatthe anti-Christianquoteshe used only
appearin Genoud's Frenchand Trevor-Roper'sEnglish, not the German,except
one thatappearsonly in Jochman.Yet PickerandJochmannpresenttheuntranslated
German,and from independentmanuscripts.Indeed, Jochmannreproducesthe
very manuscriptused by Genoudand(ostensibly)Stevens andCameron.So whose
version are we to trust?
Given certainblatantdistortionsin Genoud's French,it appearssome shameful
mischief has been done by Genoud,while Stevens and Cameronareequallyguilty
of some incompetenceor dishonesty-at least, if they claimed to have translated
the Bormann-Vermerkebut in fact merely translatedGenoud's French. In the
preface to his third edition, Trevor-Roperdescribes the bitter copyright battle

Richard C. Carrier

565

betweenPickerandGenoud,which is supposedto explainwhy Genouddidn'tallow

the actual Bormann-Vermerketo be published until 1980, and then only after
decades of insistentcajolingby academics.One might wonderif Genoudwas also
trying to conceal his crime.
Theremay be a clue on the website of the controversialhistorianDavid Irving.9
He relateshow Genoudattemptedto hoax him in the 1970s with what appearedto
be a forgeryof "Hitler'sLastTestament,"which Genoudpublishedearlier.10
Irving
even claims he got him to confess to forgingthis "testament,"Genouddeclaringin
his defense "Butit's just whatHitlerwouldhave said,isn't it?"Irving'sstorythrows
a lot of suspicion on Genoud as a man willing to perpetratea hoax, thinking it
permissibleto fabricatethe wordsof Hitlerif it was whathe believed Hitler"would
have said."Such a man would likely have no scrupleagainstalteringandinserting
words and remarksinto the Table Talk.
Furtherstudyof Genoud's historyandmotives, andthe natureof the distortions
he introducedinto the record,wouldbe worthwhile.He appearsto havebeen a very
strangeman with a colorful history:a Swiss bankerand Nazi spy who laundered
money for the ThirdReich, a self-professedneo-Nazi rightupto his suicide in 1996
(though never an open supporterof the holocaust), a voracious purchaserand
profiteerof Nazi archives,and an admittedfinancerof terrorists."'But I will leave
it to more able historians to explore the facts of his life. Whatever Genoud's
motivation for doctoring the text, the fact that Stevens and Cameron's English
translationmatchesGenoud's falsified French(as we shall see), andnot the actual
Bormann-Vermerkepublishedby Jochmann,leaves many questionsunanswered.
Were they lazy? Duped? Accomplices in crime? Whateverthe case, the TrevorRoper edition is to be discardedas worthless.
One might find fault in Trevor-Roper's excuse, at least in his first preface,for
not comparingthe two editions of Genoud and Picker:that Picker's text was not
organizedchronologically.Picker's firstedition did organizethe notebookentries
by subject, but each entry was still precisely dated, and it would have been little
trouble to manage a comparison. And this problem was corrected in Picker's
second edition anyway, which restoredthe chronological order,leaving TrevorRoper no reason not to demanda collation. Yet he sponsoredtwo more editions
since without comparingthe texts or assessing the troublingdiscrepancies.Nor
before releasing his third edition did he check the Stevens-Camerontranslation
against the Germanedition of Jochmann,which would have revealed the hoax,
since here was their very source.'2Or so he believed.
Case Study: The Glover Quotes
At the conclusion of a two-page entry for the afternoonof 27 February1942, the
Trevor-Ropertext reads as follows:

566

German Studies Review 26/3 (2003)

If my presence on earthis providential,I owe it to a superiorwill. But I owe

nothingto the Churchthattrafficksin the salvationof souls, andI find it really
too cruel.I admitthatone cannotimpose one's will by force, but I have a horror
of people who enjoy inflicting sufferings on others' bodies and tyrannyupon
others' souls.
Ourepoch will certainlysee the end of the disease of Christianity.It will
last anotherhundredyears, two hundredyears perhaps.My regret will have
been thatI couldn't, like whoever the prophetwas, behold the promisedland
from afar.We are enteringinto a conception of the world that will be a sunny
era, an era of tolerance. Man must be put in a position to develop freely the
talents that God has given him.
What is importantabove all is that we should preventa greaterlie from
replacing the lie that is disappearing.The world of Judeo-Bolshevismmust
collapse.
But Jochmannand Picker both have a very differenttext here:
Ich bin auf Grundh6hererGewaltda, wenn ich zu etwas notig bin. Abgesehen
davon,dass sie mirzu grausamist, die seligmachendeKirche!Ichhabenoch nie
Gefallengefundendaran,anderezu schinden,wennich auchwei13,dasses ohne
Gewalt nicht moglich ist, sich in der Welt zu behaupten.Es wird nurdem das
Leben gegeben, der am stairkstendarumficht. Das Gesetz des Lebens heil3t:
Verteidige dich!
Die Zeit, in derwir leben,ist die Erscheinungdes Zusammenbruchsdieser
Sache. Es kann 100 oder 200 Jahrenoch dauern.Es tut mir leid, dass ich wie
Moses das gelobte Land nur aus der Ferne sehen kann.
Wirwachsenin eine sonnige, wirklichtoleranteWeltanschauunghinein:
Der Mensch soll in der Lage sein, die ihm von Gott gegebenen Fahigkeitenzu
entwickeln. Wir miissen nur verhindern,dass eine neue, noch gr6BereLiige
entsteht:die Jtidisch-BolschewistischeWelt. Sie muss ich zerbrechen.'3
My translation(here and hereafterwith the assistance of Reinhold Mitschang):
I am heredue to a higherpower,if I am necessaryfor anything.Leave aside that
she is too cruel for me, the beatifying Church!I have never found pleasurein
maltreatingothers,even if I know it isn't possible to standyour groundin the
world withoutforce. Life is only given to those who fight for it the hardest.It
is the law of life: Defend yourself!
The timein whichwe live indicatesthe collapse of thisidea. Itcan still take
100 or 200 years.I am sorrythat,like Moses, I can only see the PromisedLand
from a distance.
We aregrowinginto a sunny,reallytolerantworldview:Manshallbe able
to develop his God-giventalents.We must only preventa new, even greaterlie
fromarising:thatof the Jewish-Bolshevistworld.That'swhatI [must]destroy.

Richard C. Carrier

567

There are many significant discrepancieshere. Comparethe two versions above

andwe see some sentencesradicallychangedin meaning.Yet thereis no doubtthat
both arederivedfroma common source.Given the greatercredibilityof Pickerand
Jochmann,the sham is almost certainly in Trevor-Roper'sedition, the result of
trustingGenoud.
In particular,the anti-Christiansentimentexhibited throughoutthe Genoud/
Trevor-Roperversion is largely lacking in the German.There is no "disease of
Christianity"thatHitlerwishes dead,butthe expediencyof his own Nazi-enforced
Social Darwinism.So the versionof this quoteused by Gloveris false. Hitler'sonly
genuine anti-Christianremarkhere is against the cruelty of the Catholic Church
specifically, with his sarcasticplay on die alleinseligmachendeKirche,the idea of
a "one true church"that alone grantssalvation.
We also find clues hereto what seems to have happened:Stevens andCameron
madea mistake,notin translatingthe German,butGenoud's French!Forhereis the
same passage as it appearsin Genoud:
Si ma presence sur cette terre est providentielle, je le dois a une volonte
superieure.Maisje ne dois rien a cette Eglise qui trafiquedu salut des ames, et
je la trouve vraimenttropcruelle. J'admetsqu'on ne puisse s'imposer que par
la force, mais j'ai horreurdes gens qui ont le gout de faire souffrirles corps et
de tyranniserles ames.
Notre epoque verrasans doute la fin de la maladiechretienne.C'est une
affairede cent ans, de deux cents ans peut-etre.Mon regretauraete, a l'instar
de tel prophete,de n' apercevoirque de loin la terrepromise.Nous entronsdans
une conception du monde, qui sera une ere ensoleillee, une ere de tolerance.
L'homme doit etremis dansla situationde developperlibrementles talentsqui
lui sont donnes par Dieu.
Ce qui importeavanttout, c'est que nous empechionsun mensonge plus
grand de se substituera celui qui disparait.Le monde judeo-bolchevik doit
s'effondrer.
My translation:
If my presence on this earthis providential,I owe it to a higher will. But I do
not owe anythingto this Churchthattamperswith the salvationof souls, andI
find it really too cruel. I admitthat one can assert oneself only by force, but I
detest people who have a taste for torturingbodies and tyrannizingsouls.
Our time will undoubtedlysee the end of the Christiandisease. It is a
matterof a hundredyears,two hundredyearsperhaps.My regretwill havebeen,
following the example of such a prophet,to see the promised land only from
afar.
We are enteringa conception of the world, which will be a sunlit era, an
eraof tolerance.Manmustbe putin the situationof freely developingthe talents

568

German Studies Review 26/3 (2003)

thataregiven him by God. Whatis essentialabove all is thatwe preventa larger

lie from replacingthatwhich disappears.The Judeo-Bolshevicworld must be
crushed.
Apart from the obvious fact that this is almost exactly what the Trevor-Roper
translationsays (andnot whattheBormann-Vermerkesays, perJochmann),among
many clues two particulardetails are most curious:
First, the English of Stevens and Cameronuses the word "trafficks"precisely
where Genouduses trafique.But though trafiquesounds like traffick,it actually
means"toywith, tamperwith, to doctor,"nottraffick("tosell, deal with, tradein").
This makes their translationseem ratheramateurish,as well as patentlyfrom the
French,not the German,which doesn't really suggest such a word.
Second, Stevens and Cameronhave Hitler saying "I admit that one cannot
impose one's will by force, but..."which seems unintelligible.In the Germanand
the Frenchwe see at once thatHitler's "but"makes sense because he just admitted
that one cannotimpose one's will except by force, hence the logic of his ensuing
qualification.Why is Hitlerdenying this in Trevor-Roperwhen he assertsit in all
otherversions (Picker,Jochmann,and Genoud)?Most likely it is because Stevens
and Cameron missed the ne que idiom used by Genoud, unique to the French
language:the phrasedoes not mean not, as the ne alone would otherwise suggest,
but only ("I admit that one can assert oneself only by force"). Thus, Stevens and
Cameronmade a mistake here that only makes sense if they are translatingfrom
Genoud's French, not the original German.They clearly weren't ignorantof the
idiom, since they got it rightwhen Genouduses it in the following paragraph.They
simply overlooked its use here.
Then there are crimes of omission. In Picker's and Jochmann'stext, earlier
underthe same entry, Hitler says "Das, was der Mensch vor dem Tier voraushat,
der vielleicht wunderbarsteBeweis fur die Uberlegenheitdes Menschen ist, dass
er begriffenhat,dass es eine Schopferkraftgeben muss!"("Whatmanhas over the
animals, possibly the most marvelous proof of his superiority,is that he has
understoodthere must be a CreativePower!"). Such a clear assertionof Hitler's
belief in God is not in Genoudor the Trevor-Ropertext at all. As the table on the
facing page on the right shows, the whole paragraphis missing in both texts, and
the precedingparagraphradically altered.Again the English is clearly from the
French.Why?How manyotheromissions arethere?These areimportantquestions
requiringinvestigation.Compare:

569

Richard C. Carrier

Genoud:

Trevor-Roper:

Picker:

In the tradeunion formed

by the Church,many of the
membershave tangible
interests to defend and see
no further.A given set of
grimaces,certainpeople
identify them with true
religion. After that, let's
express surprisethat these
cynical exploiters of God
are the true purveyors of
atheism.
Why should men fight to
make their point of view
triumph,if prayer should
be enough?...

Dans ce syndicat constitue

In dem Verein ist ein Teil
(die katholischePriesterparl'Eglise, beaucoupdes
memberson des interets
schaft) an der ganzen
Geschichte interessiert.Wie tangibles a defendreet ne
voient que cela. Ces
ist das aber, wenn ein so
selbstsiichtigerVerein auf certainsles identifient
solche Weise die Schopfung la vraiereligion. Etonnonsverhohnt.Ein G6tzendienst, nous apres cela que ces
der geradezu entsetzlich ist. exploiteurs cyniques de
Das, was der Mensch von Dieu soient les vrais
dem Tier voraushat,der
pourvoyeurs de
1'atheisme.
vielleicht wunderbarste
Beweis fir die Uberlegenheit Pourquoiles hommes
des Menschen ist, daBder lutteraient-ilspour faire
begriffen hat, da3 es eine
triompherleur point de
Sch6pferkraftgeben muB! vue si la prieredevait
Man brauchtnur durchein suffire?...
Teleskop oder durchein
Mikroskop zu sehen: Da
erkenntman, daBder
Mensch die Fahigkeithat,
diese Gesetze zu begreifen.
Da muBman aberdoch
demiitigwerden!Wirddiese
Schopferkraftmit einem
Fetisch identifiziert,dann
bricht die Gottesvorstellung
zusammen, wenn der Fetisch
versagt.
Warumtiberhauptkampfen,
wenn es mit Gebet zu machen
ist? ...

Though Picker originally omitted sentences, he corrected these and other

mistakes in his second edition. One example appears in the same dated entry and
contains another of the three quotes used by Glover, here expanded from TrevorRoper:
I realise that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-but to
devote myself deliberately to error, that is something I cannot do. I shall never

570

German Studies Review 26/3 (2003)

comepersonally to termswith the Christianlie. In acting as I do, I'm veryfar

from the wish to scandalise. But I rebel whenI see the very idea of Providence
flouted in this fashion. It's a great satisfaction for me to feel myself totally
foreign to thatworld. But I shall feel I'm in my properplace if, aftermy death,
I find myself, togetherwith people like me, on some sortof Olympus.I shall be
in the company of the most enlightenedspirits of all times.
InPicker'sfirsteditionthe sentencesI have italicizedabove do not appear.The text
simply runsfrom the precedingmaterialto the following withoutstop. One might
think they are spurious interpolationsin Genoud (repeated in Trevor-Roper),
except that Picker's second edition, corrected by Mediger against the original
notes, has restoredthem as follows (my italics again):
Ich weil3, dass der Mensch in seiner Fehlerhaftigkeittausend Dinge falsch
machenwird.Aberentgegendem eigenen Wissen etwas falsch tun,das kommt
nicht in Frage! Man darf sich personlich einer solchen Liige niemalsfiigen.
Nicht weil ich andere argern will, sondernweil ich darin eine Verhohnungder
ewigen Vorsehungerkenne. Ich bin froh, wenn ich mit denen keine innere
Verbindunghabe. Ich fiihle mich wohl in der geschichtlichenGesellschaft, in
der ich mich befinde, wenn es einen Olymp gibt. In dem, in den ich eingehe,
werden sich die erleuchtetstenGeister aller Zeiten finden.
My translation:
I know thathumansin theirdefectiveness will do a thousandthingswrong.But
to do somethingwrongagainstone's own knowledge,thatis outof thequestion!
One should never personally accept such a lie. Not because I want to annoy
others, but because I recognize therein a mockeryof the Eternal Providence.
I am glad if I have no internalconnectionwiththem.I feel good in the historical
society I am in if thereis an Olympus.In the place I'm enteringwill be the most
illuminatedspiritsof all times.l4
Again we see reckless distortion.The overwhelming anti-Christiansentimentis
gone. Infact,the sentence"Ishallnevercome personallyto termswiththeChristian
lie" wouldnot even fit here,andis thusmoreevidentlyaninterpolation.Incontrast,
"One should never personally accept such a lie" fits perfectly, carryingover and
completing the thoughtof the previous sentence.
The lie Hitler was really talking about was not Christianity,but any dogma
contraryto whatone knows to be true.The Catholicidea of a "onetruechurch"was
such a lie in his view, though, for he had just finished arguing for absoluten
Toleranzof alternativepathsto salvation.But thereis no attackon Christianityin
toto in Picker, only certain dogmas, such as exclusivism. It is again clear that
anotherof the three Glover quotes is false.

Richard C. Carrier

571

The restorationof the missing sentences also corroboratesthe reality of the

since Genoudcould nothavetoyed with sentencesthatdidnot
Bormann-Vermerke,
appear in Picker. He must have had on hand in 1952 a genuine, independent
manuscriptagreeing with Picker's. There are many other corrections made by
Picker that show counterpartsin Genoud's earlier edition, making a strong
collective case for the authenticityof their independentmanuscripts.
We see still more evidence here that the Trevor-Ropertranslationis from
Genoud's Frenchand not the Germanof the Bormann-Vermerke.Genoud reads:
Je n'ignore pas que l'homme, dans son imperfection, peut commettre
d'innombrableserreurs-mais m'adonnerconsciemmenta l'erreur,cedaje ne
le puis. Je ne m'accommoderaipersonnellementjamaisdu mensonge chretien.
En agissantcomme je le fais, je suis fort eloigne du desir de scandaliser.Mais
je m'insurge quandje vois bafouee de la sorte l'idee meme de la Providence.
C'est une grande satisfactionpour moi de me sentir totalementetrangera ce
monde. Mais je me sentiraia ma place si, apresma mort,je me retrouve,avec
des gens de mon bord,dams quelqueolympe. J'y serai dans la compagnie des
esprits les plus eclaires de tous les temps.
My translation:
I am not unawarethatman in his imperfectioncan make innumerableerrorsbutto give in consciously to error,I will neversuccumbto that.I personallywill
neveraccommodatemyself to the Christianlie. In actingas I do, I amextremely
farfromthe desireto annoy.But I rebel when I see ridiculedin this way the very
idea of Providence.It's a greatsatisfactionfor me to feel myself totally foreign
to thatworld. But I shall feel I'm in my place if, aftermy death,I find myself,
with people of my kind,in some Olympus.I shallbe in the companyof the most
enlightened spiritsof all times.
We see againthe translatorscontinuedto mimic Genoud'sFrench,using the same
wordorderandsentencebreaks,andemployingobviouscognates,e.g. innombrables
erreursbecomes innumerableerrors,while scandaliserbecomes scandalise, even
though this is less naturala word in English for the context ("anger,""annoy,"or
"shock"areall acceptabletranslationsof scandaliserthatmakemoresense andare
closer to the German).
The last of the threeGlover quotes bringsup a new problem.This falls undera
different entry, that for 19 October 1941 (evening), where Trevor-Roper'stext
containsthe sentence "Christianityis a prototypeof Bolshevism: the mobilisation
by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of underminingsociety." Picker
has no entryfor this dateat all. ButJochmann's does, andit agreeswith Genoudand
Trevor-Roper:Das Christentumwar der Vor-Bolschewismus,die Mobilisierung
vonSklavenmassendurchdenJudenzumZweckederAushohlungdes Staatsbaues,
"Christianitywas the Proto-Bolshevism,the mobilizationof the enslaved masses

572

German Studies Review 26/3 (2003)

by the Jewfor thepurposeof underminingthe state"(my translation).Thisjust after

comparingChristianityto syphilis, as the two diseases that destroyedRome (the
context seems to be an indictmentof the Vatican).
Furtherstudyis neededto ascertainif this is genuine.Why does Picker'sversion
of Heim's notes lack this entry?Jochmann'stext indicatesthatthe following entry
(for 21 October) was made by Bormann, also not in Picker. Is it possible that
Bormannalso made the 19 Octoberentry without noting it? Certainly,in-depth
researchof the whole Table Talk is needed, to establish not only how credible
entries like this are, or who wrote them (might they even have been forged by
Genoud?),but whatHitlermeantin the TableTalkwhen he used variousrecurring
words and themes, or indeed what he really believed, at least what we can
reconstructfrom the Table Talk.
Itis especially curiousthatthisparagraphunder19 Octoberappearsremarkably
similarto anotherparagraphunder13 December,which appearsin all editions and
translations.There, Picker has this:
Christuswar ein Arier.Aber Paulushat seine Lehrebenutzt,die Unterweltzu
mobilisierenundeinenVorbolschewismuszu organisieren.MitdessenEinbruch
geht15die schone Klarheitder antikenWelt verloren.Was ist das fiir ein Gott,
der nurWohlgefallen hat, wenn die Menschen sich vor ihm kasteien?
My translation:
Christwas an Aryan.'6But Paulused his teachingsto mobilize the underworld
and organizea proto-bolshevism.With its outbreakthe beautifulclarityof the
ancient world was lost. Whatkind of God is it who is only pleased if humans
chastise themselves before him?
Here, Hitler'sposition is more subtle.First,Hitlerdoes not deny Christbut claims
Christfor himself (Jesus was an Aryanand thereforehis noble predecessor),and
attacksnot Christianitybutthe elements of Churchdoctrine(beginningwith Paul)
that are procommunist and antifascist, and thus hostile to Hitler's capitalistauthoritarianprogram. Hitler later goes on to question Christian dogma, but
implicitly acceptsthe existence of God andthe authorityof Christ,a very different
impressionthanwe might get using isolated quotes like those from 19 October.In
fact, this passage is very similarto thatone. In both paragraphsHitlerrefersto the
antikeWeltas schon and,using differentwords,refersto its breakdown,andin both
we find the word Vorbolschewismusand a cognate of Mobilisierung.Is the entry
for 19 OctobersomethingBormannreconstructedfrom a faulty memoryof what
was actuallysaidthreeweeks later?Oris it an attemptby Genoudto fabricatea new
text drawingon 13 December?These are the sorts of questions historiansneed to
answer.For now, this thirdGlover quote mustbe regardedas either suspector out
of context.

Richard C. Carrier

573

There is anotherpopularsentence under 13 December 1941 that, though not

used by Glover, shouldbe addressedhere, as it presentsa thirdproblem.Again, it
is a sentence restoredin Picker's second edition, proving Genoud was working
froman independentsource.Trevor-Roperreads:"ButChristianityis an invention
of sick brains:one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent
way of turningthe idea of the Godheadinto a mockery"(matchingGenoudalmost
verbatim:"Mais le christianismeest une invention de cerveaux malades: on ne
sauraitrien imaginerde plus insense, ni une faqonplus inconvenantede tourneren
derision l'idee de la divinite").But in Picker's Germanthis sentence is somewhat
different:"Das Christentum(lehrt 'die Verwandlung,'das) ist das Tollste, was je
ein Menschengehirnin seinem Wahn hervorgebrachthat, eine Verh6hnungvon
allemGottlichen,"-"Christianity(teaches'Transubstantiation,'
that)is themaddest
thing ever concocted by a human brain in its delusion, a mockery of all that is
godly."
The differencein meaninghere is radical,andagain shows how Hitler's words
may have been distorted. However, the problem grows deeper here: Jochmann
omits the materialPickerplaced in parentheses(Jochmannalso replaceswas with
das but that has no effect on the meaning). Picker does not say why he placed
parenthesesaroundthese words,but they areclearly meantto be incorporatedinto
the sentence.Withoutthem,the sentencedoes say "Christianityis the maddestthing
thata humanbrainhaseverconcoctedin its delusion."However,all versionsfollow
this with a sentence attackingthe absurdityof transubstantiation,as if that was
indeed what Hitlermeant.Such discrepanciesbetween Jochmannand Pickerthus
presentyet anotherproblemfor anyone aiming to get at what Hitleractually said.
Conclusion
All this is not to say that Hitler doesn't criticize Christianityeven in Picker's and
Jochmann'sversion of the Table Talk.For instance,again on 13 December 1941,
Hitler argues againstthe idea of a physical resurrectionand in favor of a spiritual
one, andthereandelsewhere he takes a very cynical view of Catholicism,voicing
manyof the samecriticismsone mighthearfroma candid(andbigoted) Protestant.
Yet even therehe makes it clear thathe believes in God, Christ,the immortalityof
the soul, and divine providence. Confirmingthis pictureare recent studies of the
religious beliefs of Hitlerand the Nazi partyby Barsch and Steigmann-Gall.'7As
Jochmannhimself concludes after surveying Hitler's remarkson religion in the
TableTalk:"Hitlerwas by no meansunreligious"(Hitlerkeineswegsareligios war,
p. 31).
The matteris complicatedby the interferinghand of Bormannhimself. As an
editorhe had a tendencyto makeHitlersoundmorelike a Deist thanhe mighthave
been, as for example in the entryfor the night of 11/12 July, 1941, wherehe inserts
a note into Hitler's speech, definingGod as "thereignof naturall aw throughoutthe
universe"(das WaltenderNaturgesetzeimgesamten Universum).Apartfromthis

574

German Studies Review 26/3 (2003)

interpolation,anddespitesignificantdifferencesbetweenthePicker-Jochmannand
editions,in the actualGermanof thisentryHitlerdoes attack
Genoud-Trevor-Roper
the Church,Christiandogma,andinstitutionalreligion, while promotingpersonal
religionandreligioustolerance.And while he talksof Christianityintroducinglies,
he still denounces atheism (e.g. "zumAtheismus wollen wir nicht erziehen").In
anotherentryHitlertalksof Christianitybecomingobsoletewhile,again,denouncing
atheism(14 October, 1941, midday).Hitler's position appearsto resembleKant's
with regardto the primacy of science over theology in deciding the facts of the
universe, while remainingpersonallycommittedto a more abstracttheism. But I
won't argue for any particularconstructionof Hitler's religious views here. It is
sufficientto note that,whateverhis beliefs were, they aredistortedin Genoud,and
these distortionsamongmanyotherswereretainedin the text of Trevor-Roper.Yet
that is the only English translationof the Table Talkin print,and few know how
worthlessit is.
Thereis need of muchmoreworkon this sourcebeforeit canbe used in any way
by competenthistorians.At the very least we need a complete investigationof the
manuscriptson which they are based and the persons who have claimed to have
them,theirmotives andcapabilities,anda collationof all versionsandeditionswith
commentaryon all the discrepancies,with a new English translationbased on a
critical edition of Picker and Jochmann.18

1 Jonathan
Glover,

A MoralHistoryof the TwentiethCentury.(New Haven:

Humanity:
YaleUniversityPress,1999),355-56.
2
datethanarenotedhere,
Apartfromstillmorechangesof title,publisher,andpublication
the following surveyexhaustsall majorvariantsI know:Firstappearedthe Germanversion
of HenryPickerin 1951 (1st ed., with GerhardRitter;2nd ed. with Percy Schrammin 1963;
3rded. in 1976) entitledHitlers TischgesprdcheimFiihrerhauptquartier,1941-42 (1st ed.:
Bonn: Athenaeum-Verlag;2nd & 3rd eds.: Stuttgart:Seewald). In 1952 came the French

versionof FrancoisGenoud,LibresPropossurla Guerreet la Paix:Recueilliss url 'Ordre

de MartinBormann(Paris:Flammarion).Then in 1953 arrivesthe English version edited
by H.R.Trevor-Roper,Hitler's TableTalk,1941-1944 (London:WeidenfeldandNicholson),
also published as Hitler's Secret Conversations,1941-1944. Reprintedmany times (e.g.
1961, 1988), a new (2nd) ed. was issued in 1973, and a 3rd ed. in 2000. In 1980 came the
most importantedition of all: WernerJochmann,Monologe imFiihrerhauptquartier1941-

vonWererJochmann
HeinrichHeimsherausgegeben
1944:dieAufzeichnungen
(Hamburg:

A Knaus). I have also stumbled across I. M. Fradkin's 1993 translationinto Russian of

Picker's version, entitled Zastolnye razgovoryGitlera (Smolensk: Rusich). Gitta Sereny,
"The TruthIs, I Loved Hitler,"The Observer,28 April 1996, mentions a serializationof
the original Germanof Genoud's manuscriptin an unnamedGermanmagazine sometime
in the '70's, which I could not confirm.

Richard C. Carrier

575

3 Cf. GerhardWeinberg,Guide to CapturedGermanDocuments(Maxwell Airforce Base,

Alabama:Human Resources Research Institute, 1952). On p. 55 it is noted that "safe 5"
contains item 6, a "box of miscellaneous Hitler items" including sub-item 4:
Jan 18, 1942, abends, 4 pp.," which "concerns Germandomestic
"Fuhrerhauptquartier,
Jan 24, 1942, abends, 2 pp.," whose contents aren't
politics;" "Fiihrerhauptquartier,
described. Also in Safe 5 is item 8, "Typedcopies of the utterancesof Hitler, 1942, under
item 6 above"(file no. 52-178). In fact, item 8 containscopies of everythingin item 6, plus:
Jan 8/9: 9 pp.; 16/17: 14 pp.; 17/18: 3 pp.; 18/19: 2 pp.; 19: 3 pp.; 20: 2 pp.; 22: 2 pp.; 24:
2 pp. (all from 1942). I did not attempt a systematic collation, but I noticed many
handwrittencorrectionsaligning what was typed to what appearsin Jochmannor Picker.
4 The letter "a"in Schrasbergeris unclear-it could be anothervowel.
5 Cf.
Sereny, "The Truth."
6 A full translationwould be "Hitler'sTable Talk in the CentralHeadquarters."
Genoud's
title translates "CandidRemarks on the War and Peace: Collected by Order of Martin
Bormann."A handwrittentitle page attachedto item 8 in the Libraryof Congress reads
"HitlerPrivat-Gesprache,"which appearsto be a reverse translationof Trevor-Roper's
alternatetitle (eachentryhas a similarhandwrittencover sheetidentifyingthe corresponding
pages in an unspecified edition of Trevor-Roper).
7 The later entries were recorded
by Heim upon his return,though several were recorded
by Bormannhimself. Jochmann's edition does not include any of the entries personally
made by Picker, between Marchand August '42, due to a copyrightdispute-on the other
hand,Jochmannincludes many entries in '41 and '42, presumablymade eitherby Heim or
(more likely) Bormann,that do not appearin Picker.
8 From the title page: "Im Auftrage des Deutschen Instituts fur Geschichte der
nationalsozialistischenZeit geordnet, eingeleitet und veroffentlicht von GerhardRitter,
Professor der Geschichte a. D. UniversitatFreiburg."
9 David Irving, "The Faking of Hitler's 'Last Testament'"(www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/
Testament/byGenoud.html);this is part of Irving's "InternationalCampaign for Real
History," Focal Point Publications (www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/FPhistory.html).Irving
does not deny the Holocausthappened,only thatHitlerknew of it. His accountof Genoud's
involvement with him is first person and credible.
10FranqoisGenoud, ed., The Testamentof Adolf Hitler: the Hitler-Bormanndocuments,
February-April1945 (London:Cassell, 1961 [also Icon Books, possibly others]).This was
republishedin 1978 (Los Angeles: World Service) with an introductionby L. CraigFraser.
It also appearedoriginallyin Frenchas Le TestamentPolitique de Hitler (Paris:A. Fayard,
1959) with a prefaceby H.R.Trevor-Roperandcommentaryby AndrdFranqois-Poncet.On
the questionable nature of this document, see Albert M. Beer, "Hitlers politisches
Testament: Die Bormann-Diktate vom Februar und April 1945: eine Falschung?"
(Uberarbeitete Fassung eines Vortrages auf der Tagung der Zeitgeschichtlichen
ForschungsstelleIngolstadtam 10. Mai 1986). In a letterto me of 17 October2002, TrevorRoper reports being undecided about its authenticity. He claims Genoud would have
nothing to gain by forging it, but it could have been forged by one "HansRechenberg."
11 Cf.
Sereny, "The Truth";Ben MacIntyre, "Swiss Banker who Worshipped Hitler
Commits Suicide," The Times,4 June 1996; David Lee Preston, "Switzerlandis Urged to
Open its Files on Nazi who FinancedTerrorists,"Philadelphia Inquirer, 19 March 1997.
See also PierrePean, L'Extremiste:Francois Genoud, de Hitler a Carlos (Paris:Fayard,

576

German Studies Review 26/3 (2003)

1996);KarlLaske,LeBanquierNoir:Francois Genoud(Paris:Editionsdu Seuil, 1996);Karl

Laske & Maria Hoffmann-Dartevelle,Ein Leben zwischen Hitler und Carlos: Francois
Genoud (Zurich:Limmat, 1996).
12 However, Trevor-Roper,now Lord Dacre, has since come to
suspectjust what I argue:
that Stevens and Camerontranslatedfrom the French,and poorly at that. In a letter to me
of 17 October 2002 he reports recently discovering a mistranslationin the StevensCamerontext only explicable as a mistakein translatingGenoud'sotherwisecorrectFrench
(they renderconfus as "confused"when the Germanand the context clearly indicate the
connotation"embarassed"),though he could not rememberthe exact passage (he is now
nearly ninety, in poor health and, in his own words, "very blind"). He also heard that
RichardEvans noted some questionablepassages, in a brief for David Irving's defense in
a "recentlibel action."
13 This is from Picker's 2nd edition, correctingseveral errorsin the 1st, which agrees with
Jochmannin every detail but one: Jochmannreads einsehe where Picker reads weifi, but
these have essentially the same meaning. The concluding muss is italicized in Picker,
presumably indicating the word is missing from his actual notes and was restored to
complete the sense.
141 have said there are minor discrepanciesbetween Jochmannand Picker, demonstrating
they employed separatemanuscripts,though with a common origin. This will serve as an
example: here, where Pickerreadsdem eigenen Wissen("againstone's own knowledge")
Jochmannhas meinem Wissen ("againstmy own knowledge"), and Jochmannends the
sentencedas mache ich nicht ("Ido not do that")insteadof das kommtnicht in Frage ("that
is out of the question").Following the same theme of convertingthe impersonalto the first
person, Jochmannthen reads "I personally will never accept such a lie" (Ich personlich
werdemicheiner solchen Liigeniemalsfiigen)insteadof "Onemay neverpersonallyaccept
such a lie." The rest of the material is identical to Picker, with the exception of one
substitutionof a dass for a wenn. In short,none of the variationschange the meaningin any
significant way, and thereforeJochmanntypically supportsPicker.Most trivialvariations
from Picker in Jochmannmight be explained as Bormann'shandiwork,as here Bormann
probablyconverted Heim's impersonaltone to the first person to match the context.
15 Jochmannhas the
past tense (ging) which is grammaticallymore correct,so I follow his
readingin my translation.
16 Thatis, not a Jew. A footnote in Pickerindicatesthe basis for this belief: Hitler,and other
Nazis, believed Jesus was indeed fatheredby a Romanlegionary (a story thatdates back at
least to the second centuryA.D.) and thereforea member of the masterrace.
17RichardSteigmann-Gall,TheHoly Reich: Nazi Conceptionsof Christianity,1919-1945
(New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2003); Claus-EkkehardBarsch, Die politische
Religion des Nationalsozialismus: die religiose Dimension der NS-Ideologie in den
SchriftenvonDietrichEckart,JosephGoebbels,AlfredRosenbergundAdolfHitler(Munich:
W. Fink, 1998), esp. 286-300.
18 This article was
completed with partial funding from the Freedom from Religion
Foundation.All of my translationsfromthe Germanwere completedwith the assistanceof
Reinhold Mitschang, for whose help I am most grateful.