Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

The Anne Frank Diary Hoax (Part 1)

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Brian Smith

unread,

Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97

Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine?

Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine? For two years that question was
included in the official syllabus "Text and Document Criticism," a
seminar reserved for degreed students in their fourth year. The
conclusion of my studies and research is that The Diary of Anne Frank
is a fraud.

In order to study the question posed and to find an answer to it, I
have carried out the following investigations:

1.Internal criticism: the very text of the Diary (in Dutch)
contains a number of unlikely or inconceivable facts.

2.A study of the premises in Amsterdam: on the one hand, the
physical impossibilities and, on the other hand, the explanations made
up by Anne Frank's father severely compromise him.

3.Interview of the principal witness: Mr. Otto Frank.

4.Bibliographical examination: some curious silences and
revelations.

5.A return to Amsterdam for a new investigation: the witnesses turn
out to be unfavorable to Mr. Frank; the probable truth.

6.The "betrayer" and the person who arrested the Franks: why has
Mr. Frank wished to assure them such anonymity?

7.Comparison between the Dutch and German texts: attempting to make
too much of it, Mr. Frank has given himself away; he has signed a
literary fraud.

Internal criticism

The first step in the investigation is to determine if the text is
consistent within itself. The Diary contains an extraordinary number
of inconsistencies.

Let us take the example of the noises. Those in hiding, we are told,
must not make the least sound. This is so much so that, if they cough,
they quickly take codeine. The "enemies" could hear them. The walls
are that "thin" (25 March 1943). Those "enemies" are very numerous:
Lewin, who "knows the whole building well" (1 October 1942), the men
from the store, the customers, the deliverymen, the agent, the
cleaning woman, the night watchman Slagter, the plumbers, the "health
service," the accountant, the police who conduct their searches of the
premises, the neighbors both near and far, the owner, etc. It is
therefore unlikely and inconceivable that Mrs. Van Daan had the habit
of using the vacuum cleaner each day at 12:30 pm (5 August 1943). The
vacuum cleaners of that era were, moreover, particularly noisy. I ask:
"How is that conceivable?" My question is not purely formal. It
is not rhetorical. Its purpose is not to show astonishment. My
question is a question. It is necessary to respond to it. That
question could be followed with forty other questions concerning
noises. It is necessary to explain, for example, the use of an alarm
clock (4 August 1943). It is necessary to explain the noisy carpentry
work: the removal of a wooden step, the transformation of a door into
a swinging cupboard (21 August 1942), the making of a wooden
candlestick (7 December 1942).

Peter splits wood in the attic in front of the open window (23
February 1944). It involved building with the wood from the attic "a
few little cupboards and other odds and ends" (11 July 1942). It
even involved constructing in the attic "a little compartment" for
working (13 July 1943). There is a nearly constant noise from the
radio, from the slammed doors, from the "resounding peal" (6
December 1943), the arguments, the shouts, the yelling, a "noise that
was enough to awaken the dead." (9 November 1942). "A great din and
disturbance followed I was doubled up with laughter" (10 May 1944).
The episode reported on 2 September 1942 is irreconcilable with the
necessity of being silent and cautious. There we see those in hiding
at dinner. They chatter and laugh. Suddenly, a piercing whistle is
heard. And they hear the voice of Peter who shouts through the stove
pipe that he will certainly not come down. Mr. Van Daan gets up, his
napkin falls and, his face žushed, he shouts: "I've had enough of
this." He goes up to the attic and there, resistance and the stamping
of feet. The episode reported on 10 December 1942 is of the same kind.
There we see Mrs. Van Daan being looked after by the dentist Dussel.
The latter touches a bad tooth with his probe. Mrs. Van Daan then lets
out "incoherent cries of pain." She tries to pull the little probe
away. The dentist looks at the scene, his hands on his hips. The
onlookers all "roared with laughter." Anne, instead of
showing the least distress in the face of these cries or this mad
laughter, declares: "It was rotten of us, because I for one am quite
sure that I should have screamed even louder."

The remarks that I am making here in regard to noises I could repeat
in regard to all of the realities of physical and mental life. The
Diary even presents the peculiarity that not one aspect of the life
that is lived there avoids being either unlikely, incoherent, or
absurd. At the time of their arrival in their hiding place, the Franks
install some curtains to hide their presence. But, to install curtains
at windows which did not have them up until then, is that not the best
means of drawing attention to one's arrival? Is that not particularly
the case if those curtains are made of pieces of "all different
shapes, quality and pattern" (11 July 1942)? In order not to betray
their presence, the Franks burn their refuse. But in doing this they
call attention to their presence by the smoke that escapes from the
roof of a building that is supposed to be uninhabited! They make a
fire for the first time on 30 October 1942, although they arrived in
that place on 6 July. One asks oneself what they could have
done with their refuse for the 116 days of the summer. I recall, on
the other hand, that the deliveries of food are enormous. In normal
conditions, the persons in hiding and their guests each day
consume eight breakfasts, eight to twelve lunches and eight dinners.
In nine passages of the book they allude to bad or mediocre or
insufficient food. Otherwise the food is abundant and "delicious."
Mr. Van Daan "takes a lot of everything" and Dussel takes "enormous
helpings" of food (9 August 1943) . On the spot they make wet and dry
sausages, strawberry jam, and preserves in jars.

Brandy or alcohol, cognac, wines, and cigarettes do not seem to be
lacking either. Coffee is so common that one does not understand why
the author, enumerating (23 July 1943) what each would wish to do on
the day when they would be able to leave that hiding place, says that
Mrs. Frank's fondest wish would be to have a cup of coffee. On the
other hand, on 3 February 1944 - during the terrible winter of '43/'44
- here is the inventory of the supplies available for those in hiding
alone, to the exclusion of any cohabiting friend or "enemy:" 60 pounds
of corn, nearly 60 pounds of beans and 10 pounds of peas, 50 cans of
vegetables, 10 cans of fish, 40 cans of milk, 10 kilos of powdered
milk, 3 bottles of salad oil, 4 preserving jars of butter, 4 jars of
meat, 2 bottles of strawberries, 2 bottles of raspberries, 20 bottles
of tomatoes, 10 pounds of rolled oats, and 8 pounds of rice. There
enter, at other moments, some sacks of vegetables each weighing 25
kilos, or again a sack of 19 pounds of green peas (8 July 1944). The
deliveries are made by a "nice greengrocer," and always "during the
lunch hour" (11 April 1944). This is hard to believe. In a city
described elsewhere as starving, how could a greengrocer leave his
store, in broad daylight, with such loads to go to deliver them to a
house located in a busy neighborhood? How could this greengrocer, in
his own neighborhood (he was "at the corner"), avoid meeting his
normal customers for whom, in that time of scarcity, he ought normally
to be a person to be sought out and begged for favors? There are many
other mysteries in regard to other merchandise and the manner in which
it reaches the hiding place. For holidays, and for the birthdays of
the persons in hiding, the gifts are plentiful: carnations, peonies,
narcissuses, hyacinths, žower pots, cakes, books, sweets, cigarette
lighters, jewels, shaving necessities, roulette games, etc. I would
draw attention to a real feat achieved by Elli. She finds the means of
offering some grapes on 23 July 1943. I repeat: some
grapes, in Amsterdam, on 23 July. They even tell us the price: 5
žorins per kilo.

The invention of the "swinging cupboard" is an absurdity. In fact, the
part of the house which is supposed to have protected the persons in
hiding existed well before their arrival. Therefore, to install a
cupboard is to point out, if not someone's presence, at least a change
in that part of the property. That transformation of the premises -
accompanied by the noise of the carpentry work - could not have
escaped the notice of the "enemies" and, in particular, of the
cleaning woman. And this pretended "subterfuge," intended to mislead
the police in case of a search, is indeed likely, to the contrary, to
put them on their guard. (" a lot of houses are being searched for
hidden bicycles," says Anne on 21 August 1942, and it is for that
reason that the entrance door of the hiding place had been thus
hidden.) The police, not finding any entrance door to the building
which serves as a hiding place would have been surprised by this
oddity and would have quickly discovered that someone had wanted to
fool them, because they would find themselves before a residential
building without an entrance!

Archive THIS, Nizkook!

( )( )
\ | | /

MOONING the Nizkor Camera!

http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/ Greg Raven's Website
http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/welcome.html Zundelsite
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~lpauling/ Student Revisionist Resource Site
http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/LEUCHTER/leuchtertoc.html
http://www.codoh.com/irving/irving.html David Irving
http://www.codoh.com/ Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz/ Arthur R. Butz
http://www.air-photo.com/ Air Photo Evidence (John Ball)
http://www.adam.com.au/~fredadin/adins.html Adelaide Institute
http://www.codoh.com/rudolf/rudreport/rudreport.html

Brian Smith
http://www.natall.com

"A civilization which tolerates the existence of Kaplan and his filthy
business should be burned to the ground." I said. "We should make
a bonfire of the whole thing and then start over fresh "

_The Turner Diaries_. p. 85

>-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
\|/ Towards a New Consciousness. \|/
| A New Future. |
A New People.
>.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Chuck Ferree

unread,

Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97

Chuck Ferree wrote:

Brian goes through the hoops for nothing. All wasted time. Anne Frank's
Diary is genuine, been proven by many experts to be genuine, and Smith
is a promoter of Nazi propaganda, and he gets paid money to write this
garbage.

Chuck

Brian Smith wrote:
>
> Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine?

CHUCK:>>>>The experts who have examined Anne Franks Diary many times,
confirm that she wrote it, and further more that the Anne Frank story is
true in it's entirety

Brian Smith therefore is a writer of Nazi propaganda!

Chuck Ferree

propaganda clipped

Mark Van Alstine

unread,

Jun 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/29/97

In article <5p65ce$sle$1...@news01a.micron.net>, sbr...@micron.net (Brian
Smith) wrote:

> Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine?

Is Mr. Smith a plagiarist? (Doh!)

See: http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/jhr/v03/v03p147_Faurisson.html

Mr. Powers <kar...@clark.net> has made a detailed rebuttal to Faurrison's
peuril attack on _The Diary_. See DejaNews <http://www.dejanews.com/>:

Message-Id Part
-------------------------------- ----

As to the authenticity of _The Diary_ that has been _proven_ beyond
resonable doubt. According to Barnouw:

At the end of February and the beginning of March 1976 it came to the
notice of the police in Hamburg that pamphlets had been handed out after
performances of the play there. The pamphlets were headed "Best Seller - a
Fraud" and repeated the old Meyer Levin allegation. The pamphlet was, in
fact, a reprint of two pages from the German translation of Harwood's _Did
Six Million Really Die? Thr Truth at Last_, and had been distributed, it
appeared, by Ernst Ro"mer, born 1904. On January 13, 1977, almost a year
later, Ro"mer was fined DM 1,5000 for defamation by the Hamburg
_Amtsgericht_. He appealed, and his case was heard on August 21, 1978,
before the Hamburg _Landgericht_. [...]

The _Bundeskriminalamt (the BKA, or Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau)
in Weisbaden was charged with preparing an expert opinion on whether it
was possible "by an examination of paper and writing material to establish
that the writing materials attributed to Anne Frank were produced during
the years 1941 to 1944."

The investigation - in the spring of 1980 - was therefore restricted by
this limited brief. The BKA came to the conclusion that the types of paer
used, including the covers of Diaries 1, 2 and 3, as well as the types of
inks found in three diaries and on the loose sheets, were all manufactured
before 1950-51 (and could thus have been used during the stated period).
On the other hand:

Some of the corrections made subsequently on the loose pages were [...]
written in black, green and blue ballpen ink. Ballpen ink of this type
has only been on the market since 1951.

The BKA report ran to a mere four pages. The precise location of the
corrections on the loose sheets and their nature and extent are not
mentioned, nor is the number of such corrections.

In itrself this was a less than sensatational report and did not touch
upon the authenticity of the diary as such. That was not, however, the
view of _Der Speigel_, which on October 6, 1980, published a long article
with the following introductory paragraph printed in bold type:

Proved by a _Bundeskriminalamt_ report: "The Diary of Anne Frank" was
edited at a later date. Further doubt is therefore cast on the
authenticity of that document.

It was a suggestive article in other respects too. Without asking when the
writing in ballpoint had been made on the loose sheets, what the nature of
these corrections was or whether they had been incorporated in the
published texts, the author of the article, instead of referring to
_Korrekturen_ (corrections) as the BKA had done, wrote of "additions to
the origional text that had up till now had always been considered to be
in the same hand as the rest of the text."

In support of the phrase "up till now had always been considered," the
reader was referred to Minna Becker's mistaken 1960 opinion (see p.87).
_Der Speigel_ added: "Now if the handwriting of the origional entrees
matched that of the additions, then there must have been an imposter at
work," which, the magazine generously conceeded, "cannot be seriously be
seriously maintained even now in view of the controversial nature of the
graphological evidence."

It is only towards the end of the article that _Der Speigel_ quotes
breifly from the BKA report and uses the term "_Korrekturen_"; before
that, however, the reader had been told that the published diary had been
subjected to countless "_Manipulationen_" [manipulations]."

Treu, _Der Speigel_ also pointed out that those who had cast doubt on the
authenticity of the diary had done so for the purposde of establishing
"the truth about the persecution of the Jews," in the manner, as the
magazine critically, of "one of the pamphlet distributors at the Ro"mer
trial who wanted to put a stop to the 'gas chanmber fraud.'"

David Irving, too, was portrayed critically, as was the "oft-repeated
legend" that Otto Frank had incorprated quotations from a film script
(what was meant, of course, was from the text of a play) into the diary.

The article aroused great interest both in Germany and abroad. _Der
Speigel's_ message seemed clear: there was something wrong. Members of the
Anne Frank Foundation let it be known in the Dutch press that, at the
request of Otto Frank, Kleiman had made mminor corrections to the
manuscript after the war but that these had been clarifications.

We have called the _Speigel_ article suggestive. The magazine had,
however, been indirectly encouraged to take this line by the failure of
the _Bundeskriminalant_ to publish the concrete data on which it had based
its findings, thus rendering any kind of verification impossible.

We asked the _Bundeskriminalant_ to put these data at our disposal. The
reply was that no such data was in their possession.

On December 20, 1985, at out request, the BKA then used the State Forensic
Science Laboratory of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice in Rijswijk in
an attempt to give concrete expression to the finding of their report.

They were in part successful. The reader is referred to Chapter IV of the
State Forensic Science Laboratory's report, which also discusses the
relevance of the ballpoint writing to the authenticity of the diary.

The BKA was unable to indicate where just one alleged correction in green
ballpoint ink was to be found.

Source: Barnouw and van der Stroom, _The Dairy of Anne Frank: The Critical
Edition_, pp.97-99.

As to the specific issue of the ballpoint pen correction to the diaries,
Hardy writes:

Following the publication of an article in _Der Speigel_, No. 41, 1980
(pp.121-122), the State Forensic Scienc Laboratory at the request of the
Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation paid particular
attention to the possible inclusion in the diary of entries written with a
ballpoint pen. To that end, all handwriting, with the exception of the
photocopied loose sheet, was examined closely by the document examiner.
The only ballpoint writing was found on two loose scraps of paper included
among the loose sheets. Figures VI-1-1 and 3 show the way in which the
scaps of paper had been inserted inthe relevant plastic folders. As far as
the factual contents of the diary are concerned, the ballpoint writings
have no significance whatsoever. Moreover, the handwriting on the scraps
of paper and the diary differ strikingly.*

[...]

*The Hamburg psychologist and court-appointed handwriting expert, Hans
Ockelmann, stated in a letter to ANNE FRANK-Fonds dated September 27,
1987, that his mother, Mrs. Dorothea Ockelmann, wrote the ballpoint texts
in question when she collaborated with Mrs. Minna Becker in investigating
the diaries (see p.87).

Source: Barnouw and van der Stroom, _The Dairy of Anne Frank: The Critical
Edition_, p.160.

[Mr. Smith's plagiarized bullshit snipped]

For those interested in proof of National Alliance member Mr. Smith's
rabid anti-Semitism, pathological Nazi apologia, lies, and utter hypocrisy
-and that he possses an IQ of a fence post (not to mention a sewer mouth)
please peruse DejaNews and visit the Nizkor Project at:

http://www.dejanews.com/
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/s/smith.brian.r
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/s/stele.kurt

Mark

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but
right through every human heart--and all human hearts."

-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prodromos Savaidis

unread,

Jul 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/1/97

Chuck Ferree <chu...@rio.com> wrote:

>Chuck Ferree wrote:

>Brian goes through the hoops for nothing. All wasted time. Anne Frank's
>Diary is genuine, been proven by many experts to be genuine, and Smith
>is a promoter of Nazi propaganda, and he gets paid money to write this
>garbage.

>Chuck

>Brian Smith wrote:
>>
>> Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine?

>CHUCK:>>>>The experts who have examined Anne Franks Diary many times,

>confirm that she wrote it, and further more that the Anne Frank story is
>true in it's entirety

>Brian Smith therefore is a writer of Nazi propaganda!

>Chuck Ferree

>propaganda clipped

I read in 'Fondamental lies of Israel Politic' of Roger Garaudy :

A part of Anna Frank's book has written with modern pen (with bowl)
discovered at 1951 , and we know Anna Frank died at 1944.
So her fother or the 'Anna Frank' institution probably wrote this
part of the book.

(This is a statement of David Irving , English Historian at 'Toronto
trial at April 1988)

Makis

Gregory Taylor

unread,

Jul 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM7/3/97

Stopping to enjoy the irony that Will Williams' ISP is called "mindspring,"
we continue:

>Did those "experts" have big hooked noses, Chuck? How could the diary
>be real when parts were written in ballpoint pen, and the ballpoint
>pen wasn't even invented till 1951. Did little Annie not die of typhus
>at Auschwitz way before the ballpoint pen was around? How odd.

I've actually crossed paths with some of the folks who directed and
did the examination stuff, and guess what? No hooked noses. They're
your average Dutch folks in the history and criminological profession -
quite Aryan, most of 'em.

Assuming that your other question isn't rhetorical stupidity, the answer
is simple. The ballpoint annotations aren't Anne's; they appear on the
loose loose sheets (mostly), and are annotations by one or two women who
were involved in going through the manuscript and preparing it for
publication (typing it, collating, etc.). We know who the women are,
the handwriting matches, and so on.

And if you'd have bothered to stop goosestepping about for however long
it might take you to read the critical apparatus portion of the Diary
(in Dutch *or* English, take your pick), you'd know that, too - and
could've saved yourself from looking like a brainless moron (on at least
*this* point).

>
>
>

--
When I pronounce the word Future,/the first syllable already belongs to the
past./When I pronounce the word Silence,/I destroy it./When I pronounce the
word Nothing,/I make something no nonbeing can hold./ (Wislawa Szymborska)
Gregory Taylor WORT-FM URL:http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/~gtaylor/RTQE.html

0 new messages