Hans Frank Diaries (T992 microfilm)

[Archie]

At Nuremberg, extracts from the Hans Frank "diary" (note that this was a Diensttagebuch (service journal), not a personal diary) were submitted as PS-2233 (IMT, Vol 29, pg 356), and some of these statements are still cited as proof of the Holocaust. The actual diaries were voluminous, 43 volumes. According to Mark Weber, Frank had voluntarily turned this material over to the Allies, feeling that it would exonerate him since he had no involvement with death camps, etc., but this didn't end up working out for him. In his testimony at the IMT, Frank complained that the prosecution had cherry-picked the worst quotes.

DR. SEIDL: Witness, you have told us what you did for the welfare of the population of the Government General. The Prosecution, however, has charged you with a number of statements which they found in your own diary, and which seem to contradict that. How can you explain that contradiction?

FRANK: One has to take the diary as a whole. You can not go through 43 volumes and pick out single sentences and separate them from their context. I would like to say here that I do not want to argue or quibble about individual phrases. It was a wild and stormy period filled with terrible passions, and when a whole country is on fire and a life and death struggle is going on, such words may easily be used. (IMT, Vol 12, pg. 20)

The complete diaries had been available only on microfilm (T992), but now it's available online. It's 12 rolls of microfilm.
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6104281
Here is a guide for it.
https://www.archives.gov/files/research ... m/t992.pdf

It's in German, of course. If you are not a fluent German reader, you'll probably want to be a bit surgical with this. Look up specific dates of interest, things like that. I would assume revisionists have gone through this, but I don't know how thoroughly.

See here for some tips on learning German
viewtopic.php?t=131

See here for background,
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/plan- ... -hans/528/

[bombsaway]

I thought these entries were pretty interesting

https://ibb.co/album/3Yggkk

You can find the date (sorry for the formatting but it's pretty clear) and then find the entry and throw the screenshots into an AI and they will transcribe and translate them for you. This is the research path I would suggest.

https://archive.org/details/hans-franks ... 0/mode/2up

By the way, in all seriousness, do these entries look "good" to you guys? Everything in its right place with Mr. Frank.

[Stubble]

For posterity, when studying something like this (multiple volumes of a man's life) it is important (as noted on the stand) to read it completely. In my opinion, it is equally important that it be read in the mother tongue.

So much twisting occurs when works are moved from one tongue to another. Ask Douglas Hofstadter.

Meaning lies as much in the mind of the reader as in the Haiku.

By the way, in all seriousness, do these entries look "good" to you guys? Everything in its right place with Mr. Frank.

Bombs, I'm going to have to read it. I can only assume these are presented in a vacuum with the absolute worst translation possible. (For the record, my German is currently woefully insufficient, I can find beer or a bathroom if I'm ever stranded in Germany though)

[bombsaway]

Bombs, I'm going to have to read it. I can only assume these are presented in a vacuum with the absolute worst translation possible. (For the record, my German is currently woefully insufficient, I can find beer or a bathroom if I'm ever stranded in Germany though)

He was really going wild in the August 8, 1943 entry. Yes, worth checking out the original. Throw the screenshots into an LLM like Claude or ChatGPT it will translate.

[PrudentRegret]

It's amazing how Believers just constantly accept huge data sources like this spanning hundreds of pages which make no reference whatsoever to the Holocaust narrative as claimed, but then they will find one part of an entry that "sounds bad" and ACTUALLY THINK it's solid evidence for their absurd claims.

Like, it really doesn't bother you at all that sources like this, Auschwitz Decodes, etc. DO NOT MENTION the standard narrative in any sort of detail at all? Does it REALLY give you confidence to just find a small passage here and there that is somewhat ominous and vague and you think you've found solid evidence?

[bombsaway]

It's amazing how Believers just constantly accept huge data sources like this spanning hundreds of pages which make no reference whatsoever to the Holocaust narrative as claimed, but then they will find one part of an entry that "sounds bad" and ACTUALLY THINK it's solid evidence for their absurd claims.

Like, it really doesn't bother you at all that sources like this, Auschwitz Decodes, etc. DO NOT MENTION the standard narrative in any sort of detail at all? Does it REALLY give you confidence to just find a small passage here and there that is somewhat ominous and vague and you think you've found solid evidence?

No it doesn't give me more confidence, because I have near absolute confidence. I just thought it was funny and something Stubble might think was 'propagandized', ooh look at Nazis being spooky. If we're taking Frank at his word, Jews aren't "outlived" if they've just been put somewhere else.

Auschwitz decode stuff doesn't bother me because I don't think it was necessary or even likely the Nazis would be radio broadcasting "2400 Jews killed today" etc. I am amused that you think it is reasonable for me to bothered by something like this.

[fireofice]

It's amazing how Believers just constantly accept huge data sources like this spanning hundreds of pages which make no reference whatsoever to the Holocaust narrative as claimed, but then they will find one part of an entry that "sounds bad" and ACTUALLY THINK it's solid evidence for their absurd claims.

Like, it really doesn't bother you at all that sources like this, Auschwitz Decodes, etc. DO NOT MENTION the standard narrative in any sort of detail at all? Does it REALLY give you confidence to just find a small passage here and there that is somewhat ominous and vague and you think you've found solid evidence?

It's even worse for the Hans Frank diaries, since he explicitly denies that millions of Jews were poisoned or shot.

[Nazgul]

I was asked a few months ago to prove the young lady was not gassed. It really shows the true lack of knowledge. It is clear that the narrative to uneducated think most were gassed. Nessie keeps this myth alive for his own nefarious purposes.

[Hektor]

It's amazing how Believers just constantly accept huge data sources like this spanning hundreds of pages which make no reference whatsoever to the Holocaust narrative as claimed, but then they will find one part of an entry that "sounds bad" and ACTUALLY THINK it's solid evidence for their absurd claims.

Like, it really doesn't bother you at all that sources like this, Auschwitz Decodes, etc. DO NOT MENTION the standard narrative in any sort of detail at all? Does it REALLY give you confidence to just find a small passage here and there that is somewhat ominous and vague and you think you've found solid evidence?

Indeed court-room theatrics. They use all the pages without evidence for the Holocaust evidence to persuade people that there are piles of evidence, when there are actually not.

[TlsMS93]

Indeed court-room theatrics. They use all the pages without evidence for the Holocaust evidence to persuade people that there are piles of evidence, when there are actually not.

If words can lead to people being hanged, then the whole world should be executed.

Article 21 of the IMT statute stated:

“The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts commonly known and shall consider them as proven. The Tribunal shall also accept without proof official government documents and reports of the United Nations, including protocols and documents of committees established in various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, proceedings and judgments of military or other tribunals of each of the United Nations.”