Correspondence School in the Secret Annex?

[polardude]

I should firmly state my position first up, that the Diary of Anne Frank is a literary production written after the war.
After the attacks on its credibility regarding ball point pen, after a period of several years, an expanded version, ie a so-called original version was given to the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation, which duly verified it.

This expanded version has been published in the Critical [sic] Edition of the Diary.
As I see it then the composition dates are 1946 for the original diary and the 1980s for the additions that make up the critical edition.

I was struck by the extent of correspondence education allegedly taking place in the Secret Annex, surely a huge risk for detection.

But there it is on page 651 of the Critical Edition, around May 18 1944

What the "Secret Annexe" family is interested in.
(Systematic survey of subjects being learned and reading matter).....

Mrs v.P.: learns English by correspondence, likes to read fictional biography and some novels.
....
Mrs Fr.: learns English by correspondence, reads everything except detective sotires.
....
Margot Fr.: Learns English French, Latin by correspondence, english shorthand, German shorthand, Dutch shorthand, Mechanics, Trignometry, Solid Geometry, Physics, Chemistry, Algebra, Geometry, English literature, French literature, German literature, Dutch literature, Bookkeeping, Geography, Modern History, Biology, Economics, reads everything, preferably on religion and medicine.

Very impressive, I wonder what the correspondence schools that were operating at such time.

Clearly the Germans didn't keep tabs on the post office.

[polardude]

As requested reposted in an existing thread by the moderator.

Anne Frank inspects her genitalia in alleged diary
-----------------------------------
I have previously given my opinion on the Diary of Anne Frank. How it was written immediately after the war as an artistic post-modern exercise and how in order to refute critics of its authenticity an expanded drafted was written in the 1980s and deposited in the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation as the alleged original. This expanded draft as been published as the Critical Edition.

It is fascinating to read this expanded draft to see the longeurs and the anachronistic attitudes that can be found.

Chief amongst these is a number of extended passages where Anne Frank describes her genitalia in some detail. Now while woman's genitalia has not altered, the attitudes of young female teenagers to it has greatly. Although to be honest young teenagers to still tend to be quite uncomfortable about such matters. Such a lengthy description would be rather unlikely in a modern diary let along back in the prudish 1940s.
And the anatomically correct naming also seems rather unlikely.

From page 566-567

You can see exactly what a naked man looks like from photographs or pictures, but you can't with a woman. With them the sezual parts or whatever they are called are further between the legs. He probably hasn't seen a girl from so close to, to be hones I haven't either....
With us it's all pretty much divided, before I was 11 or 12 years old I didn't realise that there were two inner lips as well, you couldn't see them at all. And the funniest thing of all was that I thought that urine came out of the clitoris.

When I asked Mummy once what that stub of a thing was for, she said that she didn't know, she still pretends to be ignorant even now!

But when the subject comes up again how in heaven's name will you be able to explain what things are like without using examples? Shall I just try it out here in the meantime? Well then get on with it! From the front when you stand up you can see nothing but hair, between your legs there are things like little cushions, soft, with hair on too, which press together when you stand up so that you can't see what's inside. When you sit down they divide and inside it looks very red and ugly and fleshy. At the top, between the big outer lips there is a little fold of skin which turns out to be a kind of little bladder on closer inspection, that is the clitoris. Then come the small inner lips, they are also pressed against each other just like a little pleat. When they open, there is a fleshy little stump inside, no bigger than the top of my thumb. the top of it is porous, there are different little holes in it and that's where the urine comes out. The lower part looks as if it's nothing but skin, but that is where the vagina is. There are little folds of skin all over the place, you can hardly find it.

And so on and on.

It all seems heavily influenced by feminist consciousness raising sessions in the 70s where women were encouraged to inspect themselves in detail with mirrors and write down what they saw.

But rather unlikely for a thirteen year old in the 1940s to suddenly find the need to record such things in her diary.

Given that Robert Faurisson's excellent research as already established the original diary was a post modern literary invention, it should be no surprise to learn that the "draft" version was an even later post modern literary invention of a "draft of a teenage girl". Amazingly this post modern draft itself because the object of extended literary exegesis.

The fun never stops.

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

I agree with you. It seems like someone else wrote that.

Writing an account after the time period (but saying it was written during the time period) was also done, I believe, by Rachel Auerbach on camp survivor Abraham Krzepicki.

Even the list of correspondence subjects seems written by someone else.

Favorite subjects: medicine and religion. How perfect.

[Hannover]

polardude's posting of the 'private parts' text is revealing, thanks dude. It's the first time I've seen it; I had heard about it, but now I know. Clearly this not the work of a pubescent, 1940's Anne Frank.

However, it does give us some insights into the mind of the forger.

Revisionists are just the messengers, the ridiculous 'holocaust' stories are the message.

- Hannover

[Ajax]

Much as the Anne Frank story has nothing to do with the extermination 'gas chamber' claim, it is intriguing nevertheless. Like Hannover, I had heard of these intimate scribblings but until now hadn't actually read them. And given Anne's age at the time and both the historical period and social context in which it was written, it is utterly absurd.

I know we have been led to believe that Anne Frank was incredibly precocious - after all, she could write like someone three times her age despite her lack of a complete secondary education and her having to live in secret in an attic - but her knowledge of such things is simply not credible. She wrote her 'diary' in the 1940s, almost twenty years before the onset of feminism - her knowledge is pretty amazing in that during that time I'd imagine that not many women even knew what a clitoris was, never mind where it is. One can only conclude that Anne was something of an amateur gynaecologist.

By trying to embellish the story and make it attractive to a certain type of pervert, the hoaxers have only rendered the story even more untenable than it was previously.

[Kiwichap]

RE: Anne Frank inspects her genitalia in alleged diary.

Hannover said:

However, it does give us some insights into the mind of the forger.

No less than The Presidents wife tells us

The Diary of Anne Frank is one of the most widely read books in the world. Translated into 70 languages, it is required reading for many students and often their first introduction to the Holocaust.
http://www.whitehouse.gov.edgesuite.net ... 609-9.html

A quick search "Anne Frank" "required reading" on Google shows this 'required reading' starts at around 9 yrs for girls. Nothing we didn't know.

It also gives us some insights into the 'agenda' of the forger.

[ClaudiaRothenbach]

From page 566-567

I only have an older German version of the "diary". Could you give me the date in the diary where I can find this episode, please?

Thanks!

[Ajax]

Claudia,

I found a reference to this section of the diary elsewhere, and the date cited was 24th March 1944.

http://www.vaginaverite.com/withoutamodel.html

I have never really been interested in the Anne Frank story that much - after all it has nothing to do with the 'gaskammer' tale - but the mysterious additions, many of them very 'edgy', have led me to believe that it is taking on characteristics that can only be described as Talmudic...

[Kiwichap]

Hey Ajax, Anne Frank is one of the golden arrows in the revisionist quiver.

Was she not Jewish, was she not sent to Auschwitz, was not Auschwitz built and designed as an industrial factory of death for Jews? I hear the children got gassed first.

Then she got transferred to Belson, with her sister, where she died of typhus.

Tell me somebody, how does a Jew get transferred out of Auschwitz?

It was the final solution, it was their destiny.

[Ajax]

Hey Ajax, Anne Frank is one of the golden arrows in the revisionist quiver.

Was she not Jewish, was she not sent to Auschwitz, was not Auschwitz built and designed as an industrial factory of death for Jews? I hear the children got gassed first.

Then she got transferred to Belson, with her sister, where she died of typhus.

Tell me somebody, how does a Jew get transferred out of Auschwitz?

It was the final solution, it was their destiny.

Indeed, Kiwichap, indeed. Given that she actually stepped into the horrorshow that was Auschwitz and managed to get out again it does have some sort of impact on the wider Gaskammer-Lüge. However the diary itself has little to do with the technical analysis of the toxicity of HCN or the net weight of a tin of Zyklon-B chips. It is something that we can and should dismiss as being largely irrelevant to the gassing story - it's little more than a rather sad story of a teenage girl who hid in a mysterious attic, rambled on about her private parts in a diary, got sent to one transit camp and then another, and then died of typhus like many others who had to endure those last hard days of the war.

Of course, while we should stop prattling on about the diary's authenticity, it shouldn't stop us from using the Anne Frank story to disprove the 'children was gassed on immediate arrival at Auschwitz' claim. But then maybe she was employed to clean out small metal shell casings, lol.