31 comments for “White House leaker [Anne Frank in comments]

  1. dearieme
    February 20, 2017 at 23:20
  2. February 21, 2017 at 06:54

    Initial looking into it on the iPad now [sitting on the loo – you didn’t need to know that] produced:

    1. A lot of lying, not [possibly] just by Frank museum but by the anti-jews too.

    2. 1938 first biro, Argentina, meets Brit, US first interest, then Brit, RAF use ‘during war’.

    3. Until then, everything is dated, even down to months and year. Suddenly, they go vague on when the RAF supplied the pen. Safe to assume during war post-43, more likely 44.

    4. Anne Frank diary written in fountain pen before Feb 1945. Meyer sued over the play’s rights, not established he wrote it, not ‘dis-established’ either. No hard evidence so far one way or the other.

    5. Father seems to have made alterations in biro – could be any date.

    6. The link you supplied careless – if I can find anomalies in ten minutes, then what are holocaust deniers about?

    7. I don’t say this is the gospel truth, it’s just my initial findings, maybe worth exploring, maybe not.

  3. Distant Relative
    February 21, 2017 at 10:06

    Oh for an unbiased account on anything! Not much to ask is it 😀 ?

    Otto Frank was related to the Oppenheimers – Margaret Hodge? No scandals there. Coincidentally and apropos of nothing at all, there was an Opp nephew of same Ms Hodge staying in Praia de Luz in that week in 2007. Forgive the digression.

    Otto Frank provided Pectin for the Germans -used as emulsifier in petroleum products – and was considered a collaborator by the Dutch.

    Biros:
    ” Once in Argentina, the Biros found several investors willing to finance their invention, and in 1943 they had set up a manufacturing plant. Unfortunately, the pens were a spectacular failure.” that comes from a link from article posted by dearime.

    Here’s what I found: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p-2_faurisson.html#82071
    Institute for Historical Review

    “This article, written in June 2000 at the request of Italian scholar Cesare Saletta, is adapted from the preface to the recently-published Italian edition of Dr. Faurisson’s essay, “Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine?,” which was originally written in 1978 for submission to a Hamburg court, and published in French, two years later, in a work by Serge Thion.[note 1] In the following essay, the author takes another look at the famous diary (or diaries), taking into account developments since then, including the publication in 1986 by a Netherlands government agency of a comprehensive “critical edition” of the Anne Frank diary.”

    Gardening is so much simpler… 😉

  4. dearieme
    February 21, 2017 at 12:27

    Not everything said by some nasty anti-semite is necessarily untrue. Nor is everything said by some shameless holocaust exploiter necessarily untrue.

    It’s a decent rule of thumb to be particularly suspicious of anything said by people whom you have reason to suppose given to lying. It’s also a decent rule of thumb to be suspicious of anything that has become hallowed.

    Anyway, I have stumbled upon this WKPD page; I hadn’t known such things existed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAnne_Frank%2FArchive_5?oldformat=true

    How good’s your German? Mine is rusty beyond repair.
    http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-14317313.html

  5. dearieme
    February 21, 2017 at 12:52

    Google translate gives me:

    The diary, in which daughter Anne traced the years in the Hinterhausversteck, and which was published after the war, has since then been one of the moving testimonies of victims of the persecution of the Jews. In translations, in the theater and in the film version the “diary of the Anne Frank” was world famous. On Broadway, the critic of the “New Yorker”, like millions with him, “tore through a barrier of tears.”
    Not surprisingly, NS supporters tried to denounce the work. The Hamburg retiree, Ernst Roemer, 76, was in a brown company when he expressed the view that the diary was a fake. And like other of his fellow-citizens, he landed for justice, as indicated by Otto Frank.
    Roman’s first instance was no different from the former cases. The judges had always joined the referees, who confirmed the authenticity of the writings, mainly on the basis of handwriting and style comparisons.
    But Römer’s second instance will furnish new materials to the adversaries. In order to protect the date of the Anne Frank plant, the Hamburg Regional Court had switched on the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA). Surprising result: A part of the inscriptions inscribed in the original, which up to now have always been written in the same way as the rest of the text, are written with ballpoint pencil, which is from the time after 1951 – the year of introduction of the ballpoint pen.

    Looking at this result, earlier writings would even suggest that all records were made only after 1950, so the “diary” as a whole is not authentic. For example, Hamburg’s graphic scientist Minna Becker, in 1960, presented the unity of the entire legacy in the course of another defamation process before the “Uebecker Landgericht:” “The writing of the diary records in the three fixed books” – I, II and III – “Notes and additions to the glued-in notes in” I, as well as the writing on the 338 pages of the loose “” Silk Paper Sheets, “- including all the improvements and inserts made on these” “, is identical with Anne Frank’s” “handwriting. ”
    But if the manuscript of the original notes were identical with the scripture of the inserts, p.122, an inventor ought to have been at work-which, indeed, not even the Frank enemies would assert in court, nor what the disputed proof of the graphology is To be seriously asserted.
    The main thrust of the Nazi propagandists was, in most cases, on the diary of Anne Frank – on the discrediting of all the enlightenment work against the Nazirean. The diaries always claimed to be the “truth about the persecution of the Jews,” or, like a leaflet spreader in the Roman trial, “to put an end to the gas chambers.”
    The English contemporary historian David Irving also described Anne Frank’s diary as a “falsification” which had become “actorial”. The self-willed Irving, who had ever said that Hitler had not known anything about concentration camps, had been aware of a misunderstanding that had spread to the right.

    According to the often-quoted legend, a New York author of screenwriters has succeeded in proving that Father Otto Frank wrote film quotations in the diary; In fact, it was only proof that he had transplanted parts of a first screenplay on the Anne Frank film, written by the American plaintiff, into a second one produced by other authors. Frank had to pay for damages, but Irvings Verlag had to take back the falsification charge. Ullstein-Anzeige im “Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel” 1976: “The publisher regrets this misunderstanding and, in agreement with the author, has removed the relevant passage from the new edition.”
    It is certain, however, that what moved the world did not consist entirely of Anne Frank’s hand. The diary has been modified by numerous manipulations. An original version was never published. Instead, the editors, Otto Frank, who died in the middle of this year, developed an overhang, which can only be explained by the incriminating times.
    After his return from Auschwitz in 1945, Otto Frank had received the records of his daughter, saved by Amsterdam’s neighbors, three diary diaries, a booklet with short stories and quotations, and notes on 324 loose sheets of silk paper. Otto Frank wrote it all down.
    By January 1946, a second copy of the book was finished, in preparation for a book manuscript. Otto Frank simply left vacancies which, according to him, were “worthless” for the reader. Thus in the official version of the diary, family offices – in the opinion of the newspaper scholar Kurt Baschwitz, who had to review the book once and a friend of Otto Franks, are missing “especially unpleasant passages about the mother”.

    A time gap in the daily books was filled with notes from the 324 loose sheets. A journalist also laid hands, the Dutchman Albert Cauvern. “In the beginning, I changed a lot,” the editor said later.
    When a publisher was finally found, Otto Frank gave the text a second time to read the text, this time to church authorities. The book text, which has spread throughout Holland, has since been more puritan in comparison with other translations: there are no passages in which Anne Frank had written about first sexual conversations with a seventeen-year-old friend. Censor’s offerings were phrases such as “He told me how to act as a contraception”, or “I boldly asked him how boys perceive they are adults.”
    The German translation, the last stroke of the editor, smoothed the young girl vocabulary of Anne Frank in adult language and also partly deviated from the original. Thus the translator, according to the principle that “a book which one wants to sell once in Germany can not contain swear words against the Germans.”
    The expert report from the Federal Criminal Police Office now gives the new skepticism, with the historians of the time, the new character of the “Diary of Anne Frank”. In April of this year, technicians from the BKA investigated the original of the maltreated work with a stereomicroscope and an ultraviolet lamp. Corrections written “by means of black, green and blue ballpoint pen paste” proved that the notes were still edited in 1951 or later.

    Further investigations, however, did not reveal any counterfeiting. According to BKA, the writing paper “material” does not differ from papers that were already available on the market during the Second World War. This is not the case with the writing material, “without exception, high-iron iron galactins,” which were already commercially available during the Second World War and in the first years thereafter. ”
    Of course, the BKA people would not decide whether the material produced was “actually produced at the time indicated or only written down a few years later.” After all, paper and ink could still be available in the post-war years when the story of suffering was reproduced.
    The role of the diary, to give enlightenment and conscience, remains unaffected by the document scolding. But even the co-editor Albert Cauvern had such an inkling: “I believe that Otto Frank was not at that time aware of the significance of the diary of his daughter.”
    P.119
    The writing of the diary records in the three fixed books –
    Tgb. I, II and III – including all records and additions
    On the glued-in labels in Tgb. I, as well as the writing on the 338
    Pages of loose silk paper sheets – LB – including all
    These improvements and inserts are with the
    The handwriting of Anne Frank.

  6. February 21, 2017 at 12:52

    My German is rusty too, not awful and better in print. I have no horse in this particular race, nor with South Africa tomorrow.

  7. dearieme
    February 21, 2017 at 13:07

    Goggle translate gives this for what I take to be the key passage:

    In order to protect the date of the Anne Frank plant, the Hamburg Regional Court had switched on the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA). Surprising result: A part of the inscriptions inscribed in the original, which up to now have always been written in the same way as the rest of the text, are written with ballpoint pencil, which is from the time after 1951 – the year of introduction of the ballpoint pen.
    Looking at this result, earlier writings would even suggest that all records were made only after 1950, so the “diary” as a whole is not authentic. For example, Hamburg’s graphic scientist Minna Becker, in 1960, presented the unity of the entire legacy in the course of another defamation process before the “Uebecker Landgericht:” “The writing of the diary records in the three fixed books” – I, II and III – “Notes and additions to the glued-in notes in” I, as well as the writing on the 338 pages of the loose “” Silk Paper Sheets, “- including all the improvements and inserts made on these” “, is identical with Anne Frank’s” “handwriting. ”
    But if the manuscript of the original notes were identical with the scripture of the inserts, p.122, an inventor ought to have been at work ….

    It seems to say that (i) in the documents that her father claimed constituted the diary the writing was all in the same hand, and (ii) a part of those documents was written in biro ink that was post-1950. Conclusion: it was “an inventor” – presumably meaning a forger – wot dunnit i.e. wrote the whole thing.

    It seems that it’s already widely accepted that the diary was heavily edited but now you have to wonder whether it was simply fabricated. If the father destroyed whatever original documents existed we will presumably never know which parts of the published diary are more or less genuine and which parts he simply invented.

    Anyway, given how famous the book is why did I need to stumble across some potentially loony websites before I learned this? What the hell is going on?

    • February 21, 2017 at 14:30

      Dearieme, I’m not ignoring this, just deeply into South Africa and the novelette at this moment, plus home domestics.

      There’s more than enough here for this to be the next project in a couple of days and it shall be done.

      It will take this comments thread as its starting point.

    • Distant Relative
      February 21, 2017 at 16:00

      dearieme said “Not everything said by some nasty anti-semite is necessarily untrue. Nor is everything said by some shameless holocaust exploiter necessarily untrue.

      It’s a decent rule of thumb to be particularly suspicious of anything said by people whom you have reason to suppose given to lying. It’s also a decent rule of thumb to be suspicious of anything that has become hallowed.”

      I agree. You have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find etc etc…

      Thanks for those links.

      One question occurred to me on reading Otto collaborated with the Nazis is “What went wrong with that relationship to result in his and his wife and daughters’ incarceration?”

      The Anne Frank house is a huge tourist attraction with folks willing to queue for hours to get in. We were offered a visit last year which we declined. The waiting time was advertised as 2 and a half hours. Kerchink!

      Btw, Have read the book – encouraged by school in the late 60’s. It seemed very sophisticated writing for a teenager but put that down to translation.

  8. Distant Relative
    February 21, 2017 at 16:31

    From The Anne Frank Org – 10 Questions on the Authenticity of the diary of Anne Frank. Mentions Robert Faurisson from my earlier link. http://www.annefrank.org/ImageVaultFiles/id_14671/cf_21/tenquestions_en.PDF
    This might answer my own earlier question. Who betrayed Anne Frank from Netherlands Institute for War Documentation http://www.battledetective.com/Who%20betrayed%20Anne%20Frank.doc

  9. Distant Relative
    February 21, 2017 at 16:48

    Last offering from a forum archive “Maybe Anna Frank did really use a ball-point…” https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t999889/

    • dearieme
      February 21, 2017 at 19:39

      Can’t say I liked visiting “Stormfront”; can’t say either that I learned anything unambiguously helpful. Except, I suppose, that the relevant German forensic science lab “redacted” a report on political rather than scientific grounds. And I suspect that “redacted” might be a euphemism for “withdrew from sight”.

      • Distant Relative
        February 21, 2017 at 19:53

        Its not somewhere I’d return to either. It came up in a search.

        More I delve the more I think Chuckles is on the money.

  10. Chuckles
    February 21, 2017 at 17:00

    My money would be on a complete fabrication, top to bottom. The whole thing has always struck me as pure narrative.
    A post war morality play, good moneyspinner too.

  11. dearieme
    February 21, 2017 at 19:45

    I sometimes wonder whether the most I can trust is an eye-witness account from someone I know and trust. I know Belsen existed: my father saw it. Thereafter …..

    • Chuckles
      February 21, 2017 at 21:51

      “There’s nowt I trust cept me and thee, and I’m not so sure about thee?”

  12. February 22, 2017 at 10:42

    From Chuckles:

    Translation attempt of the Spiegel article. Not perfect, and not word for word, but useful, perhaps?

    A report from the Federal Criminal Police Office stated that the “Diary of Anne Frank” had been edited/altered from the original.

    The article then gives a short precis of the Frank families wartime travails, which only the father survived, and the subsequent publication and popularity of the diary.

    The work was accordingly attacked by National Socialist sympathisers, including Ernst Roemer, a former Brownshirt, who declared the diary a fake, and ended up in court against Otto Frank, Anns father.

    The first hearing was no different to any others, where th judges sided with the expert witnesses, who confirmed the authenticity and consistency of the handwriting/author. (The implication/suggestion being that the document was produced by a single author, and not amended or extended later?)

    At a subsequent hearing however, the court consulted the German equivalent of the FBI, who stated than a section of the original, an insertion or amendment perhaps?, was written in ballpoint, using an ink not used until 1951.

    Given the earlier evidence, this suggests that the entire document is not authentic. A graphologist testified again that all of the ‘original’ diaries and all amendments and loose sheets were all made in the same hand.

    But if the above are true, then there is the serious possibility that the work is fiction or a forgery, which nobody had seriously asserted up till then.

    (Digression expanding on the usual NS synpathiser motives for questioning the diary, as well as a digression about David Irving omitted, as well as the same about the Frank film script plagiarism charges)

    It is certain, however, that the story that so moved the world did not consist entirely of Anne Frank’s hand. The diary has been modified by numerous manipulations. No original version was ever published.

    Instead, the editors, in the first instance or ‘at the outset’ Otto Frank, who died in the middle of this year, became over involved, or too close to, the project, which can only be explained by the difficult circumstances and mood pertaining at the time.

    After his return from Auschwitz in 1945, Otto Frank obtained his daughters writings, saved by their Amsterdam’s neighbors – three book diaries, a booklet with short stories and quotations, and notes written on 324 loose sheets of silk paper. Otto Frank transcribed them all.

    By January 1946, this copying was completed, as the preparation of a manuscript for a book to be published. However Frank left many gaps in the text, which according to him were simply omitted as ‘things of no interest to a potential reader’. So, these omissions are a shortcoming of the ‘official’ version of the diary. These omissions are usually ascribed to passages ‘especially unpleasant about the mother’.

    A continuity gap in the diaries was filled by notes from some of the loose sheets. A Dutch journalist also had a hand in the process, and the editor later acknowledged that ‘quite a lot ‘ was altered. (It is not clear to whom the description ‘the editor’ is referring)

    Subsequently, after a publisher was found, Frank gave the book to the church authorities for further editing. Their changes and recommendations removed any sexually related material from the work.

    The German translation further edited the work, using an adult rather than a childs vocabulary, and removed some anti-German invective. i.e.”a book which one wants to sell in Germany can not contain swear words against the Germans.”

    To this must be added the findings of the technicians from the Federal Criminal Police, who stated that corrections written “by means of black, green and blue ballpoint pen paste” proved that the notes were edited/written in 1951 or later.

    Further investigations and elaborations do not support counterfeiting however, as all the paper used was available during the second world war. Similarly the inks in use could have been obtained during the war and it’s immediate aftermath.

    Clearly, from this, it was not possible to state whether the documents were written when claimed, or whether they had been produced at a later date

    The role of the diary and it’s contribution to the narrative remains unaffacted by the above. The Dutch journakist co-editor has said, “I believe that Otto Frank was not at that time aware of the importance of the diary of his daughter. “

    • Distant Relative
      February 22, 2017 at 11:07

      Much appreciated.

      Q. Who benefits from the obfuscation?

      Usual suspects.

      I might come back to this when I’ve finished reading the Netherlands Institute stuff.

      Irving is a venture down the rabbit warren for another day 😉

  13. dearieme
    February 22, 2017 at 13:17

    To boil it down: it’s all sufficiently suspicious that it would be a mere act of faith to treat the published work as being essentially the product of poor Miss Frank.

    So, in the end all we know securely is that she hid from the bastards, she wrote at length, they caught her, and sent her to Belsen to die.

    • dearieme
      February 23, 2017 at 14:53

      “all we know securely is that … she wrote at length…”: correction; it seems that we don’t even know that. Her father gave one account wherein a Dutchman found her diaries and handed them over, and a second account wherein he found them himself. Oh dear, oh dear, it’s all very fishy.

      • Distant Relative
        February 23, 2017 at 15:12

        Miep Gies claimed it woz her wot kept them. Otto Frank allegedly said Anne hid them somewhere in the Annexe. I can’t believe the Nazis wouldn’t have gutted their hiding place, so for me the latter doesn’t ring true. If the Franks were arrested they were obviously taken by surprise so how did Anne manage to pass her diaries onto Ms Gies beforehand? Fishy indeed.

        “Following the betrayal and the deportation of the hiders, Miep and her colleague Bep made sure that the diary of the youngest of the group, Anne Frank, did not fall into the hands of the German occupier. Miep stored Anne’s writings in a drawer of her desk, unread, and gave them to Anne’s father when he returned after the war, as the only survivor of the concentration camps. He saw to it that Anne’s legacy was published in 1947 with the title Het Achterhuis” http://www.miepgies.nl/en/

        “Unread”? Hmm.

  14. Distant Relative
    February 22, 2017 at 16:51

    An explanation contained herein as to why Otto Frank was arrested. http://www.whale.to/b/harring.html

    And I can’t remember why I bookmarked this one this morning. (Age is a terrible thing…?) http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/anne-frank-hoax-exposed/

  15. Distant Relative
    February 23, 2017 at 15:38

    There’s a photo of the back of the house here: http://www.miepgies.nl/en/The%20betrayal/

  16. Distant Relative
    February 23, 2017 at 17:22
  17. February 23, 2017 at 18:47

    Cheers for all. Shall collate all in a post soon.

  18. Distant Relative
    February 23, 2017 at 19:55

    One last thing that struck me whilst watching the virtual tour was 13 year old Anne sharing a bedroom with the male doctor and this in a book directed at children.

  19. February 23, 2017 at 20:14

    I’ve put this on Twitter now, so our ravings are exposed.

  20. Distant Relative
    March 16, 2017 at 18:43

    Here is Gilad Atzmon interviewing the above mentioned M. Faurisson not on the diaries but on his research methods and one or two other interesting observations he makes pertaining to the current state of the world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FoEy3joW5o (In English)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.