David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

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
EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby EtienneSC » 2 years 5 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:10 pm)

Hadding wrote:[...] the authenticity of the "Suppressed Eichmann and Goebbels Papers" is doubtful to say the least. (Those alleged documents, as it happens, are also not helpful to our cause!).

I see that the authenticity of the Goebbels diary and David Irving's role in its discovery has been discussed already on this forum:
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3793
However, presumably some of the diaries must be genuine, as he published them himself during his life and others are in his handwriting. Some of the arguments against their authenticity are weak. It is said for example that they are typescript, but that would be normal for someone who intended to publish their diary. Irving specifically refers to handwritten material:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n2p14_irving.html
The typescript seems to refer to entries from or after 1941. Thomas Dalton has two articles on Inconvenient History:
http://codoh.com/library/document/1918/
where he says:
The diaries themselves first surfaced a few years after the war. An unknown scavenger came upon the bundles of originals—some 7,000 pages in total—in the ruins of the official German archives. Pages were burned, soaked, and many were missing. They “passed through several hands,” eventually becoming acquired by an American diplomat.[4] In 1948 a (very) partial English translation by Louis Lochner appeared, on selected entries from 1942 and 1943. Unknown at the time, the Soviets had acquired a full set of glass plate prints of the entire diary series, amounting to roughly 75,000 individual sheets. By various obscure means, portions leaked out over the years. Then in 1992, David Irving (re)discovered the full set in the Soviet archives, and was able to fill in all the missing gaps. These were put to good use in his 1996 work Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich—the only complete biography published to date.

This provenance does not inspire much confidence, given the history of Third Reich forgeries, including Rauschning's Conversations with Hitler and the Hitler diaries. Dalton also accepts Hitler's Table Talk as genuine. See also from Irving's site:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/JG/ueberJuden.html
The incriminating quotes in this are all from the period in typescript.

Do we have any other sources on the Goebbels diary and Irving's role in verifying its authenticity?



avatar
sweetie pie
Member
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 2:49 pm

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby sweetie pie » 2 years 5 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:49 pm)

borjastick wrote:

Well that's your opinion and frankly my dear you're welcome to it, even if it misinterprets what I was saying.


I wrote a serious objection to your comment, borjastick, and I get a smart-aleck reply back. Plus you are dodging. If I misinterpreted what you said, you should explain how and in what way. I also think that "my dear" is intended as a put-down. As we both know, the rules require that we must use the name chosen by the member. I suspect the mod would get after me if I used the words "my dear" to you in such a mocking way.

I request that you explain how claiming 2 million murders that didn't occur doesn't count against a person if they've done some good things earlier. Nothing that you said makes sense.

avatar
Hadding
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:15 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hadding » 2 years 5 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:23 pm)

About Goebbels and his diaries, David Irving said in 1994: "No one knows now where his original notebooks are, or what happened to them."

The "Goebbels Diaries" from the Soviet state archives are all images of pages. The ones before July 1941 show handwriting, but there is no way to be sure that it is unaltered handwriting. It would be a simple matter, using images of someone's handwriting, to rearrange the words to make new sentences. Consequently, it seems to me, those images of alleged Goebbels Diaries are not trustworthy.

User avatar
TheBlackRabbitofInlé
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:38 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby TheBlackRabbitofInlé » 2 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:20 am)

Hadding wrote:About Goebbels and his diaries, David Irving said in 1994: "No one knows now where his original notebooks are, or what happened to them."

The "Goebbels Diaries" from the Soviet state archives are all images of pages.

This not true. 13 of the original 23 notebooks are in Moscow.

Elke Fröhlich, the German historian who re-discovered the glass plates in Moscow and told David Irving about them, wrote:

what was firmly established as a result of locating the source [the glass plates in Moscow] was confirmation of the finding of the original notebooks by Yelena Rzhevskaya (German transliteration: Jelena Rshewskaja).[18] She had discovered some of the black notebooks in Hitler's bunker in 1945, identified them as Goebbels's diary and written a report on them. For decades it had been thought that they were lost. In 1992, after protracted negotiations with the Russian Foreign Ministry, I was able to inspect all of the thirteen diaries held in Moscow.

18. Jelena Rshewskaja, Hiders Ende ohne Mythos (East Berlin, 1967).

— Elke Fröhlich, "Hitler—Goebbels—Straßer: a war of deputies, as seen through the Goebbels diaries, 1926-27", in Anthony McElligott, Tim Kirk (eds), Working Towards the Führer: Essays in Honour of Sir Ian Kershaw, Manchester University Press, 2003, p. 44, notes p. 60



Hadding wrote:The ones before July 1941 show handwriting, but there is no way to be sure that it is unaltered handwriting. It would be a simple matter, using images of someone's handwriting, to rearrange the words to make new sentences.

There's a relatively simple way of checking the plates corresponding to the 13 notebooks found by Yelena Rzhevskaya.

It's also known that between 1946 - 1948 the French, who had unearthed the plates with the Soviets and retained about 13% of the originals, were permitted by the Soviets to make copies of around 50% of total number of plates. The French also passed onto the Americans, before the end of the 1940s, copies of 12,716 pages of the diaries including 55 pages written between 12 Aug 1925 and 21 Aug 1926.

If you really wanted to check the authenticity of the plates for the handwritten entries , you could compare the copies given to the Americans [in the NARA] against:
1. The French copies [Quai d'Orsay, Paris]
2. The glass plates [Moscow or Paris]
3. The 13 notesbooks [Moscow]


Hadding wrote:Consequently, it seems to me, those images of alleged Goebbels Diaries are not trustworthy.

Which entries from the handwritten diaries do you think are suspect then? Most of the part used by historians as proof for the Holocaust obviously come from the post-July 1941 dictated diaries.
Nazis tried to create super-soldiers, using steroids ... they sought to reanimate the dead—coffins of famous Germanic warriors were found hidden in a mine, with plans to bring them back to life at the war’s end.
- Prof. Noah Charney

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2299
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby borjastick » 2 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:42 am)

Mulegino1 you keep talking about the now, I am talking about the then.

Cole was amazing in his groundbreaking early work, anyone who thinks he wasn't should pay attention, start reading more and appreciate what these guys did in their time and given the circumstances and prevailing winds at the time.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

avatar
Hadding
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:15 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hadding » 2 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:11 am)

I learned from Irving's book about Goebbels that what Goebbels is supposed to have written in November 1938, pertaining to Kristallnacht, correlates poorly with events in Goebbels' life:

Goebbels had not anticipated either Hitler’s fury or, probably, such an uncontrollable, chaotic orgy of destruction. Not surprisingly [?] he made no reference to this unwelcome turn of events in his diary.[Irving, Goebbels, p. 497]


We are even supposed to believe that Goebbels, who insisted on accurate reports about the progress of the war (according to Konrad Kellen), for his own private consumption wrote statements that he knew to be false. David Irving says:

He ... was careful to record this — perhaps slanted — note in his diary, which stands alone, and in direct contradiction to the evidence of Hitler’s entire immediate entourage: ‘He is in agreement with everything. His views are quite radical and aggressive. The Aktion itself went off without a hitch. A hundred dead. But no German property damaged.’ Each of these five sentences was untrue, as will be seen. [p.498]


Instead of making the obvious observation that a diary in which a man appears to lie to himself might not be authentic, Irving accepts that Goebbels lied to himself in his own diary, justifying that position with the innuendo that Goebbels was not quite sane. Either way it is admitted that the so-called Goebbels diaries are an unreliable source.

This is consistent with Mark Weber's testimony in 1988 about self-contradictions within the so-called Goebbels Diaries and the impossibility of verifying their authenticity. I don't see how the subsequent availability of photographic plates from Soviet state archives is supposed to change this, as Weber and Irving like to claim. Aside from the fact that the contradictions remain, one must have faith that the Soviet government didn't alter anything, in order to regard those plates from Soviet state archives as proof.

User avatar
TheBlackRabbitofInlé
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:38 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby TheBlackRabbitofInlé » 2 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:51 am)

Hadding wrote:I learned from Irving's book about Goebbels that what Goebbels is supposed to have written in November 1938, pertaining to Kristallnacht, correlates poorly with events in Goebbels' life:

Goebbels had not anticipated either Hitler’s fury or, probably, such an uncontrollable, chaotic orgy of destruction. Not surprisingly [?] he made no reference to this unwelcome turn of events in his diary.[Irving, Goebbels, p. 497]


We are even supposed to believe that Goebbels, who insisted on accurate reports about the progress of the war (according to Konrad Kellen), for his own private consumption wrote statements that he knew to be false. David Irving says:

He ... was careful to record this — perhaps slanted — note in his diary, which stands alone, and in direct contradiction to the evidence of Hitler’s entire immediate entourage: ‘He is in agreement with everything. His views are quite radical and aggressive. The Aktion itself went off without a hitch. A hundred dead. But no German property damaged.’ Each of these five sentences was untrue, as will be seen. [p.498]


Instead of making the obvious observation that a diary in which a man appears to lie to himself might not be authentic, Irving accepts that Goebbels lied to himself in his own diary, justifying that position with the innuendo that Goebbels was not quite sane. Either way it is admitted that the so-called Goebbels diaries are an unreliable source.

What are you saying exactly, that you think these entries [Dalton translations] re Kristallnacht are Soviet fakes?

Nov 10, 1938 (I.6.180-181)

In Kassel and Dessau there were large demonstrations against the Jews, synagogues burned and shops demolished. In the afternoon the death of our [Paris] diplomat vom Rath was announced. I go to the Party reception in the old town hall. A huge operation. I present the Führer. He states: let the demonstrations continue. Police are to withdraw. The Jews should feel the public wrath. That is only right. I give appropriate instructions to the police and Party. Then I have a short discussion with Party leadership. Everyone rushes to the phones. Now the people will act\.

We must not let this cowardly murder [of vom Rath] go unanswered. Let things follow their course. The Hitler Patrol cleans house in Munich. A synagogue is smashed to pieces. I try to save it from the fire; but I fail\.

The Patrol has done some vicious work. A message runs out across the Reich: 50-75 synagogues burned. The Führer has ordered the immediate arrest of 25,000-30,000 Jews. That will have an effect. They will now see that our patience has run out\.

When I go into the hotel, all the windowpanes rattle. Bravo! Bravo! In all large cities the synagogues burn. German property is not threatened\.

The first reports come early in the morning. It has been a raging fury. Just as expected. The whole nation is in turmoil. This murder will be very expensive for the Jews. The dear Jews will think carefully in the future before shooting German diplomats\.
Nov 13, 1938 (I.6.185)

Heydrich reports on the actions: 190 synagogues burned and destroyed. Conference with Göring on the Jewish Question. Hot battles over the solution. I argue for a radical solution. Funk is somewhat soft and yielding. The result: a fine of one billion Marks is imposed on the Jews. In the shortest period of time, they will be completely excluded (ausgeschieden) from economic life. They can no longer run businesses. … A whole series of other measures is planned. In any case, a clean sheet has now been made. I work well with Göring. He also attacks this sharply. The radical view has prevailed. I draft a very sharp public communiqué\.



Hadding wrote:This is consistent with Mark Weber's testimony in 1988 about self-contradictions within the so-called Goebbels Diaries and the impossibility of verifying their authenticity. I don't see how the subsequent availability of photographic plates from Soviet state archives is supposed to change this, as Weber and Irving like to claim. Aside from the fact that the contradictions remain, one must have faith that the Soviet government didn't alter anything, in order to regard those plates from Soviet state archives as proof.


The Soviet didn't have much opportunity to alter anything. As I said in my last post, the French copied half of the plates in 1946-1948, and they even kept 13% of them—the plates in Paris weren't located until 10 years after the ones in Moscow were found.

Take for example what is consider the most incriminating diary entry: 27 March 1942.

As Irving and Weber have pointed out, the glass plate copy in Moscow matches the paper copy used by Louis Lochner in his 1948 book.

Furthermore, in 1953 Brian Melland, a government historian in the Enemy Document Section of the British Cabinet Office, conducted a thorough comparison of the published Lochner version of the diaries with French copies of the glass plates in possession of the Americans:

As you can see, Melland did not note any differences for the 27 March 1942 entry either:

Image
Nazis tried to create super-soldiers, using steroids ... they sought to reanimate the dead—coffins of famous Germanic warriors were found hidden in a mine, with plans to bring them back to life at the war’s end.
- Prof. Noah Charney

avatar
Hadding
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:15 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hadding » 2 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:00 am)

Well, you say that the French copied half of the plates sometime in 1946. The war had ended before the middle of 1945, and as I recall these plates are supposed to have been stored in the Reichsbank, which means that they came into the Red Army's possession first. That's most of a year for tampering, and then there's the other half, of which the French had no copies.

Your argument against the possibility of Soviet tampering contains gaping holes, and does not nullify the fact that there are contradictions within the so-called Goebbels Diaries.

Frankly I don't even really trust the word of Goebbels' staffer who says that Goebbels had the diaries typed and copied onto glass plates himself. These Germans said all kinds of things after the war because they knew what was good for them.

Here is Mark Weber attacking the authenticity of the alleged Goebbels Diaries in 1988, as quoted by Robert Faurisson:

The later entry, which I think is the 27th of March [1942], is widely quoted to uphold or support the extermination thesis. It is not consistent with entries in the diary like this one of March 7th, and it is not consistent with entries at a later date from the Goebbels diaries, and it is not consistent with German documents from a later date.


[…] there is a great doubt about the authenticity of the entire Goebbels diaries because they are written on typewriter. We have no real way of verifying if they are accurate, and the U.S. Government certified, in the beginning of the publication, […] that it can take no responsibility for the accuracy of the diaries as a whole.


[…] I think again it is worth mentioning that the passage of the 27th of March is inconsistent with the passage of the 7th of March and the one from April, and I don’t remember the date exact (Transcript, p. 5820-5821).

Goebbels had no responsibility for Jewish policy. He wasn’t involved in that. He was the Propaganda Minister. He was involved only to the extent that there were Jews in Berlin and he was responsible for Berlin (p. 5822-5823).

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Werd » 2 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:27 am)

Re: Kristallnacht.

From
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3793

Drew J wrote:
It would still be more logical if the diary had said: vom Rath died yesterday. Goebbels ought to have known that in the morning the day after his death.

I do not think there can be any doubt that the entries about the Kristallnacht are a fraud. What about the talk about a certain group named after Hitler which according to the diary ravaged synagogues during the Kristallnacht, yet didn´t even exist at the time, as Weckert says? To me it seems that Weckert is right when she makes this and a number of similar assertions, and if she is, the Kristallnacht entries were not written by Goebbels.

Very good point. I never considered that.

Only what was this group supposed to be called anyway that apparently didn't exist when the hoaxsters claim it in fact did? When did it really begin? A little history on that and further confirmation of this quoted statement above should help further bury the 'authenticity' claim of the Goebbels diaries.

User avatar
TheBlackRabbitofInlé
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:38 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby TheBlackRabbitofInlé » 2 years 5 months ago (Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:48 am)

Hadding wrote:Well, you say that the French copied half of the plates sometime in 1946. The war had ended before the middle of 1945, and as I recall these plates are supposed to have been stored in the Reichsbank, which means that they came into the Red Army's possession first. That's most of a year for tampering, and then there's the other half, of which the French had no copies.


It was the French who learnt the plates were buried in a wood south of Potsdam [i.e. in the Soviet Zone] from Richard Otto, Goebbels' stenographer. After advising the Americans, the French approached the Soviets through official channels and eventually a team of French and Soviet investigators found the cache on March 26, 1946.

Following is the text of 10 April 1946 US Army memorandum:

SECRET

HEADQUARTERS
UNITED STATES FORCES, EUROPEAN THEATER
Office of the A C of S, G-2

(Main) APO 757
10 April 1946

MEMORANDUM:
SUBJECT: Archives of Dr. Goebbels
TO: Lt. Col. R M. Gleszer, G-2 Division, Operations Branch

1. Submitted below is a chronological summary of events pertaining to the discovery of the microfilms of 50,000 documents reported to be archives of Dr. Goebbels.

2. On 7 March 1946, The French Secret Service in Berlin-Hermsdorf turned over to Lts. Silberbauer (French) and Owen (US) of Documents Control Section, a report informing them about the location of a buried box containing the microfilms of archives of Dr. Goebbels. This box was stated to have been buried early in 1945 in the vicinity of Potsdam, in the Russian zone of occupation. On 8 March Lt. Col Buechner, G-2, Hq Berlin District, recalling a similar recent US-Russian intelligence mission which had ended in a fiasco for the Americans, told Lts. Silberbauer and Owen that it would be to the best interest of all parties concerned to let the French authorities negotiate with the Russians without US participation. Col. Hohenthal, of the Office of the Political Adviser, OMGUS, concurred and added that the French should obtain a signed commitment from the Russians that the films would be exploited on a quadri-partite basis prior to revealing their exact location. On 9 March, Lts. Silberbauer and Owen informed Major Besson, deputy of Col. Serre of the GFCC who was away in Paris, of Col. Hohenthal's proposals. A plan was drawn up by which Major Besson was to approach Col. Dubrovsky, Chief of Russian Intelligence at the Control Council, and obtain a written assurance that the contents of the box, once found, would be removed to the Allied Control Authorities Building in Berlin, where they would be accessible to all four powers and that a complete duplicate set would be made available to the French, and that copies of material of interest to British and US agencies be furnished for their respective use. On 11 March 1946, Col. Dubrovsky agreed to let three French officers accompany a party of Russians to the spot where the box was reported to have been buried, provided that no press release be made without prior consultation with the proper Russian agency. Major Besson at this point attempted to obtain a commitment in writing from Col. Dubrovsky and also inquired if an American officer could accompany the party. Col. Dubrovsky replied he saw no necessity for either request. Thereupon, Major Besson agreed to the operation on Col. Dubrovsky's terms. Having been informed of this, Lts. Silberbauer and Owen urged Major Besson to draft a letter containing substantially the same terms as suggested originally which would protect French and US interests. This letter was submitted to the Russians for signature on 13 March but was not signed, and the expedition which had already been prepared was called off. On 16 March, the French, who had made several attempts to revive negotiations, realized that Col. Dubrovsky was stalling until Col. Serre's return from Paris. On 19 March, Col. Serre conferred with Lt. Col. Spiegel, in Frankfurt, who decided that Lts. Owen and Silberbauer were to return to Frankfurt and that Col. Serre would take over the operation. On 20 March, Lts. Silberbauer and Owen, having turned over the details of the operation to an officer on Col. Serre's staff, returned to Frankfurt. Before their departure, Col. Serre indicated to Lts. Silberbauer and Owen that the French copy of the material would be made available to the Documents Control Section in total. On 26 March, a joint Franco-Russian party discovered the box with the aid of a US minedetector which Lt. Owen had previously made available to the French. The material inside the box was found to be in good condition but the writing so small that an estimate of the nature of the documents could not be made. A protocol which merely stated the date and nature of the find was signed by all officers attending the excavating party. The box was then taken to the Russian headquarters. On 27 March, Col. Serre again attempted to obtain a signed assurance from the Russians that the documents be exploited jointly. Col. Dubrovsky, prompted partly by Col. Serre's obvious attitude of distrust, and partly by his own lack of microfilm-repoduction facilities, thereupon handed over the entire contents of the box to Col. Serre against a simple receipt. A verbal agreement was reached between Col. Serre and Col. Dubrovsky that the Russians would be furnished with a copy of the documents. The French flew the microfilms to Paris where copies are being made at present. On 4 April, Lt. Owen obtained the information that the Russians had released the films to the French. He immediately contacted Col. Koenig, Director of Intelligence, OMGUS, who telephoned General Clay's office to stop action on a letter which General Bull had in the meantime written to General Clay. In this letter, General Bull had requested General Clay to get after Marshal Zhukov to insure that American interests were protected. At this opportunity, Col. Koenig informed Lt. Owen of a complaint which he had received from Col. Serre regarding the withholding of the 'Hidden Documents' inventory. Lt. Owen told Col. Koenig that the only existing copy of the inventory had been sent to Washington and that therefore there would be a delay before an inventory could be furnished to Col. Serre. Col. Koenig said he would explain this to Col. Serre at the next committee meeting. Since it appeared that our ability to exploit the Goebbels archives hinges on the speed with which we can furnish this inventory, Lt. Col. Gronich stated that Lt. Col. Spiegel, who is in possession of the inventory, was due to arrive in Washington on 10 April 1946.

WILLIAM J. OWEN
1st Lt. AUS
Taken from Astrid Eckert and Stefan Martens' 2004 article in the Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte. Which you really need to read:
http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/2 ... eckert.pdf


Hadding wrote:Your argument against the possibility of Soviet tampering contains gaping holes, and does not nullify the fact that there are contradictions within the so-called Goebbels Diaries.

The only thing containing gaping holes is your knowledge about the Goebbels diaries. Did you not think it worth doing just a little reading before launching a full frontal on their authenticity? And by reading, I don't mean 30 year old articles by revisionists who you're now claiming are sellouts or something.


Hadding wrote:Frankly I don't even really trust the word of Goebbels' staffer who says that Goebbels had the diaries typed and copied onto glass plates himself. These Germans said all kinds of things after the war because they knew what was good for them.

It's your prerogative to think like that, but no serious person will take any notice of your claims when there's so much evidence to prove the plates are authentic.


Hadding wrote:Here is Mark Weber attacking the authenticity of the alleged Goebbels Diaries in 1988, as quoted by Robert Faurisson:

The later entry, which I think is the 27th of March [1942], is widely quoted to uphold or support the extermination thesis. It is not consistent with entries in the diary like this one of March 7th, and it is not consistent with entries at a later date from the Goebbels diaries, and it is not consistent with German documents from a later date.


[…] there is a great doubt about the authenticity of the entire Goebbels diaries because they are written on typewriter. We have no real way of verifying if they are accurate, and the U.S. Government certified, in the beginning of the publication, […] that it can take no responsibility for the accuracy of the diaries as a whole.


[…] I think again it is worth mentioning that the passage of the 27th of March is inconsistent with the passage of the 7th of March and the one from April, and I don’t remember the date exact (Transcript, p. 5820-5821).

Goebbels had no responsibility for Jewish policy. He wasn’t involved in that. He was the Propaganda Minister. He was involved only to the extent that there were Jews in Berlin and he was responsible for Berlin (p. 5822-5823).

Further evidence was presented to Weber since, hence why he now accepts that the entry of 27 March 1942 is genuine.
Nazis tried to create super-soldiers, using steroids ... they sought to reanimate the dead—coffins of famous Germanic warriors were found hidden in a mine, with plans to bring them back to life at the war’s end.
- Prof. Noah Charney

avatar
Hadding
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:15 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hadding » 2 years 5 months ago (Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:29 am)

Further evidence was presented to Weber since, hence why he now accepts that the entry of 27 March 1942 is genuine.


Yes, I know about Irving's argument that the typed pages possessed by the Hoover Institution must be authentic because he found images of the same typed pages in Soviet state archives, but that's not really proof of anything.

Even if one accepts that Goebbels had all his diaries after July 1941 typed and copied himself, it does not follow that what the Soviet government allowed to be seen after a substantial time had passed was entirely authentic. Irving really only assumes that what he found in the Soviet state archives was authentic, against contrary indications in the content.

You present a large quantity of details, but I don't see a coherent argument that Soviet falsification of some parts of the Goebbels Diaries was not possible.

The internal problems stated by Mark Weber in 1988 create a reasonable presumption that the diaries are at least partially false. In his 1996 book about Goebbels David Irving remarks on additional contradictions, but tries to explain them away -- absurdly -- as Goebbels lying to himself in his own diary.

Who can believe that? Apparently you can, Mr. BlackRabbitofInlé.

Mark Weber today accepts that the entry of 27 march 1942 is genuine for the same reason that he doesn't criticize Irving's completely indemonstrable story of the spat between Himmler and Hitler on 30 November 1941 -- because it is easier to accept it than to question it. Truth is not a high priority with Mark Weber these days.

User avatar
TheBlackRabbitofInlé
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:38 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby TheBlackRabbitofInlé » 2 years 5 months ago (Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:18 am)

Hadding wrote:I learned from Irving's book about Goebbels that what Goebbels is supposed to have written in November 1938, pertaining to Kristallnacht, correlates poorly with events in Goebbels' life:

Goebbels had not anticipated either Hitler’s fury or, probably, such an uncontrollable, chaotic orgy of destruction. Not surprisingly [?] he made no reference to this unwelcome turn of events in his diary.[Irving, Goebbels, p. 497]


We are even supposed to believe that Goebbels, who insisted on accurate reports about the progress of the war (according to Konrad Kellen), for his own private consumption wrote statements that he knew to be false. David Irving says:

He ... was careful to record this — perhaps slanted — note in his diary, which stands alone, and in direct contradiction to the evidence of Hitler’s entire immediate entourage: ‘He is in agreement with everything. His views are quite radical and aggressive. The Aktion itself went off without a hitch. A hundred dead. But no German property damaged.’ Each of these five sentences was untrue, as will be seen. [p.498]


Instead of making the obvious observation that a diary in which a man appears to lie to himself might not be authentic, Irving accepts that Goebbels lied to himself in his own diary, justifying that position with the innuendo that Goebbels was not quite sane. Either way it is admitted that the so-called Goebbels diaries are an unreliable source.

The quotes [misquotes, really] are actually from pages 277 and 278.

You do know that in 1933 Goebbels published his diaries January 1932 - May 1933?
https://archive.org/details/Goebbels-Jo ... skanzlei-2

He probably always intended to further publish the contents of his diaries, therefore it's not a surprise that he didn't vent fury about colleagues, reveal his innermost thoughts, etc. within them. So, sure, someone could argue that he was somewhat careful about what information he wrote/dictated, but it's not an argument for parts of them be forged by the Soviets or anyone else.

You should also know that Irving got completely canned in the judgment of his libel action against Penguin-Lipstadt for what he wrote about Kristallnacht in his Goebbels book.

Justice Gray's judgment wrote:Goebbels' diary entry [11 Nov 1938] about his meeting with Hitler at the Osteria [in Munich; Hitler's favourite Italian restaurant], is clear evidence of Hitler's approval of the pogrom. Irving very properly quotes the entry but immediately follows the quotation with the categorical assertion that Goebbels was making a false claim in his diary about Hitler's approval. I do not accept that the available evidence justifies Irving's dismissal of this diary entry by Goebbels.
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/judgement/13-9.html


Best not to rely on Irving's say-so about Kristallnacht; there's a High Court judgment which says:

Justice Gray's judgment wrote:To write, as Irving did, that Hitler was "totally unaware of what Goebbels had done" is in my view to pervert the evidence. [...]

The claim that during that night Hitler did everything he could to prevent violence against the Jews and their property is in my judgment based upon misrepresentation, misconstruction and omission of the documentary evidence.
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/judgement/13-8.html



Hadding wrote:In his 1996 book about Goebbels David Irving remarks on additional contradictions, but tries to explain them away -- absurdly -- as Goebbels lying to himself in his own diary.

Who can believe that? Apparently you can, Mr. BlackRabbitofInlé


No, it's just that I've put in the effort to be better informed than you about this matter.

Sir Richard Evans showed in his report for the Irving-Penguin/Lipstadt trial that after visiting Moscow to see the glass plates in 1992, Irving admitted his long-standing theory that Hitler knew nothing of Kristallnacht was disproved by Goebbels' diary. But in his 1996 Goebbels book, he reverted to form and just claimed Goebbels was lying.

Evans wrote:In 1992, when Irving first read the Goebbels diary entries for the period 9-10 November 1938, he was convinced that it showed that Hitler approved of the pogrom:

According to his diary [Goebbels], and I can't emphasise those words enough, according to his diaries, Hitler was closely implicated with those outrages. And that's a matter of some dismay to me because it means I have to revise my own opinion. But a historian should always be willing to revise his opinion.


A year later, he was sounding a slightly more sceptical note. Goebbels's diary, Irving said,

describes how Hitler thoroughly endorses what he, Goebbels, has done, namely starting that outrage that night. This was a deep shock for me and I immediately announced it to the world's newspapers that I had discovered this material, although it appeared to go against what I had written in my own book Hitler's War. But even there you have to add a rider and say, 'Wait a minute this is Dr. Goebbels writing this.' Dr. Goebbels who took all the blame for what was done. So did he have perhaps a motive for writing in his private diaries subsequently that Hitler endorsed what he had done? You can't entirely close that file.


By the time of the publication in 1996 of Goebbels: Mastermind of the 'Third Reich' , this slightly sceptical note by Irving had been transformed into total conviction that Goebbels was lying. One should stress here that Irving's change of mind was not influenced by any further discoveries of new documentary material. As we have seen, in Goebbels: Mastermind of the 'Third Reich' Irving claimed (as he had done in Hitler's War) that Hitler did not know about the pogrom, was furious when he was informed about it, and sharply attacked Goebbels for his involvement. Thus, the essence of Irving's account of the pogrom in his written work has remained totally unchanged by the discovery of vital new evidence, the Goebbels diary, even though Irving himself at first accepted this evidence as destroying his previous theories.

http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/ev ... ciiiA8n109


So, please, no more theories about Irving said this and I trust it with my life, despite having just published an article about Irving's storytelling tendencies.



Hadding wrote:Here is Mark Weber attacking the authenticity of the alleged Goebbels Diaries in 1988, as quoted by Robert Faurisson:

The later entry, which I think is the 27th of March [1942], is widely quoted to uphold or support the extermination thesis. It is not consistent with entries in the diary like this one of March 7th, and it is not consistent with entries at a later date from the Goebbels diaries, and it is not consistent with German documents from a later date.

[…] there is a great doubt about the authenticity of the entire Goebbels diaries because they are written on typewriter. We have no real way of verifying if they are accurate, and the U.S. Government certified, in the beginning of the publication, […] that it can take no responsibility for the accuracy of the diaries as a whole.

[…] I think again it is worth mentioning that the passage of the 27th of March is inconsistent with the passage of the 7th of March and the one from April, and I don’t remember the date exact (Transcript, p. 5820-5821).

Goebbels had no responsibility for Jewish policy. He wasn’t involved in that. He was the Propaganda Minister. He was involved only to the extent that there were Jews in Berlin and he was responsible for Berlin (p. 5822-5823).


What Weber was obviously getting at [and has since changed his mind about] was that Goebbels' mentions of concentrating Jews in the east and maybe sending them to Madagascar after the war [7 March] may seem contradictory to what he said 27 March. But this isn't the case. In the 7 March entry he has clearly just read the Wannsee protocol or a related document, and over two weeks later, on March 27, he been made aware that Globocnik would be in charge of the evacuations to the east—he'd obviously been further informed about the plan in the intervening period. That happens, it's happening to you on this thread with all the information I've provided you on the French/Soviet discovery of the glass plates. As for Weber's "one from April, and I don’t remember the date exact", I genuinely have no idea which one he means. I've looked at all the April ones and many of them mention Jews or Mischlinge, but none could be considered inconsistent with March 27, in my opinion.

Regarding "Goebbels had no responsibility for Jewish policy. He wasn’t involved in that." Well, maybe, but that doesn't mean he wasn't kept briefed about it. He was a confidante of Hitler on the Jewish question and was a consummate reader and writer who was briefed on all sorts of government affairs.


Hadding wrote:You present a large quantity of details, but I don't see a coherent argument that Soviet falsification of some parts of the Goebbels Diaries was not possible.

Perhaps.... the Soviets captured Goebbels alive and coerced him to rewrite his own diary before finally executing him in secret. They planted the new diaries outside the RMVP so a junkdealer would find them and later sell them to the Americans, and switched the new glass plates in the location known to Richard Otte just in time for him to spill the beans to the French.
Last edited by TheBlackRabbitofInlé on Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
Nazis tried to create super-soldiers, using steroids ... they sought to reanimate the dead—coffins of famous Germanic warriors were found hidden in a mine, with plans to bring them back to life at the war’s end.
- Prof. Noah Charney

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9566
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hannover » 2 years 5 months ago (Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:22 am)

I suggest a deep breath and a look at:
'The Goebbels diary: a forgery?'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3793
before going too far in all of this.

It doesn't seem very sound for Rabbit to quote & trust a crooked English judge, Gray, a highly paid UK Zionist court historian, Evans, the typing of an Allied officer, Owen who no doubt was ordered to believe in 'gas chambers', when trying to establish the veracity of the Goebbel's "diaries".
On the whole I would say that such efforts are counter productive.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.


Image

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the childish 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
TheBlackRabbitofInlé
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:38 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby TheBlackRabbitofInlé » 2 years 5 months ago (Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:22 am)

Hannover wrote:I suggest a deep breath and a look at:
'The Goebbels diary: a forgery?'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3793
before going too far in all of this.


There's nothing interesting on that thread. If you think there is quote it and I'll explain to you why it's irrelevant or an argument based on ignorance/misunderstanding

Hannover wrote:It doesn't seem very sound for Rabbit to quote & trust a crooked English judge, Gray, a highly paid UK Zionist court historian, Evans, the typing of an Allied officer, Owen who no doubt was ordered to believe in 'gas chambers', when trying to establish the veracity of the Goebbel's "diaries".
On the whole I would say that such efforts are counter productive.


The beginning of the end of this thread has commenced I see.

Ad homs directed Gray and Evans. Hardly persuasive stuff. You didn't fancy tackling what anyone actually said evidently.

"Owen who no doubt was ordered to believe in 'gas chambers', when trying to establish the veracity of the Goebbel's "diaries"."

Yeah, sure thing. :roll: The guy was mainly just silently helping the French recover them and trying to secure that the Western Allies got copies. If you read the further correspondence re the discovery of the plates [in the VfZ article linked above] you'll learn that they seem more concerned with the correspondence in the same cache than the diaries.
Nazis tried to create super-soldiers, using steroids ... they sought to reanimate the dead—coffins of famous Germanic warriors were found hidden in a mine, with plans to bring them back to life at the war’s end.
- Prof. Noah Charney

User avatar
TheBlackRabbitofInlé
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:38 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby TheBlackRabbitofInlé » 2 years 5 months ago (Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:26 am)

Why had my recent response to Hadding been edited? Why was the final sentence and linked video deleted?
Nazis tried to create super-soldiers, using steroids ... they sought to reanimate the dead—coffins of famous Germanic warriors were found hidden in a mine, with plans to bring them back to life at the war’s end.
- Prof. Noah Charney


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dresden and 34 guests