'Anne Frank' handwriting / a problem ... a big one

[Hannover]

Now why would someone need to forge Anne Frank's handwriting?

This is just too easy.

- Hannover

The above text, dated Jun 1942, is the epigraph to the "Anne Frank Diary"; the text below, dated Oct 1942, is her inscription on the back of a photo. -- Amsterdam, we have a problem.

courtesy of:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Auschwitz/ ... 11005.html

[Vallon]

(Where front and back are shown next to eachother.)

Anne Frank wrote in block letters on the back of a photo. Maybe because of the material, or because of the pen.

She wrote in the same way in her photo album:
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/onl ... t_0_0.html

See also: http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/onl ... facts.html

[Barrington James]

Aside from the ballpoint, handwriting problems, the main problem with the book is the fact that a grade eight child would not be capable of writing it.
The diction in this book, in particular, has been done by a professional writer. Case closed. Perhaps Mr. Frank should have presented the book as " based on a true story", which it probably was.

[Hannover]

-various conflicting versions:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p147_Faurisson.html

- strikingly different samples of handwriting supposedly written by her within a two and a half year period:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p-2_Faurisson.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p-97_Faurisson.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p147_Faurisson.html


- A REPORT by the German Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau (BKA) indicates that portions of The Diary of Anne Frank had been altered or added after 1951, casting doubt over the authenticity of the entire work, the West German news weekly Der Spiegel has disclosed. http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/con ... t1080.html

- a David Irving letter concerning the Anne Frank 'diary'; her father refused to have it tested & analysed:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/con ... 50286.html

for more see:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n3p31_Weber.html
http://www.vho.org/i/s/H/Do.html
(in German)

Hannover

[gasto]

that´s some serious demolishing evidence against Anne Frank´s tale...

[Vallon]

-various conflicting versions:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p147_Faurisson.html

Anne Frank herself wrote different versions. There was the diary, and a later version that was more publishable.

- strikingly different samples of handwriting supposedly written by her within a two and a half year period:

She used block letters on paper that was not very good for writing with the classic ink pen.

- A REPORT by the German Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau (BKA) indicates that portions of The Diary of Anne Frank had been altered or added after 1951, casting doubt over the authenticity of the entire work, the West German news weekly Der Spiegel has disclosed. http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/con ... t1080.html

The thing with the ball point pen goes back to a 4-page report by Bundeskriminalamt that was not quite up to CSI-standards. The conclusion was that, yes, the materials were consistent with a 1940-1943 date. They also pointed out:

Die auf den losen Blättern angebrachten Verbesserungen sind teilweise auch mit schwarzer, grüner und blauer Kugelschreibertinte geschrieben worden.

The corrections made on the loose sheets have in part been written with black, green and blue ball point ink.

However, the short report fails to say exactly what these corrections were or how many words this was about. These markings were corrections made by editors after the war, and it seems that this is mostly notes to try to order these loose pages.

The report by Bundeskriminalamt was misinterpreted, and was spread by an article in Der Spiegel (translation on Irvings site).

You can read all about this in the Critical Edition. You can also read about the "editing" to the diary. It is mostly grammar and occasionally spelling.

[Hannover]

Vallon said:

Anne Frank herself wrote different versions. There was the diary, and a later version that was more publishable.

Huh? Why would a 'dairy' have different versions? Sounds like 'editing' indeed would make it more 'publishable' so that it portrays false events.

She used block letters on paper that was not very good for writing with the classic ink pen.

But the block letters, whoever wrote them, are not consistent with the conflicting, later handwriting. See:
- strikingly different samples of handwriting supposedly written by her within a two and a half year period:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p-2_Faurisson.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p-97_Faurisson.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p147_Faurisson.html

I love this:

The thing with the ball point pen goes back to a 4-page report by Bundeskriminalamt that was not quite up to CSI-standards. The conclusion was that, yes, the materials were consistent with a 1940-1943 date.

Well, consistent with what someone added to make them match our received story of 1940-43. Vallon himself then says:

These markings were corrections made by editors after the war, and it seems that this is mostly notes to try to order these loose pages.

Seems?
So, there's 2 stories here:

1. Frank's ball point pen material is consistent to 1940-43
2. The ball point pen additions were really "mostly notes to try to order these loose pages."
Mostly?

- Hannover

[Vallon]

Huh? Why would a 'dairy' have different versions? Sounds like 'editing' indeed would make it more 'publishable' so that it portrays false events.

Anne Frank did not have much to do while she was in hiding. She was reading a lot, and writing stories, and she kept a diary. After some time she wrote a book "The Attic" based on her diary.

But the block letters, whoever wrote them, are not consistent with the conflicting, later handwriting.

I fail to see how block letters could be inconsistent with normal running script.

See:
- strikingly different samples of handwriting supposedly written by her within a two and a half year period:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p-2_Faurisson.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p-97_Faurisson.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p147_Faurisson.html

I see no further samples there. But there are plenty of examples on the net, of course.
Here is a post card written in 1941 to her grandmother in Switzerland:

Seems?
So, there's 2 stories here:

1. Frank's ball point pen material is consistent to 1940-43
2. The ball point pen additions were really "mostly notes to try to order these loose pages."
Mostly?

I do not have the Critical Edition here right now, so I tried to be careful, and was not very clear.

The BKA said that the ink and the paper, etc were consistent with 1940-43 (they did not look at content or writing style, they just did physical or chemical text). But they noted corrections in ball point ink of different colors. Maybe they meant something like what can be seen in this Java program where one can zoom in on one of those loose pages:
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/onl ... om_5_2.php

The word "proberen" there was crossed over in red ink (might very well be from a ball point pen) and replaced by the word "schrijven" in red block letters. Further down on that page there is a correction in blue ink.

I wrote "mostly" and "seems" because BKA did not say exactly what and where. But at least some of the page numbers were added by Otto Frank and/or other editors.

I do not understand what problems the revisionists have with Anne Frank's diary. Does anybody deny that Jews tried to hide to escape deportation?

[Hannover]

Vallon asks:

I do not understand what problems the revisionists have with Anne Frank's diary. Does anybody deny that Jews tried to hide to escape deportation?

Please no strawmen, Revisionists do not say some Jews did not try to avoid deportation.
What is obvious is that Anne Frank's diary has been manipulated. Forgery and alteration are indicators of a need by the forgers and manipulators to shape something in a manner which leads the reader/viewer to reach a conclusion they would not otherwise reach. The veracity of the claims are therefore invalidated. In a real court of law, the Frank 'diaries' would be thrown out, in fact they would be laughed at because of their alterations/'editing'. Truth does not require forgery, tampering, or 'editing'. But then again, this is the so called 'holocau$t', where truth and facts are irrelevant.

- Hannover

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Maybe she did print on paper that was hard to write on, but you can tell from the way she prints, that she's not the same person who wrote the cursive.

Vallon wrote,

I do not understand what problems the revisionists have with Anne Frank's diary.

Because it's a fraudulent piece of propaganda that is psychologically and emotionally damaging to our children.

[Scott]

I do not understand what problems the revisionists have with Anne Frank's diary. Does anybody deny that Jews tried to hide to escape deportation?

James Barrington already noted:

Perhaps Mr. Frank should have presented the book as " based on a true story," which it probably was.

Mr. Frank never owned up to any professional rewriting; it was always presented as the verbatim diary of his daughter.

[Vallon]

Mr. Frank never owned up to any professional rewriting; it was always presented as the verbatim diary of his daughter.

Which it is basically is. He left out some passages that he considered to be too private. Anybody can check how verbatim the first editions are by consulting the Critical Edition.

I mean, this is not a text that is sacred like the Bible or like the US constitution. There was no reason in 1947 for Otto Frank to publish a scholarly source edition with many "[sic]" and footnotes about variant versions. He wanted to publish a readable book.

[Scott]

Mr. Frank never owned up to any professional rewriting; it was always presented as the verbatim diary of his daughter.

Which it is basically is. He left out some passages that he considered to be too private. Anybody can check how verbatim the first editions are by consulting the Critical Edition.

I mean, this is not a text that is sacred like the Bible or like the US constitution. There was no reason in 1947 for Otto Frank to publish a scholarly source edition with many "[sic]" and footnotes about variant versions. He wanted to publish a readable book.

Well, sure, but then it is the ghostwriter's book--and he's like the dog in the "Beautiful Boston Baked Beans" commercial who's not telling the family recipe.

The Diary of Anne Frank is presented to every school as "the diary of a young girl" and not a literary rendition of it.

If somebody made the Goebbels Diaries "readable" we would rightly wonder who the editor/ghostwriter was.

All Otto Frank would have had to do is include a disclaimer "based on the diaries of Anne Frank" or something similar.

Arthur Butz writes:

The question of the authenticity of the diary is not considered important enough to examine here; I will only remark that I have looked it over and don't believe it. For example, already on page 2 one is reading an essay on why a 13 year old girl is starting a diary, and then page 3 gives a short history of the Frank family and then quickly reviews the specific anti-Jewish measures that followed the German occupation in 1940. The rest of the book is in the same historical spirit.

Hoax of the Twentieth Century (IHR, CA: 1976, 1979), p.37.

[Haldan]

Of interest might also be Ditlieb Felderer's classic Anne Frank's Diary - A Hoax:

The whole matter reaches the ultimate in silliness when we are further told that the father, instead of being gassed to death, as was the original purpose, ends up with being hospitalized at Auschwitz; surviving the ordeal (EBM, op.cit.)! The logic of this would mean that the Germans wanted people to be healthy before they were sent to the gas chambers!

Don't mind the quote, although that is a very unusual [from what we are told happend at places like Auschwitz]...hospitalized? I have been indoctrinated to believe that all ill people were sent to the ambiguous "gas chambers" yet the father is in the hospital and survives Auschwitz, and publishes a diary by his daughter...

-haldan

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Or how about in their hideout, as Faurisson pointed out: the writer goes on and on about how quiet everyone must be. Then the writer forgets about that and has someone vacuuming the house every morning.

This isn't a benevolent book about kids and war. It's Kevin MacDonaldesque Jewish "group evolutionary strategy" starting never too early on young people. The book is a schema where Jew=good and German=evil.