Talk:Joseph Goebbels

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joseph Goebbels page.

I think Hitler said this. Not Goebbels. Andries 22:06, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes it was hitler

I think Goebbels may have written it for a speech Hitler gave. I haven't found any documentation for this yet. Either way, it can probably be attributed to both men, much as the Shining City analogy is attributed to Reagan, but it's more likely the product of a good speech writer.

Attribute, verify, double & triple check[edit]

Not even one quote was attributed on this page! I have provided reputable sources for verification and validation, and further provided the context in which they were published or uttered.

If quotes do not contain such verifying and validating information, they are often and frequently little more than lies and propaganda themselves. To not verify, validate and provide the context is intellectual laziness and dishonesty. ****

The pictures should be removed[edit]

To put these pictures here next to the quotations is propaganda - because some reader might think that is what Goebbels meant - BUT he certainly did not feel as a sinner when he ordered Jews to be murdered and did not care about Jewish children. He actually identified the Jews with the devil, and quotations show, that he thought he would fight against evil. So if you want to show how big a murderer he was - there should be a different way. But THIS USE of the pictures enforces the wrong interpretation of the quotations. And by the way - I think to use pictures of murdered children in the Wikiquote is wrong thing to do anyway - should this be done with all people involved in genocide? 00:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We all became so tall and so clever. We know so much and we have read so much. But one thing we forgot: to laugh and cry like the children do.
We sin because of indifference and negligence and heap new guilt on the old original one. Our life is a chain of sin and expiation controlled by a destiny that can not be understood.
The juxtaposition of images and words can be very effective at revealing both hypocrisy and sincerity, and I had no delusion that Goebbels was speaking specifically of his own "sins" when I used his quotation for an image. The points of the quote that the image makes emphatic are "because of indifference and negligence and heap new guilt on the old original one" and "Our life is a chain of sin and expiation controlled by a destiny that can not be understood" — and yes, I confess that I have a definite point of view, and believe that he was a very bigoted fool and an extreme hypocrite. I did not make that assertion in the article with words, but with the relevant images the assertion pretty much makes itself, even in the minds of those who are as bigoted as he was. That does not mean I think him as entirely worthless and damnable as he felt many people were, but I have no qualms about indicating his hypocrisy. And yes I do think it is often very appropriate that images of genocide be included, if we are referring to genocide with the quotes, so that nice, shallow and disassociated impressions are not so easily allowed to be formed or retained: "We all became so tall and so clever. We know so much and we have read so much. But one thing we forgot: to laugh and cry like the children do."
I intend to restore these images, and find others, if possible to replace the images deleted at the commons. I find the censorship that has often occurred in relation to political, military and social oppressions that have occurred throughout history to be very unfortunate, and usually help perpetuate the tragic processes of the worst forms of bigotry and oppression. ~ Kalki 13:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure you're wrong on this one – here's why: of course Goebbels was a big-time liar, but you will find this very often in history and even today – when politicians try to get a people into a war which they deem justified, they even lie to the people without feeling moral objections – "for the greater good". When you think of a religious fanatic "fighting against evil" he might even blow up his own people (as collateral damage) and still feel to do the right thing. What about Vasco Núñez de Balboa, the first European to reach the pacific in 1513 – it is told that he had many "infidels" torn apart by dogs – but he did not forget his daily prayer. Was this hypocrisy? Was Núñez de Balboa a bigoted fool? Goebbels wrote in his diaries about nightmares where he dreamt about being haunted by Jews. So call him a maniac but not a hypocrite.

Furthermore – regarding good and evil there are some shades and not only black and white:

What about dropping a second atomic bomb on Japan – what about firebombing Tokyo? Curtis LeMay later said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal." March 9th (one of many): an estimated 100,000 Japanese dead. Should one of the survivors place pictures of burned children in his biography? No, I don’t think so.

And if you look at this article w:Genocides in history - you can start adding a lot of images.

It's always very easy to call other people "bigoted" … but the further back one looks in history, the more alike do the fighting parties seem … of course, back then, they all "knew", that they were on the good side.

Don't get me wrong reading this – Goebbels was indeed a mass murderer, but like you wrote "juxtaposition of images and words is indeed effective" – what’s more it's very suggestive – I don't think Goebbels' propaganda techniques should be used in Wikiquote. If you start this, go on with Stalin, Mao (who both had more people murdered [and also left some nice quotations]) etc. Wikipedia and Wikiquote are not political pamphlets. 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

PS Apropos your quote - "Love is the ultimate of holies, by which all else derives its worth." Is it a contradiction to demand to hate and fight evil? Are you a 100% pacifist?

PPS Isn't it psychologically interesting, that Goebbels thought he would fight for the principle of love? And he wrote: "Who does not hate the devil cannot love God." (This could also be added to the list.)

You seem to be addressing me as if I am a person ignorant of history, or of other oppressions than those of the Nazis, and that I am inclined to simplistically view people as "black or white" in their level of ethical awareness and inclinations to good or evil. I do not believe that such assumptions are in any way warranted by my statements. I am well aware of a great deal of injustices that have occurred because of the bigotry of all manner of people, and though I am not inclined to the wanton use of disturbing imagery, I am not inclined to refrain from using it on some pages, especially of a few of those who have been most wantonly destructive of human happiness and human lives.
Many forms of conscious and unconscious bigotry exist in most people, and yet the wise are not driven to be bigoted against most people because most are in some way bigoted. One can hate many forms of bigotry intensely, remain steadfast in denunciation of its worst forms, and not succumb to bigotry against those who are or who have been bigoted in ways that you recognize.
To denounce the use of images in conjunction with words, because Goebbels' propaganda employed such such things in advancing his ideology of hatreds, makes about as much sense as denouncing the use of words themselves, by anyone who wishes to advocate broader understandings and tolerance, because Goebbels actually used words without images as well. It is always of far greater concern to the wise to promote awareness and understanding of truths, than to piddle about confuting matters, and declaring certain media (or even human passions and earnestness themselves) to be vile because they have often been misused and abused in vile ways by ignorant and confused people.
Where does my statement that "Love is the ultimate of holies, by which all else derives its worth" anywhere indicate that I am a pacifist or do not acknowledge the necessity and appropriateness of some forms of hatred? Neither situation is the case. It also is hardly surprising that even those most driven by the most intolerant and oppressive hatreds will declare themselves to be driven by love of some ideal, or of those who will join them in their hatreds and disregard for the rights and even the existence of others.
I certainly have never claimed to be a pacifist, and I believe on at least one occasion in this project I have flatly stated I am not. I vigorously assert it is the right and sometimes the duty of people to defend themselves and others in whatever ways they are able against any unjust and oppressive assaults. Yet, like the most experienced and wise of those skilled in military arts, I have long recognised and asserted that initiating violent confrontations with others, or increasing them to needlessly destructive levels is usually very unwise, and always dangerous. I can greatly respect many of the attitudes and ideals of many people who are pacifists, even if I cannot entirely agree with their strategies, nor their specific forms of optimism about human inclinations; yet I also assert that even the most extreme militarists with any actual excellence of strategy knows that paths of respectful peace are always to be preferred over paths of unnecessary war and conflict, no matter how honorable they might sometimes seem, or convenient it might sometimes appear to initiate confrontations with one's adversaries or rivals.
In regard to the end of World War II I do not consider even the first use of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima to have been either a military or strategic necessity, but I can understand the passions that prevented a policy of greater prudence at that time. In more recent geo-political conflicts I fully accepted the appropriateness of the invasion of Afghanistan, which was ruled by an oppressive regime harboring leaders of a terrorist organization who deem most of the world "infidels" whose lives they feel justified in afflicting in whatever ways they can. Yet despite having very little regard for Saddam Hussein's regime, I was appalled at the levels of foolishness and hubris that were evident on the part of many, and not just top leaders of government, in the decisions to initiate the invasion of Iraq. Had but a small fraction of the resources that have been devoted to that quagmire been devoted to establishing a base of social progress and reform in Afghanistan, the world situation, and the levels of respect for U.S. leadership and intentions might be far different than they are today. But many great opportunities for peaceful progress in the world have passed because of the decisions of many factions, and not primarily those of any single nation or group, and the paths of potential progress have grown very obscured, costly and dangerous. Such is the world situation, from which we must all proceed to make such progress as we can. ~ Kalki 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Some pictures and some quotations should be removed[edit]

The romanticizing pictures should be removed – as should be the again erroneously added big lie quotation. Goebbels wrote in 1941: "The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it." This and Hitler's use are the source of the innumerable big lie quotes – again not Stiller or Moore should be mentioned but the original source [if there is one – and I'm sure there's not] should be quoted – otherwise it should be removed with all the paraphrases. The unsourced "fabulously dying" quotation should not have a picture. I'd prefer to remove it altogether unless a source is provided. What's the use of those romanticizing pictures? What's next? A picture showing a model or a party next to the appropriate quotation? This is not a brochure. 23:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No answer, but my changes were reverted. I will repeat myself:
I pointed out the reasons of the change on the discussion page. If you have good points against the changes, you should utter them there.
It was me who talked to you on this discussion page against the use of the terrifying pictures. They have been gone for a long time now. So I'm very surprised about the use of romanticizing pictures in the present article. Again – of course one could find a positive, maybe fascinating image which sheds a sympathetic light on every quotation – that's not the purpose of wikiquote.
Then I removed an unsourced quotation that was even emphasized with a picture. The "fabulously dying" quotation. I read a lot about Goebbels – and haven't seen that quotation. As long as there is no resource it's certainly an improvement of the wikiquote-page if it is removed.
Then there's another alleged quote which I removed. It is even presented with many alternatives. But logic tells us that the numerous paraphrases (which I did actually hear and read when people talked or wrote about the Big Lie idea which they erroneously contributed to Goebbels) do not speak in favor but against that quotation. What about an original resource? None is provided. That's why I removed it. Wikiquote really should impose higher standards. By the way – it's me who added the quotations from the book "Michael" and if required I can also add the page number of every single quote.
So why were the changes I made reverted and do you still think that it was justified?
Sincerely, 19:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced assertions of an anonymous editor removed[edit]

According to original sources in German language documents researched by author Edwin Black, this quote IS FROM Goebbels, though it was parroted in various forms numerous times by Hitler as his sycophant. If you disagree, I dare you to confront Mr. Black with your evidence.] —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

The above statement was placed at the head of the misattributed section, but I moved it here, where any badly needed clarifications or information can be added. ~ Kalki·· 14:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


  • A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.
  • We striving not for truth, but effect.
  • The worst enemy of any propaganda, it is intellectualism.
  • For the lie to be believable, it should be terrifying.
  • A lie repeated thousands of times becomes a truth.
  • Some day the lie will fall under its own weight and the truth will rise.
  • I am very interested in social developments in America. I believe that President Roosevelt has chosen the right path. We are dealing with the greatest social problems ever known. Millions of unemployed must get their jobs back, and this cannot be left to private initiative. It is the government that must tackle the problem.
    • 1934 interview.
  • One of the most ridiculous aspects of democracy will always remain... the fact that it has offered to its mortal enemies the means by which to destroy it.
  • Once more a red fire blows steeply upwards...the factory will do no more work for Herr Churchill... tomorrow morning Coventry will lie in smoke and ruins.
    • September 1940
  • It is on this beautiful day that we celebrate the Fuhrer's birthday and thank him for he is the only reason why Germany is still alive today.
    • April 26, 1945
  • We have a feeling that Germany has been transformed into a great house of God, including all classes, professions and creeds, where the Führer as our mediator stood before the throne of the Almighty.
    • April 19, 1936 broadcast
  • We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms. One cannot shoot with butter, but with guns.
  • If we have power, we'll never give it up again unless we're carried out of our offices as corpses.

This comment should be added to the "Misattributed" section of the article: while Goebbels did not specifically speak these quotes, the quotes are a "paraphrase" of the quote that is correctly attributed to him. So, it's not a misattribution, it's a common sense "paraphrase" of what the man actually said. This is the same problem with the Sinclair Lewis quote from 1935, where he said, "When Fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and waving a cross". Now, while Lewis didn't say that in so many words in one statement, there are two pieces of his writing that, if you paraphrase them, the correct interpretation is made. I've researched it myself. I've come to the conclusion that Lewis "paraphrased" himself so that the media to whom he spoke could have a quote that encapsulates what he meant.

Source for this quote?[edit]

"If the day should ever come when we must go, if some day we are compelled to leave the scene of history, we will slam the door so hard that the universe will shake and mankind will stand back in stupefaction..."

Does anyone know if this quote is real? I've seen it floating around a lot but I can't find a source for it. --Xhaoz 05:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)