/lit/ - Literature

>Some people, even nazis, considered him satan incarnate, worse than Hitler.
Source? Something from actual nazis and not jewish propaganda and lies

>>15920673
Was he Kafka’s brother?

>>15920673
David Irving? Haven't read the book but definitely planning on reading it in the future.

bump

>>15920955
World War 2 YouTube channel in one of the episodes about 1934 or 1933 I think there was quote from the other NSDAP leader before Hitler about Goebbels before he joined. Something akin to:
"I don't like this new guy, Hitler's enough, this one Is even worse."or similar. If I remember correctly it was actually Goebbels who came up with exterminating jews, not just stealing their things, this may be wrong though.
>>15921213
Cool. Will check it out. Sounds like it will analyse how his propaganda worked, that's the most interesting thing to me. Those radicalised germans literally fought until last berlin street was taken. Goebbels himself seemed to be Hitler fanboy and believing his own propaganda near the end.
>>15921226
Thanks. But try to add to the conversation next time that way it will actually keep on going.
>>15921191
He was Bowie's grandfather.

>>15920673
>ritten in way too functional style.
only in the beginning that changes

Where do I start with Gerbils?

>>15921960
>believing his own propaganda
Or maybe just believe the in the good cause

>>15922109
>Suiciding not only himself but his wife and daughters too
>Believing in good cause
Whatever the cause, his last actions were retarded, as expected from propagandised person. Would he think straight he would negotiate his family into hands of americans(as soviets would probs rape and torture them, just cause) and then kill himself, if he wants to suicide so much.
>>15921971
You sure? When I skimmed it through it was written something like this:
"Monday. Hitler. Himmler. Talk. Propaganda. Newspapers. Wife. Daughters. Lunch. Snooze."
Not very readable.

>>15922181
>You sure? When I skimmed it through it was written something like this:
>"Monday. Hitler. Himmler. Talk. Propaganda. Newspapers. Wife. Daughters. Lunch. Snooze."
Oh. I only read the first of the five books and there it started of in how you wrote but then stopped after like 70 pages.

>>15921960
Goebbels by Peter Longerich.

>>15922283
https://www.amazon.com/Goebbels-Biography-Peter-Longerich/dp/1622315332

David Irving a revisionist and Peter Longerich a mainstream, you gotta have balance.

>>15922297
What do you mean revisionist? Does he make Goebbels into good guy or does he overblow it with the villainy?

>>15922336
>Does he make Goebbels into good guy or does he overblow it with the villainy?
I don't know I haven't read it. He just uses different sources, challenges the narratives and draws different conclusions.
Read his wikipedia, but I tell you he ain't a bad guy.
sorry for any spelling mistakes
t. mobilefag

>>15922336
You can read Irving's books for free on Irving's site.
>https://fpp.co.uk/books/index.html
Goebbels book
>https://fpp.co.uk/books/Goebbels/index.html

>>15922426
The book is famous enough to have translation into my primary language (czech) and it goes for like 15 dollars used. I would rather buy translation. Even though I can read prose in english completely fine, scientific stuff I can't do. Tried to read Napoleon's autobiography and it gave me nothing.

>>15922297
>David Irving a revisionist and Peter Longerich a mainstream, you gotta have balance.
This, very based and red pilled. Doesn't matter what position or narrative you align yourself with, you always have to research the other side of the argument.
>>15922336
>What do you mean revisionist?
He doesn't believe in the mainstream Jewish narrative and criticizes the propaganda of WW2 used to demonize the Germans, Hitler and the National Socialist party. He became very famous since he started questioning the mainstream Holocaust version and he also had a very famous court case regarding that. They even made a movie about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH7ktvUWaYo
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8N04GaowOVdI/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2GNf2jV8Jkgv/

>>15921213
>>15922367
>>15922711
>>15922426
Looked into the author. If you read his books you are retarded for wasting your time, may as well have read some fantasy crap. The guy doesn't use sources and when he uses them he changes them or misinterprets them. He admitted to it at the court.
This is not based and redpilled, this is stupid bullshit mascarading as history. Using lies just diminishes your message. Based and redpilled can be only truth. Such as 13/53 statistic.
Praising anybody who agrees with you, without looking into if his opinion has any weight, is short sighted. You should not judge historian on if he agrees with you, but based on his research. Irving has failed at that.

>>15921213
Book is pretty good, Doesn't paint Goebbels in a good light though.

>>15923243
>doesn't use sources
Kill yourself, retard. Pages 535 through 694 are nothing but sources. That's a fifth of the book's length. Anyone who takes your post seriously has been duped.

>>15924075
Goebbels comes off as pretty cringe and detestable for most of the book, but actually becomes sort of heroic once the war starts going south for Germany. If the rest of the command structure had heeded Goebbels' advice sooner things might have turned out different.

>>15920673
I find him more interesting than Hitler. Hitler had the charisma and Goebbels the intelligence.

>>15922056
The Nazi-sozi

>>15921960
>>15922181
You seem to think propaganda is just a fancy synonym for "lies/brainwashing".

I recommend you read Propaganda by Edward Bernays

>>15922283
Second this recommendation

>>15924313
Sure dude, in uni I did ctrl+c/ctrl+v lotta sources into my papers, doesn't mean I read them. And it has been proven that he himself manipulates them if it suits his narrative. Only retard Is you and anybody who wasted his time reading those hundreds of pages.

>>15925545
Goebbels is pretty unusual among the Nazis as a non-veteran, cripple, Russophile literate. He was also far from reactionary or socially conservative. No doubt that without his love of Hitler he would have been more of a left-winger.

>>15920673
I've bought Fight for Berlin by Goebbels recently, but I haven't read it yet.

>>15926609
>t. read wikipedia and believed it uncritically
Irving is legendary for his research and use of primary sources. Project harder, faggot.

>>15926750
Accidental thumbnail

>>15926750
His wiikipedia page actually says he's been praised for his use of archives. However he's been praised as an amateur, for whom the standards are lower than for a professional historian.

>>15926762
cope

>>15920673
Michael, or a German Destiny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(novel)

>>15923243
>Looked into the author.
>probably just glimpsed his wikipedia bio for a couple of minutes
>hasn't read anything about the author or listen to any of his talks and speeches.
>"If you read his books you are retarded for wasting your time"
>hurr dur David Irving bad, wikipedia said so!
>hur durr based and redpilled can be only truth, but only if its my truth and anything that fits with my narrative and ideology.

How much more of a brainwashed npc can you be? If you actually wanted to have a somehow "objective" view of Goebbels you would have considered looking into different perspectives, arguments and historians rather than just conforming to the mainstream narrative. Quite ironic considering that you were interested in researching the propaganda aspect, yet its evident that you lack the ability to even question the possibility that perhaps what you read about Irving is propaganda with the pure intention of trying to demonize Irving and discredit his years of investigation and research.

>>15929064
The main source for all his claims about Irving's methods is the good goy faggot Richard Evans who believes in things like "gas vans" and "airtight wooden gas chambers". He calls into question Irving's credibility while being completely incredible himself. He was also paid 250k British pounds to attack Irving in court.

>>15922181
Suicide beats being raped and tortured. You can't seriously think what he did wasn't his only opinion right? His children would have been raped to death.

>>15929178
>His children would have been raped to death.
By things like this.