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.
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
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 , 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.
.... 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.