"Hitler's Table Talk" Study Hour: Episode 6
April 10, 2014
Carolyn Yeager and Ray Goodwin read and comment on the Sept 22 to Sept. 25, 1941 dinner table monologues by the German Führer, as taken down by an adjutant and checked for accuracy by Martin Bormann. In this program:
- The separate worlds of Europe and Asia are not marked by the Ural Mountains, but Asia penetrates into Europe without any sharp break;
- Germany obtains the right to extend into the East by it’s awareness of what it represents – success justifies everything;
- National-Socialism will never ape religion by establishing a form of worship;
- The Russian soldier of the 1st World War was more good-natured than the cruel Bolshevik-led soldier of the current time;
- The Four-Year Plan of 1936-40 with the aim of German self-sufficiency, not dependent on exports;
- Russia as a source of raw materials for Germany and a consumer of simple German-made items such as cotton goods and household utensils.
Image: At the Obersalzberg, Adolf Hitler, accompanied by Reich Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop (right), receives the Prime Minister Zwetkowitsch of Yugoslavia for talks in February 1941 (click to enlarge)
The edition 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.
Bookmark/Search this post with
- 687 reads
Comments
Original comments on this program
10 Responses
Markus
April 11, 2014 at 2:29 am
The Vienna parliament was not only the national political center of German-Austria, but also the federal capital of the entire empire, so delegations from all the non-German peoples within Austria-Hungary assembled there, as well. The Habsburgs come from Swiss-Germany. Maybe that’s why Hitler thought they were rather foreign.
Thanks for clarifying Untermenschen.
Regarding the Slavic flood into Germanic Europe. That’s what is happening. First, they wiped out the Germans in vast lands after 1945, now more and more Slavs take advantage of EU law to penetrate even further into the Western Germanic lands.
Berlin became the capital of Europe after 1945 anyway. Only the enemies occupied it and drew a line through it to divide the German people. This Capitalist-Communist paradigm is just theater. Berlin also remained the official capitol of the German Reich after 1945 in any case. The DDR had its seat of foreign occupied administration right in the capitol, while the BRD moved it to Bonn.
Carolyn, don’t be afraid of anti-German WN. The #1 reason all Whites have to face extinction is the fact that the Jews manipulated them into hating Germans even more so, the inventor folk. If it was up to some of these WN, they would be perfectly fine with a whiter world, but without Germans or Germanics in general.
Carolyn
April 11, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Are you sure the Slavs needed Jews to manipulate them into hating Germans? In some cases Catholic priests did the job just fine (against the infidel German Protestants). The Germans and Slavs lived together in those lands, peacefully for the most part. But the Germans, being the smarter and more industrious, fell into the managing positions and were therefore wealthier. So the communist idea that they were the enemy took hold with some. I’d say religion and economics were both at work in this.
I don’t think these WN’s want a world without Germans (probably some do) but they really like to have Germans in a perpetual state of guilt, serving the rest of Europe to make up for the wrongs Germans have done them. They need to see all Whites as equal. Therefore they classify Germans as technocrats who are good at making things. This doesn’t take into consideration the great German achievements in the arts but heck, they’ll try to take German artists too and claim them for other nationalities. Anything to level the playing field.
Yikes, one way of “leveling the playing field” is to exterminate Germans outright, isn’t it? I am toying with the possibility that White Nationalism is being used to the advantage of the Jew.
Markus
April 11, 2014 at 1:39 pm
I understand this. That’s why I said, the Jews manipulated them into hating Germans, EVEN MORE SO.
Isn’t it amazing that Communism was applied for the Slavic peoples mainly. The Jews are well aware of our ethnic differences. The same principle was applied on the Asian people, China became a Communist block vs the Japanese.
You are spot on with your analysis. Please don’t shy away from firmly speaking out.
2/3 of American engineers were of German blood, as Hitler said (I bet he was right). Where would the “White Race” be without Germans? Probably just above the level of the Turk or Arab or Latino. That’s a pill many “equality, liberty, fraternity”-WN refuse to swallow.
Tanstaafl
April 11, 2014 at 3:21 pm
Carolyn, I’d like to hear you clarify what you think White nationalism is. From your recent comments it seems to represent whoever or whatever you don’t like about Whites as a race. For some bizarre reason that even includes the comments made by jew-first trolls like Frankin Ryckaert.
Carolyn
April 11, 2014 at 6:43 pm
Tan, I am working out my position on White Nationalism and may have something to say on tomorrow’s program. But you’re asking me what I think it IS. That’s the problem – I can’t define what it is. Can you? But I observe that it’s ineffective due to lack of leadership in the U.S. where the term is mainly used. Currently there is no agreement on the kind of leadership that would be acceptable, if there were a leader.
Tanstaafl
April 11, 2014 at 7:15 pm
Sure I can define White nationalism, which is why it disturbs me when you trash it.
If you can’t define what X is I don’t know how you can blame X for being ineffective, lacking in leadership, or anything else.
Markus
April 11, 2014 at 7:53 pm
Imo if I may, White Nationalism is American Nationalism, and that is mainly of Germanic peoples that came together as one country, with some hyphenized White American minorities added to it, mainly Italian – and Irish American.
But White Nationalism is also used to describe White Internationalism, where all White nations forms either a Union or a Federation of one kind or another.
Carolyn
April 11, 2014 at 10:56 pm
Tan, as I do with everybody, I expect you to quote exactly what I said to “trash it.”
If you can define it, what is it? And where is the leadership? It’s an idea, rather than anything substantial.
Tanstaafl
April 12, 2014 at 10:09 am
I think it’s fair to characterize this as trashing White nationalism:
http://thewhitenetwork-archive.com/2014/04/03/germans-slavs-and-men-of-action-aug-19-sept-21-1941-episode-5/ :
And in this thread:
It doesn’t matter how I define the term. As I said, it seems to me that you’re using it as a catch-all for things you don’t like about Whites as a race (lack of togetherness, ineffective/lack of leadership, exploited by the jews). It’s easy to read “White” or “Whiteness” where you use the term “White Nationalism”.
April 12, 2014 at 11:39 am
Maybe it matters to me. I’m looking for a definition, which you said you had. From your previous comment:
In the same way, if you can’t define X how can you say I am trashing it?
I think you are expressing the very political correctness at work in “Internet WN” that I have been complaining about lately.
I also think it is petty, as well as grasping at straws, to say it is “easy” for readers to take “White Nationalism” for meaning “White.” I guess not.