Talk:Joseph Goebbels/Archive 2

older entries
As promised, I have rewritten this article, and archived old Talk which is now irrelevant. Adam 13:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias?
Upon reviewing this article I cannot help but feel it has been constructed with the intention to degrade Goebbels as a man. I feel that certain refrenses such as "empty title of Chancellor" should be removed, I will scout through the article and edit change where I feel appropriate so that the article has a more academic standard based on fact without opinion. However, this is a very good edit.Gavin Scott 17:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. The article, which I did not write, appears dispassionately factual. Describing his title as Chancellor as "empty" is entirely reasonable in the context of the death throes of the Third Reich, insofar as Hitler's will could have no legal force given that the Allies were occupying the country and had the avowed intention of dismembering the Nazi State. May i suggest that before making edits you should discuss them with the editor of the article, who I know has spent a great deal of time improving it. I have not reverted your edit, but may well do so in the absence of comment.--Anthony.bradbury 15:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, however I still feel as I read the article that a negative view is held on Goebbels, saying that, the writer of this article has been very delicate with the Doctors mental state almost ignoring the "fact" that Goebbels suffered from extreme depression in random cycles, while I am not saying he was a manic depressive either. However, I can understand that I should conclude discssion on any certain topic before editing. Gavin Scott 17:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition I feel that the introduction is as good now and holds no possible trace of bias.Gavin Scott 22:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As the principal author of the current draft, let me say the following:
 * Of course I have a negative view of Goebbels: he was a deeply evil man who shares responsibility for the deaths of millions of people. The question, however, is: does this article describe Goebbels's life and career fairly and accurately on the basis of the available sources? To the best of my ability (as a trained historian), I believe it does. The statement about the Chancellorship being an empty title after Hitler's suicide is completely factual, as shown by the fact that Goebbels made no attempt to join Doenitz and exercise the office. I am happy to debate any other matters of fact or interpretation Gavin wishes to raise.
 * I have never seen a reference to Goebbels suffering from manic depressive illness, and I have to say (as someone quite familiar with that condition) I can see nothing in Goebbels's behavior which suggests that he suffered from it. But if Gavin can substantiate this claim, it should certainly be included, so let's see the reference (references to Irving's biography will not be accepted for reasons stated in footnote 1). It would be another matter to claim that manic depressive illness in some way explained or excused Goebbels's actions.
 * Having said all that, I must state my view it is not possible for anyone to write totally "value free" history about subjects like this. I write about Goebbels from the standpoint of a western intellectual of liberal-democratic views. My text assumes, for example, that Nazi propaganda about the Jews had no basis in fact, and that it was morally wrong for Germany to kill millions of people and invade other countries. I do not feel any obligation to take a position of "neutrality" between Nazism and non-Nazism, and my text no doubt reflects that. It would in my view be impossible for any educated person to write this article any other way (unless they were a Nazi, of course). Adam 06:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Then in one way, you have disqualified yourself as a serious Wikipedia editor, - "..I do not feel any obligation to take a position of "neutrality" between Nazism and non-Nazism, and my text no doubt reflects that. It would in my view be impossible for any educated person to write this article any other way (unless they were a Nazi, of course)". So, by your definition, I would be a Nazi. There is no 'Nazi' exception to the NPOV rule, however however much you might dislike it.  NPOV issues with self-righteous editors such as yourself have become a serious problem here with Wikipedia. No one is arguing for a 'pro-nazi' version of the article, only a NPOV one. user:Gavin Scott is 100% correct is saying the article has little bits of POV which could easily be restated sans POV without losing a bit of the message.  However, being that the article is much better, and I might add, losing most of it's POV in the process (with the exception of your own editorial bits) I applaud your work.  user:Pzg Ratzinger

PS If you are going to edit this article, please try to do so grammatically. "Following Hitler’s death, he became Chancellor as dictated in Hitler's will, he held the position for one day before commiting suicide with his wife Magda Goebbels" is not a grammatical sentence. Adam 06:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If I can say I am not challenging the factual status of the article, rather I am more concerned with how it is delivered. Lines such as: “The parallel with Hitler’s failure to become an artist in Vienna is obvious“ or ”Preferred that the matter not be discussed in public. But Goebbels was not the kind of man who could keep quiet” seem very “unprofessional” and almost immaturely critical. At times the article appears to me as more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Of course, after my poor attempt at creating a sentence that made no sense I suppose I have lost any credibility as a wikipedian.

However, you are right to realize that I am not debating the fact that the office of Chancellor was “empty” but rather that the line “he held the empty title of German Chancellor” could be interpreted, as I feel it may often be, as being negative and almost a slur, making the article start off with a very anti-Goebbels tone, and encyclopedia articles should be devoid of opinion and contain only fact.

Concerning, Goebbels’ mental state I am unsure of the copyright law concerning the Goebbels Diaries. Do I credit them to the publisher or are they allowed for free usage? Anyway, upon reading the diaries you will notice that one entry may be very energetic and upbeat, but the following entry may be very depressive and have Goebbels discussing how “enemies” in the party are “out to get him” and he declares that “he will not be beaten”. Then if we look at Goebbels’ upbringing and childhood we can clearly see the foundations for maybe even mild mental problems. Of course I am not denying that this may be entirely supposition on my part as I myself am a diagnosed manic depressive, something of which I was only informed of during my university years and as such I feel that I can identify with feelings Goebbels portrays in his diaries as being entirely similar to how other MDs as well as myself may act and approach certain events.

However, I must say this is an excellent article although to me it reads more like an essay in certain areas.Gavin Scott 16:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have some expertise in the Nazi era, although perhaps a little less than does Adam. I would wish, however, to stipulate that in my personal view the article as written is factually accurate, and if reflects the distaste of the author for a fundamentally evil regime and a fundamentally evil person, then this is both reasonable and correct. I can find no reference to Goebbels suffering from Manic-depressive or bi-polar disorder, nor do I detect any evidence of it in his writings or speeches. I speak as someone with psychiatric professional experience.--Anthony.bradbury 12:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Odd to see people explain why they cannot write an unbiased article. Almost ever sentence reeks of fable - heresay. Any references to his speeches etc would at least let a future reader gather somthing other than a propaganda piece about a propagandist - on second thought he may deserve it ( he might even think it a professional compliment ). A Big Lie about the Big Le by a Big Lie ..... He is probably laughing in his grave.159.105.80.141 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Goebbels and World War I {1917}

 * The nearest Goebbels came to wartime service was as a "Office Soldier" from June 1917 to Oct 1917 with the "Patrotic Help Unit" in Rheydt. See []


 * Abslutely true, but I do not see anywhere a claim to the contrary. The Goebbels diaries suggest that was found unfit for active duty because of his childhood leg problem (probably an attack of osteomyelitis).--Anthony.bradbury 14:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Further reply to Gavin
I cannot be held responsible for how some people might interpret the tone of the article. The fact is that Hitler did fail to become an artist while Goebbels did fail to become a novelist, so it is factual to say there is a parellel, although I don't elaborate on it. I don't see anything negative in saying that Goebbels was not the kind of man to keep quiet. In the context of the paragraph, discussing Goebbel's outspokenness on the Holocaust compared with Himmler's taciturnity, the comment is justified.

I have already dealt with the question of the generally, and necessarily, "negative" tone of articles about people like Goebbels. This is not an article about Britney Spears - one cannot write about such deeply evil people and strike a cheery tone.

On the question of Goebbels's mental health, you cannot use the Diaries to perform your own diagnosis. That is what Wikipedia calls "original research" and is not allowed. You will note that virtually every important statement of fact in this article is referenced to a published source. If you think Goebbels had a manic depressive illness, you will need to find someone who has agreed with you in a published source (other than Irving). Adam 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Bravo
Fascinating and exceptionally well-done. Thank you. jengod 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Pzg Ratzinger
Then in one way, you have disqualified yourself as a serious Wikipedia editor, - "..I do not feel any obligation to take a position of "neutrality" between Nazism and non-Nazism, and my text no doubt reflects that. It would in my view be impossible for any educated person to write this article any other way (unless they were a Nazi, of course)". So, by your definition, I would be a Nazi. There is no 'Nazi' exception to the NPOV rule, however however much you might dislike it. NPOV issues with self-righteous editors such as yourself have become a serious problem here with Wikipedia. No one is arguing for a 'pro-nazi' version of the article, only a NPOV one. user:Gavin Scott is 100% correct is saying the article has little bits of POV which could easily be restated sans POV without losing a bit of the message. However, being that the article is much better, and I might add, losing most of it's POV in the process (with the exception of your own editorial bits) I applaud your work. user:Pzg Ratzinger

Thanks. I will assume you are not in fact a Nazi (although naming yourself after a Panzergruppe, even one named for the Pope, does arouse suspicions). My view is that any historically accurate article about Goebbels must leave the (non-Nazi) reader believing that he was an evil man, since that is the fact of the matter. An article which did not lead to that conclusion would not be accurate. Of course the article cannot say "Goebbels was an evil man," but it can and should demonstrate his evil by describing what he did and quoting, in context, what he said. However, I don't think there is any point in us having a debate about objectivity in history-writing. If you would like to specify the bits of the article which you think are POV, or could be expressed differently, we can discuss them. Adam 09:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Late reply - You will find many fans of wartime Germany on wikipedia, mostly of course related to the military. I am nothing unusual in that end.  I try my best to stay out of the political side of WW2 as it is just a big head ache. Glaring POV I remove, or edit to be NPOV.   On the article - The reader is free to come up to whatever conclusions he might.  My issues were related to the above user's complaints.  I have also noticed the article has flipped a few times over the years on the issue of Goebbel's childrens murder - in particular, the issue of his knowing/participating in it.  There is of course no doubt his wife was, but I am confused why at various points I have been left with the impression the article says 'the extent of his complicity is unknown', and then other times it has left the impression with me that he particpated in it user:Pzg Ratzinger

It all hinges on how much credence we give to the few eye-witness accounts recorded. They are all from minor personages - Erich Kempka, the chauffeur, Fraulein Manziarly, the cook, and the secretaries - and while their status does not of itself invalidate their testimony, they do not agree. It is, indeed, not even agreed how Joseph and Magda Goebbels died; one source has Goebbels shooting his wife, then himself, while others have both of them being despatched by an SS orderly under the command of SS Hauptsturmfuerer Guenther Shwaegermann. Given the confined space in the Fuehrerbunker it is almost inconceivable that Goebbels would not of known of his wife's killing of their children, and it is equally unlikely that Magda, who had no executive authority, could have obtained poison without going through her husband to do it. But I would not attempt to be dogmatic, and I feel that there is now no way to be certain on this point. --Anthony.bradbury 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Great Article
I just read this article. Overall I think its fantastic. However I felt it was missing something: Either at the beginning of the article or at the end there should be a paragraph that summarizes Goebbels impact leading to, and during WW2.Lasker 03:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr Goebbels or Goebbels Ph.D?
One user changed it from Dr. Joseph Goebbels to Joseph Goebbels Ph.D. I reverted it back to Dr. Joseph Goebbels because:


 * It was the title Adam felt most appropriate, and I assume as he is also a doctor that he would know how the title should be used in non-medical circumstances.
 * It is part of Goebbels' popular name, people refer to him as Dr. Goebbels.
 * It seems to me inline with Wikipeida's guidelines on peoples' titles.

Anthony.bradbury however prefers Joseph Goebbels Ph.D, what one do we go with?


 * Folks, I have no strong feelings either way, and do not want to be seen as even slightly disruptive. I was just starting a discussion, and no intention of being dogmatic.--Anthony.bradbury 00:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, as Adam has spent a great deal of time on this article, and as he and I have been in fairly frequent and wholly friendly contact, and as he re-wrote (excellently) the article, I wiull defer to his opinion on this point.--Anthony.bradbury 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It is the convention in Germany, as it is in Australia and indeed virtually everywhere except the US, for holders of doctoral degrees in any discipline to be styled "Dr." Goebbels was universally refered to as "Dr Goebbels" both in Germany and internationally. "Herr Goebbels, PhD" would be a horrible anachronistic Americanism, and may not even be accurate - I don't what his degree was actually called. (By the way, why does the US insist that people who hold doctoral degrees cannot be called doctors, while people with bachelors degrees in dentistry can?). Adam 08:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC), PhD


 * We're a modern, neutral encyclopedia. I don't see the relevance of a doctor's title any more than calling people "Mr This-and-that". The article has no intention of addressing Goebbels directly and neither is he notable because of his PhD.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet he is known, and often reffered to as Dr. Goebbels is he not? Gavin Scott 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not in encyclopedias or texts of a similar character. And, frankly, what would be the point of doing so? I would not consider it fitting or even neutral in a Wikipedia article. It just looks contrived and overly formal.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you should re-read this article, it is certainly not neutral but by chance Dr. Carr who was the primary editor of the current article included Dr. in the lead and it was awarded good-status. Its like his holiness Pope Benedict XVI's page. He is given his title.Gavin Scott 18:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That the article was granted GA status obviously wasn't a direct result of the addition (or removal) of the "Dr."-title. As for using official titles of popes and royalty, this isn't applicable here, since having a PhD isn't considered an official title. Besides, articles on popes and royalty don't include their honorifics in the lead. Please provide us with some sort of guideline that justifies this type of usage of titles.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29 the "Dr." should be omitted (even if he were known by that name): Academic titles Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead. In cases where the person is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not), it may be included as described above. --Boson 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right, as such I have removed the Dr. prefix, the rule used to be much simpler. Do not use title unless the subject was widley known by it. however, I blaime all the so called edit wars on Queen Elizabeth's page.Gavin Scott 19:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Goebbels as Chancellor?
User 87.165.129.101 stated that Dr. Goebbels was never actually Chancellor of Germany. I have reverted his edit but out of intrest does the current State of Germany recognise Goebbels as a former Reichskanzler? Gavin Scott 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The legal basis of Goebbels being Chancellor was solely that Hitler appointed him. Hitler was an internationally recognised head of state, and the Enabling Act of 1933 have him virtually unlimited power, so is must be presumed that he also had the power to appoint his successor. He had previously designated Goering as his successor and this was generally accepted. Of course Hitler also appointed Doenitz as President, so from the moment of Hitler's death Doenitz was head of state, and he never confirmed Goebbels as Chancellor. But I think the general view would be that Goebbels was Chancellor as far as German law was concerned. The Allies recognised no German government between Hitler's death and the surrender. I don't know what view the postwar German government has taken. Adam 00:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be most useful if someone could find out the German Governments view on Goebbels' Chancellorship though, even if they do not recognise him as Chancellor it doesnt really change the fact that he was. Similar to the Church and St Peter as the first Pope.Gavin Scott 23:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be most useful? Adam 04:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It would open a large can of worms and act as the basis for what I suspect would become a heated debate. Plus it would show the German Government to be "In denial" another argument which would come in handy.Gavin Scott 10:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there is any basis for historical argument. The enabling act of 1933, which was renewed every four years during the life of the Third Reich, gave Hitler essentially total power within Germany. If, therefore, he decreed that he could determine his successor as Reichkanzler, then he could. Whether a Government which has not been recognised by other countries does, in fact, exist as a government is a question of international law which I am not competent to answer. Interestingly, the enabling act specifically forbad him to affect the Office of President. Given that Hitler assumed the mantle of President on the death of Hindenburg, did he have legal right under German law of the time to appoint Dönitz as President?--Anthony.bradbury 10:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My recollection is that the last session of the Reichstag in 1943 gave Hitler the power to do whatever he liked. I would have to check this. I must say I think this debate is pedantry to no good end. Whether Goebbels technically was or was not Chancellor for one day is not a very meaningful question. He never exercised the office, and Germany was only a week from complete surrender. Germany in any case was not a law-governed state in the last phase of Nazi rule. I don't understand what point Gavin is trying to make. Adam 11:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That Adam is because Gavin is not trying to make any point. I don't think that the current German Government's view upon Goebbels as Chancellor would affect this article in anyway. However, I personally wish to know-I have an estranged intrest in Germany's attitude towards the Third Reich- I am not saying that it has anything to do with this article other than it could act as a footnote mentioning that Post War Germany doesn't recognise Goebbels as a Chancellor.

Infact, I believe it was an anon user who made the point that Goebbels wasn't actually Chancellor and I was just bringing it up so that it was ensured we hadn't made a mistake.Gavin Scott 15:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Goebbels and smoking
Hi guys! Does anybody know how many cigarettes Goebbels smoked a day?

I would imagine around 60 a day...but honestly, if such a thing is documented then I will be very suprised...Gavin Scott 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Children
Didnt he and/or his wife have an older child and what happened to him? Enlil Ninlil 06:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dont worry found it.Enlil Ninlil 06:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Great article
Really well done article, this is feature-worthy.-- Nydas (Talk) 10:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
This article is quite good but to me it contains little less no. of pictures, while searching archives I managed to get two quite good pics of Goebbels, they are mainly movie screenshots, it will be grt to know if you all think that these pics can be used in the article LegalEagle 12:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have contributed only to a very small extent to this article, but for what it's worth I think both pictures would significantly enhance it, and would be very much in favour of their inclusion.--Anthony.bradbury 12:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, Anthony:
 * The level of your contributions doesn't affect your right to give opinions on what should be included in any article in wikipedia. Even if you created and wrote the article that doesn't make you its de facto administrator-Adam in this case certainly does not act like he has final say on what go in and what comes out.

As for the pictures, provided they are both free of copyright I'm sure we can find a place to put them in the article, more so the stationary picture of Goebbels at his as I am not really a fan of the motion-pictureGavin Scott 13:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello all, with no offence meant to anyone I would like to say that I find a general dislike among wikipedians to use animated pics, at another discussion page someone objected to the use of motion pic as it is generally obnoxious and seldom add much useful data, personally I feel animated pic add a lot of live value to the article. To draw a parallel the increase in flash multimedia in various websites signify the appeal that animation have. The only disadvantage that motion pics have is the bandwidth consumption, however with broadband connections this is hardly an issue anymore. Hence I feel that people should support animation rather than oppose it. LegalEagle 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think animations make articles look cheap and amateurish, and considering that all people don't have broadband connections, it's still the most neutral alternative. At least for the time being. Besides, the example presented here is pretty dull...
 * Peter Isotalo 13:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

For the motion-picture: The description is as inadequate as the gif itself: “Goebbels keeping the propaganda on after failed Beer Hall Putsch” ???? At the time of the Beer Hall Putsch Goebbels was not a member of the NSDAP since joining it in late 1924. I highly doubt he was keeping up propaganda of a party he has not even been a member of.--AuthorDionysos 14:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth style
When was it decided that the article had to have Commonwealth spelling and wording ("Second World War" instead of "World War II")? Is Goebbels considered British territory for some reason?

Peter Isotalo 17:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter, in this article both World War II and the Second World War are used. And to answer your question, yes, yes he is.Gavin Scott 19:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Leni Reifenstahl link removed
I removed a link and mention of Leni Reifenstahl  as I think it was inappropriate in that context..

Reifenstahl and Goebbels were not friends, In fact they competed against each other for Hitler's favour and patronage. Maybe this fact should be included in the article? I also think that, although Reifenstahl's films may have been popular during the NS period, they only achieved world-wide notoriety after 1945 and therefore NOT in Goebbels lifetime. --IsarSteve 09:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Big Lie
While associated, in the popular mind and amongst contemporaries, with the Big Lie concept of propaganda do other people think it is right to mention it in the first paragraph in Goebbel's entry? After all it was Hitler who formulised the concept and indeed it appears that in much of his propaganda work Goebbels was actually more committed to a softer approach, as demonstrated within the article:

'He was, in fact, far from the most militant member of the Nazi leadership on cultural questions. The more philistine Nazis wanted nothing in German books but Nazi slogans, nothing on German stages and cinema screens but Nazi heroics, and nothing in German concert halls but German folk songs....

Goebbels also resisted the complete Nazification of the arts because he knew that the masses must be allowed some respite from slogans and propaganda. He ensured that film studios such as UFA at Babelsberg near Berlin continued to produce a stream of comedies and light romances, which drew mass audiences to the cinema where they would also watch propaganda newsreels and Nazi epics.'

From the Big Lie article:

'Later, Joseph Goebbels put forth a slightly different theory which has come to be more commonly associated with the phrase big lie. In this theory, the English are attributed with using a propaganda technique wherein they had the mendacity to "lie big" and "stick to it"'

While Goebbels frequently made grandiose claims about the power of propaganda I would say the actual output of the RMVP seems to show that he was far more cautious about its usage. Jezze 02:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also from "Big Lie" article - it is unclear if hitler was advocating the big lie or accusing Jews, etc of using it - the later I assume. A contribtor to the Big Lie article was also unable to verify the quote Goebbels is supposed to have made about the big lie - it appears his quote may be a big lie/fable. If the Big Lie comment in the opening of this article remains it should have a citation of his quote ( or a citation of who attributed it to him - it appears a liar, a big one). Scary how trivia can lead to more and more and more....159.105.80.141 15:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

nazis
I am fairly interested in ww2 and the nazi regime but this the most boring garbage i have ever heard this is a disgrace to say the least and should be removed from this page as it is discouraging children from learning history!


 * While we are all glad to learn that you are interested in the Nazi Regime we are sad that you do not appreciate the article that has been constructed by many for many more. However, do you have something you feel you can add to the article? The go for it! Be Bold but not reckless in editing articles! Gavin Scott 15:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

nazi bastards
amongst other things this is all they really were —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.41.168.64 (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Hmm, interesting point indeed. Gavin Scott 15:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

All the writing, all the emotion and still no smoking gun ( document ). Only a few ambiguous quotes - some true some questionable. It drives a person almost mad.159.105.80.141 17:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)