Review of Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels: Samtliche Fragmente, Part 1
[In the following essay, Smelser examines the scholarly importance of the 1987 German edition of Goebbels's diaries.]
The editor offers us here [in Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels: Sämtliche Fragmente, Part 1] the definitive edition of Goebbels's diaries—exhaustive, authoritative, well-edited, and user friendly. When the project is completed—six additional volumes are scheduled to complete the wartime period—it will replace all the various previously published fragments, including those edited by Lochner (entries from 1942-43), Heiber (1925-26), Hamilton (1939-41), and Trevor-Roper (1945), all of which contained many incomplete or inaccurate entries.
This first stage of the project, comprising four volumes plus a provisional index with 3, 400 names, covers the period from Goebbels's earliest recollections, which he began to put on paper in 1924, to 1941, when, in the midst of the Russian campaign, he went over from handwritten to dictated and transcribed diaries. Although some of the material was lost at the end of the war, these volumes nevertheless represent about two-thirds to three-quarters of the total expanse of the original diaries.
This constitutes an extremely valuable historical document. No other modern political figure—certainly no other prominent Nazi so close to Hitler—produced anything remotely as voluminous as this, even in memoir form. Virtually the entire span of National Socialism, from its earliest days as a struggling, obscure movement to its triumphant seizure of power in 1933 to (when all volumes are complete) its final destruction in 1945 finds expression here.
Froehlich deserves an enormous amount of credit for the painstaking, herculean five-year effort which lies behind this publication. She tracked down every known diary fragment, including that on Russian microfilm, early microfiches, and original handwritten texts; evaluated each source for authenticity; collated the various versions and placed them in chronological order. She also carefully read and transcribed Goebbels's very difficult handwriting, eliminating errors that had been introduced in earlier published versions. Her familiarity with the historical context also enabled her to identify many an obscure figure who appeared in the text.
Having done this, Froehlich then presents the material with only the necessary editorial apparatus (spelling and grammatical errors are indicated as well as missing words and passages) so as not to be an obtrusive presence between the scholar and this primary material. Indeed, in place of extensive editorial comments in the body of the text, she uses a lengthy introduction to put the fragments into the context of earlier published versions; to characterize the content of the diaries and point out gaps; to describe in detail the goals, difficulties, and results of the editorial work; and to give us a brief interpretive sketch of Goebbels and his diaries.
It is unfortunate that missing sections from the diaries leave us in the dark about critical elements both in the history of National Socialism and in Goebbels's own political evolution. Gaps in the earliest segments prevent us from following just how Goebbels became politically active and what initial role Hitler may have had in that process, although the extant entries do give us some indication of the emergence of a "Nazi" mentality. Large gaps from August 1933 to June 1935 allow only an incomplete picture of the consolidation of power as well as the dramatic events surrounding the "Night of the Long Knives" of June 1934. Moreover, significant lacunae in 1938 leave us in the dark with respect to the Austrian Anschluss, to appeasement and, above all, to the critical events leading up to the so-called Reichskristallnacht of November, in which Goebbels's himself played such a critical role. By the same token, large gaps in 1939 conceal Goebbels's reaction to such important foreign policy events as the occupation of Bohemia-Moravia, the Nazi-Soviet pact, and the outbreak of World War II. Once the war broke out, however, a relatively complete section from October 1939 to July 1941 puts Goebbels into the midst of epochal events of which he is clearly aware.
Missing sections notwithstanding, the diaries offer valuable insights into the formative years of National Socialism and the man who would create the Hitler image. The so-called Elberfelder diaries (summer 1925-October 1926) as well as entries from the period of summer 1929 to summer 1933 are particularly useful in this regard, especially since the earlier diaries seem to be more frank and less contrived than later entries. The editor also does a valuable service in juxtaposing the published version of Goebbels's diaries dealing with the period leading up to the Machtergreifung (Vom Kaiserhof zur Reichskanzlei) with the originals, so that the reader can immediately follow Goebbels's own editorial process—in itself a revealing exercise.
These volumes are valuable for their completeness, not for any stunning revelations they might offer. What do they reveal about Goebbels? That he was a complex, often contradictory personality—a driven man, deeply insecure, narcissistic, quite impressionable, only superficially reflective, but always anxious to be "somebody." We have had these impressions of Goebbels before; now they are strengthened, particularly in the brief autobiographical notes which precede the diary and in which Goebbels reveals a surprising degree of self-criticism and self-doubt. As the years go by one also perceives an evolution that might sustain a number of interpretations of Goebbels, depending on which years one selects, ranging from the early, as yet unformed and immature man who sees his diary as a "Beichtstuhlersatz" to the more confident propaganda minister, who is, however, more self-conscious in his entries, viewing them as important historical documents to be preserved for posterity. Perhaps most clearly, Goebbels appears nearly throughout as a man who, like several other top Nazis, developed an emotional dependency on Hitler, one so strong that only very rarely does he criticize the man even in this intimate forum. Indeed, he betrays the need for such a dependency even before it develops: "Ich kenne überhaupt noch keinen völkischen Führer. Ich mu bald einen kennen lernen, damit ich mir wieder etwas neuen Mut und neues Selbsvertrauen hole" (June 20, 1924).
Other interesting, if scarcely earthshaking, revelations: that Goebbels's anti-Semitism began quite early ("Und jetzt ist meine Haut doch eine etwas einseitige antisemitische"—July 4, 1924); that the Nazis did not set the Reichstag fire; that Goebbels was a very poor judge of character, particularly concerning his own Nazi contemporaries, about whom his opinion fluctuates wildly from month to month. But his judgments are at least colorful. A sampling: Julius Streicher—"Berserker. Vielleicht etwas pathologisch" (August 19, 1924); Robert Ley—"ein Dummkopf und vielleicht ein Intrigant" (September 30, 1925); Goering—"etwas gedunsen" (June 13, 1928); Alfred Rosenberg—"ein sturer, eigensinniger Dogmatiker" (August 24, 1934); Party treasurer Franz Xaver Schwarz—"abgebauter Beamter, kleiner Idealis-mus, peinlich in Geldsachen, Miinchener Schnauze" (April 13, 1926). Then, of course, there was Goebbels's eternal rival, Reich press chief, Otto Dietrich, the "armer Irrer" (December 31, 1935).
One major regret in reading these potentially invaluable entries is that Goebbels chose to write in a telegraphic style and in a common vernacular which often obscures his keen intelligence. One wishes he had written more expository prose; many a thought needs development, many a reference or hint, explanation. But perhaps the man simply lacked the depth.
Get Ahead with eNotes
Start your 48-hour free trial to access everything you need to rise to the top of the class. Enjoy expert answers and study guides ad-free and take your learning to the next level.
Already a member? Log in here.