Anne Frank's diary.

First topic message reminder :

It seems the uncensored version had a lot of sexual content.
You know, considering it is the diary of an adolescent girl.
For instance, here's a passage from the uncensored version in which she describes her vagina:

There are little folds of skin all over the place, you can hardly find it... The little hole underneath is so terribly small that I simply can’t imagine how a man can get in there, let alone how a whole baby can get out!

She also bitched about her parents a lot which were also edited out in the first versions that were published

Here's some old sources on the topic:
http://www.examiner.com/article/sexual-content-anne-frank-the-diary-of-a-young-girl-survives-book-banning-flap-culpepper-va

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012804001.html

Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine?



by Robert Faurisson
Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine? For two years that question was
included in the official syllabus "Text and Document Criticism," a
seminar reserved for degreed students in their fourth year. The
conclusion of my studies and research is that The Diary of Anne Frank is
a fraud.

In order to study the question posed and to find an answer to it, I have carried out the following investigations:

1. Internal criticism: the very text of the Diary (in Dutch) contains a number of unlikely or inconceivable facts.
   
2. A study of the premises in Amsterdam: on the one hand, the
   physical impossibilities and, on the other hand, the explanations made
   up by Anne Frank's father severely compromise him.
   
3. Interview of the principal witness: Mr. Otto Frank.
   
4. Bibliographical examination: some curious silences and revelations.
   
5. A return to Amsterdam for a new investigation: the witnesses turn out to be unfavorable to Mr. Frank; the probable truth.
   
6. The "betrayer" and the person who arrested the Franks: why has Mr. Frank wished to assure them such anonymity?
   
7. Comparison between the Dutch and German texts: attempting to
   make too much of it, Mr. Frank has given himself away; he has signed a
   literary fraud.
   

Internal criticism


The first step in the investigation is to determine if the text is
consistent within itself. The Diary contains an extraordinary number of
inconsistencies.

Let us take the example of the noises. Those in hiding, we are told,
must not make the least sound. This is so much so that, if they cough,
they quickly take codeine. The "enemies" could hear them. The walls are
that "thin" (25 March 1943). Those "enemies" are very numerous: Lewin,
who "knows the whole building well" (1 October 1942), the men from the
store, the customers, the deliverymen, the agent, the cleaning woman,
the night watchman Slagter, the plumbers, the "health service," the
accountant, the police who conduct their searches of the premises, the
neighbors both near and far, the owner, etc. It is therefore unlikely
and inconceivable that Mrs. Van Daan had the habit of using the vacuum
cleaner each day at 12:30 pm (5 August 1943). The vacuum cleaners of
that era were, moreover, particularly noisy. I ask: "How is that
conceivable?" My question is not purely formal. It is not rhetorical.
Its purpose is not to show astonishment. My question is a question. It
is necessary to respond to it. That question could be followed with
forty other questions concerning noises. It is necessary to explain, for
example, the use of an alarm clock (4 August 1943). It is necessary to
explain the noisy carpentry work: the removal of a wooden step, the
transformation of a door into a swinging cupboard (21 August 1942), the
making of a wooden candlestick (7 December 1942). Peter splits wood in
the attic in front of the open window (23 February 1944). It involved
building with the wood from the attic "a few little cupboards and other
odds and ends" (11 July 1942). It even involved constructing in the
attic "a little compartment" for working (13 July 1943). There is a
nearly constant noise from the radio, from the slammed doors, from the
"resounding peal" (6 December 1943), the arguments, the shouts, the
yelling, a "noise that was enough to awaken the dead." (9 November
1942). "A great din and disturbance followed I was doubled up with
laughter" (10 May 1944). The episode reported on 2 September 1942 is
irreconcilable with the necessity of being silent and cautious. There we
see those in hiding at dinner. They chatter and laugh. Suddenly, a
piercing whistle is heard. And they hear the voice of Peter who shouts
through the stove pipe that he will certainly not come down. Mr. Van
Daan gets up, his napkin falls and, his face flushed, he shouts: "I've
had enough of this." He goes up to the attic and there, resistance and
the stamping of feet. The episode reported on 10 December 1942 is of the
same kind. There we see Mrs. Van Daan being looked after by the dentist
Dussel. The latter touches a bad tooth with his probe. Mrs. Van Daan
then lets out "incoherent cries of pain." She tries to pull the little
probe away. The dentist looks at the scene, his hands on his hips. The
onlookers all "roared with laughter." Anne, instead of showing the least
distress in the face of these cries or this mad laughter, declares: "It
was rotten of us, because I for one am quite sure that I should have
screamed even louder."

The remarks that I am making here in regard to noises I could repeat
in regard to all of the realities of physical and mental life. The Diary
even presents the peculiarity that not one aspect of the life that is
lived there avoids being either unlikely, incoherent, or absurd. At the
time of their arrival in their hiding place, the Franks install some
curtains to hide their presence. But, to install curtains at windows
which did not have them up until then, is that not the best means of
drawing attention to one's arrival? Is that not particularly the case if
those curtains are made of pieces of "all different shapes, quality and
pattern" (11 July 1942)? In order not to betray their presence, the
Franks burn their refuse. But in doing this they call attention to their
presence by the smoke that escapes from the roof of a building that is
supposed to be uninhabited! They make a fire for the first time on 30
October 1942, although they arrived in that place on 6 July. One asks
oneself what they could have done with their refuse for the 116 days of
the summer. I recall, on the other hand, that the deliveries of food are
enormous. In normal conditions, the persons in hiding and their guests
each day consume eight breakfasts, eight to twelve lunches and eight
dinners. In nine passages of the book they allude to bad or mediocre or
insufficient food. Otherwise the food is abundant and "delicious." Mr.
Van Daan "takes a lot of everything" and Dussel takes "enormous
helpings" of food (9 August 1943) . On the spot they make wet and dry
sausages, strawberry jam, and preserves in jars. Brandy or alcohol,
cognac, wines, and cigarettes do not seem to be lacking either. Coffee
is so common that one does not understand why the author, enumerating
(23 July 1943) what each would wish to do on the day when they would be
able to leave that hiding place, says that Mrs. Frank's fondest wish
would be to have a cup of coffee. On the other hand, on 3 February 1944
-- during the terrible winter of '43/'44 -- here is the inventory of
the supplies available for those in hiding alone, to the exclusion of
any cohabiting friend or "enemy:" 60 pounds of corn, nearly 60 pounds of
beans and 10 pounds of peas, 50 cans of vegetables, 10 cans of fish, 40
cans of milk, 10 kilos of powdered milk, 3 bottles of salad oil, 4
preserving jars of butter, 4 jars of meat, 2 bottles of strawberries, 2
bottles of raspberries, 20 bottles of tomatoes, 10 pounds of rolled
oats, and 8 pounds of rice. There enter, at other moments, some sacks of
vegetables each weighing 25 kilos, or again a sack of 19 pounds of
green peas (8 July 1944). The deliveries are made by a "nice
greengrocer," and always "during the lunch hour" (11 April 1944). This
is hard to believe. In a city described elsewhere as starving, how could
a greengrocer leave his store, in broad daylight, with such loads to go
to deliver them to a house located in a busy neighborhood? How could
this greengrocer, in his own neighborhood (he was "at the corner"),
avoid meeting his normal customers for whom, in that time of scarcity,
he ought normally to be a person to be sought out and begged for favors?
There are many other mysteries in regard to other merchandise and the
manner in which it reaches the hiding place. For holidays, and for the
birthdays of the persons in hiding, the gifts are plentiful: carnations,
peonies, narcissuses, hyacinths, flower pots, cakes, books, sweets,
cigarette lighters, jewels, shaving necessities, roulette games, etc. I
would draw attention to a real feat achieved by Elli. She finds the
means of offering some grapes on 23 July 1943. I repeat: some grapes, in
Amsterdam, on 23 July. They even tell us the price: 5 florins per kilo.

The invention of the "swinging cupboard" is an absurdity. In fact,
the part of the house which is supposed to have protected the persons in
hiding existed well before their arrival. Therefore, to install a
cupboard is to point out, if not someone's presence, at least a change
in that part of the property. That transformation of the premises --
accompanied by the noise of the carpentry work -- could not have
escaped the notice of the "enemies" and, in particular, of the cleaning
woman. And this pretended "subterfuge," intended to mislead the police
in case of a search, is indeed likely, to the contrary, to put them on
their guard. (" a lot of houses are being searched for hidden bicycles,"
says Anne on 21 August 1942, and it is for that reason that the
entrance door of the hiding place had been thus hidden.) The police, not
finding any entrance door to the building which serves as a hiding
place would have been surprised by this oddity and would have quickly
discovered that someone had wanted to fool them, because they would find
themselves before a residential building without an entrance!

Improbabilities, incoherencies, and absurdities abound likewise in
regard to the following points: the windows (open and closing), the
electricity (on and off), the coal (appropriated from the common pile
without the "enemies" realizing it), the openings and closings of the
curtains or the camouflage, the use of the water and of the toilet, the
means of doing the cooking, the movements of the cats, the moving from
the front-house to the annex (and vice-versa), the behavior of the night
watchman, etc. The long letter of 11 April 1944 is particularly absurd.
It reports a case of burglary. Let it be said in passing that the
police are there portrayed to us as stopping in front of the "swinging
cupboard," in the middle of the night, under the electric light, in
search of the burglars who committed the housebreaking. They rattle the
"swinging cupboard." These police, accompanied by the night watchman, do
not notice anything and do not seek to enter the annex! As Anne says:
"God truly protected us "

On 27 February 1943, they tell us that the new owner has fortunately
not insisted on visiting the annex. Koophuis told him that he did not
have the key with him, and that the new owner, although accompanied by
an architect, did not examine his new acquisition either on that day or
on any other day.

When one has a whole year to choose a hiding place (see 5 July 1942),
does one choose his office? Does one bring his family there? And a
colleague? And the colleague's family? Do you choose a place full of
"enemies" where the police and the Germans would come automatically to
search for you if they do not find you at your home? Those Germans, it
is true, are not very inquisitive. On 5 July 1942 (a Sunday) father
Frank (unless it is Margot?!) received a summons from the SS (see the
letter of 8 July 1942). That summons would not have any follow-up.
Margot, sought by the SS, makes her way to the hiding place by bicycle,
and on 6 June, when, according to the first of two letters dated 20
June, the Jews had had their bicycles confiscated for some time.


http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p147_Faurisson.html

MTC wrote:Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine?



by Robert Faurisson
Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine? For two years that question was
included in the official syllabus "Text and Document Criticism," a
seminar reserved for degreed students in their fourth year. The
conclusion of my studies and research is that The Diary of Anne Frank is
a fraud.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p147_Faurisson.html

wiki spreads some light on the organisation that produced this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review

wiki spreads some light on the organisation that produced this

Wiki is made up of public contributions and not gospel it should be noted, many a vested contribute to it.

Pope Flapius 1st wrote:

wiki spreads some light on the organisation that produced this

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review[/quote[/url]]

Just a few highlighted sections from that article that I was also able to find/corroborate by doing web research



Institute for
Historical Review comments on a variety of subjects, it is most noted (and
criticized) for its Holocaust denial. Critics have accused the Institute of anti-Semitism
and having links to neo-Nazi organizations, and assert that its primary focus
is denying key facts of Nazism and the genocide of Jews and others.



The IHR was
founded in 1978 by David McCalden (also known as Lewis Brandon), a former
member of the British National Front, and Willis Carto, the head of the
now-defunct Liberty Lobby. Liberty Lobby was an anti-Semitic organization best
known for publishing The Spotlight, now reorganized as the American
Free Press.



Says it all really....i again refer back to the session we did about evalutating websites...perhaps I could post some of that up here and help people out?

oh and I have been to the house in Amsterdam...three times...I have also visited her house in Frankfurt where she was born and like I said have been to Bergen-Belsen where she died.

Cass wrote:Since I had a few moments at work I found this which rather contradicts what another poster was saying about research in Germany in 1980 - page 4, Section 2 under German Research.
Here is the link to the whole article
http://www.annefrank.org/ImageVaultFiles/id_14671/cf_21/tenquestions_en.PDF

It is rather amusing that only 2 weeks ago we held a session for our customers on how to evaluate webpages...we chose JFK's death but could have chosen this one as well as there are pages and pages, usually by very disturbed individuals or groups, spouting complete and utter nonsense.
Anyway Sexy I think your daughter might be interested in this link too.

Thanks Cass i will show it her xxx