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
At the end of March 1941 Goebbels had the 20 thick volumes of his diary deposited in an underground vault of the Reichsbank.
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
'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.
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 ... 2a_600.jpg
The dictated pages began being filmed onto glass plates.
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.
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 ... bbels1.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 ... /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?
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?
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.
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)?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ... 70342.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?
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.
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?