Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine?

[JoeEllison]

Probably no one, but they are getting people to view "their" sites.

The trick is to never click on their links. Ever. They usually give enough information that you can do your own search, and not give their idiotic antisemitic websites any traffic. For instance, a quick search reveals that Professor Robert Faurisson is a former literature professor, and his critique comes down to little more than "I can't believe that Jewish girls can possibly be literate."

 

[BenBurch]

I loathe anti-Semites as much as I loathe White Power freaks. Mind you, they are usually the same people.

 

[CptColumbo]

The answer is no according to the author of this essay Professor Robert Faurisson, a specialist in the appraisal and evaluation of texts and documents. As an aside, Anne Frank was sent to Auschwitz and stayed there for a few months. But I have heard many times from the cult of holocaustianity that women and children were killed shortly after arrival as they were unfit for work. Anne Frank was moved to Belsen were she was also not killed but died from typhus.
IS THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK GENUINE?
[nfurl]www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p147_Faurisson.html[/nfurl]

I have not gone to the link.
What are Robert Faurisson qualifications as "a specialist in the appraisal and evaluation of texts and documents?"

 

[LibraryLady]

I find it's best to post brief, unemotional, factual replies to such posts. It helps take the wind out of their sails not rise to the bait.

However, I am beginning to wonder if Mondial actually exists.

 

[TX50]

But go yourself. Look and see.

There, on the table, under the glass... it's there and it's real.

It will break your heart.

Oh, hardly.

People wonder why I took my children.

Why? There are over a million visitors there every year (and it's
a tiny house) and a large proportion of them are little kids. They
even organise special kids tours and activities!

The house is only about 25 minutes from my own hovel by tram.
I've never been there and have little desire to go. The whole story
of the "onderduikers" in Amsterdam (and elsewhere) is not as
exclusively selfless, courageous and inspiring as is often portrayed.

I did read the Anne Frank diary in the original for practise while I
was teaching myself Dutch, though.

I personally find the museum at Arnhem and the "Resistance museum"
much more inspiring than this.

 

[Chaos]

*snip*
However, I am beginning to wonder if Mondial actually exists.

I know what you mean. It is hard to tell where one of them ends and where the next one begins... they all post the same loathsome crap (to put it diplomatically).

 

[drkitten]

I have not gone to the link.
What are Robert Faurisson qualifications as "a specialist in the appraisal and evaluation of texts and documents?"

He's a Holocaust denier. No further qualifications are needed -- or in fact, wanted. Actual knowledge and expertise is a danger.

 

[dudalb]

If Robert Faurisson said the sun sets in the evening and rises in the morning, I would stay up for 24 hours to make sure.
The guy is a shameless liar. Period.

 

[pgwenthold]

I personally find the museum at Arnhem and the "Resistance museum"
much more inspiring than this.

The Resistance Museum was OK, but the Anne Frank Museum puts so much more of a personal face on the situation. Seeing the magazine clippings she had pinned to the wall (still there) when she shared the room with that other guy makes you grasp how this is really a teenage girl.

As someone noted above, it's like seeing the shoes in the Holocaust Museum in Wash DC, of all sizes. Nothing in the Resistance Museum brought it home quite like that.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Please define "holocaustianity." I am not familiar with that term.

It's an ancient Creationist tactic adopted by AGW Deniers and now apparently also Holocaust Deniers - brand the opponent's stance a religion, preferably with a new name, such as "evolutionism", and they appear less credible. Other terms:

Abortionist
Evolutionist
Evolutionism
Global Alarmist
Global Warmism
Etc.

(I love how Firefox' spell checker doesn't recognize the term "evolutionism")

As for the diary, of course it's real. Yes, it could technically be forged, as anything else. No, there isn't a shred of evidence it was. "Could technically have been" and "is" are two very different things.

 

[dudalb]

That Faurisson and David Irving are the two "Outstanding Scholars" of the Denial Movement shows how bankrupt it really is.

 

[Cactus Wren]

There was editing done on the diary after it was re-discovered by her father after the war. He wanted a lot of the disparaging remarks about her mother taken out; remember this is a 14 year old girl. Then Meyer Levin did some editing to make it more "readable." Anne did no editing--she didn't have time.

Actually, she did. I was pretty sure I remembered reading in the forematter to the Critical Edition of the diary that she'd done some revision with an eye to publication, but "I was pretty sure I remembered X" hardly constitutes a cite. But there's this, at annefrank.org:

On March 28, 1944, the people in hiding hear a special news report on the Dutch sender broadcasting from London, Radio Oranje (Radio Orange). Dutch Cabinet Minister Bolkestein announces that diaries and other important documents will be gathered when the war ends, as a record of what happened to the Dutch people during World War Two and to be preserved for future generations. The people in hiding immediately think of Anne’s diary.

[ ... ]

Anne Frank begins the serious work on her book around May 20, 1944. She revises the major portion of her original diary in the short time left until the arrest of the people in hiding on August 4, 1944. Working on loose sheets of colored paper, she frequently makes simple corrections in the text. Sometimes she deletes entire passages because she thinks these are too personal. She still addresses all the letters in her diary to Kitty, her imaginary friend. The last diary entry that Anne has a chance to rewrite on these loose sheets is dated March 29, 1944.

 

[Mondial]

Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine? Part 2

Breach of previous warnings and Membership Agreement, threads merged and links altered.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

This post will attempt to cover the same ground as the original. That post was closed due to lack of discussion reason being I was unable to get internet access. Ditto for my 2 other posts on the same day NUREMBERG:FAIR TRIAL OR SHOW TRIAL? ([nfURL]www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html[/nfURL]) and LUFTL REPORT:GAS CHAMBERS NOT POSSIBLE ([nfURL]www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html[/nfURL] )
Robert Faurisson wrote this essay in 1982. He is a specialist in the appraisal and evaluation of texts and documents. The conclusion he came to is that the diary is a fraud.
IS THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK GENUINE?
[nfURL]www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p147_Faurisson.html[/nfURL]
A Swedish researcher, Ditlieb Felderer, had his findings on this subject published in 1979. Both works complement each other and show the holocaust skeptic/revisionist position on the diary.
ANNE FRANK'S DIARY:A HOAX
[nfURL]http://abbc.net/annefrank/[/nfURL]

 

[ElMondoHummus]

What the hell? Neither of those posts are closed; here's the "original" Anne Frank diary thread you started:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118249

And the arguments refuting the notion that the diary is somehow a fraud are stated there.

 

[Loss Leader]

I just want to say hi before all hell breaks loose.

 

[Sholto]

Hi LL!

And the descent begins.

 

[drkitten]

What the hell? Neither of those posts are closed; here's the "original" Anne Frank diary thread you started:

The thread was "closed" in the sense that no new posts are permitted in it; in that sense, Mondial is correct.

However, Mondial is also obviously in violation of his membership agreement, in the way he is simply --- and trollishly --- re-citing the same disproven argument from the same illegitimate sources.

Hint : Mondial. The Institute for Historical Review (ihr.org) is a collection of liars, slanderers, and frauds, with no credibility whatsoever. The fact that they proudly proclaim their support for the David Irving (a pseudo-scholar who was proven in court to be a liar, a cheat, a fraud, a misrepresenter of documents, and a thief to boot) shows the kind of people you are hanging out with.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

[sigh] I guess now I have to start Hitler: Great Humanitarian Part 2.

 

[Megalodon]

Let's see if hirs web connection is better this time...

 

[fuelair]

M.: just a short note to remind you that you are wrong - on this and all your other posts I have seen here. Please go away and have what passes for a life elsewhere.

Thanks, fuelair