Is The Diary of Anne Frank a sinister re-education program for Germans and others?

The over-commercialization of Anne Frank’s legacy:
Is The Diary of Anne Frank a sinister re-education program for Germans and others?
By: Adrian Gauss

It was famed self-styled ‘Nazi-hunter’ Simon Wiesenthal who on 1 April 1979 was quoted in The Washington Post as saying that The Diary of Anne Frank is ‘more important than the Nuremberg trials’. This may well be the case because the book’s impact on the public as well as its generated financial rewards has been phenomenal.

Translated into dozens of languages and set as a reading text in countless schools this story of a young Jewish girl’s experiences has been a commercial success that Holocaust-Shoah promoters could not have anticipated when they began to strategise their global onslaught with their persecution tales that depict Jews as victims and never as perpetrators of crimes. We just have to think about the Palestinian Nakba, and then we can see what ideological strategy lies behind the promotion of The Diary of Anne Frank.

Interestingly, critical voices that wished to tell a different tale, or that wished to remain just a little factual were not given a global hearing. The Anne Frank Exhibition toured the world during the 1990s and about 20 panels depicted the story of Anne Frank in almost minute detail. What was not mentioned, however, was the fact that Anne and her family actually survived their time spent at the Auschwitz concentration camp, then actually died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp.

This basic fact gives rise to the observation: If the German policy had been to kill Anne Frank, her sister, her mother, and her father, they would not have all survived Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Their fate, as tragic as it was, cannot be reconciled with the so called Holocaust extermination story. Anne Frank died from a disease in World War Two. And neither can the transportation of Anne Frank and her sister out of Auschwitz on 3rd September 1944 and across Poland to Germany. It must also be remembered that Otto Frank and his family were German Jews who fled Germany owing to the financial misdeeds of Otto. They settled in Holland but never obtained Dutch citizenship.

Her legacy is best summed up in the clarity of her own words:

 It’s really a wonder that I haven’t dropped all my ideals, because they seem so absurd and impossible to carry out. Yet, I keep them, because in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.

Now a resentful and unscrupulous court case erupted in the Netherlands, again, over the legacy of Anne Frank´s Diary, which has become one of the best-selling works of any kind in history.

This legal jumbled issue was over which organization gains permanent possession and control over the Frank family archive – the Basel based Anne Frank Fund or the Anne Frank Foundation in Amsterdam.

The former was founded by Otto Frank in 1963. It is the only organisation legitimised by him. It is the universal heir and, as set forth in his will, the owner of rights to the family’s works.

The latter, The Anne Frank House, or in Dutch, the Anne Frank Stichting, is a non-profit organisation. Its main aims are to administer the Anne Frank House museum and to spread the message of Anne Frank’s life and ideals. The Anne Frank House is an independent organisation with no affiliations to any political party or ideological movement. It was founded on 3 May 1957 with the primary aim of preserving the Anne Frank House and spreading the message of Anne Frank’s life and ideals. Following a successful fundraising drive the restoration work on the Anne Frank House began in 1958, and officially opened as a museum on 3 May 1960. It was here that the Frank family hid from German occupying forces until their arrest.

The root of the dispute stems from Anne’s father, Otto Frank, and his separate actions on behalf of both organizations before his death in 1980. He was involved in the establishment of the Anne Frank House but he left the publishing rights to Anne’s diary to the Fund in Switzerland.

The Fund is lead by Buddy Elias, a cousin of Anne Frank’s, and his agency wants the archive for a new Frank Family Centre to be located at the Jewish Museum in Frankfurt, the birthplace of Anne Frank. Buddy Elias is Anne Frank’s first cousin – his mother and Anne’s father were brother and sister.

In a Reuter’s report dated 26 June 2013 on the outcome of the legal wrangling between both parties we learn that:

The Amsterdam court ordered the return of the documents from Anne Frank House, which described the legal dispute as ‘deeply regrettable’, to Anne Frank Fonds by January 2014.The Anne Frank Fonds is the owner of these items and had given them on long-term loan … for the sake of having a commonly managed archive,’ the court said, adding that a breakdown of trust between the two institutions, ‘gave the fund a strong reason to cancel the lending agreement’.

Will this decision bring the parties together or will the feud continue?

It is deplorable that the young Anne, many decades after her death, must be sacrificed over and over. She has become a victim of these kinds of profit-seeking speculations that use the dead for their own delight and for the control of those supposed non-believers.

This shock doctrine, which is what the Anne Frank story really is has a clear target, the veritable genocide of the German soul. Some lobbies, the western media and many actual social and educational policies promote this “best-selling” novel and thereby re-enforce this quasi-religious Anne Frank devotion.

Anne Frank is perhaps the most commemorated ‘victim’ of the so called Holocaust. Was she a victim though? Few people realize that Anne, along with father and sister actually survived Auschwitz-Birkenau. They were just victims of typhus, and not of any gas chamber at Bergen-Belsen. Are we here facing another moral scam?

The Diary of Anne Frank has given insight to three generations around the world and to tens of millions of readers, about what people in hiding go through – the fear and frustration they suffer, the hunger for the outside world, the extent to which virtual prisoners will go to survive.

Anne came down with typhus and from which she died in mid-March 1945. She was not killed or murdered. Anne Frank perished, like millions of others, both Jewish and non-Jewish, in Europe during that terrible time, an indirect victim of history’s most devastating war.

Pedro Varela, among others, warns that the falsity of the myth of The Diary of Anne Frank, and goes much further. The tactic is much deeper than the possible falsification of the text. It resides in the “unilateralism” and the “infinite recurrence” theme: a perfectly crafted application of the old propaganda theme of an innocent girl trapped by evil, but is triumphant even after death. The myth of Anne Frank, by the force of its impact on the collective sensibility, becomes not only a symbol of the “innocent” persecuted Jewish nation, but more so and against all the rules of logic, an “indisputable proof” of intrinsic unmatched and immeasurable evil of the persecutors. This creates a mind-paralyzing guilt for the Germans.IMG_0927Pedro Varela (Compostimes´ photo)

Why do they lack the appropriate orchestration of the “mass media”, making the suffering of others a political weapon, with intent to morally disarm those who denounce this hypocrisy?

Let me say that I doubt about the authenticity of the papers and all supporting documents, including the veracity of their contents.

Minds of my many respected Gentile scholars and readers, be quiet…we do the Re-Research so you don’t have to. I hope you are clear on that because we will not ignore the real holocaust, the German Holocaust.

Remember: “Difficultas non vitiant actum” – The difficulty does not vitiate the act!


 Adrian Gauss