The Frank house (blue) was in downtown Amsterdam ( Population 450,000) and sat on a park
This is the Annex   Anne Frank hide in a city park ?
Left is store and the right is annex
	View of the annex from the park
Daily life “They come upstairs every day and talk to the men about business and politics, to the women about food and wartime difficulties and to the children about books and newspapers. They put on their most cheerful expressions, bring flowers and gifts for birthdays and holidays and are always ready to do what they can. That's something we should never forget; while others display their heroism in battle or against the Germans, our helpers prove theirs every day by their good spirits and affection.”

 

 

 

 

HISTORICAL NEWS AND COMMENT

ROBERT FAURISSON

One reason for skepticism about the famous diary attributed to Anne Frank is the existence of strikingly different samples of handwriting supposedly written by her within a two and a half year period.

My first work about the Anne Frank diary was published in French in 1980. A translation of it appeared in the Summer 1982 issue of The Journal of Historical Review under the title "Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine?" (pp. 147-209).

A facsimile reprint of this article was published as a booklet by the Institute for Historical Review in 1985. Two samples of handwriting attributed to Anne Frank appeared on the front cover and on page 209. Each was written when she was about 13 years old, but strangely enough, the earlier one (dated 12 June 1942) looks much more mature and "adult-like" than the sample which was supposedly written four months later (dated 10 October 1942).

In response to growing skepticism about the authenticity of the famous diary, the State Institute for War Documentation in Amsterdam (Rijksinstituut voor Orloogsdocumentatie or RIOD) published a book in 1986 which includes a facsimile of a letter supposedly written by Anne dated 30 July 1941.

The discovery in the USA of some more samples of Anne's handwriting was announced in July 1988. This includes two letters dated 27 and 29 April 1940 and a postcard that was sent with one of the letters, all written to an ll-year-old penpal in Danville, Iowa.

These letters create a new problem for the State Institute for War Documentation because the handwriting on them is quite different than the "adult" handwriting of her letter of 30 July 1941 as well as most of the purported diary manuscript.

These discoveries strengthen my belief that the "adult handwriting attributed to Anne is, in reality, very likely the handwriting of one of the persons who officially "helped" Otto Frank prepare the diary for publication just after the war.

Reproduced here are four samples of handwriting attributed to Anne Frank (who was born on 12 June 1929) with their dates.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center (Los Angeles) is supposed to have bought the pen-pal letter.

The results of tests performed at the BKA laboratories show that portions of the work, specially of the fourth volume, were written with a ballpoint pen. Since ballpoint pens were not available before 1951, the BKA concluded, those sections must have been added subsequently

Anne’s father, Otto, collaborated with the Nazis during WWII, profiting financially by doing business with the German army. After the war, he was forgiven.

about the Anne Frank Diary hoax that professor Robert Faurisson so competently demolishes as a fabrication.

There is now a new book, a biography, called The Hidden Life of Otto Frank, by Carol Ann Lee, Viking. Lee delineates Anne's father's role in shaping her as a 'Holocaust' saint, through which children make their first contact —'painful identification — with the 'Holocaust'.

Also, what many forget —and the recent Anne Frank exhibition that toured Australia failed to mention — was the fact that Anne and her father spent time at Auschwitz, but then were transferred out of that so-called death camp. Gitta Sereny claims it was not a death camp.

The book clearly shows that after the war Otto Frank was not interested in finding the person who betrayed them to the Nazis. That he also had business connections with the Nazis is also not further explored.

History of Anne's parents

The Franks were German Jews, the father and mother came from wealthy families. Otto Frank's family had owned a bank and the family were used to having servants.

Ottto and his Siblings lived on the exclusive Meronstrasse. Their daily lives consisted of servants, private schools, riding lessons, tennis, etc. They were alof Jews of the priviliged class that lorded over Germans for 50 years.

Even as children their social lives consisted of family parties, costume balls, outing to the opera where the Franks had a private box.

Otto's description of his college years

Exquisitely dressed, young Otto and his siblings visited a riding school on a regular basis , had private music lessons, and accompanied their parents on outings to the opera, where they had their own box. Edith Oppenheimer, a much younger relative of Otto's who lived in the same area of Frankfurt, recalls, "Otto used to tell me about the wonderful family parties that were held often, some costume balls. There were special parties for children." Michael and Alice Frank were not remote parents by any means; despite the emphasis on manners and comportment, judging from the surviving letters of Otto and his older brother Robert the house on Mertonstrasse rang regularly with laughter, stories, poetry, and singing.

After attending a private prep School, Otto was sent to the Lessing Gymnasium not far from home. He entered into the spirit of the school's credo: tolerance. His nature ("aware and curious, warm and friendly") made him popular, and his classmates paid no attention to the fact that he was the only Jewish pupil in their form. In his old age, however, Otto received a book about the Lessing Gymnasium written by a former classmate. Otto's response to this man was icy:
 

http://www.holton.k12.ks.us/staff/jireland/Anne%20Frank/timeline.htm good time line

By 1942, razzias of Jews and their deportation to labor, transit and
      concentration camps were becoming routine. The geography of the
      Netherlands and closing of borders made escape extremely difficult.
      Fearful for their lives, Otto and Edith Frank prepared to go into hiding.
      They wanted to stay together as a family and they already had a place in
      mind – an annex of rooms above Otto Frank's office at 263 Prinsengracht in
      Amsterdam. The employees of Otto Frank agreed to help them. At a time when
      it was unusual to find anyone to help, the Franks, as Anna wrote in her
      diary, were "privileged" to have so many helpers and to be together.
      Besides business associates Victor Kugler and Johannes Kleiman, employees
      and friends Miep Gies, her husband Jan, Bep Voskuijl and his father were
      all trustworthy. They not only agreed to keep the business operating in
      their employer's absence, but they would risk their lives to help the
      Frank family survive.

 

"Free Historical Research"

Nevertheless, it did not stop the attacks on the authenticity of the Diary. In 1991, the revisionist Belgian group "Vrij Historisch Onderzoek" ("Free Historical Research") published a booklet denying the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank, entitled Het dagboek van Anne Frank: een kritische benadering (The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach). In the Fall of 1992, this publication was sent unsolicited to public libraries in the Netherlands. The defendants in this case are the authors, the Frenchman Robert Faurisson and the Belgian Siegfried Verbeke. They are spokespersons of an international movement called "historical revisionism", which denies the systematic mass destruction of Jews during World War II by the Nazi's ever took place. The authors of The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach claim that it was Otto Frank who wrote the Diary after the war.

They are of the opinion that the Diary contains several contradictions, that hiding in the Secret Annex must have been impossible and that the style and handwriting of Anne Frank are not those of a teenager.

In December 1993, the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam and the Anne Frank Fonds in Basle instigated a civil law suit in order to prohibited the further distribution of The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach in the Netherlands.
Five years later, on December 9, 1998, the Amsterdam District Court ruled in favour of the claimants and forbade any further denial of the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank and unsolicited distribution of publications to that effect. The court imposed a penalty of 25,000-guilders per infringement. Although this was a victory for the Anne Frank House and the Anne Frank Fonds, it unforunately does not mean that attacks on the authencitity of Anne's diary will cease.

Otto the collaborator

Arnold Schwarzenegger's father, Gustav, volunteered for the 'brownshirts' in May 1939 - about "six months after the storm troopers helped launch Kristallnacht [...] when Jewish homes, businesses and synagogues were attacked across Germany." [1]

Anne Frank's father, Otto Frank, was a war profiteer who sold goods to the Nazi army as it 'freed' Europe of its Jews in a gigantic program of ethnic cleansing (see below for more details).[2]

Questions:

• How do we know that Gustav Schwarzenegger was a storm trooper?
• How do we know that Otto Frank collaborated with the Nazis?
• What 'goods' did Otto Frank sell to the German army?
• Why is the press covering the Gustav Schwarzenegger story now?
• Why is the press still covering up the Otto Frank story after half a century?
• How are we to judge men like Gustav Schwarzenegger and Otto Frank?
• Who benefits - profits - by 'outing' Gustav's story and attacking Arnold, while covering up Otto's story when Anne remains a great cultural icon?

I didn't know that Anne Frank's father, Otto, was a Nazi collaborator and war profiteer. Where have I been?[3] I didn't know that Otto manufactured and wholesaled materials to the German army while hiding in his notorious 'annex' in Amsterdam. I didn't know that he collaborated with the Dutch Nazis as well as with Germans. It's just one bloody thing after another.

This story was brought to my attention by Joe Orolin. Joe sends me news clippings from Pennsylvania papers and national media. A lot of the stories he sends I have already received via the Internet, but there are always others that I would never see because they originate locally, or they are distributed nationally but fall 'below the centerfold' of Internet distribution.

One afternoon I received a clipping from Joe released on 27 July, written by Ray Locker of the Associated Press. The article was a review of The Hidden Life of Otto Frank by Carol Ann Lee, published by HarperCollins/William Morrow. This is how the surprising review kicked off.

These observations astounded me. I hadn't even heard of this book. I did an Internet search and found that The Hidden Life of Otto Frank was published six months ago, in February. I searched for reviews of the book in The New York Times, Atlantic Monthly, and The Wall Street Journal. Major institutions that have forwarded the Anne Frank story for half a century. Nothing by the big boys.

I did find three additional reviews of the book, all by small publications. I found that the book had been published in England in 2002 - a full year earlier! I hadn't heard a word about it. In America the press, the business, about Anne Frank never ends. Never. Now we have a dramatic book about Anne's father by a respected writer, the book reveals very controversial information, and there is no interest in it. One wonders, why would that be?

On the Internet I went to Amazon.com, ordered The Hidden Life and received it five days later. I read through it in one night in our bedroom, and during one afternoon at an outdoor café in Tijuana while my wife and a lady friend were shopping. Otto appears to have been a good and decent man caught up in matters that were beyond him, as was most everyone else in those years in that part of the world.

I never thought much about Otto Frank. I never heard much about him. I knew more or less what most of us know. He left Amsterdam with his wife and two daughters under the supervision of the Germans, and when he returned to Amsterdam his wife and two daughters were dead. We've all lost family, many of us have half-lost dear family members, and I can imagine something of how Otto must have felt when Miep Gies first gave him Anne's diary pages, scavenged from the floor of the annex after the family was taken away.

Otto must have been near overcome with a tidal wave of memory, surprise, and then a kind of elation at finding that, at the very least, he had these pages, written in her own hand, while they were all living together. He had something of her. She wasn't entirely gone. He had something.

An earlier book by Carol Ann Lee, Roses from the Earth: The Biography of Anne Frank, was well received in Britain. Based on that work, she has a good deal to say in Otto's story about how the 'Diary' was put together. She is quite open about how Anne was rewriting her diary, the problems with the different translations contracted for by Otto, Otto's editing of the manuscripts, and so on. Essentially she supports the revisionist position, without saying so, codified in the 1970s and 80s, that the 'Diary' is a literary work based on diary entries, and edited by her father and others, not a diary.

Nothing wrong with that. Other than the fact that those fronting for the Holocaust Lobby lied about it for so many years.

The primary work of Carol Ann Lee's The Hidden Life of Otto Frank, is to find out who 'betrayed' the Frank's hiding place and the Frank family to the Germans. For myself, it's the least interesting part of the story. No accounting for taste. But along the way Ms. Lee documents the fascinating story of Otto Frank's wartime collaboration with the Nazi regimes, both in Germany and the Netherlands. She writes:

Here's what she's referring to. Otto manufactured and wholesaled pectin and other products to the German army.

With regard to Otto producing and selling products to the German army, Lee writes:

Miep Gies, the lady who collected Anne's diary pages from the floor of the annex after the Germans took off the Franks, is quoted as saying:

Here is a 'revisionist' take on Otto Frank's life in Amsterdam during WWII. Otto Frank ran a business during the war, in the ground floor of the 'annex' where he hid his family, that delivered goods to the German army. He made a profit doing it. He paid a Dutch Nazi to keep his business 'secret.'

Otto then was a Jew, a Nazi collaborator, a war profiteer, and a good man with highly developed sensibilities. I would very much liked to have known him, to have been his friend, and to have done what I could to have saved his daughters from those who saw them as their enemy.

I should add that it appears very likely indeed that Otto paid blackmail to the Dutch Nazi factotum, Tonny Ahlers, after the war as well as during it, to cover up Otto's wartime collaboration with the Nazis. As a matter of fact it looks like Otto was still paying blackmail to Tonny Ahlers at the time of Otto's death in 1980!

In the first instance, what does all this mean to someone like me? The first thing it means is that collaborating with the Germans/Nazis was something very different than what the Holocaust Industry wants you to think, and very different from how the Office of Special Investigations use the word "collaboration" as it goes about its work of running down old European men who "collaborated" with the Germans during WWII.

Collaboration was a norm, though admittedly not for everyone. In the Netherlands, for instance, only 80% of Dutch businessmen collaborated with the Nazis. In the camps nearly all Jews whom the Nazis chose to work for them themselves chose to collaborate with the Nazis. It was the norm. There were some who chose not to collaborate. Same as with the Dutch businessmen.

And then we would want to ask how many Belgian companies helped the German war effort. How many French? Polish, Danish, Norwegian, Czech? And how many of the businessmen in those countries were run by Jews?

As to that: how many Jews served in the German army during the Hitlerian regime?[4] How many Jews continued to run their businesses in Germany throughout the war? Were there any? Is anything known about this? Are their histories being covered up like Otto's was covered up?

On August 1st, 2003, a 79-year-old suspected former Nazi camp guard now living in Queens, Jakiw Palij, was stripped of his citizenship by a federal judge. Federal prosecutors did not accuse Palij of personally committing any atrocities. But Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf said Palij has blood on his hands.

Palij is 79 years old. In 1944, when he was "collaborating" with the Germans by working as a perimeter guard at Trawniki, he must have been about 21. In 1944, when Otto Frank was helping feed and perhaps arm the German army, he was 55 years old.

One would think that you are better equipped to judge the political and moral nature of the great events you are living through when you are 55 than when you are when you are 21. Maybe it is going to be argued by the ADL and the Industry in general that Otto, being a Jew, necessarily needed a few extra decades to grow a moral conscience. I don't think that was it.

When I was 21 years old, I was with the Seventh Calvary in Korea. I was a young man who, as the song had it a few years ago, just wanted to have fun. I was a volunteer. I had no politics. I didn't want to hurt anyone, but I would have done anything my superiors asked of me. As a matter of fact, that's what I did do. Anything I was asked (ordered) to do.

I can hardly imagine how a 21-year old Ukrainian or German or Dutch kid could have sorted out the 'moral' issues of WWII, and then acted upon them. Some did, to one extent or the other, but to judge them now, after sixty years have gone by, a lifetime, is an ugly, self-serving charade of self-promoting 'morality.'

First published in Smith's Report (print edition) in August 2003

Arthur Sulzberger of The New York Times and Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League have teamed up to personally put the kibosh on my campus work. Try to imagine it - Sulzberger and Foxman, two of the most influential men in American culture and politics, each with access to tens of millions of dollars, teaming up to kill a project run by one man with a couple volunteer helpers and no budget.

The story below appears in the 2003 special summer edition of ADL on the Frontline (the article does not appear on the ADL Website - if I'm wrong about this please forward me the correct URL).

Challenges by Holocaust deniers and legal action

Efforts have been made to discredit the diary since its publication, and since the mid 1970s Holocaust denier David Irving has been consistent in his assertion that the diary is not genuine [12] (http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/f/frank.anne/Kuttner-rebuts-deniers). Continued public statements made by such Holocaust deniers prompted Teresien da Silva to comment on behalf of Anne Frank House in 1999, "for many right-wing extremists (Anne) proves to be an obstacle. Her personal testimony of the persecution of the Jews and her death in a concentration camp are blocking the way to a rehabilitation of national socialism".

Since the 1950s Holocaust denial has been a criminal offence in a few European countries, and the law has been used to prevent a rise in neo-Nazi activity. In 1959 Otto Frank took legal action in Lübeck against Lothar Stielau, a school teacher and former Hitler Youth member who published a school paper that described the diary as a forgery. The court examined the diary, and in 1960 found it to be genuine. Stielau recanted his earlier statement, and Otto Frank did not pursue the case any further.

In 1958, Simon Wiesenthal was challenged by a group of protesters at a performance of The Diary of Anne Frank in Vienna who asserted that Anne Frank had never existed, and who told Wiesenthal to prove her existence by finding the man who had arrested her. He began searching for Karl Silberbauer and found him in 1963. When interviewed, Silberbauer readily admitted his role, and identifed Anne Frank from a photograph as one of the people arrested. He provided a full account of events and recalled emptying a briefcase full of papers onto the floor. His statement corroborated the version of events that had previously been presented by witnesses such as Otto Frank.

In 1976 Otto Frank took action against Heinz Roth of Frankfurt, who published pamphlets stating the diary was a forgery. The judge ruled that if he published further statements he would be subjected to a 500,000 Deutschmark fine and a six months' jail sentence. Two cases were dismissed by German courts in 1978 and 1979 on the grounds of freedom of speech, as the complaint was not filed by an "injured party". The court ruled in each case that if a further complaint was made by an injured party, such as Otto Frank, a charge of slander could follow.

The controversy reached its peak in 1980 with the arrest and trial of two neo-Nazis, Ernst Römer and Edgar Geiss, who were tried and found guilty of producing and distributing literature denouncing the diary as a forgery, following a complaint by Otto Frank. During their appeal, a team of historians examined the documents in consultation with Otto Frank, and determined them to be genuine.

With Otto Frank's death in 1980, the original diary, including letters and loose sheets, were willed to the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, who commissioned a forensic study of the diary through the Netherlands Ministry of Justice in 1986. They examined the handwriting against known exemplars and found that they matched, and determined that the paper, glue and ink were readily available during the time the diary was said to have been written. Their final determination was that the diary is authentic. On March 23, 1990, the Hamburg Regional Court confirmed its authenticity.

Otto Frank used her original diary, known as "version A", and her edited version, known as "version B", to produce the first version for publication. He removed certain passages, most notably those which referred to his wife in unflattering terms, and sections that discussed Anne's growing sexuality. Although he restored the true identities of his own family, he retained all of the other pseudonyms.

He gave the diary to the historian Anne Romein, who tried unsuccessfully to have it published. She then gave it to her husband Jan Romein, who wrote an article about it, titled "Kinderstem" ("A Child's Voice"), published in the newspaper Het Parool on April 3, 1946. He wrote that the diary "stammered out in a child's voice, embodies all the hideousness of fascism, more so than all the evidence at Nuremberg put together" [2] (http://www.annefrank.org/content.asp?pid=112&lid=2). His article attracted attention from publishers, and the diary was published in 1947, followed by a second run in 1950. The first American edition was published in 1952 under the title Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl. A play based upon the diary, by Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, premiered in New York City on October 5, 1955, and later won a Pulitzer Prize for Drama. It was followed by the 1959 movie The Diary of Anne Frank, which was a critical and commercial success. Over the years the popularity of the diary grew, and in many schools, particularly in the United States, it was included as part of the curriculum, introducing Anne Frank to new generations of readers.

Jews controlled German professions

Census department  stated that the number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions . . . should be definitely limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole North African population. He endorsed the same plan for Germany. Limiting the number of Jews in the professions, he stated, would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore toward the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a single part of the population, over 50 per cent of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors, etc., in Germany were Jews.
 

How the eight Jews died

A Financial Swindler?

Here is nonetheless a part of this "scholarly" edition that I cannot recommend enough to readers. It is that in which the rather unsettling prewar past of Otto Frank and his brother Herbert is revealed. In a preventive step against a possible revisionist inquiry into the matter, the authors inform us that in 1923 Otto Frank founded, in Frankfurt, a bank called "M. Frank and Sons." The three men who headed this firm were Herbert and Otto Frank and -- this detail is of some importance for the story of the Anne Frank diary -- one Johannes Kleiman, a man who appears in the diary under the name of Jo Koophuis and who, after the war, was to act as an informer against "collaborators" for the Dutch "Political Criminal Investigation Department."[note 8] Even before Hitler came to power in January 1933, the bank was implicated in various shady dealings. A trial was held, but Herbert, the principal, chose not to appear. He fled the country, finding refuge in France. As for Otto Frank, the Netherlands Institute authors do not tell us anything clear about what happened to him. They go only so far as to inform us that the relevant court records are missing, and that this is "in any case regrettable,"[note 9] an observation which lends a somewhat dubious aspect to the documents' disappearance. In any event, Otto Frank may have fled to the Netherlands in 1933 to evade German justice.

Before engaging in a kind of literary swindle, had Frank been involved in financial swindling? During the war, thanks to various subterfuges and to the support of his three main partners (all "Aryans"), he had the satisfaction of seeing his two firms make money in their dealings with, among other concerns, a Dutch mainstay of the Dresdner Bank, one of Germany's largest banking firms. It can be stated that, even during his time in hospital at Auschwitz, his Amsterdam business carried on under the supervision of his associate Jan Gies. Back in Amsterdam after the war, he had a brush with the Dutch legal authorities, who were very attentive to matters of economic collaboration with Germany during the occupation. But an arrangement, we are told, was found.[note 10]

Pectin

This invention is directed to an occlusive dressing useful for treating skin lesions such as dermal ulcers and pressure sores. This invention is also directed to a method of treating skin wounds which are emitting a large amount of fluid by packing the wound site with a unique granular material and then covering the wound with the occlusive dressing. As treatment progresses and the amount of liquid discharge lessens, the granular packing material can be omitted.

This invention is also directed to the composition of the granular packing material

"The results of tests performed at the BKA laboratories show that portions of the work [Anne Frank's diary], specially of the fourth volume, were written with a ballpoint pen."

- Al Fredricks, New York Post, October 9, 1980

Anne Frank may not have inked that famous diary

by Al Fredricks

A REPORT by the German Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau (BKA) indicates that portions of The Diary of Anne Frank had been altered or added after 1951, casting doubt over the authenticity of the entire work, the West German news weekly Der Spiegel has disclosed.

The diary, a day-to-day account of the anguish of a young Jewish and her family hiding in their Amsterdam home during the Nazi invasion, has touched the hearts of millions.

The manuscript was examined on orders of a West German court as of a libel action brought by Otto Frank, Anne's father and the only family member to survive the concentration camps, against Ernst Roemer for spreading the allegation the book was a fraud.

This was the second suit against Roemer, a long-time critic of the book, by Frank. In the first case, the court decided in Frank's favor when the testimony of historians and graphologists sufficed to authenticate the diary.

In April, however, only a short time before Frank's death on August 19, the manuscript was turned over to techicians of the BKA [Bundeskriminalamt, Germany's "FBI"] for examination.

The manuscript, in the form of three hardbound notebooks and 324 loose pages bound in a fourth notebook, was examined with special equipment.

The results of tests performed at the BKA laboratories show that portions of the work, specially of the fourth volume, were written with a ballpoint pen. Since ballpoint pens were not available before 1951, the BKA concluded, those sections must have been added subsequently. [*]

The examination of the manuscript did not, however, unearth any conslusive evidence to lay to rest the speculations about the authenticity of the first three notebooks.

* Anne Frank fell ill with typhus at the Bergen-Belsen camp and died in March 1945.

Related item: Arthur Hawley says, it's wrong to say ball point pens weren't available until 1951

Historians and writers

http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/bof1.html

Neither were gassed, which is odd because the Nazis were supposed to have had a ruthless factory-like murder machine? If the Nazis had a widely alleged extermination policy, then neither Anne nor her father, sister, and many other Jews, would have survived Auschwitz. In short, like many 'Holocaust survivors', their fate cannot be reconciled with the extermination story!


Otto wasn't gassed





When Otto Frank was released from a camp at the end of the war, he returned to the Amsterdam house and 'found' his daughter's 'diary' hidden in the rafters, though another story has it that Dutch woman, Miep Gies, was responsible for finding the 'diary' and gave it to Otto.

Whilst the famous Holocaust story is undoubtedly The Diary of Anne Frank, few people know that it, like the rest of the alleged 'personal experience' literature is largely fiction. (More than 10,000 'eyewitness' testimonies about Nazi atrocities against Jews have been shown to be false in Yad Vashem alone - the international centre for Holocaust documentation in Jerusalem - according to its former archives director, Shmuel Krakowski. (See Adelaide Institute newsletter, No. 41, 1996, pp. 6-7 wherein Krakowski is reported to have withdrawn this comment.) As documentary proof for the so-called Holocaust fall by the wayside, historians have increasingly depended on 'eyewitness' testimony to support their theories. The 1985 and 1988 Zündel 'false-news' trials showed how unreliable such testimonies are, being based on rumour, hearsay and Allied propaganda.


Anne Frank did live and may have written a six by four by a quarter of an inch thick diary. But when this becomes a standard 300 page paperback book one must conclude that most of it has been written by others.

Diary was a shame


 

Anne Frank left a diary containing only about 150 notes, according to The New York Times, 2 October 1955.
The published 'diary', with its final 293 pages, is of a high literary standard which, together with its content dealing with historical events, makes it very unlikely to have been the work of a thirteen-year-old girl. This anomaly was detected immediately. Upon reading a copy of Anne's 'diary' in 1946, Jan

Romin declared in the Dutch newspaper Het Parool:
The government Institute for War Documentation is in possession of about two hundred similar diaries, but it would amaze me if there was one among then as pure, as intelligent, and yet as human as [Anne's].
The reader will soon discover why this 'diary' has special qualities.

Any literary inspection of the work reveals that it is too intellectual to have been the work of a thirteen-year-old.
It starts off with a detailed listing of Nazi measures against the Jews while the rest is full of Holocaust inaccuracies and distortions. It is also written in five different handwriting styles.
The fact is that this celebrated but pathetic 'diary' purported to have been written by this Jewish girl, was actually largely penned and elaborated by her father, Otto Frank, in ball-point pen which was not available until after the war.

The truth about the Anne Frank 'diary' was first revealed by the Swedish journal Fria Ord. Since then there have been a number of books written about this hoax, including D Felderer's Anne Frank Diary: A Hoax; R Faurisson's Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine? (1985),; and G Knabe's Die Wahrheit (ber 'Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank' (1994.)

The handwriting attributed to Anne Frank and that in the 'diary' bear no resemblance to each other. Ditlieb Felderer, a Jehovah's Witness, and others had long tried to directly examine the 'diary' but had been rebuffed with the usual neo-Nazi innuendo. In April 1977 Ditlieb Felderer wrote to Otto Frank requesting permission to come to Switzerland with a party of experts to examine the original documents, but Frank refused.

On Otto Frank's death in 1980, a new attempt was made to rehabilitate the 'diary'. It was officially announced that Frank had deleted certain sexual references and this was why he wouldn't allow it to be examined. It was also announced that West German jurists had examined the 'diary' and declared it to be authentic. The handwriting discrepancy was of course ignored. Thus we have the first vague confirmation that the 'diary' is not quite what Anne wrote. When we also realise that the West German judiciary is influenced by the Jews having formulated laws which make it a crime to question the Holocaust story, we realise how worthless their declaration is.

On 20 May 1980 the State Criminal Office of West Germany gave the Hamburg District Court of Justice a report containing its official expert opinion on the 'diary'. Technical analysis of the manuscript showed portions of it were altered or added after 1951. Other German experts in the 1960s, determined that the handwriting was the same throughout the 'diary'. Of course, the court case bearing directly on the authenticity of the 'diary' was not officially reported.

In Germany the Jewish-owned magazine, Der Spiegel [the mirror] October 1980 revealed that the West
German Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau (B.K.U.) reported that "portions of the diary have been altered or added to after 1951, casting extreme doubt over the authenticity of the entire work". This confirms the widespread allegation that parts of the 'diary' were written in ball-point ink unavailable until after the war. (The ball-point pen or 'biro' was produced in the United States in May 1945, and whilst there remains some disagreement over who invented it, the first workable such pen was patented in 1937 by Ladislaus Biro, a Hungarian living in Argentina.)


In 1982 Dr Robert Faurisson published an article on Anne's 'diary' which demonstrated that at one time Anne had very mature handwriting but then, for months later, a childish scrawl. Faurisson's investigation took him to Basel, Switzerland, where he spent two days talking with Otto Frank who told him, "Dr Faursisson, I agree with you 100 per cent. All those things [i.e. contradictions which Faurisson found in Frank's alleged lifestyle-in-hiding] are theoretically, scientifically impossible, but so it was." Faurisson tried unsuccessfully to obtain a handwriting specimen from Otto Frank, but the man always used a typewriter.

Because Anne's 'story' has generated a fortune, the Jews have squabbled over the pathetic remnants of her life.
From 1956 to 1958 a case was brought by Meyer Levin against Otto Frank in which Levin was granted $50,000 as indemnity for "fraud, default and unauthorised employment of ideas." The issue in this case was about the dramatised version of the 'diary', i.e. for use in film, radio, television and theatre productions, and the rights for which were claimed by Meyer Levin and upheld by a jury at a New York Court. Levin was an author and journalist who lived for many years in France where he met Otto Frank around 1949.

In 1996 it was reported that the Jews were battling over the rights to Anne Frank's trademark! The Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam is accused by The Anne Frank Foundation of attempting to licence companies to mass produce Anne Frank china, pottery, jewellery and even fountain pens ( why not an Anne Frank magic ball point pen?)! This is not the first time a legal battle has taken place over the Anne Frank myth. Before his death, her father was engaged in heated battles over the ownership of the mythical 'diary'. Again, it demonstrates that "There's no business like Shoah [Holocaust] business"!


With the great deal of emotional tear-shedding generated over the plight of Anne Frank, a museum has been dedicated to her and where her 'diary' is kept. The Anne Frank House in Amsterdam, which has been turned into a museum, has been carefully designed to play on the visitor's emotions, and as the 'victim' was an adolescent this is all the more easily accomplished. Each room deals with a period in her life, or with periods of the Nazi occupation of Holland. The visitor literally grows up with her ( an old ploy of using the visitor to identify with the victim). Finally, one comes to the last room and although being one of the millions who has read her 'diary', you know what the outcome is to be. The impact is shocking, just what you expected.

Meyer Levin declared in The New York Times Book Review:
Because the diary was not written in retrospect, it contains the trembling life of every moment...Anne Frank's voice becomes the voice of six million vanished Jewish souls.


This naïve emotional appeal, not based on fact, is typical of those emanating from the gullible, and the Jewish lobby waging a constant campaign of emotional blackmail through their control of large parts of the Western media, including Hollywood. A number of films have been made about Anne Frank, including The Diary of Anne Frank (1959), which perpetuates the myths and propaganda surrounding this individual. Despite its recent production the makers of the film Anne Frank Remembered are still oblivious to the historical facts, and similar errors are perpetuated by one film reviewer:

Anne Frank was perhaps Hitler's best known victim as crisp-vowelled narrator Kenneth Branagh points out at the beginning of this non-nonsense documentary.
The fact is that she was a victim of typhus, not Hitler!

Her war-time diaries are remarkable on many counts: the quality of the writing, the maturity of her insights, and the story of courage and resilience contained therein.


As we have seen, these came courtesy of Otto Frank's contributions.
Frank's diaries give a personal face to mind-numbing images of mass graves and belching human furnaces.

Attempts to contain the numerous typhus epidemics at some of the camps, are transformed into visions of Dante's Inferno. We are also told by the reviewer that by Anne's thirteenth birthday, "almost everything that was fun was already banned". Fun was not banned in the Third Reich though it was subdued, in consideration for those who were fighting and dying on the front lines, just as it was in Allied countries.

To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the original in February 1947, the Jewish-controlled Viking Books will publish an unexpurgated version of the 'diary' in Britain. Its said forty-two entries edited by Otto Frank would be restored. The full version had the blessing of Buddy Elias, Anne's cousin and president of the Swiss-based Anne Frank Foundation, who said:

It's really Anne-like now. Otto cut out a lot of things, all the really aggressive accounts. She wrote down everything, her sexual feelings as she grew from a girl to a young woman. These things you couldn't print in 1947. People try to make a saint out of her and glorify her. That she was not. She was just an ordinary, normal girl with a talent for writing. (Daily Telegraph, 24 October 1996)

Such claims are nonsense and the naïve public is duped again. All the material Otto Frank put in to 'spice' the diary up and then take out, are added again. Also such titillating material was being published in 1947 despite the denial. The reason to republish something old dressed up as new, is purely a financial one, squeezing more money out of a myth of a myth!


In short, 'Saint' Anne's 'diary' is an edited, revised, gone-over book which is not a spontaneous 'diary', a fact admitted by her father before his death, and by others.

Hiding the Innocent: The Diary of Anne Frank is one of the main canonical works of the Holocaust and Redemption literature. It echoes the emotion-packed theme of hiding children to avoid persecution that figures prominently in several other important works of Jewish origin: the Torah story of Moses being released into the fens of the Nile Delta to avoid a genocidal Pharoah; the story in the Gospel of Jesus' parents fleeing to avoid Herod's murder of children, and so on. Anne Frank combines this basic, powerful theme with sophisticated twentieth century Freudian psychoanalytic themes to produce a compelling account of an innocent, good Jewish child doomed by evil Gentiles to die in horror.
Schneerso

http://mysite.users2.50megs.com/history/whistleblowers.html



http://mysite.users2.50megs.com/history/whistleblowers.html
 

Financial Swindler?

Anne Frank’s father, Otto, was a war profiteer.

He ran a business in Amsterdam during the war that produced and sold goods to Hitler’s army. Otto Frank collaborated with Hitler’s Nazis, and with the Dutch Nazis as well.

After the war Otto paid blackmail to a former Dutch Nazi to keep his own wartime collaboration with Nazis a secret while he promoted Anne’s writings.

It is that in which the rather unsettling prewar past of Otto Frank and his brother Herbert is revealed.

Later, Frank started a business relationship with Tonny Ahlers, through whom Frank sold pectin to the German army -- a business decision Frank hoped would protect not only his company but also himself and his family.
Later, Frank started a business relationship with Tonny Ahlers, one of the losers in life who often turned to the Nazis for a scrap of power. Through Ahlers, Frank sold pectin to the German army, even after it conquered the Netherlands. It was, Lee writes, "a pact with the devil, but the price can scarcely be imagined. In working with the enemy, Otto hoped to protect not only his company but also himself and his family, for by then most Jewish people realized something of the immense danger that faced them."

Lee shows that Ahlers knew the location of the Franks' hiding place from the beginning, and through thorough research and interviews with Ahlers' children, shows how he ultimately betrayed the Franks. Later, after the Allies freed him from Auschwitz and Frank returned as his family's sole survivor, Frank vouched for Ahlers when the Dutch authorities targeted him after the war.

 

From the book - ' The hidden life of Otto Frank '

Otto's marriage was to a wealthy frigid Jewess who couldn't fulfill his desires.


“ Caresses and kisses " for his daughter

Moreover, Otto's relationship with Anne, blatantly the apple of his eye, seemed to have been a little too close for comfort, teetering on the brink of inappropriateness. For instance, he confided to her the details of an early, ill-fated love affair that had so devastated him he was unable to have romantic feelings for anyone else.

He also took it upon himself to talk openly to Anne about sex and sexuality. His sense of humor was strongly scatological, a fact that he edited out of Anne's diary, along with certain references to his previous unhappy romance and unclear -- and unsettling -- remarks by Anne such as, "I long for more than Daddy's kisses, for more than his caresses. Isn't it terrible of me to keep thinking about this all the time?"

What other reaction can a reader have to insights such as these than to blink and say, "Huh?"


Otto was also doing Jetje Jansen, a woman that worked for him.





 

http://www.popmatters.com/books/reviews/h/hidden-life-of-otto-frank.shtml

 

Otto Frank married some rich jewess - he started a bank in Germany in 1923 in Frankfurt, a bank called "M. Frank and Sons."
In 1933 the bank was under investigation and Frank left for Amsterdam ( In a hurry )

The story of the Anne Frank is mostly bogus - it was written by Otto Frank. He left out some parts about sexuality ( a kid living there - Peter and Otto did some things ) A lot of jewish sexuality crap - the kid the father - Yuk

I think Otto f**ked his business patner and that's why he was arrested - Tony Ahlers.

Otto was banging Jetje Jansen, a Dutch woman whose husband eventually joined the Dutch Nazi party the pair led to "a maze of blackmail, terror, and despair,"
 

Robert Faurisson

...it is still an eclectic conflation of A and B [i.e., the first two versions of the "critical edition"], and it is marred by errors and omissions; many passages are in the wrong places and several passages are missing.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First published in Italian by Graphos, in Genova, 2000.
French original text in Archive Faurisson in French.

Diary of Anne Frank
(Judgment of 27 april 2000)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ZGram -- January 11, 2000. By Ingrid Rimland
First displayed on aaargh: 17 April 2001.

This text has been displayed on the Net, and forwarded to you as a tool for educational purpose, further research, on a non commercial and fair use basis, by the International Secretariat of the Association des Anciens Amateurs de Recits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes (AAARGH). The E-mail of the Secretariat is <aaarghinternational@hotmail.com. Mail can be sent at PO Box 81475, Chicago, IL 60681-0475, USA..
We see the act of displaying a written document on Internet as the equivalent to displaying it on the shelves of a public library. It costs us a modicum of labor and money. The only benefit accrues to the reader who, we surmise, thinks by himself. A reader looks for a document on the Web at his or her own risks. As for the author, there is no reason to suppose that he or she shares any responsibilty for other writings displayed on this Site. Because laws enforcing a specific censorship on some historical question apply in various countries (Germany, France, Israel, Switzerland, Canada, and others) we do not ask their permission from authors living in thoses places: they wouldn't have the freedom to consent.
We believe we are protected by the Human Rights Charter:

aaarghinternational@hotmail.com

Westerbork Camp

http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Camps/WestEng.html

Plot summary of diaries

The authenticity of Anne Frank's diary has been challenged ever since its publication in 1947.  The diary is used in hundreds of schools as an introduction into the Holocaust.

Anne Frank began her diary on June 12, 1942, at the age of thirteen. The diary covers the period from June 12 to December 5, 1942. In addition to this first diary, Anne also filled a series of
albums, loose sheets of paper and an account and exercise book. During the course of her entries, she confided to her diary that her aspiration was to publish a book entitled Her Achterhuis (The Diaries) after the war. For this purpose, Anne rewrote her first diaries on loose sheets of copy paper, thereby leaving a second version in her handwriting.

In this second edition, Anne changed, rearranged and occasionally combined entries of various dates. In addition, she drew up a list of changed names for some of the principal characters. All the aspects of life in the Annexe (Anne's name for the family's hiding place) were described by her on the loose sheets. The last entry on these loose sheets recorded the events of March 29, 1944. Anne must have reached this point of her rewriting early in August 1944. It was on August 4th of that year that the Sicherheitsdienst raided the Annexe. After the Gestapo had taken away the eight inhabitants of the Annexe, Miep Gies, a friend of the Franks, managed to gathered up Anne's diary and loose sheets of paper.

 Months later, Otto Frank returned to Amsterdam. When it was learned that both Anne and her sister were dead, Miep handed Anne's writings over to Otto Frank. After reading the materials, Otto prepared a typed edition of the diary for the benefit of relative and friends. He included only those passages he felt were essential to the diary. Next, Otto typed out a second copy based on Anne's loose sheets. In this typescript, which we shall refer to as Typescript 1, Otto also selected items which struck him as important. Since Anne was not able to rewrite her experience in the Annexe after March 29, 1944 onto the loose sheets, Otto had no option but to use the first version for that period. He also added four "events" Anne had recorded in her account book.

While Anne's second version was his guide, Otto used his judgment in editing certain parts of the diary. The passages omitted were of little importance and included such events as a description of the home of one of Anne's friends, and an argument with the Van Pels family; again, he left out passages that displayed Anne's stormy relationship with her mother. At the same time, he omitted some incidents that he felt were duller entries, including for instance, a report about Anne's Ping Pong Club (2).

Typed a 700 page diary for friends ?

Otto Frank then preceded to give this typed manuscript to an old friend, Albert Cauvern, who also made grammatical corrections to the typescript. The typescript produced by both Otto Frank and Albert Cauvern, was then retyped (Typescript II). Encouraged by friends, Otto attempted to have the diary published but was repeatedly turned down. Most publishers felt that some items contained in the diary would not be well received by its readers. Therefore, like Typescript I, Typescript II was also emended. Typing errors were corrected and changes were also made in the choice of words: "spice room, middle room, front room" were all combined into "storeroom" and "two days" became "a few days". Altogether there were several dozen such changes.

 At the same time, two references to menstruation were omitted, together with a reference to two girls touching each other's breasts.
 

 November 1957 in the Swedish paper Fria Ord (4) under the title "Judisk Psyke-En studie kring Anne Frank ach Meyer Levin" (Jewish Psyche-A Study Around Anne Frank and Meyer Levin). Their author was Harald Niels e n, a Danish literary critic, who alleged that the diary owed its final form to Meyer Levin.

. Levin was extremely interested in writing the script for the play and in 1952, Otto Frank granted his permission. However, Levin wrote a script that was turned down repeatedly by producers. After several such rejections, Otto Frank finally granted Kermit Bloomgarden the production rights. This time the play went into production and was an overwhelming success.

A new lawsuit seemed inevitable and after two years of attempting to negotiate with Levin, Otto Frank finally agreed to pay him $15,000 who in turn agreed to drop all his claims to royalties and the rights to the dramatization of the play.

Pamphlets and other publications appeared with allegations that following the decision of the jury in New York, Otto Frank had to pay $50,000 to the Jewish writer Meyer Levin in connection with the writing of the diary. That the case concerned a play and not the diary itself, and that Otto had finally paid $15,000 for Levin's rights in the play, have been completely ignored by journalists in the years to follow.

In the summer of 1967, a journalist named Teressa Hendry, challenged the diary's authenticity in the magizine, American Mercury . In an article entitled, "Was Anne Frank's Diary a Hoax?" she claimed that the diary's real author had been Meyer Levin and that a massive fraud had been perpetrated. She also quotes a summary of the Fria Ord articles which were allegedly published in the Economic Council Letter on April 15, 1959.

"A noteworthy decision of the New York Supreme Court confirms this point of view, in that the well known American Jewish writer, Meyer Levin, has been awarded $50,000 to be paid him by the father of Anne Frank as an honorarium for Levin's work on the "Anne Frank Diary" (6).
 

Again in 1978, Teressa Hendry's article was reprinted in the Washington Weekly, The Spotlight (8). In 1975, David Irving, the well known British historian, wrote in his introduction to his book, Hitler und seine Feldherren (Hitler and His Generals):   "Many forgeries are on record, as for instance that of the "Diary of Anne Frank " (in this case a civil lawsuit brought by a New York scriptwriter has proved that he wrote it in collaboration with the girl's father). (9).
 

Also in 1975, a book entitled, " The Hoax of the Twenty Century" by Arthur Butz, contained a short paragraph in one of his chapters which claimed that:

"The question of the authenticity of the diary is not considered important enough to examine here; I will only remark that I have looked it over and don't believe it. For example, already on page 2 one is reading an essay an why a 13 year old girl would start a diary, and then page 3 gives a short history of the Frank family and then quickly reviews the specific anti-Jewish measures that followed the German occupation in 1940. The rest of the book is in the same historical spirit." (10).

In 1976, Anne Frank's diary became the subject of a court case in Frankfort, Germany. In 1975, Heinz Roth, an architect from Odenhausen, who issued neo-Nazi brochures, began to distribute pamphlets entitled, Anne Franks Tagebuch-eine Falschung (Anne Frank's Diary-A Forgery). Quoting Irving, he referred again to the story that Otto Frank had written the diary with the help of a New York playwright. When asked to revoke his allegations, he refused and was then taken to court by Otto. Roth defended himself by citing Arthur Butz, who had declared the diary to be fraudulent and by submitting the expert opinion of Robert Faurisson.

Faurisson, of the department of Literature at the University of Lyons, produced his expert opinion in 1978. It was published two years later under the title, Le Journal d'Anne Frank est-il authentique? (The Diary of Anne Frank-Is It Authentic?) Among his arguments to prove the diary fictitious was the noise within the Het Achterhuis. He used his findings in order to demonstrate that it must have been impossible to hide in the Annexe and therefore the diary could not have been written by Anne Frank. For example, he stated that it was improbable that:

 

If the diary was authentic then it would have been written in the period from 1942 to 1944 and the materials used (ink, paper, glue) would therefore have been manufactured before or during that period. In order to determine these things, the State Forensic Science Laboratory subjected the diary to both a handwriting examination and a document examination.

In order to discover whether the materials used were genuine, it was necessary for the document examiner to compare the document in question to a representative collection of reference material from the same period. The concept behind document examination is based on the discovery of possible anachronisms; for instance, whether the paper used includes whiteners not used in paper manufacture before 1952. If such materials are absent and if no other anachronism can be found, then forgery is increasingly unlikely.

The handwriting expert, on the other hand is concerned with the identification of the writer of the text rather than with dates. If he can show agreement between two handwriting samples, then he can conclude that the two samples were written by the same person. He must also form a picture of the kind of handwriting produced at the alleged time by someone whose age, education, etc. agrees as closely as possible with those of the alleged writer.

Most Americans have read the book or seen the movie version, deeply
moved by the real life drama it claims to present. But have we been
misled in the belief that Anne Frank actually wrote this diary? And
if so, should an author be permitted to produce a work of fiction and
sell it to the world as fact, particularly one of such tremendous
emotional appeal?
Any informed literary inspection of this
book would have shown it to have been impossible as the work of a
teenager.

A noteworthy decision of the New York Supreme Court confirms this
point of view, in that the well known American Jewish writer, Meyer
Levin, has been awarded $50,000 to be paid him by the father of Anne
Frank as an honorarium for Levin's work on the "Anne Frank Diary."
 

There is no sample of Isa Cauvern's handwriting, about whose involvement I had voiced suspicions. She had been Otto Frank's secretary. She married Albert Cauvern, a dramatist working for a Dutch radio station. Isa and Albert Cauvern worked on the "diary" manuscript and on the various typescripts.

Here is nonetheless a part of this "scholarly" edition that I cannot recommend enough to readers. It is that in which the rather unsettling prewar past of Otto Frank and his brother Herbert is revealed. In a preventive step against a possible revisionist inquiry into the matter, the authors inform us that in 1923 Otto Frank founded, in Frankfurt, a bank called "M. Frank and Sons." The three men who headed this firm were Herbert and Otto Frank and -- this detail is of some importance for the story of the Anne Frank diary -- one Johannes Kleiman, a man who appears in the diary under the name of Jo Koophuis and who, after the war, was to act as an informer against "collaborators" for the Dutch "Political Criminal Investigation Department."[note 8] Even before Hitler came to power in January 1933, the bank was implicated in various shady dealings. A trial was held, but Herbert, the principal, chose not to appear. He fled the country, finding refuge in France. As for Otto Frank, the Netherlands Institute authors do not tell us anything clear about what happened to him. They go only so far as to inform us that the relevant court records are missing, and that this is "in any case regrettable,"[note 9] an observation which lends a somewhat dubious aspect to the documents' disappearance. In any event, Otto Frank may have fled to the Netherlands in 1933 to evade German justice.
 

Back in Amsterdam after the war, he had a brush with the Dutch legal authorities, who were very attentive to matters of economic collaboration with Germany during the occupation. But an arrangement, we are told, was found.[note 10]
 

To begin with, they consider that the three expert analyses on which Frank based his claim of the diary's authenticity are devoid of any value.[note 11] Let us recall that those analyses, the absurdity of which I had pointed out, nevertheless received, in the 1960s, the endorsement of German judges, who used them in convicting those who, before me, had cast doubt on the diary's alleged authenticity.
 

All things considered, the Netherlands Institute's "critical edition" of the Anne Frank diary is a disaster for the late Otto Frank and for his experts, friends, and those who have vouched for him. Clearly, Frank's cause has been deemed indefensible. But, by cutting away the deadwood in an attempt to preserve the tree, that is, by sacrificing Frank's reputation in order to save that of his daughter's alleged diary, the pruners at the Netherlands State Institute have found themselves confronting a kind of nothingness. Only a questionable "handwriting analysis" emerges from it all, which is all the more laughable given that, a few years after the publication of their "critical edition" in 1986, other samples of the girl's writing in various personal letters and postcards appeared on the open market. These samples, which seem genuine to me, have rendered worthless the Netherlands Institute's laborious analyses. In any case, the experts' work must now be reviewed from beginning to end.
 

Only then, and regardless of what the profiteers who have exploited her memory for so long may have to say about it, will justice finally be done to the one, the genuine Anne Frank, who never wrote this "cock-and-bull story," first published in Dutch in 1947 and then published (in its US editions), in 1953 as The Diary of a Young Girl, re-christened, in 1986-1989, after renovation and makeshift repairs, The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition, before ending up being called, in 1995 (for English readers), after much patching and façade work, The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition, by "Anne Frank."
Post scriptum
It is these kinds of manipulations of the facts that have ironically given
credence to the revisionist contention that most of what we have come to know as
the Holocaust, is merely a collection of self-serving Zionist ''bullshit''.
And for the record Leo Frank did not seek refuge in the Netherlands to escape
the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany. Actually he fled before the Nazis came to
power to avoid prosecution for violating Germany's currency regulations.

One can assume that those from 1941
were taken by a man who knew he should have moved his family to Switzerland,
where his mother and brothers had fled, when he still had the chance.

 

BEST-SELLER A HOAX

Of the other variety of memoirs, those which present a picture of frail Jewry caught in the vice of Nazism, the most celebrated is undoubtedly The Diary of Anne Frank, and the truth concerning this book is only one appalling insight into the fabrication of a propaganda legend . First published in 1952, The Diary of Anne Frank became an immediate best-seller; since then it has been republished in paper-back, going through 40 impressions, and was made into a successful Hollywood film. In royalties alone, Otto Frank, the girl's father, has made a fortune from the sale of the book, which purports to represent the real-life tragedy of his daughter. With its direct appeal to the emotions, the book and the film have influenced literally millions of people, certainly more throughout the world than any other story of its kind. And yet only seven years after its initial publication, a New York Supreme Court case established that the book was a hoax. The Diary of Anne Frank has been sold to the public as the actual diary of a young Jewish girl from Amsterdam, which she wrote at the age of 12 while her family and four other Jews were hiding in the back room of a house during the German occupation. Eventually, they were arrested and detained in a concentration camp, where Anne Frank supposedly died when she was 14. When Otto Frank was liberated from the camp at the end of the war, he returned to the Amsterdam house and "found" his daughter's diary concealed in the rafters. The truth about the Anne Frank Diary was first revealed in 1959 by the Swedish journal Fria Ord. It established that the Jewish novelist Meyer Levin had written the dialogue of the "diary" and was demanding payment for his work in a court action against Otto Frank. A condensation of the Swedish articles appeared in the American Economic Council Letter, April 15th, 1959, as follows: "History has many examples of myths that live a longer and richer life than truth, and may become more effective than truth. "The Western World has for some years been made aware of a Jewish girl through the medium of what purports to be her personally written story, Anne Frank's Diary. Any informed literary inspection of this book would have shown it to have been impossible as the work of a teenager.

 "A noteworthy decision of the New York Supreme Court confirms this point of view, in that the well known American Jewish writer, Meyer Levin, has been awarded $50,000 to be paid him by the father of Anne Frank as an honorarium for Levin's work on the Anne Frank Diary. "Mr. Frank, in Switzerland, has promised to pay to his race kin, Meyer Levin, not less than $50,0OO because he had used the dialogue of Author Levin just as it was and "implanted" it in the diary as being his daughter's intellectual work." Further inquiries brought a reply on May 7th, 1962 from a firm of New York lawyers, which stated: "I was the attorney for Meyer Levin in his action against Otto Frank, and others. It is true that a jury awarded Mr. Levin $50,000 in damages, as indicated in your letter. That award was later set aside by the trial justice, Hon. Samuel C. Coleman, on the ground that the damages had not been proved in the manner required by law. The action was subsequently settled while an appeal from Judge Coleman's decision was pending. "I am afraid that the case itself is not officially reported, so far as the trial itself, or even Judge Coleman's decision, is concerned. Certain procedural matters were reported in 141 New York Supplement, Second Series 170, and in 5 Second Series 181. The correct file number in the New York County Clerk's office is 2241 -- 1956 and the file is probably a large and full one . . ." Here, then, is just one more fraud in a whole series of frauds perpetrated in support of the "Holocaust" legend and the saga of the Six Million. Of course, the court case bearing directly on the authenticity of the Anne Frank Diary was "not officially reported". A brief reference may also be made to another "diary", published not long after that of Anne Frank and entitled: Notes from the Warsaw Ghetto: the Journal of Emmanuel Ringelblum (New York, 1958). Ringelblum had been a leader in the campaign of sabotage against the Germans in Poland, as well as the revolt of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943, before he was eventually arrested and executed in 1944. The Ringelblum journal, which speaks of the usual "rumours" allegedly circulating about the extermination of the Jews in Poland, appeared under exactly the same Communist auspices as the so-called Höss memoirs. McGraw-Hill, the publishers of the American edition, admit that they were denied access to the uncensored original manuscript in Warsaw, and instead faithfully followed the expurgated volume published by the Communist Government in Warsaw in 1952. All the "proofs" of the Holocaust issuing from Communist sources of this kind are worthless as historical documents.

Daily life

“They come upstairs every day and talk to the men about business and politics, to the women about food and wartime difficulties and to the children about books and newspapers. They put on their most cheerful expressions, bring flowers and gifts for birthdays and holidays and are always ready to do what they can. That's something we should never forget; while others display their heroism in battle or against the Germans, our helpers prove theirs every day by their good spirits and affection.”

Anne Frank

From the moment they go into hiding, the Frank and Van Pels’ families - and later Fritz Pfeffer - are completely dependent on the four helpers. After July 6, 1942, the lives of Miep Gies, Victor Kugler, Johannes Kleiman and Bep Voskuijl are almost completely dominated by the inhabitants of the Secret Annex. Still, unlike the people in hiding, every now and then, the helpers can forget their worries with a short vacation, a film, or by going to visit acquaintances and friends.

Dash H. plays Mr. Otto Frank, a successful Jewish buisnessman who lost his buisness when Hitler came to power. He is the father of the Frank family. His family then moved into the attic of this former buisness (Now run by Mr. Krailer) along with his old friend, Mr. Van Daan,and this family. They were later joined by Mr. Jan Dussel as well. Mr. Frank is a calm, kind man and is the peacemaker of the group. In the words of Anne Frank, he's "The only one who makes me feel like I have any sense!"
 

In the summer of 1933, Otto Frank leaves Frankfurt for Amsterdam, in the Netherlands, to set up a new business called the Dutch Opekta Company.

Father probably arrested

On July 5, 1942, her sister, Margot, receives a call-up notice. This means that she will be deported to a Nazi "work camp."

 

In 1947, two years after her death in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, Otto Frank published "The Diary of Anne Frank". The book was compiled from a collection of notebooks kept by his daughter between 1942 and 1944 whilst the Franks, Jewish refugees from Frankfurt, and another family hid in a closed-off annexe inside this house.

In 1957 the house was donated to the Anne Frank Foundation who have restored it to give some idea of the conditions in which the refugees existed. The front of the house, where Otto Frank ran his business, now contains exhibition space whilst the inner part (which was reached via a revolving bookcase) has been left as it was; empty of furniture, which was confiscated by the Nazis. Anne's original notebooks are on permanent display, along with films showing how the rooms looked during the war and documents recording the history of National Socialism and anti-Semitism.
 

http://www.annefrank.org/

Lothar Stileau

Mr. Frank had a high opinion of the conclusions of the two expert reports called for, about 1960, by the prosecution in Lübeck in order to examine the case of a teacher (Lothar Stielau) who, in 1959, had expressed some doubts about the authenticity of the Diary (Case 2js 19/59, VU 10/59). Mr. Frank had registered a complaint against that teacher. The handwriting report had been entrusted to Mrs. Minna Becker. Mrs. Annemarie Hübner had been charged with attesting whether the texts printed in Dutch and German were faithful to the texts of the manuscript. The two expert reports, submitted as evidence in 1961, turned out to be favorable to Mr. Frank.

But, on the other hand, what Mr. Frank did not reveal to me -- and what I had to learn after my visit, and from a German source -- is that the prosecutor in Lübeck had decided to get a third expert report. Why a third expert report? And on what point, given that, according to all appearances, the whole field possible for investigation had been explored by the handwriting expert and by Mrs. Hübner? The answer to these questions is the following: the prosecutor thought that an expert report of the kind done by Mrs. Hübner risked declaring that Lothar Stielau was right about the facts. In view of the first analyses, it was going to be impossible to declare that the Diary was dokumentarisch echt (documentarily genuine) (!). Perhaps they could have it declared literarisch echt (literarily genuine) (!). The novelist Friedrich Sieburg was going to be charged with answering that odd question.

Heinz Roth

In 1976 Otto Frank took action against Heinz Roth of Frankfurt, who published pamphlets stating the diary was a forgery. The judge ruled that if he published further statements he would be subjected to a 500,000 Deutschmark fine and a six months' jail sentence. Two cases were dismissed by German courts in 1978 and 1979 on the grounds of freedom of speech, as the complaint was not filed by an "injured party". The court ruled in each case that if a further complaint was made by an injured party, such as Otto Frank, a charge of slander could follow.

BKA

- Al Fredricks, New York Post, October 9, 1980

Anne Frank may not have inked that famous diary

by Al Fredricks

A REPORT by the German Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau (BKA) indicates that portions of The Diary of Anne Frank had been altered or added after 1951, casting doubt over the authenticity of the entire work, the West German news weekly Der Spiegel has disclosed.

The diary, a day-to-day account of the anguish of a young Jewish and her family hiding in their Amsterdam home during the Nazi invasion, has touched the hearts of millions.

The manuscript was examined on orders of a West German court as of a libel action brought by Otto Frank, Anne's father and the only family member to survive the concentration camps, against Ernst Roemer for spreading the allegation the book was a fraud.

This was the second suit against Roemer, a long-time critic of the book, by Frank. In the first case, the court decided in Frank's favor when the testimony of historians and graphologists sufficed to authenticate the diary.

In April, however, only a short time before Frank's death on August 19, the manuscript was turned over to techicians of the BKA [Bundeskriminalamt, Germany's "FBI"] for examination.

The manuscript, in the form of three hardbound notebooks and 324 loose pages bound in a fourth notebook, was examined with special equipment.

The results of tests performed at the BKA laboratories show that portions of the work, specially of the fourth volume, were written with a ballpoint pen. Since ballpoint pens were not available before 1951, the BKA concluded, those sections must have been added subsequently. [*]

The examination of the manuscript did not, however, unearth any conslusive evidence to lay to rest the speculations about the authenticity of the first three notebooks.

Diary versions

 Months later, Otto Frank returned to Amsterdam. When it was learned that both Anne and her sister were dead, Miep handed Anne's writings over to Otto Frank. After reading the materials, Otto prepared a typed edition of the diary for the benefit of relative and friends. He included only those passages he felt were essential to the diary. Next, Otto typed out a second copy based on Anne's loose sheets. In this typescript, which we shall refer to as Typescript 1, Otto also selected items which struck him as important. Since Anne was not able to rewrite her experience in the Annexe after March 29, 1944 onto the loose sheets, Otto had no option but to use the first version for that period. He also added four "events" Anne had recorded in her account book.

While Anne's second version was his guide, Otto used his judgment in editing certain parts of the diary. The passages omitted were of little importance and included such events as a description of the home of one of Anne's friends, and an argument with the Van Pels family; again, he left out passages that displayed Anne's stormy relationship with her mother. At the same time, he omitted some incidents that he felt were duller entries, including for instance, a report about Anne's Ping Pong Club (2).

Typed a 700 page diary for friends ?

Otto Frank then preceded to give this typed manuscript to an old friend, Albert Cauvern, who also made grammatical corrections to the typescript. The typescript produced by both Otto Frank and Albert Cauvern, was then retyped (Typescript II). Encouraged by friends, Otto attempted to have the diary published but was repeatedly turned down. Most publishers felt that some items contained in the diary would not be well received by its readers. Therefore, like Typescript I, Typescript II was also emended. Typing errors were corrected and changes were also made in the choice of words: "spice room, middle room, front room" were all combined into "storeroom" and "two days" became "a few days". Altogether there were several dozen such changes.

 At the same time, two references to menstruation were omitted, together with a reference to two girls touching each other's breasts.
 

Betrayed by Broadway

Nathan Strauss was a Jewish-American philanthropist. The modern Israeli city of Netanya is named in his honor

The Herald explained frankly that it could not support a candidate of private interests, because it was devoted to the interests of the public. But the Jewish leaders vowed vengeance against the Herald and against the man who dared to expose their game.

 They had not liked Bennett for a long time, anyway. The Herald was the real "society paper" of New York, but Bennett had a rule that only the names of really prominent families should be printed. The stories of the efforts of newly-rich Jews to break into the Herald's society columns are some of the best that are told by old newspaper men.

 The whole "war" culminated in a contention which arose between Bennett and Nathan Straus, a German-Jew whose business house was known under the name of "R. H. Macy and Company," Macy being the Scotsman who built up the business and from whose heirs Straus obtained it. Straus was something of a philanthropist in the ghetto, but the story goes that Bennett's failure to proclaim him as a philanthropist led to ill-feeling. A long newspaper-war ensued, the subject of which was the pasteurization of milk -a stupid discussion which no one took seriously, save Bennett and Straus.*

 The Jews, of course, took Straus' side. Jewish speakers made the welkin ring with laudation of Nathan Straus and maledictions upon James Bennett. Bennett was pictured in the most vile business of "persecuting" a noble Jew. It went so far that the Jews were able to put resolutions through the Board of Aldermen.

 Long since, of course, Straus, a very heavy advertiser, had withdrawn every dollar's worth of his business from the Herald. And now the combined and powerful elements of New York Jewry gathered to deal a staggering blow at Bennett. The Jewish policy of "Dominate or Destroy" was at stake, and Jewry declared war. Died on titanic

Study and Internship

After completing high school, Otto studies economics at the University of Heidelberg for a few months, but quickly interrupts his study. He works at a bank for a year and then has the opportunity, via a school friend, to do an internship at Macy’s Department Store in New York City. Otto leaves for the States at the beginning of September 1909.

Strauss was the son of Nathan Strasuss,nephew of Strauss (co -owners of Macy dept store)

A Financial Swindler?

Here is nonetheless a part of this "scholarly" edition that I cannot recommend enough to readers. It is that in which the rather unsettling prewar past of Otto Frank and his brother Herbert is revealed. In a preventive step against a possible revisionist inquiry into the matter, the authors inform us that in 1923 Otto Frank founded, in Frankfurt, a bank called "M. Frank and Sons." The three men who headed this firm were Herbert and Otto Frank and -- this detail is of some importance for the story of the Anne Frank diary -- one Johannes Kleiman, a man who appears in the diary under the name of Jo Koophuis and who, after the war, was to act as an informer against "collaborators" for the Dutch "Political Criminal Investigation Department."[note 8] Even before Hitler came to power in January 1933, the bank was implicated in various shady dealings. A trial was held, but Herbert, the principal, chose not to appear. He fled the country, finding refuge in France. As for Otto Frank, the Netherlands Institute authors do not tell us anything clear about what happened to him. They go only so far as to inform us that the relevant court records are missing, and that this is "in any case regrettable,"[note 9] an observation which lends a somewhat dubious aspect to the documents' disappearance. In any event, Otto Frank may have fled to the Netherlands in 1933 to evade German justice.

Secret Life of Otto Frank

The authenticity of the diary was examined in the 1980s, when neo-Nazis claimed that it was forged. All the versions of Anne Frank's texts were published in 1986. However, Otto Frank had put aside before the publication five diary pages, giving them later to his close friend, Cor Suijk. In these pages Ane Frank depicted her parents marriage, defended her mother, and hoped that nobody would see her writings. In 1995 selections of diary suppressed by Otto Frank were made public.

Who betrayed the Frank family? - In the late 1940 Otto Frank's warehouse man Willem Van Maaren was under the investigations. Due to the lack of evidence the process was stopped, but opened again in the 1960s. No evidence was found. In the 1980s a new name came up: Lena Van Bladeren, who worked in the office as a cleaning woman. Carol Ann Lee has claimed that Otto Frank's business friend, Tonny Ahlers, who helped him to continued his spice trade from the hiding place, betrayed the family. Tonny Ahlers was a member of the Nazi party. - For further information: The Last Seven Months of Anne Frank by Willy Lindwer (1992); Anne Frank: A Biography by Melissa Müller; Anne Frank: The Missing Chapter, Dateline Productions (document film, 1998); Roses from the Earth by Carol Ann Lee (1999); The Story of Anne Frank by Mirjam Pressler (1999) - Battle over the American stage adaptation of Anne Frank's diary: In his book The Stolen Legacy of Anne Frank author Ralph Melnick documented how Anne Frank's diary was staged in New York. Originally correspondent Mayer Levin adapted it for a stage play, but then a "less Jewish" was produced by Lillian Hellman. She helped with the last of eight drafts of the play. Anne's words, "Perhaps through Jewish suffering the world will learn good" were revised in the play to "Jews were not the only ones who suffered from the Nazis." The production was a major success and earned a Pulitzer. Kevin spent the rest of his life, three decades, fighting for the right to produce his version. - Other famous diaries: Samuel Pepys (started in 1660, ended the first in 1669), Jonathan Swift, James Boswell, Sir Walter Scott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, André Gide's Journals (1889-1951), Katherine Mansfield, Anaïs Nin - fictional diaries: Daniel Defoe's Journal of the Plaque Year (1722), Georges Bernanos' Journal d'un curé de Campaigne (1936)

Carol Ann Lee's The Hidden Life of Otto Frank is the definitive, astonishing portrait of a man whose story illuminates some of the most harrowing and memorable events of the 20th Century.

In the public eye, Otto Frank has always remained a one-dimensional character: the perfect father figure from The Diary of Anne Frank. Apart from a few basic facts, and his much-criticized editing of his daughter's legacy, almost nothing is known about the man behind the image. Now, Carol Ann Lee reveals startling new details about Otto Frank -- from the identity of the man who betrayed him, to Otto's shocking actions during WWII that made him a target of blackmail for the rest of his days. Probing this startling act of treachery she brings to light never-before documented information about Otto Frank and the individual who would claim responsibility -- a terrifying and complicated relationship that continued until the day Frank died.

With The Hidden Life of Otto Frank, Carol Ann Lee has presented an astonishing and moving portrait of a man whose life, both charmed and cursed, was interwoven with one of the most momentous events of the last century -- the father of Anne Frank. Based upon impeccable research into rare archives and filled with excerpts from the secret journal that he kept from the day of his liberation until his return to the Secret Annex in 1945, this landmark biography explores every facet of Frank's life. The publication of Anne Frank's diary turned this quietly heroic man into a legend, but until now, apart from a few basic facts, almost nothing has been written about Otto Frank's own extraordinary life.

The father of the most famous young girl of the twentieth century, Otto Frank was born a month before Adolf Hitler, and grew up in a wealthy German, Jewish household. In the First World War he fought for Germany -- which he believed to be his country -- as an officer in the trenches of the Somme. Lee brings to light these privileged early years, when Frank and his family were models of wholly assembled European Jewry. She also reveals the full story behind Frank's first cruelly thwarted love affair, as well as the truth about his subsequent arranged marriage to Anne's mother. After struggling to establish a business in Amsterdam, Frank and his family spent happy years together before the war. And then, came their period in hiding, their eventual betrayal and their internment in the death camps of Poland and Germany. For the first time, Frank's experiences during and after Auschwitz are told in full, drawing upon excerpts from a previously unknown journal Frank kept from the day of his liberation until his return to Amsterdam where, wholly destitute, he lost everything "except life." The subsequent delivery of his daughter's diary, and the publishing phenomenon that ensued, helped him begin to recover.

Deeply moving and powerfully honest, The Hidden Life of Otto Frank authoritatively brings into focus a little understood man.


 

top of the page

1. Carol Anne Lee has chosen to entitle her biography, The Hidden Life of Otto Frank -- a word that she wrote in her acknowledgments stemmed from her impetus to write about Frank's "hidden, haunted life." Discuss how your perceptions of how Otto Frank's life was "haunted" changed by reading this biography.

2. "My father always told us that one weekend in 1933 a friend of his handed him a book and said, 'I think you should read this.' It was Mein Kampf. Father stayed up all night reading, and the next morning announced that we were going to America." Many of Otto's relatives -- like Edith Oppenheimer (quoted here) -- fled to America, and England. Discuss how fate brought the Franks to Amsterdam, and how Otto's previous efforts to establish a business abroad influenced his decision and the position he accepted as an independent pectin supplier. Imagine the Frank family's plight and discuss how you might confront the same situation in your present day life. How would your extended family; economic circumstances, and career prospects influence your decision?

3. Anne was not as close with her mother as she was with her father. Yet it was Edith who often brought comfort to Anne, and who "sympathized with Anne at night ... during the battles between German and Allied aircraft." Discuss Anne's record of her relationship with her mother. Discuss what Otto Frank chose to reveal of Anne and Edith's relationship in the diary.

4. "There's no doubt he did it," says Anton Ahlers Jr. Ahlers has said he believed his father, Tonny Ahelers, received money from Frank, because the flow of funds stopped when Frank died in 1980. Do you believe in the case that Lee has made for Tonny Ahlers as the Frank family's betrayer? Or do you think the case is still open, and that the Ahlers family might simply be seeking notoriety?

5. The publication and dramatization of Anne's diary had portrayed Otto Frank as a kind of saint. In The Hidden Life of Otto Frank, he is "much more flesh and blood"(AP). Discuss your own impressions and perceptions of Otto Frank before reading this biography. How have your impressions of him changed after reading a portrait rendered by a biographer rather than a daughter?

6. After his liberation in 1945, Frank wrote a letter stating "Now I am a beggar, having lost everything except life." Discuss how the discovery of Anne's diary gave Otto Frank the will to live.

7. Discuss the symbolism of the three brown beans (page 177) that Otto discovers and pockets upon his return to the secret annex.

8. The editing of Anne's diary by Otto Frank has proven very controversial. Margot Frank's childhood friend Laureen Nussbaum, who has written extensively about Anne's diary believes that "Otto should be congratulated for probably being the first to publish a document from the Holocaust" but believes that as for his editing of the diary "he was headstrong and misled people on the content." Others felt that "Otto was not concealing anything." How did you react to the documentation and evidence of how Otto Frank edited Anne's diary? How did you feel about the particular passages that were excised? In your opinion does a version of the diary that does not include some material still qualify as authentic?

 

top of the page
 

He hired Jetje Jansen, a Dutch woman whose husband eventually joined the Dutch Nazi party and thought his wife was having an affair with Frank. "Otto's uncomplicated decision in 1935 to employ the Jansens would lead him into a situation that has never previously been documented -- a maze of blackmail, terror, and despair," Lee writes.

Heretical press link

Oppenheimers america

"My father always told us that one weekend in 1933 a friend of his handed him a book and said, 'I think you should read this.' It was Mein Kampf. Father stayed up all night reading, and the next morning announced that we were going to America." Many of Otto's relatives -- like Edith Oppenheimer -- fled to America, and England. Discuss how fate brought the Franks to Amsterdam, and how Otto's previous efforts to establish a business abroad influenced his decision and the position he accepted as an independent pectin supplier. Imagine the Frank family's plight and discuss how you might confront the same situation in your present day life. How would your extended family; economic circumstances, and career prospects influence your decision?  Source
 

There is a broader point: There are as you know two branches of the Anne Frank industry, one in Basel, Switzerland, where Anne's father Otto Frank took up his lucrative and luxurious residence, and one in Amsterdam, Holland, where the "little house" was. Both CEOs reacted with guilt to the fact, discovered by the German police authorities and since emphasised by the "deniers", that parts of the Anne Frank oeuvre were found to have been penned in ballpoint ink.

When Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, she did so prompted by the highest of motives. Yet she, herself, relates the incident that when she first met Abraham Lincoln in 1863, he commented "So you are the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!"

Few will deny that the printed word in this instance fanned the flames of passion which brought about one of the bloodiest and saddest wars of American history, with brother sometimes pitted against brother, father against son. Perhaps if there had been less appeal to the emotions the problems might have resolved themselves through peaceful means. However, almost universally read at the time, few people then recognized the potency of one small book or the injustice done the South through its wide acceptance as a fair picture of slavery in the South.

Propaganda, as a weapon of psychological warfare is in even wider use today. Communists were masters of the art. Often they used the direct approach; just as often they employed diversion tactics to focus the eyes and ears of the world in directions other than where the real conflict was being waged. For many years, through propaganda alone, the dead threat of Hitler and Nazism had been constantly held before the public in a diversion maneuver to keep attention from being directed against the live threat of Stalin, Khrushchev and Communism.

Such has been the effect, if not the deliberate intention of many who have promoted its distribution, of a book of popular appeal-The Diary Of Anne Frank. It has been sold to the public as the actual diary of a young Jewish girl who died in a Nazi concentration camp after two years of abuse and horror.

Many Americans have read the book or seen the movie version, and have been deeply moved by the real life drama it claims to present. But have we been misled in the belief that Anne Frank actually wrote this diary? And if so. should an author be permitted to produce a work of fiction and sell it to the world as fact, particularly one of such tremendous emotional appeal?

The Swedish journal Frio Ord published two articles commenting on The Diary of Anne Frank. A condensation of these articles appeared in the April 15, 1959 issue of Economic Council Letter, as follows:

“History has many examples of myths that live a longer and richer life than truth. and may become more effective than truth.

The Western world has for some years hem made aware of a young Jewish girl through the medium of what purports to he her personally written story, "Anne Frank's Diary." Any informed literary inspection of this book has shown it to have been impossible as the work of a teenager.

A noteworthy decision of the New York Supreme Court confirms this point of view, in that the well known American writer, Meyer Levin, has been awarded $50.000 to be paid him by the father of Anne Frank as an honorarium for Levin's work on the "Anne Frank Diary."

Mr. Frank, in Switzerland, had promised to pay to prominent Jewish author, Meyer Levin. not less than $50,000 because he had used the literary creation of author Levin in toto, and represented it to his publisher and the public as his late daughter’s original work.

Inquiry of the County Clerk. New York County. as to the facts of the case referred to in the Swedish press, brought a reply on April 23, 1962, giving the name of a New York firm of lawyers as “attorneys .far the respondent.” Reference was to ”The Dairy of Anne Frank 2203-58.”

A letter to this firm brought a response on May 4, 1962 that “Although we represent Mr. Levin in other matters, we had nothing to do with the Anne Frank case.”

On May 7, 1962, came the following reply from a member of a firm of New York lawyers to whom the original inquiry had been forwarded:

“I was the attorney for Meyer Levin in his action against Otto Frank and others. It is true that a jury awarded Mr. Levin $50,000 in damages, as indicated in your letter. That award was later set aside by the trial justice. Hon. Samuel C. Coleman. on the ground that the damages had not been proved in the manner required by law. The action was subsequently settled between the litigating parties, while an appeal from Judge Coleman’s decision was pending.

I am afraid that the case itself is not officially reported, so far as the trial itself, or even Judge Coleman’s decision, is concerned. Certain procedural matters were reported. both in 141 New York Supplement. Second Series 170. and in 5 Second Series 181. The correct file number in the New York County Clerk‘s office is 2241-1956 and the file is probably a large and full one which must include Judge Coleman’s decision. Unfortunately, our file is in storage and 1 cannot locate a copy of that decision as it appeared in the New York Law Journal early in the year 1960.”

The Diary Of Anne Frank was first published in 1952 and immediately became a bestseller. It has been republished in paperback, 40 printings. It is impossible to estimate how many people have been touched and aroused by the movie production.

Why has the trial involving the father of Anne Frank, bearing directly on the authenticity of this book, never been "officially reported"? In royalties alone, Otto Frank has profited richly from the sale of this book, purporting to depict the tragic life of his daughter. But is it fact, or is it fiction? Is it truth or is it propaganda? Or is it a combination of all of these? And to what degree does it wrongfully appeal to the emotions through a misrepresentation as to its origin?

School publications for years have recommended this book for young people, presenting it as the work of Anne Frank. Advertising in advance of the movie showing has played up the “factual” nature of the drama being presented. Do not writers of such editorials and promoters of such advertising, “fan the flames of hate” they rightly profess to deplore?

Many American Jews were shocked at the handling of the Eichmann case, the distortions contained in the book Exodus and its movie counterpart, but their protests have had little publicity outside of their own organ, Issues, by the American Council for Judaism. Others who have expressed the same convictions have been charged with anti-Semitism. Yet it is to be noted that both Otto Frank and his accuser Meyer Levin, were Jewish, so a similar charge would hardly be applicable in pursuing this subject to an honest conclusion..

File number 2241-1956 in the New York County Clerk’s office should be opened to the public view and its content thoroughly publicized. Misrepresentation, exaggeration, and falsification has too often colored the judgment of good citizens. If Mr. Frank used the work of Meyer Levin to present to the world what we have been led to believe is the literary work of his daughter, wholly or in part, then the truth should be exposed.

To label fiction as fact is never justified nor should it be condoned.

Since actual period documentation does not exist in support of the Holocaust myth, it has always been incumbent on its supporters to create it.

Not only is the “Anne Frank” diary now considered to be a fake, so also is “The Painted Bird” by Jerzy Kosinski. This book, which is a mass of pornographic and sadistic imagery which, had it not been taken so seriously by the Jewish community, would be merely the pathetic manifestation of a self-serving and very sick person.

This was duly exposed as a shabby, though much revered (by the Jewish community) and quoted, fraud. When this was exposed, Kosinski committed suicide. Later, in Kosinski’s footsteps we find the next fiction entitled “Fragments, ” by a Swiss Protestant named Bruno Dosseker who spent the war in Switzerland as a young child. Dosseker posed as a very young Baltic Jewish concentration camp inmate named Binjamin Wilkomerski. This work consists of allegedly fragmented “memories” and is very difficult to read

Dosseker became the poster boy for the Holocaust supporters and was lionized by the international Jewish community, reaping considerable profit and many in-house awards for his wonderful and moving portrayal of German brutality and sexual sadism.

Another book, allegedly by a Hungarian doctor, concerning his deportation from Budapest in 1944 and subsequent journey by “Death Train” to Auschwitz is another fraud. There was never such a doctor in Hungary during the period involved and the alleged route of the train from Budapest to Auschwitz did not exist.

These sort of pathetic refugees from the back wards seem to be drawn to the Holocausters…and they to them. There are now “Holocaust Survivors” as young as thirty which is an interesting anomaly because the last concentration camp was closed in 1945. Perhaps they consider the last frenzied spring sale at Bloomingdale’s department store to be what they survived.

Next we can expect to see a book based on twenty-seven volumes of secret diaries prepared on a modern word processor within the current year by an alleged inhabitant of the Warsaw ghetto, describing the Nazi slaughter of tens of millions of weeping Jews by means that would shame a modern African state.

And, predictably, the publication of these howlers would be greeted with joy on the part of the fund raisers and fanatics, praised in the columns of the New York Times and scripted by Steven Spielberg for a heart-wrenching and guaranteed Oscar-winning film.

Hundreds of thousands of DVD copies will be donated to American schools and the Jewish community will demand that subservient executive and legislative bodies in America create a Day of Atonement as a National Holiday to balance the terrible Christian Christmas and the wickedly Satanic Halloween.

Conservationists must hate these books because so many otherwise beautiful and useful trees are slaughtered for their preparation

Insofar as the Anne Frank diary is concerned, herewith is some background on Anne Frank, her family and her alleged Diary.

The Franks were upper class German Jews, both coming from wealthy families. Otto and his siblings lived on the exclusive Meronstrasse in Frankfurt. Otto attended a private prep school, and also attended the Lessing Gymnasium, the most expensive school in Frankfurt.

Otto attended Heidelberg University. After graduation he left for a long vacation in England.

In 1909, the 20 year old Otto went to New York City where he stayed with his relatives, the Oppenheimers.

In 1925 Anne's parents married and settled in Frankfurt, Germany. Anne was born in 1929. The Frank's family business included banking, management of the springs at Bad Soden and the manufacture of cough drops. Anne's mother, the former Edith Holländer, was the daughter of a manufacturer.

In 1934, Otto and his family moved to Amsterdam where he bought a spice business, Opekta, which manufactures Pectin used in making household jellies.

On May 1940, after the Germans occupied Amsterdam Otto remained in that city while his mother and brother moved to Switzerland. Otto remained in Amsterdam where his firm did business with the German Wehrmacht. From 1939 to 1944, Otto sold Opeka, and Pectin, to the German army. Pectin was a food preservative, and a anti infectant balm for wounds and as a thickener for raising blood volume in blood transfusions. Pectin was used as an emulsifier for petroleum, gelatized gasoline for fire bombing. By supplying the Wehrmacht, Otto Frank became, in the eyes of the Dutch, a Nazi collaborator.

On July 6, 1942 Otto moved the Frank family into the so-called 'Secret Annex'. The annex is a three story, mostly glass townhouse that shares a garden park with fifty other apartments.

While he was allegedly in hiding, Otto Frank still managed his business, going downstairs to his office at night and on weekends. Anne and the others would go to Otto's office and listen to radio broadcasts from England.

The purported diary begins on June 12, 1942, and runs to December 5,1942 . It consists of a book that is six by four by a quarter inches. In addition to this first diary, Anne supplemented it with personal letters. Otto said Anne heard Gerrit Bolkestein in a broadcast say: ~ "Keep a diary, and he would publish after the war", and that's why Anne’s father claimed she rewrote her diaries second time in 1944.

In this second edition, the new writer changed, rearranged and occasionally combined entries of various dates.

When Anne allegedly rewrote the diaries, she used a ball point pen, which did not exist in 1945, and the book took on an extremely high literary standard, and read more like a professional documentary than a child's diary. In Anne's second edition her writing style, and handwriting, suddenly matured.

The actual diary of Anne Frank contained only about 150 notes, according to The New York Times, of October 2 ,1955.

In 1944, German authorities in occupied Holland determined that Otto Frank had been swindling then via his extensive and very lucrative Wehrmacht contracts. The German police then raided his apartment attic, and the eight Jews were sent to Westerbork work camp and forced to perform manual labor .Otto himself was sent to Auschwitz.. Anne, her sister Margot, and her mother, subsequently died of typhus in another camp.

In 1945, after being liberated from German custody, Otto returned to Amsterdam, where he claimed he found Anne's diary cleverly hidden in the Annex's rafters. However, another version has a Dutch friend, Meip Geis finding Anne's diary of fictional events, which she then gave to Otto Frank.

Otto took what he claimed were Anne's letters and notes, edited them into a book, which he then gave to his secretary, Isa Cauvern, to review. Isa Cauvern and her husband Albert Cauvern , a writer, authored the first diary.

Questions were raised by some publishers as to whether Isa and Albert Cauvern, who assisted Otto in typing out the work used the original diaries or whether they took it directly from Mr. Frank's personal transcription.

American author, Meyer Levin wrote the third and final edition

Meyer Levin was an author, and journalist, who lived for many years in France, where he met Otto Frank around 1949.

Born in 1905, Meyer Levin was raised in the section of Chicago notoriously known in the days of gangster warfare as the "Bloody Nineteen Ward." At the age of eighteen he worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and during the next four years became an increasingly frequent contributor to the national literary magazine, The Menorah Journal. In 1929 he published THE REPORTER, which was the first of his sixteen novels.

In 1933 Levin became an assistant editor and film critic at the newly-created Esquire Magazine where he remained until 1939.

Perhaps his best-known work is COMPULSION (1956), chronicling the Leopold and Loeb case and hailed by critics as one of the greatest books of the decade. The compelling work was the first "documentary novel" or "non-fiction novel.”

After the enormous success of COMPULSION, Levin embarked on a trilogy of novels dealing with the Holocaust. The first, EVA (1959) was the story of a Jewish girl's experiences throughout the war and her adjustment to life after the concentration camps. This was followed by THE FANATIC (1963), which told the hypnotic story of a Jewish poet dealing with the moral questions that arose from his ordeal at the hands of the Nazis. The last in the triptych, THE STRONGHOLD (1965), is a thriller set in a concentration camp during the last days of the war.

At the outset of World War II Levin made documentary films for the US Office of War Information and later worked in France as a civilian expert in the Psychological Warfare Division. He eventually became a war correspondent for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, with the special mission of uncovering the fate of Jewish concentration camp prisoners. Levin took his role very seriously, sometimes entering concentration camps ahead of the tanks of the liberating forces in order to compile lists of the survivors.

After the war Levin went to Palestine and turned his attention again to the motion picture camera. His film MY FATHER'S HOUSE told the story of a child survivor searching for his family in Palestine. He wrote this story as a novel as well and the book was published in 1947.

Levin also joined the Hagana underground and helped smuggle Jews from the interior of Poland to Palestine, then basically an Arab country under the control of the British..

In 1951 Levin came upon a copy of the French edition of the Anne Frank diary He made a number of attempts to have the work published in English, and conceived it as a play and film. When the diary finally found an American publisher, his play was accepted for production but then suddenly barred, ostensibly for being "unstageworthy," and another writer's version was commissioned.

Levin fought for the rights to perform his version of the play, claiming that the real reason the producers refused to stage his work was because they thought it "too Jewish." He saw the suppression of the play as an extension of the Stalinist attack on Jewish culture and, outraged that even Anne Frank could be censored, he took the producers to court and began an agonizing, prolonged struggle that dragged on for years.

Levin eventually won a jury award against the producers for appropriation of ideas, but the bitterness of the trial made him many enemies in the Jewish and literary communities.

Although Levin's version of the play is still banned by the owners of the dramatic rights, underground productions of the work are frequently staged throughout the world.

Meyer Levin died in 1981

Levin rewrote the various post-war treatments of the Anne Frank diary with an eye toward a Broadway production, but Otto decided to cut him out, refusing to honor his contract or pay him for his work. Meyer Levin sued Otto Frank for his writings, and the New York Supreme court awarded Meyer Levin $50,000, for his 'intellectual work'.

In 1980, Otto sued two Germans, Ernst Romer and Edgar Geiss, for distributing literature denouncing the diary as a forgery. The trial produced a study by official German handwriting experts that determined everything in the diary was written by the same person. The person that wrote the diaries had used a ballpoint pen throughout. Unfortunately for Herr Frank, the ballpoint pen was not available until 1951 whereas Anne was known to have died of typhus in 1944.

BKA Conlusions

Because of the lawsuit in a German court, the German state forensic bureau, the Bundes Kriminal Amt [BKA] forensically examined the manuscript, which at that point in time consisted of three hardbound notebooks and 324 loose pages bound in a fourth notebook, with special forensic equipment.

The results of tests, performed at the BKA laboratories, showed that “significant” portions of the work, especially the fourth volume, were written with a ballpoint pen. Since ballpoint pens were not available before 1951, the BKA concluded those sections must have been added subsequently.

In the end, BKA clearly determined that none of the diary handwriting matched known examples of Anne's handwriting. The German magazine, Der Spiegel, published an account of this report alleging that (a) some editing postdated 1951; (b) an earlier expert had held that all the writing in the journal was by the same hand; and thus (c) the entire diary was a postwar fake.

The BKA information, at the urgent request of the Jewish community, was redacted at the time but later inadvertently released to researchers in the United States.
www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2153.htm#002