MovieChat Forums > Denial (2016) Discussion > Anne Frank's Diary inadvertently debunks...

Anne Frank's Diary inadvertently debunks the Holocaust myth

posted 8 years ago by walterlawson-99568
52 replies | jump to latest

Assuming that the diary is the genuine article, Anne Frank's diary inadvertently debunks the myth that prisoners were indiscriminately exterminated in the concentration camps. Anne Frank was a weak little girl who was no use to the labour force but somehow she survived the systematic gassings of Auschwitz and was packed off to another "death camp", where she also escaped extermination. In fact, when Anne Frank contracted typhus she wasn't sent to the gas chambers to be purged along with the other untermensch, but rather treated at the camp infirmary! I might add that her father Otto also survived Auschwitz and was treated in the infirmary. In the end, she died of disease, the main killer of the prisoners at these camps, and not from the so-called gas chambers.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

Yawn. One of these days the knuckle-draggers of the Holocaust denial movement are going to come up with a new talking point that hasn't ben refuted to death for decades. But this sure ain't it.

[–] tkidcharlemagne 8 years ago

Is that ballpoint pen Anne Frank.

It was primarily ghost written (Woohoooo) by Otto, hence the weird masturbatory fantasy sicko jewish freudian *beep* he put in.

What sort of weirdo embellishes his daughters diary talking about her masturbating. What sort of freaks are these people.

[–] Edzachery 8 years ago

My dog likes nazis....but he couldn't eat a whole one.....maybe I should get some more dogs ?

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

Or set your Cuisinart on purée.

[–] pauliewalnuts-48096 8 years ago

How about answering the question, Zort? If the extermination myth were actually true, Anne, Margo and their mother would've been gassed upon arrival. Otto would not have been treated in an infirmary for typhus if they planned to exterminate him. Otto would not have been allowed to remain alive when the Germans retreated west if they planned to exterminate him. Otto and the others (like Elie Wiesel) would not have been given a choice whether to stay behind or go with the Germans if it were an actual extermination camp. Peter van Pels (Anne's friend for anyone unsure) chose to retreat west with the Germans (the people allegedly planning on exterminating him) instead of staying behind with Otto and waiting for their Soviet "liberators." Otto begged him to stay, but Peter was insistent on going with ze evil Nazis. Peter must have really wanted to get gassed, eh?

There are so many inconsistencies in the narrative, and the Franks are just a tiny detail in the bigger picture.
Jews choosing to go west with the people who were planning on mass murdering them?
Jews being treated in an infirmary before being murdered? Yeah, let's nurse you back to health before we gas you. That's logical.
Living breathing Jews left behind to tell the Soviets all about the mass gassings? I can imagine the SS guards discussing that decision:

"Hans, before we retreat we've been ordered to blow up the kremas. We must liquidate all evidence of genocide.'"
"OK, Fritz. What about all the Jews not coming with us?"
"Oh, don't worry about them. We'll just leave them all here."
"But... but they'll tell the world about the genocide we've been doing. Don't we have to liquidate all evidence of it?"
"Don't ask questions, Hans. Just do as you're told."

The whole story is ludicrous. Anyone with an ounce of critical thought can see through it. Inconsistency after inconsistency.

In conclusion: the opening post is right. If the extermination policy were true, Anne would never have made it to Bergen-Belsen; she would've been gassed on arrival at Auschwitz. And Otto certainly would not have been treated for typhus.

So, Zort, explain to the gentleman who asked - how and why did Anne survive? And why was Otto being treated in an infirmary?

This should be interesting...

[–] walterlawson-99568 8 years ago

The whole story is ludicrous. Anyone with an ounce of critical thought can see through it. Inconsistency after inconsistency.

Exactly. The Holocaust narrative would have us believe there was a conveyor belt of victims into the gas chambers (there had to be to validate the alleged death count), yet incredibly Anne Frank survived extermination at no less than two of these supposed "death camps", and was actually treated at the infirmary when she contracted typhus.

[–] filmflamfilm 8 years ago

Dear American Idiot: ignorance is a great thing, isn't it? It's like a big empty hole that you can throw into anything your little mind comes up with.

I realise that for English speakers, the Nazis had only "concentration camps." Well, the Nazis did have concentration camps beginning shortly after they came to power. These were basically prison camps for people the Nazis didn't like. Like people who didn't support them. Of course, the Nazis spoke primarily German, so they actually called them Konzentrationslagern.

From early 1942, they established a different kind of place. It was called a Vernichtungslager. This means a destruction or extermination camp.

While there were quite a few concentration camps in Germany, there were exactly zero Vernichtungslagern. Mostly they were in Poland: Auschwitz, Sobibor and Treblinka were the three most famous.

Anne Frank and her sister were sent to Bergen-Belsen. That was a concentration camp in Germany.

While the concentration camps were not exactly fun places, they were never designed for mass extermination, while the Vernichtungslagern were.

Westerbork in the Netherlands, where Anne was first brought, was a tranport camp. Bergen-Belsin was a concentration camp. Anne did spend a few weeks in Birkenau, but was then taken to Bergen-Belsen, undoubtedly as Russian troops were quite close to Auschwitz. She and her sister both died in Bergen-Belsen, from illnesses caused by the inhuman treatment by the Nazis - not by gas chambers. Anne was almost 16 when she died and had she not been held by the Nazis for the last year of her short life, the chance of her catching typhus would have been very small indeed.

If you are able to read, you can verify what I've written here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernichtungslager

[–] walterlawson-99568 8 years ago

"Vernichtungslager" is just the German for 'extermination camp', the Nazis never used this term themselves. Sounds good though, doesn't it?

[–] filmflamfilm 8 years ago

Prove it, dead brain.

[–] walterlawson-99568 8 years ago

Prove it, dead brain.

You prove it. You're the one who made the original assertion.

[–] filmflamfilm 8 years ago

"Vernichtungslager" is just the German for 'extermination camp', the Nazis never used this term themselves.

Who was it who wrote that? Are you also blind? Go ahead and prove it, Nazi.

[–] walterlawson-99568 8 years ago

Isn't it ironic how the Holohoaxers are the ones resorting to ad hominems? When all else fails, resort to ridicule and puerile insults.

Who was it who wrote that? Are you also blind? Go ahead and prove it, Nazi.

Provide one official shred of evidence that Nazis ever used the term 'Vernichtungslager'. You're the one that made that claim, now back it up.

[–] filmflamfilm 8 years ago

Oh, what a typical American post. Yes, I've seen it many times. When the poster can't reply with facts to back up their fantasy, just call the other poster names. Solves the problem, doesn't it?

Actually, I see where my flaw lay: I treated you as if you were an actual adult. Obviously, that was my mistake.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

"Vernichtungslager" is just the German for 'extermination camp', the Nazis never used this term themselves.

And if I never call my car a "gasoline-powered machine for conveyance" does it magically stop being a gasoline-powered machine for conveyance?

[–] walterlawson-99568 8 years ago

And if I never call my car a "gasoline-powered machine for conveyance" does it magically stop being a gasoline-powered machine for conveyance?

No, but that's not like saying Germans don't refer to their motorways as the Autobahn. We know that is a German term used by native speakers. 'Vernichtungslager' was not used by the Nazis, therefore it's moot, but it's designed to lend credibility to the mythmaking of the Holocaust.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

'Vernichtungslager' was not used by the Nazis, therefore it's moot

By the rule of the stamping feet of a Holocaust denier in mid-tantrum. Good luck with that.
I can understand why an apologist for Nazi crimes would prefer the term not be used, of course.

[–] walterlawson-99568 8 years ago

Still waiting for proof that Nazis used the term 'Vernichtungslager'. Nope? That's because there weren't death camps.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

So we can add "because" to the list of words you don't actually understand but use anyway.

[–] walterlawson-99568 8 years ago

So we can add "because" to the list of words you don't actually understand but use anyway.

Still waiting...

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

So now you're down to just repeating yourself. So much for the denier intellect.

Into ignore you go.

[–] walterlawson-99568 8 years ago

Into ignore you go.

Woot!  I'll consider this a badge of honor. Hopefully it'll put an end to you stalking every post I make but I won't hold my breath.

[–] NeilNR 8 years ago

And the political re-education camps in the Soviet Union were really safe learning spaces....

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

... And we have always been at war with Oceania.

[–] pauliewalnuts-48096 8 years ago

Anne Frank and her sister were sent to Bergen-Belsen. That was a concentration camp in Germany.

While the concentration camps were not exactly fun places, they were never designed for mass extermination, while the Vernichtungslagern were.

They were sent to Belsen after Auschwitz, you idiot. And Auschwitz was one of the alleged "extermination" camps. So how did Anne, Margo and their mother avoid being gassed if the narrative states they would've been executed upon arrival?

[–] ranb40 8 years ago

Is that ballpoint pen Anne Frank.

Last I heard the diary was written by Anne Frank mostly in fountain pen; the ball point entries were made by someone else later on in the margins. I'd have to look into it more though. But please, tell us in greater detail about what portions of the diary had ball point pen entries since you know (very unlikely) all about it.

It was primarily ghost written (Woohoooo) by Otto, hence the weird masturbatory fantasy sicko jewish freudian *beep* he put in.

What was weird about the writing? Exactly what words are creeping you out? Last I heard masturbation was perfectly normal for anyone to engage in.

What sort of weirdo embellishes his daughters diary talking about her masturbating. What sort of freaks are these people.

Let's see your proof it was anyone other than Anne Frank writing those passages first. Then we can judge her father.

[–] quintessenz-80437 8 years ago

Last I heard the diary was written by Anne Frank mostly in fountain pen

Correct. The Dutch State Forensic Science Laboratory of the Ministry of Justice conducted a forensic analysis of the diary and examined the ink, paper and glue and compared the diary with Anne's handwriting. They wrote a lengthy report of 250 pages. Result: the diary is authentic and written by Anne Frank. About the rest of the "controversy" you can read here:

Holocaust Denial on Trial: Anne Frank
https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/

Deborah Lipstadt: Denying the Holocaust (see appendix, chapter "The Diary of Anne Frank")
http://vho.org/aaargh/engl/dl/denying11.html

Is the Anne Frank Diary genuine?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar56.html

It's quite clear why deniers feel compelled to try to discredit the diary: it is one of the most popular and most often used books about the Shoah, and thus highly visible.

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

It's quite clear why deniers feel compelled to try to discredit the diary: it is one of the most popular and most often used books about the Shoah, and thus highly visible.

But it's also typical of the deniers to try to proffer arguments that were debunked almost a quarter century ago.

Real scholars, when their arguments are refuted, change their minds.

Holocaust deniers, when their lies are refuted, change the subject, and then find some other forum in which to try to pass the refuted lie.

[–] pauliewalnuts-48096 8 years ago

I'm reposting this until my points are addressed:

How about answering the question, Zort? If the extermination myth were actually true, Anne, Margo and their mother would've been gassed upon arrival. Otto would not have been treated in an infirmary for typhus if they planned to exterminate him. Otto would not have been allowed to remain alive when the Germans retreated west if they planned to exterminate him. Otto and the others (like Elie Wiesel) would not have been given a choice whether to stay behind or go with the Germans if it were an actual extermination camp. Peter van Pels (Anne's friend for anyone unsure) chose to retreat west with the Germans (the people allegedly planning on exterminating him) instead of staying behind with Otto and waiting for their Soviet "liberators." Otto begged him to stay, but Peter was insistent on going with ze evil Nazis. Peter must have really wanted to get gassed, eh?

There are so many inconsistencies in the narrative, and the Franks are just a tiny detail in the bigger picture.
Jews choosing to go west with the people who were planning on mass murdering them?
Jews being treated in an infirmary before being murdered? Yeah, let's nurse you back to health before we gas you. That's logical.
Living breathing Jews left behind to tell the Soviets all about the mass gassings? I can imagine the SS guards discussing that decision:

"Hans, before we retreat we've been ordered to blow up the kremas. We must liquidate all evidence of genocide.'"
"OK, Fritz. What about all the Jews not coming with us?"
"Oh, don't worry about them. We'll just leave them all here."
"But... but they'll tell the world about the genocide we've been doing. Don't we have to liquidate all evidence of it?"
"Don't ask questions, Hans. Just do as you're told."

The whole story is ludicrous. Anyone with an ounce of critical thought can see through it. Inconsistency after inconsistency.

In conclusion: the opening post is right. If the extermination policy were true, Anne would never have made it to Bergen-Belsen; she would've been gassed on arrival at Auschwitz. And Otto certainly would not have been treated for typhus.

So, Zort, explain to the gentleman who asked - how and why did Anne survive? And why was Otto being treated in an infirmary?

This should be interesting...

[–] ranb40 8 years ago

If the extermination myth were actually true, Anne, Margo and their mother would've been gassed upon arrival.

In addition to being an extermination camp, Auschwitz was also a slave labor camp. Persons over 15 and able to work were generally were forced to do so until they were too weak then killed.

Otto would not have been treated in an infirmary for typhus if they planned to exterminate him.

It seems they had a use for labor prior to killing the prisoners.

Yeah, let's nurse you back to health before we gas you. That's logical.

Logical if they plan on getting more work from the prisoners.

[–] tkidcharlemagne 8 years ago

Lmfao

So we got this heimy. He's got typhus. Instead of just letting him die from the disease we'll send him to the infirmary so he doesn't spread his diseaseand kill other heimies. Then we'll work him to death and then gas him.

Perfick.

[–] ranb40 8 years ago

So we got this heimy.

Why do you keep using this derogatory term for a jew?

He's got typhus. Instead of just letting him die from the disease we'll send him to the infirmary so he doesn't spread his diseaseand kill other heimies

If some of those prisoners were useful for work, then it might have been advantageous to the nazis to keep them alive for a while.

Then we'll work him to death and then gas him.

Please explain why they should gas a dead person.

Perfick.

Like your spelling I suppose.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] walterlawson-99568 8 years ago

Lmfao

So we got this heimy. He's got typhus. Instead of just letting him die from the disease we'll send him to the infirmary so he doesn't spread his diseaseand kill other heimies. Then we'll work him to death and then gas him.

Perfick.

Don't you get it? The Nazis were industrially exterminating Jews by the millions... except when they weren't and treating them for diseases. 

[–] Edzachery 8 years ago

How come nazi vermin are such retards ?

[–] tkidcharlemagne 8 years ago

Jew soap. Jew shrunken heads. Jew lampshades. Genuine or not?

[–] ZortMcFleen 8 years ago

There is no such thing as "too dumb to be a Holocaust denier."

Having said that, I wish you'd used a different word than "retard." Holocaust deniers are stupid because they choose to be stupid.

[–] tkidcharlemagne 8 years ago

I repeat Tel Aviv boy...

Jew soap. Jew shrunken heads. Jew lampshades. Genuine or not?

[–] ranb40 8 years ago

Who cares anyway? If someone lies about an activity, does it make the bigger picture also false? Does lying about lampshades mean that the holocaust did not occur?

[–] tkidcharlemagne 8 years ago

So jews lied about the soap, lampshades and shrunken heads. It was a hoax. Why perpetrate a hoax if the whole lolohoax story is as horrific as it is and why would you believe the big lie when the little ones are proven demonstrably false.

Can you also confirm there is zero forensic evidence for the lolohoax. You've just admitted jew soap is a hoax which is a start but you have a long long way to go.

;-)

[–] ranb40 8 years ago

So jews lied about the soap, lampshades and shrunken heads. It was a hoax. Why perpetrate a hoax if the whole lolohoax story is as horrific as it is and why would you believe the big lie when the little ones are proven demonstrably false.

You're being evasive again. The soap crap is just a minor detail, lots of people got taken in by it, not just the jews.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-soap-myth

Aaron Breitbart, a senior researcher at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, agreed that the evidence is thin. "The leading scholars of the Holocaust are of the opinion that the Nazis did not make soap," he says. "It was a cruel rumor at the camps."

Is the above a reasonable explanation of the soap myth?

Can you also confirm there is zero forensic evidence for the lolohoax. You've just admitted jew soap is a hoax which is a start but you have a long long way to go.

The evidence I've read about makes sense; it's not something I can just ignore to support a conclusion I want to make.

It seems that you select evidence based on the conclusion you want, not the other way around.

[–] tkidcharlemagne 8 years ago

There are American newsreels from the camps which show German civilians being paraded in front of a table covered with lampshades,soap and shrunken heads. Now these items clearly were never near the camp. They were. Rough in by the American film crew and the jew director Billy wilder to perpetuate a myth and demonise the German people. The soap hoax is directly related to the zyclonb hoax. At the Hanover camp the Americans filmed decontamination units where you can clearly see the jew fur coats and claimed they were homicidal gas chambers.

Indeed it has been claimed there were numerous camps in Germany that were death camps. They weren't though we're they. Even the Jews now state all gas chambers were outside of German territory primarily in Poland. So the Americans lied about that on film. They lied about the soap. They lied about the lampshades. They lied about the shrunken heads and they lied about has chambers.

Basically the whole lolohoax charade relies on evidence provided by the soviets ; a regime that said the katyn wood holocaust of Polish intelligentsia was German when it was themselves.

You're getting destroyed.

[–] tkidcharlemagne 8 years ago

There are American newsreels from the camps which show German civilians being paraded in front of a table covered with lampshades,soap and shrunken heads. Now these items clearly were never near the camp. They were brought
in by the American film crew and the jew director Billy wilder to perpetuate a myth and demonise the German people. The soap hoax is directly related to the zyclonb hoax. At the Hanover camp the Americans filmed decontamination units where you can clearly see the jew fur coats and claimed they were homicidal gas chambers.

Indeed it has been claimed there were numerous camps in Germany that were death camps. They weren't though we're they. Even the Jews now state all gas chambers were outside of German territory primarily in Poland. So the Americans lied about that on film. They lied about the soap. They lied about the lampshades. They lied about the shrunken heads and they lied about has chambers.

Basically the whole lolohoax charade relies on evidence provided by the soviets ; a regime that said the katyn wood holocaust of Polish intelligentsia was German when it was themselves.

You're getting destroyed.

[–] Edzachery 8 years ago

Are your parents 1st cousins ?

[–] ranb40 8 years ago

Don't you get it? The Nazis were industrially exterminating Jews by the millions... except when they weren't and treating them for diseases.

It is naive to think that evere nazi in every camp ran things exactly the same way.

[–] pauliewalnuts-48096 8 years ago

In addition to being an extermination camp, Auschwitz was also a slave labor camp. Persons over 15 and able to work were generally were forced to do so until they were too weak then killed.

So let me get this right... the Germans worked people until they were too sick and then they killed them.

OK. Otto Frank became too weak to work... so why didn't the Germans kill him? Why send him to the camp hospital for months instead? Was Otto special? Why was he such an exception?

You said yourself they killed those who were too weak to work, so why didn't they kill Otto Frank?

Also, the narrative says those over 45 were gassed on arrival. Otto Frank was 56 when he arrived at Auschwitz. Why was he not gassed upon arrival with all the other over 45s?

Explain why Otto's fate was so different to the (alleged) million murder victims at Auschwitz or admit the whole thing is illogical *beep*

[–] ranb40 8 years ago

OK. Otto Frank became too weak to work... so why didn't the Germans kill him? Why send him to the camp hospital for months instead? Was Otto special? Why was he such an exception?

Why do you claim he was the exception? Evidence to support your claim?

[–] pauliewalnuts-48096 8 years ago

I'm not claiming he was an exception - you are.

I say it was a labour camp. When people got ill, they were treated in the hospital. There was a typhus endemic, and the Germans did everything they could to combat this - delousing chambers, shaving heads, quarantine barracks, infirmaries etc. Otto became ill, so the Germans treated his illness. I say he was not an exception. I say this was common practice as it was not an extermination camp.

But YOU say it was an extermination camp (as well as a labour camp). You said people were worked until they were too sick to do so and then they were killed. Otto Frank got sick and became too weak to work - why did the Germans not kill him? Why did they treat his typhus in the Auschwitz hospital? Why was a 56 year-old man not gassed upon arrival when the narrative states anyone over 45 was gassed upon arrival?

Otto Frank's story goes against the extermination narrative people like you and Zort peddle. Now...

Explain why the Germans did not kill Otto Frank when he became "too weak to work" when you say it was common practice to do so. Explain how a 56 year-old man escaped gassing upon arrival when it is alleged anyone 45 or older was gassed on arrival.

This should be hilarious...

[–] pauliewalnuts-48096 8 years ago

Ranb40 is a very apt name. Looks like he "ran" away when presented with a question he couldn't explain.

Otto Frank is a hero for revisionists. His story debunks the "extermination" narrative.

[–] pauliewalnuts-48096 8 years ago

#And I ra-a-an... I ran so far a-way-ay-ay.
I just ra-a-an... I ran the night and day-ay-ay.#

[–] Mikey-Buckets 8 years ago

"It is naive to think that every nazi in every camp ran things exactly the same way."

You're wayyyyyyyyy too stupid to realize he already easily debunked that pathetic logic, which is why he hasn't bothered to respond to your delusional remarks. The fact that you thought you made a point of any kind and were wallowing in victory, is absolutely priceless.

Apparently, "common practice" = happens exactly the same everytime... according to you. Critical thinking continues to elude you...

[–] pauliewalnuts-48096 8 years ago

Step right up, Mikey Buckets. Maybe you can provide an explanation and not run off like ranb40 did.

Explain why the Germans did not kill Otto Frank when he became too weak to work. Explain why the Germans treated him in an infirmary. Explain how a 56 year-old man was able to escape gassing upon arrival when it is alleged anyone 45 or older was gassed on arrival at Auschwitz.

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 8 years ago

Oh yeah, because a 15 year old girl could never be useful for anything could she..

Either way, would she have died had it not been for the Nazis? She is still a young girl who died because she was Jewish.