The Bodley Head cover of Longerich’s book

There are so many things I could do if I spoke German. I could read Thomas Mann’s diaries, which have never been translated into English in their entirety. I could finally understand the difference between Knockwurst and Bratwurst—a difference that, I’m convinced, is too subtle to be grasped by non-natives. And I could properly explain exactly what’s going on with the estate of Joseph Goebbels, which seems to be suing Random House Germany.

I say “seems” because the Guardian’s article on the topic is . . . confusing. Or, at least partially confusing. Here is how it begins:

The estate of Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s minister of propaganda, is taking legal action against the publisher Random House over a new biography, claiming payment for the use of extracts from his diaries.

Cordula Schacht—a lawyer whose own father, Hjalmar Schacht, was Hitler’s minister of economics—is suing Random House Germany and its imprint Siedler, over the book Goebbels, by Peter Longerich, professor of modern German history at Royal Holloway, University of London.

That’s not confusing. It’s pretty wild, sure—are Goebbels’s descendants only comfortable with legal representation performed by descendants of other Nazis?—but it seems pretty straightforward.

The rest of the story is not so straightforward. Rainer Dresen, Random House Germany’s general counsel tells the Guardian that “we are convinced that no money should go to a war criminal,” which, sure. But then, at the end of the article, we learn that Random House initially agreed to pay Schacht “1% of the net retail price.” (“Net retail price” is not a thing, so I take this to mean that RH was willing to pay Goebbels’s estate a royalty based on net receipts. But this is crazy! I can understand paying a rights holder a fee—even a hefty one—but royalties?) And then:

[Dresen] said: “When she wanted to cash in on that agreement, I said that agreement is null and void . . . It’s against the moral rights . . . You haven’t been entitled to sell me any words as those words lie within the Bavarian government.”

That seems like a lot of contradictory information! Also:

 Dresen believes that other publishers have paid for the use of Goebbels’ diaries. He said: “We’re the first publishing house who avoided that—and have been sued.”

Does this mean that Random House Germany was the first publisher to take a stand against paying money to the descendants of war criminals? I’m not sure!

Also at one point, Longerich, the book’s author, says “If you accept that a private person controls the rights to Goebbels’ diaries, then—theoretically—you give this person the right to control research.” But isn’t this an argument against copyright more generally? After all, biographers have to get permission from estates all the time, so this is surely an issue with extensive precedent—though perhaps no precedent that’s quite so sordid.

I looked for other articles on the topic, because I was frustrated with my own confusion, but all of those other articles seemed to quote the Guardian. Even Deutsche Welle—a German broadcaster!—referred to the Guardian story.

So if you’re a German speaker and want to explain the full story of Goebbels, Schacht, and Random House Germany, please write to me at mark at mhpbooks.com. Otherwise, I’ll have to stick with the Guardian’s version of the events.