|
Various
investigators have studied the Diary. The following very brief comments are
based on work by Dr Robert Faurisson of France and by Ditlieb Felderer (of
Jewish-Swedish parentage), who both visited the Anne Frank museum in
Amsterdam and went to considerable lengths to study the problem.
Dr
Faurisson spent nine hours interviewing Anne Frank's father in Switzerland in
an effort to clear up the matter, concluding that Mr Frank and others had
very substantially adapted and enlarged an original manuscript for financial
gain, creating in the process a fraudulent document used in thousands of
schools across the western world which helps promote sympathy for Zionism.
1.
Life Magazine, 15 September 1958, has a photo of Anne Frank on the cover
against the background of what is clearly and unquestionably the 'childish',
non-cursive handwriting of a very young girl, say 12 years old or younger.
Compare this with the handwriting reproduced in a popular softcover
edition of the diary, that of Pan Books. In numerous reprintings over decades
Pan has included a sample of 'her' writing (cursive) and even a signature
attributed to her, both unquestionably and undeniably produced by a very
mature adult, say fifty years or older. (Anne Frank's father was born in
1889). This publisher clearly has contempt for the intelligence of their
readers. Other editions of the Diary often have either one or the other
handwriting style attributed to Anne Frank. The 'childish' handwriting is
also reproduced in a French Livre de Poche edition with a date four months
later than the date included in the sample in the Pan edition. Find a copy of
the Life edition in a library and check for yourself.
2. A
report in the New York Post (dated October 9 1980, early editions only)
called Anne Frank may not have inked that famous diary says that the German
Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau (BKA) examined the diary and concluded
that portions of the work were written with a ball pen, only available from
1951.
3.
Anne Frank's father Otto Frank refused to allow any interested party to
inspect the diary in spite of 'growing charges of fraud'.
4. Dr
Faurisson compares different editions of the diary in different languages and
notes strange changes, insertions and omissions, often substantial, showing a
continuing creativity at work long after Anne's death.
5.
Both Felderer and Dr Faurisson analyze the diary and note many kinds of
contradictions and improbabilities.
6.
Professor Arthur Butz of Northwestern University says 'I have looked over the
diary and don't believe (its authenticity). For example, already on page 2
one is reading an essay on why a 13 year old girl would start 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.' (Butz, Hoax
of the Twentieth Century (1977) p37).
7. Dr
Alfred Lilienthal, the courageous anti-Zionist Jewish author of The Zionist
Connection, notes 'Any informed literary inspection of this book would have
shown it could not possibly have been the work of a teenager. Writer Meyer
Levin won a suit in the New York Supreme Court against Otto Frank, Anne's
father, for 50 000 dollars as an "honorarium for his work" on the
diary' (The Zionist Connection p819).
8. All
of this evidence from more than 20 years ago has in no wise stopped the
continuing re-printing and publication of the diary, and the major US media
have kept quiet about the issue. (Shhht! Zionism must be propped up, no
matter what the cost to historical truth!)
9.
Anne Frank died of typhus, not in the 'gas chamber'. Typhus caused the
adoption of measures including the shaving of heads, showering and the
fumigation of clothing using Zyklon B insecticide, all (ironically enough) to
SAVE lives rather than the opposite. These well-intended efforts have been
turned around into the most transparent lies by the Holocaust industry - why
would the Nazis shave heads, if not to control typhus-spreading lice? To fill
pillows with lice-infested human hair? Come on! Why did 'gassing apparatus'
have to be 'disguised' as showers?According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica
Micropaedia (1975), Otto Frank was hospitalized (!!!) at Auschwitz (!!!) and
survived the war (!!!).
The
vast hordes of 'survivors' in the 1980's and 1990's across the western world
have been a wonderful confirmation of the Holocaust deniers' standpoint.
(Last night I watched one of those Jewish-produced lawyer-police TV dramas,
in this case with a storyline based on an insurance company enriched through
sales of policies to Holocaust victims. The action takes place today, 21st
century, but the program still has a Holocaust survivor as a witness! People
have been so successfully conditioned to always be conscious of the sacred
Holocaust that the extraordinary phenomenon of ever-present Holocaust survivors
does not pose a problem.)
10.
Anne Frank's Diary was instrumental in turning Dr Robert Faurisson of the
University of Lyons II into a confirmed, committed holocaust revisionist. He
has virtually sacrificed his life (he has received tremendous vilification
and was seriously injured in an attack by Jewish thugs) for the pursuit of
the truth surrounding the subject, in spite of being not of German but of
French-Scottish ancestry, with a socialist, not national-socialist political
alignment. A lecturer in literature where he specialized in close textual
analysis, receiving acclaim for his studies of poems by Rimbaud and
Lautréamont, he had set his students the task of analyzing the Diary, and
came to the conclusion that it was a fraud. The opposition he received to his
announcements of this convinced him that there was a powerful political
element who were highly intolerant of historical truth where the Holocaust
was concerned.
This
led him to investigate other aspects of the subject, and his eventual
discovery that the 'gas chambers' as popularly described even by
"respectable" Holocaust academics, were scientifically impossible.
Numerous other investigators, including various university academics, have
confirmed this viewpoint. His first conclusions concerning the 'gas chambers'
were published in 1978 and 1979 in the French daily Le Monde.
His
overall conclusion: the entire saga is a politically inspired concoction to
support Zionism, with financial and other political benefits as well. As
Norman Finkelstein of the City University of New York writes in his book The
Holocaust Industry, "The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable
ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world,s most
formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast
itself as a 'victim, state' and the most successful ethnic group in the
United States has likewise acquired victim status.
Considerable
benefits accrue to this specious victimhood in particular, immunity to
criticism, however justified " (p3). Every single aspect of the
Holocaust is open to fundamental question, from the Nuremberg Trials where
the victors were the judges and tortured Germans to obtain confessions, to
the capacity of the incinerators of the crematoria. Finkelstein notes
"The Israeli Prime Minister,s office recently (1999) put the number of
"living Holocaust survivors" at nearly a million, (page 83). On
page 127 he further notes "If 135,000 former Jewish slave laborers are
still alive today, some 600,000 must have survived the war. That's at least a
half-million more than standard estimates.
If
Jews only constituted 20% of the surviving camp population and, as the
Holocaust industry implies, 600,000 Jewish inmates survived the war, then
fully 3 million inmates in total must have survived. By the Holocaust
industry,s reckoning, concentration camp conditions couldn,t have been that
harsh at all; in fact, one must suppose a remarkably high fertility and
remarkably low mortality rate. If, as the Holocaust industry suggests, many
hundreds of thousands of Jews survived, the Final Solution couldn,t have been
so efficient after all - exactly what Holocaust deniers argue' (pp127-8).
Faurisson
in a letter to the editor of the New Statesman dated 30 November 1979 (carefully
unpublished) says the following: 'Regarding the tortures systematically
inflicted on the German soldiers and officers by the Allies, one should read
Sir Reginald Paget's book Manstein: His Campaign and His Trial (Collins,
1951). On page 109 one finds that the (US) Simpson Inquiry Commission
"reported among other things that of the 139 cases they had
investigated, 137 had had their testicles permanently destroyed by kicks
received from the American War Crimes Investigating Team."' [It is worth
tracking down a copy of Paget's book just to check this quote if you are of
the doubting kind.] This gives some idea of how the Holocaust 'truth' was
imposed retroactively on the desperate and utterly demoralised German people
in the post-war period.
Sources:
Life
Magazine, 15 September 1958
Anne
Frank's Diary, Pan Books edition
Anne
Frank's Diary - a Hoax by Ditlieb Felderer (1979), Institute for Historical
Review
Analysis
of the Anne Frank Diary by Dr Robert Faurisson, The Journal for Historical
Review, vol 3 no 2, Summer 1982.
Hoax
of the Twentieth Century by Professor Arthur Butz (1977)
The
Zionist Connection by Dr Alfred Lilienthal (1978)
|
No comments:
Post a Comment