Talk:Hitler Diaries
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
I agree with Ashley Pomeroy and would like to add that it would be nice to know what the diaries actually said, if just a brief review. I mean, is it all trite nonsense... the kind of thing anyone rights in a diary... or was it some Hitler-esque thing that might reveal something about Hitler himself? - NinedenLtD 18:15, 12 January 2005 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know where the forged diaries are nowadays - were they tossed into the rubbish, or are they in a museum somewhere? Did any of the newspapers involved print extracts from the diaries? I have no idea who owns the copyright of the Diaries' contents. Konrad Kujau, perhaps, although according to the article he plagiarised a book of Hitler's speeches, and Hitler's few remaining relatives are unlikely to take legal action. And there is also the matter of verifying any purported extracts from the Diaries, because they could be fabricated as well. -Ashley Pomeroy 15:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
As for the difference between FH and AH, is it possible the original intent was for the FH to stand for Führer-Hauptquartier (Führer's Headquarters)? Michael Dorosh 07:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I dont think so, the reason is that the letters look very much alike, as you can see here [1], so it was a mistake. -- 80.141.59.155 14:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Really? They don't look very similar to me at all. This is a similar typeface: [2] and you can see that the A looks nothing like the F. 143.252.80.100 10:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Further scientific evidence
Modern glue was also used, according to experts.
I recall reading that the paper wasn't modern - the forger managed to find some unused pre-war bound blank volumes (which may explain why the monograph was wrong). Ben Finn 16:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- The paper was modern. The evidence was in the nylon bindings, which wasn't used in books until the 1950s. Carajou 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/~ddemare/blackletter.jpg){kind=link}