Goebbels Diaries

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
Post Reply
I was a number
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Goebbel Diaries

Post by I was a number »

I'd like to nominate this thread as the biggest waste of time on the internet.
___________________________________________________________

:?: Have you found a photo of a Jew in an alleged gas chamber? :?:

Submit it HERE.

___________________________________________________________

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


randomforumguy
Posts: 3624
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:14 am
Contact:

Re: Goebbel Diaries

Post by randomforumguy »

Charles Traynor wrote:Dodgy leg or not, Dr. Goebbels had more hot women after him in a moment than our geturafrsnordr idiot could ever dream of in a life time.

To me he is the biggest useless eater in the reich :lol:

User avatar
Roberto Luc
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:40 am
Contact:

Re: Goebbel Diaries

Post by Roberto Luc »

geturafrsnordr wrote:Its hard being a ganger these days Rob :lol:
I see. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Roberto Luc
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:40 am
Contact:

Re: Goebbel Diaries

Post by Roberto Luc »

rollo the ganger wrote:If Roberto Luc were to Google "Goebbel's diary fake" he'd find a lot of "hits". So his hypothesis seems lame.
The problem is that this wasn't the question in the late topic. I know the opinion of several "Revis" sites about these diaries but you haven't answered anything about the question, if you think they're fake diaries and in afirmative case for what reason.

User avatar
Roberto Luc
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:40 am
Contact:

Re: Goebbel Diaries

Post by Roberto Luc »

I was a number wrote:I'd like to nominate this thread as the biggest waste of time on the internet.
Request denied. Next.

rollo the ganger
Posts: 6232
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Goebbel Diaries

Post by rollo the ganger »

Balsamo wrote:Better and Better, Rollo,

After "Google translate" for determining the meaning of words, "Google hits" as historical proofs...
Balsamo, you can't be that stupid. Wait... what am I saying? Oh yes you can!

Since when does a translator determine the meaning of words? That's what a dictionary does. You do know what a dictionary is don't you Balsamo? And "Google hits" as proof? Where did you come up with that one?

randomforumguy
Posts: 3624
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:14 am
Contact:

Re: Goebbel Diaries

Post by randomforumguy »

Roberto Luc wrote:
geturafrsnordr wrote:Its hard being a ganger these days Rob :lol:
I see. :mrgreen:

If you dont have direct access to the top ganger in the world, you wake up with your balls in your mouth and your best friend or so called brother standing over you :twisted:

On topic, This thread is not a waste of time. goebbels describes his vague knowledge of the atrocities, but it is evident he does not know of the specifics, or at least it cannot be proved that he did. He got the general idea though

User avatar
Balsamo
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Goebbel Diaries

Post by Balsamo »

rollo the ganger wrote:
Balsamo wrote:Better and Better, Rollo,

After "Google translate" for determining the meaning of words, "Google hits" as historical proofs...
Balsamo, you can't be that stupid. Wait... what am I saying? Oh yes you can!

Since when does a translator determine the meaning of words? That's what a dictionary does. You do know what a dictionary is don't you Balsamo? And "Google hits" as proof? Where did you come up with that one?
That is right. Dictionaries are very helpful. That is why I always keep the special Denier’s German English pocket lexicon on me, especially when reading Goebbels diaries.
You know the one that translates that the Jews “liquidiert werden müssen” into “turning Jews into a liquid form”…and that really enlightened me. Now I understand that the famous transit camps were like Coca Cola plants, turning Jews into liquid, of course, because of all the vapors, one could easily confuse those plants with gaz chambers…

Here are the real Jewish transports

Image

At least we have now a great physical explanation about this “misunderstanding”

The same lexicon that translates Ausrotten into To Root out. Making clear that the Jews were rooted out and replant elsewhere, helping to propose a great botanical explanation. Only are lacking the locations of the new Jewish botanical gardens, but those will come soon.

And finally the now famous translation of Juden exekutiert into Jews carried on… lol


To Roberto Luc,
Basically, that is the game that revisionists would be playing with those diaries. Very rare are the ones who would claim it to be a forgery. It’s too huge to have been forged. But here is the trick, those diaries are so voluminous that except the scientists who worked on them, no one read them entirely. All we have are fragments, edited of course. Some were really badly done. The last versions, edited by the Institut fur Zeitgeschichte are the only ones that are reliable. I have ordered them though, as for now I have only the last volume that ends in March 54 (?!?)
The first conclusion is that Goebbels was not a direct witness of what happened. His role in the Shoah is limited to the expulsion of the Jews from Berlin. He wrote what he was told at the time he was told. One can also be surprised to see that Goebbels don’t make any mention of the Shoah in 1944 and 45, or only indirect ones.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9531
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Goebbel Diaries

Post by been-there »

She took down every word that Goebbels uttered, both his private correspondence and his official orders...
"'I didn't know about the Holocaust. ...I only learned about the Jewish extermination programme after the war. Goebbels never mentioned it in his correspondence."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -Jews.html

These seem to be the words from that article that have most relevance to this discussion.

That she says he never mentioned - not even once - a systematic policy to liquidate the Jews, not in ANY of his correspondence, whether official or private, should I believe be of interest to anyone with a genuine interest to honestly look at all the evidence for or against the 'belief' that there was such an official policy.

My thanks to the contributor (Rollo) who linked to them in this Daily Mail article on Frau Brunhilde Pomse. Appreciated.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2424
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:43 am
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Goebbel Diaries

Post by Scott »

been-there wrote:
[Dr. Goebbels' secretary] She took down every word that Goebbels uttered, both his private correspondence and his official orders...
"'I didn't know about the Holocaust. ...I only learned about the Jewish extermination programme after the war. Goebbels never mentioned it in his correspondence."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -Jews.html
These seem to be the words from that article that have most relevance to this discussion.

That she says he never mentioned - not even once - a systematic policy to liquidate the Jews, not in ANY of his correspondence, whether official or private, should I believe be of interest to anyone with a genuine interest to honestly look at all the evidence for or against the 'belief' that there was such an official policy.

My thanks to the contributor (Rollo) who linked to them in this Daily Mail article on Frau Brunhilde Pomse. Appreciated.
This makes a good point in that we have a "working definition" of sorts for what is meant by the Big-H. Goebbels' secretary defines "the" Holocaust as Jewish extermination, and an extermination "programm." That distinction is very important for context--and particularly so regarding how incriminating the Goebbels diaries are supposed to be (according to some).

Unless one's view is that the Holocaust is any form of anti-Semitism, state-sponsored or otherwise, I personally don't find the Goebbels diaries particularly incriminating so far as the Big-H is concerned. In other words, maybe this constitutes a "Jewish extermination program," but only if by "the Holocaust" we mean whether merely the Germans during the Hitlerzeit and during the war caused Jews to come to harm, and necessarily not a hair on their chinny-chin-chins was otherwise so caused.

So then, yes, Dr. Goebbels documents a fair amount of anti-Semitism, and this no less from an anti-Semite himself.

But so what? Why should Revisionists be especially concerned about this?

Maybe some Revisionists doubt certain inciteful/insightful passages in the published Goebbels' Diaries. I don't know. I don't particularly see why. We don't have it "all," in toto, but I don't see any particularly weighty smoking-guns here, at least not in direct support of the claims of a comprehensive state-sponsored mass-extermination program of the Jews or anyone else. Wars are brutal and dangerous epochs, btw. The Goebbels Diaries are very interesting, and in some cases first-person musings. But that is all they are.

For historians we have quite a lot of "journalized" or contemporaneous material in the Goebbels diaries, and some of it was decently preserved, relatively speaking. If we are talking about what is on archival photographic plates then it is (or at least it fairly potentially is) pretty decent evidence for historians.

Maybe some Revisionists doubt certain oft-quoted passages. I don't know. I don't see the fuss.

I personally don't find the Goebbels diaries particularly troublesome for doubters of monolithic Nazi/German "extermination programs," meaning other than what we already know about the context and brutality of modern so-called Total Wars. Maybe some disagree. Partly this depends upon your own definition, or your own version of the accepted "working definitions" of the Big-H. If anything anti-Semitic is your smoking-gun for homicidal gaschambers, then so be it, but I hardly see it.

I have examined one of the better published collections of the Goebbels diaries in the original German language bound volumes. My German is not fluent but I found them quite useful for getting some contemporaneous perspectives.

For example, something was questioned in Online discussion back about ten or so years ago if I recall. Some of the mythology held that the word "Nazi" came from Na-tional Sozi-alist, as though it were like Social Democrat but mainly in a manner that was derisive in some way to National Socialists. I noticed that German speakers almost never use the term "Nazi" for "National Socialist" while English speakers, particularly Americans, nearly always do. It was claimed that ther term "Nazi" was derogatory toward Nazis and that the Nazis thought so.

One poster somewhere on the Axis History Forum - http://forum.axishistory.com/ helpfully compared this nickname not to colloquialism but more like veterans very "unofficially" adopting an unflattering moniker like the "Battling Bastards of Bastogne." In other words, this was supposedly some kind of left-handed pride that was offensive when coming from outsiders--like using the terms Queer--or "Niggah"--unless you "are" one. (I may be embellishing a little in the description but at least so-called Queer Studies is the actual terminology used by a certain "school" of academia.)

Anyway, I strongly disagreed with the view that the word "Nazi" was in any way derogatory as seen by real-McCoy Nazis. Here I am not talking about any implied reverential mannerism that might be used by postwar NS "skinhead" wannabes--nor in the vein of postwar Germanspeak that darest not speak the name National Socialist=Nazi without conscious deliberation, if not obfuscation, lest without the technical terminology befitting a Sex-Ed course things might somehow get misconstrued as prescriptive rather than proscriptive, LOL.

My view was (and is) simply that "Nazi" was the colloquial contraction of the first word of Nati-on-al Sozialist ("NatZee" -on-al, in the German pronunciation). And further that the real Nazis often called themselves "Nazis," meaning with "Golden Party Badge" pride, not as in late-affected "battling bastards" kind of pride.

So prove it Anglophone...

Okay, so the evidence that I supplied was several passages in German from the published volumes of the Goebbels Diaries, and I supplied the full citations from the Library volumes which I inspected. In his diaries Goebbels does, amongst many other things, complain to himself that so and so German official is not radicalized enough in thought or deed, not authentic enough, not "one of us," as he remarks, or at least so as laid down in his personal scribblings. The good doctor's actual words were not "this guy is not a real National Socialist" but INSTEAD, and I quote: "not a real Nazi." One can probably Google these old posts that I made on the Axis History Forum for what its worth.

The point is that this made good evidence for making certain interesting points about how things were thought at the time by key people. Goebbels' musings are also interesting for making other observations about Nazi policies. I don't think anybody would argue that Doktor Goebbels was not a true-believer in his Nazi cause. I simply noticed that in his private diaries rarely does the Propaganda Minister himself bother with the official term National Socialist. He easily prefers the term "Nazi" and he is damn proud of it.

In any case, insofar as smoking-guns for "Jewish extermination programs" I really don't quite see the "problem" here. No need for forgeries. Yes, the Nazi Party was anti-Semitic, and there were plenty of oppressive polices and actions against Jews, particularly during the war. Goebbels documents some of it. But gassing and burning Jews is not one of them, not so far at least from what evidence the Goebbels Diaries provides us.

I would agree that the Goebbels Diaries are undoubtedly valuable evidence for historians both for being contemporaneous hand-written scribblings and for being introspective personal musings, if not necessarily retrospective and obviously analytical apologias--but this is also a familiar limitation, of course. Other people like Speer, for example, explain a lot of things for modern readers better in many ways, but this is of course suspect in its own way without necessarily being "forgery." Everyone applies their own colored lenses to things when they tell it. Sometimes both Goebbels and Speer kid themselves in very obvious respects.

To now go on to a completely different topic about the 1945 killings of the Goebbels children...

I don't agree with what the Goebbels parents did, of course, but I can understand their "siege-mentality" reasoning, and I find it hard to believe that if they weren't conquered by the Red Army that they would have acted so rashly.

Marshall Zhukov in his memoirs was personally offended that the Goebbels parents would kill themselves and all of their children (except for the adult Harald not in the bunker at the time) as if this was nothing more than their final fanatical act of defiance against the "Soviet scourge." No doubt Comrade Zhukov was a "ruthless" officer and a gentleman--soldiers like any other. As far as I know, nobody has said that Marshal Zhukov personally would have spearheaded any unchivalrous or ruthless acts unlike any other professional soldier, Soviet or otherwise--at least not with the Goebbels offspring. But the good Marshal's personal outrage over the Goebbels' suicidal and murderous anti-Bolshevist defiance aside, was their last tragic parental act based on fears that were really so very unjustified and far-fetched?

Well, these kids were not ordinary Germans, nor ordinary Berliners, after all; they were the Goebbels' children. This was as close to royalty as the Third Reich got. Magda Goebbels is called the First Lady of the Reich and was highly thought of by the Führer. It it is hard to say for sure what the children's fate would have been otherwise to what it was. The Soviet system was not particularly genteel with its own suspect classes, let alone with the "royal bloodlines" so to speak of its enemies. Instead of cyanide administered by Magda and the bunker physician Dr. Stumpfegger we don't know that the kiddies would not have wound up at the bottom of a well with a bullet in the back of the neck like the Romanovs. It is really unfair for the Goebbels parents to have thought so at least?

Unlike the Romanov kiddies the Goebbels children did not stand to inherent any political or religious titles. Harald Quandt was Magda's only surviving child, and he was not Dr. G's direct offspring, if that makes a difference. Perhaps a more important point to consider is that Harald Quandt was not only not captured by the Soviets but was an adult when captured. Harald Quandt was old enough to be serving in the armed forces; he was a Lieutenant in the Luftwaffe and was captured in the Italian theater and then released in 1947. So he was not only not at the bunker in Berlin but was an adult when captured and not a kid that could be sent to an orphanage in Siberia or somewhere. In their farewell letters the Goebbels parents obviously never expected their grown boy Lt. Harald to fall on his own sword, of course.

On the other hand, many other German prisoners-of-war were not released from Soviet imprisonment until a decade or so after the war and were used as expendable forced-labor in peacetime. So if Harold had been captured by the Soviets he might have survived captivity or maybe not. I think it is highly significant that Harald was an adult at the time of the Untergang of the Reich. Himmler's daughter Gudrun was a young adult at least but she wasn't captured in the Hitler Bunker either. She was never in Soviet custody either, IIRC.

Other prominent Nazis claimed particular difficulty finding their family members after the war. Leon Degrelle, the anti-Bolshevism crusader whose Wallonian Legion joined the Wehrmacht after the Barbarossa invasion in 1941, which was later incorporated into a Stormbrigade of the Waffen-SS. In his native Belgium Leon Degrelle was sentenced to death in absentia as a traitor but Franco granted him Spanish protection and ultimately citizenship in 1954. In his memoirs Degrelle claimed that from his postwar exile in Spain he had to hunt down his children scattered over Europe in orphanages and insane asylums. None of the Degrelle children were captured by Communist officialdom as far as I know, but they could have been considered a political prize in Communist quarters, at least potentially so. Leon Degrelle was one of the two or three highest decorated foreign volunteers in German service, and had risen from the ranks from Wehrmacht Private to Waffen-SS Colonel (if one cannot count his last-minute appointment by Himmler to General). Degrelle's children were not the Goebbels children, of course--although perhaps the Degrelle name was no less infamous in Belgium after the war than Goebbels or Himmler.

Not to justify their actions but one has to look at it from the Goebbels' point-of-view, from the lenses of their siege-mentality. One can only imagine the fate of the Goebbels brood had they been captured alive in the Führerbunker by the Red Army. Or speculate. We simply don't know.

If the Goebbels family had been able to have gotten their kiddies to safety somehow and could count on decent friends to raise them after the war, I find it hard to believe that the Goebbels would have poisoned them. They might not have believed that Providence would have ever allowed the Red Army tanks to get there until it was too late, but Magda Goebbels wasn't Jim Jones, after all.

:)

“So people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and a part of my job is to also help people. If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way.
That’s why I have my rifle because I need to protect myself, obviously.
But I also have my med-kit.”

~ "Siege" Kyle Rittenhouse
(Kenosha, WI - 25 AUGUST 2020)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 13 guests