- js reader version
- email this article
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
View article without comments
The following post has status hidden:
Echo Park Residents Sue LA Over Controversial Development
by Friends of Kite Hill •
Monday, Feb. 12, 2018 at 8:10 AM
The destruction of a hill in Echo Park would make way for four three-story homes. Both PLUM and City Council approved the project despite failure to meet all CEQA requirements and objections of some 50 neighbors. Instead, a developer in San Jose, California is being favored.
kitehillbanner2.jpg, image/jpeg, 4032x3024
Residents of Echo Park are suing the City of LA over approval of a development (four three-story houses) that would entail the demolition of a hill, long known as Kite Hill (located at 2450 Lake Shore Avenue). The community values Kite Hill for being one of the few undeveloped pieces of land in L.A. Red tail hawks are commonly seen in the area (one neighbor has reported seeing mountain lion P-22 there as well). Most significantly (from a legal standpoint), the land features a threatened species, black walnut trees, which is protected under CEQA(1). Yet, the project was approved by PLUM(2) in November.
Neighbors, who have formed a group called Friends of Kite Hill, have other serious objections. The removal of so much rock and dirt (8,109 cubic yards) would necessitate over 800 trips by truck. As it is, Lake Shore Avenue, and nearby Whitmore are difficult to negotiate. Lake Shore is narrow, with no room for two opposing vehicles at the same time, and in recent years traffic has increased due to driving apps and people eager to avoid nearby Glendale Boulevard. Parking is also scarce, and this project would temporarily block off parking.
Also, the projected six-month-long demolition process would be quite noisy as huge quantities of rock is pounded. Dust would also be generated.
Additionally, the city did not give the neighborhood proper advanced notice of this development.
Thus, the PLUM decision was appealed by Friends of Kite Hill, but in December City Council denied it despite the CEQA violation and other objections by 50+ neighbors. That same month Friends sued the City of Los Angeles.
Residents have contacted Councilperson Mitch O'Farrell's office, but thus far there's been no follow-up from him.
There are indications that the proposed development hasn't been sufficiently thought through. An example of this is the addition of four driveways on such a narrow and crowded street. One neighbor told City Council in December:
“I asked the developer how the residents of this new development will be able to turn out of the four driveways that are planned. There is no room for this. He looked puzzled and asked how the present residents across the street turn out (obviously no one is thinking too far ahead)? I pointed out that they all park on the street. So if we are unsuccessful in our fight against this, will Lake Shore's curb be painted red? So the new residents will be allowed to use their driveways? What about the existing residents? Don't we have a right to be respected by our city government? We all pay a lot in taxes and vote.”
Another neighbor made a similar observation:
“. . . [T]he developers have not gone through proper channels of planning and testing to get their permits. After meeting with therm, not only did I not get reassured, but I got the feeling they have not planned into the future regarding what they will encounter – or how they will effect the street in the long run.”
The statement by another neighbor reflected people's concerns about the character of the neighborhood.
“I would also like to voice some more general concerns I have regarding the proposed development and it’s impact on the character and aesthetics of the immediate neighborhood. The stretch of Lake Shore Ave between Cerro Gordo and Whitmore has a very rustic and secluded character. It bears much more resemblance to areas such as Topanga Canyon than it does to the area of Echo Park to the south of Cerro Gordo. Most of the residences are small single-story cottages that date back many decades, some to the early years of the 20th century. The few 2-story homes blend very discretely into the surrounding terrain and foliage. If a person were dropped on the block they would likely have no idea that they were within 10 minutes of downtown or 15 minutes of the heart of Hollywood. I have lived here since 1985, and I cherish this secluded and rustic atmosphere.
“We in the neighborhood have been provided no information about the proposed development other than that concerning the haul route hearing, however I have every reason to believe that it will have a dramatic and irreversible impact on the surrounding neighborhood. I expect, due to the economics of real estate development and the amount of earth to be removed, that the proposed residences will be very large, perhaps even in the “McMansion” category. This, combined with the likely alteration of the terrain on the proposed site will cause detrimental changes in the character and aesthetics of the immediate area which will be impossible to ignore.”
On February 2, Friends of Kite Hill was unable to have a restraining order against the developer. However, if work on the project begins, and Friends wins its legal suit,
If opposition to the development is successful, Friends of Kite Hill would like to see the area reserved as a public park, perhaps featuring native plants via the Theodore Payne Foundation.
(1)CEQA is City of Los Angeles Environmental Quality Act.
(2)PLUM is the Planning and Land Use Management committee.
by Friends of Kite Hill
Monday, Feb. 12, 2018 at 8:10 AM
kitehilllookingup.jpg, image/jpeg, 3264x2448
Report this post as:
by Friends of Kite Hill
Monday, Feb. 12, 2018 at 8:10 AM
kitehilllookingdown.jpg, image/jpeg, 3264x2448
Report this post as:
by Friends of Kite Hill
Monday, Feb. 12, 2018 at 8:10 AM
kitehillroad4.jpg, image/jpeg, 3264x2448
Report this post as:
by Friends of Kite Hill
Monday, Feb. 12, 2018 at 8:10 AM
kitehilltightstreet3.pngk7n5nw.png, image/png, 759x452
This picture and the one below was presented at City Council to illustrate how tight Lake Shore Ave. is and why all this construction and new driveways will be problematic. (As usual, most City Council members were looking down at their hand-held devices during our comments and,ultimately favored the San Jose-based developer without addressing the legal issues raised by the community.)
Report this post as:
by Friends of Kite Hill
Monday, Feb. 12, 2018 at 8:10 AM
kitehilltightstreetprequel.pngla9ri4.png, image/png, 757x470
This picture and the one above was presented at City Council to illustrate how tight Lake Shore Ave. is and why all this construction and new driveways will be problematic. (As usual, most City Council members were looking down at their hand-held devices during our comments and,ultimately favored the San Jose-based developer without addressing the legal issues raised by the community.)
Report this post as:
Wednesday, Feb. 14, 2018 at 11:19 AM
The so-called diary of anne frank is a forgery. It consists of 3 basic elements : 1. plagiarism of der trotzkopf ; 2.plagiarism of jakob von gunten : ein tagebuch ; 3. misrepresented real events from the franksÂ´ family life 1942 - 1944.
We are looking at patchwork here. Collage .
As my reference editions, I shall use for the diary, DIE TAGEBÃCHER DER ANNE FRANK, aus dem niederlÃ¤ndischen von mirjam pressler, rijksinstitut voor oorlogsdocumentatie, s. fisher verlag 1988, 2. auflage, printed in germany 1993. Hereafter, FRANK. The first edition of the diary of anne frank came out in holland in 1947.
For der trotzkopf, der trotzkopf: eine pensionsgeschichte fÃ¼r erwachsene mÃ¤dchen, by emmy von rhoden, 39. auflage, stuttgart, verlag von gustav weise. The year is not available, anyway this is a reprint of the original edition that came out in 1885. I shall reference the online text here :
For gunten : jakob von gunten: ein tagebuch by robert walser, bruno cassirer berlin
1909, online here :
LetÂ´s get off into this whole dirty affair.
CHAPTER I : CRAZY IDEA
Now picture yourself hiding from the nazis who are out to get you and send you to the gas chambers or slave work et similia : would you write a diary, featuring all of the real names of your jewish friends, christian helpers, plus your antinazi and pro-allies stance ? Would you really do that, in view of the very real possibility you might get discovered and arrested ? Would you not only aggravate your own position in nazi eyes, but also endanger dozens of your friends and helpers ? Maybe you would do that, as a 13-year-old girl, not so smart and all alone but - would 5 adults all around you, hiding with you, aware you are keeping a diary as the diary explicitly states, allow you to keep it ?
That would be criminal, irresponsible and suicidal at the very least ! No, I guess you really wouldnÂ´t do that would you ? So why do you blindly believe that anne frank actually did do that crazy thing ?
CHAPTER 2 : A MISSING PHOTOGRAPH
Now FRANK begins on p.214, with a full-page photo of anne frank. Where does this pic come from ? In the allegedly original manuscript diary, this pic is missing, as FRANK informs us on page 797, editorsÂ´ note 1. Again if there is no photo at all in the manuscript, why was this photo printed here at the start of the diaryÂ´s alleged text, as if it were part thereof, when in fact it s not ? And again : what is the source of that photo ? How did it survive the war, the alleged arrest and house-search, and the holocaust ? How can a scientific edition, as FRANK purports to be, start a text with a photo of unknown, undeclared provenance, that is not part of the manuscript ? The popular edition of the diary of anne frank does not feature this picture, nor the manuscriptÂ´s comment to it that opens the diaryÂ´s verbal text in FRANK : . Thus the scientific edition dupes the reader into believing the actual manuscript featured that photo - which it doesnÂ´t. Therefore anne may have been commenting on a totally different photo for ought we know. But it gets worse.
We must now introduce a 4th important book here : ANNE FRANK HAUS, EIN MUSEUM MIT EINER GESCHICHTE, anne frank stichting, amsterdam 1999, deutsch s.fischer verlag, translated into german by waltraud hÃ¼smert, henceforth AFH.
On its front cover, and again on page 218, this book features the very same photo as FRANK - only this time, to our utter astonishment, included in the manuscript - this first of a series of diary manuscripts being an album. Now why does FRANK tell us in 1986 (first edition of the original dutch edition) that this photo is missing, whereas AFH shows us in 1999 that the photo is right there in its place ? AFH says nothing either about the photoÂ´s provenance - only that it belongs to either the anne frank stichting, amsterdam, or to one allard bovenberg, amsterdam - unclear to which one, the way they write it in the photo sourcing on page 264 of AFH. Thus we are again left in the dark as to where this photo comes from and how it survived WW2. And we are left wondering whether or not it actually belonged to the manuscript, since FRANK and AFH contradict each other.
We also notice from this photographic reproduction of the diaryÂ´s alleged manuscriptÂ´s first 2 pages, AFH 218, that this looks like an album - a photo album, not a proper diary at all.
Look at the photo at the start of this article : it is a reproduction of AFH 218, itself a photographic repro of the first alleged diary of anne frank, the one that was allegedly presented to her for her 13th birthday on june 12, 1942. This object again, does not look like a proper diary at all. It is a photo album, with the left page featuring photo casings, into which the pic is inserted, and a blank right page for writing captions to the photos on the left. And, indeed, we do read anneÂ´s original caption on the right side : it is written in what appears to be a red pencil, and it goes : : the photo has clearly been taken at school, in the classroom, at her desk, during the schoolyear 1941/42, when she was attending the jÃ¼disches lyzeum in amsterdam, and the deportation of local jews had not begun yet.
CHAPTER 3 : 4-HANDED MONSTER
Now what strikes us as very odd here on this reproduction above is, that there clearly appear to be 4 different hands at work : 1. the hand that wrote the caption in red, plausibly anne frankÂ´s own hand,
a childish, feminine handwriting befitting a 13-year-old ; 2. the hand that wrote the last line on the right-hand page, similar to but not quite identical with the red hand, female but somewhat more mature and organized and regular, using a different ink, brown in color, from a pen not a pencil : it could be anne, or it could be someone imitating anneÂ´s red hand ; 3. a totally different adult hand for most of the text, using a similar but not identical ink, thicker than that of the last line; this is an entirely different person, cannot possibly be anne ; 4. the hand that wrote the line numbers on the right margin of the right page, apparently using a black pencil.
It is implausible, improbable in the extreme that hands 1 - 4 be the same hand - a 13-year-old girlÂ´s hand. And, it is illogical and implausible that anne frank herself would use 4 such different handwritings on the same page, in the space of a few weeks or months or even on the same day !!!
Actually, it is possible that there be even a 5th hand at work on these 2 pages : the hand that wrote the sept. 28, 1942 entry looks, at closer inspection, remarkably different than the hand that wrote the june 12, 1942 entry. The inks too differ in the 2 entries, the later oneÂ´s being less thick.
Let me be clear : look at the photo above : this is supposed to be the original diary that was presented to anne frank on june 12, 1942, for her 13th birthday. Now : does the cursive hand look to you, like it could be from a 13-year-old girl ? And even if it were, how come it is so radically different than the handwriting for the caption, in red ? Or than the one for the last line on the right-hand-side page ? DoesnÂ´t the cursive hand look way more like that of an adult, of a much older person, of a boring accountant or something ? Why would anne frank, had she really written those 2 entries herself, want to sign them with her name ? Twice, after each short entry ? This is supposed to be her own private diary, why sign each entry at all ? How could anne frank possibly have gone, on the same day, june 12, 1942, from the childish print hand of the caption, to the adult cursive of the 1st main entry ? Why would she want to add the line numbering ? Clearly here, hands other than anneÂ´s have tampered with her photo album, adding diary entries she never wrote.
And signing each of them like an accountant would sign a check, to make believe that this was really anne frank writing. Most likely, the diaryÂ´s forgers used a real photo album that had belonged to anne frank, and interpolated into it those 2 entries in the cursive adult hand we see in this picture above. Someone else added the line numbering too later still, for editorial purposes of sorts. Probably the original draft of this forgery wasnÂ´t even written by hand, but by typewriter instead, and then added to the diary much later, when judges, as we shall see, ordered anneÂ´s father otto to come up with the manuscript in order to ascertain authenticity, which had been challenged by some and prompted a legal challenge in court.
There is another oddity here worth noticing : on these first 2 pages of this alleged diary, the 2 main entries are dated and signed like they were a financial transaction or something ; the other 3 separate lines ( the words on the left page, the photo caption, the last line ) are undated and unsigned. The second dated and signed entry bears the date sept. 28, 1942 - one would assume, anne returned to this page 3 and a half months after receiving the diary. This entry is written around the red caption, therefore the undated red caption was written before sept. 28, 1942. Or anyway before the entry that dodges it. The last line says - one would assume, sheÂ´s happy she took the diary to her hiding place when she moved to prinsengracht 263 from where she was living before ( merwedeplein ), when she went into hiding with her family on july 6, 1942. Therefore that last line cannot have been written before july 6, 1942. In summation, anne frank is supposed to have written into these 2 first pages of her alleged diary on at least 3 separate days and using from a minimum of 3 different handwritings (childish print, adult cursive, line numbering hand) to a maximum of 5 ! If you believe this, be my guest. There is only one plausible conclusion to be drawn from all this : none at all of the writings on the first 2 pages of anne frankÂ´s alleged diary is authentic, except for the photo caption in red ink : this was again, a photo album and not a diary. The rest was interpolated at some later stage by forgers pretending to be anne frank. The dates and the signatures are false too.
Do not be fooled by the conclusions in FRANK, by one engineer hardy - what does an engineer know about graphology ? - featured in this zionazi-friendly publication, and meant to prove that all those radically different handwritings are all from anne frank at the same time. This engineer/graphologist only states that most of the writing in the alleged manuscripts of anne frankÂ´s alleged diary is from her : that is to say, no absolute certainty here that those manuscript writings are by anne frankÂ´s hand . And he does admit to the presence, albeit marginal in his view, of other hands in the manuscripts, notably for the line numbering and other details.
CHAPTER 4 : INTERPOLATIONS IN PROGRESS
If we know grab for a moment the popular edition of anne frankÂ´s diary, the current version that everyone reads when they buy it today, we may notice that manuscript words are changed into something entirely different : take for instance the current standard german translation, ANNE FRANK TAGEBUCH, edited by otto h. frank and mirjam pressler, translated by mirjam pressler, fischer taschenbuch, 19th print, january 2013 ( henceforth POP ), page 11 : the sept. 28, 1942 entry in the photo above, reads in POP:
Wheras the alleged manuscript entry in the photo above reads :
Thus you can see how the so-called diary of anne frank is really a work-in-progress, in which several persons other than anne have felt free over the decades to change whatever they pleased.
CHAPTER 5 : LITERARY PLAGIARISM
As I said in the introduction above, the alleged diary is a collage of 3 elements basically, the first 2 having to do with literary plagiarism from TROTZ and GUNTEN. It is a very subtle sort of plagiarism, very expert and smart, absolutely not creditable to an average 13-year-old such as anne frank. TROTZ is a novel about a 15-year-old girl, ilse, a contrarian and wild child, just like anne.
The first leit-motif in TROTZ is the strong rapport ilse has with her father, as opposed to the hostility she harbors for her stepmother. Just like anne in the diary, who relates mostly positively to her dad otto, and negatively to her mother. On page 11 of TROTZ, we are on the second day of the novel, a june 12 : , says ilseÂ´s father. And the diary of anne frank starts on a june 12. Just before that, ilseÂ´s father has announced to his wife his decision to send ilse to a boarding school - she is to leave on july 1. Now, in the diary, the frank family moves to the hiding place on a july 6. And the hiding place will soon become a boarding school of sorts for anne, her sister margot and their teenage co-hider peter van pels. I am not hereby implying that anne frank wasnÂ´t born on a june 12, or that the franks didnÂ´t move on a july 6. I am saying that whoever forged the diary of anne frank, was well aware of the coincidences with TROTZ, and imitated the plot and the spirit and the ideology of TROTZ throughout the forgery that is the diary of anne frank.
We shall soon factor in dozens more striking similarities, but for now let us sum up the ones we have encountered so far :
TROTZ VERSUS DIARY:
about a rebellious teenage girl and her education ;about a rebellious teen and her education
ilse is a contrarian, temperamental ; anne is a contrarian, temperamental
ilse has a strong rapport with her father ; anne has a strong rapport with her father
ilse is hostile to her stepmother ; anne is hostile to her mother
the second day in the plot is a june 12 ; the first day is a june 12
ilse moves to a boarding school on a july ; anne moves to her hiding place, which will become her own boarding school, on a july 6 .
Before we carry on with our synoptic reading of TROTZ versus FRANK, let me just say that, since the first edition of the diary in 1947, for 71 long years ( as of this writing, january 31, 2018 ), the owners of these alleged manuscripts ( a whole series of bound notebooks and albums, plus a number of loose sheets ) have refused to publish them in their entirety - thus nobody can verify whether or not they really feature all the materials published over the decades as the diary of anne frank ; and nobody can analyze the writings and all other details such as pics etc.
The diary appears to have been carefully planned out on the literary pattern of TROTZ, which belongs to a genre in XVIII- to XIX-century french and german literature called erziehungsroman, educational novel, or backfischroman, young-girlsÂ´ novel, a genre especially targeting a readership of teenage girls, which became immensely popular and still is in those countries. The teenage rebel in such novels goes from wild child to polite and refined young lady. So does ilse, so does anne.
Therefore, even though TROTZ is not a diary, still it is the story of the initiation of a backfisch into adulthood.
Both the manuscripts as printed in FRANK, and TROTZ, begin with a lively exclamation by ilse () and anne (), punctuated by exclamation marks. There follows in TROTZ a short brushstroke about ilseÂ´s physique : There follows in TROTZ a description of the scene, with 5 people beside ilse : her parents, a friend pair with their adult son, and the local priest. In anneÂ´s hiding place at prinsengracht 263 we shall encounter beside anne and her sister margot, following 5 characters : a friend pair with their 16-year-old son, and a single man, a dentist.
Again I am not thereby implying that the van pelses or fritz pfeffer did not exist - actually I think they did. I am just trying to point out that random coincidences in the lives of anne and ilse were carefully exploited by the diaryÂ´s forgers in order to literarize the diary by molding it on TROTZÂ´s famous pattern.
Next up in TROTZ, ilse enthuses over her dog diana and her puppies - this is matched in anneÂ´s diary by her frequent references to her cat moortje, which she has to leave behind at merwedeplein, and which she will often sorely miss in the hiding place.
There follows in TROTZ a description of 2 leit-motive common again to both books : first, how ilse is the apple of her fatherÂ´s eye, just like anne is to otto ; second, how ilseÂ´s clothing is stained and torn - anne will often describe the inadequacy of her clothes and shoes during the war.
The next scene in TROTZ features ilseÂ´s stepmother scolding the kid over her unseemly behavior and clothing style in the presence of guests. And thereby, the leit-motif of ilseÂ´s stubbornness and rebellious, hostile attitude unto her stepmother comes to the fore. In the diary too, as usual, one of the most frequent leitmotive is anneÂ´s bitter hostility unto her mother.
Ilse despises, initially, the friend pairÂ´s son, but will end up falling in love with him. Anne initially has a low opinion of peter van pels, but will end up falling in love.
Ilse expresses regret at his fatherÂ´s choice to take another woman after his first wifeÂ´s, ilseÂ´s motherÂ´s, death ; anne will hint in the diary at his fatherÂ´s unrequited love for another woman before marrying anneÂ´s mother. By now you will have grasped that when I say anne I thereby mean the diaryÂ´s forgers - in primis, her father otto heinrich frank.
After being scolded by her stepmother over her poor dressing style and lack of manners, ilse says to herself she will never be a lady - and so does anne often in the diary.
As you see, virtually all, each and every single one of the leitmotifs around which TROTZ revolves, are picked up anew in the diary, and adapted to anneÂ´s real-life persona. We shall encounter and list many more of these coincidences below. But it is not just about themes. It is about extraordinarily similar or near-identical details in the 2 erziehungsromane as well.
CHAPTER 6 : PLAGIARISM DOWN TO THE SMALL DETAILS
FRANK 215 : anne lists female beauty marks that she either possesses or doesnÂ´t : among them, cheek and chin dimples : on page 26 of TROTZ, ilseÂ´s room mate at the boarding house, nellie, gets .
TROTZ 26 : Once at the boarding house, ilse sees that . Once at the hiding place, anne will see through the windows, an imposing chestnut tree.
Once more : this is not to say that anne frank did not have dimples in her cheeks or that the chestnut tree in her garden is fiction - quite the contrary, I think both were real. What I am trying to make clear is, that whoever cooked up the diary of anne frank, knew TROTZ perfectly well, and used it as a blueprint for his choice of materials - leitmotifs and details - to employ in the diary, whether or not such materials coincided with real-life events and details and attitudes of anne Â´s. The inventio, the subject matter from the older novel seems to flow directly into the second, mutatis mutandis.
The dispositio too, the order in which narrative materials appear in the 2 novels, sometimes coincides : for instance, after ilseÂ´s arrival at the boarding house, her first assignment is to arrange her stuff . AnneÂ´s first assignment after arrival at the hiding place, is to arrange her familyÂ´s stuff . Both girls have a helper in this task : for ilse, her roommate nellie, for anne her father otto.
TROTZ , pages 86f., tells how ilse has made such progress at school, that an essay she has written is rated the best of her class, so she is praised by her teacher who reads ilseÂ´s essay aloud to the whole class, a special honouring . In the diary, anne is assigned an essay as punishment for her chatting during class, she writes it in poetic form, and her teacher likes it so much that he reads and comments it aloud to the whole class and to his other classes.
IlseÂ´s teacher interrupts his reading with laughter, and ilse and her classmates laugh along. AnneÂ´s teacher causes AnneÂ´s class to laugh loudly, alongside anne, upon hearing the funny title of anneÂ´s third punishment-essay extra assignment .
This amiable humor is employed by ilseÂ´s teacher as a pedagogical means of correcting mistakes, more effective than angry words. AnneÂ´s teacher too, changes tack and instead of assigning more extra work to anne when she chats, cracks little jokes.
If all this is not plagiarism to you, if you donÂ´t smell a rat yet, then this article is not for you. The plagiarism here is subtle in that TROTZÂ´s words are not copied wholesale - which would have been a dead giveaway given TROTZÂ´s enormous popularity in germany. What does get plagiarized here is the point-for-point narrative material, but light variations are introduced which serve the purpose of concealing the source. Read the relevant passages from the 2 books synoptically now with me :
TROTZ pages 86f. : .
FRANK, 239 :
TROTZ, 87 : .
FRANK 239 : .
Let us call this modus operandi, varied plagiarism, shall we ?
Again for the umpteenth time : in this context, it is irrelevant for me whether or not this episode of the extra work for chatting in class really happened in anneÂ´s life - what instead I have been pointing out here, is how TROTZÂ´s narrative material is matched point-for-point in the diary, so much so that, even if the thing with the extra work really happened, its literarization in the diary is entirely derived from the TROTZ blueprint.
And crediting a 13-year-old with such professional literary skills is to be ruled out with the proverbial ...
CHAPTER 7 : JUGGLING 3 ORANGES
We shall now have to add GUNTEN to our discussion. And start juggling the 3 oranges , TROTZ FRANK and GUNTEN, at once, to fully grasp the collage work that is the diary of anne frank.
To simplify my scribal labor, I shall henceforth call TROTZ , T ; GUNTEN , G ; and FRANK, F.
T: ilse macket is a 15-year-old backfisch, a contrarian, from a well-to-do family.
G: jakob von gunten is a young contrarian from a well-to-do family.
F: anne frank from start to end of her diary, is a 13- to 15-year-old backfisch and contrarian,
from a well-to-do family.
T: ilse loves her softie dad, who has spoiled her rotten, but misbehaves with her (step)mother.
G: jakob has a contradictory, tormented, love-hate relationship with his family
F: anne loves her softie dad otto heinrich frank, who has spoiled her rotten, but cannot stand her
mother, edith-hollÃ¤nder frank.
T: 2 dates stand out in the beginning : a june 12 and a july 1.
F : 2 dates stand out in the beginning : a june 12 and a july 6.
T: on a june 12, ilseÂ´s father, richard macket, decides that enough is enough and ilse is to move to a boarding school on july 1, where she is to be disciplined and properly educated and brought up.
G: jakob registers as a pupil with a boarding school, the institut benjamenta.
F: on june 12, 1942, anne receives from her dad as a 13th-birthday present, a diary into which she starts writing right away. On the subsequent july 6, 1942, anne moves out of her amsterdam home at merwedeplein 37 and into the at prinsengracht 263, which will soon become to her.
T: when ilse arrives at the school on july 2, her roommate nellie helps her unpack her chest and finds a brand new diary in it, a surprise present from ilseÂ´s mother.
G: the whole novel is in diaristic form.
F: upon unwrapping her birthday presents on june 12, anne receives her brand new diary, a present from her father.
T: nellie, upon seeing ilseÂ´s diary, exclaims : .
F: anneÂ´s comment on her new diary : > one of my most beautiful presents > ( june 14 entry ).
T: another schoolgirl, flora hopfstange, keeps a diary and also writes novels, poetry, plays.
F: anne writes her diary ; tales ; fairy tales ; plans a novel about the annex ; includes other peopleÂ´s poetry in her diary.
T: in a note accompanying ilseÂ´s diary, her mother has written :
F: 20.6.1942 entry : .
T: page 40 : flora hopfstange is wary of intruders peeking at her solitary writing.
F: so is anne, several times.
As you can plainly see, the very diary motif, the very idea for this forgery in diary form that is the diary of anne frank, is filched from T and G. The very way in which anne relates to her diary as it were the she-friend she lacks. The kinds of things anne writes. The ruse of the diary as a present.
Again : one need no literary models to make believe that a teenage girl wrote a diary - but the narrative elaboration of the diary motif in F is entirely patterned around the blueprint of T and G.
Even the lie that anne frank used, for her diary manuscripts, in part bound books and in part loose sheets, is stolen from T : on page 107, flora the writer and diary-keeper pulls out from her pocket > several loose sheets
CHAPTER 8 : ON HANDBAG MIRRORS
FRANK 220, 20.6.1942 entry : > I have a ton of admirers [...] who, by means of a broken handbag mirror, try to catch a glimpse of me in class >.
This too has illustrious literary precedents in the history of german literature : the first that comes to mind is e.t.a. hoffman, der sandmann, insel verlag 1986, page 42 : > nathanael got hold of a small [...] spyglass [...] and peeped through the window, inside spallanzaniÂ´s room ; olimpia sat, as usual, at the small table >.
But the handbag-mirror motif is also to be traced back, as usual, to our 2 main models here :
T, 141 : > melanie coquetted with a dinky handbag mirror >.
G, 23 : > [schilinski ] admires himself with pleasure into a cheap handbag mirror. All of us pupils by the way, possess handbag mirrors >.
Again you can plainly see here what I mean by varied plagiarism : the handbag-mirror thing is a topos in german literature ; the using of it to catch glimpses of girls is from hoffman ; the putting of it in the hands of school pupils is from both T and G. What the forgers are doing here is, variation on a theme by way of cento, or collage . The 3 sources are reshuffled and combined into one narrative cell , so as to cover the traces of the subtle literary theft and artifice here.
CHAPTER 9 : CLASSMATES, SELF-ED
In the first part of all 3 books under scrutiny here, F, T and G, we meet with a description of single class mates. In F, it occurs in the june 15, 1942 entry : anneÂ´s attitude unto her mates is judgemental and mostly negative. In G, 5 there begins a description of single classmates, with the same judgemental and substantially negative attitude, in the guise of a forced, artificial appreciation. In T, pages 39-41, single boarding school girls are described.
G 83 mentions jakobÂ´s ideals of self-education or upbringing :
The Sept. 28, 1942 entry of F entails a letter from otto to anne of may 11, 1939 : .
The same concept is repeated in the march 7, 1944 entry (b) , this time by anne herself directly : .
And again in the july 15, 1944 entry (a), again by anne : > I see more and more how true was fatherÂ´s word : " every child must bring himself up " [...] the ultimate building of someoneÂ´s character lies in his own hands >.
Anne, that is the forgers, appear to be obsessed with self-ed, so much so as to regale us with a 4th variation on that theme in the STORIES AND EVENTS FROM THE ANNEXE, henceforth S, tale "why" : > children must better themselves Here, both G and F are dependent on a common source : goethe, wilhelm meisterÂ´s apprenticeship, 3, again an educational novel just like T and G and F : says wilhelm in a letter to his brother-in-law werner.
We know that otto frank, the real main author of the diary he fraudulently credited to his dead daughter , was truly obsessed with this pedagogy of self-upbringing, because he had sent anne to a montessori school in amsterdam before nazi racial segregation would compel her to transfer to the jewish lyceum.
And we know he was an avid reader of classic german literature. So clearly here his starting point was goethe, and the pestalozzi-montessori pedagogical tradition.
Otto writes a letter to anne in which he extols self-ed, because wilhelm meister had written a letter to werner in which he extolled self-ed. The letter might just be authentic - ottoÂ´s work, just like the rest of the so-called diary of anne frank.
CHAPTER 10 : HOMO-SEX
In a famous F entry, jan.6, 1944 (a), anne writes : .
This is nothing but the transposition in the feminine of a famous scene in G 9-11 :
T too, has its homo moments : on page 201, ilse ; on page 214, as ilse is leaving the school, her mentor miss gÃ¼ssow .
CHAPTER 11 : SLAPPING MAMA IN THE FACE
As we saw above, another common thread in all 3 books, T, G and F, is hostility unto oneÂ´s mother.
In the oct.3, 1942 entry (a) , anne expresses her anger at her mother in the most violent terms:
. G 36 had used the exact same words : .
And if you happen to know any other examples of literary slapping oneÂ´s mother in the face, tell me so and be my guest !!! It is true that " I could really slap someone in the face " is a common expression of anger in german - but please just find me any other instance when this expression is applied to oneÂ´s own mother in any literature.
CHAPTER 12 : ICE DANCING
The single most blatant instance of plagiarism of G by F, occurs in a diary passage not included in the popular edition that everyone reads: F 334, a, beifÃ¼gung 93b, to oct.18, 1942 entry : in a note attached to her diary, anne recounts a sort of reverie of hers about being in switzerland with her cousin bernd, who was an ice dancer :
Again, this is nothing but varied plagiarism of G 125, a dream-like, magical scene starring jakob and his teacher :
Now again for the umpteenth time : this cousin bernd aka buddy elias who lived in switzerland was a real person, and he really was an accomplished ice dancer. Therefore one might object here, itÂ´s only natural that anne would dream of becoming his partner on the rink - no need to think the scene is filched from G. But : first of all, again, this scene in the diary is not in the main narrative flow - it occurs in a note attached to the diary, as if someone had thought it up extra for insertion in the diary. ItÂ´s an afterthought, an addition, it is not in the main body of text. It has completely nothing to do with what precedes or follows it in the main text. And though anne is alleged to have rewritten her diary in view of post-war publishing (version b), this scene with bernd is not to be found in version b. It is a solitary, separate note, a draft of a new scene, that someone slipped in at this point in the diary for possible future use. There is nothing spontaneous about it.
Second : even if anne herself had dreamt up such a scene because she had an ice-skating cousin , and had wanted to recount it in her diary, what about the telltale detail with the color blue ? In F, it becomes the color of her partnerÂ´s outfit ; in G, it is the color of the sky.
Another common detail is the reaction, of the public in anneÂ´s dream, of jakob in his own :
F 334 : .
G 125 :
My point is, that even supposing for a moment that anne herself had decided to add her dream of ice-dancing with bernd to the diary, the way that the passage is literarized, written up, structured, owes a lot to G. Again as if someone who new both anneÂ´s life and G well, had noticed the coincidence between the fact that anne had an ice-dancing cousin, and the rink dream in G, and had decided to knock off G but adapting the scene to fit the cousin in. The very framework in which the 2 parallel scenes are encased in F and G, is the same or similar : reverie, daydream, magic.
I think that all this will become clearer to you soon: because the diary of anne frank features a second rink scene :
F 597, march 8, 1944 entry (a) :
So again here the color blue, transposed from GÂ´s sky to the sisterÂ´s outfit, as above to berndÂ´s . And again, GÂ´s dreamy framework. In F, anne dreams of kissing and feeling peterÂ´s cheeks. In G, jakob is brought back to school by magic, and his teacher, miss benjamenta, is standing behind him, stroking his cheeks !! And just like anne is put off by the coarseness of peterÂ´s cheeks, similarly jakob feels that miss benjamenta is stroking him not as if to comfort him, but as if to comfort herself. And just like the ice scene in G is followed by dinner, analogously the second ice scene in F is followed by lunch.
Thus you see my point now : FÂ´s forgers used G as their blueprint for faking anneÂ´s diary, and adapted G to anneÂ´s lifeÂ´s real details, which they knew as intimately, because the forger-in-chief was anneÂ´s father otto.
T plays a role here as well : on pages 135f., for xmas ilse receives splendid pink fabric that makes nellie exclaim it will become a beautiful dancing costume, and nellie receives the same in pale-blue:
again, FÂ´s and GÂ´s ice scene colors.
I hope it is clear now how details from anne frankÂ´s real life were literarized and woven into a coherent narrative : by guntenizing and trotzizing them.
CHAPTER 13 : FALSIFYING HISTORY
I could go on forever showing you more plagiarized parts - and I will, at the end of this study, with an appendix featuring a complete listing of all plagiarized passages and their sources.
For now suffice to sum it all up : the so-called diary of anne frank cannot possibly be the work of a 13- to 15-year-old, firstly because there are several different hands in the manuscripts ; secondly because the diary is a collage or patchwork of passages filched from T, G, hoffman and goethe, only varied just abut enough to cover the traces - showing professional forgery skills that cannot be credited to someone in her early teens.
Thirdly, because the whole story of what happened to the frank family from 1942 to 1944 has been falsified and misrepresented in the alleged diary.
Time to move on to exposing the real story here.
The first to seriously cast scientific doubts on the authenticity of anne frankÂ´s diary was the great french scholar Robert Faurisson ( 1929 born, still alive at the time of this writing, february 3, 2018 ). He began holding seminars about the diary at the university of lyon in the mid-70ies. In 1978 he wrote up his conclusions in a splendid essay, Le journal dÂ´anne frank, est-il authentique ?. It would be published, after having been used as expertise in a german trial, in 1980 and is available on the internet in several languages. What were FaurissonÂ´s main points ? Oh by the way, donÂ´t start telling me the guyÂ´s a nazi, for he never stated so. And anyway, even if he were on the far right, we must listen to everyone without prejudice, because if even a fucking hitler said the sky is blue, the sky wonÂ´t turn green just because a hitler said it was blue. There are people who reach the right conclusions for the wrong reasons. We must accept that and not throw out the baby with the bathwater . I personally am a democrat and an antifascist in politics, and a communist in economics.
The first famous Faurisson argument is the noises : the hiders in theory were not supposed to make the least noise, in order not to be discovered by the nazis, or arouse suspicion in the neighborhood, or among the workers in ottoÂ´s firm next to which they were hiding, where spies might have denounced them to the gestapo for money.
And yet : mrs van daan (van pels) , one of the 7 jews hiding with anne, hoovers her carpet, and anne writes that one hears the hooverÂ´s " stomping " in the annex every day at 12:30 pm ( aug.5, 1943 entry ). Now : the pro-zionazi F editors responded to this on page 111, accusing Faurisson of purposeful omission of half the context here : that is , that before mentioning the stomping of the hoover, anne says that van maaren and de kok ( 2 warehouse hands in ottoÂ´s firm ) have gone home ( for their lunch break, one would assume ). Therefore, according to FÂ´s biased editors, there is no more danger of being heard by potential spies in the annex and mrs van daan/van pels can use the hoover without qualms. But this is falsely misrepresenting the situation of the annex and its immediate surroundings.
First of all , as of aug.5, 1943, van maaren and de kok were by no means the only workers in the building : there probably already was a lena van bladeren-hartog, a cleaning lady (source : melissa mÃ¼ller, das mÃ¤dchen anne frank, fischer taschenbuch 2013, p. 344 ) ; and if she hadnÂ´t begun to work there yet, then they must have had another cleaning lady, as the diary itself attests to .
Then there probably was an accountant called van erp in the office ( source : carol ann lee, the hidden life of otto frank , harper perennial 2003, p. 120, without indication of when this van erp started work at prinsen 263 ) ; and if it wasnÂ´t van erp, they must have had another accountant as of aug. 5, 1943 .
Then there was a sales rep called daatselaar, an NSB ( dutch nazi party ) member ( lee 84, 176 , with no indication of when he started work at prinsen ; but he was surely working there as of aug. 5, 1943, because the oct.20, 1942 entry of the diary (a) mentions him as arriving at prinsen, right afer the cleaning lady had left ; and lee 176 states he was still working for otto in august 1944 ; therefore when mrs van daan/van pels used the hoover every day at 12:30 pm, she took the enormous risk of letting a nazi hear her and discover the hiders ! It is true that lee 85 also states that daatselaar, his nazi card notwithstanding, enjoyed ottoÂ´s trust - and otto was aware of his membership ! But the oct. 20, 1942 entry of the diary clearly implies that the hiders did in fact NOT trust daatselaar at all - whenever he or the cleaning lady or levinsohn were around in the building, the hiders refrained from going to the toilet ! ( F, 336 ). Therefore daatselaar was feared, the hiders were aware of his nazi party membership, and he was not privy to the annexÂ´s secret. And yet mrs van pels ran the hoover without a thought ! He was a sales rep, often away, but liable to pop in any time !! ).
Then there was an office clerk called pine, a girl appearing in an infuriatingly undated photo in lee, photo 14 after page 172. I am not in a position now to know whether or not pine was working in ottoÂ´s office as of aug.5, 1943 - but then again, even if she wasnÂ´t , some other employee had to have taken her place. Furthermore, when anne, in her aug. 5 , 1943 entry above, states that mrs van pels hoovers her carpet every day at 12:30 pm, she is relating a constant habit of mrs van daanÂ´s : we are in the context of a description by anne not of what happened on aug. 5, 1943 alone ; but instead, of the regular daily schedule in the secret annex from july 1942 through aug. 5, 1943 !!
You can clearly understand now, that when the prozionazi F editors responded to faurissonÂ´s noise argument by alleging he had omitted to quote the passage about van maaren and de kok being absent and thus there being no potential spies all around, the F editors were lying by totally concealing the real situation of the opekta building at prinsengracht 263 : a building where dozens of people, including the firmÂ´s customers, suppliers and staff, went in and out constantly at all times every work day.
We might add for instance anna sophie broks aka " ans ". She worked for opekta as a demonstration lady at first, to later become pro-forma president of gies&co. in may 1944 ( mÃ¼ller 340f. ). Her husband johan marie joseph broks also worked for otto frank, as a sales rep, like daatselaar.
Again, the comments about the brokses in the diary are dated to may 1944, but by then, they had been working for otto for quite a while, though mÃ¼ller infuriatingly does not say since when.
In her may 9, 1944 F entry (a), anne clearly implies the hiders feared anna sophie broks. In the may 19, 1944 entry ( a ) , F741, anne speaks of " the ans broks danger ". Actually, in the diary itself, in its sept. 27, 1942 entry ( a ), F306, anne had already mentioned " the broks family ", by whom otto frank had rented a room for storing part of his stuff when he moved from merwedeplein to prinsen in july 1942. Obviously at this, one would suspect that the brokses were in on the hiding, but mÃ¼ller 340 explains this away without sources, stating that otto had told the brokses that he and his family were moving to switzerland via belgium. And again, ans is called a danger later in the diary. According to mÃ¼ller 340, johan broks hadnÂ´t bought the cover-up story from otto.
Anne in her sept. 27, 1942 entry above states they were paying rent for that room to the brokses : how was otto paying that rent ? He had reportedly told the brokses he was in belgium or switzerland, so how was he paying that roomÂ´s rent every month ? A money tranfer is to be ruled out, for it would have shown that otto was in fact still in amsterdam. The funny thing here, we shall discover later, is, by sept.27, 1942 otto was paying 3 rents : yes, 3 : he kept on paying his merwedeplein rent through march 1, 1943 ( source for this below ) ; he was paying his firmÂ´s rent at prinsengracht 263 ; and he was paying the broksesÂ´ roomÂ´s rent !!! Sure as hell, the man didnÂ´t lack money during the terrible times of WW2 in famine-afflicted amsterdam !!! We know that, as far as merwedeplein is concerned, otto had given power of attorney to a friendly lawyer, anton dÃ¼sselman, as the diary itself attests to. But for the broksesÂ´room and the rent at prinsen, we do not know who or how was paying that rent in ottoÂ´s name. This is all very strange, but it will become untangled in due course of time.
Let us sum it all up : Faurisson was absolutely right to remark in 1978, that for mrs van daan aka van pels to hoover her annex carpet every day at 12:30 pm, was implausible for real hiders. Not just the stomping of the vacuum cleaner mentioned by anne, but the sheer motor noise itself would have caused an earthquake through the whole neighbourhood - hoovers are noisy even today, 75 years later - imagine how noisy they must have been in 1943 !!! One might object here, that maybe mrs van pels was using a carpet sweeper instead - a quiet, mechanic device which actually stomps as anne hears in the diary, but makes no motor noise. But anne uses the word staubsauger in presslerÂ´s german translation - which is a hoover and not a teppichkehrmachine or carpet sweeper. In the original dutch anne says " stofzuiger " - vac, not carpet sweeper. The dutch words for carpet sweeper are rolveger or tapijtroller. By the way, you may read the dutch diary here :
So again : Faurisson was doubledamn right in stating that for mrs van daan to vac the carpet every day at 12:30 pm was absurd in a hiding situation . His inference was - the diary of anne frank is a forgery - and a slipshod one at that. But what if, instead, we posited another explanation : that the diary is indeed a forgery, and a slipshod one at that, but that mrs van pels really did do the hoovering every day at half past noon in the annex, for the simple reason that the alleged hiders were not hiding at all - because they were all exempt from deportation. More on this truth, the real truth of the matter here, later. One way or the other, Faurisson was indeed right in pointing out that the diary here with the hoover thing, does shoot itself in the foot : jews hiding for dear life from nazi hunters do not use vacuum cleaners.
It wasnÂ´t just about alerting potential spies such as lena hartog the cleaning lady or lammert hartog the warehouse worker or accountant van erp or sales rep daatselaar or office clerk pine or demonstration lady anna sophie broks or sales rep johan broks and godknows who else worked in that building ; it was also, and all the more, about not wanting to alert the neighbours : the prinsen surroundings are and were densely inhabited and full of neighboring firms such as the keg firm, on which more below : scores of potential spies were within hearing distance - forget about vacs in a situation like that - had the franks and their alleged co-hiders been hiding for real, that is - which they were not.
CHAPTER 14 : MORE ABSURDITIES
Faurisson rightly insisted a lot on a whole array of diary loud noises, inconceivable in a real hiding situation : using an alarm clock ; carpentry work, even with the window open ; radio ; doors being slammed ; outbursts of endless laughter ; loud arguments ; whistling ; foot stomping .
Clearly there are only 2 logical explanations here : either such noisy activities were fabricated, and the diary is a forgery ; or such noisy activities happened for real - in which case, the diary is lying , because the hiders could not possibly be hiding and making such giveaway noises at the same time.
In either case, whoever wrote the so-called diary of anne frank, was a liar and a fraudster - albeit not a very smart one at that.
Thus before we go on reviewing FaurissonÂ´s all-important arguments against the authenticity of the diary, let us posit in summation here, what will become our main point in this whole study : although anne frank never wrote the diary credited to her, the forger(s) who did, in primis her father otto, did encase the diary into a historical framework : the daily life of the franks at prinsengracht 263 bewteen july 6, 1942 and august 4, 1944 , during WW2 and the german occupation of amsterdam : but the true story was completely falsified : the franks did live there, but they were not repeat NOT hiding : and they were not hiding because they did not need to : and they did not need to hide from the nazis because they collaborated with them : otto heinrich frank was a collaborator, who did business with the nazis throughout that time span and richly profited from it.
That is why the very slipshod diary mentions hoovering and laughing and woodwork and all sort of implausibilities in a real hiding situation : because the franks and their alleged co-hiders were not hiding at all. And they never got arrested on august 4, 1944 . What really happened in brief : otto heinrich frank, a german-jewish businessman and ex-banker, with a family record of banking fraud in germany in the early 30ies, escaped deportation until august 44 because he was exempted from it legally, being a decorated WW1 veteran ; and because he worked for a german firm whose jewish employees were exempted from deportation. More on all this below. Now back to faurisson.
He goes on listing in his essay all of the implausibilities one finds in the diary : the franks fitting curtains to the windows in order to hide their presence in the annex : hear now FaurissonÂ´s brilliant remark here : ; the hiders burning waste in the stove , thus signaling their presence through chimney smoke from a building that was considered uninhabited ! Skipping a few more good points, IÂ´ll relate how Faurisson pointed out the absurdity, on ottoÂ´s part, to choose his own office as a hiding place - just the very first place that is, where the nazis would have gone looking for him not finding him at home.
The whole diary, its hiding framework, is a lie . But it wasnÂ´t made up out of whole cloth : the basic story might as well be true - except that they really did all those apparently absurd things because they were not hiding !!
One might rightly ask at this point, why did the franks move out of merwedeplein and into prinsen on july 6, 1942, if indeed they were exempt from deportation : the reason is, merwedeplein was a very jewish area of amsterdam, and by july 1942, the persecution of jews by the nazis had gotten tough - merwedeplein was a potential raid area, and the franks did not wish to get caught in possible fighting or other violence.
When Faurisson confronted otto frank himself, at the latterÂ´s swiss home, with all of the diaryÂ´s absurdities in march 1977, he stayed silent on the main sticking points , and eventually he admitted to having duped the diaryÂ´s readers and the visitors to the anne frank museum by stating :
For a change, mr frank told the truth here : most people are easily dupable, they are in good faith, so why not deceive them ? They do not ask questions, they are not philosophers, they are believers so why not make up a good story for them ? Especially if it makes us a hell of a lot of money , and attracts worldwide sympathy to our rotten criminal zionazi cause.
CHAPTER 15 : PAUSING TO THINK
Well, at this point one might object here, if what the diary says happened for real, except for the hiding part, than maybe anne did indeed write it herself, without fear as she and her family were exempt from deportation thanks to her dadÂ´s WW1 iron cross and to his firmÂ´s status as war-relevant, and maybe all otto did after the war was interpolate the fake hiding framework into the diary, and give it some literary polish by plagiarizing T and G.
Well, I tend to think that anne frank did not write a single line of her diary - but for the photo captions in what was originally intended as a photo album. Reasons why : anne frank according to all available testimony known to me, was not introverted or shy - she was not the type of kid who usually writes a diary. She was impatient, mediocre as a pupil, very extroverted - not your average diary-writing type. Then there is the thing with the different hands at work in the diaryÂ´s manuscripts, whereof no complete facsimile has been published so far by the zionazis who own them. No wonder...They sure got something to hide. And then there are the skilled literary robberies from T, G and other classical german literature - professional knockoff, not the thing of a scatter-brained, shallow and spoiled 13-year-old.
CHAPTER 16 : MANY DIFFERENT VERSIONS
Faurisson shows in his essay how the various editions of the diary in various languages differ remarkably, to the point of being different edits, and it would be very interesting to compare all of these editions among themselves, starting with the first dutch edition of 1947, which I havenÂ´t tracked down so far, and the first german edition of 1950, and the first english-language edition of 1952.
F features a c section with the german translation by anneliese schÃ¼tz, who was responsible for the 1950 german edition but : it is the june 1988 fischer edition : is it identical to the 1950 lambert schneider edition ? F itself answers no on p.85 : : as you see, the so-called diary of anne frank really is a work in progress, constantly being tampered with and adapted to different tastes, peoples and cultures . I do not possess as yet all of these historical editions, but clearly, by zionazi admission, they are not one and the same book.
CHAPTER 17 : THE TRUE STORY
Otto Frank was a crook, a fraudster, a collaborator.
The reason given in the lying diary for the moving of the frank family out of merwedeplein and into prinsen is, that margot, anneÂ´s 16-year-old sister, had received on sunday, july 5, 1942 a summons from the germans for compulsory work in germany ( F 248 and 250 ) : but the historical summonses sent out by the germans to amsterdam jews starting on july 4, 1942 , ONLY TARGETED THE 18 - 40 AGE GROUP !
Source : https://www.uni-muenster.de/NiederlandeNet/nl-wissen/geschichte/vertiefung/judenverfolgung/deportationen.html
Here is the relevant passage :
So much for the historicity of the so-called diary of anne frank. Not only did margot frank, only 16 on july 5, 1942, never receive that summons the diary lies about ; but the franks would not be deported at all or receive any summons for deportation or be harassed in any way by other antijewish measures through june 30, 1944 : because otto frank was exempt from deportation due to his WW1- veteran decoration, the iron cross ; and because he worked for a certified war-relevant company, opekta, whose jews were exempt from deportation because opekta made business with the wehrmacht - in other words, otto frank was a collaborator and war-profiteer. Somehow the procedure for aryanization of opekta amsterdam was not completed until july 1, 1944.
It was only after that date, that the franks were indeed finally summoned for deportation - july 1944, not july 1942. In the summer of 1944, the germans started deporting iron crosses too.
CHAPTER 18 : DIGGING DEEPER
Actually, there do exist 2 (yes, only 2 !!! ) facsimiles of everything anne frank allegedly wrote :
But they are only made available to court historians :
Interesting details can be gleaned from the description of the work process that led to these 2 facsimiles in the link above :
didnÂ´t I tell you that this first diary manuscript, the famous checkered diary, the one she received for her 13th birthday on june 12, 1942, was in fact a photo album and not a diary proper ?
This additional quote from the zio link above confirms the diaryÂ´s original nature as a photo album :
where else would you find photo corners ? where else would you enclose the kinds of memorabilia here above ?
CHAPTER 19 : VICTOR KUGLER
I should like to begin now with a one-by-one examination of the characters in the anne frank saga, starting with one of the so-called helpers, a fellow victor kugler . Some basic (dis)information about him can be found at the following zionazi link :
The photo there shows kugler with a hitler moustache, and must date from the time of the nazi occupation...mm...
I am the fortunate possessor of a rare book, a book whose publishing otto frank did his damnest to delay and suppress, et pour cause :
THE MAN WHO HID ANNE FRANK
BY EDA SHAPIRO AND RICK KARDONNE
GEFEN PUBLISHING HOUSE
COPYRIGHT 2004 AND 2008
The reason why otto tried , and succeeded during his lifetime, to prevent this book being published, is simply that it is 90% sincere and truthful, blowing up in one fell swoop the entire hiding myth. And along with it, the entire anne frank myth.
On august 4, 1944, reportedly, the nazis raided the annex and proceeded to arrest anne frank, otto, margot, edith, auguste van pels, hermann van pels, peter van pels, fritz pfeffer, johannes kleiman and victor kugler.
But - what a strange arrest it was : german bureaucratic efficiency and prissiness notwithstanding, there is no written record of this alleged arrest whatsoever, neither in amsterdam nor in berlin nor anywhere else where such documents are kept today.
There is no record whatsoever of the alleged police informer who allegedly betrayed the 8 jews and their 2 christian helpers.
There is no plausible explanation as to why additional helpers such as secretary miep gies, her husband jan and secretary bep voskuijl were not arrested alongside the others.
As for victor kugler specifically, there is no record whatsoever of his alleged detention at :
- euterpestr. (gestapo)
- amstelveenseweg (jailhouse)
- weteringschans (jailhouse ).
In the book, based on a series of interviews with kugler conducted by eda shapiro in canada between 1969 and 1973, compiled and edited by irving naftolin and rick kardonne, kugler naively gives a mostly positive account of his alleged detention and alleged forced labor following his alleged arrest on aug.4, 1944. He was 44 at the time, and the nazis assigned him, for the most part, to exactly the kinds of jobs he had professional training and experience for : machine fitting ; office management. Nothing that would kill you. And none of the hardship that was usually meted out by the nazis on real jew helpers, whose fate was really dire.
That is because in reality, these so-called helpers were a bunch of fucking collaborators, just like their boss otto frank, who did business with the wehrmacht thoughout the war and even employed NSB members in his firms !! These tasks kugler went on to perform starting august (or more likely july, see below) 1944, had nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged arrest that never happened at all. They were the consequence of an aufruf or summons of the sort that nazis had been sending out to both jews and christians in the netherlands and the rest of occupied europe since at least 1942, as germany got increasingly desperate for manpower to replace the soldiers at the front and their losses, plus civilian losses due to increasing allied air raids.
MÃ¼ller 330 states that kugler received a first summons to work service by the nazis in march 1944, which he was able to put on hold by submitting a medical certificate. This first summons is mentioned in the diary too, march 16, 1944 entry, (b) , described as kugler being summoned to dig for 6 days : another one of the jobs kugler relates he had to perform at zwolle in late 1944, but in very mild conditions. This digging most likely had to do with tank traps or defense lines against the advancing allied forces in holland.
In mid-june 1944, kugler received a second summons, which this time around, he likely had to comply with, probably starting in july as these summonses always gave the addressees 7 to 10 daysÂ´ early notice. Kugler from this point on, vanishes from anneÂ´s diaryÂ´s radar screen, never to be heard of again. The fake arrest story of august 4, 1944 was just a cover-up for kugler having to comply with his second summons of mid-june, 1944. He probably left in early july. This was not a punishment or an arrest. It was compulsory work service, but kugler remained a free man. Civil conscription if you will, like a civil soldier. But no arrest as a jew helper at all. Kugler hadnÂ´t helped jews to hide because his jews had never hidden at all.
The source for kugler having trained and worked as a machine fitter is mÃ¼ller 330 : in the early 20ies, kugler, an austrian, had had a first stint in holland as machine fitter for german firm deutschen maschinenfabrik ag (demag). He would then marry a dutch woman and stay in holland. K58f. states that after his alleged arrest, on sept. 4, 1944 he was put to dismantling machines for shipment to germany.
But that only lasted 3 days !!
Now : allegedly, kugler had been arrested on aug.4 : what happened to him in the first 4 weeks of alleged detention ?
K 54f. states he was first brought to euterpestr., gestapo headquarters, where he was interrogated by his arrester silberbauer, who, upon learning kugler was a fellow austrian and had served in the austrian navy in WW1, cut the interrogation short. No torture. No harshness. A pleasant get-together with a countryman.
Thereafter, on the same day of the arrest, kugler was allegedly transferred to a prison on the amstelveensweg. There it got a little tougher, he says in K 55, as they crowded 6 prisoners into cells meant for 1. A few weeks later, he passed a second silberbauer interrogation, again a short one.
After which he was moved to another prison where he : clean sheets, blankets, electric light, pillow. Allegedly it was a death row cell. The name of this jailhouse is not mentioned. A guard told him he had been put in there by mistake, and out he was again into a crowded cell.
No record whatsoever of any of this has survived. But we do get the overall impression that kugler didnÂ´t fare bad at all for a jew helper.
CHAPTER 20 : JUDENBEGÃNSTIGUNG
Here is a difficult german word for you to learn, it means jew-helping : a crime in nazi germany, whose punishment was way heavier than kugler ever had to go through : let us take a look at a few known examples : from wiki :
Ella Lingens wurde zunÃ¤chst vier Monate im Gestapo-GefÃ¤ngnis in Wien eingesperrt und wiederholt verhÃ¶rt. Im Februar 1943 wurde sie, wie auch Karl Motesiczky, der mit dem Paar an der Rettung von Wiener Juden beteiligt gewesen war, in das KZ Auschwitz deportiert.[...] Doch auch fÃ¼r Lingens war Auschwitz die âHÃ¶lleâ. Im April 1943 erkrankte sie an Flecktyphus und Ã¼berlebte nur knapp. Motesiczky starb dort am 25. Juni 1943. > :
Now, if kuglerÂ´s treatment even vaguely resembles any of this hell to you, be my guest ! All that alleged jew-helper kugler had to endure during the first 4 weeks of his alleged detention, was 2 cozy encounters with fellow countryman silberbauer, plus 3 days of high-skill labor in an amsterdam factory !! But it would get much better for mr kugler, in his own words.
After work at the plant, he was brought to concentration camp amersfoort, holland, where the worst thing that happened to him was having to stand at attention a few hours. The clothing the nazis gave him . He was put to work in the straw braiderÂ´s shop !!! Now, if THAT is hard work or forced labor to you...And by the way, kugler had in his backgound a training as weaver :
Therefore again, as in the previous machine-fitting assignment, kugler was put to just the kind of skilled, not-so-heavy labor he had trained for and acquired experience at in his teens and youth. Something he mastered, and most of all, something he could endure without problems. No auschwitz, no typhus epidemics, no hard labor.
Some time in late september 1944, he was transferred to another dutch camp, zwolle, where , in his own words , !!! [ K68 ].
This is where he was put to digging tank traps, but also assembling bycicles !!! !!! !!! And this was supposed to be nazi forced labor for a jew helper !!! Even the red cross made sure the workers slept on fresh straw, a clean and disinfected floor, and gave them warm cotton covers - , in his own words !!! [K69].
Now this was the hunger winter 44/45, when most urban dutch were starving !!!
At the end of december, 1944, kugler was tranferred again, this time to yet another forced labor camp in holland, wageningen. Where things got even better : he was [K71] !!! This man won the lottery 3 or 4 times !!! He became the errand boy for the german commander, and also worked at the office. He was given a bycicle, cigarettes. He took over charge of the office.
But it is on K72 that kugler makes the most extraordinary of revelations : that for his alleged forced labor at zwolle, 3 and a half months, he and his fellow alleged prisoners had gotten paid !!! And he specifies how much : 5 dutch guilders a day, 7,5 on sundays : which in 2015 money, would be some 30 euros a day, 45 on sundays, for a grand total of almost 1000 euros a month, most likely after-tax !!! A figure most greeks, italians, spanish and portuguese can only dream of as of this writing 74 years later ( february 2018 ) !!!! This is what you got from nazi germany for helping jews - wonder how come everybody in occupied europe was doing anything else than helping jews to get caught and sent to fit bykes or braid straw or snuff paperwork for 1000 a month !!!
Reason being - kugler is lying : he never was arrested for helping jews or any other crime : he complied with his mid-june summons for compulsory work for the reich - paid work, well-paid work for free men that millions in occupied and nonoccupied europe applied for voluntarily, or were summoned to perform, during WW2 - one notable example being eric marco from spain.
No forced labor, no enslavement at all !!! Illegal migrants in italyÂ´s tomato fields of 2018 are paid 24 euros a day for 12-hour workdays !!! No facilities, no papers, nothing !!!
And kugler would have us believe he was being treated like royalty and paid 30 or 45 euros a day as a punishment for the grave crime of judenbegÃ¼nstigung !!! Oh fuck off.
And since he was at it, he happily took part in the plundering of abandoned dutch homes in wageningen, which was a tobacco-growing district, so that he ended up living large in his office while puffing on big cigars !!! And throughout this alleged ordeal for having helped jews, kugler was allowed to see his wife visiting him every 2 weekes !!! A big cigar and a shag with your wife, not bad a punishment for helping jews right ?!!!!! [K79].
CHAPTER 21 : WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO REAL JEW-HELPERS
Take a good look at this memorial plaque on the curb in front of schÃ¶nhauser allee 31, berlin :
this is what nazis did to you for hiding a jew : lethal gestapo jail, lethal forced labor, 1 and a half years of hell later she was dead. Dead. At age 21. This is what really happened to you for hiding jews in the third reich, if you got arrested for real - unlike victor kugler. The jewish hospital in berlin wedding BTW, starting in late 1942 had been turned by the nazis, for the most part, into a hellish concentration camp for jews awating deportation, and for political prisoners such as poor Gisela.
Such were the real helpers, who deserve to be honored - not that fake of a victor kugler. Nor his boss, nazi jew otto frank.
Here is one last example of real jew helper and his real dire fate :
Franz Kaufmann, jurist, from wiki :
Fuck you victor kugler, you liar and cheat.
CHAPTER 22 : EVIDENCE, TRUE OR FALSE ?
Over the decades, as many took their turns in questioning the diaryÂ´s authenticity and the truthfulness of its content, and of the entire anne frank story, otto and his gang of zionazis, and their heirs since 1980, have come up with alleged evidence for the official version of events.
The only document ever produced for kuglerÂ´s alleged forced labor stints, is reproduced on AFH 193, pic 5 : it is, purportedly, kuglerÂ´s amersfoort registration card.
The first oddity we encounter on it, is the spelling of kuglerÂ´s birthplace : Hohe Elbe instead of the correct Hohenelbe. Thing is, both towns exist ! They are today in the czech republic, near the austrian border. So where the hell was kugler born : in Hohe Elbe (today Labe) as written on his amersfoort card ; or in Hohenelbe ? ( today VrchlabÃ ) , as spelt for instance here :
K 25, reportedly based on interviews with kugler himself, also has VrchlabÃ, formerly Hohenelbe.
So why did the amersfoort clerk write Hohe Elbe instead of Hohenelbe ? The 2 towns are different and far apart. Is this a clerical mistake, or is this a forgerÂ´s mistake ? The amersfoort clerk must have copied the birthplace spelling from kuglerÂ´s ID. The forger instead, may have acted from memory...
The second oddity on this purported amersfoort registration card for mr kugler is, his religion : the card bears : " Kath.". But on K61, kugler is quoted as stating : >I AM A RELIGIOUS MAN, LUTHERAN, AND DURING THE DARK DAYS I SPENT IN VARIOUS PRISONS, CONCENTRATION AND WORK CAMPS, I WAS GREATLY SUSTAINED BY MY FAITH. > !!!!!!
Clearly the cardÂ´s forger here, knowing that kugler was of austrian origin, just assumed he was a catholic like most austrians, and wrote down so in the fake card. And while the previous blunder hohe elbe for hohenelbe might be attributable to clerical oversight, writing catholic for a lutheran just simply canÂ´t.
Report this post as:
Friday, Feb. 16, 2018 at 8:51 AM
Next, there was another sales rep, one martin brouwer, who worked for gies&co., a shadow company otto had set up to schein-comply with aryanization of his firm pectacon in december 1941.
The building where this firm was headquartered was the very same as opekta : prinsengracht 263.
Daatselaar and brouwer were even arrested in march 1944 for running a ring of false food coupons and shortly thereafter released, according to new research by the anne frank house itself in amsterdam : https://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/01/23/what-the-holocaust-establishment-will-never-say-about-anne-frank/
The arrest of brouwer is referenced in the diary, friday march 10, 1944 entry (a), F599 :
Thus if this gentleman was indeed martin brouwer, and if he really traded in false food coupons, and was responsible for providing the alleged hiders with potatoes butter and marmalade, or with the false food coupons to get them, he must have known about the hiders !!! Which would imply that the hiders were not hiding at all, since this man was a colleague of nazi daatselaar and was liable to let him in on the secret of the annex...
The arrest of daatselaar is reported by the diary 2 days later, march 12, 1944 entry (a) , F602 :
Again the diary mentions these arrests in the march 14, 1944 entry (both a and b versions) , F605:
. Version b goes so far as to term B(rouwer) and D(aatselaar) who .
So if those two were responsible for providing the alleged 8 hiders with false extra foodstamps and coupons allowing the purchase of extra fat, butter, margarine, potatoes and marmalade, how could they possibly be unaware of whom their enormous supplies wereintended for ? Clearly, both brouwer and daatselaar knew about the 8 jews in the annex, and aided them all the same because they werenÂ´t hiding in that they were all exempt from deportation.
And they had plenty of cash to pay the illegal extra stamps, thus making the risk worth running.
And otto must have had really good connections to the police too, because the diary mentions, jubilantly, the release of from jail in the march 23, 1944 entry (b), F613.
Daatselaar and brouwer had free access to the alleged hiders because the hiders werenÂ´t hiding at all.
There is here a telltale addition in the b version of the diary, written by anne, allegedly, between may and august 1, 1944 , and intended for publication after the war : in the march 14, 1944 entry above, in the passage relative to B.Â´s and D. Â´s arrest , the a version tells the truth :
clearly the reference here is to the 5 legal ration cards that the 5 frank family members had a legal right to, since they were exempt from deportation.
But the b version changes this into :
Clearly, whoever wrote the b version (certainly not anne, unless she was in on the fraud ) felt like adding black, otherwise the readers of a would have understood that the franks were not hiding at all because they were exempt from deportation, and therefore had a right to their 5 ration cards just like everybody else in amsterdam - except, that is, for REAL hiders !!!
Report this post as:
Friday, Feb. 16, 2018 at 12:10 PM
The truth of the matter is, otto frank had no qualms at all about employing nazis or collaborating with them - quite the contrary, he needed them for his war-profiteering with the wehrmacht, and sought them out and was on perfectly good terms with them !
Another witness to this fact is miep gies herself, the famous opekta secretary and alleged helper of the alleged hiders. In her book MEINE ZEIT MIT ANNE FRANK, [henceforth MG] written in partnership with one alison leslie gold,fischer taschenbuch, copyright 1987, second edition 2011, page 186f., miep retells how, on saturday, aug. 5, 1944 - the day after the alleged arrest of the franks etc. - she went to work for business as usual : : so as you see, in miep giesÂ´s own words, there were several sales reps at opekta and gies&co., not just daatselaar and martin brouwer and the brokses (see below). And they were liable to return at any time from their tours of the country, individually or together - which makes a mockery of the niodÂ´s rebuttal of FaurissonÂ´s hoover argument based on the absence of merely van maaren and de kok, as if noone else worked in that building !!!
Miep confirms that one of these sales reps, unnamed by her but likely daatselaar, was an NSB member - and yet he was quite saddened by the news of otto frankÂ´s (alleged) arrest - which was likely only his deportation to westerbork after his exemption had expired with the completion of opektaÂ´s aryanization process on july 1, 1944.
Report this post as:
Friday, Feb. 16, 2018 at 12:12 PM
And this nazi sales rep did his utmost to free otto frank from detention ! And otto held him as trustworthy !!!
Report this post as:
Step Up As LAPD Chief Charlie Beck Steps Down
Our House Grief Support Center Hosts 9th Annual Run For Hope, April 29
Don’t let this LA County Probation Department overhaul proposal sit on the shelf
Echo Park Residents Sue LA Over Controversial Development
Former Signal Hill police officer pleads guilty in road-rage incident in Irvine
Calif. Police Accused of 'Collusion' With Neo-Nazis After Release of Court Documents
Center for the Study of Political Graphics exhibit on Police Abuse posters
City Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Claiming Pasadena Police Officer Had His Sister Falsely Arre
Professor's Study Highlights Health Risks of Urban Oil Drilling
Claims paid involving Pasadena Police Department 2014 to present
Pasadenans - get your license plate reader records from police
LA Times Homicide Report
Last of California's nuclear power plants is on its way out
Patrisse Khan-Cullors explains why Black Lives Matter
Women's March L.A., 2018
The case for US government sanctions on Israel
Women of LA Rise Again to Denounce Trump Photoset 4
Women of LA Rise Again to Denounce Trump Photoset 3
Women of LA Rise Again to Denounce Trump PhotoSet 2
Women of LA Rise Again to Denounce Trump PhotoSet 1
Women's Political Representation & Electoral Reform
Trial Starts for Woman with Erb’s Palsy Punched in Face Repeatedly by LAPD Officers
Dear District Attorney Jackie Lacey, Prosecute Killer Cops, Signed: Your Constituents
Great solidarity action today
Chris Ballew beat up by Pasadena police
Retired LAPD Sgt. Cheryl Dorsey explains how the LAPD's Board of Rights hearings work
An Ex-Cop Talks About Police Shootings
Do Nukes Kill?
More Local News...
State Investments and the Public Sector
Protest at Reem's Oakland
Sauve-qui-peut du gâchis
Talon de fer
The Shortwave Report 02/16/18 Listen Globally!
The judiciary could force America to solve the homeless crisis
The torrefied pellet plant will not be built on the Limousin mountain!
Endf Russophobia! Time for a New Detente Policy
Paraphysique du catastrophisme
Fbi & fmj are on a roll of domestic criminality
Baltimore police union balks at policy requiring officers to pay some legal damages themse
Researching Islamic Terrorism in Europe.
Asian American Stereotypes in Media
La diversité clonée
Forever Fierce Day
A l'époque du spectaculaire concentré et diffus ( Hommage à feu Michel Noury )
Paraphysique de l'argent
gerrymandering by republicans
New Law Provides Disaster Relief and Medicaid Funds for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands
The Shortwave Report 02/09/18 Listen Globally!
Baltimore Cops Kept Toy Guns to Plant Just in Case They Shot an Unarmed Person
Part 5: Honduras Coup Repeat Update: 16-31 January 201
Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands Disaster Relief Hangs on Senate Negotiations
Le fascisme du monde
More Breaking News...