Do you have time to go on?

Where did you get that info? From a pro-jew source?

Consider this source:

The story contained within Anne Frank’s diary, that world famous testimony to the sufferings of a Jewish family during World War II, may or may not be a true story as far as it goes (we will never know for sure), but it is one hundred percent certain that the diary that was published and subsequently became a worldwide best seller was not written by Anne Frank herself.

Setting aside the pen ink for a moment, the handwriting in the "official" diary does not seem to be from Anne. See the images.

it is strange is it not that the latter example purporting to be her original diary is written in ballpoint pen?

Written in ball point pen -- means it could not have been written by Anne.

‘The Diary of Anne Frank’ was first published in 1952 and immediately became a bestseller.

An interesting question to consider is why the trial involving the father of Anne Frank, bearing directly on the authenticity of this book has never been officially reported by the overwhelmingly Zionist media? But I think we may all guess the answer to that?

Oh ... there was a TRIAL specifically to find out IF the diary was authentic?

And ... the (((media))) never mentions this trial? Hmm ... now, why would that be?

In royalties alone, Otto Frank profited greatly from the sale of this book, purporting to depict events in the tragic life of his family, but is it fact, fiction or propaganda or a combination of all of these? It certainly claims to be the truth but to what degree does it appeal to the emotions through misrepresentation? It was certainly convenient for Otto Frank that he was the only family member to survive the war – and I mean that in the sense of there being no-one left alive to corroborate or deny the story and in no way to diminish the anguish he must have suffered at the loss of his entire family.

Anne’s re-hashed diaries were written in ball-point pen (confirmed in Otto Frank’s court hearing) ...

Ah ... maybe THAT is the reason.

But, let's see what Otto Frank, Anne's father, was like.

The Franks were upper-class German Jews, both parents emanating from wealthy families. As children, Otto and his siblings lived on the exclusive Meronstrasse in Frankfurt and Otto attended a private preparatory school and also the Lessing Gymnasium, the most expensive school in Frankfurt. Upon leaving school, Otto attended Heidelberg University from whence he eventually graduated.

The Frank’s family business included banking, management of the springs at Bad Soden a famous spa and the manufacture of cough sweets. Anne’s mother, born Edith Holländer, was the daughter of a wealthy manufacturing family and in 1934 Otto and family moved to Amsterdam where he bought a spice business, Opekta, which manufactured pectin, a form of gelatine used in the making of household jellies.

Wealthy. Businessman.

In May 1940, after the Germans occupied Amsterdam, Otto remained in the city and he and his company entered into a lucrative contract with the German Wehrmacht ...

So, Otto was not only NOT persecuted for being a jew, but he did BUSINESS with the German MILITARY -- Hitler's military.

From 1939 to 1944, Otto sold pectin to the German army to be used as a food preservative, a disinfectant balm for wounds, a thickener for increasing blood volume in blood transfusions and also as an emulsifier of petroleum to be used in the manufacture of fire bombs and flame-throwers.

Making $$$$$ ... working WITH the Germans.

However, by supplying the Wehrmacht, Otto Frank became, in the eyes of his Dutch friends and neighbours, a Nazi collaborator. None of this aspect of the official story of course is ever mentioned or even alluded to.

Ah ... THIS is the "persecution" that Otto would later write about, faking that it was written by his daughter. He was persecuted, indeed, but NOT by the Germans. Only by his own friends.

Remember ... the JEWS DECLARED WORLD WAR ON GERMANY in 1933.

ANY jew who was seen as helping the Germans were considered traitors by OTHER JEWS.

Hmm ... why don't jews talk about THIS part of the story? I wonder why ...

The purported diary begins on 12th June, 1942 continuing through to the 5th December 1942.

Her real diary covered just a few months of her daily life.

Otto claimed, she rewrote her diaries for the second time in 1944. In this second edition, the new writer, Anne or whoever it was, changed, rearranged and occasionally combined entries of various dates.

New edition. New writer.

Anne’s re-hashed diaries were written in ball-point pen (confirmed in Otto Frank’s court hearing) which was extremely enterprising of her since such a device did not exist in 1944 ...

In 1944, the German authorities in occupied Holland discovered that Otto Frank’s company had been extensively defrauding them through their Wehrmacht contracts and subsequently the police then raided his offices where during a thorough search the annex was discovered and the eight occupants were sent initially to the Westerbork transit camp and forced to perform manual labour. Otto was later sent to Auschwitz and Anne, her sister Margo and her mother subsequently died in one of the frequent outbreaks of typhus in Bergen-Belsen two weeks before liberation by the Allies.

And ... THAT is why Otto Frank was arrested. He was a suspected criminal.

His family were potentially his accomplises. Had to sort out who was who, especially during a time of war.

Note: Anne did not die from gas. She died from illness.

Also note: Otto did not die at all during his time at the "infamous" Auschwitz. If there was ever a jew that the Germans would want to "gas to death," it would be one they suspected of defrauding their military. But no. He was not put to death. Nobody was put to death via gas chambers, because there were no gas chambers. It was all made up after the war. See Fred Leutcher's first-hand investigation.

In 1945, after being liberated from German custody, Otto returned to Amsterdam, where he claimed he found Anne’s diary cleverly hidden in the rafters of the annex.

Convenient, huh? Note again: Otto did not die at Auschwitz, and Anne would have been freed, as well, if she did not die from illness.

Otto took what he claimed were Anne’s letters and notes, edited them into a book, which he then gave to his secretary, Isa Cauvern to review. Isa Cauvern and her husband Albert Cauvern, a writer, subsequently authored the first version of the diary.

Upon submitting the diary for publication, questions were raised by some potential publishers as to whether Isa and Albert Cauvern, who assisted Otto in typing out the work, used the original diaries or whether they took it directly from Mr. Frank’s personal transcription, but it is known for certain now that the American author, Meyer Levin wrote the third and final edition which became the finished end-product. Meyer Levin was a Jewish author and journalist, who lived for many years in France, where he met Otto Frank around 1949.

If ever file number 2241-1956 in the New York County Clerk’s office is opened to public view (highly unlikely I surmise) and its contents widely publicised, then the true nature of this work will be exposed for all to witness. Misrepresentation, exaggeration and falsification has too often coloured the judgment of otherwise decent people and if Frank used the work of Meyer Levin to present to the world what we have been led to believe is the literary work of his daughter, wholly or in part, then the truth should be exposed. To label fiction as fact can never be justified nor should it be condoned.

How do we know that (((Meyer Levin))) did not "modify" Anne's story?

We don't.

Otto sued two Germans, Ernst Romer and Edgar Geiss in 1980 for distributing literature denouncing the diary as a forgery. The subsequent court case produced a study by official German handwriting experts that determined that everything in the diary was written by the same person but noted that this person (whoever it was) had used a ballpoint pen throughout! Unfortunately for Frank, as stated previously, the ballpoint pen was not available commercially until 1951 whereas Anne was known to have died of typhus in Bergen-Belsen in February 1945.

Oops!

Because of this lawsuit in a German court, the German state forensic bureau, the Bundes Kriminal Amt (BKA) forensically examined the manuscript (which at that point in time consisted of three hardbound notebooks and 324 loose pages bound in a fourth notebook) with specialised forensic equipment. The results of these tests, performed at the BKA laboratories, showed that ‘significant portions’ of the work, including the entire fourth volume, were written with a ballpoint pen and since ballpoint pens were not available before 1951, the BKA concluded those sections must have been added subsequently and fraudulently.

More importantly perhaps, the BKA investigation clearly determined that none of the diary handwriting matched known examples of Anne’s handwriting. The German magazine, ‘Der Spiegel’ published an account of this report alleging that some editing post-dated 1951 and an earlier expert had determined that all the writing in the journal was by the same hand and thus that the entire diary was a post-war fake.

This BKA exposé, as a result of the frantic lobbying of Jewish/Zionist interests was immediately retracted but later ‘inadvertently’ released to researchers in the United States. I invite the reader to draw his / her own conclusions from this fact.

Lays to rest any FALSE claim that there were "insignificant traces" of ball point pen.

For what reasons could this fraud have been perpetrated? Were the reasons simply for financial gain or was there a more sinister motive underlying its execution? Could it be part of the overall conspiracy to gain sympathy for the Zionist cause by exaggerating Jewish suffering and casting further aspersions on Nazi activities or is this proposition too unrealistic to contemplate seriously?

You decide for yourself, but whatever the reason for it, the end result is that the memory of an innocent child-victim has been sullied by being blatantly used either for personal, monetary gain or on behalf of a minority but massively influential group, Zionism in order to surreptitiously benefit certain vested interests. However, perhaps more importantly, this shameful episode further demonstrates how simple is the process by which it is possible to deceive huge numbers of people on virtually any subject one could choose by the simple expedient of powerful and persistent propaganda techniques and the constant, incessant repetition of statements designed to create a false but long-lasting impression.

Reminds me of Covid-19 ...

http://falsificationofhistory.co.uk/false-history/the-faked-diary-of-anne-frank/

Sauce?

Amazing that they use the same people all the time!

Dang. I knew adults were lying around age 4. Couldnt do anything about it.