Scrapbookpages Blog

November 25, 2015

Anne Frank’s family in Amsterdam was denied entry into the USA

Filed under: Germany, Holocaust — Tags: , , , — furtherglory @ 9:54 am
Anne Frank at age 13

Anne Frank at age 13

My blog post today is a comment on a news article which you can read in full here.

This is the headline of the article:

Anne Frank was a refugee who was denied asylum in U.S.

I know what my readers are saying:  “What are you complaining about now?”

My complaint is about this quote, which is from the article:

Among the countless Jews denied refuge in the United States were the Frank family of Amsterdam, as personal letters discovered in a New Jersey warehouse in 2007 revealed.

The “Frank family” did not live in Amsterdam.  At first, only Otto Frank left Germany and went to Amsterdam.

Otto Frank was a fugitive from justice because he, and his brother, had been convicted of bank fraud.  His brother managed to enter the United States in spite of his criminal conviction, but for some unknown reason Otto, the bank fraud criminal, was denied entry.  Shame on the USA:  all Jewish criminals should have been allowed in.

This quote is from the news article:

The United States even denied refuge to the most well-known Holocaust victim of all, the young Anne Frank, whose father’s desperate efforts to save his family were met with cold indifference.

Anne Frank was not denied refuge.  She was waiting until her father got settled in the USA before undertaking this journey herself.

What if Otto Frank had brought his family with him when he tried to enter the USA?  Would Anne have written her famous Diary?  I seriously doubt it.  She wrote her diary because she was cooped up in an attic and had nothing else to do.

Anne Frank was no saint.  If she had been in America during the war years, she would have been “lying, cheating and stealing” with the best of them.

The article continues with this quote:

By the end of the 1930s, Jews in Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe had long been outlawed—they were officially declared subhuman, stripped of their citizenship and their wealth, banned marrying or even having sex with Aryans, barred from owning land, blacklisted from many professions and subjected to countless other dehumanizing indignities, large and small. They were forced to wear badges and carry special identification. Boycotts and violence plagued Jewish-owned homes and businesses, which were soon stolen as Jews were rounded up and forced into segregated ghettos where the awaited what turned out to be Hitler’s “Final Solution to the Jewish Question.

The Anne Frank house

My photo of the Anne Frank house

You can read about the Anne Frank house on my website at



  1. “Our chestnut tree is in full bloom. It’s covered with leaves and is even more beautiful than last year.” – Ann Frank. I suggested that Seattle’s Ann Frank sapling should be housed in a glass chamber designed by internationally renowned local glass blower Dale Chihuly, but nobody liked that idea so it’s going into the city’s new Holocaust Museum instead. Give generously to: The Sapling Project:

    Comment by who dares wings — December 2, 2015 @ 7:27 am

    • When I visited the Anne Frank house, many years ago, there were curtains over the window where one could look out at the tree.

      Comment by furtherglory — December 2, 2015 @ 8:11 am

  2. At the same time as Auschwitz was evacuated in January 1945 , 5 million Germans civilians were on the road westwards, escaping the Red Army.

    Comment by peter — November 26, 2015 @ 11:50 am

    • ‘Wolfskinder’ — a German film from 2014 — about orphaned kids fleeing Ostpreussen at the end of WWII — at the link you can see a trailer and clips (or search for a trailer in English or w/ English subtitles) — there are a number of documentaries about Germans who fled Ostpreussen and other German territories at that time — in those you can see and hear from real life ‘Wolfskinder’.

      Comment by eah — November 26, 2015 @ 11:53 pm

  3. FG – If you are short of an article to publish any time – have you got any info. about the Lemburg Ghetto and the nearby Janowska Labour Camp. These are hardly known about in the west.

    When I was a true holo-believer, the only story that I thought was genuinely crazy, was that of Doctor Leon Wells, who made an appearance at the Eichmann Trial in Jerusalem. He claimed that he was incarcerated in Janowska, and was part of a work-crew who marched off down the public highway to burn hundreds of bodies, behind a guy dressed in a red devil’s outfit and carrying a scythe!

    Comment by Talbot — November 26, 2015 @ 10:36 am

    • The problem with dealing with specific camps or ghettos is the sheer amount of camps, ghettos, labor camps, POW camps, concentration camps and satellite camps. There is an estimated 42,000 camps, detailed in this article:
      Not all of these camps dealt with Jews (I don’t like the fact that some of the articles I’ve read specifically mention “Holocaust,” it isn’t correct).
      If you are interested in the concentration camps I recommend KL, a History of the Nazi Concentration Camps.

      Comment by HCW — November 26, 2015 @ 11:05 am

      • Thanks for the references. The claim of 42,000 camps and ghettos is I believe a fairly recent one. That does seem rather a large number, but I have no info. or reason to doubt it – so fair enough. I’d heard about the large ghettos at Lodz, Warsaw and Krakow, but I didn’t know that Lemburg was regarded as one of “the big four” in Poland.

        Comment by Talbot — November 26, 2015 @ 3:51 pm

    • I wrote about Lemburg and Janowska on my website at

      I have not blogged about any of this. I will research it some more and see if it is worth blogging about. Thanks for the tip.

      Comment by furtherglory — November 26, 2015 @ 11:35 am

      • I read the story of William Weiss, and once again, it tends to disprove the official holocaust narrative – because he and his father were both held in the Loncki prison outside Lwow (Lemburg) for a year, and were not sent to either Belzec to be “exterminated” or the Janowska camp to be “worked and starved to death”.

        The article states that Weiss and his father were held in Loncki prison until the Soviets arrived in 1943 ( that date might be a genuine error, because I don’t think the Red Army arrived in that area until the great Soviet summer offensive of 1944). Just before the Russians captured Lwow. they – along with 30 other prisoners – were transferred westwards to the Auschwitz “death camp”, where miraculously they both managed to survive ( as like so many others did!) Admittedly, his father did perish during the evacuation of the inmates to the railhead at Gleiwitz, but William himself was transferred to Dachau, where he was liberated by the Americans.

        Of course, Mr Weiss cannot resist adding a glorious fairy tale to his story, when he says that;- ” he still dreams of naked bodies being herded into the gas chambers at Auschwitz”. Well that’s a load of nonsense if you like, because he never witnessed that. Even the official holocaust narrative doesn’t say that inmates undressed outdoors. So unless he worked inside the facilities themselves, he wouldn’t know what went on, and thus his dreams are made-up ones!

        Comment by Talbot — November 26, 2015 @ 3:43 pm

  4. So do deniers.

    Yeah, and what do they have to worry about?

    Recently from the comments here (“who dares wings”): Art gallery pulls exhibition by ‘Holocaust denier’ and ‘white supremacist’

    Robert Faurisson — attacked and beaten, see foto below.

    Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel — persecuted, imprisoned.

    David Irving — the same — also bookstores selling his books vandalized, his publisher intimidated, threatened.

    Fred Leuchter — treated like a criminal in London, handcuffed and deported — his career pretty much ruined.

    I could go on, but you get the idea…you stupid fucking prick.

    Comment by eah — November 25, 2015 @ 11:47 am

    • Aaaaaawwwwww it makes the heart bleed.
      Poor widdle deniers.
      I hope you sent them a muffin or fruit basket.
      Naturally I don’t approve of violence towards anyone but Leuchter was told by the British Goverment NOT to come to London and Rudolph and Zundel violated the laws of respective countries they lived in.
      I imagine Irving loved the publicity, being the attention whore he is.

      As always, I wish you and your family a safe and happy holiday.

      Sincerely, HCW

      Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 12:02 pm

    • Oh, one other thing:
      The reason why the British busted Leuchter in London was that Irving couldn’t keep it quiet.
      Funny, eh?
      After all, Irving never could stop flapping his pie hole.
      You know, like you.
      Happy Thanksgiving, eah. Don’t eat too much turkey, it’ll make you fat and sleepy.

      Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 3:44 pm

  5. The holocausters have never given a satisfactory explanation as to why Anne Frank was transferred from Auschwitz to Bergen-Belsen. Because we’ve always been told that Auschwitz was a “death camp” for all the Jews – it was the end of the line, one never left there alive again. The only way out was “up the chimney” – a dramatic, chilling reference to the crematorium chimney stacks.

    Comment by Talbot — November 25, 2015 @ 11:43 am

    • To you, a camp in which many, instead of all, were immediately put to death, while others were worked, starved, and frozen to death, is not a death camp?

      Comment by Halli — November 25, 2015 @ 11:49 am

      • The term “death camp” has a special meaning when it is used in connection with the Holocaust. I wrote this blog post which explains the six death camps:

        This blog post explains Chelmno, one of the six death camps:

        Comment by furtherglory — November 26, 2015 @ 6:30 am

      • I don’t know how much you know about this so I’ll run the basics past you.
        There are some misconceptions on what is considered a death camp. There were six dedicated death camps, all in Poland. They were Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek. These were places whose specific purpose was to kill a large amount of people in as short a time as possible. Auschwitz and Majdanek also functioned as concentration/labor camps. Majdanek, though a large camp, was not utilized to the same degree as Auschwitz.
        Concentration camps, like Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Stutthof, functioned as prison camps and to some degree also functioned as labor camps. They were not specifically designed to kill, though a great many people died in them.
        A lot of this misconception is due to the existing conditions in these camps when the allies liberated them. Due to the forced marches, lack of food and epidemics amongst the prisoners the allies misunderstood what these camps were for. The reality is that the Nazis tore down the camps specifically designed as death camps, or in the case of Birkenau, blew up the gas chambers to conceal evidence of their crimes.
        If you want additional information I can give you a list of books.

        Comment by HCW — November 26, 2015 @ 10:02 am

    • Sigh.
      Talbot, you need to stop thinking in terms of all or nothing.
      Auschwitz had many functions, including a labor camp, a good old-fashioned concentration camp and a death camp. There was even a POW camp.
      There was FLEXIBILITY built into the system.
      Not all Jews were killed right away. Many were kept alive for labor. When the Nazis evacuated the camp they forced the remaining prisoners out (except those too sick or injured), making them travel to Germany. The Frank sisters wound up in Bergen-Belsen but they could just have easily wound up in Dachau.
      Again, it wasn’t all or nothing.

      Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 12:13 pm

      • You wrote: “When the Nazis evacuated the camp they forced the remaining prisoners out (except those too sick or injured), making them travel to Germany.”

        When the Nazis evacuated the camp they forced the remaining prisoners out […], making them travel to Germany.”

        No, the prisoners were given a choice: they could stay or go, as they chose. Read about Primo Levi who decided to stay behind when Auschwitz was abandoned.

        Comment by furtherglory — November 25, 2015 @ 12:24 pm

        • I’ve never read Primo Levy.
          I’m willing to accept what you say, however, what I’ve read on Auschwitz indicates that the prisoners were not given a choice and those who could not keep up were shot.
          The marches were hellish, there was very little food or water, not to mention that the inmates were inadequately clothed. When the inmates were transported by rail they were placed in open rail cars and many of them froze to death.
          So, regardless of not the prisoners were forced or given a choice the road back to Germany was a death march.

          Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 12:34 pm

          • I wrote about Primo Levi and “the story of 10 days” on this blog post:

            You wrote: “the prisoners were not given a choice and those who could not keep up were shot.”

            That is completely false. When the prisoners were marched out of the Auschwitz, the SS men led the way, tramping down the snow. There was a “sag wagon” for the prisoners to ride for awhile.

            I think that your problem is that you are very well read, but you have been reading only the True Believer books. Try reading some Holocaust denier books.

            Comment by furtherglory — November 25, 2015 @ 1:04 pm

            • I’ve read some of the Holocaust denier books, as a matter of fact I’m trying to read the Auschwitz Myth as suggested by Mr. Rizoli. I thought I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
              See, I can be open minded.

              Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 1:10 pm

            • FURTHERGLORY. When the Nazis gave a choice they put a trap; and prisioniers already were aware about this. Who left with the death marches had a little probability to reach a new destination where survive or have a high probability to be shot on the place when remaining. As matter of fact the Red Army marched faster than hoped by the Nazis so the SS simply had no time anymore to esterminate the prisoniers still there and liberated at Jannuary 27 1945. So Anna Frank with many others reached Bergen Belsen where she died by typhus.
              In a puritan way of thinking one hardly can today understand what at that time a prisonier could suddenly realize. In USA and in UK there are too much debates and little thorough studies on the tragedies of WWII and the Holocaust.
              Dear Furtherglory. You perform a precious work but ought to rethink criticallu many of Your statements. Best for THANKGIVING DAY,

              Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 26, 2015 @ 2:17 am

      • Please don’t sigh, HCW – do try and cheer up and be happy now that we are entering the festive season.

        And I’m glad that you are around to correct us all when we go astray. But up until the year 2012, I was a holocaust believer, and I was told many, many times by the holocausters that Jews never left Auschwitz alive. But now, you come along and inform us that this is not the case – the Nazis had a very FLEXIBLE system in operation as they were carrying out their extermination program.

        However, that still doesn’t explain why the Nazis brought Anne Frank – and many other Jews – back into Germany, when the original purpose was to send them out east in order to kill them. And there was plenty of time to shoot them all by machine-gun squads before Auschwitz was evacuated in late-January 1945.

        No – I would suggest that the Nazis hadn’t got any intention of exterminating Jews or anyone else, and thus they brought everyone who was fit enough to travel back to camps in the west.

        Comment by Talbot — November 25, 2015 @ 12:42 pm

        • Those inmates still alive (I’m using the word inmate because a very large percentage were not Jewish, they included Poles, Soviet POWs, Western POWs, forced laborers from many countries, etc.) were still considered a valuable source of labor for the war effort. You know this from what your father went through. As the Germans
          retreated they dragged these inmates back with them to put them to work.
          They certainly didn’t do it out of the kindness of their hearts.
          I don’t know what you were told or what you read before 2012, Talbot. That seems like a rather general statement. Was this what you learned at school? At the university? Programs you watched or books you read? I’m genuinely curious and do not mean this in a derogatory or sarcastic manner. I’d like to know.

          Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 12:58 pm

          • You are quite right that everyone was on the move westwards in 1945, not just POW and concentration camp inmates, but also German civilians who wanted to escape the clutches of the advancing Soviet Red Army. But if the Jews were to be consigned to be exterminated anyway, why not kill them in these eastern camps before the evacuation took place, and then use this vast throng of other available prisoners and potential workers as the fresh labour source in the west.

            You see – the official holocaust narrative doesn’t hold together very well during this late stage of the war.

            And you ask where I heard the stories about “Auschwitz being the end of the line” and “Going up the Chimney”. Well, certainly not at school (but then, my generation wasn’t taught about the holocaust at school – in fact the word holocaust wasn’t used for this WW2 event back then. A holocaust was what happened when a large factory burned to the ground, and most of those trapped inside perished in the smoke and flames.)

            But I can say definitively that this Auschwitz story has been repeated often by so-called survivors in books, newspapers, magazine articles, and even TV documentaries.

            Comment by Talbot — November 25, 2015 @ 1:26 pm

            • Sure the Holocaust history holds together, you just need to know where to look.
              As 1944 drew to a close, Heinrich Himmler declared a halt to the killings. Himmler, being a pragmatist to some degree, decided living Jews were more valuable as bargaining chips than a bunch of corpses. It made sense to kill them when it looked like Germany would win (after all, who wants a bunch of filthy Jews hanging about mucking things up…..I am being sarcastic) or the possibility existed of winning or of forcing a stalemate. When this looked less and less likely Himmler began to make moves to assure himself of an alibi.
              He made sure that Jews were evacuated, not killed out of hand. You can read more about this here because I’m tired of typing:
              I did not get this solely from this website.
              Please see Laurence Rees, Auschwitz, a New History
              Also see Richard Evans, The Third Reich at War

              Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 1:48 pm

              • I did a blog post about Laurence Rees several years ago:

                Comment by furtherglory — November 26, 2015 @ 6:24 am

                • I like Rees as an author, he doesn’t write like a history teacher.
                  I tried to read Peter Longerich’s book Holocaust a couple of years ago. Frankly it read like a set of instructions on how to put an entertainment center together. I wound up selling it to a used bookstore, I tried to read it a couple of times but I simply could not get into it.

                  Comment by HCW — November 26, 2015 @ 9:46 am

                • I wrote about Rees on this blog post:

                  I have a copy of his book and I have read it several times. His book is the True Believer version of the Holocaust.

                  Comment by furtherglory — November 26, 2015 @ 12:20 pm

                • I read your blog post, FG, and you’re right about the ear-muffs. Why were the SS handing these out to inmates. Was it to protect them from the cold weather, or was it to prevent them from hearing the screams of the poor tortured victims strapped into “the automatic spanking machine”.

                  I tried to persuade my own wife to have a go in one of these spanking machines, but she declined vociferously. I then tried to get her mother to have a go instead. But this met with an equally vigorous refusal. I’m still nursing my two black eyes, even to this day!

                  Comment by Talbot — November 26, 2015 @ 10:03 am

            • Talbot, if you are into “automatic spanking machines” I think this is the wrong place to go on the web.
              I’m not judging. To quote John Lennon, “whatever gets you through the night.”
              I am surprised that you haven’t brought up steam chambers, electric chambers, Jews being drowned in a dark fluid, skin lampshades and moveable gas chambers that deposited their victims directly into burial pits. You seem to focus on minutiae like hammer machines, spanking machines (?!?!?) and shrunken heads. Oh, and earmuffs.
              Well, anyway, back to Thanksgiving preparations.

              Comment by HCW — November 26, 2015 @ 10:46 am

  6. Several serious issues with your post, some relatively minor, some VERY inappropriate and hateful 😦

    Minor – I’m sure you’re aware that many Jews were accused and convicted of crimes like bank fraud with little or no evidence and sham or no trials, in order to offer an “excuse” to begin mass arrests. I have no idea of Otto Frank’s conviction was one of these, and I’m not saying it was, but I also have no reason to believe it was not, nor do you offer any support regarding the conviction. Also, how does the conviction make him a fugitive from justice? You have not explained this. More importantly, even if the bank fraud conviction was a truly deserved charge, how could this in any way provide any “excuse” for basically condemning an entire family to certain death by denying them refugee status? Obviously this was not actually given as an “excuse,” and so many countless families were denied refugee status and thereby condemned to death with no such family members with convictions, but why on earth is this so important to you to point out so many times, when even if the fraud conviction was actually based on sound evidence, it does not change the fact whatsoever that the entire family, and so many families like them, and families WITHOUT a member with even any conviction, were “coldly denied” refugee or asylum status? Why is this so important to you to harp on again and again?

    “She wrote her diary because she was cooped up…” … “Anne Frank was no saint.” Again, what’s your point? Are any of us a saint? Are you? Obviously not, with the disgusting things you say like the next sentence: “If she had been in America during the war years, she would have been “lying, cheating and stealing” with the best of them.”

    How could you write such hateful, shameful things? As I’ve asked in other posts, are all people of your religion the same?? Your writing consistently embodies the very definition of prejudice, as I’ve posted before as well – “an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.” In answer to my own questions above – your “point” must be working to spread hate, as much as people who do so more overtly. I am so disappointed that a blog that on the surface appears to be used to spread truth from possible exaggerations in news or other reports is instead being used so despicably to spread prejudice and hate.

    Comment by Halli — November 25, 2015 @ 11:35 am

  7. The Frank Family case is mentioned in that article only refering to the Sirian refugees. No one mentiones how many Nazi war criminal got safest shelter in Syrian and positions suitable to their professional experience too. At aby rate the tale of so called Jewish power is fully rebuked as a puritan lie.

    Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 25, 2015 @ 10:37 am

  8. I wonder what record we have here in the US of the doings of Otto Frank’s brother. Some Jews (and immigrant ones) HAVE been involved in bank and other frauds here and wherever else they have landed. Take Elie Wiesel, for example.

    What’s Otto’s brother’s first name? Aw, never mind. He changed his name anyway. They DO change their names . . .

    Comment by Jett Rucker — November 25, 2015 @ 10:27 am

    • So do deniers. Remember Gemar Rudolph as Gauss, PH. D?

      Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 10:31 am

    • Oh, let’s not forget David Stein, aka David Cole.

      Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 10:34 am

    • Can’t forget Ernst Zundel, writing under the name Christof Friedrich.

      Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 10:41 am

    • You are seriously behind the times, Mr. Rucker. You need to get your own pseudonym.

      Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 10:43 am

  9. Yes, she looks dangerous, the filthy little Jewess. Undoubtedly instead of going to school, mooning over boys, going to movies, listening to Frank Sinatra, spending her summers outside in the warm sunshine, growing up, getting married, having children and growing old this subhuman little monster would have joined her father in scheming to lie, cheat and steal from the United States.
    Because that’s what all Jews do.
    If you ask me the Nazis did us all a favor in deporting the lot of them. But didn’t murder them, that’s ridiculous.
    All Jews are guilty, no matter what their age or gender.
    They all want to lie, cheat and steal from the hapless goyim.
    Heil Hitler.

    Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 10:15 am

    • I’m so hoping this is sarcasm, as it seemed at first? The second half seems much too far gone for even sarcasm 😦

      Comment by Halli — November 25, 2015 @ 10:42 am

      • I’m sorry if you misunderstood this. It was complete sarcasm, I do not share the anti-Semetic attitudes of a lot of people who reply here.
        I am not a Holocaust denier.

        Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 10:46 am

        • I’ve been reading your attacks in recent days and find them strangely odd though somewhat alluring. Can’t put my finger on the cause though. I wonder what proof you can add to each of your forthcoming replies to add more to your position that the holocaust did in fact happen.

          Comment by Mr B — November 25, 2015 @ 11:21 am

          • What do you mean by “cause?”

            Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 11:29 am

    • Unfortunately, Anne’s father DID cheat his banking customers. He was convicted in a court of law. Anne told some lies in her diary. You used the word “goyim” which means non-human. In the old days, the Jews did not consider non-Jews to be human. I am not sure if that has changed.

      You can read about the business that Otto Frank ran at

      There were rumors that he was cheating his customers in these business ventures.

      Comment by furtherglory — November 25, 2015 @ 11:38 am

      • Even if Otto Frank was guilty of a crime, what did that have to do with his family?
        Are you saying that wives and children should be punished for the crimes of the husband/father?
        I have no idea if Otto was guilty of anything but I know it’s wrong to punish innocent family members.
        Now, the Comminists under Stalin happily murdered family members of those convicted in show trials…..or those they simply shot out of hand.
        The Nazis also tossed family members of concentration camp inmates into concentration camps if that inmate escaped. Later they murdered millions for the crime of being Jewish, or gypsies, or Polish, or handicapped, etc.

        Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 11:51 am

        • Otto Frank’s family was not punished for his crime of stealing from his banking customers. His wife and children were sent to a camp because all the Jews were sent to the camps by the Nazis.

          I have tried to find some reference for your claim that “The Nazis also tossed family members of concentration camp inmates into concentration camps if that inmate escaped.” I think that all family members were sent to a camp together. AFAIK, the father was not sent to a camp, while the rest of the family stayed home.

          Comment by furtherglory — November 25, 2015 @ 12:17 pm

          • Hans Beimler’s wife, Senta or Centa Beimler, was arrested and taken to a concentration camp after he escaped. She was only released after he died during the Spanish Civil War, 1936.
            There are others, see KL, a History of the Nazi Concentration Camps.

            Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 12:27 pm

            • I googled this and found this quote on Wikipedia:

              “About 700 prisoners tried to escape from different Auschwitz camps. Only 300 succeeded. Guards caught the families of the prisoners who escaped or tried to escape. They kept them as prisoners. They showed the family members to other prisoners to prevent any escape attempts.”

              I have done lots of research on the Holocaust, but this is the first time that I have seen this claim. No source is given for the claim.

              Notice the wording on the Wikipedia page:

              “Guards CAUGHT the families of the prisoners who escaped” So the family members were on the run and they got caught?

              This quote is also from Wikipedia: “They kept them [the family members] as prisoners. They showed the family members to other prisoners to prevent any escape attempts.”

              This seems really strange to me. While the prisoners were working, or in their barracks, those evil Nazis paraded family members past the inmates, taunting them, saying “Lookie here, we have your family members in custody.”

              No, I think that the family members would have been taken to the camps at the same time as the men.

              Comment by furtherglory — November 25, 2015 @ 12:53 pm

              • Mrs. Beimler was taken into custody after her husband escaped.
                I think the above article means these family members were paraded past the other prisoners as a warning, that they were taken after the escape.
                That still begs the question, why would family members be arrested at the same time? Is there some presumption of guilt?

                Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 1:04 pm

              • Right, not because of any convictions of the father, whether supported or not, so why is that so important to you, instead of the huge issue that the families were denied asylum and taken to the camps in the first place?

                Comment by Halli — November 25, 2015 @ 1:06 pm

                • Sorry, Halli, I’m doing this on my phone. Are you replying to me or FG?

                  Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 2:07 pm

                • I don’t understand what you mean. Who denied asylum to the families?

                  Comment by furtherglory — November 25, 2015 @ 2:14 pm

              • It is certain the in April 1944 two men managed to escape from Auschwitz and then reach Bratislava. There had been a rumor about one escaped in Summer 1944 who should have reached Theresienstadt but there is no evidence. Then there had been sectors in Auschwitz and we ought to ask from which sector the person claiming to have escaped came from.

                Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 26, 2015 @ 8:16 am

            • Hans Beimler was executed in Spain:
              After killing an SS-guard he escaped from Dachau, reaching Spain he helped to establish the Thälmann Battalion. He was killed on 1 December 1936 in Palacente. Gustav Regler claimed that Beimler fell victim to a bullet from the Nationalists, this was a typical excuse.
              Antonia Stern (Beimlers companion), disputed this version of events, she claimed that Beimler had spoken out against the first Moscow show-trial. On the basis of a report from the Secret Intelligence Service, a special department of the Catalan Police Department that dealt with informers in the Communist ranks, Beimler was assassinated.

              Comment by Herbert Stolpmann — November 25, 2015 @ 2:56 pm

              • Interesting.
                I’ve read that Stalin sent NKVD to Spain to kill “Trotskyites” but I did not know Beimler was one of their targets.

                Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 3:10 pm

        • FURTHERGLORY – HCW! In 1933 with the starting Nazi regime a Jew had no chnace of a fair trial. Furrhermore when relying on a verdict of a Nazi court clearly led by racial prejudices You cannot express sarcastic doubts about the things or events made certain in the verdict of the post war People Courts or Allied Military Courts.

          Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 27, 2015 @ 2:17 am

          • I have no doubt that the Nazi court system treated Jews unfairly, Wolf. I find it highly unlikely that many Jews were dragged before the courts, why bother when you send an SS (or in the early years, an SA) member to beat the Jew up?

            Comment by HCW — November 27, 2015 @ 4:19 am

            • HCW1 In spring 1933 many persons joined the Nazi Party and had been zealous to show their Aryan attitude. So, a judge sentencing a Jew for bank fraud relying on questionable proofs which he read in right Nazi way certainly had shown his Nazi zeal. Indeed the evaluation of proof in matter of bank fraud in difficult and requires experience and fair handling.

              Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 27, 2015 @ 9:04 am

      • Yes, a conviction means that he was convicted in a “court of law,” though without further support or evidence, and the rampant sham trials at that time against Jews, more information would be necessary, to me, to confirm that evidence for the conviction actually existed.

        Regarding the word goy or goyim, which, notably, was only used in the above post in a sarcastic manner satirizing prejudices of non-Jews AGAINST Jews, I have never heard or read these words being used in any context that would suggest that they are ever used to mean “non-human.” Googling “translation of goy” now, the closest to such an allegation I can find is, on wikipedia: “…when used in this way in English, it occasionally has pejorative connotations. However, many people do not see the term “goy” as any more or less offensive than the term “gentile”.[3][4][5] However, to avoid any perceived offensive connotations, writers may use the better-known English terms “gentile” or “non-Jew.” While “goy” could perhaps be used somewhat derogatorily at times by some, only by a deranged, unstable person can I see it being said meaning anything remotely approaching “non-human.”

        Comment by Halli — November 25, 2015 @ 12:05 pm

      • Further regarding your claim that “goyim” could mean “non-human,” I’ll note that Judaism is one of the few religions that do accept that a person of another religion can still ascend to “heaven” by being a good person. In most other religions, all people not of that religion are heathens and are unable to ascend to heaven. This is neither here nor there, but simply further shows how preposterous a suggestion it is to claim that Jews would automatically consider a non-Jew to be “non-human.”

        Comment by Halli — November 25, 2015 @ 12:09 pm


          Are you saying that the above web site is wrong?

          Comment by furtherglory — November 25, 2015 @ 12:33 pm

          • Bible believers.
            Are you saying you take that website seriously?
            I have nothing against people who read the Bible, are Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever.
            I’ve been to that website. I’ve regretted ever since.

            Comment by HCW — November 25, 2015 @ 12:38 pm

          • Uh, is your main source of language usage?

            So to you, because in the past, some Christians considered blacks, Africans, and other names of their race to be sub-human, therefore if a Christian calls a black person black, this means they think blacks are subhuman? Or because many Germans at the time believed that Jews were sub-human, if they still call Jews “Jews,” this means that they automatically consider them to be subhuman? As I said, I have never heard nor read any suggestion that the word “goy” or “goyim” are sub-human. Sure, you can post links to obscure Bible references that have no bearing on contemporary language, and which link to articles about a virulent rabbi encouraging the killing of civilians in areas of terroristic activity, whose views are not widely supported by other Jews (and who doesn’t even seem to use the word goy or goyim), but that doesn’t support an allegation that any general usage of the word “goy” or “goyim” even remotely refers to a meaning in which non-Jews are considered to be sub-human.

            Comment by Halli — November 25, 2015 @ 1:01 pm

        • The word GOY in Hebrew means PEOPLE. It is used in Yiddish, and in genera,l meaning A PERSON BELONGING TO THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY. In the Hebrew version of the Bible in a certain verse about the Jewish people is said: KOL HAGOY meaning THE ENTIRE JEWISH PEOPLE.
          In the centuries of Jewish history the Goy, rather than a partner, had been the persecutor and one oftern could escape him …. ..

          Comment by Wolf MURNELSTEIN — November 26, 2015 @ 8:04 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: