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
Kurland
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: The Goebbels diary: a forgery?

Postby Kurland » 8 years 4 months ago (Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:37 pm)

Drew J wrote: Much like how Kurland read too much into my post here on CODOH. He accused me of believing in those Ukranian atrocities without evidence just because I summarized the historical event.


Your post clearly gives the impression that you believe in the murder of 135,000 Jews. Not only do you quote information on it without expressing any reservations but also discuss it as factual. Your numerous posts and comments that I have read make me very suspicious of your agenda here. No offense, but I am just ultra skeptical of such characters.

Could you clear the matter up? Do you believe in the murder of Ukrainian Jews?



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

Re: The Goebbels diary: a forgery?

Postby EtienneSC » 2 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 6:33 am)

There has been some additional discussion of the authenticity of the Goebbels' diaries on this CODOH thread:
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10391&start=45

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

Re: The Goebbels diary: a forgery?

Postby Werd » 1 year 9 months ago (Sun Jan 15, 2017 12:44 pm)

And apparently it is time to put an old forgery claim to bed in the view of BROI.

Werd wrote:
Werd wrote:
TheBlackRabbitofInlé wrote: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

Request #1.
viewtopic.php?p=78487#p78487

BROI replied elsewhere.
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:Fri Jun 17, 2016 3:45 pm

if you want me to address something, then it is your job to know what your want me to address. The post you quoted, in fact, after just claiming it is "very good point" does not even know the name of the group involved. Before you embark on Request #2, make sure to have a firm grasp of the issues.

There are references in the 10 November diary entry to Stoßtrupp Hitler, a protective detail for Hitler that was disbanded around the time when Hitler did his stint at Landsberg Prison. Guess what, after the Nazis seized power old comrades met together and re-banded once in a while. Those in the group who remained around, if they did not have a higher or more important function in the governmental hierarchy already, were given ceremonial functions in the Nazi Party.

It's ridiculous to imply that just because the group was legally disbanded in the 1920s, Goebbels' references to it must be part of a forgery. It simply is, to Goebbels, an endearing term for the old crew, a good part of which got together again once in a while.

The last reference to Stroßtrupp Hitler in the diary entry is as follows: "Schaub ist ganz in Fahrt. Seine alte Stroßtruppvergangenheit erwacht." (Schaub is in full swing. His old Stroßtrupp past comes alive.) This refers to Julius Schaub, who was indisputably in the Stroßtrupp Hitler.


If it wasn't obvious before (it already was), it is now with the last reference and the amateur innuendo otherwise is pathetic. There is no forger's error as to the group.

And.
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:24 pm

I'd not even heard of Weckert until last week, and still haven't seen any of her books. Richard Evans pointed out something interesting about Irving's reliance on her:

It has already been noted that Irving contemptuously almost never cites, discusses or makes use of the work of other historians or writers. It is all the more surprising, therefore, that in his Goebbels: Mastermind of the 'Third Reich', he refers no less than six times in seven pages to an author by the name of Ingrid Weckert in his account of the events of 9-10 November 1938. Clearly he regards her as an eminent authority on the pogrom. Characteristically, however, the references he supplies are inadequate, the footnotes sloppy and in crass contravention to the normal practice of responsible historical scholarship. Footnotes are designed to enable the reader to check statements in the text against the sources cited to see if the statements rest on a reasonable interpretation of the sources in question. Checking Irving's statements and claims is often difficult, since he commonly provides vague or incomplete references, but in the case of Ingrid Weckert it is even more difficult than usual. In the footnotes to the seven pages under consideration here, Irving repeatedly refers merely to 'Ingrid Weckert' or 'the author Ingrid Weckert', without providing any details of who she is or even the name of the publication or publications for which she is responsible. The critical reader is entitled to ask, therefore, who this mysterious writer Ingrid Weckert is, and which of her works provide authority for the statements Irving is making in the text.

[...]

Weckert is best known, however, for her manipulation of the historical record of the pogrom of 9-10 November 1938. She published a series of articles on the subject in the late 1970s, at least one of which was read at the time by Irving. Her book Feuerzeichen: Die 'Reichskristallnacht', was first published in German in 1981 and is also available in an English translation. The complete third German edition of the book published in 1989, is available on the Internet [...] It is illegal to sell or lend it to any person under the age of eighteen. The authorities not only described the book as likely to corrupt young minds by arousing antisemitic feelings in them but also declared that it showed no evidence even of minimal attempts at truthfulness and objectivity.

http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/430ciiiK.html

I must say that the above bold part is very persuasive.

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

Re: The Goebbels diary: a forgery?

Postby Hannover » 1 year 9 months ago (Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:04 pm)

Recall that TheBlackRabbitofInlé religiously believes in impossible gas chambers at Auschwitz. So then ....

The diary and the massive numbers of Jews supposedly murdered for being Jews can be best summarized :

We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claims of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, or 250,000 at Sobibor, or 135,000 alleged at Tranistria) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.


- Hannover

Revisionists are just the messengers, the laughable impossibility of the 'holocau$t' storyline is the message.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

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

Re: The Goebbels diary: a forgery?

Postby Werd » 1 year 9 months ago (Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:26 pm)

We already know Auschwitz is a joke. But I want to know if there is a reason to doubt BRIO's arguments for the authenticity of those Goebbels diaries. He has some good inductive evidence. This is an issue about history and textual analysis. If Goebbels did indeed write about the old Strosstrup Hitler in past tense and endearing terms, then that is good inductive evidence that their mention in the diaries may not necessarily mean forgery as that one codoh poster suggested almost ten years ago in the Goebbels Diaries topic. But that's just the first step. We need something a little more concrete.

Veronica Clark sides with Ingrid Weckert that what we are told about crystal night is largely a myth. In fact, she wrote a book recently claiming to fill the gaps. The second chapter is supposed to be about problems with certain entries. I sent her a message asking her what she thought about BROI's analysis and if there was anything she could tell me.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: The Goebbels diary: a forgery?

Postby Hektor » 6 months 1 day ago (Sun May 13, 2018 8:08 pm)

Drew J wrote:....
Roberto then also asks about Ney's take on wansee, what lingustic problems in the document? I can not only given an answer with some Ney excerpts, but I can also say one more thing before I copy and paste Ney. I sure hope that soon Roberto will take direct examples of phrases Ney has a problem with, find them in Klemperer's book, and then explain everything away one bit at a time, instead of just putting an interesting lingustic theory out there without any hard exmples and evidence to support his 'refutation' of Ney's problems with German. With that in mind, let me close by quoting some stuff from Ney.
....


I'm talking from memory, but the phrases Johannes Peter Ney objected to were not "Nazi Jargon", those were phrases that are simply odd in German. The late Johannes Peter Ney was born in 1922, hence a young man, when the Wannsee Protocol was supposedly established. He's a contemporary user of the language. He's no country pumpkin neither, but was a submarine commander, which required some formal education at the time. Victor Klemperer, who lived in Germany through the war and was never deported despite being considered Jewish, on the other hand wrote about specific National Socialist Jargon in his book. On a side note, Klemperer also joined the Communist Party officially in the 1940s and was quite a prominent member of the SED, which came into charge of the Soviet Occupation Zone.

avatar
Spect3r
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:34 pm

Re: The Goebbels diary: a forgery?

Postby Spect3r » 6 months 17 hours ago (Mon May 14, 2018 5:57 am)

After reading all the 5 pages of this thread, i must say i am even more confused than i was before.
Most of what is talked here is pure speculation, but most of what the stuffed linked here from the "other side" of the Holocaust story is also not very clarifying :$

True that the some of the facts surrounding the Diary are strange but can someone point me some clear evidence to the fact they fully are or are not a forgery?
I just love the smell of Zyklon B in the morning, afternoon, late afternoon, evening and night, for it means that I’m nicely deloused 8)


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], JLAD Prove Me Wrong and 28 guests