The Goebbels diary: a forgery?

[Mads]

I have compared the infamous diary entry about the "liquidation" of a number of Jews and other similar passages to comments and essays by Goebbels that were published before the end of the war. The differencies are enormous.

In the essays, Goebbels appears as an actual German, somebody whose thinking, way of expressing himself, style is recognizable and understandable in a German context, regardless of whether you agree with him or not. As a person, and in his writing on a lot of different subjects, he does not make a bad impression. His opinions on the Jewish question apparently seem insane to some people, but, in fact, are not. But even if these opinions were wrong, it would still be undeniable that Goebbels´ judgements in this respect are clear, consistent, logical, and rational, i.e. he has a certain point of view and reasons correctly in accordance with this view. He does not talk of the Jews in an insane, or illogical, or self-contradictory way; nor is there any "hatred". For example, his explanation of the yellow star - one of the few known cases of "Nazi cruelty" - goes approximately like this: Mr. Dickershof and Mrs. Hildesheim may feel pity when they see some old woman wearing the yellow star, but they ought to remember that she might have a distant American cousin whose son just might be the author of the book "Germany Must Perish". This old woman, too, is a part of the Jewish community, the Jewish nation (and since there are only few Jews who do not, in the end, belong to this community, and since it is impossible to determine whether a certain Jew is independent), she as weel as all other Jews must be obliged to wear the yellow star in order to make sure that, whenever a Jew raises his voice against Germany (and be it at the local greenery, and be it in a deceitful "friendly" way, as is normally the case), he is instantly recognized as a Jew. - Now, of course, this is not about whether or not Goebbels succeeds in justifying this measure; the point is that there is normal human logic to his explanation. Goebbels is right to maintain that all Jews, including old women, have to wear the star, since hostility towards the host nation among Jews is not at all limited to men, or to people active in politics. Goebbels adds that one of the benefits of the star is that people suddenly realise how many Jews actually live among them. Some Jews do not at all have Jewish facial traits, and such Jews, of course, are not the least dangerous. He also mentions that that Jews are seen walking around Berlin hand in hand with (or at least in the company of) non-Jews (who want to show their sympathy in a demonstrative way) and says that a Jew doing this probably is quite happy to have found a goy who is tupid enough to still believe him.

Diary-Goebbels is quite a different person. I´d say that he´s straight out of Hollywood and he certainly would have played well in "Schindler´s List". At least in the parts about slaughtering Jews, he appears as this easy-going, a little bit stupid person who has little or no conscience, resembling the Nazi psychopaths in anti-Nazi propaganda. And precisely like those psychopaths (for example, like the camp commander in "Schindler´s List), he is somewhat insecure and uncertain when it comes to actually justifying what he is doing; he vaguely (and comically) says that it "might be considered justified" ("und das könnte wohl auch als gerechtfertigt angesehen werden") that European Jews are to "pay dearly" ("teuer büssen"), i.e. to be murdered, because of the anti-German activities of American Jews. Here, the reasoning of the real Goebbels is being used, but in a perverted and stupid way. Contrary to the real Goebbels, Diary-Goebbels accuses himself and says that what is happening is "barbarian" ("ein ziemlich barbarisches Verfahren"). He, in 1942, manages to make a reference to Hitler´s words before the Reichtag in 1939 about the eradication of the Jewish race in Europe ("die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa"); these words, that obviously mean something like "the complete eradication of Jewry as a political and cultural power in Europe (and the forced emigration of a lot of Jews)" are commonly known and are, of course, an important part of Holocaust propaganda. (By the way, how come the propagandists chose the word "Vernichtungslager"? This Hitler quote, of course!)

In a later entry, at a time when it was clear that final defeat wasn´t far away, the lack of charm of Diary-Goebbels is even more astounding. Noting again that the Jews are at the forefront of anti-German activities in America, he says something that approximately translates to: ¨

"You really ought to kill out these Jews like rats, if you ever had the power to do so. But well, we Germans already did make an effort in this respect. I hope the world will follow our example"

(It´s been some months since I read this, and the actual words may be slightly different: "Diese Juden sollte man einmal wirklich, wenn man die Macht hätte, wie die Ratten vernichten (ausrotten). Aber wir Deutschen haben ja dabei schon den Anfang gemacht. Ich hoffe, dass die Welt sich daran ein Beispiel nimmt")

This almost is too much. Diary-Goebbels, who doesn´t really care about the destruction of Germany, hopes that the world will follow the German example and slaughter the Jews, at a time when enemy armies that were in Goebbels´ opinion (which I think is correct) more or less Jewish-led were marching against Berlin.

A couple of weeks ago, I came across a fiercely anti-Nazi book that over several pages dealt specifically with the anti-Semitism of Joseph Goebbels. This made the same impression: there were a number of Goebbels quotes, about ten, from essays, comments, speeches, that apparently had been chosen as the most extreme, but, incidentally, made sense to me, and there was the diary entry about the Jews being pushed eastwards etc. which hardly makes any sense at all.

There might have been some allegations of forgery, since the question is mentioned in the foreword to the official Goebbels diary. Of course, that´s not the case, because the handwriting is unmistakeably that of Joseph Goebbels. To which we must ask: has there ever been any kind of independent investigation? However, after 1941 the supposed diary wasn´t written anymore, it was dictated. If Goebbels normally knew how to present himself as a decent, sometimes even noble, then why wouldn´t he do the same in a dictated diary dealing with political issues?

I don´t think there can be any Revisionist victory whatsoever as long as this diary, or parts of it, has not been exposed as a hoax. Somebody will have to write a work on the the subject of why the Goebbels diary, or parts of it, could not possibly have been written by Joseph Goebbels. If a German or an inhabitant of another country where Revisionism is illegal accomplished this task, the work might be written anonymously and made available at the IHR-site or other relevant sites.

This shows why it is very important indeed, in a Holocaust Revisionist context as well, to study and understand National Socialism, i.e. to study and understand the movement and the people that have been accused of this crime. It also reveals that the Revisionist movement is in no way "Nazi" - if it were "Nazi" it would have done away with this diary deceit a long time ago. Many Holocaust Revisionists are still influenced by the Hollywood version of National Socialism and believe that Goebbels actually might have been such a person.

A final note: there also is another aspect to this phoney diary, namely, wheteher the thing that Diary-Goebbels actually fits in with common Holocaust theory. In a previous thread on the subject, it is said that Holocaust historians normally do not talk about Jews being pushed to the east etc. It might be that the Goebbels diary has as much to do with Holocaust theory reality as the stories of Elie Wiesel allegedly have with the gas chambers.

[driansmith]

After reading Irving's book on Goebbels, which draws upon the diaries extensively, I found myself wondering more and more about whether they are authentic, as Irving assumes. I suspect a Soviet hoax. What I would suggest as a possibility is that Goebbels's #2 man, Hans Fritzsche, was compelled, during the period in which he was imprisoned and tortured in Moscow, to assist in the fabrication of the diaries, perhaps by inserting a few passages referring to the Jews.

He was detained in Moscow for a rather long period, and was finally released to stand trial at Nuremberg, where he was acquitted. The assistance of someone close to Goebbels would probably have been necesssary to forge diary entries in a plausible manner. Perhaps acquittal was a quid pro quo for services rendered.

[Bergmann]

The authenticity of the Goebbels diaries is commented on in an essay by Eric Kylling: “What do the diaries of Dr Joseph Goebbels tell us about "the Holocaust"”
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/JG/ueberJuden.html (German)

"Diese Veröffentlichung der kompletten Goebbels Tagebücher basiert auf dem Lochner Fund und den restlichen Original-Tagebuchseiten die im Auftrag der DDR-Regierung in der ehemaligen Reichskanzlei gesucht und gefunden wurden. David Irvings Entdeckung der Original Agfa Autolith Mikrofiche-Glasplattenkopien der Tagebücher, die auf den Geheiß Goebbels vor Kriegsende angefertigt wurden, und die sich in den früheren geheimen sowjetischen Staatsarchiven in Moskau befinden, im Jahre 1992, bestätigt offensichtlich die Echtheit sowohl des Lochner Fundes, der sich in der Hoover Institution library in Stanford, California befindet, als auch der Tagebücher die aus dem Fund der ehemaligen DDR stammen."

My translation:
This publication of the complete diaries of Goebbels are based on the discovery by Lochner and the remaining original diary pages, which were searched for and found by order of the DDR-government in the former Reichskanzlei. David Irving’s discovery of the original Agfa Autolith Microfiche-glass plate copies of the diaries, which were made by order of Goebbels before the end of the war, and which are stored in the former Soviet State’s archives in Moscow in the year 1992 confirms evidently the authenticity of Lochner’s discovery, which is archived in the Hoover Institute Library in Stanford, California, as well as the diaries of the discovery of the former DDR.

[Mads]

The authenticity of the Goebbels diaries is commented on in an essay by Eric Kylling: “What do the diaries of Dr Joseph Goebbels tell us about "the Holocaust"”
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/JG/ueberJuden.html (German)

"Diese Veröffentlichung der kompletten Goebbels Tagebücher basiert auf dem Lochner Fund und den restlichen Original-Tagebuchseiten die im Auftrag der DDR-Regierung in der ehemaligen Reichskanzlei gesucht und gefunden wurden. David Irvings Entdeckung der Original Agfa Autolith Mikrofiche-Glasplattenkopien der Tagebücher, die auf den Geheiß Goebbels vor Kriegsende angefertigt wurden, und die sich in den früheren geheimen sowjetischen Staatsarchiven in Moskau befinden, im Jahre 1992, bestätigt offensichtlich die Echtheit sowohl des Lochner Fundes, der sich in der Hoover Institution library in Stanford, California befindet, als auch der Tagebücher die aus dem Fund der ehemaligen DDR stammen."

My translation:
This publication of the complete diaries of Goebbels are based on the discovery by Lochner and the remaining original diary pages, which were searched for and found by order of the DDR-government in the former Reichskanzlei. David Irving’s discovery of the original Agfa Autolith Microfiche-glass plate copies of the diaries, which were made by order of Goebbels before the end of the war, and which are stored in the former Soviet State’s archives in Moscow in the year 1992 confirms evidently the authenticity of Lochner’s discovery, which is archived in the Hoover Institute Library in Stanford, California, as well as the diaries of the discovery of the former DDR.

DDR-government...Soviet State´s archives...David Irving. As for this person: according to rumors, Irving´s mother is a Jewess. Even if that is not the case, Irving would probably still be the only revisionist who: 1. has a girlfriend/wife who calls his opinions about the Holocaust "ridicolous", 2. has a daughter who allways wears a copy of Anne Frank´s diary in order to show that she doesn´t agree with her father, 3. has said before court that the Holocaust happened since new Soviet documents reveal it, 4. is mentioned routinely in propaganda media (everybody knows Irving; nobody knows true reviosionists), 5. has been publicly defended by a member of the Holocaust propaganda machine: Lipstadt didn´t like the thought of seeing him in jail and has reportedly said: "Let the crank go home".

Something is wrong with the person of David Irving.

And this diary does contain passages that can only be interpreted as being about mass extermination of Jews. It does not, as your link claims, prove that there wasn´t any Holocaust. In this diary, Goebbels, as mentioned, says things like: "you ought to exterminate these Jews like rats". Goebbels, as I have said, actually seems to have been a decent person and a normal German. Wold any decent person say a thing like this?

[Mads]

After reading Irving's book on Goebbels, which draws upon the diaries extensively, I found myself wondering more and more about whether they are authentic, as Irving assumes. I suspect a Soviet hoax. What I would suggest as a possibility is that Goebbels's #2 man, Hans Fritzsche, was compelled, during the period in which he was imprisoned and tortured in Moscow, to assist in the fabrication of the diaries, perhaps by inserting a few passages referring to the Jews.

He was detained in Moscow for a rather long period, and was finally released to stand trial at Nuremberg, where he was acquitted. The assistance of someone close to Goebbels would probably have been necesssary to forge diary entries in a plausible manner. Perhaps acquittal was a quid pro quo for services rendered.

It does seem quite probable that the Soviets have been involved in this. And as you say, we are talking about a few passages about Jews. I still believe that the whole diary mioght be a hoax, but it would in any case have been easy to insert these passages.

[Daniel Saez Lorente]

After reading Irving's book on Goebbels, which draws upon the diaries extensively, I found myself wondering more and more about whether they are authentic, as Irving assumes. I suspect a Soviet hoax. What I would suggest as a possibility is that Goebbels's #2 man, Hans Fritzsche, was compelled, during the period in which he was imprisoned and tortured in Moscow, to assist in the fabrication of the diaries, perhaps by inserting a few passages referring to the Jews.

He was detained in Moscow for a rather long period, and was finally released to stand trial at Nuremberg, where he was acquitted. The assistance of someone close to Goebbels would probably have been necesssary to forge diary entries in a plausible manner. Perhaps acquittal was a quid pro quo for services rendered.

It does seem quite probable that the Soviets have been involved in this. And as you say, we are talking about a few passages about Jews. I still believe that the whole diary mioght be a hoax, but it would in any case have been easy to insert these passages.

More to the point of the authenticity, the complete original diaries have never been found. The story is that Goebbels was afraid they might get burnt up or blown up in an air raid, or in the collapse of some building, so he had them copied onto (GET THIS) GLASS PLATES. OK. The glass plates sit in a crate for 50 years in Moscow until Irving interprets them. Nobody else can read them. Maybe it's the real stuff. On the other hand, maybe it's a replay of those 18th forgeries of Shakespeare plays and other documents cooked up by a kid named Ireland to fool his father and got taken seriously, so much so that a "long-last play" actually got produced in London. A genius named Walpole is supposed to have kissed the manuscripts of these things. Maybe. Maybe not.

[Mads]

The story is that Goebbels was afraid they might get burnt up or blown up in an air raid, or in the collapse of some building, so he had them copied onto (GET THIS) GLASS PLATES. OK.

...well, Goebbels wanted to save his 15-volume (or so) diary for the enemy powers. He was afraid that they wouldn´t find, read and publish it, so, by copying them onto those glass plates, he made sure that that would happen.[/quote]

[Hannover]

...well, Goebbels wanted to save his 15-volume (or so) diary for the enemy powers. He was afraid that they wouldn´t find, read and publish it, so, by copying them onto those glass plates, he made sure that that would happen.

How are glass plates not vulnerable to bombing? Seems fragile to me.

But generally I think this diary business is a useless exercise. There is nothing to confirm whatever may have been forged or inserted into someone's diary. One could hardly believe any text which supposedly supports the 'holocaust' story in light of the impossible gas chambers, and the non-existent mass graves.

Having said that, we must remember that perhaps the most important diary is Himmler's. That diary is reportedly in Israel, and of course, we've heard nothing about it's contents. We must wonder why.

- Hannover

[Daniel Saez Lorente]

The story is that Goebbels was afraid they might get burnt up or blown up in an air raid, or in the collapse of some building, so he had them copied onto (GET THIS) GLASS PLATES. OK.

...well, Goebbels wanted to save his 15-volume (or so) diary for the enemy powers. He was afraid that they wouldn´t find, read and publish it, so, by copying them onto those glass plates, he made sure that that would happen.

The logical thing to do would be to prepare 4 or 5 different photographic copies on paper and store them in fire-proof vaults at 4 or 5 different locations. But no, he makes one copy, on GLASS, and they end up in Moscow, in a wooden CRATE. OK. So we have two or perhaps three alternatives:

a) Goebbels himself puts the glass in the crates, they are "found" by the Soviets and ignored for 50 years until David Irving interprets them, since nobody else can read Goebbels's handwriting, in which case we must ask, among other things, how they didn't get busted travelling 2000 miles to Moscow in a freight car?

b) Some Soviet department spends years forging the text and puts them on glass so nobody can test the paper and handwriting, but they forget about their own forgery for years, unlike all the other fakes with which they inundated the world; or

c) With the so-called "fall of Communism" a lot of Soviet forgers are unemployed so somebody pulls off a stunt similar to the Hitler Diaries hoax, and this time Irving falls for it. Remember with the Hitler diaries, the handwriting was perfect. It was only the content and physical form of the diaries that gave them away as fakes. So we get around those problems by putting it all on GLASS and by writing things that aren't obviously plagiarized from well-known sources (in the case of the Hitler diaries, most of the content was lifted from Dr. Pick's HITLER TABLE TALKS).

Remember the Soviets were, and presumably are, able to produce absolutely perfect forged documents. They had the time, the money, the equipment and the expert personnel. They had huge government offices forging nothing but passports and other material, round the clock. They had everything down absolutely perfect. After 1989, a lot of these people presumably became unemployed.

So I assume the third alternative is the most probable. David Irving is a very smart guy but he has been fooled before. The only difference is that he admits it when he gets fooled.

For example, he once believed in the so-called Holocaust. It was only the Leuchter Report that convinced him he had been wrong.

Then when he's in jail and it's convenient for him to do so, he says he was wrong again, there were gassings. Etc.

OK, so maybe he was wrong about the Goebbels diaries.

[Mads]

...well, Goebbels wanted to save his 15-volume (or so) diary for the enemy powers. He was afraid that they wouldn´t find, read and publish it, so, by copying them onto those glass plates, he made sure that that would happen.

How are glass plates not vulnerable to bombing? Seems fragile to me.

But generally I think this diary business is a useless exercise. There is nothing to confirm whatever may have been forged or inserted into someone's diary. One could hardly believe any text which supposedly supports the 'holocaust' story in light of the impossible gas chambers, and the non-existent mass graves.

Having said that, we must remember that perhaps the most important diary is Himmler's. That diary is reportedly in Israel, and of course, we've heard nothing about it's contents. We must wonder why.

- Hannover

Well, the thing about the glass plates was a joke, the point was to explain in some crazy way why Goebbels would have copied his diary onto glass plates and, by the way, why he would have left these glass plates for the occupying soldiers to find. Most Holocaust propaganda explanations are every bit as stupid as this, so I figure it still works as a joke.

You continue to treat "this diary business" in the same manner as has been done in the other threads and in the link that Bergmann posted. Knowing that the Holocaust didn´t happen, what can be said about these diary entries, and do they have any importance at all? To you, and to anybody who has some knowledge of the Holocaust, this may be "a useless exercise", but to people who still believe in the Holocaust, or who are in doubt, it´s quite different. They will see evidence here that the German government did commit major crimes againt Jews. And this, to most people, means that, in some way, the Holocaust happened. Facts are that the Goebbels diary is used as a proof of the Holocaust.

I don´t see why we shouldn´t take care of all details. The more problems have been solved, the better for Revisionism.

It is possible to prove that there´s something phoney about this diary, and it should be proved. As can be judged from the other posts here, the story of how the Goebbels diary was "discovered" and why we can be sure that it is genuine simply doesn´t seem credible. If we can expose this diary, or parts of it, as a hoax, then that must be considered progress.

[Mads]

It should be emphasized again that the diary entries do not fit in with what Goebbels normally wrote. Goebbels sees the Jewish question as being about defending Germany and in his essays, he levels a lot of accusations against the Jews (the judeo-supremacists). In the diary, the only accurate accusation seems to be that American Jews are promoting anti-German feeling in America and are responsible for the war against Germany, and not much is said about this. Not a word about German Jews. Things are turned around, and Goebbels presents himself as the attacker.

Defending Germany would have nothing to do whatsoever with "exterminating the Jews like rats" or with "rather barbarian measures", to the effect that European Jews would "pay dearly". In fact, such things wouldn´t have been helpful at all, and, by the way, would actually have been barbarian as well as stupid. This is completely out of touch with the reasoning of the actual Goebbels and is undeniably a mark of forgery.

Uptil now, I have not had any knowledge of how the diary supposedly was discovered etc., but I´m not surprised that the story seems to be rather funny. I´d go with number c in Daniel Saez Lorente´s post 8, but it still is difficult to say. Anyway, the yiddish-speaking Jews of the Soviet Union certainly were masters of forgery, every bit as much as neocon Jews today in America. It may be that Fritzsche had something to do with it, but I´m not sure they would in any case require his help.

[Mads]

A couple of remarks about Mr. Irving, the man who believes that the diary is genuine.

In a newspaper interview with his girlfriend/wife, this woman, like I´ve said, calls his opinions about the Holocaust "ridiculous" and adds that he doesn´t mind that she sees it lke that, because, to him, that´s "a part of the game".

This, of course, makes me wonder. Is she telling us that that Irving - who in propaganda media is Mr. Revisionist - actually doesn´t believe what he is saying about the Holocaust and that everything to him is just "a game".

We must remember that Judaism/judeo-supremacism is an extremely well-organized movement. One of the necessary parts of judeo-supremacist propaganda is conducted by all kinds of infiltrators. An Israeli Jew called HaCohen, writing at antiwar.com, is a good example. HaCohen´s job seems to be to prevent the American peace movement from going Revisonist on the Holocaust. I don´t have time for explaining this, but, when reading his articles, it is quite clear that he has ulterior motives. He has managed to write the sentences, "I never argue with Holocaust deniers. They´re not worth it" - using the intimidation tactics that is so popular with Holocaust propagandists. And, if judged by the infamous words of Justin Raimondo on Revisionism this summer, HaCohen and others are succeeding. Another example would be Michael Moore, who, I believe, works for the neocons.

There is any reason to be suspicious of David Irving, and if he has managed to play a part in making Revisionists believe that the Goebbels diary may be real, then I really think it would be time for an inquiry into what he´s doing.

[Hannover]

Some good points, Mads.

We're getting off topic a little, see these threads for Raimondo at www.antiwar.com:

'writer Justin Raimondo caves in, uses dumb strawmen'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3455

also see:

'THE NEW THOUGHT POLICE by Justin Raimondo'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=375

I have emailed Raimondo on two occasions and challenged him to debate.

- Hannover

[Reinhard]

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

[Bergmann]

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.