Friday, 1 September 2006

The Anne Frank Diary Fraud

Introduction – by Rixon Stewart February 22, 2006

In today’s London Times Daniel Finkelstien reflects on David Irving’s sentencing and asks: “The test that David Irving set me: do I really believe in the power of truth?”

The answer to that is an emphatic no. If anything Finkelstien is working in the opposite direction. This becomes apparent half-way through the article when he writes: “With her own eyes, my mother saw Anne Frank arrive in Belsen (she knew the family), yet still Irving and people like him contend that Frank’s story is fake.”

The Anne Frank story may not be an outright fake but as Brian Harring reveals in the article below, it is an elaborate piece of story telling. However, the fact that Finkelstien uses it to condemn Irving says all there is to say about his detractors and Finkelsteim’s belief in the “power of truth.”

So we should be wary when Finkelstien concludes: “no David Irving should not be in jail. We can do better than that. I wish I could tell you that the Irving trial is the only way in which my belief in the power of truth is being tested.”

Here Finkelstiem’s apparent balance and restaint is being used as a ruse to further beguile the reader into believing his deceit. Just as the Anne Frank story was contrived, so Finkelstiem’s article is little more than fiction and his concern for the "truth" an attempt to bolster its credibility.

In fact the Times itself has become a Zionist propaganda mouthpiece that often resorts to lies to make its point. Last year it described Israel Shamir, a former Israeli paratrooper now a writer and political activist as “a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas”. Now, as revealed below, it uses an proven fake to bolster the case against Historical Revisionists.

The Anne Frank Diary Fraud
by Brian Harring

When Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, she did so prompted by the highest of motives. Yet she, herself, relates the incident that when she first met Abraham Lincoln in 1863, he commented "So you are the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!"

Few will deny that the printed word in this instance fanned the flames of passion which brought about one of the bloodiest and saddest wars of American history, with brother sometimes pitted against brother, father against son. Perhaps if there had been less appeal to the emotions the problems might have resolved themselves through peaceful means. However, almost universally read at the time, few people then recognized the potency of one small book or the injustice done the South through its wide acceptance as a fair picture of slavery in the South.

Propaganda, as a weapon of psychological warfare is in even wider use today. Communists were masters of the art. Often they used the direct approach; just as often they employed diversion tactics to focus the eyes and ears of the world in directions other than where the real conflict was being waged. For many years, through propaganda alone, the dead threat of Hitler and Nazism had been constantly held before the public in a diversion maneuver to keep attention from being directed against the live threat of Stalin, Khrushchev and Communism.

Such has been the effect, if not the deliberate intention of many who have promoted its distribution, of a book of popular appeal-The Diary Of Anne Frank. It has been sold to the public as the actual diary of a young Jewish girl who died in a Nazi concentration camp after two years of abuse and horror.

Many Americans have read the book or seen the movie version, and have been deeply moved by the real life drama it claims to present. But have we been misled in the belief that Anne Frank actually wrote this diary? And if so. should an author be permitted to produce a work of fiction and sell it to the world as fact, particularly one of such tremendous emotional appeal?

The Swedish journal Frio Ord published two articles commenting on The Diary of Anne Frank. A condensation of these articles appeared in the April 15, 1959 issue of Economic Council Letter, as follows:

“History has many examples of myths that live a longer and richer life than truth. and may become more effective than truth.

The Western world has for some years hem made aware of a young Jewish girl through the medium of what purports to he her personally written story, "Anne Frank's Diary." Any informed literary inspection of this book has shown it to have been impossible as the work of a teenager.

A noteworthy decision of the New York Supreme Court confirms this point of view, in that the well known American writer, Meyer Levin, has been awarded $50.000 to be paid him by the father of Anne Frank as an honorarium for Levin's work on the "Anne Frank Diary."

Mr. Frank, in Switzerland, had promised to pay to prominent Jewish author, Meyer Levin. not less than $50,000 because he had used the literary creation of author Levin in toto, and represented it to his publisher and the public as his late daughter’s original work.

Inquiry of the County Clerk. New York County. as to the facts of the case referred to in the Swedish press, brought a reply on April 23, 1962, giving the name of a New York firm of lawyers as “attorneys .far the respondent.” Reference was to ”The Dairy of Anne Frank 2203-58.”

A letter to this firm brought a response on May 4, 1962 that “Although we represent Mr. Levin in other matters, we had nothing to do with the Anne Frank case.”

On May 7, 1962, came the following reply from a member of a firm of New York lawyers to whom the original inquiry had been forwarded:

“I was the attorney for Meyer Levin in his action against Otto Frank and others. It is true that a jury awarded Mr. Levin $50,000 in damages, as indicated in your letter. That award was later set aside by the trial justice. Hon. Samuel C. Coleman. on the ground that the damages had not been proved in the manner required by law. The action was subsequently settled between the litigating parties, while an appeal from Judge Coleman’s decision was pending.

I am afraid that the case itself is not officially reported, so far as the trial itself, or even Judge Coleman’s decision, is concerned. Certain procedural matters were reported. both in 141 New York Supplement. Second Series 170. and in 5 Second Series 181. The correct file number in the New York County Clerk‘s office is 2241-1956 and the file is probably a large and full one which must include Judge Coleman’s decision. Unfortunately, our file is in storage and 1 cannot locate a copy of that decision as it appeared in the New York Law Journal early in the year 1960.”

The Diary Of Anne Frank was first published in 1952 and immediately became a bestseller. It has been republished in paperback, 40 printings. It is impossible to estimate how many people have been touched and aroused by the movie production.

Why has the trial involving the father of Anne Frank, bearing directly on the authenticity of this book, never been "officially reported"? In royalties alone, Otto Frank has profited richly from the sale of this book, purporting to depict the tragic life of his daughter. But is it fact, or is it fiction? Is it truth or is it propaganda? Or is it a combination of all of these? And to what degree does it wrongfully appeal to the emotions through a misrepresentation as to its origin?

School publications for years have recommended this book for young people, presenting it as the work of Anne Frank. Advertising in advance of the movie showing has played up the “factual” nature of the drama being presented. Do not writers of such editorials and promoters of such advertising, “fan the flames of hate” they rightly profess to deplore?

Many American Jews were shocked at the handling of the Eichmann case, the distortions contained in the book Exodus and its movie counterpart, but their protests have had little publicity outside of their own organ, Issues, by the American Council for Judaism. Others who have expressed the same convictions have been charged with anti-Semitism. Yet it is to be noted that both Otto Frank and his accuser Meyer Levin, were Jewish, so a similar charge would hardly be applicable in pursuing this subject to an honest conclusion..

File number 2241-1956 in the New York County Clerk’s office should be opened to the public view and its content thoroughly publicized. Misrepresentation, exaggeration, and falsification has too often colored the judgment of good citizens. If Mr. 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 is never justified nor should it be condoned.

Since actual period documentation does not exist in support of the Holocaust myth, it has always been incumbent on its supporters to create it.

Not only is the “Anne Frank” diary now considered to be a fake, so also is “The Painted Bird” by Jerzy Kosinski. This book, which is a mass of pornographic and sadistic imagery which, had it not been taken so seriously by the Jewish community, would be merely the pathetic manifestation of a self-serving and very sick person.

This was duly exposed as a shabby, though much revered (by the Jewish community) and quoted, fraud. When this was exposed, Kosinski committed suicide. Later, in Kosinski’s footsteps we find the next fiction entitled “Fragments, ” by a Swiss Protestant named Bruno Dosseker who spent the war in Switzerland as a young child. Dosseker posed as a very young Baltic Jewish concentration camp inmate named Binjamin Wilkomerski. This work consists of allegedly fragmented “memories” and is very difficult to read

Dosseker became the poster boy for the Holocaust supporters and was lionized by the international Jewish community, reaping considerable profit and many in-house awards for his wonderful and moving portrayal of German brutality and sexual sadism.

Another book, allegedly by a Hungarian doctor, concerning his deportation from Budapest in 1944 and subsequent journey by “Death Train” to Auschwitz is another fraud. There was never such a doctor in Hungary during the period involved and the alleged route of the train from Budapest to Auschwitz did not exist.

These sort of pathetic refugees from the back wards seem to be drawn to the Holocausters…and they to them. There are now “Holocaust Survivors” as young as thirty which is an interesting anomaly because the last concentration camp was closed in 1945. Perhaps they consider the last frenzied spring sale at Bloomingdale’s department store to be what they survived.

Next we can expect to see a book based on twenty-seven volumes of secret diaries prepared on a modern word processor within the current year by an alleged inhabitant of the Warsaw ghetto, describing the Nazi slaughter of tens of millions of weeping Jews by means that would shame a modern African state.

And, predictably, the publication of these howlers would be greeted with joy on the part of the fund raisers and fanatics, praised in the columns of the New York Times and scripted by Steven Spielberg for a heart-wrenching and guaranteed Oscar-winning film.

Hundreds of thousands of DVD copies will be donated to American schools and the Jewish community will demand that subservient executive and legislative bodies in America create a Day of Atonement as a National Holiday to balance the terrible Christian Christmas and the wickedly Satanic Halloween.

Conservationists must hate these books because so many otherwise beautiful and useful trees are slaughtered for their preparation

Insofar as the Anne Frank diary is concerned, herewith is some background on Anne Frank, her family and her alleged Diary.

The Franks were upper class German Jews, both coming from wealthy families. Otto and his siblings lived on the exclusive Meronstrasse in Frankfurt. Otto attended a private prep school, and also attended the Lessing Gymnasium, the most expensive school in Frankfurt.

Otto attended Heidelberg University. After graduation he left for a long vacation in England.

In 1909, the 20 year old Otto went to New York City where he stayed with his relatives, the Oppenheimers.

In 1925 Anne's parents married and settled in Frankfurt, Germany. Anne was born in 1929. The Frank's family business included banking, management of the springs at Bad Soden and the manufacture of cough drops. Anne's mother, the former Edith Holländer, was the daughter of a manufacturer.

In 1934, Otto and his family moved to Amsterdam where he bought a spice business, Opekta, which manufactures Pectin used in making household jellies.

On May 1940, after the Germans occupied Amsterdam Otto remained in that city while his mother and brother moved to Switzerland. Otto remained in Amsterdam where his firm did business with the German Wehrmacht. From 1939 to 1944, Otto sold Opeka, and Pectin, to the German army. Pectin was a food preservative, and a anti infectant balm for wounds and as a thickener for raising blood volume in blood transfusions. Pectin was used as an emulsifier for petroleum, gelatized gasoline for fire bombing. By supplying the Wehrmacht, Otto Frank became, in the eyes of the Dutch, a Nazi collaborator.

On July 6, 1942 Otto moved the Frank family into the so-called 'Secret Annex'. The annex is a three story, mostly glass townhouse that shares a garden park with fifty other apartments.

While he was allegedly in hiding, Otto Frank still managed his business, going downstairs to his office at night and on weekends. Anne and the others would go to Otto's office and listen to radio broadcasts from England.

The purported diary begins on June 12, 1942, and runs to December 5,1942 . It consists of a book that is six by four by a quarter inches. In addition to this first diary, Anne supplemented it with personal letters. Otto said Anne heard Gerrit Bolkestein in a broadcast say: ~ "Keep a diary, and he would publish after the war", and that's why Anne’s father claimed she rewrote her diaries second time in 1944.

In this second edition, the new writer changed, rearranged and occasionally combined entries of various dates.

When Anne allegedly rewrote the diaries, she used a ball point pen, which did not exist in 1945, and the book took on an extremely high literary standard, and read more like a professional documentary than a child's diary. In Anne's second edition her writing style, and handwriting, suddenly matured.

The actual diary of Anne Frank contained only about 150 notes, according to The New York Times, of October 2 ,1955.

In 1944, German authorities in occupied Holland determined that Otto Frank had been swindling then via his extensive and very lucrative Wehrmacht contracts. The German police then raided his apartment attic, and the eight Jews were sent to Westerbork work camp and forced to perform manual labor .Otto himself was sent to Auschwitz.. Anne, her sister Margot, and her mother, subsequently died of typhus in another camp.

In 1945, after being liberated from German custody, Otto returned to Amsterdam, where he claimed he found Anne's diary cleverly hidden in the Annex's rafters. However, another version has a Dutch friend, Meip Geis finding Anne's diary of fictional events, which she then gave to Otto Frank.

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, authored the first diary.

Questions were raised by some 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.

American author, Meyer Levin wrote the third and final edition

Meyer Levin was an author, and journalist, who lived for many years in France, where he met Otto Frank around 1949.

Born in 1905, Meyer Levin was raised in the section of Chicago notoriously known in the days of gangster warfare as the "Bloody Nineteen Ward." At the age of eighteen he worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and during the next four years became an increasingly frequent contributor to the national literary magazine, The Menorah Journal. In 1929 he published THE REPORTER, which was the first of his sixteen novels.

In 1933 Levin became an assistant editor and film critic at the newly-created Esquire Magazine where he remained until 1939.

Perhaps his best-known work is COMPULSION (1956), chronicling the Leopold and Loeb case and hailed by critics as one of the greatest books of the decade. The compelling work was the first "documentary novel" or "non-fiction novel.”

After the enormous success of COMPULSION, Levin embarked on a trilogy of novels dealing with the Holocaust. The first, EVA (1959) was the story of a Jewish girl's experiences throughout the war and her adjustment to life after the concentration camps. This was followed by THE FANATIC (1963), which told the hypnotic story of a Jewish poet dealing with the moral questions that arose from his ordeal at the hands of the Nazis. The last in the triptych, THE STRONGHOLD (1965), is a thriller set in a concentration camp during the last days of the war.

At the outset of World War II Levin made documentary films for the US Office of War Information and later worked in France as a civilian expert in the Psychological Warfare Division. He eventually became a war correspondent for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, with the special mission of uncovering the fate of Jewish concentration camp prisoners. Levin took his role very seriously, sometimes entering concentration camps ahead of the tanks of the liberating forces in order to compile lists of the survivors.

After the war Levin went to Palestine and turned his attention again to the motion picture camera. His film MY FATHER'S HOUSE told the story of a child survivor searching for his family in Palestine. He wrote this story as a novel as well and the book was published in 1947.

Levin also joined the Hagana underground and helped smuggle Jews from the interior of Poland to Palestine, then basically an Arab country under the control of the British..

In 1951 Levin came upon a copy of the French edition of the Anne Frank diary He made a number of attempts to have the work published in English, and conceived it as a play and film. When the diary finally found an American publisher, his play was accepted for production but then suddenly barred, ostensibly for being "unstageworthy," and another writer's version was commissioned.

Levin fought for the rights to perform his version of the play, claiming that the real reason the producers refused to stage his work was because they thought it "too Jewish." He saw the suppression of the play as an extension of the Stalinist attack on Jewish culture and, outraged that even Anne Frank could be censored, he took the producers to court and began an agonizing, prolonged struggle that dragged on for years.

Levin eventually won a jury award against the producers for appropriation of ideas, but the bitterness of the trial made him many enemies in the Jewish and literary communities.

Although Levin's version of the play is still banned by the owners of the dramatic rights, underground productions of the work are frequently staged throughout the world.

Meyer Levin died in 1981

Levin rewrote the various post-war treatments of the Anne Frank diary with an eye toward a Broadway production, but Otto decided to cut him out, refusing to honor his contract or pay him for his work. Meyer Levin sued Otto Frank for his writings, and the New York Supreme court awarded Meyer Levin $50,000, for his 'intellectual work'.

In 1980, Otto sued two Germans, Ernst Romer and Edgar Geiss, for distributing literature denouncing the diary as a forgery. The trial produced a study by official German handwriting experts that determined everything in the diary was written by the same person. The person that wrote the diaries had used a ballpoint pen throughout. Unfortunately for Herr Frank, the ballpoint pen was not available until 1951 whereas Anne was known to have died of typhus in 1944.

Because of the 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 special forensic equipment.

The results of tests, performed at the BKA laboratories, showed that “significant” portions of the work, especially the fourth volume, were written with a ballpoint pen. Since ballpoint pens were not available before 1951, the BKA concluded those sections must have been added subsequently.

In the end, BKA 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

(a) some editing postdated 1951;
(b) an earlier expert had held that all the writing in the journal was by the same hand; and thus (c) the entire diary was a postwar fake.

The BKA information, at the urgent request of the Jewish community, was redacted at the time but later inadvertently released to researchers in the United States.


Every word of the Anne Frank Diary is true. London Independent, 29 January 2000

Versions, Omissions, Translations of the so-called Anne Frank Diary

The original, taken from the Dagboeken van Anne Frank, 1986 Almost literal translation into English Diary of Anne Frank, US, 1952; Anne Frank's Diary, UK, 1958 US-English Critical Edition, 1989 The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition, UK, 1997
20 June 1942 (Vb)
Om nu het idee van de langverbeide vriendin nog te verhogen in m'n fantasie wil ik niet de feiten zo maar gewoon als ieder ander in dit dagboek plaatsen, maar wil ik dit dagboek, de vriendin-zelf laten zijn en die vriendin heet Kitty. To now further raise the idea of the long-awaited friend in my fantasy I don't want to place facts in the diary just so ordinarily as anyone else, but I want this diary, itself to be my friend and this friend's called Kitty. In order to enhance in my mind's eye the picture of the friend for whom I have waited so long I don't want to set down a series of bald facts in a diary like most people do, but I want this diary itself to be my friend, and I shall call my friend Kitty. In order to enhance in my mind's eye the picture of the friend for whom I have waited so long I don't want to set down a series of bald facts in a diary like most people do, but I want this diary, itself to be my friend, and I shall call my friend Kitty. To enhance the image of this long-awaited friend in my imagination, I don't want to jot down the facts in this diary the way most people would do, but I want the diary to be my friend, and I'm going to call this friend Kitty.
7 August 1943 (Vb)
Een onderbreking in de Achterhuisschetsen. An interruption in the Achterhuis-sketches. omitted An interruption in my sketches of life in the ‘Secret Annexe.’ omitted
28 January 1944 (Vb)
...welke blunders ze ook mogen slaan of welke onwaarheden en bedenksels uit de duim gezogen zijn. ...whatever blunders they also may hit or whatever untruths and fabrications they cooked up. ...however many blunders they make, and to whatever extent they allow their imaginations to run away with them. ...however many blunders they make and to whatever extent their imaginations run away with them. matter how many blunders they make or how often they let their imaginations run away with them.
29 March 1944 (Va+Vb)
Stel je eens voor hoe interessant het zou zijn, als ik een roman van het Achterhuis uit zou geven Just imagine how interesting it would be if I were to publish a novel of the Achterhuis Just imagine how interesting it would be if I were to publish a romance of the ‘Secret Annexe’ Just imagine how interesting it would be if I were to publish a romance of the ‘Secret Annexe’ Just imagine how interesting it would be if I were to publish a novel about the Secret Annexe

As featured in Table 13 of Anna Frank's Novel: The ‘Diary’ is a Fraud, but here with the original Dutch as well. In the entry of 28 January 1944 AMF was describing the accounts her housemates were giving to their protectors, and trying to say bedenksels ‘uit zijn duim zuigen’: to "dream/make sth. up, fabricate/manufacture/invent sth., spin a yarn, tell a tall tale" – Van Dale Woordenboek, N-E.


The Entry of 3 October 1942

Sentences published in The Diary of Anne Frank, English edition, translated afresh The original text according to the Critical Edition, 1989

Saturday, 3 October 1942

Dear Kitty,

Yesterday there was another row. Mother played up terribly and told Daddy just what she thought of me. She began to cry awfully, naturally I did too and I had such an appaling headache. I finally told Daddy, that I'm much fonder of him than mother, to which he replied that I'd get over that, but I don't believe it. I have to simply force myself to stay calm with her. Daddy wishes that I, if mother doesn't feel well or has a headache, would sometimes offer to help her, but I shan't.

I am working hard at French and am reading La belle Nivernaise.

Your Anne.

3 Oct. 1942.

Dearest Marianne,

It's been a few days again since I last wrote, but a lot of really bad things have happened in the meantime. Yesterday they went on at me because I lay on the bed beside Mr. v. Pels. At your age, for shame!, and suchlike expressions. Silly of course. I would never want to sleep with Mr. v. Pels in the general sense of the word I mean of course. This morning Miep told us that last night they were dragging Jews from house after house again in South Amsterdam. Horrible. God knows which of our acquaintances are left. A crippled old woman was sitting on Miep's doorstep because she couldn't walk and so the scoundrels went to fetch a car, meanwhile the poor person had to wait out in the cold (she wasn't allowed to go indoors) and there was terrible shooting. You just can't imagine how awful it all is, I am only so glad that we are here. There was another dust-up yesterday and Mummy kicked up a frightful row, she told Daddy just what she thought of me and had an awful fit of tears so, of course, off I went too, and I'd got such a frightful headache anyway. Finally I told Daddy that I'm much more fond of "him" than Mummy, to which he replied that I'd get over that. But I don't believe it. I simply can't stand Mummy, and I have to force myself not to snap at her all the time and to stay calm with her, I could easily slap her face, I don't know how it is that I have taken such a terrible dislike to her. Daddy said that I should sometimes volunteer to help Mummy, when she doesn't feel well or has a headache; but I shan't since I don't like her and I don't feel like it. I would certainly do it for Daddy, I noticed that when he was ill. Also it's easy for me to picture Mummy dying one day, but Daddy dying one day seems inconceivable to me. It may be very mean of me, but that's how I feel. I hope that Mummy won't ever read "this" or any of the other things.

Peter has something wrong with his foot again, that softy, and it's easy to see that he is in love. Yesterday I cut out the coupons, that's quite a nice little job. Peeling potatoes is something else I often do these days, but I dread shelling peas. Today I have to read things in the prayer book, I have no idea why Mummy wants to force me to do that, but I'll do it to oblige her and above all for Pim.

Mummy has just said that if we ever get back home and are allowed to stay, we shall probably take in the Goslar baby, I think that's terrific; but I don't think we would ever let go of her again in that case. I have such a lovely book, it's called "Eva's youth." The Eva in it thought that children grow like apples on a tree and that the stork plucks them off when they are ripe and carries them to their mothers. But her girl friend's cat had kittens and they came out of the cat, then she thought that the cat lays eggs like a chicken, and then goes and sits on the brood, and that mothers who are having a baby go upstairs a few days earlier, lay an egg and sit on it, when the baby comes the mothers are still a bit weak from all the squatting. Eva wanted to have a baby too and so she took a woolen shawl, laid it on the ground so that the egg could drop into it and then squatted down and began to push. She tried clucking but no egg came out. In the end after all that long squatting something did come out of her but not an egg, a little sausage. Oh, Eva was so ashamed. And the maid thought she was sick. Funny isn't it. I take my leave with this dear Marianne, next time more from

Anne Frank.

P.S. Regards to Jaap. I like you. You get my meaning don't you?

‘Dear Phienny, Daddy has asked Mr. Kleiman for a diary and Bep for a potty. Eh, I completely forgot, that I used to write in print all the time, I was so deep in thought.’ 26 October 1942, version a, omitted from the Diary

Published in Het Achterhuis: De Dagboek van Anne Frank, 1947 The original text, from Het Achterhuis: De Dagboeken van Anne Frank, 1986

Zaterdag, 3 October 1942

Lieve Kitty,

Gisteren was er weer een botsing. Moeder heeft verschrikkelijk opgespeeld en al mijn zonden aan pappie verteld. Ze begon erg te huilen, ik natuurlijk ook en ik had al zo'n vreselijke hoofdpijn. Ik heb pappie eindelijk verteld, dat ik veel meer van hem houd dan van moeder, daar heeft hij op gezegd dat dat wel weer over zal gaan, maar dat geloof ik niet. Ik moet me met geweld dwingen tegenover haar kalm te blijven. Pappie wou dat ik, als moeder zich niet lekker voelt of hoofdpijn heeft, maar eens uit mijzelf moest aanbieden om iets voor haar te doen, maar dat doe ik niet.

Ik leer vlijtig Frans en ben La belle Nivernaise aan het lezen.

Je Anne.

3 Oct. 1942.

Beste Marianne,

Ik heb al weer een paar dagen niet geschreven, maar er is intussen wel erg veel gebeurd. Gisteren hebben ze mij erg geplaagd omdat ik met mijnheer v. Pels samen op bed heb gelegen. Zo vroeg al, een schandaal!, en al dergelijke uitdrukkingen meer. Flauw natuurlijk. Ik zou nooit met mijnh. v. Pels willen slapen in de algemene betekenis natuurlijk. Vanochtend kwam Miep weer vertellen dat ze gisterenavond in Zuid weer huis aan huis Joden hebben weggehaald. Verschrikkelijk. Wie weet wie van onze kennissen er nog zijn. Een oude lamme vrouw zat bij Miep voor de deur want zij kon niet lopen en daar hebben die schoften een auto gehaald, daar moest dat arme mens in de kou voor de deur zitten (naar binnen mocht ze niet) en het schoot geweldig. Men kan het zich niet voorstellen hoe verschrikkelijk het is, ik ben maar wat blij, dat wij hier zijn. Gisteren was er weer een botsing en moeder heeft verschrikkelijk opgespeeld, zij heeft al mijn zonden aan papi verteld, en begon erg te huilen; ik natuurlijk ook, en ik had al zo'n verschrikkelijke hoofdpijn. Ik heb papi eindelijk verteld, dat ik veel meer van «hem» houdt, dan van moeder, daar heeft hij dan op gezegd, dat dat wel weer over zou gaan, maar dat geloof ik niet. Moeder kan ik nu eenmaal niet uitstaan, en ik moet me met geweld dwingen, haar niet altijd af te snauwen en kalm te blijven, ik zou haar wel zo in haar gezicht kunnen slaan, ik weet niet hoe het komt dat ik zo een verschrikkelijke antipathie tegen haar heb. Papa heeft gezegd dat als moeder zich niet lekker voelt of hoofdpijn heeft, maar eens van zelf moet aanbieden om iets voor haar te doen, maar dat doe ik niet want ik houd niet van haar, en dan voel ik dat ook niet. Bij vader zal ik het wel voelen, dat heb ik gemerkt bij zijn ziekte. Ik kan mij ook wel voorstellen dat moeder eens sterft, maar als papa eens doodgaat dat lijkt mij onoverkomelijk. Het is wel erg gemeen van mij, maar zo voel ik het. Ik hoop dat moeder «dit» en alles andere nooit zal lezen.

Peter heeft nu weer iets aan zijn voet, die sul en ik merk best dat hij verliefd is. Gisteren heb ik de bonnen uit geknipt, dat is dan wel een leuk werkje. Aardappels schillen, doe ik nu ook vaak, maar pellen vind ik verschrikkelijk. Vandaag moet ik in het gebedboek lezen, ik begrijp niet dat moeder me daartoe wil dwingen, maar ik zal het maar doen voor haar plezier en vooral voor Pim.

Moeder heeft net gezegd als wij thuis zouden zijn en daar zouden mogen blijven zouden we misschien baby Goslar op nemen, geweldig lijkt mij dat; maar ik denk we zouden haar niet meer laten gaan. Ik heb nu zo'n leuk boek «Eva's jeugd» heet het. Daar dacht Eva dat kinderen zoals appels aan een boom groeien, en dat de ooievaar ze er af plukt als ze rijp zijn en ze aan de moeders brengt. Maar de poes van haar vriendinnetje heeft jongen gekregen en die komen uit de poes, nu dacht ze dat de poes, net als een kip eieren legt, en daarop gaat zitten broeden, en de moeders die een kindje krijgen gaan ook een paar dagen van te voren naar boven en een ei leggen om er dan op te broeden, als het kindje er dan is zijn de moeders nog wat zwak van het lange hurken. Eva wilde nu ook een kindje hebben en toen nam ze een wollen sjaal, en legde die op de grond, daar zou het ei dan in vallen en toen ging ze op haar hurken zitten drukken. Ze begon erbij te tokken maar er kwam geen ei. Eindelijk na heel lang zitten, kwam er iets uit maar geen ei, een worstje. O, Eva schaamde zich zo. En de meid dacht dat ze ziek was. Grappig hè. Ik schei ermee uit lieve Marianne, een volgende keer meer van

Anne Frank.

P.S. Groeten aan Jaap. Ik hou van jou. Je snapt me wel hè?

‘Na de bijbel is haar boek het best verkochte ter wereld’

Frank FAQ

Many misunderstandings and persistent myths surround the Anne Frank Diary. This page is intended to clarify some issues.

Question: Why do you criticize the Diary?
Answer: Because it is not a diary. It is an unreliable mixture of fact and fantasy which Anneliese Marie Frank wrote for her own amusement. She later described her book as a novel. It was written or re-written between 2 and 26 months after the stated 'entry dates.'

Question: Why had the Franks settled in Holland?
Answer: German measures against Jews became increasingly severe to encourage Jews to leave. The Franks, and many of the Dutch, thought that Holland was safe from invasion because the country had remained neutral during WWI.

Question: Were the Franks wealthy?
Answer: Yes. Otto Frank's family had owned a bank and the family were used to having servants. This also explains why there are so many photographs: photography at the time was an expensive business, which only the wealthy could afford.

Question: Was their hiding place secret?
Answer: Ostensibly yes, in practice no. There was a long list of people who knew, such as their protectors, their protectors' associates and their vegetable suppliers. In reality it was an 'open secret': it seems that harbouring Jews during the German occupation of Holland was almost a Dutch national hobby. The Franks' existence was only revealed to the occupying Germans when the tide of opinion changed.

Question: Why did the Frank family never go out?
Answer: They were afraid that the Germans would capture them. However, especially in the later years of the war, many Jews were going around completely normally, having obtained false identity papers. The reason the Franks never went out was because they looked too Jewish.

Question: Who was Kitty?
Answer: In the published Diary, all the entries are addressed to Kitty. In the manuscripts however the "letters" are addressed to various members of her "club," which consisted of at least eight imaginary people. According to the manuscripts, Kitty had blonde hair and bright blue eyes.

Question: How did Anne Frank die?
Answer: From typhus, in one of the many typhus epidemics which raged through the camps near the end of the war. Anne's sister Margot suffered the same fate. Their father Otto Frank was admitted to the Auschwitz camp hospital and survived.

Question: How did the group in hiding amass so much food?
Answer: Mainly through Miep Gies, who is described as being "just like a pack mule, she lugs so much." The eight accumulated so much food that they had more to eat than Dutch people who were not in hiding!

Question: What about the ballpoint pen?
Answer: Some claim that parts of the manuscripts were written in ballpoint pen, and that such pens were not available until after the war. According to H. J. J. Hardy in the Critical Edition (p. 160) however, the only ballpoint pen in the manuscript is annotation: "The only ballpoint writing was found on two loose scraps of paper included among the loose sheets."

Question: What about the claims that Meyer Levin wrote parts of the Diary?
Answer: This would have been somewhat difficult, since the Levin affair was around 1955 and the first edition of the Anne Frank Diary was published in 1947 (entitled Het Achterhuis: Dagboekbrieven). This persistent myth originates from an erroneous article published twice in The Spotlight.

Question: What about the vacuum cleaner and the supposed need for silence?
Answer: Some critics, notably Faurisson, have pointed to the daily use of a vacuum cleaner and that Anne Frank claimed that they had to be silent for fear of discovery. The reality is that Anne was an incorrigible chatterbox and the supposed need for silence was likely to have been a device to try and keep her quiet. Since she could not talk, Anne took to writing instead. Most of what she wrote was not included in the Diary and what was published was very selectively edited.

Question: Why did the group in hiding want more people to come and live with them?
Answer: There are several references to this is the manuscripts, and the answer may be rather a mystery. It is not as if the eight in hiding had plenty of space; the proposal seems to have been to house additional people in the living room. Possibly the best explanation is that of a Jewish characteristic of accumulating in large and dense groups to feel 'safety in numbers.' (The word ghetto originally described a Jewish quarter.)

1 comment:

ocio en barcelona said...

Pretty helpful material, thanks so much for the article.