Thus began the twitter war I got myself into regarding the Holocaust. I just can’t help myself. I just wasn’t expecting this to be a long drawn out thing with two other primary users. That of NathanAngelus (the horse’s ass), and 12841chelmno. And, finally, I got some serious competition for revisionist history. In that I finally get arguments that are very effective attacks against it. Nothing to completely dismantle them mind you, but enough to where ground is taken away regarding a few topics.
I’ll post the significant tweets unedited, and make some remarks beyond the tweets. Because, well let’s face it, there’s only so much you can do on Twitter. This isn’t exactly a topic that can be settled with just a few dozen tweets. Plus, now that I’ve had time to get cool-headed over it all, I can dig further into the topics that were covered to verify whether I was in the wrong, or in the right. In the end, it ended up being both.
The 4 Million Number, Anne Frank, Survivors, and Tortured Confessions
The Nazi extermination camps like Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor were out of the range of allied bombing. As were the mass shooting actions carried out by the Nazis. There was no “revision”, as the 4M number never referred to Jews and was not used in calc the Death toll
As I’ve just learned, the 4 million number has apparently always been BS. It was a number the USSR bloated up to fit their propaganda. The real number had always been 1.1 million.
JK8675309@12841chelmnoMcCarthy’s numbers are wrong to begin with. In any case 6 million Jews is an estimate, around 5-6 million Jews died during the war. About half of those died in camps, the others died of gunshot wounds, disease, malnutrition, abuse, etc.
Paradigm Cascade@CascadeParadigmNever forgetti
Anomalous Host@anomalous_hostMoshe Peer survived a gassing chamber 6 times somehow, in a camp that was captured intact by the Allies, where no gassing chambers could be found. Claimed it was worse than Auschwitz, even though both he and his brother and sister survived. Far-fetched.
USMCLegbreaker@USMCLegbreakerStop. The Holocaust is the most well documented genocide in human history.
I won’t deny there are documents. “Well documented,” that’s a different story entirely. You’d be surprised how much of these “documents” are forged or cherrypicked or biased. For instance, The Diary of Anne Frank. Fraudulent.
Nathan C@NathanAngelusExcept the BKA and the Netherlands Institute of War documentation both forensically tested Anne Frank’s diary and matched it with other samples of her writing. “Keine Zweifel an Der Echtheit” – no doubts as to the authenticity. Forensic tests>Neo Nazi fake site.
Yes, I’ve recently learned about that. That does throw a wrench into some revisionist arguments. Enough to put me on the fence about it. Still some other issues about it I haven’t fully grasped yet.
And this, regarding its authenticity, which takes at least some of what you posted regarding authentication into account.
So at this point I should mention where I initially got the information of The Diary of Anne Frank (which I must confess I haven’t read, I just know it’s primarily about this girl’s perspective living in hiding for years in a confined space with others, prior to getting captured along with the others and sent to a concentration camp in 1944 2 months after the last entry in the diary) being fictitious. From that Europa: The Last Battle documentary. Episode 8, about 60 minutes into it, it brings up the topic of the diary after stating that the book Schindler’s List is a work of fiction (nothing controversial about that, as it’s stated in the book itself). Looking back on this part of the documentary now, I must confess, the creator of it didn’t seem to know what he was talking about. I quote:
“[The Diary of Anne Frank] is now probably the pinnacle of the Holocaust theory.”
Bullshit. The diary doesn’t even cover the concentration camps. It’s all about her life (from her perspective) primarily spent in hiding in a house (maybe two) up until they were sent to a camp. How can this be considered the “pinnacle” of Holocaust theory? The documentary makes this all overblown.
But anyway, here’s the more significant lines regarding it’s opinion on the Anne Frank diary, from the documentary:
The original diary manuscript was forensically examined by the German State Forensic Bureau [Bundes Kriminal Amt] that analysis determined that significant portions of the work were written with a ball point pen. Since ball point pens were not available to everyone before 1951, portions of the work were added well after the war. Handwriting experts determined after closer examination of the originals that all of the writing in the diary was by the same hand, and the BKA determined that none of the diary handwriting matched known examples of Anne’s handwriting. The true author of the diary was Jewish novelist Meyer Levin, who demanded and was awarded $50,000 in payments for his work in a court action against Anne’s father, Otto Frank. The truth about the Anne Frank diary was exposed in 1959 by the Swedish journal Fria Und [?]. It established that the Jewish novelist Meyer Levin had written the dialogue of the diary, and was demanding payment for his work in a court action against Otto Frank. An extract from the Swedish articles appeared in the American Economic Council Letter, April 15, 1959 as follows:
“History has many examples of myths that live a longer and richer life than truth, and may become more effective than truth. The Western World has for some years been made aware of a Jewish girl through the medium of what purports to be her personally written story, Anne Frank’s Diary. Any informed literary inspection of this book would have shown it to have been impossible as the work of a teenager.
A noteworthy decision of the New York Supreme Court confirms this point of view, in that the well known American Jewish writer, Meyer Levin, has been awarded $50,000 to be paid him by the father of Anne Frank as an honorarium for Levin’s work on the Anne Frank Diary.”
Evidence compiled by Dr. Robert Faurisson of France establishes that the famous diary is a literary hoax. After doing substantial research, professor Faurisson wrote, “The truth obliges me to say that the Diary of Anne Frank is only a simple literary fraud.”
To expand on the above, Hamburg pensioner Ernst Roemer also proclaimed the diary to be a fraud. And Otto Frank sued him. After a few courts and appeals (2/3 which proclaimed that the diary was legit), that was when the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) made their analysis which determined that large portions of the diary were written in ballpoint pen. The National Vanguard site I linked to in the tweet above cites Attack! No. 79, 1980, as its source. Allegedly, the BKA concluded that the handwriting style in ballpoint pen matched the writing style of the entire diary, thus whoever wrote the entries in ballpoint pen also wrote the entire diary. Since Anne Frank wasn’t around in 1951, it can be concluded she did not write the entries that were in ballpoint pen, and thus wrote none of the diary.
However, this isn’t something that can be used to definitively conclude that The Diary of Anne Frank is a fraud. The mainstream belief is that these were basically glorified editor’s notes to help organize the diary for publication (as the diary wasn’t all that organized, and Anne supposedly had two different diaries going on, for reasons regarding how she wanted to have them written and/or organized; she didn’t have anything better to do). The argument that the writing style of the ballpoint pen matching the writing style of everything in the diaries is something the Netherland State Institute for War Documentation (NSIWD) has argued against (with forensic evidence), and has published their findings and analysis on the matter in the Critical Edition of the Anne Frank Diaries (since 1988-9 and beyond). Currently, I believe the ballpoint pen thing has been overblown. Best case scenario, the father Otto Frank made up a few things in some diary entries for the sake of expanding on his daughter’s work. Worst case, he did nothing but make some organizational notes, likely at the behest of one or both of his editors, and nothing he wrote made it into the final product. Since Europa doesn’t make mention of the NSIWD, the documentary either overlooked or ignored that inconvenient fact which shreds their theory about the Anne Frank Diary being a fraud, at least as far as legitimacy of the handwriting goes.
But then there’s the issue of Meyer Levin. Well, once again, Europa takes that whole situation out of context. It’s a big complicated story regarding Levin’s involvement with the Anne Frank story. He worked with Otto Frank on the diary to an extent, and had a version written up that was to be adapted for a stage play. He got into a huge legal war with not just Otto Frank, but various Jewish organizations. In the end, he won that $50k settlement, but made many Jewish enemies, and never got his stage play adaptation fully realized. As far as I know, it stayed off stage and on paper. This didn’t really have anything to do with the authenticity of the actual diary.
Which leaves Robert Faurisson. His arguments against the legitimacy of the diary is a completely different beast altogether. He argues not by questioning the handwriting, but by the logic of what is written. In that the stuff that is stated in the diary (as well as raising doubts as to the plausibility of a child being capable of writing in this way) doesn’t make sense.
I linked to Faurisson’s arguments above, but here’s a few other links discussing the subject, if you’re interested:
For now, my position has changed to believe that the Anne Frank Diary is authentic. Not sure about 100% authentic (regarding whether some liberties were taken by the father or one of the editors), but at least authentic enough to believe Anne Frank at least wrote the majority of it. This could change, depending on how strong Faurisson’s arguments are, though that’s going to be a tough one given the analysis done by the NSIWD.
That all said, this isn’t something that harms the revisionist argument about the Holocaust being a hoax. The only people it does harm those who state that the Anne Frank Diary is a hoax. I don’t get why certain revisionists are so adament about proving the diary to be a fraud when it doesn’t harm revisionists at their foundations (not even close). On the contrary, it can work with the argument. I don’t feel that an example is really necessary, but just for the hell of it:
While Anne Frank’s story is tragic, you ignore the manner of death of the 8 people in the Annex. The official history is that non-working Jewish people arriving at Auschwitz were all “gassed.” But of the eight sent to Auschwitz on September 3, 1944 from the Annex, not one of them was killed in a gas chamber. Instead, five of the eight were transported back to Germany-Austria in November 1944.
The details of the eight individuals from the Annex are:
The Frank Family was detained for failing to report for labor service and for going into hiding.
1. Anne Frank– sent to Auschwitz, then transported to Belsen where she died of typhus (in Belsen not Auschwitz).
2. Otto Frank– left behind in Auschwitz with those in the sick barracks. Survived the War.
3. Edith Frank-Holländer–left behind in Auschwitz as the Germans retreated.
4. Margot Frank (Anne’s older sister) died of typhus in Belsen (not Auschwitz).
5. Fritz Pfeffer, sent to Auschwitz then transported to Neuengamme concentration camp where he died on 20 December 1944. His cause of death is listed in the camp records as “enterocolitis.”
6. Auguste van Pels born Auguste Röttgen (Hermann’s wife), whose date of death is unknown. Witnesses testified that she was with the Frank sisters during part of their time in Bergen-Belsen. According to German records, van Pels was sent to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in Germany with a group of eight women on November 26, 1944. Hannah Goslar’s testimony was that she spoke to van Pels through the barbed wire fence “in late January or early February”. Auguste was transferred on February 6, 1945 to Raguhn (Buchenwald in Germany), then to the Czechoslovakia camp Theresienstadt ghetto on April 9, 1945.
7. Peter van Pels died in Mauthausen (not Auschwitz).
8. Hermann van Pels died in Auschwitz. It is often claimed that he was “gassed.” However, according to eyewitness testimony, this did not happen on the day of his arrival there. Sal de Liema, an inmate at Auschwitz who knew both Otto Frank and Hermann van Pels, said that after two or three days in the camp, van Pels mentally “gave up.” He later injured his thumb on a work detail, and requested to be sent to the sick barracks. There is no evidence whatever for the assertion that Hermann van Pels was gassed.
Another thing I found interesting when researching to double check all this stuff regarding Anne Frank was this interview with a “Holocaust survivor” who personally knew Anne Frank, and became re-acquainted with her near the end of WWII in one of the camps. Nanette Konig. I find this line interesting:
“Because the BBC in 1942 had already announced that there were extermination camps – in other words we didn’t believe any longer that they were going into forced labour – and it was all very, very traumatic. (Source)“
Hmmm. Makes me wonder if propaganda like that contributed to the mindset of these Jews that terrible fates awaited them in these camps, prior to the Final Solution taking place.
Nathan C@NathanAngelusYep. There was no torture and the Defendants – Hoess and others – all spoke freely and challenged the accusations against them. The US even gave them evidence to help defend themselves, a testament to the integrity and fairness of the American Justice System.
I have difficulty in determining your logic in concluding there was no torture involved with any of the German confessions. What makes you so certain? And what is this book you’re taking photos of?
There’s no evidence of any torture whatsoever. Of course you have “difficulty determining logic”, because Holocaust denial is based on race hatred and not any type of logic, lmao. Is the source relevant? The records of the Nuremberg Doctor’s trial are publicly available.
“Holocaust denial is based on race hatred.” On the contrary, revisionists believe it was used as a cover for Allied war crimes, various communist crimes, and to discourage anyone from ever attempting a successful financial system that is independent of international banks.
“There’s no evidence of any torture whatsoever.” Or really? Where should I start? How about that 3/4 of the interrogators were Jews, and that the signed confession from Hoess stating 2.5 million died at Auschwitz contradicts the now 1.1 million number?
– testicle crushing – None of that happened at “Nuremberg”. This was claimed at the unrelated Malmedy Massacre trial. The thing about that is, the US under Joe McCarthy investigated the rumours and even had a senate Inquiry about it, which disproved them. Piss off, dumb shit.
I failed to see this message early on. Got lost in the shuffle of dozens of tweets until I searched through them for this post. If I were to have responded, I would’ve mentioned that the “testicle crushing” link I posted also linked to this article:
Which mentioned “London Cage”. The Malmedy Massacre was only part of the entire article. Though that being said, the article’s title is deceptive, as it implies “testicle crushing” was done at the Nuremberg trials as opposed to the separate Malmedy Massacre trials. That also being said, it’s no stretch to believe testicle crushing was one of the torture methods utilized at Nuremberg. The Malmedy case was just one of the major examples. Which makes Nathan’s remarks red herrings.
Anyway, in the later tweets, Mr. Horse’s Ass would keep bitching about me being closed minded and unable to change my mind, even though I expressed that, at the time, I was moved from the revisionist side of the fence to going on the fence about the Anne Frank topic. Now I’ve moved more onto the non-revisionist side, though I question that label since her diary being authentic ends up being irrelevant to the basis of Holocaust denial altogether. But it does point out that the Europa documentary isn’t without its flaws.
3 thoughts on “Holocaust Twitter Wars part 1: Anne Frankly Torture is Offensive”
I know of two instances of torture that are not disputed. One is Rudolf Hoess, the Commandment of Auschwitz and the other is Konrad Morgen. The British soldiers that captured him tortured him but there is no indication that anyone tortured him afterwards. There is also no indication that any defendant at the original IMT was tortured.
As for Anne Frank, I’ve never understood the obsession. Her story about hiding is simply the best known but Jews hid in all parts of Europe.
True, the torture allegations are speculation. It has to do with the theory that, if the Holocaust was something that was made up at worst or exaggerated at best, the Germans were likely to have been tortured to force a confession about the Holocaust numbers, among other things. And I’ve seen plenty to indicate there is a lot of BS with both the Holocaust and the Nuremberg trials (and other related trials).
For instance, regarding Adolf Eichmann: https://theanomaloushost.org/2019/07/26/re-debunking-holocaust-denial-part-2/
As for Anne Frank, it’s quite simple. How many of them kept diaries? How many of them were young pure innocent girls? What were the first major stories to be published? How profitable could they make it? It usually comes down to money, with sensationalism to drive it. The more sensational the story (fiction or not), the more profitable it usually is. The Holocaust is a very profitable event for Jews and Israel (to the point where there are still ads about how survivors and their descendants need money).
Plus there’s the whole thing of being the first major Holocaust story. It’s like how Magic: The Gathering was the first major collectible card game. It didn’t matter what came after, or how much better they were. There was too much of a fanbase and a money-making-machine to topple it at that point. Then again, many thought the same thing about Star Wars.
Scholarly research on the holocaust.