Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine?

[NZSRP]

Yes, but the matter was a theatrical adaptation of the diary by Meyer Levin. Meyer Levin never pretended that he was the author of the diary. There was a time when Faurisson believed that Meyer Levin was the author of the diary, bu he changed his mind.
R.

Ahh yes, you are right. That's the danger of finding the answer you want and not looking into the full context. Which seems to be the tactic of the believers. Never looking too deeply into the answers that they have. I'm pretty sure that the believers would leave at that, espousing an untruth because it fits their paradigm rather than searching only for truth.

[cold beer]

I had read that Meyer Levin got paid $50k by Otto Frank cause Frank stole Meyers work and foisted it off onto the world as his daughters diary.

http://www.mathaba.net/news/pda.shtml?x=614599

"The New York Supreme Court awarded the well known American writer, Meyer Levin, $50.000 to be paid by the father of Anne Frank as an honorarium for Levin`s work on the ``Anne Frank Diary.``"

Yes, but the matter was a theatrical adaptation of the diary by Meyer Levin. Meyer Levin never pretended that he was the author of the diary. There was a time when Faurisson believed that Meyer Levin was the author of the diary, bu he changed his mind.
R.

Why would Levin be rewarded $50,000 for a theatrical adaptation of the book?
Wouldn't it be Levin who benefited from the Frank diary/book, not the other way around?
Did Anne frank's father steal Levin's theater adaptation for profit?

I don't know the story, please explain this to me because so far it doesn't add up.

[Reviso]

Why would Levin be rewarded $50,000 for a theatrical adaptation of the book?
Wouldn't it be Levin who benefited from the Frank diary/book, not the other way around?
Did Anne frank's father steal Levin's theater adaptation for profit?

I don't know the story, please explain this to me because so far it doesn't add up.

Well, it seems that Otto Frank had accepted that Meyer Levin would write the theatrical adaptation and that he changed his mind in favour of another person. "At the end of 1956 he [Meyer Levin] took his case against Otto Frank (...). Levin contended that he had be chosen to write the play and that he was the vicim of fraud and breach of contract." (David Barnouw in the "critical" edition of the Diary prepared by the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation, p. 80.)

Perhaps you could look at the two threads mentioned by Hannover. And at the Suijk affair in the Wikipedia article :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank
It smells really like blackmail...
R.

[Alan1]

One may ask: how come she mentioned the gassings while Nazi leaders heard about it for the first time in court?

I have an idea, but I wonder what others think.

[Hannover]

One may ask: how come she mentioned the gassings while Nazi leaders heard about it for the first time in court?

I have an idea, but I wonder what others think.

Come on dude, don't just hang out and wait for others, let's hear your opinion.

Having said that, it's proven that the 'dairy' is fraudulent, so of course the entries in it make no sense.

What the Germans leaders heard was propaganda. No forensic study of 'gas chambers' was ever presented in court .... except for the claimed steam chambers. That's right, steam chambers!!

What a farce it is.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
The tide is turning.

[Alan1]

My take on it is: she said that she heard about gassings on British radio, these Nazi's said they didn't know this rumor, when asked in court why not, one/they said they did not listen to British radio because it's all propaganda. iirc from reading this forum.

[hermod]

One may ask: how come she mentioned the gassings while Nazi leaders heard about it for the first time in court?

I have an idea, but I wonder what others think.

Assuming the entry about that is genuine, that should logically mean that the Holohoax gassings were just Soviet-Allied classic atrocity propaganda during WW2. Nazi leaders were less 'informed' than Anne Frank, Zionist leaders, etc. because they were not supposed to listen to BBC broadcasts or read New York Times articles during the war. That was verboten...

[borjastick]

This hitting the newswires right now;

Anne Frank House museum: Jewish diarist likely died earlier

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/31/a ... =webmail11

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) - Teenage Jewish diarist Anne Frank likely died of typhus in a Nazi concentration camp about a month earlier than previously thought, the Amsterdam museum that honors her memory said Tuesday on the 70th anniversary of the officially recognized date of her death.

Anne likely died, aged 15, at Bergen-Belsen camp in February 1945, said Erika Prins, a researcher at the Anne Frank House museum.

Frank's diary about hiding from the Nazis in the occupied Netherlands during World War II was published after the war. It became an international best-seller and made her an enduring symbol of Holocaust victims.

The new date of her death changes little about the tragic lives of Anne and her sister Margot, who went into hiding with their family in an Amsterdam canal house but were eventually betrayed, sent to Nazi concentration camps and died in the Holocaust along with millions of other Jews.

More in the article to read.

So we now know they think she might have died earlier. So what? And we know they believe the holocaust killed her. Given that nearly 300,000 Dutch people died in the war there was of course the chance she could have died even living at home or near home.

[Hektor]

One may ask: how come she mentioned the gassings while Nazi leaders heard about it for the first time in court?

I have an idea, but I wonder what others think.

Assuming the entry about that is genuine, that should logically mean that the Holohoax gassings were just Soviet-Allied classic atrocity propaganda during WW2. Nazi leaders were less 'informed' than Anne Frank, Zionist leaders, etc. because they were not supposed to listen to BBC broadcasts or read New York Times articles during the war. That was verboten...

Even, if they listened to it... It's improbable that they would have taken that seriously. The NS-Leadership on trial probably knew people working in or around concentration camps... And it didn't appear to be anything else than Labour Camps and detention facilities. Well... And then there is the denial by no one lesser than Heinrich Himmler:
https://archive.org/details/NorbertMasu ... ichHimmler

Exterminationists think that 'testimony' is their trump card, when in reality it isn't. The testimony 'witnessing to gassing' can never be corroborated to be testimony about the same event. And well, there is plenty of testimony that contradicts the notion, which is also contradicted by what is empirically at hand. The charade doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but is indeed a charade no matter how much people have fallen in love with her.

Otto Frank is himself a witness against the Holocaust. Apparently he was left behind in Auschwitz, while his daughters were transferred to Bergen-Belsen. He did how ever that they would be alive and he would find them later. This indicates that he 'did not believe in the Holocaust', while he actually should have known about the supposed gassings taking place at the camps. Also transferring people first to Auschwitz (which supposedly an extermination facility) and then moving them back 100s of km again doesn't make sense in line with the Holocaust narrative.

[curioussoul]

At this point, the entire history surrounding the diary is so muddled and difficult to grasp - and the waters so muddied - that it's hard to take any of the claims of the diary seriously. Obviously, Anne Frank did keep a diary, but what parts of it are genuine is still not fully cleared up. This is not her fault, but the fault of her father and other charlatans trying to make money off of it after the war.

I haven't read Suzuki's latest book but plan on buying it as soon as it's available in digital format.

[Hektor]

At this point, the entire history surrounding the diary is so muddled and difficult to grasp - and the waters so muddied - that it's hard to take any of the claims of the diary seriously. Obviously, Anne Frank did keep a diary, but what parts of it are genuine is still not fully cleared up. This is not her fault, but the fault of her father and other charlatans trying to make money off of it after the war.

I haven't read Suzuki's latest book but plan on buying it as soon as it's available in digital format.

What is genuine and what not isn't discernable for the audience neither. Most kids and their parents assume that it is word for word what Anne wrote. Often they assume that she was gassed and that it is a miracle that Otto Frank survived. It is the post-hiding history that isn't exactly in line with the master narrative. Actually this starts already with Otto Frank being a supplier to the Wehrmacht. Then running a ration card scam. Being caught and arrested first sent to Auschwitz with his family, then being left in Auschwitz with the daughters being moved back to Bergen Belsen where they died... presumably of a disease like Typhus. Apparently Otto Frank did expect them to survive. And that indicates that he didn't believe in an NS-extermination-policy at the time. So Otto Frank was an early Holocaust Denier. But made a career out of people's gullibility and the Anne Frank story after the war. Astonishingly many people did read "Anne Frank's diary'" at school and it's part of why they believe in the Holocaust now.

It has the character of a catholic Hagiography, which tend to play on people's emotions as well. People will dismiss catholic stories as 'myth' (and actually there is good reasons for this), but they suck up 'Anne Frank' and the more spicy Holocaust stories as if it is gospel. And at the same time they will claim that they are 'rational', 'enlightened' and 'trust the science'. - It could almost be funny, if it wasn't so crazy that is.