What do you think?
Rate this book
Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944
This is a new edition of a major document from World War II with additional, previously unavailable texts assembled from the stenographic record of Hitler’s informal conversations ordered by Martin Bormann. These texts remain the classic collection of Hitler’s nighttime monologues with his entourage, covering mostly nonmilitary subjects and long-range plans. Hitler lets his thoughts wander, never failing to provide an opinion on every subject. Additional documents from various archives make this the most complete English-language edition in print.
746 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1953
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
September 4, 2016
"At the end of four years, when I am up for reelection as Führer in 1947, I guarantee you that I will get 95 percent of the Jewish vote. I promise you. In fact, why be modest. I will get 100%. I know now that they will both vote for me."
______________________
This just in: the Goodreads recommendation engine has decided I'm a neo-Nazi. Okay, okay, I guess it's all my fault really...
______________________
Alright Goodreads, I get the point. I've already apologised. There's no need to rub it in.
______________________
This just in: the Goodreads recommendation engine has decided I'm a neo-Nazi. Okay, okay, I guess it's all my fault really...
______________________
Alright Goodreads, I get the point. I've already apologised. There's no need to rub it in.
September 4, 2011
Considering the individual this book chronicles, I would not be entirely surprised if most did not approach it with an objective mind. Its very easy to allow one's prejudices to overtake them when approaching a subject such as this. However, I was encouraged in my years as a History and Political Science student to leave my prior convictions at the door, and to analyze material with an objective and focused mind. Dealing with an individual like Hitler, objectivity in analyzing everything this book delivers is a Herculean task.
This book showcases a man who had a solid grasp on many subjects. Discussions pertaining to economics, the environment, being a vegetarian, modernization, culture, and bereaucracy are all present here. I might seem daft in saying this, but if you were to remove his racial policy, the war, and the trappings of Nazism that rotted away at his dictatorial powers, I would honestly see this man as something of a center-leftist. He had some very interesting views on economics and ecology, the latter field was not even much of a certain in his time. It seems a bit disappointing even with an individual like this, that despite his occasional brilliance, he would use his abilities for destruction and repression, not the advancement of German society or mankind. That said, this is not the goofy, idiotic Hitler often portrayed in the media.
Most interesting, Hitler makes a few predictions in this book that would ultimately come to pass. He predicted the breaking apart of the old British Empire, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, the push for a united Europe. There is even mention that the side of the impending conflict who lacked access to raw materials would be destined to lose. It seems a bit surreal of him to be accurate about such things, and I can't help but wonder if he envisioned his own grasp at world domination as nothing more than a mad gamble. In this, I could almost make comparisons to Mao Tse-tung, who viewed failure as no option, and success at the cost of millions of lives as acceptable. Disturbing how these minds think similarly.
In all, I was quite enthralled with this book, and it is quite the source for anyone interested in studying this man. A complex and interesting figure he is, considering there is much speculation and absorbing interest revolving around him, and its books like this that give us an open window into the inner mechanisms of his mind. Fascinating yet simultaneously unnerving.
This book showcases a man who had a solid grasp on many subjects. Discussions pertaining to economics, the environment, being a vegetarian, modernization, culture, and bereaucracy are all present here. I might seem daft in saying this, but if you were to remove his racial policy, the war, and the trappings of Nazism that rotted away at his dictatorial powers, I would honestly see this man as something of a center-leftist. He had some very interesting views on economics and ecology, the latter field was not even much of a certain in his time. It seems a bit disappointing even with an individual like this, that despite his occasional brilliance, he would use his abilities for destruction and repression, not the advancement of German society or mankind. That said, this is not the goofy, idiotic Hitler often portrayed in the media.
Most interesting, Hitler makes a few predictions in this book that would ultimately come to pass. He predicted the breaking apart of the old British Empire, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, the push for a united Europe. There is even mention that the side of the impending conflict who lacked access to raw materials would be destined to lose. It seems a bit surreal of him to be accurate about such things, and I can't help but wonder if he envisioned his own grasp at world domination as nothing more than a mad gamble. In this, I could almost make comparisons to Mao Tse-tung, who viewed failure as no option, and success at the cost of millions of lives as acceptable. Disturbing how these minds think similarly.
In all, I was quite enthralled with this book, and it is quite the source for anyone interested in studying this man. A complex and interesting figure he is, considering there is much speculation and absorbing interest revolving around him, and its books like this that give us an open window into the inner mechanisms of his mind. Fascinating yet simultaneously unnerving.
January 15, 2020
While reading Hitler's Table Talk, I became very suspicious at both the content and the intentions of the writer & translators. I researched it and found out that Hitler's Table Talk was debunked, and is not consistent with Hiter's speeches or Mein Kampf. The translation for Hitler's Table Talk went as follows: German -> French -> English (during which unverified and incorrect parts were added). The English translation is based upon the French translation, and the French version differs greatly from the German Table Talks. An editor, Borman, injected his bias against Christianity into Hitler's Table Talk, while translators for English and French were writing to appeal to Allied audiences. You can read more here: Richard C. Carrrier's "Hitler's Table Talk: Troubling Finds", http://www.jstor.org/stable/1432747 and https://justice4germans.files.wordpre...
September 19, 2020
As stated in previous reviews, I've long been interested in WWII, Mother having grown up under German occupation in Oslo, Father having 'fought' them in N. Africa and Sicily. Growing up, I have become increasingly interested in how Germany became Nazi, determined that such not happen again so long as I have anything to say about it. Now, on the day of the death of RBG and just weeks away from a national election, my concern has only grown.
Unlike Donald Trump, Hitler knew a bit about quite a lot and he wasn't stupid. Like Trump, however, his intellect was undisciplined and substantially untested. He was, after all, mostly self educated. The 'table talk'--a literary genre of sorts that harks back to Martin Luther, if not before--is a fair representation of the wide range of Hitler's interests and the lengths to which he went in developing his world-historical views. It shows us something of his ethics, ethics which were 'race'-based, nationalistic, not individualistic. Deaths, even quite many deaths, even his own death, were worth it if they would serve the interests of his people, the Germans, about whom he held quite inflated opinions.
However, unless the reader is interested in Hitler as a biographical subject, this book is not recommended. One won't get very accurate information about history, or the arts, or genetics, or the other sciences from reading Hitler's opinions.
Unlike Donald Trump, Hitler knew a bit about quite a lot and he wasn't stupid. Like Trump, however, his intellect was undisciplined and substantially untested. He was, after all, mostly self educated. The 'table talk'--a literary genre of sorts that harks back to Martin Luther, if not before--is a fair representation of the wide range of Hitler's interests and the lengths to which he went in developing his world-historical views. It shows us something of his ethics, ethics which were 'race'-based, nationalistic, not individualistic. Deaths, even quite many deaths, even his own death, were worth it if they would serve the interests of his people, the Germans, about whom he held quite inflated opinions.
However, unless the reader is interested in Hitler as a biographical subject, this book is not recommended. One won't get very accurate information about history, or the arts, or genetics, or the other sciences from reading Hitler's opinions.
October 12, 2010
I'm finding the introduction by Hugh T Roper very sus.
Why do I nee to be first told what a faulty individual Hitler was. Is it not sufficient to just red what they say he said.
Fascinating in a weird way, but after that somewhat odd intro I'd like to have some confidence in the translation
Why do I nee to be first told what a faulty individual Hitler was. Is it not sufficient to just red what they say he said.
Fascinating in a weird way, but after that somewhat odd intro I'd like to have some confidence in the translation
April 11, 2012
I read through this very quickly, mainly looking for Hitler's religious views. Even though the transcription and translation may have been filtered and Hitler was conscious he was being recorded, I think a few conclusions can be gleaned. Hitler believed in God and in Jesus. He did not like the Catholic Church nor the Russion Orthodox Church. My take is because they were his competitors for power.
But, the idea that he was an atheist is contradicted by these transcriptions.
He believed Jesus was Aryan, not Jewish, and that he was the right-hand of God, equal with Jesus, and was taking over where Jesus left off.
But, the idea that he was an atheist is contradicted by these transcriptions.
He believed Jesus was Aryan, not Jewish, and that he was the right-hand of God, equal with Jesus, and was taking over where Jesus left off.
May 24, 2019
Most of it is in the genre of dystopian science fiction. Hitler likes to speculate about future technologies, about what the world will be like when Germany has conquered Russia and killed of all the slavs, except those who would be turned into a subjugated race of slaves.
Reading how Hitler did not think it was terrible to ruin a city, cities after all regenerate (Some examples Beirut, Berlin, Rome, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) it is very difficult to crush a city, and if you half crush it that just means people will have to rebuild it, instead of spending their time and money on luxuries. He was interested in greatness, and saw it as a service to humanity to produce interesting history for future generations, which in the end he did.
After reading this Hitler actually looks worse than his reputation.
Reading how Hitler did not think it was terrible to ruin a city, cities after all regenerate (Some examples Beirut, Berlin, Rome, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) it is very difficult to crush a city, and if you half crush it that just means people will have to rebuild it, instead of spending their time and money on luxuries. He was interested in greatness, and saw it as a service to humanity to produce interesting history for future generations, which in the end he did.
After reading this Hitler actually looks worse than his reputation.
December 14, 2020
I read this is in English but couldn’t find the English version on good reads. This is a written compilation of Hitler’s casual conversations around the dinner table. Contrary to some of the mythology surrounding the evil man, Hitler comes across as a well-read (if largely self-educated) man who knew a little about a lot of things. Hitler also comes across as a man with an interest in broad historical themes and some creativity in his approach to the past. Hitler’s most insane and diabolical ideas are not found in this book. Read My Struggle for that side of the man. If anything, he presents as a drunk (if also racist) uncle, teetotaler that he was. We do of course see that Hitler was enthralled with himself. There is no dialogue here, no capacity for self-examination, reflection, or doubt.
September 12, 2023
In my opinion, this book was a better read than the Mein Kampf. It speaks about Hitler's strong opinions on topics like the place of Germany geo-politically, economics, environment, art & culture, and his insistence on Aryan Supremacy and maddening anti-semitic ideology. However, it's an account of a brief period and conversations mainly revolving around strategy and a vision for Germany.
A lot of these pieces surprised me with his intellect and his power of persuasion and a lot of pieces have a strong stench of cold-blooded vengeance. And what surprised me the most was how little he valued a human life whether it was the life of a Jew or someone fighting his agenda.
A sad yet stimulating read.
A lot of these pieces surprised me with his intellect and his power of persuasion and a lot of pieces have a strong stench of cold-blooded vengeance. And what surprised me the most was how little he valued a human life whether it was the life of a Jew or someone fighting his agenda.
A sad yet stimulating read.
July 23, 2016
Para ler e reler. Imensa importancia historica
November 9, 2021
The Table Talks are unverified and unverifiable as having been the words of Hitler. No one should use these as a source.
January 12, 2018
A diferencia de lo que muchos podrían pensar (basados sobre todo en la historia hollywoodense), el libro muestra a Hitler como una persona, con cosas buenas y malas, con opiniones de toda índole en una gran variedad de temas, virtudes y defectos. Por suerte, en méxico no es un delito hacer apología del nazismo o negar el holocausto, por lo mismo, no tengo problema en señalar que no pocas, sino muchísimas opiniones y sentimientos expresados por Hitler harían ver a las democracias modernas occidentales como lo que son, una enorme esta y simulación, por poner puntos importantes y recurrentes:
1. Castigar a los funcionarios corruptos, y no permitir que los políticos tengan inversiones privadas debido al conflicto de interés.
2. Abandonar el patrón oro de la economía, y que el trabajo real sea el que brinde el valor al dinero.
3. Derechos de las mujeres, como que ganen según el trabajo que realicen.
4. Leyes a favor de la ecología, y de protección animal.
5. La meritocracia como factor principal del gobierno.
6. La importancia de los valores, la historia y la cultura, en general.
Sin duda, el factor racista de Hitler también es algo continuo, pero, no me parece que fuera mayor al que dominaba en la primera mitad del siglo XX (recordemos que no fue hasta los 60 cuando en estados unidos se permitió a los afroamericanos asistir a las mismas escuelas que los anglosajones).
Por otra parte, claro que habla de los campos de concentración, pero, jamás menciona el exterminio, es más, señala, por ejemplo, que los judíos, al ser muy adaptables al clima, serían reasentados en Madagascar.
1. Castigar a los funcionarios corruptos, y no permitir que los políticos tengan inversiones privadas debido al conflicto de interés.
2. Abandonar el patrón oro de la economía, y que el trabajo real sea el que brinde el valor al dinero.
3. Derechos de las mujeres, como que ganen según el trabajo que realicen.
4. Leyes a favor de la ecología, y de protección animal.
5. La meritocracia como factor principal del gobierno.
6. La importancia de los valores, la historia y la cultura, en general.
Sin duda, el factor racista de Hitler también es algo continuo, pero, no me parece que fuera mayor al que dominaba en la primera mitad del siglo XX (recordemos que no fue hasta los 60 cuando en estados unidos se permitió a los afroamericanos asistir a las mismas escuelas que los anglosajones).
Por otra parte, claro que habla de los campos de concentración, pero, jamás menciona el exterminio, es más, señala, por ejemplo, que los judíos, al ser muy adaptables al clima, serían reasentados en Madagascar.
January 9, 2021
Having read "Table Talk" & some- not most- speeches & letters I’ve long since come to the conclusion, moralizing apart:
Hitler was perhaps the most charismatic world-leader, surpassing Caesar & Napoleon. Evidently the most”philosophical”conqueror, working according a few basic ideas. He was not nearly close to Caesar or Napoleon in genius or energy (Alexander the Great & Genghis Khan we don’t know enough about). Mentally, he was explicit that he has more affinity with eastern Emperors in ancient China and Japan (he could as well have added Genghis Khan, because he also shared some similarities with the world’s greatest conqueror).
His world-view is frequently confusing: sometimes, he seems to think that Nazism will result in flourishing of individuality; on the other hand, he’s more inclined to zombification of individuals & turning them into fighting robots & nothing more. His spiritual dimension is also not well thought through: as a Christian, Hitler is proponent of masculine Christianity, the Crusader (with Aryan Christ). Providence governs his star, and we cannot decide whether he believed in the afterlife or not. He didn’t deny it, but also didn’t pay much attention to it. Providence was his Dharma, Tao… He expressed admiration for the Chinese, Japanese…whose history is replete with millions & tens of millions of dead during upheavals. But, he was, if we count Mongols, applying alien moral & mental criteria to the most civilized & creative people in the world in past 200 years- total lack of historical & cultural perspective. Mongols were a wild bunch of militarily controlled, but otherwise raving alcoholics without Bach, Gauss or Goethe.
Hitler's historiosophy is sorely lacking. He ascribed the invention of “conscience” to “Jewish subversion”. What about Socrates, most pre-Socratics & even more, Stoics? Or, with China- Confucius (500 BC)? He wanted to destroy-not only subdue, but to annihilate, ultimately, Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians & Russians until some region about the Urals. Most Indians in Hispanic and Anglo America died of diseases, not as the result of a huge extermination plan. This is the only time in history when massive continental extermination was the one great thing planned. He was, although a cunning diplomatic tactician, wholly devoted to extreme war as the chief means of spiritual rebirth, similar to Maennerbuende in archaic Teutonic societies (see Mircea Eliade on initiation). Aggression, death, destruction, violence…. were central to his world-view; he couldn’t accept something like Sun-Tzu on warfare (even if he knew of it, which is unlikely).
He hated Jews with cold passion. Actually, his dogmatism prevented him to realistically assess that Jews don’t control Stalin’s USSR, nor Chamberlain’s Britain, nor FDR’s US. He got Abwehr reports, but hadn’t drawn any conclusion from them. His obsession with “stab-in-the-back” myth is also impossible to decipher- his accomplice Ludendorff was the man who surrendered Imperial Germany to Allies & could not name a single Jewish person in German government, diplomacy, finances, everything …that could be guilty of high treason. And yet, he proceeded with his antijudaist obsessions which, among other things, resulted in extermination of Jewish communities in Greece or Belgium. Hitler fantasized about some enormous Jewish power, but couldn’t tell when it had begun, nor where was it manifested.
He considered eastern Slavs to be subhumans. And then, astonishingly so, subhumans had produced perhaps the best WWII tank, T-34. How so? Time to correct his policy & show some elasticity in his strategies? Perhaps to radically alter many elements in his world-view? No, nothing…
At the end, he envisioned complete annihilation of the German people. The people who could not have prevailed over three empires (British, Soviet, American- just check populations, production & the military). Not questioning that his entire concept, in its clearly defined megalomaniac version was, from the outset- absolutely lunatic & war simply unwinnable.
Hitler was perhaps the most charismatic world-leader, surpassing Caesar & Napoleon. Evidently the most”philosophical”conqueror, working according a few basic ideas. He was not nearly close to Caesar or Napoleon in genius or energy (Alexander the Great & Genghis Khan we don’t know enough about). Mentally, he was explicit that he has more affinity with eastern Emperors in ancient China and Japan (he could as well have added Genghis Khan, because he also shared some similarities with the world’s greatest conqueror).
His world-view is frequently confusing: sometimes, he seems to think that Nazism will result in flourishing of individuality; on the other hand, he’s more inclined to zombification of individuals & turning them into fighting robots & nothing more. His spiritual dimension is also not well thought through: as a Christian, Hitler is proponent of masculine Christianity, the Crusader (with Aryan Christ). Providence governs his star, and we cannot decide whether he believed in the afterlife or not. He didn’t deny it, but also didn’t pay much attention to it. Providence was his Dharma, Tao… He expressed admiration for the Chinese, Japanese…whose history is replete with millions & tens of millions of dead during upheavals. But, he was, if we count Mongols, applying alien moral & mental criteria to the most civilized & creative people in the world in past 200 years- total lack of historical & cultural perspective. Mongols were a wild bunch of militarily controlled, but otherwise raving alcoholics without Bach, Gauss or Goethe.
Hitler's historiosophy is sorely lacking. He ascribed the invention of “conscience” to “Jewish subversion”. What about Socrates, most pre-Socratics & even more, Stoics? Or, with China- Confucius (500 BC)? He wanted to destroy-not only subdue, but to annihilate, ultimately, Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians & Russians until some region about the Urals. Most Indians in Hispanic and Anglo America died of diseases, not as the result of a huge extermination plan. This is the only time in history when massive continental extermination was the one great thing planned. He was, although a cunning diplomatic tactician, wholly devoted to extreme war as the chief means of spiritual rebirth, similar to Maennerbuende in archaic Teutonic societies (see Mircea Eliade on initiation). Aggression, death, destruction, violence…. were central to his world-view; he couldn’t accept something like Sun-Tzu on warfare (even if he knew of it, which is unlikely).
He hated Jews with cold passion. Actually, his dogmatism prevented him to realistically assess that Jews don’t control Stalin’s USSR, nor Chamberlain’s Britain, nor FDR’s US. He got Abwehr reports, but hadn’t drawn any conclusion from them. His obsession with “stab-in-the-back” myth is also impossible to decipher- his accomplice Ludendorff was the man who surrendered Imperial Germany to Allies & could not name a single Jewish person in German government, diplomacy, finances, everything …that could be guilty of high treason. And yet, he proceeded with his antijudaist obsessions which, among other things, resulted in extermination of Jewish communities in Greece or Belgium. Hitler fantasized about some enormous Jewish power, but couldn’t tell when it had begun, nor where was it manifested.
He considered eastern Slavs to be subhumans. And then, astonishingly so, subhumans had produced perhaps the best WWII tank, T-34. How so? Time to correct his policy & show some elasticity in his strategies? Perhaps to radically alter many elements in his world-view? No, nothing…
At the end, he envisioned complete annihilation of the German people. The people who could not have prevailed over three empires (British, Soviet, American- just check populations, production & the military). Not questioning that his entire concept, in its clearly defined megalomaniac version was, from the outset- absolutely lunatic & war simply unwinnable.
February 4, 2018
A collection of dialogues between Hitler and his dinner guests, taken down shorthand and transcribed between 1941 and 1944, with the intention of being later read by historians after the Third Reich had triumphed over the world. I think Hitler meant for this to be read as a guide like his first work "Mein Kampf".
To me, most of the dialogues were rather boring due to his long monologues on politics, but everything else was rather interesting. It shows a glimpse into a man who had a plan, albeit a very blunt, black-and-white, zealously ultra-organized, and ultimately flawed plan, but an very thought-out one. He comes off as a man who truly believes that he's a genius and who's opinion on anything, no matter what it is, is right and that's the way it is. Period. He may have actually been a bit of a genius, in his organization and his tantalizing and dominating willpower he exerted over everyone around him.
He seemed to know a bit about everything, or he thought he did, but only superficially, and from this superficial knowledge he spoke as if he was the foremost authority on the subject. He KNEW he was right. Like the introduction of the book stated, there was very little to him, as if he were hollow. He was all ideology and wanted to shape the world to his perfect mold.
I think this book, or parts of it, should be used when studying World War 2. Just to see what kind of man Hitler was, and what type of mindset it took to do all the things he did. This was a man who sanctioned some of the most horrible things done in human history and nearly succeeded in conquering the world. We need to learn to never let what happened ever happen again.
To me, most of the dialogues were rather boring due to his long monologues on politics, but everything else was rather interesting. It shows a glimpse into a man who had a plan, albeit a very blunt, black-and-white, zealously ultra-organized, and ultimately flawed plan, but an very thought-out one. He comes off as a man who truly believes that he's a genius and who's opinion on anything, no matter what it is, is right and that's the way it is. Period. He may have actually been a bit of a genius, in his organization and his tantalizing and dominating willpower he exerted over everyone around him.
He seemed to know a bit about everything, or he thought he did, but only superficially, and from this superficial knowledge he spoke as if he was the foremost authority on the subject. He KNEW he was right. Like the introduction of the book stated, there was very little to him, as if he were hollow. He was all ideology and wanted to shape the world to his perfect mold.
I think this book, or parts of it, should be used when studying World War 2. Just to see what kind of man Hitler was, and what type of mindset it took to do all the things he did. This was a man who sanctioned some of the most horrible things done in human history and nearly succeeded in conquering the world. We need to learn to never let what happened ever happen again.
Read
February 14, 2018I don't know how to rank this book. It's awful to read, in that it makes clear that Hitler was a second-rate intellect, given to contradictory blathering, but that's sort of fascinating. It's a really good book for anyone to read who buys into the Hitler myth of the evil genius.
February 3, 2009
Informative but disturbing.
October 12, 2012
An academic chronicle of dinner conversations recorded at the time.
July 12, 2014
mainly associates with hitler
May 22, 2020
Interesting reading if you study the war or the era, question of how the environment shapes the individual, and the other way around. If you correspond the dates given in the book, to the dates of war events, it gets really bizarre. For example, on 5-22-1944, at 4 pm, Hitler is informed of his crushing defeat at Kursk, losing 30,000 tanks and a quarter-million dead. His response? By 7 pm, he is giving his dinner guests a speech about some art show he saw when in Venice 20 years ago. Corresponding the war to his talks and his character traits and childhood experiences to the Third Reich ideology is what makes the book. How can one massacre millions and talk about fresh vegetables in the same breath? Just like that.
May 4, 2024
I've often seen this listed in bibliographies but almost never quoted as a primary source. After attempting to read it I see why. Value is shaky at best. Supposedly compiled by Martin Boorman, and sold by his widow to a Frenchman after the war, the book is of dubious value. Turns out the three languages in which it is translated are not in agreement, and the vehemence against religion in the book is more like Boorman's ideas than Hitler's, and has been refuted by others. $30 wasted and tossed into my recycle bin. If you are interested in what the man said, get the abridged version of Mein Kampf by Thomas Dalton.
September 5, 2022
Pretty fascinating. Hitler was a madman, but his causal conversation reveal that his madness was made up of a lot of historical facts, however crazily he put these facts together. Anyhow, it’s interesting to read his Spenglerian speculations and try to figure out which ideas were the result of Hitler’s personal psychoses and which were the result of longstanding lines of flawed European thinking. Of course, Hitler was like Churchill and Trotsky in one thing: he never stopped talking.
December 20, 2022
16 years after Mein Kamph.
Mein Kamph was documenting a movement and was not meant as a biography; now this book “Hitler Table Talk 1941-1944” is still not a biography but a record of Hitler’s personal statements.
There is a preface by Hugh Trevor-Roper called “The mind of Hitler.” This is a synopsis of the speculations on how Hitler came to power.
Mein Kamph was documenting a movement and was not meant as a biography; now this book “Hitler Table Talk 1941-1944” is still not a biography but a record of Hitler’s personal statements.
There is a preface by Hugh Trevor-Roper called “The mind of Hitler.” This is a synopsis of the speculations on how Hitler came to power.
July 21, 2023
The table talks are without a doubt the most insightful document into the mind of Hitler. Reading them is a great way to really get to know the man without being filtered through the interpretation of another writer.
But though the conversations are occasionally interesting, the table talks don't particularly make for the most exhilarating read.
But though the conversations are occasionally interesting, the table talks don't particularly make for the most exhilarating read.
January 15, 2022
I'm finding the introduction by Hugh T Roper very sus.
Why do I need to be told what a faulty individual Hitler was. Is it not sufficient to just read what they say he said.
Fascinating in a weird way, but after that somewhat odd intro I'm left lacking confidence in the translation.
Why do I need to be told what a faulty individual Hitler was. Is it not sufficient to just read what they say he said.
Fascinating in a weird way, but after that somewhat odd intro I'm left lacking confidence in the translation.
February 14, 2020
Other than Mein Kampf I had never read words written / spoken by Hitler. Interesting book. A little repetitious.. Mild recommendation Kristi & Abby Tabby
May 4, 2020
Fascinating read ,Gives an insight to Hitler's Military Mind and anecdotes or snippets around his thoughts towards world view , religion ,race and world domination
December 14, 2021
Europeu menos racista.
July 16, 2022
A good book that shows how Hitler's thinking became more delusional and convoluted as WWII pressed forward against Germany.
February 6, 2024
Man was clearly a first-rate genius. Pity he has become so caricatured in history.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews