Talk:Goebbels Diaries
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Goebbels Diaries article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Incomplete
editThis article needs more work and some categories. Adam 10:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know more about the publication history of the diaries. A book called the "Goebbels Diaries" was on sale as early as 1948, but this is clearly only a small part of the whole. What were the circumstances of the discovery of this text? Two other volumes were apparently subsequently published, in 1978 and 1982. I understand that these three volumes are the only texts available in English? Has the large German 3-volume work been made available in other languages? Are there plans to translate it into English? Drutt (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Irving does not claim to be the discoverer of the diaries
editIn the acknowledgements of his Goebbels Biography (freely avaiable here: http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Goebbels/index.html, never mind the revisionist guys who host the website) he gives the credit to elke fröhlich:
"Dr Fröhlich, the discoverer—to whom all real credit is due—or to myself.*
page 8, pdf version
Tcheh (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nearly 14 years later, you're absolutely right! I have correct it. Nameandusername (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Authenticity section sadly lacking in scholarly rigour
editThere's no real discussion of the authenticity in the so-called "Authenticity" secion. I don't doubt that the editors of the diaries take up this issue in the early volumes, but there's nothing in this article that really touches on the question. The only thing which the quotations do is add a tiny bit more fuel to the fire for the holocaust deniers. It would be nice if someone who has read what the editors have to say about authenticity could summarize their views for us.Theonemacduff (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You are expressing an opinion, and you seem to be biased in the matter. You want to preserve the credibility of the alleged Goebbels Diaries because not to do so would have implications for the historiography of the Holocaust.
In other words, because you are concerned about "Holocaust Denial" you are starting from the conclusion that you want to reach and reasoning back from that to decide what information you will consider acceptable.
If the Holocaust depends so heavily on the Goebbels Diaries that discrediting these diaries amounts to disputing the Holocaust, then the Holocaust is in trouble, because there are obvious problems, like the facts that those images of typed pages came from the Soviet Union and that no original manuscript exists. Of course the Holocaust, as we all know, does not hang by such a slender thread as you seem to believe.
The Goebbels Diaries either have internal and external consistency problems or they do not. The question about the diaries is a completely separate question from the Holocaust, and it seems inappropriate to cite concerns about the Holocaust as a reason for not questioning the diaries, or for censoring the fact that there are such problems. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)