Hans Frank's Diary

[James Dow]

Is the diary of Hans Frank authentic? And can the diary of Hans Frank be used as evidence that the Nazis had a systematic plan to murder Jews?

[Breker]

Mr. Dow,
We would be interested in knowing where you are getting your supposed English translations of his diary from. An unbiased source we would hope.
Also Sir, in using logic, wouldn't it be necessary to see some physical evidence of "systematic murder" before anyone could make such an assumption?
B.

[James Dow]

Hans Frank’s diary (from Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 1946, Vol. I, pp. 992, 994):

But what should be done with the Jews? Do you think they will be settled down in the 'Ostland' [eastern territories], in [resettlement] villages? This is what we were told in Berlin: Why all this bother? We can do nothing with them either in the 'Ostland' nor in the 'Reichkommissariat.' So liquidate them yourself.

Gentlemen, I must ask you to rid yourself of all feeling of pity. We must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and wherever it is possible, in order to maintain the structure of the Reich as a whole. ...

We cannot shoot or poison these 3,500,000 Jews, but we shall nevertheless be able to take measures, which will lead, somehow, to their annihilation....

That we sentence 1,200,000 Jews to die of hunger should be noted only marginally.

This is the source of the English version of Hans Frank's diary. Although physical evidence of a "Holocaust" is required to prove a "Holocaust," these quotes make it appear as though there is a "Final Solution."

SOURCE: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/how ... ust-denial

[Kermes]

"Another example is that anti-revisionists frequently cite a speech made on 16 December 1941 (often misdated to 13 December 1941). In this speech, Frank used words which anti-revisionists argue mean "exterminate" and which revisionist argue refer to deportations (see Meanings and translations of German words and Holocaust revisionism‎). However, Frank also explicitly stated that "We cannot shoot 3.5 million Jews, we cannot poison them" and "I have initiated negotiations for the purpose of deporting them to the east."[2]"
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Hans_Frank

[James Dow]

Can you show me an example of a word which is intentionally mistranslated in order to promote the "Holocaust"?

[Kermes]

"intentionally mistranslated"? People can differ on how to translate a word, without this implying intentional mistranslation. A well-known example is Hitler's 1939 Reichstag speech and the word "Vernichtung." Exterminationists translate this as extermination, revisionists as emigration/deportation.

[James Dow]

I understand that people can have different interperations regarding not only what a word in a foreign language means, but what a word in their own tongue means. The reason I said "intentionally mistranslated" is because those who promote the "Holocaust" would have every reason to mistranslate German words in order to make it appear as though the Nazis are vicious monsters who want to eradicate European Jewry.

A well-known example is Hitler's 1939 Reichstag speech and the word "Vernichtung." Exterminationists translate this as extermination, revisionists as emigration/deportation.

Although is a good example of my point, can you show me an example in the diary of Hans Frank where revisionists and non-revisionists disagree on to what a word would translate as, which would significantly change it's meaning?

[Hannover]

Dow asks:

can you show me an example in the diary of Hans Frank where revisionists and non-revisionists disagree on to what a word would translate as, which would significantly change it's meaning?

Incorrect starting point. The onus is upon the accuser.
You simply have things a bit backwards.

Can you show us examples in the actual, authentic German language diary of Hans Frank which support the 'holocaust storyline'.

Cheers, Hannover

“we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
- "holocaust historian" Raul Hilberg,

[James Dow]

Alright, so I understand that the burden of proof is upon me to provide the evidence. The problem is, I have vigorously searched for the diary under the German name for it, "Hans Frank Tagebuch" and have failed to locate it under Google Books and the Book Seller Bitz! I have also searched for a German version of "Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 1946". I have also come up dry. Is a possibly non-existant German text of Hans Frank's Diary required to prove/disprove that Hans Frank and the Nazis intended to wipe out the Jews living in Europe? Or would an English version suffice?

[Hannover]

Alright, so I understand that the burden of proof is upon me to provide the evidence. The problem is, I have vigorously searched for the diary under the German name for it, "Hans Frank Tagebuch" and have failed to locate it under Google Books and the Book Seller Bitz! I have also searched for a German version of "Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 1946". I have also come up dry. Is a possibly non-existant German text of Hans Frank's Diary required to prove/disprove that Hans Frank and the Nazis intended to wipe out the Jews living in Europe? Or would an English version suffice?

Thanks for your efforts.
The mere fact that we cannot actually see the authentic Hans Frank Diary is informative. Obviously it is being hidden away because it does not say what is alleged. If it did we'd being seeing it everywhere.

Have look at this by Dr. Faurisson:

A Challenge to David Irving
By Robert Faurisson
https://codoh.com/library/document/2089/?lang=en

Besides a thorough debunking of Irving's post suspicious early release from prison nonsense, there's some revealing information about this diary, the alleged translations and it's circumstances.

- Hannover

"at all times, Jews have disfigured the truth with absurd fables" ("de tout temps les Juifs ont défiguré la vérité par des fables absurdes")

- Voltaire

[EtienneSC]

I'm not sure that Hans Frank's diary is exactly being "hidden away". it is unfortunate that it has not been published in full though, given how important it is. Parts of it were published in German as:
Deutsche Politik in Polen 1939-1945, Aus dem Diensttagebuch von Hans Frank Generalgouverneur.
Hrsg. Geiss, Jacobmeyer. Opladen: Leske, 1980.
According to this edition, there were 38 volumes containing 12,000 pages. It was used in the Nuremberg IMT trial and thereafter handed over to the Polish state. Some unbound parts have been lost. There are microfilm versions in Washington DC, Koblenz and Munich. Pages 110-112 of the above edition of the diary seem relevant to this thread.

Frank's son Niklas later famously denounced him in a book Der Vater (1993), which might contain apparently incriminating excerpts that we could discuss. I think it was translated into English.

I have not heard of anything other than excerpts being translated into English.

[Hannover]

Mr. Dow,
We would be interested in knowing where you are getting your supposed English translations of his diary from. An unbiased source we would hope.
Also Sir, in using logic, wouldn't it be necessary to see some physical evidence of "systematic murder" before anyone could make such an assumption?
B.

Bingo!
Cutting to the chase, claims by Zionists about the Hans Frank diary simply cannot be supported by actual proof.
If what is alleged about the diary were true, we would be seeing massive, piles & piles of physical evidence. We have not, will not, and cannot see such proof because it never existed.
The entire matter is garbage in, garbage out.

And if the diary supported the fake 'holocaust' story we would at least be seeing actual copies of the diary pages to back up the claims. We do not.
I would never trust an alleged German text version which would be just as vulnerable to monkey business as an alleged English translation.
It's the original diary pages that must be seen. We will never see them.

Etienne:

It was used in the Nuremberg IMT trial and thereafter handed over to the Polish state.

Right. It was handed over to the communists for safe keeping.

Please actually read the contents of the link I posted, the IMT is discussed.
A Challenge to David Irving
By Robert Faurisson
https://codoh.com/library/document/2089/?lang=en

Frank's son Niklas later famously denounced him in a book Der Vater (1993), which might contain apparently incriminating excerpts that we could discuss. I think it was translated into English.

Seriously? He had little choice but to 'denounce' his father. And which version did the son actually see? The actual & real version? Somehow I don't think so.

- Hannover

[Lamprecht]

"Another example is that anti-revisionists frequently cite a speech made on 16 December 1941 (often misdated to 13 December 1941). In this speech, Frank used words which anti-revisionists argue mean "exterminate" and which revisionist argue refer to deportations (see Meanings and translations of German words and Holocaust revisionism‎). However, Frank also explicitly stated that "We cannot shoot 3.5 million Jews, we cannot poison them" and "I have initiated negotiations for the purpose of deporting them to the east."[2]"
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Hans_Frank

See the following thread for a discussion of that entry:

Hans Frank 16 December 1941 statements
viewtopic.php?p=95475#p95475

Mattogno has a good overview of claims about Hans Frank here as well:

3.7.1. Hans Frank

“Hans Frank proves the Holocaust happened” (p. 186)

The authors quote a speech by H. Frank given on October 7, 1940, in which the following sentence appears:

“I could not eliminate (ausrotten) all lice and Jews in only one year.” (p. 186)

Actually, the speech was given on December 20, 1940, the term “ausrotten” has been invented by the authors (the German text has “hinaustreiben” = to drive out), and the reference of the document (I have already mentioned this) is wrong (it is PS-2233 and not PS-3363).[163] Hence, we have one falsification and two errors in one swoop!

The speech, to which the authors assign the date of December 13, 1941, was actually given on December 16. This speech also contained the passage quoted by them later, and for which they publish the German text (note 30 on p. 278):[164]

“Currently there are in the Government General [occupied Poland] approximately 2 ½ million, and together with those who are kith and kin and connected in all kinds of ways, we now have 3 ½ million Jews. We cannot shoot these 3 ½ million Jews, nor can we poison them, yet we will have to take measures which will somehow lead to the goal of annihilation, and that will be done in connection with the great measures which are to be discussed together with the Reich.[165]] The territory of the General Government must be made free of Jews, as is the case in the Reich. Where and how this will happen is a matter of the means which must be used and created, and about whose effectiveness I will inform you in due time.” (pp. 186f.)

The authors comment:

“If the Final Solution meant only deportation out of the Reich, why does Frank refer to attaining ‘the goal of annihilation’ of Jews through means other than shooting or poisoning? The phrase ‘die irgendwie zu einem Vernichtungserfolg führen’ underlines the murderous intent.” (p. 187)

Even if this interpretation were correct – which it is not – the passage demonstrates only “homicidal intentions,” whereas the authors invoke it as proof of the fact that the Holocaust happened! This means that from alleged intentions they deduce the reality of a fact!

But this interpretation is unfounded. The quotation actually fits in with the policy of deportations of Jews followed by the National Socialist regime. It must be considered in the light of other statements, which the authors obviously prefer to keep silent about, in order to reveal its real significance.

In Frank‘s Dienst-Tagebuch (official diary) we have on July 17, 1941, the following entry:[166]

“The Governor General no longer wishes any further creation of ghettos, because, in keeping with an explicit statement by the Führer on 19 June [1941], the Jews will in a not too distant future be moved out of the Government General, and the Government General is to be nothing but a transit camp, so to speak.”

On October 13, 1941, H. Frank and Reichsminister Rosenberg had a meeting, in which they touched upon the deportation of Jews from the Government General:[167]

“The Governor General then spoke of the possibility of the expulsion of the Jewish population from the Government General into the occupied territories. Reichsminister Rosenberg remarked that such aspects had already been brought to his attention by the Paris military administration.[168]

At the moment, though, he did not see any possibility for the implementation of such transfer plans. However, for the future, he was ready to favor Jewish emigration to the east, all the more so as it was already intended to send to those sparsely settled eastern territories especially the asocial elements existing within the territory of the Reich.”

On the other hand, if we follow the passage quoted by the authors, the Government General was to become “free of Jews” (judenfrei) “as is the case in the Reich” (wie es das Reich ist), but the greater Reich – as we have seen – had only become “judenfrei” (to some extent) through the emigration (Auswanderung) of some 537,000 Jews to other countries. It is therefore clear that Hans Frank did nothing but emulate Hitler‘s “annihilation” rhetoric with the same meaning.
...
[163] IMG, op. cit. (note 129), vol. XXIX, pp. 415f.
[164] Ibid., p. 503.
[165] Recte: “from the Reich” (“vom Reich her”).
[166] Martin Broszat, “Hitler und die Genesis der ‘Endlösung.’ Aus Anlass der Thesen von David Irving,” in: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, no. 25/4, 1977, p. 748f.
[167] Jüdisches Historisches Institut Warschau (ed.), Faschismus – Getto – Massenmord, Röderberg-Verlag, Frankfurt/Main 1960, p. 252.
[168] A clear reference to the proposal made by SS-Sturmbannführer Carltheo Zeitschel on August 22, 1941 – later approved by the Führer – to resolve the “Jewish question” by deporting the Jews under German jurisdiction to the eastern occupied territories (Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaine, V-15). Cf. C. Mattogno, J. Graf, Treblinka, op. cit. (note 94), pp. 184f.

“Denying History”? – Denying Evidence! The Phony “Convergence of Evidence” to “Prove” the “Holocaust.” A Review
https://codoh.com/library/document/1756/

[Zulu]

Mattogno has a good overview of claims about Hans Frank here as well:

3.7.1. Hans Frank
.../
Even if this interpretation were correct – which it is not – the passage demonstrates only “homicidal intentions,” whereas the authors invoke it as proof of the fact that the Holocaust happened! This means that from alleged intentions they deduce the reality of a fact!

Exactly, otherwise we also have "proofs" that the Americans exterminated the Japanese Americans in death camps during WWII.

Concerns over the loyalty of ethnic Japanese seemed to stem as much from racial prejudice than evidence of actual malfeasance. Major Karl Bendetsen and Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, head of the Western Command, each questioned Japanese American loyalty. DeWitt, who administered the internment program, repeatedly told newspapers that "A Jap's a Jap" and testified to Congress,

"I don't want any of them [persons of Japanese ancestry] here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty... It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty... But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map".[42][43]"

According to a Los Angeles Times editorial,

"A viper is nonetheless a viper wherever the egg is hatched... So, a Japanese American born of Japanese parents, nurtured upon Japanese traditions, living in a transplanted Japanese atmosphere... notwithstanding his nominal brand of accidental citizenship almost inevitably and with the rarest exceptions grows up to be a Japanese, and not an American... Thus, while it might cause injustice to a few to treat them all as potential enemies, I cannot escape the conclusion... that such treatment[*]... should be accorded to each and all of them while we are at war with their race."[60]"

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[*] "such treatment" is a well known euphemism for "extermination" according with the secret code into US Army.

42 - Fred Mullen, "DeWitt Attitude on Japs Upsets Plans," Watsonville Register-Pajaronian, April 16, 1943. p.1, reproduced by Santa Cruz Public Library. Retrieved September 11, 2006.
43 - Testimony of John L. DeWitt, April 13, 1943, House Naval Affairs Subcommittee to Investigate Congested Areas, Part 3, pp. 739–40 (78th Cong ., 1st Sess.), cited in Korematsu v. United States (Murphy, J., dissenting), footnote 2, reproduced at findlaw.com. Retrieved September 11, 2006.
...
60 - Niiya, Brian. Japanese American History. 1993, p. 54

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internmen ... _Americans

[Lamprecht]

Indeed, as I pointed out here: viewtopic.php?p=95475#p95475

The opinion of one person on what to do about a specific group during a war is not the same as actual government policy. It likely is the case that many Germans did want to kill all Jews, just as it was the case that most would have found such a thing abhorrent. And the same could be said for Jews, some of which openly advocated for genocide of Germans. In a December 1944 poll in the United States, 13% supported "killing off" the Japanese after the war - Mattogno, Graf & Kues call Frank's statements "verbal thuggeries."

It's a very transparently fraudulent strategy that they use, quoting diary entries or statements where people seemingly express a desire for, or support of, a Jewish extermination. Yeah, so what? Yeah it's not nice, you could easily make the argument that it's evil to say such things. But what one guy - or even millions of people - think should be done to a group is not the same as what actually was done to a group. The fact that they are forced to resort to selectively quoting statements of this sort shows how weak their position truly is.

According to EtienneSC, the diary was not published in full but many additional pages were that aren't present in the Nuremberg transcript. It would be interesting to see all of the entries as he may have discussed an actual resettlement policy. He did complain during the trials that the diary was selectively quoted and he was not allowed to reference other entries.