The Goebbels diary: a forgery?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
Mads
Member
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:24 am

Postby Mads » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:11 am)

Some summarizing comments.

First, let´s take a new look at the text itself in the light of the links that have been posted.

Kylling´s main point ist that the diary is not consistent with ordinary Holocaust propaganda: it does not contain any clear refernces to "industrial" mass extermination, and it seems to ignore the Wannsee Conference. But Kylling also writes that the area concerned in the 27.03.42 entry about pushing the Jews eastwards etc. would probably have been inhabited by 1.5 - 2 million Jews. He does not believe, though, that this diary entry is about actual murder of 60% of these Jews - approximately 1 million people - and points out that a later entry says "tens of thousands".

Holocaust propaganda is self-contradictory. This particular entry was a part of 591 machine-written copy diary pages that were "found" shortly after the war. At that time, nobody knew what the final version of the Holocaust story was going to be. (And to some extent, we don´t know it today, since Holocaust propaganda seems to concentrate more and more on mass shootings, now that the gas chamber storu has lost, and is losing, some credibility in public opinion). As Faurisson has written, there were four great lies in the beginning, one of them being the one about gas chambers. Jürgen Graf among others has pointed out that there also were a number of less important lies.

Weckert proves in her article that the diary entries November 8-11 1938, are forged. She lists a great number of contradiction to reality, for example, Goebbels writes about Synagogues having been burned down at a time when no Synagogue had been burned down, Goebbels writes that some von Rath is still very sick at a time when he is already dead etc. etc. In these forged entries, we also find lines like: (not accurate translations) "But of course, they [the Jews] will have to prepare themselves for something else"..."There [in Berlin] things really went good. Fire after fire. But it´s good like that"..."large-scale anti-Semitic riots" ("Die (die Juden) werden sich ja auch noch auf einiges andere gefasst machen können"..."Dort (in Berlin) ist es ganz toll vorgegangen. Brand über Brand. Aber das ist gut so"..."ganz schwere antisemitische Ausschreitungen"...). Like these entires on the whole, these lines are similar stylistically and spiritually/mentally to the 27.03.42 entry and other later entries (compare: "the Jews have nothing to laugh about"). They portray Goebbels as the aggressor. When making a hoax like this, you wouldn´t want to write, "now the Jews are going to suffer, oh how it makes me happy", but these lines actually aren´t far away.

Kylling asserts that if you believe in the Holocaust, you are likely to misinterpret these diary entries. The truth actually seems to be the other way round. If you know that the Holocaust didn´t happen, and if you consider these entries authentic, you will inevitably misinterpret them, thinking that "liquidate", "not much will be left of the Jews themselves", "a rather barbarian measure" could not possibly refer to murder of a large amount of people, since nothing like that happened.

The by far most likely possibility is not that these entries are authentic and can be explained in some strange way - such an explanation would in the end have to entail some questions about the mental state of Joseph Goebbels - but that they are a piece of propaganda. We should accordingly go on and look for irrefutable proof of forgery.



avatar
Mads
Member
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:24 am

Postby Mads » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:54 am)

Second, let´s have another look at the discovery of the diary and the allegedly non-fake copies.

The 591 machine-written copy pages were supposedly found by an unknown person at the Reichkanzlei and later acquired by Lochner, who published them. Subsequently, the GRD Government moved in and found the "remaining" pages.

Compare: On September 11, 2001, police reportedly found flying instructions in Arab in an abandoned car belonging to some of the hijackers. This discovery, I think in the airport of Boston, was made at the same time as the towers collapsed, or not much later. In 2005, the US Government presented a certain computer that contained information about an Iranian programme to acquire A-weapons to the world. They declared they had obtained it from some Iranian connection, and declined to say more.

Why does it appear so similar? Because the same Jewish culture of lies is behind it. As we know, the neocons are former Trotskyites (or their fathers were). The neocons are far from being the only influential Jews in America, and, on the other hand, something like 90+ % of Communist leaders were Jews. I think it was Faurisson who compared the Holocaust to the Iraq war and said, "the lies are the same, and the liars are the same."

Another question about this lame story would be how long time actually went by from the first discovery and until the GDR Government came along. I seem to remember that there wasn´t any GDR government until something like 1948. But of course, there may have been some kind of interim GDR authority in the meantime.

Admittedly, there is a more serious allegation to deal with, concerning the authenticity of the diary. Now we get to the part about the glass plates. Weckert writes that Goebbels´s stenographer Richard Otte has testified/said that:

1. Goebbels copied the diary onto glass plates.

2. Goebbels ordered that these glass plates be buried "near Potsdam, between Caputh and Michendorf, not far away from the autobahn". They have never been found.

3. Otte was ordered to destroy the machine-written copies, but then the advance of the Russians into Berlin happened so fast that he didn´t have time for doing it.

Now, we have Richard Otte´s word. We also have a very unlikely story. Apart from the peculiarity that Goebbels would make this glass plate copy, why would he bury it? Would it have been a problem to find a reliable person who could store it in a place where it would be safe? The advance of the Allied powers and the Russians into Germany was slow. Even in the city of Berlin itself, the fighting went on and on. Otte didn´t have time? He didn´t have time for burning some papers?

Weckert doesn´t seem to doubt this. Of course, it may be true. The way Weckert writes about it, however, seems to suggest that it has never been investigated. And common sense would tell us that something is wrong. There appears to be two possibilities:

1. Otte has said this during a show trial and might have been tortured.

2. Otte is lying for some other reason. This possibility isn´t as remote as it might seem. The German Government undoubtedly also was infiltrated. Some people even claim that Martin Bormann was a Soviet spy. By asserting that a glass plate copy had been produced, Otte would have made sure that there could be at some point a glass plate "confirmation" of the diary.

There still is a lot of investigation to do here. But even if those glass plates were really made, and evne if Otte really did leave some copies of of original diary pages, how could we be sure that these glass plates are actually the ones in Moscow, and that the diary pages were actually the ones acquired by Lochner?

I do not know what particular parts of the diary are covered by the plates in Moscow. Something tells me it would be all the important parts. I would agree with Daniel Saez Lorente that these glass glates have probably been produces in the early nineties. At that time, the Holohoax was under some fire, and the propagandists would be happy to have "confirmation" of this particular forgery. Jewish power in Russia was only challenged when Putin took power, and I think that even today, the fraudsters are firmly in control of such things like Soviet-era archives, and even today would be able to pull off a hoax like this.

And then, who shows up to tell us that the Moscow glass plates are ok? David Irving, of all people.
Last edited by Mads on Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

avatar
Mads
Member
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:24 am

Postby Mads » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:26 am)

And third:

The Holocaust isn´t solely about gas chambers. Wiesel´s book is still used as a proof of the Holocaust, even if it, as far as I know, actually contradicts the gas chamber story. The Holocaust consists of a number of very different lies. The essence of the term would be something like: "Sadist Nazis torturing and murdering innocent Jews". The Holocaust is about this picture or this idea of something that is very evil, and in some thoroughly perverted way, that´s precisely why the Holocaust is a religion/an ideology - contrary to all true and humane religions/ideologies, since all true and humane religions/ideologies are about pictures and ideas of something which is very good.

How do people - intelligent, but "brainwashed", thoroughly propaganda-influenced people - react, when they hear that there´s something wrong with the gas chamber thing, or that there are several very different stories? They may say, "well, so many brutal crimes were committed that nobody could retain broad overview of everything", or, "what matters to me is that these people were killed. Whether they were gassed, shot, starved to death, I don´t really care." Of course, not all people react like that. But some people do (the examples are authentic).

These entries are "a believer´s wet dream on paper", as somebody put it, because they actually fit very well in with common Holocaust propaganda. This propaganda is not "rational" and does not seek to convince people "rationally". Irving Kristol, the "great" creator of Neo-Conservatism, has allegedly said: "Ideas rule the world, because ideas determine how reality is percieved". That´s the knowledge behind Jewish propaganda. The reason why these entries seem to give great support to Holocaust propaganda is that they are Holocaust propaganda.

And consequently it´s very important to crush this lie; a lie that, factually, tells us about the murder of 1 million people (or so does the 27.03.42 entry). Conversations like this don´t work:

Interested person who is still skeptical about Holocaust revisionism: "So, what about this diary entry...60% of the Jews will have to be "liquidated"...what is Goebbels talking about?"

Revisionist: "Well, you see, we know for a fact that there were no large-scale mass murders. We don´t really know what Goebbels is trying to say, but, in any case, he is not talking about murdering those Jews."

The interested person doesn´t know this. Even worse, he may at this point become suspicious of the Revisionist and come to the conclusion that he is generally unreliable. In short, he may think what Justin Raimondo wrote: the Revisionists "exclude all evidence...that doesn´t fit their denialist paradigm".

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9489
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:53 pm)

The interested person doesn´t know this. Even worse, he may at this point become suspicious of the Revisionist and come to the conclusion that he is generally unreliable. In short, he may think what Justin Raimondo wrote: the Revisionists "exclude all evidence...that doesn't fit their denialist paradigm".

Like a lemming, Raimondo follows along without critical thinking. What he doesn't say is what that 'evidence' is that Revisionists 'exclude'. There has been no stone unturned by Revisionists. There is nothing which supports the standard storyline.

And furthemore, Raimondo actually admits that there is 'evidence' which supports Revisionists. It only takes a single point made by Revisionists to throw the entire 'holocaust' picture in disarray.

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

avatar
Daniel Saez Lorente
Member
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:26 am

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:18 pm)

Bergmann wrote:
Reinhard wrote: In Germar Rudolf's periodical VffG there is a very interesting analysis of Goebbel's diary regarding the Reichskristallnacht of Nov. 9/10, 1938 (in German language) at:
http://www.vho.org/VffG/2001/2/Weckert196-203.html

The respected historian Ingrid Weckert did in the referenced article “Dr. Joseph Goebbels und die "Kristallnacht"” indeed come to the same conclusion, that some of the Goebbels diary entries appear to have been tampered with and that Irving was wrong in some cases which he considered as authentic.


I just read the article on vho.org and I'm sorry, I don't believe it [the diary text]. The killer for me is, Goebbels goes to all this trouble to save a copy of his diaries, buries them IN EINER KISTE (i.e., in a wooden crate!!!!), with METAL BANDS AROUND IT (to keep it from getting busted), (OK, but what happens when the wood ROTS????), then he tells this Otte character to BURN THE ORIGINALS!!!!!
I'm sorry but none of this makes sense. Either he wants to preserve them for posterity or he doesn't. Goebbels wasn't an idiot. It's obvious that the originals were simply lost and that these tales are simply nonsense to justify the publication of two different forgeries.

avatar
Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Reinhard » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:40 am)

On David Irving's website, there is a statement regarding Ingrid Weckert's objections to the authenticy of the Goebbels Diary entries in November 1938:

http://fpp.co.uk/docs/ReadersLetters/Ganpac130997.html

http://fpp.co.uk/Germany/docs/Persecution.html#Weckert

avatar
Daniel Saez Lorente
Member
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:26 am

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:12 am)

Mads wrote:Second, let´s have another look at the discovery of the diary and the allegedly non-fake copies.

The 591 machine-written copy pages were supposedly found by an unknown person at the Reichkanzlei and later acquired by Lochner, who published them.


Don't forget, this is the same Lochner who came up with another famous forgery, Document L-3.
What is the credibilty of such a person?

avatar
Mads
Member
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:24 am

Postby Mads » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:04 am)

Daniel Saez Lorente wrote:
Mads wrote:Second, let´s have another look at the discovery of the diary and the allegedly non-fake copies.

The 591 machine-written copy pages were supposedly found by an unknown person at the Reichkanzlei and later acquired by Lochner, who published them.


Don't forget, this is the same Lochner who came up with another famous forgery, Document L-3.
What is the credibilty of such a person?


I don´t know. I´m just trying to be meticulous. You´re the one who´s working with this part of the story.

avatar
Mads
Member
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:24 am

Postby Mads » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:09 am)

Reinhard wrote:On David Irving's website, there is a statement regarding Ingrid Weckert's objections to the authenticy of the Goebbels Diary entries in November 1938:

http://fpp.co.uk/docs/ReadersLetters/Ganpac130997.html

http://fpp.co.uk/Germany/docs/Persecution.html#Weckert


Irving´s letter goes like this:

London, September 13, 1997

Dear Hans Schmidt
I JUST READ your Ganpac Brief of September 1997 with Mr Goodson's article on my book Goebbels. Mastermind of the Third Reich. May I just comment briefly, that people who try to skirt around the unpalatable content of the Goebbels diaries which I used in the Moscow secret state archives, and was indeed the first to exploit, by suggesting that they are somehow forged, are way off beam. The Germans filmed the diaries on about 1,700 glass plates in 1944 and 1945, some 70,000 pages of them. Some forgery! Even if somebody forged only the pages about the 1938 Kristallnacht, the question arises, why? Nobody has ever used them (before me), and those plates have been there since 1945.
As for the allegation that I did not let Ingrid Weckert see them, as a courtesy I indeed sent her photocopies of the crucial November 1938 pages, a few weeks after my return from Moscow in 1992, and she was good enough to suggest one or two improvements to my transcription of the handwriting. She rather naughtily then passed on copies of those transcripts to other people, as I later learned!

Meanwhile, thanks to the efforts of the Traditional Enemies of free speech, my book[1] partially based on the diaries (which was Doubleday's selection as book of the month for May last year) is floating face-down dead in the water in the United States: If that doesn't satisfy your readers that the diaries were genuine, nothing will!


Yours faithfully,
David Irving


....!!!! Irving is the one who is "way off beam". This guy is simply incredible. I´ll create another topic about that.

avatar
Mads
Member
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:24 am

Postby Mads » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:35 am)

There is a translation mistake in my post 15. I had to do these translations fast, and figured that there might be a mistakes, which was why I wrote that they weren´t accurate.

"Goebbels" writes:

"Dort ist es ganz toll vorgegangen. Brand über Brand. Aber das ist gut so."

The accurate translation would probably be:

"There [in Berlin] things were really crazy. Fire upon fire. But it´s good like that."

Kind of silly, because if you assume "toll" has its contemporary meaning (approx: great, phantastic, extraordinary etc.), the word aber/but appears completely misplaced, and so it doesn´t really make sense. I don´t know if the modern use of "toll" was common (or even known) at the time of WW2. But assuming it was known to some extent, but not common, "crazy" would be a good translation, since I think this word has made the same change to some degree.

So, "Goebbels" considers it "crazy", and still, it´s "good". Weckert quotes the "State Secretary" of Joseph Goebbels, Naumann: [You know how important it was to Dr. Goebbels that Berlin was characterized by:] "Order, cleanliness"...[there wasn´t supposed to be any:] "crime, riots, distranquility...and, of course, no smashed Synagogues, either."

What this "eye-witness" says is in accordance with the impression that Goebbels makes in the eassays published before or during the war.

Edit: ...but is not in accordance with later infamous diary entries.

avatar
Mads
Member
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:24 am

Postby Mads » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:41 am)

Daniel Saez Lorente wrote: then he tells this Otte character to BURN THE ORIGINALS!!!!!
I'm sorry but none of this makes sense.


Actually, according to Weckert, the copies.

No, it doesn´t make sense, which is why we should try and find out what actually happened, in a more detailed way, what role Otte has played etc. etc. That was what I tried to do in post 16.

avatar
Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Reinhard » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:02 pm)

In Germany, these 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.
Der Spiegel wrote regarding the history of the diaries the following:
Der Spiegel wrote:Große Teile der Tagebücher aus den Jahren 1924 bis 1941, insgesamt rund 4000 Blatt, waren schon 1987 im Münchener Saur-Verlag erschienen. Herausgeberin war die Historikerin Elke Fröhlich vom Institut für Zeitgeschichte. Über diesen Fund berichtete der SPIEGEL in einer ebenfalls vierteiligen Serie: „Meine Waffe heißt Adolf Hitler“ (SPIEGEL 36 bis 39/1987).
Auffallend waren jedoch die Lücken in der vierbändigen Edition. Hin und wieder, zumal wenn es besonders interessant wurde oder brenzlich schien, verstummte der Originalton Goebbels. So war wenig oder gar nichts nachzulesen über derart dramatische Vorgänge wie das Röhm-Massaker 1934 („Der Pest den Kopf abgehauen“), den Anschluß Österreichs an Nazi-Deutschland, die „Reichskristallnacht“, die „Sudetenkrise“ und die Zerschlagung der Tschechoslowakei oder die August-Krise 1939 vor dem deutschen Angriff auf Polen, samt Hitler/Stalin-Pakt.
Jetzt machte das Moskauer Staatsarchiv dem britischen Historiker David Irving – der als Rechercheur in Sachen Zeitgeschichte einen Ruf genießt, den er als Wissenschaftler wegen seiner rechtsradikalen Umtriebe längst ruiniert hat (SPIEGEL 26/1990 und 9/1992) – neue Dokumente zugänglich. Zum Teil gleiches Material liegt auch dem Institut für Zeitgeschichte in München vor, das eine Buchveröffentlichung vorbereitet.
Die Lücken konnten jetzt weitgehend geschlossen werden. Darüber hinaus finden sich unter den neuen Dokumenten Goebbels-Aufzeichnungen und Reflexionen über den japanischen Überfall auf den amerikanischen Flottenstützpunkt Pear Harbor 1941, der Hitler zum Kriegseintritt gegen die USA veranlaßte; die kriegsentscheidende Invasion britischer und amerikanischer Streitkräfte in der Normandie am 6. Juni 1944 und das mißlungene Attentat auf Hitler vom 20. Juli 1944. [...]

Ende März 1941 hatte Goebbels die bis dahin gefüllten, handgeschriebenen „20 dicken Bände“ in die unterirdischen Tresore der Reichsbank schaffen lassen. Seit Mitte Juli 1941 diktierte er seine Aufzeichnungen dem Stenographen seines Ministeriums, Richard Otte, der davon zwei maschinenschriftliche Ausfertigungen (Original und Durchschlag) herstellte. Die Leitz-Ordner, rund 200, wurden zunächst in einem Extraraum des Propagandaministeriums verwahrt, bis April 1945 zweimal rund 50000 Blatt.
Ende 1944 ergriff Goebbels weitere Vorsichtsmaßnahmen, um seine Geschichtenschreibung vor dem Zugriff der aus Ost wie West anrückenden Feindtruppen zu bewahren. Die maschinenschriftlichen Partien ließ er auf Glasplatten aufnehmen; er bediente sich dabei einer gerade entwickelten Technik.
Als die Rote Armee sich unaufhaltsam der Reichshauptstadt näherte, wurden die Platten, auch von den handschriftlichen Tagebüchern, in eine damals gebräuchliche „Offizierskiste“, die mit Stahlbändern gesichert war, verstaut und von einem Offizier in der Nähe Potsdams vergraben; Stenograph Otte war dabei. Die Offizierskiste ist bis heute nicht gefunden worden, wohl aber tauchten Mikrofiches in DDR-Archiven auf.
Die handschriftlichen Originalkladden und Teile der maschinenschriftlichen Erstanfertigung wurden auf Goebbels' Geheiß, kurz bevor der Minister Ende April in den unterirdischen „Führerbunker“ abtauchte, in Aluminiumkisten verpackt, in die Reichskanzlei transportiert. Die Zweitschrift sollte Otte in den Reißwolf stecken, was er in der Hektik des Zusammenbruches nicht mehr schaffte. Auch seine Bemühungen, sie in einem Koksofen des Propagandaministeriums zu verheizen, schlugen fehl. Das Material blieb, angekokelt, verstreut und zunächst unbeachtet, der Nachwelt erhalten. Große Bestände wurden schließlich von den sowjetischen Besatzern sichergestellt.
Verdacht auf Fälschung, naheliegend nach dem Stern-Debakel mit den angeblichen Hitler-Tagebüchern, kam weder bei der Veröffentlichung der vier Bände aus dem Jahr 1987 auf, noch wäre er jetzt begründet.
Das Institut für Zeitgeschichte veranlaßte seinerzeit gründliche kriminaltechnische Analysen. Die Prüfung von Alter und Struktur des Papiers der Goebbels-Tagebücher, der Tinte und des Schreibmaschinen-Farbbandes erbrachten eindeutige Beweise für die Authentizität. Außerdem ist es „ein leichtes“, so Herausgeberin Elke Fröhlich, Goebbels' „Schriftzüge sowie Schreibweise, seine stilistischen und grammatikalischen Eigenheiten im Tagebuch zu vergleichen mit anderen eigenhändig von ihm geschriebenen Stücken.“
Auch zusätzliche Untersuchungen, die der SPIEGEL jetzt anstellen ließ, bestätigen die Echtheit des Materials. Frau Fröhlich verglich Bestände des Instituts für Zeitgeschichte mit denen, die dem SPIEGEL vorliegen. Ihr Fazit: „Das ist textidentisch, die Kopien stammen von denselben Vorlagen... Alles authentisch.... Ganz klar Goebbels' Tagebuch.“
Auffallend seien die „ungewöhnlichen Wortabstände, die kehren immer genau so wieder“, und die Sütterlin-Schrift des Tagebuch-Autors, „nicht fahrig, eine ausgeglichene Sonntagsschrift, wie wir sie von ihm etwa aus dem Jahr 1934 kennen“.
Auch das Bundesarchiv stellte eine stil- und textkritische Analyse an. Es befand: „Der optische Gesamteindruck der Eintragungen unterscheidet sich nicht von den im Bundesarchiv vorhandenen Textbuchseiten. Einige typische Merkmale der Schreibweise von einzelnen Buchstaben lassen gleichfalls keine Abweichungen erkennen.“

Source: Der Spiegel, No. 29/1992 from July 13th, 1992, pp. 107 - 109

avatar
Daniel Saez Lorente
Member
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:26 am

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:11 pm)

Mads wrote:
Daniel Saez Lorente wrote: then he tells this Otte character to BURN THE ORIGINALS!!!!!
I'm sorry but none of this makes sense.


Actually, according to Weckert, the copies.

No, it doesn´t make sense, which is why we should try and find out what actually happened, in a more detailed way, what role Otte has played etc. etc. That was what I tried to do in post 16.


OK, copies, then, so what happened to the originals? If you're going to prepare copies (I assume photographically), why bother with the glass plates)? And then why burn the copies? The whole reason for the glass plates is the fear that the manuscript will get burnt, so he burns the copies. Brilliant.

avatar
Mads
Member
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:24 am

Postby Mads » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:25 am)

Daniel Saez Lorente wrote:
Mads wrote:
Daniel Saez Lorente wrote: then he tells this Otte character to BURN THE ORIGINALS!!!!!
I'm sorry but none of this makes sense.


Actually, according to Weckert, the copies.

No, it doesn´t make sense, which is why we should try and find out what actually happened, in a more detailed way, what role Otte has played etc. etc. That was what I tried to do in post 16.


OK, copies, then, so what happened to the originals? If you're going to prepare copies (I assume photographically), why bother with the glass plates)? And then why burn the copies? The whole reason for the glass plates is the fear that the manuscript will get burnt, so he burns the copies. Brilliant.


Yes, brilliant. Everything in this story is so incredibly brilliant. The way they tell us that it is authentic is brilliant, too. If you understand some German, take a look at that Spiegel article. It´s incredible.

Anyway, I appreciate your posts.

avatar
Mads
Member
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:24 am

Postby Mads » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Nov 24, 2006 10:56 am)

I had been suspicious of Irving for some time, but the decisive reason for that was the peculiar part Irving has played in the Goebbels diary hoax. He says:

"Even if somebody forged only the pages about the 1938 Kristallnacht, the question arises, why? Nobody has ever used them (before me), and those plates have been there since 1945."

a) "...the question arises, why?" - what on earth is Irving talking about? Is this supposed to be serious?

b) Weckert proves beyond any doubt that the "Kristallnacht"-entries are forged. Not only that, she proves that they are forged in quite a stupid way (as is normally the case in Holocaust forgeries). Irving denies the obvious truth. To claim that he simply doesn´t understand would be "way off beam", to use his expression. Weckert´s proofs are not exactly difficult to understand.

c) "Even if somebody forged only the pages about the 1938 Kristallnacht," - Irving seems to tell us here that, maybe, maybe, the Kristallnacht-entries may be forged, but even in that case, the general reliability of the diary should not be questioned.

The general style of Irving´s letter is somewhat intimidating and lacks any kind of reasoning.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests