📚Hitler's Table Talk is NOT the words or thoughts of Hitler.

and Keith Woods is a pseud pushing Misinformation.

I want to focus on four core points pulled from the absolute monstrous feat of research by Michael Nilsson called Hitler's Redux to clearly lay out the argument that Table Talk is bunk, while also creating a handy guide for anyone new to Third Reich history restoration.

Many who are experts on WW2 History, even luminaries like David Irving, do not understand some of these facts that have been widely available for years. I hope this thread will help clear the air in a simple and straightforward manner.

🟨Point 1. The "note takers" both admitted they were not stenographers. This was backed up by independent witnesses, and court documents over the rights to the manuscripts.

⬜️ Point 2. No original source notes exist anywhere to verify the original content of Hitler's utterances, this includes Heim's proof pages or the "German Edition".

⬛️ Point 3. The Big Picture. What was Bormann up to with all these shenanigans, and why has it skewed our perception of Hitler for generations.

🟥 Point 4. The book was printed in several different languages, with different titles and content, but all of them come from the same "Project", and none of them are the words of Hitler.

🟨Point 1: The proof that Picker and Heim didn't know Stenography.

"Stenography is the practice of writing in shorthand to quickly transcribe spoken words or information, often used by court reporters or secretaries. It involves specialized systems like Pitman or Gregg shorthand, or machine stenography with devices like steno keyboards, to capture speech at high speeds.

This is required if you want to claim you accurately recorded Hitler's thoughts and feelings.

1. Nicolaus Von Below, Hitler's Luftwaffe Adjutant, confirms independently that Heim didn't know Stenography. See image on the left.

2. The image on the right shows that Heim himself admitted in a letter to Werner Maser in 1972 that "my stenography skills were very limited, and I was happy if I from time to time could write down a keyword without anyone noticing; during nightly tea it was impossible to record even one word."

This tells us that Heim could barely jot down a few words and constructed the rest from memory.

🟨Point 1: Picker did not know Stenography, either.

In Court, Picker openly admitted that both of them were not Stenographers:

"We were lawyers, not stenographers"

He also admits that that what he called a "note" was a second selection that took into account Bromann's edits.

Not the words of Hitler.

🟨Point 1: Why does the Stenography argument matter?

The reason Table Talk sold in the first place is because it was marketed by it's publishers and backers explicitly as Stenography.

Picker was caught lying to the IFZ (The Leibniz Institute for Contemporary History) about this fact and some magazines of the day printed this lie which made the public believe the book was genuine.

Heim also admits he had no copies of his own notes here, but we'll come back to the proof pages to tackle myth 2.

The image below outlines that this myth was crucial to legitimizing Table Talk in the first place with the publishers and the wider academic world.

🟨Point 1: Legal Backstabbing.

A lot of this came out decades after the first editions were being published. All the various parties involved tried to claim ownership to all the various notes so they could profit from the book sales. It became a sh*t show of accusations and lies to cut out the other guy and keep all the money.

Genoud, the Black Banker, was trying to claim ownership over Heim and Picker, who were both bickering with each other too. Eventually they teamed up to go after Genoud and share profits.

However, the Court rejected this claim anyway and it backfired on all three of them, saying the words belonged to Hitler and the State. Once that happened they dropped that ploy and tried to claim creative literature so they could keep making money.

Note that none of these man care about historical accuracy or doing Hitler justice, this is about making profits.

⬜️Point 2: No source notes exist.

The below shows that David Irving himself proved that the "originals" were photocopies. In 1975 Heim also stated that Genoud (The man who published the English version of Table Talk) only had "copies" and not the original manuscripts.

There isn't much reason to linger on this point as most people will now admit the English and French versions aren't legitimate, but the man who published the most widely sourced version of Table Talk, never produced proof that he had the original manuscripts or hand written notes to anyone.

As far as we know they don't exist.

The image below shows that Genoud lied about the existence of the documents, or just wouldn't admit the truth to keep the book project going for financial reasons.

⬜️Point 2 : The final cope, or Heim's proof pages.

Many contend, including David Irving in the early 00's, that the Heim notes (Sometimes referred to as the "German edition") are somehow magically exempt from all of the above and a faithful source for the thoughts of Hitler. This is also nonsense.

From letters to the various groups involved in printing the book, we know that Heim did not have any original supporting notes while Hitler was speaking in his possession. The only thing that exist are his recollections made after the event, sometimes months later.

We also know from these exchanges that Genoud didn't want anybody comparing the different sets of "notes", because he already knew it was fabrication with errors and inserted phrases. Again, historical accuracy or devotion to Hitler's memory wasn't a factor here, only money.

⬜️Point 2 : What does "Original" mean?

We know that Heim's process had several steps. First he typed up a version based on jotted down words from his memory. Then he made his own changes, which is what the "proof pages" that were found at the Library of Congress actually are. We are already 3 or 4 steps removed from Hitler's words, whatever they may have been. Heim then typed up three copies, arbitrarily calling one copy the "Original" for Bormann's own use. These copies of his own edited notes based off single word memories were then filed at party headquarters in Munich.

"Original" almost seems to be another marketing ploy to somehow pretend it was a coherent statement by Hitler, when it was really just free wheeling from Heim that was edited, retyped, and then edited again by Bormann.

At this point it's plain to see that this was a lot of f*ckery passed off as real history.

⬜️Point 2 : Your own Eyes.

Unfortunately this may not be enough for some people, so here are two images of the pages where you can see for yourself that they were typed and heavily proofread to change meanings.

They were not stenographic notes dictating the real thoughts of Hitler.

⬜️Point 2 : Not even in the bunker.

This page shows that Heim inserted entire paragraphs to make up his own meanings, based on comparing these notes with Pickers and Boremann's. This also hilariously shows that some of Picker's scribbles were stolen from Heim's reworkings.

Also, they were heavily editorialized and not even written in the Bunker where they were claimed to be dictated.

⬜️Point 2 : The plot twist.

The poetry of all of this is that the last bastion for people who still insist Table Talk is real was actually the key to understanding this mess. When these "Proof Pages" were discovered at the LOC in the 1950's people assumed it verified the validity of the rest of the manuscripts, BUT nobody bothered to compare the content and see that it did the opposite: Bring the whole house of cards crashing down.

From the Author:

"These handwritten changes testify to the fact that the notes are a carefully crafted literary product where Heim (assisted by Bormann) made an effort to formulate the statements ascribed to Hitler in, according to their view, the best possible manner."

IE, not the thoughts or words of Hitler.

⬛️ Point 3: The Big Picture.

You may be asking yourself, "What were these doofuses up to?" Well, There is a bombshell on page 92 that helps answers that question.

One of Heim's notes about the Church and religion leaked to the foreign press and it angered Hitler because it was from their memory and "relayed his thoughts incorrectly."

Hitler, while alive, was angry at their reconstructions of his thoughts on religion and clearly stated they were wrong. Thus, the precedent is set that Table Talk is constructed in many cases to be overly critical of Christianity and are really the thoughts of Bormann.

Hitler bitched out Bormann, and Bormann being the coward that he was became more secretive about the process to hide his involvement in the chance that he was caught a second time. This also led to multiple versions to cover himself for future incidents with the Fuhrer.

Heim also AGAIN mentions his notes were from memory and NOT stenography.

⬛️ Point 3: Our understanding of Hitler's views on religion were tainted by this book.

Academia and revisionists have built on this rotten foundation for decades without a second thought to historical accuracy or reverence to Hitler's legacy.

Obviously, this could be used for political reasons to make Hitler seem like more of a monster who hated Christianity, or by the corrupt Churches who could distance themselves from the association with National Socialism. Either way millions of people have been presented what I would call true misinformation.

Below is more proof that Heim and Bormann heavily edited the texts and added their own meanings making them tainted and a historical. Bormann had the intent of making extensive notes so that could prevent others in the party with arguing with him over policy. If anyone tried to escalate the matter, he could point to his notes and declare that he had the words of Hitler, even though they were his own words.

🟥 Point 4. None of these books are the words of Hitler.

To conclude this thread I'd like to make everyone aware of other "versions" of Table Talk that may be cited as the words of Hitler in various memes, but they are not.

Some of these are Heim, some are Picker, some are Picker copying Heim, and some are Bormann.

1. The Testament of Adolf Hitler

2. Tischgesprache

3. Liberes Propos

4. Monologues im Fuhrerhauptqartier

🟥 Point 4. The End.

This is the most widely recognized version of Table Talk that has had multiple editions.

I would suggest that anyone who is still interested in the subject read Hitler's Redux, as there are limitless amounts of well sourced information that reinforces all the points above and gives insights into how shady Boremann's overall intentions were with this "project".

🟥 Point 4. The Authors Conclusion.

The Author finally concludes that Table Talk’s should not be used as the verbatim words of Hitler, and anything that you do use has to be checked for historical accuracy in other sources.

Keith Woods tries to use the author’s words to twist the meaning of his research by presenting only part of the below paragraph:

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. There are a few exceptions to this rule, however, consisting of statements that Hitler either reasonably cannot have uttered or did not utter. These statements are sometimes the product of a misunderstanding of what Hitler said; at other times the author has confused other guests’ statements with Hitler’s, and on an unknown number of occasions there are interpolations in the text made by Bormann. A detailed study of all statements needs to be made in order for us to know how many such examples there in fact are.

Nilsson is saying they that Table Talk are mostly authentic memories of his statements, recorded by Heim, Picker, Müller, or Bormann. However, some statements may not be genuine, resulting from misunderstandings, confusion with other speakers, or interpolations by Bormann. A detailed study is needed to determine the extent of these inaccuracies. Meaning, we know it’s not the words of Hitler but the memories of other men, and we don’t know how inaccurate it really is until somebody checks every part of the book.