The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

[Imperial Citizen]

but then unlucky enough that it was written with the ink of a pen that didn't exist until years after her death,

That's something I've heard but never understood how that was known. It's ink. How the fuck do you know what kind of pen it came from?

 

[furūtsu]

My .02: it happened, but not anywhere near to the tune of 6 million, and ((they)) are exploiting the event to this day in order to appear as eternal victims and profit from it.

People seem to not realize that terrible things can genuinely happen, and then people who belong to the wronged group (but oftentimes weren't directly affected) can go on to exploit that happening in sociopathic ways. Happens all the time, look at all the GoFundMes made by "disabled" grifters on Twitter. There've been legitimate ones but the vast majority are just leeches.

At this point I'm apathetic, and if this occurred again I'd find it tragic but wouldn't be able to muster any tears over it. When you constantly force a sob story narrative of exaggerated oppression onto people since they were wee children, they either become brainwashed or they stop giving a shit. I used to weep over Boy in the Striped Pajamas, now I just sigh and turn off the tv.

 

[Supreme Coomer]

My take:
It happened, and (((they))) deserved it.

 

[Biden's Chosen]

That's something I've heard but never understood how that was known. It's ink. How the fuck do you know what kind of pen it came from?

Write with a fountain pen and then with a ballpoint pen. It doesn't even require expert analysis to see the difference.

https://archive.vn/asNMZ

Here read it from a german newspaper. It was proven in court, too.
Also, no not the entire diary. But the entire diary is still claimed to be completely by Anne Frank's hand. Including the lesbian jokes found a year or two ago "hidden in the cover", just before the copyright was going to lapse and it was going to be public domain, but now it's another 80 or so years of copyright.

 

[Cope or Rope]

It never happened and thats that.

 

[RichardMongler]

That's something I've heard but never understood how that was known. It's ink. How the fuck do you know what kind of pen it came from?

Write with a fountain pen and then with a ballpoint pen. It doesn't even require expert analysis to see the difference.

https://archive.vn/asNMZ

Here read it from a german newspaper. It was proven in court, too.
Also, no not the entire diary. But the entire diary is still claimed to be completely by Anne Frank's hand. Including the lesbian jokes found a year or two ago "hidden in the cover", just before the copyright was going to lapse and it was going to be public domain, but now it's another 80 or so years of copyright.

An affirmer response courtesy of Sir Aaron Richards:

This is another one of those commonly peddled revisionist "truth-bombs" - that the Diary of a Young Girl, read in tens of thousands of classrooms across the planet each year, and part of the education of our children, is, in fact, a hoax and therefore part of Jewish indoctrination as its author is not Anne Frank.

The California-based hub of holocaust denial, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) says (original):

"The evidence compiled by Dietlieb Felderer of Sweden and Dr. Robert Faurisson of France establishes conclusively that the famous diary is a literary hoax."

The IHR says (revised):

"Evidence compiled by Dr Robert Faurisson of France establishes that the famous diary is a literary hoax."

Dietlieb Felderer is a notorious neo-Nazi, probably Austrian, who spent time in a Swedish prison for spreading hate propaganda. He is best-known for mailing snippets of hair to Jews in Europe, and asking them sarcastically if this can be proven to be hair from a gassed Jew. He has also written many disgusting tracts involving sex and Nazi murder. One which is too repulsive to repeat here describes (sarcastically) how cyanide gas influences a female sexual organ. His website is now a porn site.

Note that the IHR omits the reference to Felderer in the revised version. Again, as revisionism tries to move from the antisemitic fringes into the mainstream, they must jettison or at least disguise their ties to people like this.

Robert Faurisson is at least not as crude as Felderer. But he is not a historian, forensic expert, or handwriting expert. He was a professor of literature at the University of Lyons specializing in medieval and renaissance poems. The testimony of this so-called "foremost Holocaust authority" regarding the authenticity of the writings of Anne Frank was rejected by the Frankfurt Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) in 1979.

In 1981, the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation submitted Anne Frank's handwritten diaries to the Dutch State Forensic Science Laboratory of the Ministry of Justice to determine their authenticity. The State Forensic Science Laboratory examined the materials used -- the ink, paper, glue, etc. -- and the handwriting and issued a report of some 270 pages:

The report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory has convincingly demonstrated that both versions of the diary of Anne Frank were written by her in the years 1942 to 1944. The allegations that the diary was the work of someone else (after the war or otherwise) are thus conclusively refuted.

Furthermore, that despite corrections and omissions...the Diary of Anne Frank [i.e., the published version of the diaries] does indeed contain "the essence" of Anne's writings, and that there are no grounds on which the term "forgery" can be applied to the work of the editors or publishers of the book.

Deniers argue that there are multiple versions of the Diary of Anne Frank. This fact alone, they claim, proves it is a fraud. There are indeed multiple versions of the diary, and Anne herself explains why this is so: In 1944, a Dutch government official, broadcasting from London, urged the population to save eyewitness accounts of their wartime experience, including memorabilia and diaries. Hearing this, Anne, decided to rewrite some of the entries. She also used her diary as a basis for a novel, "The Annexe". Hence the multiple versions.

The most common complaint against the diary however, is that it allegedly contained writing made by a ballpoint pen, and that ballpoint pens were not popular until after Anne's death. This is a fraudulent but persistent myth. The only ballpoint ink in the diary were on slips of paper known to be inserted by someone other than Anne anyway. The writings of Anne herself are not in ballpoint:

All the diary entries are written in various types of ink and (colored) pencil, not in ballpoint. The document analysis by the Netherlands Forensic Institute showed that the main part of the diary and the loose sheets were written in grey-blue fountain pen ink. In addition, Anne also used thin red ink, green and red colored pencils and black pencil for her annotations: not ballpoint.

The origin of the "ballpoint myth", which deniers cite as source, is the four-page report that the German Federal Criminal Police Office (the Bundeskriminalamt or BKA) in Wiesbaden published in 1980. In this investigation into the types of paper and ink used in the diary of Anne Frank it is stated that "ballpoint corrections" had been made on some loose sheets. The BKA’s task was to report on all the texts found among the diaries of Anne Frank, and therefore also on the annotations that were made in Anne’s manuscripts after the war. However, the Dutch investigation by the Forensic Institute in the mid-1980’s shows that writing in ballpoint is only found on two loose pages of annotations, and that these annotations are of no significance for the actual content of the diary. They were clearly placed between the other pages later. The researchers of the Forensic Institute also concluded that the handwriting on these two annotation sheets differs from the writing in the diary "to a far-reaching degree." Photos of these loose annotation sheets are included in the NIOD’s publication (see The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition, 2003, pages 168 and 170). In 1987, a Mr. Hans Ockelmann from Hamburg wrote that his mother had written the annotation sheets in question. Mrs. Dorothea Ockelmann was a member of the team that carried out the graphological investigation into the writings of Anne Frank around 1960.
In short: the "ballpoint myth" is easy to disprove. The "ballpoint myth" is based on the simple fact that, around 1960, two annotation sheets with ballpoint writing were inserted between the original pages. These two annotation sheets were written by a graphological researcher, Dorothea Ockelmann, whose handwriting differs drastically from that of Anne Frank, and these two sheets are not included in most editions of the diary (apart from the Critical Edition, where photos of the annotation sheets are reproduced). In July 2006, the BKA found it necessary to state in a press release that the 1980 investigation cannot be used to call the authenticity of the diary into doubt.

And then we have a guy called Meyer Levin. The allegation goes, that Meyer Levin is the original author of the Anne Frank Diary, i.e. that it is a work of fiction, and as proof for this the deniers point us out to the fact that Meyer Levin sued Anne Frank's father Otto Frank over the rights of the book.

Meyer Levin (1905-1981) was an american novelist. What really happened, is that in the 1950s, Levin was caught up in an argument about the rights to a STAGE ADAPTATION of the diary of Anne Frank, which occupied him for many years and left him bitter in the end. His wife had made him aware of the diary in 1951, after which he had promoted its publication in the US and drew attention to it by writing an article about the diary in the New York Times. With the consent of Anne's father Otto Frank, he took up a dramatization of the diary and gave Broadway producer Cheryl Crawford a draft, which she accepted. On the advice of Lillian Hellman however, who found Levin's version inadequate, Crawford instead decided to commission the author-couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett with the diary's adaptation for theatre. Her two-act The Diary of Anne Frank, premiered at the Cort Theater in New York in October 1955, was a huge success, and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize and the Tony Award, and in 1959, George Stevens turned it into a multiple Oscar-winning feature film.

Meyer Levin claimed that the play neglected the Jewish subject matter of the diary in shameful fashion, but on the other hand used his design. He sued Kermit Bloomgarden, who had produced the piece instead of Crawford, as well as Goodrich, Hackett and Otto Frank. There followed a long-standing legal dispute, which finally ended with a settlement, according to which Levin received compensation, but refrained from publishing his adaptation. Levin however, did not want to resign himself to the court's decision and continued to fight for the rest of his life trying to bring his play onto the stage. He brought these experiences of his to paper in the novel "The Fanatic" (1964). He also described the events in detail in his (second) memoir "The Obsession" (1973), as did his widow Tereska Torrès in the book "Les maisons hantées de Meyer Levin" (1991). To date, only private prints of Levin's "Anne Frank, A Play" exist.

So let's recap: after the war, Levin wrote, with initial approval of Otto Frank, a THEATRE PLAY based on the diary of Anne Frank, called "Anne Frank, A Play", but his play was not produced. Instead a version of the same story dramatized by Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett reached Broadway theatre. Levin sued them all for plagiarism regarding rights to the play and got compensated. Levin never once claimed anything the deniers are saying about the diary.

Source and further reading:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/culture-magazines/anne-frank-diary-young-girl

https://www.annefrank.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Wanderausstellungen/Dokumente/JVA_Tournee_Sieben_Fragen_zur_Echtheit_des_Tagebuchs_JVA_Tournee.pdf

https://i.imgur.com/9xnopVu.jpg

Does this look like ballpoint pen to you?


Also, notice how two different styles of handwriting on this page are on display in the museum, visible to the public in broad daylight here. Clearly the museum has nothing to hide.

If the deniers keep insisting that a young girl is incapable of changing her handwriting after learning cursive writing in school around the onset of puberty (I know my handwriting changed rapidly around that time), or is incapable of writing alternately in cursive and block letters as a result of this new skill, then I suggest they produce Otto Frank's or Meyer Levin's handwriting samples to prove their claim these sections were not written by Anne.

Normal copyright on books extends only 70 years after the author’s death. As Anne Frank died of typhus in Bergen Belsen in February 1945, the book entered the public domain in February 2015.

Proposals to extend copyright on the book past the 70 year cut-off period by making Otto Frank, who died in 1980, a “co-author”, is not a sign of admitting fraud, but an attempt to navigate the ocean of copyright infringement, e.g. see the controversy regarding Mein Kampf and the State of Bavaria recently...

 

[Biden's Chosen]

This is the kind of refutal that I love. It supports everything I said. That there is ballpoint usage in the diary and that those parts are written by someone else.

You can still find online holocaust sources that claim otherwise, or I could when I first discovered it.

Now whether I speak the truth and there are numerous holocaust claims that the entirity of the diary was by her hand, I'll leave that to the dear reader to discover, using either waybackmachine or other illicit ways of finding how the claims of the holocaust have evolved over time.

--

It's also inaccurate that the book is in the public domain. In most countries, including where it was written, it is not and won't be for years.
2036 or 2050 depending on what source you trust.

 

[Large]

Modern commercial cremators are small chambers designed to burn one body at a time, which have to be reset to the original state with cooling and cleaning after the body is burned. Extermination camps did not have to bother with this kind of bullshit. You stupid fucks spout shit that makes about as much sense as someone saying that all foundry owners are lying about the production numbers and stating that bloomeries are slow when asked for proof.

 

[Papa Adolfo's Take'n'Bake]

They were faster until they got clogged! Hours of scraping to clean up that mess, it was absolutely disgusting! ...

Or so I've been told.

 

[Thumb Butler]

What about making covid chambers instead of wasting money on sick people?

 

[RealtreeByGod]

Spoiler: I wonder who could be behind this post

 

[Barbarus]

Why do that when you can just make giant pits to burn people in? checkmate

 

[Caddchef]

Why do that when you can just make giant pits to burn people in? checkmate

Why make Tiger tanks when you can make 3 or 4 StuG IIIs with the same materials and resources? The Nazis were retarded.

 

[FEETLOAF]

Why put them on trains and send them to camps and feed them for months and corral them into rooms with wooden doors and toss poisonous pellets inside from a roof-hatch when you can just put them in front of the trains?

 

[LargeChoonger]

If it absolutely happened, then why is it illegal for me to question it?

 

[Barbarus]

Why make Tiger tanks when you can make 3 or 4 StuG IIIs with the same materials and resources? The Nazis were retarded.

Rule of cool. Tigers are Aesthetically pleasing !

 

[Dante Alighieri]

But wooden doors?

 

[Foltest]

Rule of cool. Tigers are Aesthetically pleasing !

I would be in a stug. Tigers look cool but broke down all the time.

 

[Barbarus]

I would be in a stug. Tigers look cool but broke down all the time.

Stugs look baller too, but Tigers are like 10/10 women, they look fucking hot as shit but have a lot of fucking issues and need to be fixed(slapped about) all the time

 

[KingCoelacanth]

http://dezco.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Crematorium-at-Flossenberg-1024x764.jpg

The aushwitz crematoriums were smaller than modern ones. Just because you can make stuff on the internet doesn't mean people are obliged to believe you