"Hitler's Table Talk" Study Hour: Episode 45

Published by carolyn on Thu, 2015-02-05 23:01

Feb. 5, 2015

Martin Bormann said of Ukrainian children: "They are fair, with blue eyes, bonny and chubby-faced. In comparison, our children look like tottering little chicks." And of the adults: "They are bursting with good health." This photograph is from 1942.

Carolyn Yeager and Ray Goodwin read and comment on the July 17-22, 1942 lunch and dinner table monologues by the German Leader, as taken down in shorthand by aide Henry Picker. 1h24m. Included in this episode:

  • Goebbels failed to introduce wired-wireless radio control in Germany before the war to prevent foreign broadcasts;
  • Roads are superior to railroads for unification--Hitler wants to create a network of autobahen from Berlin to the East Wall;
  • Hitler agrees to an interview with a foreign journalist so he can respond to the persistent talk of a Second Front, i.e. Allied landing;
  • Discussion of "seaman's yarns" and need to consider superstitions of the public when making decisions;
  • The Channel Islands and how they could be used after the war;
  • Hitler criticises lawyers again and makes some very good points
  • Russia's strength and the Stakhanov system--Bormann tells of his tour of Ukraine;
  • More on how to treat the local populations in the occupied territories (see Ukraine images here).

The edition of Hitler's Table Talk being used was translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, published by Enigma Books, New York, and can be found as a pdf here.


Hi Carolyn, Calling on all white nationalists of international Eury to join free, spread the word and support the cause. The fight must begin in Europe. The first British white nationalist leader ever to publically name the Jew:

Interesting episode. My neck had a good work out (shaking head) while listening to the Ukraine part. Those Ukrainian's could have been invaluable in the East, tough and familiar with the Russian language.
They would have been better than the Italian's and Rumanian's imho.

That you don't grasp the Ukrainian situation, either then or now.

Everything seems easy and simple when you're just sitting and playing the role of "Monday morning quarterback." I have talked about this from several angles, which I don't suppose you have listened to, or have put to memory. Especially here: http://carolynyeager.net/heretics-hour-hitler-and-slavs-6 Fact is, the Wehrmacht and the SS both worked a lot with the Ukrainians, but they had to be under German command. They couldn't be allowed to do their own thing because they weren't reliably loyal. Many felt loyalty to Russia, or would switch back and forth.

[Added Saturday: Plus the Wehrmacht had programs to win over the Russians throughout their advance into the interior. They had some good success too, despite the words of the Fuehrer in these conversations.

Practical realities take over in most instances. But look at the situation today between Western and Eastern Ukrainians. Plus there were other ethnic conflicts going on with Ukrainians at the time that made it very complex.]

How about you get all your White Nationalists together and actually win some battles NOW instead of pointing the finger back in history. How about all Nationalists you've interviewed work together and throw out the Jews. What, you can't!? Why not?

Hitler's goal was to have a Jew-free Europe and the Germans had to occupy all that territory in order to do it. Could they trust the Ukrainians or anyone else to do it? Is anyone doing it today? Even most of the White Naiionalists won't speak out about the Jews.

I'm touchy on this because I'm tired of people thinking they know what should have been done 70 years ago, but don't know what to do today.

P.S. I have a plan for what to do today. It's very simple, and it would work. I will present it on Monday's Heretics Hour.

I know Hitler wanted a Jew free Europe (obviously). The Ukranian's and Many Russians did support Hitler (as you state) but soon realised Hitler regarded them as sub standard, and that they would be just a German Colony if the Reich won.
That's the long and short of it as far as I can tell. The parts where Hitler says they only need to read road signs and don't need higher education is offensive. Hitler did many great things but suffered from German Supremacist views imo. I knew you wouldn't like my comment as you won't concede to AH doing anything wrong whatsoever. Revisionism isn't just the Holohoax.
As for activism or doing things "NOW." For someone who hasn't done any, to say that to someone who has done 10+ years ans still does (as you know) is a little uncalled for.

This is not personal, but ...

The Ukranian's and Many Russians did support Hitler (as you state) but soon realised Hitler regarded them as sub standard, and that they would be just a German Colony if the Reich won.

Germany had not sacrificed all that it had up to 1942 in order to liberate Eastern Europe. That was not the goal, and if you think it should have been, well, that's just your 2015 british-white-nationalist pov. Germany was in the business of liberating itself for a long time to come and establishing a dominant position on the European continent.

Being a German colony was a heck of a better prospect that being a Soviet colony. But most E.E. countries were foolish enough to think they could be independent. Just like the idiot Greeks today. EVERYONE today is under Jewish control. Plus the Ukrainian nationalists were fighting for themselves against everyone else.

Hitler did many great things but suffered from German Supremacist views imo.

Oh, how terrible. Hitler had German supremacist views in 1942 - what a bad man. He didn't work for today's White Nationalist goals that you have done for 10+ years and accomplished diddly-squat. Hitler worked from 1919 to 1933 (14 years) and became Chancellor and then undisputed leader of Germany. Can any British Nationalist, even your great Oswald Mosely, say that? But since Hitler didn't put the Ukrainians ahead of the Germans in 1942, he really failed us.

By the way, I started in this "movement" in 2004 and have increasingly devoted myself entirely to it, so I have 10+ years in too. [I know you mean it to be "out in the street" for whatever good that does.] It may have been a wasted effort but I have a lot of valuable documented work and several websites to leave as my contribution.

Revisionism isn't just the Holohoax.

Yes, it is. And I will explain why tomorrow night.

"Germany had not sacrificed all that it had up to 1942 in order to liberate Eastern Europe. That was not the goal, and if you think it should have been, well, that's just your 2015 british-white-nationalist pov"
I wasn't saying that at all. My point was if he had treated other whites such as the Ukranina's better and made them promises of independence he might have won. He might have avoided getting millions of Germnans killed and so many German women getting ravaged by inferior Asiatics. But he wanted it all for Germany instead of thinking of the white race as a whole.
"He didn't work for today's White Nationalist goals that you have done for 10+ years and accomplished diddly-squat"
What did he accomplish by 1945? Prussia was gone, deportations continued in the Baltic, as they had done following the Molotov - Ribbontrop pact, and us "White Nationalists in Britain" (and elsewhere) have been left with the nightmare that followed.
"But since Hitler didn't put the Ukrainians ahead of the Germans in 1942, he really failed us"
I never suggested ahead, that makes no sense at all, just equal and not a colony of another white Nation.
I do value your work as you know. I wouldn't offend you by saying it's diddly squat. When you say that about activists efforts you could just as easily be talking about Horst Wessel.
I prefer Arnold Leese to Mosely. He called Mosely a kosher Fascist.
Look forward to the show.

See, this is what's wrong:

us "White Nationalists in Britain" (and elsewhere) have been left with the nightmare that followed.

Whites want to blame their current situation on Hitler. That is NUTS, not to say cowardly. If British, American and other nationalists would have succeeded like Hitler did, the whole story would be different. The didn't because they were afraid of the Jews -- or at least they couldn't handle them. And it's because they didn't have a Hitler!!

It's no different today; they still won't take advantage of what's available.

Europe will never work without a natural order to things. Let the strong lead and let the weak follow. Everyone wants to be the leader even when they are weak. I dont think that Hitler thought of people as sub-human just weaker. He was a great believer in the 'iron will of nature' and that you could not win against it. Look at the EU and see how far this 'equality' has brought them.

It's a fact that Slavs in Serbia, Poland, Ukraine and elsewhere rather live in Western Germanic Europe by the millions to be part of Germanic Civilization. Wouldn't it be wiser to have the best of the Germanics settle in their countries plus operate their administration, so all those Slavs wouldn't have to flee their own state of failure? If these Eastern Europeans were so eager to be independent, they would be on the same level as the Western Europeans. This has never been the case in history and Eastern Europeans always benefited under German supervision. Be it the Romanov Czar or Austrian-Hungarian Empire, or the German Czar of Bulgaria. The Jews put this nationalistic view in their minds to go against Germans and Germany/Austria. Stalin very much pulled the fake nationalist card in Russia and elsewhere in Europe.
Help and support from the West is better implemented by running Eastern Europe than by letting those countries either self-administer and fail or be taken over by Jews or Asiatics. The very fact that Eastern Europe constantly requires Western welfare is very telling, as well.
That Eastern Europe is struck by poverty, corruption and violence is really nothing you want to import to Western Europe. White Nationalism needs structure and the best need to lead. Germany in the center, Italy in the South, France and Britain oversees, Russia behind the Urals. Spain could have regained influence in Latin America. 
Just as in Britain, Welch autonomy is all good but national independence under a possible pro-White British government, what's that good for? Especially if Wales is not able to be independent and needs help from England and simultaniously could serve as possible Jewish enemy hub to install hostile troops 100 miles away from London as was the case with Czech "independence" in the heart of the German Reich 100 miles away from Berlin and Vienna. This kind of nationalism only served Jews to divide Europe and keep everyone in check.

Same with the current Scottish "independence". They were anti-British and even more pro-EU, pro-Immigration than Great Britain's government in London. What's the point of Scottish "independence" if it's hostile to Britain and even more Jew-friendly? 
Scottish autonomy within a Fascist British state is far better than enemy-led "independence".
Many WN's don't understand the central-European situation, by showing these similar situations in Britain for example, they might get a better idea of what's the issue here. 

The Lord promised that the line of David would continue to occupy the throne of Israel "until He come whose right it is; and I will give it Him."
Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is a reminder that the Sceptre of Judah still exercises its Royal prerogative over the servant nation of God's immutable choice.
Just what lies behind the British monarchy and how old is it? We can trace it back along its line of descent to Kenneth MacAlpin, the first King of Scotland, to the kings of Ireland, back to Heremon, the husband of Tea Tephi, who was the daughter of King Zedekiah of Judah, and thence back to David, appointed King of Israel in the eleventh century B.C.
Nathan the prophet, by command of God, said to David: "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel ... Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more as beforetime ... And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever" (2 SAMUEL 7:8,10,16).
The Untold Story of Israel and The Jewish Queen of England (@ 7:00) 

Queen Charlotte was a negro and before her there was Queen Philippa, who was a Moor. So much for a Bible bloodline and the British monarchy.

Like I said before, the whole Abrahamic religion thing is a big jew hoax used to subvert the human race in general and White Europeans in particular. That's why Hitler was doing his best to cut this Abrahamic cancer out of the Germanic peoples. There are no divine bloodlines and baby jewsus never exited except in the brianwashed minds of believers.
My namesake, on the other hand, did exist, and at the very same time this jesus character was supposedly wandering the "holy" land performing miracles and getting himself crucified for our collective "sins"!
Arminius (Hermann the German) 18/17 BCE - 21 CE

Bandera was a nationalist but Jew-friendly. he can only be seen as good so much, like Le Pen today for example. 
Ukrainians were sturdier because their lived under harsher conditions with less Civilization. Just like other races, like many Negros have good teeth, this White ethnicity would continue to live on their level of existence but if gifted with German society and welfare, breed way more than the Germans without being made for German society.
Therefore, securing Ukraine for Europe, exploiting unused land while letting Ukrainians live their lives the way they do, was correct. If they manage to rise to higher levels on their own, that is one thing, but facilitating them with know-how can backfire and Germans learned their lessons from do-gooding for Poles, Czechs and others. 
In a wider historical sense, Ukraine was founded by German Goths, who were driven out or bred out completely by Slavs 1,000 years later and the Slavs moved closer West to take more developed land from Germans instead of developing their own land they already had, often assisted by French, British and Americans to put pressure on Germany.
If a Slavic nation becomes too powerful, it will expand without mercy, instead of just expanding the possibilities of the already vast lands they own. Russia is of course the best example for this typical Slavic trait. 
A German controlled Ukraine would have prevented things like the Holodomor, saved Eastern Europe from Communism and secured the average Slav to live a decent life that he would establish for himself. It would not have been free-loading for Eastern Europeans on the backs of Westerners, all with Jews in the middle causing trouble by trying to equalize everything, as it is with today's ideas of a European Union. 

It's a very well written comment and important to say these things. I was thinking of some of these points during the program but didn't choose to take the time to try to express it.

But maybe I'll get another opportunity before we're done reading this book. Laughing

Hitler's segregated German colonies in Ukraine would also have prevented the loss of identity and even rise of an enemy of German stock, as it was the case in America for example. 
Having segregated German colonies in Eastern Europe is also a century old practise that the Allies completely destroyed after 1945 during the expulsion of Germans in all Soviet states and satellites.