New Book on Anne Frank's Diary

[fireofice]

A new book on Anne Frank's Diary has been published by Clemens & Blair called:

Unmasking Anne Frank, Her Famous diary Exposed as a Literary Fraud by Ikuo Suzuki

There has been analysis of the book by revisionists before, but this seems to be the most comprehensive book on the subject from a revisionist perspective.

No single person better represents the face of the Holocaust than Anne Frank. As a 13-year-old Jewish girl living in wartime Amsterdam, she hid out with seven other Jews for over two years. During this time, she kept a diary of her thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Eventually the Frank family was discovered and deported; Anne later died of typhus in Bergen-Belsen at the age of 15. But her diary lives on. Today, the Diary of Anne Frank is an icon of Jewish suffering amidst the vast sea of Holocaust literature, and Anne herself has become a high priestess in the pantheon of Holocaust martyrs.

Millions of people know of Anne's story, but very few know of the many problems with it. As it turns out, Anne's tale is rife with absurdities, logical problems, inconsistencies, and incoherent claims. Here, Japanese researcher Ikuo Suzuki deconstructs Anne's famous dairy, exposing the many issues lying just below the surface. In the process, he unmasks the truth: that the notorious diary was likely written by a middle-aged Jewish man who worked in conjunction with Anne's father, Otto, to foist upon the public a deceptive and highly misleading story of a young teenaged girl who perished in a German camp.

Here, for the first time, Suzuki presents a thorough, detailed, and highly readable critique of the global bestseller that is Anne Frank's Diary. Far and away the best critical analysis of the famous diary, this book fills a badly need gap in contemporary revisionist literature.

Our view of Anne Frank-and of all Jews who suffered in the Holocaust-will never be the same.

https://www.amazon.com/Unmasking-Anne-F ... 1737446197

Who knows how long it will stay on Amazon. You can still purchase it from the publisher here:

http://www.clemensandblair.com/our_books

Review of the book:

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2 ... uo-suzuki/

The conclusion of the book is that it is a literary fraud and was never written by Ann Frank. The author believes that the most likely author was Jewish playwright and journalist Meyer Levin.

Of course, whether the holocaust happened is not dependent on the authenticity of this diary. But this diary being a fraud does show how much of the narrative is manufactured.

[hermod]

For your personal archives...

https://postimg.cc/N2Mktxmd

[Merlin300]

The story of Anne Frank is a horrible tragedy, caused in significant part by the shady dealings of Otto Frank.
See. https://codoh.com/library/document/what ... er-say/en/

But we should all note the disgraceful exploitation of the tragedy by various trusts and "Remembrance enterprises."
These include the Anne Frank Foundation in Basel, The Anne Frank House, Amsterdam, Anne Frank Zentrum, Berlin, Anne Frank Trust, London,
Centro Ana Frank, Buenos Aires, The Anne Frank Center at U of South Carolina.
This tangle of leeches profiting from the Anne Frank Myth are desperate to defend their franchises by distorting or concealing the actual facts.
The more pious they are, the more you should hold on to your wallet.


Worthy of Special Mention in Exploitation and Dissembling is, ta-da, The Cold Case Team led by former FBI agent Vince Pankoke. Collecting million$$ to " gather a team "forensic investigators using cold case techniques and supported by artificial intelligence" Pankoke stumbled on the criminal activities of Otto Frank that led to the visit of German and Dutch police on the Opekta processing plant. See what Pankoke said in 2019.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12625&p=93190&hilit=Vince+Panoke#p93190
Fast forward to 2022...https://www.annefrank.org/en/about-us/n ... stigation/
All the real evidence taken down from the Cold Case website, all mention of the Opekta black market ring trading in ration coupons has been tossed into the "Memory Hole." Scary to think this guy was once an FBI Agent.

Honor the memory of Anne Frank by fighting for the Truth.

[chaos]

Thank you for your post OP. Just purchased myself a copy.

[Archie]

The conclusion of the book is that it is a literary fraud and was never written by Ann Frank. The author believes that the most likely author was Jewish playwright and journalist Meyer Levin.

The original Dutch version was published in 1947. From what I can tell Levin didn't enter the scene until the 1950s when he was hired to adapt it for the stage. So then it seems to me that the Levin authorship theory is DOA unless someone has some evidence of Levin's involvement pre-1947.

IIRC Faurisson favored the Otto Frank authorship theory. I know Ditlieb Felderer also wrote a book on the diary, but I'm not sure where he came down on authorship.

[Merlin300]

The conclusion of the book is that it is a literary fraud and was never written by Ann Frank. The author believes that the most likely author was Jewish playwright and journalist Meyer Levin.

The original Dutch version was published in 1947. From what I can tell Levin didn't enter the scene until the 1950s when he was hired to adapt it for the stage. So then it seems to me that the Levin authorship theory is DOA unless someone has some evidence of Levin's involvement pre-1947.

IIRC Faurisson favored the Otto Frank authorship theory. I know Ditlieb Felderer also wrote a book on the diary, but I'm not sure where he came down on authorship.

Anne kept a diary badly written diary on scattered sheets of paper. Margot, Anne's older sister, also kept a diary which may have "gotten mixed up"
and presented as Anne's. Otto also had a hand in writing parts of Anne's diary.

[hermod]

Thank you for your post OP. Just purchased myself a copy.

Hope you or someone else will post on this forum some scans and/or quotes of the most significant parts of that book in a while.

[borjastick]

The odd thing about the Diary of AF is that most in the general public think it is about the holocaust and proves that it happened.

Thus for me it is one of the three pillars of the holocaust belief system. The others being Auschwitz and its gas chambers and Treblinka.

Bring these down and the whole edifice will crumble. I think we are well down that road and hopefully will achieve our end game fairly soon.

Good luck to Mr Suzuki and his book, I hope it does the job he wants.

[chaos]

Thank you for your post OP. Just purchased myself a copy.

Hope you or someone else will post on this forum some scans and/or quotes of the most significant parts of that book in a while.

I'll try and post some quotes later

[hermod]

Thank you for your post OP. Just purchased myself a copy.

Hope you or someone else will post on this forum some scans and/or quotes of the most significant parts of that book in a while.

I'll try and post some quotes later

Nice! Thank you, K.

[Archie]

The author provides a bit of background on himself and the book in the comments on the Occidental Observer article.

I have been studying the Holocaust controversy since around 2000. I am the only (unfortunately) Holocaust revisionist in Japan who is fully active now that my mentor, Professor Ichiro Kato, has passed away.
I have a Facebook page and a channel on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxcssF ... /playlists
https://www.facebook.com/Complete-lectu ... 1317597116

I contacted Mr. Dalton by email. I am still translating his literature into Japanese and uploading it to my videos. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxcssF ... muA/videos

The original Japanese version of this book is.
I am very happy that Mr. Dalton suggested that we complete the English version. The English version is better and more complete than the Japanese version.

Thanks for the reply.
First of all, most Japanese people use only Japanese. I can manage to read English sentences because I have only learned English for entrance exams, but I cannot write natural English.
I can translate from English to natural Japanese, but not vice versa.
The original Japanese was written in very plain sentences. In order to improve the accuracy of the automatic translation, it was further revised to a plainer sentence. I can tell you that the automatically translated English text has the same meaning as the original text. However, I cannot understand the subtle nuances that only a native English speaker can understand. That is why I asked Mr. Carl and Mr. Dalton to correct it. In the process of this work, I also discovered a number of new facts that I was not aware of when I wrote the original. This is what I have incorporated in this English version.
And the parts that I omitted for ethical reasons are also included in full. And I have removed the parts that were too redundant. I have also improved the organization of the chapters. Besides, little of what was in the original book has been removed, and the logic has not changed.
What is important in this book is not the beautiful style of writing as if it was written by a great writer, but only the logic and evidence.
That is what I mean when I say that this English version is better.

Next, I would like to talk about the process of writing this book. I was originally asked to write this book by an acquaintance of mine, Mr. S. But I was initially reluctant. However, I was initially reluctant to do so.
I knew about the alleged forgery of the “Diary,” but I did not believe that there was enough content in it to write a book.
However, I soon found Professor Faurisson’s work. When I read it, I found it to be so excellent that I decided to use the book’s commentary to do most of the work. I thought that if I added some of my own findings to it, it would give it some semblance of style.
However, I learned that there is a “definitive” edition of the Diary published by the Netherlands National Institute. The authorities must have been trying to counter the onslaught by Professor Faurisson. No doubt, it is the result of the professor’s work.

I obtained the Dutch and Japanese versions of this and began analyzing them. The “definitive” version was a very detailed historical document.
Immediately after I began my research, a flood of facts emerged. This “definitive version” was a treasure trove of evidence, with many critical pieces of evidence about the authenticity of the “diary” buried in it.
Perhaps the people who created it themselves were unaware of it.
Professor Faurisson passed away without ever conducting a detailed analysis of this “definitive” edition.
From that time on, I began to feel a sense of duty to carry on his unfinished work.

In the course of further analysis, I discovered a number of important pieces of evidence that Professor Faurisson could have found but did not mention.
If I had included all of this, it would have been a considerable amount of work by itself. So I changed my plans and shortened the introduction to his research to the bare minimum.

The driving force that ultimately drove me was a great sense of anger.
I am a tutoring teacher by profession. Indeed, having taught boys and girls of Annelies’ age for many years, the existence of that “diary” was unforgivable to me.
This anger culminated when I learned of the existence of the obscene entries, which I hesitate to even put into words.

This is the Japanese version.
Originally titled “Is The Diary of Anne Frank a Fake?”

https://www.amazon.co.jp/-/en/dp/499108 ... 182&sr=8-6

I have written a book about the Holocaust controversy. This is also available on Amazon.com in Japan.
I also supplemented and commented on the Japanese edition of “Did Six Million Really Die? This is likewise available on Amazon.com.

And a comment from Karl Haemers:

Publisher Dalton submitted the Suzuki text to me in English, and I went through it and made edits mostly of grammar, punctuation, structure and a tiny bit of content where needed. Mr. Suzuki had opportunity to review my edits and approve or propose further edits, through Dalton. Publisher Dalton also had some feedback to me on my edits, and I made further changes accordingly. Both of these were very few and minor.

I believe Mr. Suzuki has commented here at the forum (same YouTube channel as above).

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=116&p=98896&#p98896

[Reviso]

I don't know if this new book is good, but I take leave to refer to the thread "Anne Frank’s Diary Gains ‘Co-Author’ / and more"
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9924&p=75202&hilit=Suijk#p75202

I there said why for me it was evident that Suijk had blackmailed the Anne Frank Foundation.

The Suijk affair was mentioned on Wikipedia :

"Cornelis Suijk—a former director of the Anne Frank Foundation and president of the U.S. Center for Holocaust Education Foundation—announced in 1999 that he was in the possession of five pages that had been removed by Otto Frank from the diary prior to publication; Suijk claimed that Otto Frank gave these pages to him shortly before his death in 1980. The missing diary entries contain critical remarks by Anne Frank about her parents' strained marriage and discuss Frank's lack of affection for her mother.[80] Some controversy ensued when Suijk claimed publishing rights over the five pages; he intended to sell them to raise money for his foundation. The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, the formal owner of the manuscript, demanded the pages be handed over. In 2000 the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science agreed to donate US$300,000 to Suijk's foundation, and the pages were returned in 2001. Since then, they have been included in new editions of the diary.[81]"

but it was deleted on 31 July 2020 : see the "diff" here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =967666958

Perhaps you will also be interested by the thread "Anne Frank's Diary. Providential proofs of authenticity."
viewtopic.php?t=1802

[Archie]

Surprisingly, it's still for sale on Amazon. I have never been particularly interested in Anne Frank, but I went ahead and ordered the book out of curiosity (and to support Clemens & Blair which is a new publisher). It's a pretty quick read, and Suzuki's writing style is very direct and to the point. Suzuki relies heavily on the Revised Critical Edition of the diary, a source that was not available to Faurisson when he wrote his AF article. Dalton provides a useful summary of the different manuscripts in the introduction.

This how the Revised Critical Edition is described on Amazon:

Prepared by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, this monumental work allows the reader to compare the three versions of the diary itself: Anne’s original entries; the diary as she herself edited it in the hiding place of the “Secret Annex”; and the version most popularly known, as edited by Anne’s father, Otto Frank, and a Dutch publishing house after World War II, when they removed certain family and sexual references. Every aspect of the diary—including Anne’s handwriting and the paper used—is meticulously examined, providing compelling proof and historical of its poignant testament. Absorbing biographical information on the Frank family enhances Anne’s personal perceptions, and a summary of critical events during and after the family’s arrest—including how the Nazi authorities learned about the Franks and their secret hiding places—adds a new dimension to this tragic, still resonant story.

And the description of this "Netherlands Institute for War Documentation."

Issues related to war violence generate a lot of interest from society and demand independent academic research. NIOD conducts and stimulates such research and its collections are open to all those who are interested.

The Institute was founded on 8 May 1945 to write the history of the Second World War in the Netherlands and in the former Dutch East Indies through independent research. Since 1 January 1999 the Institute is part of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW).

On 9 December 2010 NIOD merged with the Centre for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (CHGS) and it now operates under the name NIOD, Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies.

Faurisson, in his classic article, had noted numerous textual differences between the Dutch and German published versions of the diary, but he didn't have access to the underlying manuscripts for a deeper analysis. The Critical Edition was prepared sometime in the 80s in the Netherlands and was published in English around 1989, followed by the revised version around 2003. These editions have the "A" and "B" versions of the diary presented together and Suzuki has gone through and presents the correspondence between these graphically in the form of "matrices." Although the book is written in a straightforward and unadorned style and although the text is pretty short, many of the arguments would require a fair bit of effort to evaluate. You can definitely get the idea of what he's saying just by casually reading it but to really absorb it you'd need to stop and work through some of these textual variations.

One interesting question about the diary is how the manuscript survived the war. The official story is that the diary notebooks and pages were left behind at the annex and that Miep Gies, a neighbor, got the papers later after the police had left. She kept them safe throughout the rest of the war and Otto Frank came back later and got the papers from her. But there are some significant contradictions in the accounts of what happened with the manuscript. Also with the description of the famous swinging bookshelf/secret door.

On authorship, he rules out Annelies as the author. Professionally, Suzuki has worked for years as an educational tutor and he argues it is very, very rare for a young teenager to be able to write at anywhere near the level of the diary. Moreover the accounts of those that knew her indicate that it was her older sister who was the bright one in the family and that Annelies was an average student with no reputation for being exceptionally talented. Suzuki thinks Meyer Levin is the most likely author based on circumstantial arguments (like he was in Europe at the time, he was a writer, he had expressed interest in these types of projects, etc). The weakness of this theory is that there is no direct evidence for a pre-1950 relationship between Levin and Frank. Also, it would suggest the true "original" would have been in English and that the Dutch publication would have been translated from this unknown English Urtext.

[Archie]

I do not get the whole swinging bookshelf thing. According to the diagrams of the house, the "secret annex" was everything above the first floor of the rear house. You cannot hide a building by covering up the door! You would still be able to tell that there was a building there. If someone wanted to search the premises they would notice the rear house, they would notice that it had multiple floors, and they would demand entry.

Interestingly, the early publications of the book do have a purported picture of the swinging bookshelf. But it seems the property was in private hands after the war and was possibly going to be torn down in mid to late 50s. It wasn't until the late 1950s after the book became a hit that the Anne Frank house was purchased and preserved as a historical landmark. And I believe it is acknowledged that the bookshelf was reconstructed at that point. But I wonder where they got the pictures from for the early editions of the book, i.e., was it a staged picture or do they actually claim the bookshelf was still there in 1946/1947, was removed sometime in the 1950s, and then reconstructed later on?

This link will probably die at some point but if you search for early collectible versions of the book you can often see sample pages. Below is from the 1947 Dutch edition (which can be yours for about three grand!). It might just be a drawing. I can't quite tell.
https://www.biblio.com/book/het-achterhuis-diary-anne-frank-first/d/1413326779?aid=frg#gallery-11

The 1952 American edition has a similar but not the same picture of the bookshelf, plus a picture of it open, revealing the staircase.
https://www.biblio.com/book/anne-frank-diary-young-girl-anne/d/1404961555#gallery-4

[Archie]

I do not get the whole swinging bookshelf thing. According to the diagrams of the house, the "secret annex" was everything above the first floor of the rear house. You cannot hide a building by covering up the door! You would still be able to tell that there was a building there. If someone wanted to search the premises they would notice the rear house, they would notice that it had multiple floors, and they would demand entry.

Interestingly, the early publications of the book do have a purported picture of the swinging bookshelf. But it seems the property was in private hands after the war and was possibly going to be torn down in mid to late 50s. It wasn't until the late 1950s after the book became a hit that the Anne Frank house was purchased and preserved as a historical landmark. And I believe it is acknowledged that the bookshelf was reconstructed at that point. But I wonder where they got the pictures from for the early editions of the book, i.e., was it a staged picture or do they actually claim the bookshelf was still there in 1946/1947, was removed sometime in the 1950s, and then reconstructed later on?

This link will probably die at some point but if you search for early collectible versions of the book you can often see sample pages. Below is from the 1947 Dutch edition (which can be yours for about three grand!). It might just be a drawing. I can't quite tell.
https://www.biblio.com/book/het-achterhuis-diary-anne-frank-first/d/1413326779?aid=frg#gallery-11

The 1952 American edition has a similar but not the same picture of the bookshelf, plus a picture of it open, revealing the staircase.
https://www.biblio.com/book/anne-frank-diary-young-girl-anne/d/1404961555#gallery-4

Correction: I took another look at the Anne Frank House website and I had misremembered what they claim.

https://www.annefrank.org/en/museum/anne-frank-collection/conservation-and-management-anne-frank-collection/conserving-anne-frank-collection/bookcase/

The original bookcase that concealed the entrance to the hiding place during the war has been part of the Anne Frank House since its opening in 1960.

Otto Frank was the only one of the people in hiding to survive the war. He decided to open up the building at Prinsengracht 263 to the public. It was in a poor state of repair, so he had it renovated between 1958 and 1960. During the renovation, the bookcase was stabilised and reinforced with a metal frame. From the official opening of the Anne Frank House on 3 May 1960 onwards, the original bookcase was shown to the public without other protection.

They claim that it is "original." Some "restoration" work was done on it prior to the reopening.