Hans Frank

Who was Hans Frank? According to Wikipedia:

Hans Michael Frank (23 May 1900 – 16 October 1946) was a German politician, war criminal and lawyer who served as head of the General Government in Nazi-occupied Poland during the Second World War.

Frank was an early member of the German Workers’ Party (DAP), the precursor of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). He took part in the failed Beer Hall Putsch, and later became Adolf Hitler’s personal legal adviser as well as the lawyer of the NSDAP. In June 1933, he was named as a Reichsleiter (Reich Leader) of the party. In December 1934, Frank joined the Hitler Cabinet as a Reichsminister without portfolio.

Of particular interest to some Holocaust fabulists is his diary. They love to cite from his diary because you, as a regular normal person, do not have reasonable access to the full transcript. This creates a great opportunity for Holocaust fabulists to cherry pick and present out-of-context citations.

The German transcript of Frank’s diary is available on microfilm in Washing D.C at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Archives. (Update: I have received word that you can find the German version online here. However, it is difficult to read and there is no search function.)

You can see the English translation on microfilm in D.C. at the US Archives. There are over 10,000 images on these 12 reels of microfilm, so good luck! You would think that this important artifact of history would be digitized, but no.

That said, there are books available online with excerpts from the diary. In Stanislaw Piotrowski’s book, which is available on archive,org, there is more discussion from the author than there are of diary entries. If you’re feeling adventurous you can get a used hardcover of this book for only $1,000.

The Harvard Law School Nuremberg Trials project also provides 62 pages of extracts from Frank’s diary. Have fun reading those scanned pages.

In short, you, the average normal person, cannot see Frank’s diary in its entirety. Holocaust fabulists don’t want you to think about this access restriction because you, the average, normal person, are just a pleb who should trust the experts.

The following are excerpts from the diary, in which Frank recorded a cabinet session from Tuesday, 16 December 1941:

But what should be done with the Jews? Do you think they will be settled down in the ‘Ostland’, in villages? This is what we were told in Berlin: Why all this bother ? We can do nothing with them either in the ‘Ostland’ nor in the ‘Reich kommissariat’. So liquidate them yourself.

[…]

The Jews represent for us-also extraordinarily malignant gluttons. We have now approximately 2,500,000 of them in the General Government, perhaps with the Jewish mixtures and everything that goes with it, 3,500,000 Jews. We cannot shoot or poison those 3,500,000 Jews, but we shall nevertheless be able to take measures, which will lead, somehow, to their annihilation, and this in connection with the gigantic measures to be determined in discussions from the Reich. The General Government must become free of Jews, the same as the Reich. Where and how this is to be achieved is a matter for the offices which we must appoint and create here. Their activities will be brought to your attention in due course.

Oh wow, that sounds pretty bad. I guess the Holocaust is real! Even though when Frankwrote this, Jews were already allegedly being shot in mass by the Einsatzgruppen and being poisoned in gas vans in Chelmno. So there are some making sense issues here.

Anyway.

Since I am an average, normal person, I will go ahead and trust some experts. Namely Carlo Mattogno and his book, “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”. Mattogno is not an average normal person when it comes to having access to archived Holocaust material.

Mattogno points out how Frank himself was exasperated at the cherry picking of his diary by the Nuremberg prosecutors. During the Nuremberg trials Frank stated:

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. […] (source)

In fact, even though Frank voluntarily submitted his diary to the court, he was only allowed to use extracts that had been picked by the prosecution (source). And obviously the prosecution only extracted the parts that would be beneficial to their cause.

So what is in the content of the Hans Frank diary that isn’t being shared with the class? What about his other writings? Like the following:

In January there will be a major conference on this question in Berlin, to which I shall send State Secretary Dr. Bühler. This conference is to be held in the office of SS-Obergruppenftihrer Heydrich at the Reich Security Main Office. In any case a huge Jewish migration will set in.” (source)

“A huge Jewish migration will set in.” This statement corroborates a territorial “Final Solution,” not a genocidal one. Why isn’t this taken into account when determining the Holocaust narrative? Why must Holocaust fabulists resort to the dishonest tactic of only publicizing information that seemingly helps their case and ignoring that which directly refutes it?

Since there is limited access to the Han Frank diary, I dismiss anything cited from it as I cannot investigate the context, and I cannot see what else he wrote. And, as I have said many times before, things people write or say are not substitutes for physical evidence. Especially since words can be interpreted in multiple ways and just because someone said something that doesn’t mean it happened in real life. Since it has been admitted that there is a lack of physical evidence, however, it is easy to see why Holocaust fabulists endlessly distract the public with nebulous quotes from speeches, diaries, and the like.