Hey Anne Frank Death Believers: You've Got a Problem

[MightyMagician]

Anne and Margot Frank were in Auschwitz for roughly 2 months from September to October, right? Check this link: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/rudolf.html

Over 6000 typhus deaths in that camp from that period, and this isn't even counting the typhus inmates who were allegedly sent to the gas chambers. If Anne Frank was fragile enough to get Scabies during her time there, why not typhus? Especially considering how easily it spread?

[FlyingJesus]

She probably did have typhus, that's what most people think she died of, what's your point

[MightyMagician]

She probably did have typhus, that's what most people think she died of, what's your point

Because it can be argued that with these statistic, the 2 sisters could have contracted it in Auschwitz, a camp that statistically was known to hold typhus epidemics throughout it's entire operation. Going by this logic, they would never have survived in Bergen Belsen because the conditions there were worse with the tents and stealing in March. But the even more ridiculous part is that the timeframe for when the typhus started was never investigated. This makes it impossible for Anne to have survived this long because even before March of 1945, people were stealing her clothes, blankets, and food that was even supplied by Hanneli Goslar.

- - - Updated - - -

This also contradicts the typhus story of Bergen Belsen because going to Germany with typhus meant spreading it along with other people upon arrival, unlike the outbreak in 1945. The explanation? No typhus, at all.

[MKR&*42]

Omg enough of this conspiracy honestly this is getting tiring.

[MightyMagician]

Omg enough of this conspiracy honestly this is getting tiring.

Last time I checked - it could just have been a dad trying to protect his traumatized kids.

[The Don]

Anne and Margot Frank were in Auschwitz for roughly 2 months from September to October, right? Check this link: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/rudolf.html

Over 6000 typhus deaths in that camp from that period, and this isn't even counting the typhus inmates who were allegedly sent to the gas chambers. If Anne Frank was fragile enough to get Scabies during her time there, why not typhus? Especially considering how easily it spread?

The Auschwitz camps could hold over 100,000 people at one time. Statistically speaking she was more likely to not have been one of the typhus deaths in that camp.

[Kardan]

Do we even have anyone on this forum that identifies as a 'Anne Frank Death Believer'?

[David]

Do we even have anyone on this forum that identifies as a 'Anne Frank Death Believer'?

i'd like to see what happens if i answer this with a yes
so yes

[FlyingJesus]

Because it can be argued that with these statistic, the 2 sisters could have contracted it in Auschwitz

Could have, yes, but not necessarily. The stats on the page you linked show 58,240 Jewish prisoners dead of typhus in the time she was there, out of 173,000. It's far more reasonable to assume that she was one of the 114,760 Jews present without typhus - it's nearly twice as likely, in fact


they would never have survived in Bergen Belsen

They didn't, that's kinda the point


This also contradicts the typhus story of Bergen Belsen because going to Germany with typhus meant spreading it along with other people upon arrival, unlike the outbreak in 1945. The explanation? No typhus, at all.

How is that contradictory? A whole bunch of Auschwitz prisoners (who you seem to think ALL had typhus) turn up in late 1944, and early 1945 there's a typhus epidemic there. It matches up perfectly.

[MightyMagician]

The Auschwitz camps could hold over 100,000 people at one time. Statistically speaking she was more likely to not have been one of the typhus deaths in that camp.

This is actually one of the best arguments I've ever come across, except:
-All the barracks ere lined up in rows and columns next to each other, so during the roll calls in early morning, it was still possible for a transfer to occur between barrack inmates.
-This doesn't list the surviving typhus inmates, or typhus inmates sent to be gassed.

[MightyMagician]

Could have, yes, but not necessarily. The stats on the page you linked show 58,240 Jewish prisoners dead of typhus in the time she was there, out of 173,000. It's far more reasonable to assume that she was one of the 114,760 Jews present without typhus - it's nearly twice as likely, in fact



They didn't, that's kinda the point



How is that contradictory? A whole bunch of Auschwitz prisoners (who you seem to think ALL had typhus) turn up in late 1944, and early 1945 there's a typhus epidemic there. It matches up perfectly.

I mentioned the portion that corresponded to the 2 months they were there, and it doesn't list surviving inmates who were transferred. If Anne and Margot were in a train ca with infected inmates = Typhus. Which is why I stated survival until march was impossible. Anne and Margot would have been to Belsen in early November or by Halloween, maybe. They would have had to survive an additional 4 months with typhus while the other arrivals with them were spreading it in the camp. The outbreak would have happened before 1945, but this simply is not what happened.

[Kardan]

i'd like to see what happens if i answer this with a yes
so yes

I think I'd go with yes as well - I believe Anne Frank died.

What is the actual point of this thread Tallcoolguy700; - Do you want to change how she died on her death certificate or something?

[MightyMagician]

I'm saying it's likely that Auguste Van Pels helped Anne and Margot go to another camp where they were more likely to survive. In April of 1945 she went to the Theresienstadt camp. She probably knew people were heading there from Belsen so she tried to save them.

[FlyingJesus]

If Anne and Margot were in a train ca with infected inmates = Typhus.

If. Two thirds of the inmates did not have typhus, so it's very reasonable to assume that Anne was among that majority


Which is why I stated survival until march was impossible. Anne and Margot would have been to Belsen in early November or by Halloween, maybe. They would have had to survive an additional 4 months with typhus while the other arrivals with them were spreading it in the camp. The outbreak would have happened before 1945, but this simply is not what happened.

If that's the case then it's logical to assume that the prisoners moved from A to B were free of typhus at the time and contracted it at a later date. The very stats that you are using are working against you on all fronts


I'm saying it's likely that Auguste Van Pels helped Anne and Margot go to another camp where they were more likely to survive. In April of 1945 she went to the Theresienstadt camp. She probably knew people were heading there from Belsen so she tried to save them.

April 1945 is a bit late to be trying to save someone who most likely had already died in February (http://news.yahoo.com/anne-frank-house-museum-jewish-diarist-likely-died-092357362.html). Not even sure what you're trying to claim any more, it's just garbled nonsense

[GommeInc]

"Nurse, help! He's out of bed again!"

This debate is dead and buried, unnecessary and has no baring on life today. Get over it.

[Firehorse]

Anne and Margot Frank were in Auschwitz for roughly 2 months from September to October, right? Check this link: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/rudolf.html

Over 6000 typhus deaths in that camp from that period, and this isn't even counting the typhus inmates who were allegedly sent to the gas chambers. If Anne Frank was fragile enough to get Scabies during her time there, why not typhus? Especially considering how easily it spread?

Why are you so obsessed with this?

[Becca]

oh dear captain autismo strikes again

[wixard]

all in favour of tallcoolguy to replace undertaker as debates leader say AYE

[Becca]

ayeeeee

[FlyingJesus]

Pretty sure it's the same person anyway