Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Balsamo
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby Balsamo » 6 years 7 months ago (Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:29 pm)

Gosh...When one criticize someone "manipulation", it would be wised to leave it there and not try to do the very same thing.
Nikzor did not quote the first sentence, and that is a mistake; but when in the following sentence one translate ABGESHOBEN by deported, one falls into the same trap.
Abgeshoben is more like TO KICK OUT...and it is done in a barbaric way that would cost the life of 60% of them...Now one could consider that the first operation in putting hundreds of thousands Jews in small getthos was kind of Barbaric too...So this operation is supposed to be in Goebbels mind even more barbaric.

I would also remind that Goebbels was not in charge and had nothing to do directly with this operation (that is transforming Jews into liquid, or putting them in bottle, and fire them from they work or whatever...).

But let's assume that liquidated means fired, because unfit to work (by opposition with the other 40% that could be used to work. Two questions:
- Why couldn't the unfit stay in their garbage of Getho ? Or Why couln't the gethos keep its factories ?
- If if it was just a basic transfer, what was the barbaric apect of it ?

Remember that we are in 1942...most of the camps and ghettos were already in place, lots of Jews and undesirables already deported...so the question reñains what makes Goebbels considering this new developpment barbaric? and this from hearsays!

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby Bob » 6 years 7 months ago (Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:13 pm)

In my opinion, the only man who knows what was meant by the word “barbaric” is Josef Göbbels, and he is dead, apparently not able to explain it to us, but again apparently, the forced deportation itself is for some people a barbaric procedure.

Balsamo wrote:and it is done in a barbaric way that would cost the life of 60% of them


Can you provide me with evidence for your claim that 60% of these people will lost their life and that was the meaning of that passage?

Why can't this liquidation be “stood for their removal into the eastern territories” as Carlo Mattogno explained in one of his book?[1]

Balsamo wrote:- Why couldn't the unfit stay in their garbage of Getho ? Or Why couln't the gethos keep its factories ?


Because the policy of the Nazi Germany was emigration and later evacuation of Jews out of the German territories.

Balsamo wrote:- If if it was just a basic transfer, what was the barbaric apect of it ?


As I said, only Josef Göbbels knew what he considered as barbaric, we can only speculate, but maybe the deportation itself which wasn´t - obviously - a pleasure for those deported people because of not very comfortable conditions and because they were forced to move?

(edit - grammar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes
[1]Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf, Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies & Prejudices on the Holocaust, The Barnes Review, 2011, p. 261.
Last edited by Bob on Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9784
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby Hannover » 6 years 7 months ago (Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:34 pm)

Indeed, you read it frequently. The deportations of illegal Mexicans out of the US, Canada, wherever, is deemed "barbaric' by some.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Balsamo
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby Balsamo » 6 years 7 months ago (Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:05 am)

Bob said
Why can't this liquidation be “stood for their removal into the eastern territories” as Carlo Mattogno explained in one of his book?[1]


That is not so easy: If liquidate means transfer, i don't see why it applied only to 60%. As he said earlier that ALL Jews had to leave Europe.
If one assume that liquidate means transfer , the Goebbels is supposed to have written :
1. All Jews are going to be kicked out (100%) in a barbaric way
2. 60% will have to be transfered to the east, and 40% could be used to work...so they stay ?
And of course he added "Not much will remain of the Jews" for fun ?

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby Bob » 6 years 7 months ago (Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:30 pm)

Balsamo, you missed my first question related to your claim. Bear in mind that this is CODOH and not RODOH or some other forum without rules, please, answer. Thank you.

Balsamo wrote:Bob said
Why can't this liquidation be “stood for their removal into the eastern territories” as Carlo Mattogno explained in one of his book?[1]


That is not so easy: If liquidate means transfer, i don't see why it applied only to 60%. As he said earlier that ALL Jews had to leave Europe.


Their policy was to move Jews out of the German territories, but Is also known that they used them for force labor because of war needs, so I do not see any contradiction or problem with the fact that before they will be all evacuated, portion of them will be used for work because of war, and the rest will be “liquidated” - i.e. removed to the east and they will never return back. After the war or maybe still during the war, when no force labor will be needed, 40% will be moved too. Something similar is noted by him in the entry dated March 7, 1942 - “completely excluded.”

This dividing of people is noted in other document cited by Mattogno, note of Fritz Reuter dated March 17, 1942, he referred to his talk with Höfle on the previous day:[2]

“It would be expedient to divide the transports of Jews arriving in the Lublin district at the station of origin into employable and unemployable Jews. If it is not possible to make this distinction at the departure station, then the transport will have to be divided in Lublin in the manner mentioned above.

All unemployable Jews are to come to Bezec [Belzec], the outermost border station in the Zamosz district.

[...]

These Jews would cross the border and never return to the General Gouvernement.”


Göbbels was obviously familiar with the policy of deportation as he cited number from Wannsee protocol and he was familiar with the dividing of the Jews to employable and not employable, he mentioned even Lublin, it looks like he knew exactly this document or the overall picture of this deportation from Lublin. The latter will be liquidated, i.e. - moved out of the GG and they will never return back.

That this 60% has nothing to do with alleged extermination but with the evacuation/deportation, is noted by him in the same paragraph of his March 27, 1942 entry:[3]

“Beginning with Lublin the Jews are now being deported eastward from the Government-General. The procedure is pretty barbaric, and one that beggars description, and there’s not much left of the Jews. Broadly speaking one can probably say that sixty percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only forty percent can be put to work.” (my emphasis)


You can note how the word barbaric is clearly related to deportation, that this procedure of deportation is pretty barbaric. He could have referred to the fact that people are forced to leave when they do not want, they must leave their homes, property or friends, even a small children must leave and most of the time in trains which are hardly comfortable. This procedure is no invention from Germans, this happened, happens and will happen and according to me - is barbaric.

There is no sign that this is related to some particular criminal conditions, i.e. - beatings, shootings and etc. Try to ask some people, I guess that most of them will consider as barbaric even the non-criminal aspects of the deportation described above, but do not tell them about the connection with the Nazis, then no doubt, you can expect that they are going to imagine making of soaps from deported peoples, making of sausages, crushing of skulls of small babies and etc.)

My simple question for you, do you consider as barbaric the aspects of deportation listed by me?

Balsamo wrote:If one assume that liquidate means transfer , the Goebbels is supposed to have written :
1. All Jews are going to be kicked out (100%) in a barbaric way


Non sequitur, if he witnessed one, two or more transports from Lublin which appeared to him as barbaric does not mean that 100% of transports will be all handled in the same way. Check Auschwitz Album to see examples of deportations in Auschwitz. Maybe he thought about the same aspects of deportation as me, see above. Maybe he never saw any deportations and he based it on hearsay or on his own imagination when he imagined himself and his own children in the position of the deported Jews, who knows.

Balsamo wrote:2. 60% will have to be transfered to the east, and 40% could be used to work...so they stay ?


See above.

Balsamo wrote:And of course he added "Not much will remain of the Jews" for fun ?


This is logical, if they will be evacuated from the German sphere to the east, then obviously - “not much will remain of the Jews” or “there’s not much left of the Jews.”, what is interesting, this imply that something will be left of the Jews in their original locations. He in fact expected that 11 million of them will be left in the east after the war, he noted it in his entry dated March 7, 1942, he still speaks about Madagascar plan as a possible solution:[4]

“The Jewish question will now have to be solved within the framework of all of Europe. In Europe, there are still 11 million Jews. They must, first of all, be concentrated in the east. At a given time, after the war, an island will have to be assigned to them, maybe Madagascar. Anyway, there will not be peace in Europe as long as the Jews are not completely excluded (ausgeschaltet) from the European territory […]”


Did he change his mind twenty days later and 60% (6,600,000) of them will be now killed through some enormous operation unknown to him until March 7, 1942 and he did not note a single word about it in his diary? Not a single word about operation or intention to kill 60% of them when he himself described the deportation itself as barbaric procedure? Deportation was barbaric procedure for him, but not the extermination of 6,600,000? And if he speaks about killing of 60% of them, why he claimed that they are now deported “eastward from the Government-General”, when the extermination centers which already allegedly gassed people (this time only Chelmno and Belzec according to historiography) were in the General Government, and Auschwitz was in the west direction from the General Government?

Exterminationists´interpretation of Göbbels´words is contradicting and even nonsensical and refuted, the truth is much simpler, non-sinister, supported and in accordance with the Occam´s razor. What I am finding ridiculous is, that these passages from his diary support revisionist position. The only reason why they are so quoted by exterminationists is, that majority of ordinary people lacks knowledge and has no clue about the context, other entries in the diary or about the other documents or they are too manipulated to believe anything about the Nazis, so at first sight these passages appear as evidence. No doubt, Shermer and Grobman know it, for example they omitted to cite his March 7, 1942 entry, they only picked up number 11 million to prove that 60% of liquidated people result in approx. 6 million figure[5] - thus Göbbels magically predicted approx. final death toll and Holocaust happened.

All what these exterminationists like Shermer, Grobman, Nizkor [6]and etc. expect when they quote this alleged evidence is, that majority of these poor people will believe it, and the rest consisting of revisionists or open minded “believers” is of no importance, because revisionists books are much less advertised, they are assaulted, labeled as a nazis, antisemites, they are censored, jailed - thus there is low risk that people will learn that alleged evidence supporting extermination is in fact the true opposite.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes

[2]Józef Kermisz, Dokumenty i Materialy do dziejów okupacji niemieckiej w Polsce, vol. II: “Akce” i “Wysiedlenia,” Warsaw-Lodz-Krakow 1946, p. 32f.
[3]Michael Shermer, Alex Grobman, Denying History. Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say it?, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, London, 2000, p. 190.; Source for their quote is David Irving.
[4]R. Manvell, H. Fraenkel, Goebbels, eine Biographie, Verlag Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln/Berlin 1960, p. 256.; Carlo Mattogno, op. cit. (note 1), p. 259.
[5]Michael Shermer, Alex Grobman, op. cit. (note 3), idem.
[6]The project Nizkor is even worse than Shermer and Grobman, because Nizkor completely omitted the preceding sentence from March 27, 1942 entry: “Beginning with Lublin the Jews are now being deported eastward from the Government-General.” Just one of the many deliberate falsifications from this source to change the context, because they knew the full text. For what reason they omitted this passage? Obviously because it is important for the context. Shermer and Grobman had not enough impudence to commit the same deception in this case.

ganglere
Member
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:53 pm

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby ganglere » 6 years 7 months ago (Sat Dec 01, 2012 3:43 pm)

Good evening ladies and gentlemen!

I must admit that I am a bit confused about this debate, because I just recently read this earlier post at CODOH.

by driansmith » Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:55 am
Because this thread is so interesting I hastily compiled a chronology of the history of the Goebbels diaries from readily available sources on the Internet. I include comments and questions written from the viewpoint of someone who thinks the diaries are very substantially a hoax. Perhaps others interested in this thread might like to copy it and flesh it out with more details and add their own questions. For what it's worth - as I said, it was put together in a very short time - here it is.

THE GOEBBELS DIARIES: A SHORT CHRONOLOGY, WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

1941: March
At the end of March 1941 Goebbels had the 20 thick volumes of his diary deposited in an underground vault of the Reichsbank.

1941: July
Goebbels began dictating his diaries to secretary Dr Richard Otte.

Question: Is it not possible that there is a hoax, and that Goebbels never ceased writing his own diaries? Arthur Butz, Hoax of the Twentieth Century, has expressed doubt as to whether the story of how Otte transcribed the diary is true. See http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/10.html

1942 >
'While going through the Goebbels diaries [Irving] found that from about 1942 on Goebbels repeatedly said things like "We have crimes on our book. We can't go back. We can only go forward."' - Frank Miele.
http://www.skeptic.com/02.4.miele-holocaust.html#fire

Comment: No sooner does Goebbels stop handwriting his own diaries than they begin including passages in which G. betrays consciousness of being a 'criminal' - which is precisely the way the Allies were determined to depict him! How very obliging Herr Goebbels was!

1942: March 27
Goebbels diary entry (typewritten)
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Goebbels/Tgb_27034%20...%202a_600.jpg

1944: Late
The dictated pages began being filmed onto glass plates.
Photos: http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/JG/Microfiches.gif
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/JG/JGTgb.jpg

Irving: The Germans filmed the diaries on about 1,700 glass plates in 1944 and 1945, some 70,000 pages of them.

1945: April: Late
The aluminium crates containing the microformed diaries were sent to the Führerbunker.

1945: July
According to Louis P. Lochner, the 591 typewrited original pages from Goebbels's diary were among 7,000 pages which had been discarded by the Soviets during searches of the Propaganda Ministry at Wilhelmsplatz. They had been found in the courtyard of the Ministry immediately after the end of the war by a rag collector, who took them to a waste paper dealer. Through the hands of different intermediaries, the papers came into the possession of American reporter Frank E. Mason.

Mason suspected that they were Goebbels diaries and took them to Lochner, former chief of the Berlin bureau of the Associated Press. Lochner, who was definitely in Berlin in July 1945 - he was slightly injured in a crash with a Russian truck - subsequently identified them as the original diary entries of Dr. Goebbels.

He did so on the basis of apparent similarities with Goebbels' 1925-26 diary, which had been given to former President Herbert Hoover during a visit to Germany in 1946. Lochner decided that they were genuine on account of rhetorical and stylistic similarities. Lochner edited and translated them into English himself. They were published in 1948.

Photo: http://rationalrevolution.net/special/l%20...%20bbels1.jpg

Questions: Can we believe that the Soviet occupiers could not tell that the pages belonged to Goebbels's diary? After all the documents looked important: "The diaries were typed on fine water-marked paper, which was rare in wartime Germany and available only to high government officials."

Next, can we believe that the Soviet occupiers allowed rag collectors to fossick among the ruins of the Propaganda Ministry? At this stage, they would have been searching diligently for material that could have been used to identify and punish suspected war criminals. Do we have anything, other than the word of two Americans - neither taken under oath - to prove the origin of the documents?

Can the handwritten diary of 1925-26 really be used to authenticate the typewritten diaries of 1942-43? Could the typewritten diaries possibly have been faked by emulating the rhetoric and style of Goebbels's authentic 1925-26 diary?

There is an interesting connection here: Herbert Hoover. Not only did Hoover possess an authentic Goebbels diary, he was a close friend of Frank E. Mason:

"Mason's long friendship with Herbert Hoover, and the services he performed for the "Chief" as a public relations advisor and literary executor, are the principal focus of the papers Mason donated to the Hoover Presidential Library. Diaries and correspondence with Hoover and Mason's wife Ellen (1945-47) provide interesting observations concerning early Allied occupation policies.

While he was in Europe Mason also acted as a collector of manuscripts, records and rare books for the Hoover Institution. His main coup was the discovery and preservation of a large portion of the diaries of Joseph Goebbels. This led to a prolonged fight with the Office of Alien Property which sought to block its publication by Mason and his associates."
http://www.ecommcode2.com/hoover/resear%20...%20/mason.htm

More questions: Isn't it odd that Hoover's friend, Mason, is the man who told Lochner he thought the diaries were Goebbels's, and that Hoover had been given, by persons unknown (Mason?) the copy of a Goebbels diary that Lochner used to determine that the diaries Mason had given him were, in fact, those of Goebbels? Also intriguing: Why did the Office of Alien Property try to block publication of the Goebbels diary?

1946-47
Question: Why, if he deemed the diaries authentic, did Lochner not make them available for use during the Nuremberg trials, especially considering all the incriminating passages that appear in them from 1942 onwards?

1947
The pages of the Goebbels diary 'discovered' by Mason/Lochner were microfilmed in New York. The originals were then deposited at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, California.

1948
Publication of The Goebbels Diaries 1942-43. 'When the Lochner Book came out in 1948 there was a note from the government that reads: "No representative of the interested agencies of the United States Government has read the original manuscript or the translation of excerpts therefrom. The Department of State desires, as a matter of policy, to encourage widespread publication of documents such as this purports to be, of significance in the field of foreign policy, and has therefore not objected to the publication. The United States Government ... neither warrants nor disclaims the authenticity of the manuscript upon which this publication is based, and neither approves nor disapproves of the translation, selection of material, annotation, or other editorial comment contained herein."

Questions: Was the publication of the diaries deliberately held over until the Nuremberg trials was over? Why did the US Government explicitly distance itself from the diaries? Wasn't it interested in knowing whether they were authentic or not? After all, if they were authentic they would have been extremely relevant to the ongoing war crimes trials. Was the US Government perhaps distancing itself from what it knew, or suspected, to be a hoax (if it was not actually involved in perpetrating it itself)?

1962
All available portions of the Goebbels diaries, including fragments unearthed by the French in their sector of Berlin, were microfilmed and published by the American Historical Association.

1969
The government of the GDR searched the ruins of the Reich Chancellery and found nine aluminium-boxes containing 20,000 severely water-damaged pages, both typewritten and handwritten, from the diaries.

Question: Is it really possible that as many as nine aluminium boxes were still sitting in the Reich Chancellery 44 years after the Fall of Berlin and (in particular) many years after the Soviets had destroyed the Chancellery and recycled the materials for the Treptower Park monument and other purposes?

1977
Hamburg publisher Verlag Hoffmann & Campe published the Goebbels diaries for the period February 28-April 10, 1945 from copies that had been unearthed in Central Germany.

1987
The greater part of the diaries covering the period 1924-41 - around 4,000 pages altogether, were published in four volumes by a former research assistant for David Irving, Elke Fröhlich of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich: Dr. Elke Fröhlich (ed.), 'Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Sämtliche Fragmente,' 4 Vols., Munich, KG. Saur Verlag, 1987.

1992: Early
Former research assistant for David Irving, Elke Froehlich, discovered the glass plates of the Goebbels diaries in the Soviet State Archives in Moscow because she recognised Richard Otte's writing on the lids. However, Froehlich's institute (the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich) denied her the means to research further.
[url]http://www.codoh.com/graphics/goebdiaries.GIF
[/url]
Comments: A likely story! Richard Otte's handwriting must be peculiarly distinctive!

Questions: Can we really believe that the institute sponsoring Froehlich, who is supposedly the 'world's leading authority on the Goebbels diaries,' would not see the value of sponsoring important work on the Goebbels diaries? Why sponsor the research world's leading authority on the Goebbels diaries if you don't actually plan to enable her to carry out research on the same subject? Can we really believe that Froehlich was not at least a little tempted to research the diaries at her own expense? After all, she was in Moscow anyway. What's a hotel bill for a few more weeks?

Theory: Froehlich was sent to Moscow to 'pre-authenticate' the Goebbels diaries as the first stage of a trap to snare David Irving.

1992: June
After he was made aware of their existence by Froelich, David Irving becomes the first scholar to examine the glass plates of the Goebbels diaries. Miraculously, they authenticate the previously published Goebbels diaries (see entry for 1948), whose own story of origin is extremely implausible (see entry for 1945: April: Late). In particular, Irving uses the glass plates to decide the question of the authenticity of pages from Goebbels's diary that were 'wrangled over' in the Lipstadt trial.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Goebbels/Tgb_27034%20...%2070342.html

Question: Could a fake have been perpetrated to 'prove' the authenticity of an earlier fake? Given the importance of the diary in polemics between revisionists and Holohoaxers like Lipstadt, it would be an extremely convenient way of bolstering the Holohoax position against the revisionists. Is this why David Irving ended up being enticed to Moscow by the discovery of the glass plates?

1992: July
Diaries found by David Irving in Moscow were first published by the news-magazine Der Spiegel in four issues, beginning with No. 29/1992 (13 July 1992) to No. 32/1992.

Comment: That's rather fast work! Irving has just obtained access to them, and within a month excerpts are already being published in a magazine that one would expect would be extremely wary of publishing this type of material.

Late 1992
David Irving successfully obtained the necessary funding to allow him to purchase the glass plates from the Moscow archives. No sooner did he raise the necessary cash than his access to the Moscow archives, and therefore to the plates, was abruptly cut off.

Question: Is it possible that 'they' (i.e., those actually running the Goebbels diary hoax) wanted Irving to know enough about the plates to authenticate them, but did not want him to actually possess them, in case over time he was able to work out that they were not authentic? (end quote)

All of this has made me seriously doubt the authenticity of said diaries, and thus, any quote herefrom, irrelevant.

And, to quote from Ingrid Weckert: according to Goebbels' secretary of state, Dr. Naumann, Goebbels and Naumann in connection with the "crystal night", took the night express-train (departure 11:50 p.m. on Nov. 9th 1938) to return to Berlin.

But according to the diary, Goebbels was in Munich during all day of November 10th. Therefore, as a man cannot be at two different locations at the same time, I suggest you draw your own conclusions.

And, as had been pointed out elsewhere, Goebbles had no part in either the deportations as a whole, nor the running of the concentration camps, he was the minister of propaganda. The only role he played in the deportations, was by deporting a part of Berlins jews, in his capacity as gauleiter of Berlin. In 1945 there were 5000 of them left, so I guess he did a half-ass job of it? :wink:

Humbly yours.

Ganglere

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby Bob » 6 years 7 months ago (Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:04 pm)

ganglere wrote:All of this has made me seriously doubt the authenticity of said diaries, and thus, any quote herefrom, irrelevant.


How many proven errors or false accounts you spotted in the allegedly faked Göbbels´diaries and its 70,000 or 4,000 or 591 pages as stated in your comment? Or did I miss something and you consider as fake only some parts?

If the diary is fake, why there are no incriminating passages? Bear in mind, that we are speaking about the diary, they could have easily forge the most incriminating words like “gassing” and plant them inside and nobody would have been able to object anything as diaries are the deepest personal accounts written without alleged code words, camouflaged language, signatures or myriads of bureaucratic procedures which can be seen in formal documents, then is really easy to forge it. Thus these incriminating passages would have been practically immune to any counter arguments, the only way how to refute them would have been some analysis of original papers and text.

ganglere wrote:And, to quote from Ingrid Weckert: according to Goebbels' secretary of state, Dr. Naumann, Goebbels and Naumann in connection with the "crystal night", took the night express-train (departure 11:50 p.m. on Nov. 9th 1938) to return to Berlin.

But according to the diary, Goebbels was in Munich during all day of November 10th. Therefore, as a man cannot be at two different locations at the same time, I suggest you draw your own conclusions.


Can you cite passage in which Göbbels stated that he was in Munich all day on 10th November?

Ingrid Weckert said this regarding Dr. Naumann and his information about train to Berlin, following quote is a response to passage(s) in the diary:

Diese Bemerkung entspricht den wirklichen Tatsachen. Tatsächlich fuhr Dr. Goebbels, nachdem er seine Sachen aus dem Hotel "Bayerischer Hof" geholt hatte, an der brennenden Synagoge vorbei, direkt zum Bahnhof, um mit dem fahrplanmäßigen Nachtzug um 23.50 Uhr nach Berlin zu fahren.

http://vho.org/VffG/2001/2/Weckert196-203.html


If the passages from the diary related to this are faked, how they faked something what can be known only to direct participants and what was confirmed by Naumann himself?

Somebody can objects, that passages from diary which does not fully match parts Dr. Naumann´s testimony can be explained by the fact that Naumann gave his testimony in 1979, i.e. 41 years later.

ganglere wrote:And, as had been pointed out elsewhere, Goebbles had no part in either the deportations as a whole, nor the running of the concentration camps, he was the minister of propaganda. The only role he played in the deportations, was by deporting a part of Berlins jews, in his capacity as gauleiter of Berlin. In 1945 there were 5000 of them left, so I guess he did a half-ass job of it?


This does not seems to be an argument to me, one does not have to be a direct participant to be able to write about it in the diary, I guess that people write in their diaries about myriads of events in which they weren´t direct participants or directors, managers or something like that. Göbbels was a minister of propaganda, thus familiar with other agenda as well, I see nothing strange in the fact that he provided his thoughts regarding deportations which were not under his direct management.

Goethe
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:41 am

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby Goethe » 6 years 7 months ago (Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:46 pm)

On forgeries, and I'm not 100% sure that Goebbel's diaries have been worked over, but keep in mind that the official narrative states that the Germans used "code words". Having established in the minds of the gullible that "code words" were used, the exterminationists would be contradicting their own lies (again) if they were to insert things like 'we are gassing Jews, or 'the gas chambers await the Jews', etc. Just think of how effective the promotion of the phrase "The Final Solution" has been. It invites the reader to partake in fantasy.
"The coward threatens when he is safe".
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
spaceboy
Member
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:04 am

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby spaceboy » 6 years 7 months ago (Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:19 pm)

Goethe wrote:On forgeries, and I'm not 100% sure that Goebbel's diaries have been worked over, but keep in mind that the official narrative states that the Germans used "code words". Having established in the minds of the gullible that "code words" were used, the exterminationists would be contradicting their own lies (again) if they were to insert things like 'we are gassing Jews, or 'the gas chambers await the Jews', etc. Just think of how effective the promotion of the phrase "The Final Solution" has been. It invites the reader to partake in fantasy.


But if "liquidation" is as definite of a term for killing as the exterminationists make it out to be, then wouldn't that in itself be contradicting the idea of the Germans using code words? Although I do kind of see what you're saying. Initially, I was thinking if the diary entries had been forged, that things such as gas chambers would have been mentioned, but perhaps if it is a forgery, making it less over the top makes it seem more believable.

Bob
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:49 am

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby Bob » 6 years 7 months ago (Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:40 pm)

See my comment above Goethe:

If the diary is fake, why there are no incriminating passages? Bear in mind, that we are speaking about the diary, they could have easily forge the most incriminating words like “gassing” and plant them inside and nobody would have been able to object anything as diaries are the deepest personal accounts written without alleged code words, camouflaged language, signatures or myriads of bureaucratic procedures which can be seen in formal documents, then is really easy to forge it. Thus these incriminating passages would have been practically immune to any counter arguments, the only way how to refute them would have been some analysis of original papers and text.


Possible objection mentioned in your comment would have been of no value as one cannot expects camouflaged language or coded words in something like personal diary - thus no contradiction with the established myth of camouflaged language. If alleged forger had no problem with the words like liquidation or barbaric - thus no camouflage at all - then I see no reason why not to include words like gassing and etc. in this alleged forgery. Also it makes no sense to forge words about deportation of Jews to the east in the preceding sentence or passage about concentration of Jews in the east or about Madagascar which has to be assigned to 11 million Jews after the war.

As far as the arguments are concerned, diaries are genuine, I didn´t see any arguments proving forgery.

ganglere
Member
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:53 pm

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby ganglere » 6 years 7 months ago (Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:19 am)

Greetings!

And thank you for the many answers. I will return later with a more detailed answer, but for now:

The Hitler diaries was initially declared genuine by experts, and if memory serves me correctly, Irving was one of those. He later changed his position.

Later on analysis of paper and ink proved them to be a forgery.

The 1945 papers flying about at the propaganda ministery, would have, if analysis were made on paper and (typewriter ) ink would only have revealed that they had been made at this approximate time with materials available at this time, but not conclusively prove either exact time nor author.

I totally agree that a diary contains the most private thoughts and reflections, and in that sense are always genuine, but this goes only for personal, handwritten diaries, and this, we do not have.

This is the curse of all trying to prove something, as is said: I can prove that I am innocent of a specific crime, but I cannot prove that I am not the Devil.

Humbly yours.

Ganglere

Goethe
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:41 am

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby Goethe » 6 years 7 months ago (Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:33 am)

spaceboy wrote:
Goethe wrote:On forgeries, and I'm not 100% sure that Goebbel's diaries have been worked over, but keep in mind that the official narrative states that the Germans used "code words". Having established in the minds of the gullible that "code words" were used, the exterminationists would be contradicting their own lies (again) if they were to insert things like 'we are gassing Jews, or 'the gas chambers await the Jews', etc. Just think of how effective the promotion of the phrase "The Final Solution" has been. It invites the reader to partake in fantasy.


But if "liquidation" is as definite of a term for killing as the exterminationists make it out to be, then wouldn't that in itself be contradicting the idea of the Germans using code words? Although I do kind of see what you're saying. Initially, I was thinking if the diary entries had been forged, that things such as gas chambers would have been mentioned, but perhaps if it is a forgery, making it less over the top makes it seem more believable.

Anyone can find the claim of "code words" all through the narrative, I hope this is not doubted. The exterminationists do say that the multi-defined term 'liquidation' means killing, it IS a "code word", just like saying that The Final Solution means exterminating Jews. Code words all.
"The coward threatens when he is safe".
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3303
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby Hektor » 6 years 7 months ago (Sun Dec 02, 2012 2:09 pm)

Goethe wrote:...
Anyone can find the claim of "code words" all through the narrative, I hope this is not doubted. The exterminationists do say that the multi-defined term 'liquidation' means killing, it IS a "code word", just like saying that The Final Solution means exterminating Jews. Code words all.

Don't forget Umsiedlung, Sonderbehandlung, etc. What if the words mean what they say, when going close to etymology and common political usage at the time?

User avatar
Balsamo
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby Balsamo » 6 years 7 months ago (Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:33 pm)

Bob said
Göbbels was obviously familiar with the policy of deportation as he cited number from Wannsee protocol and he was familiar with the dividing of the Jews to employable and not employable, he mentioned even Lublin


Of course he was, but as an outsider. mentioning Lublin is no wonder as it was already a center of regroupment for Jews in 1939-40...as the General Government was not part of the Reich, thus the Jews there were already outside the Reich (Germany)...
Here we are already in the second part of the Solution and the removal from the occupied Poland...


Bob quoted
Beginning with Lublin the Jews are now being deported eastward from the Government-General. The procedure is pretty barbaric, and one that beggars description, and there’s not much left of the Jews. Broadly speaking one can probably say that sixty percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only forty percent can be put to work.” (my emphasis)


You can understand it as you want. I understand that this second deportation is a barbaric procedure that cannot be described, now of course if you can show me in anyway a convincing destination and what eastward means, then fine. Meanwhile, if to liquidate means transfer, then all 100% of those Jews were concerned, and there would have been no need for Joseph to make a distinction. But how other exemple can you provide were used to deport people (not the Getthos, i mean people) ?

There is no sign that this is related to some particular criminal condition


No, not criminal, just too barabric to be described...

if he witnessed one, two or more transports from Lublin which appeared to him as barbaric does not mean that 100% of transports will be all handled in the same way.


I unfortunatly don't have the second volume of his diaries yet...but i would really appreciate if you could find a quote from him describing the deportation of the Jews of Berlin as a barbaric procedure.
I doubt very much that he was in Lublin to witness the process...i maybe wrong...but could be that he just relying on hearsays.

This is logical, if they will be evacuated from the German sphere to the east, then obviously - “not much will remain of the Jews”


It does not fit. Auschwitz, Birkenau, Maidanek, (as well as Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno and Belzec) were all in the GG. I am not aware that those places were evacuated to clean the German sphere of influence, which is what by the way ? Occupied territories up to Stalingrad ? Do you find it logic to move million of Jews - considered as terrorist on the eastern front - to the very same eastern front ?
Goebbels was quite a precise man, if he would have wanted to say "not much will remains of the Jews in the GG, he would have said it, and proven wrong...

And again, the fact that he still speaks about Madagascar 1942 - A Plan from the Polish Government in 1937 - only shows how little his role and influence regarding those matters were. So maybe he just spoke to another source the days before...who knows? There are may times in his memoirs when he quotes silly numbers btw...Simple truth that he just did not know.

Considering this, i found the ganglere approach to be a more efficient approach in a Revisionist perspective than playing with the liquidate meaning, though it seems strange to have chosen Goebbels in the first place, and secondly why bother to write a fake diary going from 1922 to 1945 ????
Goebbels was in no position to interfere with the Shoah process. All he could do is to get some information from some people more close to the case and write them down.
It is well known that Goebbels wanted the Jews abgeshoben from Berlin, though the process was slower than in other city.
One should always remind that the legal base on which the Nazis deported the Jews was quite thin, and that even a Nazi regime was affraid of internal political instability, especially when things started to turn wrong.

In 1945 there were 5000 of them left, so I guess he did a half-ass job of it?


The 5000 that were still in Germany were Half Jews married to Aryen. There were much more before, as many half juden were working the war factories in Berlin. Still don't forget that around 70.000 Jews were living in Berlin in 1941.

I stop there for now
See you later

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9784
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

Postby Hannover » 6 years 7 months ago (Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:40 pm)

Balsamo said:
Here we are already in the second part of the Solution and the removal from the occupied Poland...

Please define your "Solution". Does it include the alleged homicidal gas chambers? Does it include the alleged massive Einsatzgruppen shooting into pits. If so for either, I ask that you produce proof.

also:
You can understand it as you want. I understand that this second deportation is a barbaric procedure that cannot be described, now of course if you can show me in anyway a convincing destination and what eastward means, then fine. Meanwhile, if to liquidate means transfer, then all 100% of those Jews were concerned, and there would have been no need for Joseph to make a distinction. But how other exemple can you provide were used to deport people (not the Getthos, i mean people) ?

Have you even read this thread?
'German Labour camps - shocking truth decrypts / Jew transits'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7298

The British decrypts make it blatantly clear that masses of Jews were transfered out of Auschwitz.

also:
Goebbels was in no position to interfere with the Shoah process.

Please define "Shoah". Does it include the alleged homicidal gas chambers? Does it include the alleged massive Einsatzgruppen shooting into pits. If so for either, I ask that you produce proof.

You will be challenged on what you say here, Balsamo.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests