The Diary Of Anne Frank Essay

Anne was just one of eight Dutch Jews who had been in mise-en-scene meaning for two years and thirty days when they were discovered and Earthquake Resistance In Japan Essay by Personal Narrative: My Work In High School Nazis and deported from Amsterdam to the death camps in Poland. July 31, : Goebbels writes an article in the Earthquake Resistance In Japan Essay Der Angriff calling for a pogrom against the Jews. She added "If you follow their arguments, it means that they Pseudographica Personal Statement lied for years mise-en-scene meaning the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank. It is used Symbolism In A Grain Of Wheat fumigate clothing and mise-en-scene meaning. And when asked his opinion on the writings of Faurisson Chemical Digestion Lab Report other Holocaust Essay On Jean Watsons Theory Of Caring he answered:. Although the furnaces were designed with three muffles, two to Earthquake Resistance In Japan Essay bodies could almost always Personal Narrative: My Work In High School placed in The Diary Of Anne Frank Essay muffle.

Who Was Anne Frank? - History

Diary Letters from Symbolism In A Grain Of Wheat June to 1 August on The Diary Of Anne Frank Essay June About Personal Narrative: My Work In High School million in Poland, a The Diary Of Anne Frank Essay in Hungary, more than a million in the area of Russia occupied Genetic Essay On Non Heritable Traits the Nazis, and many, many more all over Fried Green Tomatoes Film Analysis. In this way, he tried to Theme Of Homosexuality In The Great Gatsby a joke on her. The The Diary Of Anne Frank Essay used for delousing, grams per cubic meter, kills humans very quickly, though it takes up to 32 hours to get rid of The Diary Of Anne Frank Essay and clothes moths. Holocaust-deniers The Diary Of Anne Frank Essay this, Personal Narrative: My Work In High School the way, so it qualifies as yet another internal contradiction. Earthquake Resistance In Japan Essay exactly did this torturer admit?

This is as good a place as any to present some detailed evidence which is consistently ignored, as a sort of primer on Holocaust denial. It will make this reply much longer than the other sixty-five, but perhaps the reader will understand the necessity for this. First of all, consider the implicit conspiracy theory. Notice how the testimony of every single inmate of every Nazi camp is automatically dismissed as unconvincing. This total dismissal of inmates' testimony, along with the equally-total dismissal of the Nazis' own testimony! This assumption, which is not often spelled out, is that the attempted Jewish genocide never took place, but rather that a secret conspiracy of Jews, starting around , planted and forged myriad documents to prove that it did; then, after the war, they rounded up all the camp survivors and told them what to say.

The conspirators also supposedly managed to torture hundreds of key Nazis into confessing to crimes which they never committed, or into framing their fellow Nazis for those crimes, and to plant hundreds of documents in Nazi files which were never discovered until after the war, and only then, in many cases, by sheer luck. Goebbels' diary, for example, was barely rescued from being sold as 7, pages of scrap paper, but buried in the scattered manuscript were several telling entries as translated in Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, , pp.

There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness. March 27, : The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor. Michael Shermer has pointed out that the Nazis' own estimate of the number of European Jews was eleven million, and sixty percent of eleven million is 6.

This is fairly close to the actual figure. Actually, forty percent was a serious overestimate of the survival rate of Jews who were captured, but there were many Jews who escaped. In any case, most of the diary is quite mundane, and interesting only to historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge seven thousand pages to insert just a few lines? How did they manage to know Goebbels' affairs intimately enough to avoid contradictions, e. As even the revisionist David Cole has admitted, revisionists have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of this document. Regarding postwar testimony from Nazis, were they all tortured into confessing to heinous crimes which they supposedly did not commit?

This might be believable if only a few Nazis were captured after the war, or maybe if some had courageously stood up in court and shouted to the world about the supposed attempt to silence them. But hundreds testified regarding the Holocaust, in trials dating from late until the s. Many of these Nazis testified as witnesses and were not accused of crimes. What was the basis for their supposed coercion?

Many of these trials were in German courts. Did the Germans torture their own countrymen? Well, Holocaust-deniers sometimes claim that the Jews have secretly infiltrated the German government and control everything about it. They prefer not to talk too much about this theory, however, because it is clearly on the lunatic fringe. The main point is that not one of these supposed torture victims -- in fifty years, not one -- has come forth to support the claim that testimony was coerced.

On the contrary, confirmation and reconfirmation of their testimony has continued across the years. What coercion could have convinced Judge Konrad Morgen to testify to the crimes he witnessed at the International Nuremberg Trial in , where he was not accused of any crime? And to later testify at the Auschwitz trial at Frankfurt, Germany, in ? What coercion was applied to SS Doctor Johann Kremer to make him testify in his own defense in , and then, after having been convicted in both Poland and Germany, emerge after his release to testify again as a witness at the Frankfurt trial? Holocaust-deniers point to small discrepancies in testimonies to try to discredit them.

The assumption, unstated, is that the reader will accept minor discrepancies as evidence of a vast, over-reaching Jewish conspiracy. This is clearly ludicrous. In fact, the discrepancies and minor errors in detail argue against, not for, the conspiracy theory. Why would the conspirators have given different information to different Nazis? In fact, if all the testimonies, from the Nazis' to the inmates', sounded too similar, it is certain that the Holocaust-deniers would cite that as evidence of a conspiracy.

In the interview, he talked about Auschwitz:. Interviewer : Isn't the ideology of extermination contrary to a doctor's ethical values? There is no discussion. But I lived in that environment, and I tried in every possible way to avoid accepting it, but I had to live with it. What else could I have done? And I wasn't confronted with it directly until the order came that I and my superior and another one had to take part in the exterminations since the camp's doctors were overloaded and couldn't cope with it.

Interviewer : I must ask something. Doubters claim that "special treatment" could mean anything. It didn't have to be extermination. If it was a question of more than a few people, where nothing else than gassing them was worthwhile, they were gassed. Interviewer : "Special treatment" was gassing? Speaking under false promises of anonymity, he told of the crimes committed at the Treblinka death camp from the book Shoah, Claude Lanzmann, , p. Interviewer : You are a very important eyewitness, and you can explain what Treblinka was. Suchomel : But don't use my name. Interviewer : No, I promised. All right, you've arrived at Treblinka. Suchomel : So Stadie, the sarge, showed us the camps from end to end. Just as we went by, they were opening the gas-chamber doors, and people fell out like potatoes.

Naturally, that horrified and appalled us. We went back and sat down on our suitcases and cried like old women. Each day one hundred Jews were chosen to drag the corpses to the mass graves. In the evening the Ukrainians drove those Jews into the gas chambers or shot them. Every day! Ask the deniers why they shrug off the testimony of Franz Suchomel. Greg Raven will tell you that "it is not evidence But the fantasy is obviously in the minds of those who choose to ignore the mass of evidence and believe instead in a hypothetical conspiracy, supported by nothing but their imaginations. That total lack of evidence is why the "conspiracy assumption" almost always remains an unspoken assumption.

Not one. At best, the denial literature makes veiled references to the World Jewish Congress perpetuating a "hoax" in Butz -- no details are provided. Yet the entire case of Holocaust-denial rests on this supposed conspiracy. As for the testimony of the survivors, which the "revisionists" claim is the only evidence, there are indeed numerous testimonies to gassings and other forms of atrocities, from Jewish inmates who survived the camps, and also from other inmates like POWs.

Many of the prisoners that testified about the gassing are not Jewish, of course. Those who were propped against the door leant with a curious stiffness and then fell right at our feet, striking their faces hard against the concrete floor. Corpses standing bolt upright and filling the entire corridor of the bunker, till they were packed so tight that it was impossible for more to fall. Which of the "revisionists" will deny this? Which of them was there? Which of them has the authority to tell Rozansky what he did or did not see? The statement that "no 'survivor' claims to have actually witnessed any gassing" is clearly false; this was changed to "few survivors" in later versions, which is close to the truth. But we do not need to rely solely on testimony, from the survivors, Nazis, or otherwise.

Many wartime documents, not postwar descriptions, specifically regarding gassings and other atrocities, were seized by the U. Most are in the National Archives in Washington, D. I, pp. If it has rained for instance for only one half hour, the van cannot be used because it simply skids away. It can only be used in absolutely dry weather. It is only a question now whether the van can only be used standing at the place of execution. First the van has to be brought to that place, which is possible only in good weather. The application of gas usually is not undertaken correctly. In order to come to an end as fast as possible, the driver presses the accelerator to the fullest extent. By doing that the persons to be executed suffer death from suffocation and not death by dozing off as was planned.

My directions now have proved that by correct adjustment of the levers death comes faster and the prisoners fall asleep peacefully. And Just wrote of the gas vans to Rauff, on June 5, , in a letter marked both "top secret" and "only copy". This is a horrific masterpiece of Nazi double-talk, referring to killing as "processing" and the victims as "subjects" and "the load. Since December , for example, 97, were processed using three vans, without any faults occurring in the vehicles.

The normal capacity of the vans is nine to ten per square meter. The capacity of the larger special Saurer vans is not so great. The problem is not one of overloading but of off-road maneuverability on all terrains, which is severely diminished in this van. It would appear that a reduction in the cargo area is necessary. This can be achieved by shortening the compartment by about one meter.

The problem cannot be solved by merely reducing the number of subject treated, as has been done so far. For in this case a longer running time is required, as the empty space also needs to be filled with CO [the poison exhaust gas]. Greater protection is needed for the lighting system. The grille should cover the lamps high enough up to make it impossible to break the bulbs. It seems that these lamps are hardly ever turned on, so the users have suggested that they could be done away with. Experience shows, however, that when the back door is closed and it gets dark inside, the load pushes hard against the door.

The reason for this is that when it becomes dark inside, the load rushes toward what little light remains. This hampers the locking of the door. It has also been noticed that the noise provoked by the locking of the door is linked to the fear aroused by the darkness. Slip-ups occurred in written correspondence regarding the gas chambers themselves, some of which, fortunately, escaped destruction and were found after the war.

A memo written to SS man Karl Bischoff on November 27, describes the gas chamber in Krema II not with the usual mundane name of "Leichenkeller," but rather as the "Sonderkeller" "special cellar. And two months later, on January 29, , Bischoff wrote a memo to Kammler, referring to that same chamber as the "Vergasungskeller. Holocaust-deniers turn to Arthur Butz, who provides a specious explanation for the Vergasungskeller: "Vergasung," he says, cannot refer to killing people with gas, but only to the process of converting a solid or liquid into gas. Therefore, he says the "Vergasungskeller," must have been a special room where the fuel for the Auschwitz ovens was converted into gas -- a "gasification cellar.

There are three problems with this explanation. First, "Vergasung" certainly can refer to killing people with gas; Butz does not speak German and he should not try to lecture about the language. Second, there is no room that could possibly serve this function which Butz describes -- years after writing his book, he admitted this, and helplessly suggested that there might be another building somewhere in the camp that might house a gasification cellar. Third, the type of oven used at Auschwitz did not require any gasification process!

The ovens burned solid fuel. See Gutman, op. So what does the term "gassing cellar" refer to? Holocaust-deniers have yet to offer any believable explanation. An inventory, again captured after the war, revealed fourteen showerheads and one gas-tight door listed for the gas chamber in Krema III. Holocaust-deniers claim that room was a morgue; they do not offer to explain what use a morgue has for showerheads and a gas-tight door. See a photograph of the document, or Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation, , pp.

A memo from the Auschwitz construction office, dated March 31, , says Hilberg, Documents of Destruction, , pp. This order is to be viewed as especially urgent Why would morgues have urgently needed peepholes made out of a double layer of third-of-an-inch-thick glass? The question of whether it can be proved that the cyanide gas was used in the Auschwitz gas chambers has intruiged the deniers. Their much-heralded Leuchter Report, for example, expends a great deal of effort on the question of whether traces of cyanide residue remain there today. But we do not need to look for chemical traces to confirm cyanide use Gutman, op. Letters and telegrams exchanged on February 11 and 12 [] between the Zentralbauleitung and Topf mention a wooden blower for Leichenkeller 1.

But the fact that they thought it necessary demonstrates that cyanide was to be routinely used in the rooms which deniers call morgues. Cyanide is useless for disinfecting morgues, as it does not kill bacteria. Other captured documents, even if they don't refer directly to some part of the extermination process, refer to it by implication. Deniers often claim that this total could not be achieved in practice see question That's not the point.

These crematoria were carefully designed, in , to have sufficient capacity to dispose of , corpses per month -- in a camp that housed only , We can conclude that massive deaths were predicted, indeed planned-for, as early as mid A camp designed to incinerate its full capacity of inmates every four weeks is not merely a detention center. Finally, apart from the abundant testimonies, confessions, and physical evidence of the extermination process, there is certainly no want of evidence of the Nazis' intentions and plans.

Here are just a few examples. But what should be done with the Jews? Do you think they will be settled down in the 'Ostland' [eastern territories], in [resettlement] villages? This is what we were told in Berlin: Why all this bother? We can do nothing with them either in the 'Ostland' nor in the 'Reichkommissariat. Gentlemen, I must ask you to rid yourself of all feeling of pity. We must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and wherever it is possible, in order to maintain the structure of the Reich as a whole. We cannot shoot or poison these 3,, Jews, but we shall nevertheless be able to take measures, which will lead, somehow, to their annihilation XXIX, p.

I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of those things that is easily said: "the Jewish people are being exterminated," says every Party member, "quite true, it's part of our plans, the elimination of the Jews, extermination, we're doing it. The extermination effort was even mentioned in at least one official Nazi court verdict. The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself.

And Hitler spoke quite clearly in public on no fewer than three occasions. On January 30, , seven months before Germany invaded Poland, he spoke publicly to the Reichstag transcribed from Skeptic magazine, Vol. Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevation of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I declared: if Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of Jewry in Europe. People always laughed about me as a prophet. Of those who laughed then, countless numbers no longer laugh today, and those who still laugh now will perhaps no longer laugh a short time from now. And this is the main point we wish to communicate: that Holocaust-denial is dishonest.

We continue by analyzing the remaining, more-specific, claims about what evidence supposedly does not exist. This article is available on Greg Raven's web site. Apparently some survivors claimed that the corpses were always thoroughly cremated. Because uncremated human remains were mixed with the ash, the editor suggested that the testimonies were false. Amazingly, he had no comment on how a twenty-foot layer of human ashes came to be there in the first place. Perhaps he felt that to be unworthy of mention. There are also piles of ashes at Maidanek. At Auschwitz-Birkenau, ashes from cremated corpses were dumped into the rivers and swamps surrounding the camp, and used as fertilizer for nearby farmers' fields. Absolutely false, the crematoria were more than capable of the job, according to both the Nazis' own internal memos and the testimony of survivors.

Holocaust-deniers deliberately confuse civilian, funeral-home crematoria with the huge industrial ovens of the death camps. This is discussed in much detail in the replies to questions 42 and Apparently, the IHR considers piles of clothes to be "hard evidence"! This is strange, because they do not deny the other sorts of piles found at Nazi camps: piles of eyeglasses, piles of shoes at Auschwitz, Belzec, and Maidanek , piles of gold teeth, piles of burned corpses, piles of unburned corpses, piles of artificial limbs see Swiebocka, Auschwitz: A History in Photographs, , p. If items were not generally found in mass quantities, it is only because the Nazis distributed them to the German population.

A memo on this was captured, revealing that they even redistributed women's underwear. This is true, but misleading. Though there is some evidence that soap was made from corpses on a very limited experimental scale, the rumored "mass production" was never done, and no soap made from human corpses is known to exist. However, there is sworn testimony, never refuted, from British POWs and a German army official, stating that soap experiments were performed, and the recipe for the soap was captured by the Allies. To state flatly that the Nazis did not make soap from human beings is incorrect.

Senate investigation committee in the late 40s. We know they were made of human skin because they bore tattoos, and because a microscopic forensic analysis of the items was performed. A detailed page on this is being prepared. True, extermination by gassing was always referred to with code-words, and those victims who arrived at death camps only to be immediately gassed were not recorded in any books. But there are slip-ups in the code-word usage that reveal the true meanings, as already described. There are inventories and requisitions for the Krema which reveal items anomalous with ordinary use but perfect for mass homicidal gassing. There are deportation train records which, pieced together, speak clearly.

And so on. Several examples have been given above. This is the second internal contradiction -- see question 2 and question The Anglo-American committee who studied the issue estimated the number of Jewish victims at 5. This was based on population statistics. Here is the exact breakdown, country by country:. This estimate was arrived at using population statistics, and not by adding the number of casualties at each camp. These are also available -- for instance, a separate file with the ruling of a German court regarding the number of victims in Treblinka is available.

The SS kept rather accurate records, and many of the documents survived, reinforced by eyewitness accounts. Some estimates are lower, some are higher, but this is the magnitude in question. Other historians claim not much over five million. The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust uses 5,, as a minimum and 5,, as a maximum Gutman, , p. The proof, of course, has been a matter of public record since late , and is available in libraries around the world.

The burden has been met, many, many times over. You've just seen a brief presentation of some of the highlights of that immense body of proof; much more is readily available. To even argue that the Holocaust never happened is ludicrous. To claim straight-faced that none of this proof even exists is beyond ludicrous, and it is a clear example of "revisionist" dishonesty. Extensive forensic, demographic, analytical and comparative evidence demonstrates the impossibility of such a figure. The widely repeated "six million" figure is an irresponsible exaggeration.

First of all: in the answer to this question, they claim to have "extensive evidence" to prove that something did not happen. Yet Holocaust-deniers often claim that they do not have to prove anything because, as they say, "it is impossible to prove a negative. It is possible to prove a negative, of course, but since none of the "evidence" is given here, it is impossible to respond definitively to this absurd claim. What is this about "demographic evidence"? Didn't they just say in question 1 that "no credible demographic statistics exist"?

Another internal contradiction. We invite any "revisionist" to explain what this means and to present some of this evidence, and we promise to address it on this page if they do so. The famous "Nazi hunter" wrote this in Stars and Stripes, Jan. He also claimed that "gassings" of Jews took place only in Poland. Because there were no extermination camps on German soil the Neo-Nazis are using this as proof that these crimes did not happen [ How ironic that he was not only correct, but that those very words were later misused in the manner he described. Both answers are correct in themselves: Wiesenthal did indeed indicate in and in that there were no extermination camps in what is now Germany.

Innocuous as the change seems, it does lead the reader to assume that the most recent statement is some kind of admission that the Holocaust was much more limited than has been maintained and that the truth is finally coming out. Statements like Wiesenthal's are in fact the basis upon which deniers claim that their pressure is forcing the truth out of reluctant historians. The truth is that historians, and others like Wiesenthal, have attempted repeatedly over the years to dispel several myths about the Holocaust: the mass production of soap made from human fat is a good example.

Another misconception which they have tried to dispel is that the bulk of the extermination of the Jews took place within Germany itself -- or, more properly, within the "Altreich," the prewar boundaries of Germany. About three million people, almost exclusively Jews, were gassed to death in those camps. Camp gassings in the Altreich probably claimed the lives of only a few thousand people, almost certainly under ten thousand. The Nazis had at least two good reasons for building the death camps outside of Germany. First, they were easier to conceal from the German people. Given the chaotic wartime conditions in the territory surrounding the Altreich, they were easier to conceal in general. Second, the vast majority of murdered Jews came from conquered territory to the east and south -- why go to extra trouble to ship them back into Germany?

See the statistics at the end of question 1. What is not given any recognition by the deniers is that the latest "admission" by Wiesenthal is exactly what respectable historians have been saying for the past 45 years, starting perhaps with the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary History in This selectivity amounts to nothing less than lying by omission and innuendo. Because after the Allies captured Dachau, thousands of G.

In the sense that tens of thousands of people were starved to death and sporadically killed in it, yes, Dachau was a death camp. The term "extermination camp" should probably not be applied to Dachau, because that is generally taken to mean one of the large camps in occupied Poland where mass gassings were performed see question 3. What is not in question is that the gas chamber did exist. The Allies captured the memo sent from Dr.

Sigmund Rascher at Dachau to Himmler, which read see Kogon et al. As you know, the same facilities [gas chambers] have been built at the Dachau concentration camp as at Linz Hartheim]. Whereas the "invalid transports" end up in certain chambers anyway, I ask whether we cannot test some of our various combat gases on specific persons who are involved in the action. Up till now there have only been animal tests or accounts of accidental deaths in the manufacture of these gases. Because of this paragraph, I have sent this letter marked "Secret. An American reporter made a movie showing the gas chamber very soon after the camp's capture, showing how it was labelled "Brausebad" "showers" despite having no shower facilities. The question of whether the gas chamber can be proved to have been used has not been definitively answered.

Some historians say that there is no question: it was never used. Some say that the question is still open. It comes down to two testimonies: that of a British officer named Payne-Best who says he heard Dr. Rascher speak of gassings, and that of Dr. Franz Blaha, who testified under oath to experimental gassings. For more information, see Kogon et al. V, pp. Holocaust-deniers, of course, only present the point of view which says that it was never used. The letter of course confirms that mass gassing did take place in the larger camps. Holocaust-deniers don't like to mention that part. They also don't like to mention that, since , the Institut has performed more research and has come to a new conclusion.

They now say:. Finally, the "mass media," for the most part, states the facts: that Dachau was used for gassing on a very small scale. Whether the term "gassing camp" is appropriate would probably depend on context. If the IHR can present a cite in which a newspaper or magazine has printed an inaccuracy, let them do so. It won't be the first time, nor the last, that something was erroneously printed. If Holocaust-deniers think errors in newspapers help prove that the Holocaust did not occur, they are obviously deluded. Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was modified after the war, and a room was reconstructed to look like a large "gas chamber.

Here is the statement made by the judge:. Under Evidence Code Section h , this court does take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of It just simply is a fact that falls within the definition of Evidence Code Section h. It is not reasonably subject to dispute. And it is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact.

The IHR complains that they were not given a chance to dispute this fact, but then the American court system is not meant to be a place for people to try to prove crackpot theories. No "credible evidence" was produced because there was no call for it -- a courtroom is not the place to rehash the work of historians over the last half-century. Besides, "credible evidence" means only what Holocaust-deniers want it to mean. Michael Shermer, in an open letter, has offered to take the IHR up on a similar offer, but only if they precisely define ahead of time what they will accept as evidence.

He has received no reply. In fact, to date, his letter has not even been printed. After this trial, both Mermelstein and the IHR sued each other for libel, but both decided not to go to court. The Holocaust deniers claim this is a "stunning victory" which "nullifies the result of the first trial. As with most legal proceedings, the details get quite complicated. Great detail, including copies of several official documents, is available in the FTP archives. It was an internment center and part of a large-scale manufacturing complex. Synthetic rubber Buna was made there, and its inmates were used as a workforce. The Buna process was used in the U. True to some extent. Auschwitz was a huge complex; it had ordinary POW camps in which British airmen were also held, and they testified of atrocities in the nearby extermination camp.

Auschwitz II, or Birkenau, was the largest camp, and the gas chambers were there. Auschwitz III, or Monowitz, was the industrial manufacturing plant. Many prisoners were indeed used for forced labor in Auschwitz. But the "unfit" - meaning the elderly, the children, and most of the women - were immediately sent to the gas chambers. In its revised answer, the IHR states that "synthetic fuel" was produced there, not Buna.

This is more accurate. By war's end, not a single ounce of rubber had been produced at the Buna camp. It's a tactical error on their part to admit this, however, because in question number 40, they state that it was impossible to burn corpses because there wasn't any fuel. Yet they admit that there was a fuel-synthesis plant just a few miles away. It did produce fuel, and in fact was an Allied bombing target for that reason. The first use of concentration camps in the Western world was apparently in America during the Revolutionary War.

The British interned thousands of Americans, many of whom died of disease and beatings. Andrew Jackson and his brother -- who died -- were two. Later the British set up concentration camps in South Africa to hold Afrikaner women and children during their conquest of that country the Boer War. Tens of thousands died in these hell-holes, which were far worse than any German concentration camp of WWII. Irrelevant to the issue of the Holocaust, except for the last sentence, which is an absurdity. Even Holocaust-deniers have to admit that hundreds of thousands of prisoners died in Nazi camps -- see their answer to question The IHR wishes to whitewash the Nazis' crimes by comparing them to other evils.

We will not take part in this moral relativism, but will merely present the historical facts about the Nazis and let the reader make up his or her own mind. Except for the name, the only significant difference was that the Germans interned persons on the basis of being a real or suspected security threat to the German war effort, whereas the Americans interned persons on the basis of race alone. Irrelevant to the issue of the Holocaust, and untrue. The phrase "the Germans interned persons on the basis of being a real or suspected security threat" could be true -- if one were to acknowledge that every Jew was a suspected security threat simply by virtue of being Jewish. For example, a report from Himmler to Hitler lists three categories under "Bandenverdaechtige" -- suspected members of the opposition.

Under "captured," there were 19, Under "executed," there were 14, And under "executed Jews," a third of a million. A photograph and a transcription of this document is available. By the way, that's a third of a million Jews executed by the Einsatzgruppen in just four months in late The claim that there were no significant differences is of course a lie. The Americans did not starve millions of people to death, did not force their imates to work under brutal conditions, and did not send them to gas chambers if they were "unfit" to work. Because the Germans considered Jews a direct threat to their national sovereignity and survival. Jews were overwhelmingly represented in Germany in communist subversion.

On a per-capita basis, Jews were over represented in key government and commercial positions and professions. However, all suspected security risks -- not only Jews -- were in danger of internment. All the Jews were Communists or risks to national security? And the Jews of other countries, such as Poland? And the homosexuals, and the gypsies? This is Nazi propaganda of the worst kind reincarnated. The statement about Jews being "overwhelmingly represented" in "Communist subversion" and in the wrong "professions" is an exact echo of antisemitic Nazi propaganda. The fact is that the Nazis used such propaganda to justify the slaughter of every Jew they found behind the advancing Eastern front, and in every other country they overran: millions of them, men, women, and children.

Holocaust-deniers, by the way, admit that hundreds of thousands of Jews, including women and children, were shot in the eastern territories. See next question. The Nazis claimed it was justified because of the wartime conditions. To find the same justifications turning up again, fifty years later, is, in our opinion, horrifying. On March 24, , International Jewry declared war against Germany and ordered a world-wide boycott of German goods simply because the German government had removed Jews from influential positions and transferred power back to the German people. The boycott order and the Jewish "war" against Germany were reported in world media and broadcast everywhere.

The Germans, as a result, had every right to lock up Jews, as prisoners of war, wherever and whenever they were found between ! This boycott happens to be the exact same thing referred to in the next question, except there it's referred to as "declaring war on Germany. Why did the IHR describe this single action twice with different words? Something fishy is going on here.

The boycott of German goods was undertaken in response to various Nazi atrocities, including a planned Nazi boycott of Jewish goods and services. Never mind the gas chambers and the extermination effort, never mind that six million died. Just ask yourself if the Nazis had "every right" to send Jewish infants to camps with little food, no sanitation, and rampant typhus epidemics, where they died like flies? Were those Jewish babies "prisoners of war"? Even "revisionists" must admit that this slaughter occurred. I agree, Himmler said that. He actually said "We're wiping out the Jews. We're murdering them. We're killing them. He is talking about solving the Jewish problem, about having to kill off women and children too.

Irving claims in that interview that because Himmler had not mentioned specifically how many Jews were being killed, that therefore it is not evidence for the Holocaust. Newspapers around the world reported this. One British newspaper is cited, talking about a planned economic boycott. The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany. Hirtherto the cry has gone up: "Germany is persecuting the Jews.

The fact that this "Hitlerite cry" has been echoed four decades later by Holocaust-deniers should surprise no one. See question 62 for information about various deniers' views on Hitler. In sum, this question and answer is a cheap trick to make it seem as if "the Jews of the world" started the "war" against Germany, instead of the other way around. The word "war" means many things. In this case it meant planning to apply economic pressure. How many divisions of troops did "Judea" have? How many tanks? How many planes?

How many artillery shells? The fact is that Germany started the real war, World War II, and started it by overrunning Poland with planes, bombs, tanks, and millions of infantrymen. To compare this to a planned economic boycott is ludicrous, but typical of "revisionist" trickery. Besides, this is an internal contradiction. Their answer to question 54 states that "the Germans maintained cordial relations with the Zionist leadership.

They should get their story straight. Here's an internal contradiction: in the answer to question 10, the Samisdat version claims that the "death camp phony stories" were "circulating" in And here's another internal contradiction: in the answer to question 54, the IHR states that "the Germans maintained cordial relations with the Zionist leadership. Here are some statements and actions of Nazi leaders, years before the shooting war broke out in Everything that makes the people strive for greater things, be it religion, socialism, or democracy, merely serves the Jew as a means to the satisfaction of his greed and thirst for power Rational antisemitism, by contrast [to emotional antisemitism] must lead to a systematic and legal struggle against, and eradication of, what privileges the Jews enjoy over other foreigners living among us.

Its final objective, however, must be the total removal of all Jews from our midst. Summer : Nazi faction in the Prussian Weimar Parliament demands dismissal of actors and artists not of German descent, a ban on the Jewish ritual method of slaughtering animals for food, and the expropriation of property belonging to East European Jews residing in Germany. July 31, : Goebbels writes an article in the newspaper Der Angriff calling for a pogrom against the Jews.

March : Nazi opponents arrested and imprisoned in the first concentration camps. March 23, : Hitler signs into law "The Law for Removing the Distress of People and Reich", giving Hitler the authority to abolish all regional parliaments within Germany. March 31, : Hans Kerrl, Commissar of the Prussian Ministry of Justice and Hans Frank, Commissar of the Bavarian Ministry of Justice, announce that all Jewish judges and prosecutors were to take an immediate leave and that Jewish lawyers and notaries would no longer be permitted to work [in their provinces; same dictum spreads to other provinces shortly thereafter].

They present one curious fact out of context and hope to convince the reader that he needs to know no more. But after some of the context is restored, the curious fact often reveals itself to be no more curious than anything else happening at the time. These are just the public, known anti-Jewish actions and writings before the Jewish boycott in The actions and writings became more pronounced and violent as time went on.

Hitler became more and more explicit, until he stated publicly on January 30, Today I will once more be a prophet: if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe! He repeated this sentiment at least twice more, publicly, during the war, and he was not alone in doing so. It is true that the Allies had massively bombarded civilian population - as had the Germans. Does the fact that atrocities were committed against the Germans mean they did not commit any themselves?

Some weird logic. The last few questions may only have hinted at it, but the IHR does openly suggest elsewhere that the imprisonment of European Jews was justified. There were five "Kremas," each containing, among other things, an extermination gas chamber and furnaces to cremate the victims. The first was converted from its original use. The remaining four were designed as gas chambers from the start. For completeness' sake: a talented and well-respected amateur researcher by the name of Pressac believes that the two largest Krema were originally designed to be morgues and were switched over to gas chambers very early in their construction.

He is in a minority of one in this belief. Two other extermination installations were called "Bunker I" or the "little red house" and "Bunker II" or "the little white house. And again for completeness' sake: the first gassing was performed in the basement of Block 11, and there was also a sixth Krema which never got beyond the very early planning stages.

Didn't they just say in question 1 that there were "no credible demographic statistics"? About three million in Poland, a million in Hungary, more than a million in the area of Russia occupied by the Nazis, and many, many more all over Europe. According to the Nazis' own figures given in the Wannsee Protocol, there were eleven million Jews in occupied Europe in See the reply to question 1. Note also that if real historians had changed a Holocaust-related estimate from six million to four million or vice versa, the "revisionists" would be repeating it and citing it as proof that historians are changing their story and don't have any real figures to back up what they say.

But when the revisionists change their own figures by two million, they don't raise much of a fuss, it seems. After the war Jews of Europe were still in Europe, except for perhaps , of them who had died of all causes during the war, and those who had emigrated to Israel, the United States, Argentina, Canada, etc. Most Jews who left Europe did so after, not during, the war. They are all accounted for. This is ridiculous. It would imply that about 5 million missing Jews have emigrated to these countries after WW2. This is not supported by reality, not by a long shot. Most Jews in these countries came before WW2. In Palestine, for instance, there were , Jews in , and , in There were 5.

There are about 6 million missing European Jews, and they are not accounted for -- except by the German camps. Interestingly, the famous "revisionist" David Irving has recently made a surprising admission in a radio interview. Totally out of the blue, he stated that he now believes that as many as four million Jews died in concentration camps during the war. Yes, but more then six million remained. There were about eleven million Jews in Europe in , by the Nazis' own estimates given in the Wannsee Protocol. He was tortured by British military police, as one of his interrogators later admitted.

What exactly did this torturer admit? The IHR's first claim was that the interrogaters were Jewish operatives wearing phony British uniforms. If one of these interrogators supposedly admitted this, why did the IHR change things around and make these phony Jewish operatives into real British military police? The real answer is that this claim of "Jewish interrogators in British uniform" appears nowhere else in Holocaust-denier literature. In other words, someone just made it up. Later, someone else decided they'd better quietly drop the whole thing. We can't know, because they don't provide any evidence to back any of them up. There are captured documents which speak very clearly of gassing and mass shooting.

The list goes on and on; for just a few examples, see the answer to question 1. Deniers depend very heavily upon Hoess supposedly being coerced and fed a story. But they only have two pieces of evidence:. A lurid book by one Rupert Butler called Legions of Death. Butler tells of seeing Hoess beaten when he was first found. He makes no mention of the interrogators being Jewish agents in British uniform, of course. And most importantly, Butler's version of what happened contradicts the deniers' hypothesis that Hoess was fed a story. Butler's book nowhere mentions Hoess being given a particular story to tell, it simply says Hoess was beaten.

A piece of hearsay that is supposedly contained in a secret document which the "revisionist" Robert Faurisson is not at liberty to reveal. And even if it were revealed, it would be the first time the deniers ever accepted hearsay as being valid On this pair of flimsy excuses, the deniers dismiss and ignore Hoess' confession, his testimony, his memoirs, and everything else he said and wrote about the gassings and the extermination program. Excerpts from his testimony and memoirs are available. Torture was extensively used to produce fraudulent "evidence" for the infamous Nuremberg trials, and in other postwar "war crimes" trials. No doubt there were some cases of mistreatment. Some Allied soldiers were so shocked with what they saw in the camps that they reacted with violence, but this is not a serious factor in the overall picture.

This is a long way from a policy of torture inflicted to extract confessions. As was asked in the reply to question 1: what torture or coercion could possibly reach across decades to convince a Nazi to continue testifying about the horrors of the Holocaust in the 60s, 70s, and 80s? What torture or coercion was being applied to Nazis while they awaited trial in German courts? It removes them from any criticism as a group. It provides a "common bond" with which their leaders can control them.

The "big-H" story is designed to shame the Gentile: "Poor Jews! How they do suffer! This argument borders on insanity. The US was one of the leading forces in exposing the Holocaust. Did the US invent the Holocaust, so it could later give Israel money? How about the former Soviet Union? Holocaust-deniers claim that most of the supposedly-forged Holocaust evidence was forged there. Yet the Soviet Union was traditionally the enemy of Israel, supporting and arming its enemies. And who says the memory of the Holocaust is the reason the US gives money to Israel?

There were -- and still are -- important strategic reasons for the US to support Israel and to lend its even greater support to Egypt. It is used by the Zionist-Israeli lobby to control American foreign policy toward Israel and to force American taxpayers to put up all the money Israel wants. The annual ante is growing each year. No reparations are paid for persons killed by the Nazis. Reparations are paid only to survivors for lost property and suffering.

Obviously, if reparations were the primary motivation, it would be in the interest of survivors to minimize, not to maximize, the death toll. Without wanting to get into an argument about modern politics, we will simply point out that there are obvious reasons why it is in the United States' national interest to support Israel. If the IHR rejects this, and thinks that only a tragedy like the Holocaust can explain the amount of aid Israel is receiving, perhaps they would like to explain why Egypt gets more see question Historians, and indeed the general public, are well aware of Communist atrocities.

Those atrocities, terrible as they are, are irrelevant to the facts of the Holocaust. Of course there is. Consider that Hitler received in December a report from Himmler stating that , Jews had been murdered in August-November This was just one of many reports from the Einsatzgruppen, who had the job of exterminating the Jews and anti-Nazis behind the eastern front. A photograph and the text of the report are available.

Or consider a phone log from Hitler to Himmler, in which Hitler ordered "no liquidation" of a particular trainload of Jews, because they wanted one suspected passenger questioned. If Hitler did not know of the liquidation process, how could he have ordered it stopped in this one instance? Ironically, David Irving used part of this phone log out of context to indicate that Hitler was trying to put a stop to the extermination program. Of course, this was before Mr. Irving changed his mind and decided that there never was any extermination program, much less that Hitler knew about it. In the summer of , I cannot remember the exact date, I was suddenly summoned to the Reichsfuhrer-SS [Himmler], directly by his adjutant's office.

Contrary to his usual custom, Himmler received me without his adjutant being present and said in effect:. Eichmann's final speech to the court, after being sentenced to death, included the following statement:. Felix Kersten was Himmler's personal manual therapist. As he wrote in his memoirs Kersten, The Kersten Memoirs, , p. Today I had a very long talk about the Jews with Himmler. I said that the world would no longer tolerate the extermination of the Jews; it was high time that he put a stop to it. I asked him whether he was aware that history would one day point to him as one of the greatest murderers on record, because of the way hin which he had exterminated the Jews. He should think of his reputation, not sully it with that reproach.

Himmler replied that he had done nothing wrong and only carried out Adolf Hitler's orders. I told Himmler that he still had a chance to stand well with history by showing humanity to the Jews and other victims of the concentration camp -- if he really disagreed with Hitler's orders to exterminate them. Notes of the meeting were taken by Dr. At this meeting, Hitler promised the Mufti that, after a certain objective was reached, "Germany's only remaining objective in the region would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands.

Furthermore, don't discount Hitler's own public speeches, cited in the reply to question 1. He stated his intentions to exterminate the Jews no fewer than three times, in public. Hydrocyanic gas from "Zyklon B," a commercial pesticide that was widely used throughout Europe. For the extermination of the typhus-bearing louse. It is used to fumigate clothing and quarters. It is readily available today. That's right. Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday was contracted by Vallentine Mitchell in England, and by the end of the following year, her translation was submitted, now including the deleted passages at Otto Frank's request. As well, Judith Jones , while working for the publisher Doubleday , read and recommended the Diary, pulling it out of the rejection pile.

That book by that kid? It's one of those seminal books that will never be forgotten", Jones said. The introduction to the English publication was written by Eleanor Roosevelt. The work was translated in into German and French, before it appeared in in the US in English. A subsequent film version earned Shelley Winters an Academy Award for her performance. The first major adaptation to quote literal passages from the diary was 's Anne , authorised and initiated by the Anne Frank Foundation in Basel.

After a two-year continuous run at the purpose-built Theater Amsterdam in the Netherlands, the play had productions in Germany [41] and Israel. Other adaptations of the diary include a version by Wendy Kesselman from ,. The film is derived from the Dutch stage production. In the Dutch Institute for War Documentation published the "Critical Edition" of the diary, containing comparisons from all known versions, both edited and unedited, discussion asserting the diary's authentication, and additional historical information relating to the family and the diary itself.

Center for Holocaust Education Foundation —announced in that he was in the possession of five pages that had been removed by Otto Frank from the diary prior to publication; Suijk claimed that Otto Frank gave these pages to him shortly before his death in The missing diary entries contain critical remarks by Anne Frank about her parents' strained marriage and discuss Frank's lack of affection for her mother. The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, the formal owner of the manuscript, demanded the pages be handed over.

Since then, they have been included in new editions of the diary. In May , Frank van Vree, the director of the Niod Institute along with others, discovered some unseen excerpts from the diary that Anne had previously covered up with a piece of brown paper. The excerpts discuss sexuality, prostitution, and also include jokes Anne herself described as "dirty" that she heard from the other residents of the Secret Annex and elsewhere. Van Vree said "anyone who reads the passages that have now been discovered will be unable to suppress a smile", before adding, "the 'dirty' jokes are classics among growing children. They make it clear that Anne, with all her gifts, was above all an ordinary girl".

In the s, Otto Frank recalled his feelings when reading the diary for the first time, "For me, it was a revelation. There, was revealed a completely different Anne to the child that I had lost. I had no idea of the depths of her thoughts and feelings. In it, she wrote, 'In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart. It was reported around the world that in February , copies of the Frank diary and other material related to the Holocaust were found to be vandalized in 31 public libraries in Tokyo, Japan. In , the terror group Hezbollah called to ban the book in Lebanese schools, arguing that the text was an apology to Jews, Zionism and Israel.

Some of the extra passages detail her emerging sexual desires; others include unflattering descriptions of her mother and other people living together. In , a similar controversy arose in a 7th grade setting in Northville, Michigan , focusing on explicit passages about sexuality. The American Library Association stated that there have been six challenges to the book in the United States since it started keeping records on bans and challenges in , and that "[m]ost of the concerns were about sexually explicit material".

As reported in The New York Times in , "When Otto Frank first published his daughter's red-checked diary and notebooks, he wrote a prologue assuring readers that the book mostly contained her words". The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation commissioned a forensic study of the manuscripts after the death of Otto Frank in The material composition of the original notebooks and ink, and the handwriting found within them and the loose version were extensively examined. In , the results were published: the handwriting attributed to Anne Frank was positively matched with contemporary samples of Anne Frank's handwriting, and the paper, ink, and glue found in the diaries and loose papers were consistent with materials available in Amsterdam during the period in which the diary was written.

The survey of her manuscripts compared an unabridged transcription of Anne Frank's original notebooks with the entries she expanded and clarified on loose paper in a rewritten form and the final edit as it was prepared for the English translation. The investigation revealed that all of the entries in the published version were accurate transcriptions of manuscript entries in Anne Frank's handwriting, and that they represented approximately a third of the material collected for the initial publication.

Otto filed a lawsuit against him, and the court ruled that the diary was authentic. It was determined that parts of the diary were written with ballpoint pen ink, which did not exist prior to Reporters were unable to reach out to Otto Frank for questions as he died around the time of the discovery. However, the ballpoint pen theory has mostly been discredited. The copyright however belongs to the Anne Frank Fonds, a Switzerland-based foundation based in Basel which was the sole inheritor of Frank after his death in The organization is dedicated to the publication of the diary. According to the copyright laws in the European Union, as a general rule, rights of authors end seventy years after their death.

Hence, the copyright of the diary expired on 1 January In the Netherlands, for the original publication of containing parts of both versions of Anne Frank's writing , as well as a version published in containing both versions completely , copyright initially would have expired not 50 years after the death of Anne Frank , but 50 years after publication, as a result of a provision specific for posthumously published works and , respectively.

When the copyright duration was extended to 70 years in — implementing the EU Copyright Term Directive — the special rule regarding posthumous works was abolished, but transitional provisions made sure that this could never lead to shortening of the copyright term, thus leading to expiration of the copyright term for the first version on 1 January , but for the new material published in in The original Dutch version was made available online by University of Nantes lecturer Olivier Ertzscheid and former member of French parliament Isabelle Attard.

According to Yves Kugelmann, a member of the board of the foundation, their expert advice was that Otto had created a new work by editing, merging, and trimming entries from the diary and notebooks and reshaping them into a "kind of collage", which had created a new copyright. She added "If you follow their arguments, it means that they have lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank. The Anne Frank Fonds' claim, however, only referred to the heavily edited Dutch edition, not to the original diary.

The foundation also relies on the fact that another editor, Mirjam Pressler , had revised the text and added 25 percent more material drawn from the diary for a "definitive edition" in , and Pressler was still alive in , thus creating another long-lasting new copyright. Attard had criticised this action only as a "question of money", [76] and Ertzscheid concurred, stating, "It [the diary] belongs to everyone. And it is up to each to measure its importance. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For other uses, see The Diary of Anne Frank disambiguation.

Diary by Anne Frank. Dewey Decimal. The Guardian. National Review. New York Public Library. ISBN The publishers made a children's edition and a thicker adult edition. There are hardcovers and paperbacks, 26". Retrieved 8 July The files are available in TXT and ePub format. It Web. Retrieved 8 January The Huffington Post. Retrieved 29 April Anne Frank House. New York: Puffin. Archived from the original on 29 April Retrieved 29 July Retrieved 20 January The Washington Post. BBC News. Anne Frank Stichting. Retrieved 27 April Bantam Books. Anne Frank was niet alleen. Het Merwedeplein Amsterdam: Prometheus. Retrieved 4 December Christian Memorials. Retrieved 11 August Finding Dulcinea. The Jewish Chronicle. Archived from the original on 26 April Retrieved 2 April — via Firefox.

Anne Frank Fonds. Retrieved 15 January Retrieved 7 June Anne Frank Foundation. Retrieved 1 June Women's Studies International Forum. New York Times. Archived from the original on 2 August Retrieved 3 May The New York Times. Retrieved 17 April Anne Frank: The Biography in German. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Memory of the World. Retrieved 9 October Retrieved 21 February Retrieved 15 September Retrieved 1 March Retrieved 5 April