Le journal d anne frank analyse

There are books, pamphlets et websites claiming that the diary is a forgery, that ce is written par people other than annane Frank herself, and that ce was partly written through a ballpoint pen. These are lies. Here are auto most important facts about thé diary.


‘At the moment there space four bas cases in ouest Germany, two in Hamburg et two in Frankfurt, concerning accusation that the diary is a forgery. Je fought against this in 1961 and won, but the same accusation are encore being expressed, et I oui to fight versus them over et over again.’
Legal actionsOver auto years a num of people ont tried to spread auto claim that the journal intime of anne Frank is a forgery. Till his death, Otto frank carried the end legal acte against this “deniers”. After his death in 1980 this job is take away over par the anne Frank House and the ah oui Frank Fonds.

Vous lisez ce: Le journal d anne frank analyse


Political agenda

The attacks on the authenticity de the diary need venir be seen in a broader perspective. Toutes les personnes who oui claimed, jaune still claim, the the diary is no genuine ont a political agenda. Lock often additionally say or write that the Holocaust never happened. Or they try venir prove the there were non gas chambers at Auschwitz, et that the personnage of six million Jews murdered throughout the second World war is an exaggeration. The diary of ah oui Frank is an important document of auto Holocaust, et since the lundi World War anne Frank has actually become the most famed symbol de the persecution de the Jews. People and organisations that deny or trivialise the Holocaust room attempting venir exonerate and rehabilitate the national Socialist system. Or, passant par spreading doubts nous the fate de the Jews throughout the seconde World War, castle try à undermine thé state du Israel’s right à exist.


Television et Internet

In Europe et North america the dispensés of product in which the authenticity of the journal intime of anne Frank is assaulted – et often that auto Holocaust is refuse – is fortunately seul the work du a couple of people. Over there are non serious researchers who doubt auto fact that the Holocaust take it place jaune that the journal intime of anne Frank yes, really was written de her. Cible in the Middle East, Holocaust denial has increasingly end up being a weapon in thé struggle against Israel, and falsehoods about the Holocaust are placed forward on television and the linternet on a large scale. Many kids in the Middle eastern learn at lécole that the diary of annane Frank is a forgery. Through satellite television, this lies likewise seep with into auto Western world.In addition, the people who spread product in which the Holocaust is denied jaune the diary of annane Frank is attacked oui in the linternet a means of potentially spreading their ideas really widely indeed. Every internet user can be challenged with them, normally unwillingly. à la this reason, the annane Frank loger wants to use toutes les personnes the means at its handle – and therefore also our website – à repudiate auto lies around the journal intime of ah oui Frank.


Holocaust denier Faurisson visits otto FrankIn October 1993 Fritzi Frank-Markowitz to be interviewed de Wouter van cette Sluis, a researcher et filmmaker from the anne Frank House. Fritzi franc was auto widow of Otto Frank. Elle died in 1998. In the interview she talks about thé visit de Robert Faurisson, a well known Holocaust denier. Cette denies the existence of gas chambers, pour example, and disputes thé authenticity ns the journal intime of anne Frank. But according to Fritzi Frank, when cette examined the diary he said: ‘It’ll be really difficult à prove the the diary is a forgery.’


Exactly je vous demande pardon writings by anne Frank ont been preserved?12 june 1942 was ah oui Frank’s thirteenth birthday. Among auto presents she received was a notebook: an almost square album with a hardback red, white and green cover. This is where she would write sa diary. Sa first diary ends nous 5 December 1942. Elle second surviving diary book, a écoles exercise book, begins conditions météorologiques 22 December 1943 et continues up to 17 April 1944. Cette is highly sans réserve that anne Frank go not save a journal intime between December 1942 et December 1943, soja we need to assume the this section has to be lost. Her third et last diary volume, likewise a school exercise book, begins nous 17 April 1944 and ends nous 1 august 1944.

Other texts

Besides elle diary, ah oui also wrote Verhaaltjes, en gebeurtenissen uit het Achterhuis (Tales native the lunderground Annexe) in a gros accounts book, and she fill a small, narrow cash livre with quotations: elle Mooie Zinnenboek (Favourite quotes Notebook). This Verhaaltjesboek et Mooie Zinnenboek oui both to be preserved.

Two versions

From célibataire 1942 onwards, auto diaries of anne Frank define in a penetrating way the du quotidien life ns the eight Jewish personnes in hiding in auto ‘secret annexe’ nous the Prinsengracht canaliser in Amsterdam. Annane Frank rewrote her journal intime entries it s her in the secret annexe, with a view to them possibly being published after thé war.

She go this nous sheets de carbon copy paper: auto so-called “loose sheets.” On these loose sheets of paper she reorganised et rewrote her earlier diary entries: she reordered texts, sometimes combining entries from various date under one date, et considerably shortening some sections. In this way she created a second version, in which thé events de December 1942 venir December 1943 room described. Auto loose sheets ont been preserved: their last entries daté from 29 march 1944. Sauce soja the first édition of the journal intime was not completely preserved, while thé second édition was unfinished.

Prepare for publication

To help in the search for a publisher pour Het Achterhuis (The sous la terre Annexe, as annane had named elle second version) Otto franc had parts de the journal intime entries typed the end in late 1945.

In act so he left out some sections, moved others and made part corrections. This produced a typescript, but it was no yet a book. At otto Frank’s request, his friend Albert Cauvern then made a seconde typescript. With otto Frank’s permission, Cauvern readjusted nine of the thirteen surname that anne herself – v a view venir possible relaxer – had invented parce que le the people in hiding in the sous la terre annexe et their helpers.

Both typescripts have been preserved. Finally, an editor from communication Publishers became the third person à work on the texts, correcting keying errors and bringing auto manuscript into line with auto publisher’s sacrés guide. All ns this resulted in the first Dutch relaxer of thé Secret annexe in june 1947.

Three versions under one cover

Otto Frank, that died nous 19 august 1980, stated in his will certainly that all of his daughter’s manuscripts need to be left to the Dutch nation. Auto Dutch federal government transferred the stewardship of the manuscripts à the denchères Institute pour War Documentation (Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, RIOD), which later became thé Dutch Institute parce que le War Documentation (Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, NIOD).

In 1986, NIOD published the three versions du the diary described over – thé preserved d’origine diary entries, the déditions rewritten by anne Frank herself, and the execution compiled by Otto Frank et published passant par Contact publishers in 1947 – together under une cover: De Dagboeken van anne Frank (The Diaries of annane Frank).

The original diary of anne Frank and a num of other document written in her own hand ont been showed in the anne Frank loger since 1986.


What research has actually been excellent into thé authenticity de the diary?Because du the persistent allégations against the diary of anne Frank in the 1960’s et 70’s, a num of inspection were lugged out into auto diary’s authenticity, partly nous Otto Frank’s initiative.

The many extensive détection was carried out in the tons half du the 1980’s by the Netherlands Forensic académie at the request of the national Institute pour War Documentation. Auto results de this research were presented in a report du over 250 pages. The henchmen section du the report is taken increase with thé findings of a comprehensive handwriting comparison, but a forensic document analysis was additionally carried out. The Diaries of ah oui Frank, the so-called Critical Edition that was published de the NIOD in 1986, contains a 65-page summary de the Forensic académie report.

The NIOD concludes: ‘The report du the Netherlands Forensic académie has convincingly demonstrated the both versions ns the journal intime of anne Frank to be written by her in the years 1942 à 1944. The allegations the the diary was thé work du someone else (...) are hence conclusively refuted.’ (The diary of anne Frank. Auto Revised critical Edition, 2003, p. 186).

German research

Earlier study had additionally been done antérieur à the Forensic Institute’s enquête in thé 1980’s. In 1959, annane Frank’s manuscripts to be studied by graphologists (handwriting experts) in Germany, ont part du the preparations pour a legal mouvement that to be brought par Otto Frank.

In march 1960, thé Hamburg graphologists came to thé conclusion in their 131-page report that all the symbol in the diaries and the loose sheets, and toutes les personnes the corrections and additions, were ’identical’ with Anne’s handwriting. The agissant also concluded that thé loose sheets were not written avant the three diary books. Finally, thé conclusion was fabriquer that ‘(...) the text released in German translation ont Das Tagebuch der annane Frank pouvez be considered true à its la source in substance et ideas.’ (The journal intime of anne Frank: the Revised an important Edition, 2003, p. 87.)

A really limited détection also took place in Germany in 1980, also in preparation pour legal proceedings, et this temps carried out de the commonwealth Criminal Police bureau (the Bundeskriminalamt or BKA) in Wiesbaden. Auto BKA came to the conclusion that tous the types de paper and ink supplied were manufactured avant 1950, and could therefore ont been used in thé war years.


Where did the five new journal intime pages suddenly show up from?In 1998, five previously unknown pages from the journal intime of anne Frank cropped up. They to be five loose sheets the Otto franc had currently set individuel before the relaxer of the diary in 1947. In tous probability, Otto franc did no want venir make these diary fragments auditeur because ns Anne’s fairly hurtful observation about his sapin wife, who passed away in Auschwitz, and their marriage.

They to be made auditeur by Cor Suyk, a se réconcilier employee de the annane Frank House. Suyk’s explanation was that Otto franc had provided him thé five sheets parce que le safe keeping. Auto loose sheets were sold passant par Suyk to thé Dutch nation, and subsequently included to the rest du the diary, which to be held par the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD). Auto five pages were life included in auto fifth edition du De Dagboeken van anne Frank (2001), followed by the The journal intime of anne Frank: thé Revised critical Edition (2003).

The NIOD asked thé Forensic institute – i beg your pardon had currently carried out substantial research into the authenticity ns the diary in the life half du the 1980’s – to also investigate this five loose sheets. The Forensic institut concluded after forensic document et handwriting evaluation that ‘the handwriting in the questioned documents and the handwriting in the reference material, consisting ns loose sheets in the diary of annane Frank, were developed – with a probability bordering conditions météorologiques certainty – by the very same hand.’ (The diary of anne Frank: thé Revised an essential Edition, 2003, p. 184.) that is auto most avec certitude degree of diviser that thé Netherlands Forensic académie can give. In est différent words: over there is no reason whatsoever à presume that the five returned loose sheets to be not composed by annane Frank.


Are there really entries in the journal intime in ballpoint pen?No, that is no correct. Toutes les personnes the journal intime entries room written in miscellaneous types du ink et (coloured) pencil, no in ballpoint. The document analysis de the Netherlands Forensic institut showed that the henn part de the diary and the loosened sheets were created in grey-blue fontaine pen ink. In addition, ah oui also supplied thin red ink, green et red coloured pencils et black pencil à la her annotations: not ballpoint.

Voir plus: Saison Et Ca Le Citron Est Il Un Fruit, Le Citron Est

Nevertheless, auto allegation can encore regularly be seen conditions météorologiques extreme right-wing websites et elsewhere the the journal intime of annane Frank is created in ballpoint pen. Sneering remarks are fabriquer about “A. Franc the ballpoint girl”, and ce is discussed that the ballpoint pen seulement un came into common use in leurope  after the lundi World War. Thé conclusion forced par this allegation is that auto texts in the journal intime could not oui been composed by annane Frank herself.

The origin of the “ballpoint myth“

The origin of the “ballpoint myth” is the four-page décalage that the Federal Criminal Police office (the Bundeskriminalamt jaune BKA) in Wiesbaden, i beg your pardon was published in 1980. In this inspection into auto types de paper et ink offered in the diary of annane Frank cette is stated that “ballpoint corrections” had been fabriqué on some loosened sheets. The BKA’s task was to report on toutes les personnes the texts uncovered among the diaries of anne Frank, and therefore also nous the annotations the were fabriqué in Anne’s manuscripts after the war.

However, thé Dutch investigation passant par the Forensic institut in auto mid-1980’s shows that writing in ballpoint is only found nous two loose pages du annotations, et that this annotations are of no significance pour the actual heureux of thé diary. Lock were plainly placed between the divers pages later. The researchers de the Forensic institut also concluded that auto handwriting conditions météorologiques these two commenter sheets differs from the writing in the journal intime ‘to a far-ranging degree.’ Photos de these loose annotation sheets are included in auto NIOD’s relaxer (see The journal intime of anne Frank: the Revised critical Edition, 2003, page 168 et 170).

In 1987, a grandfather Ockelmann native Hamburg wrote that his mother had written the poing sheets in question. Grand-mère Ockelmann was a member de the team that brought out thé graphological enquête into thé writings of anne Frank approximately 1960.

In short: thé “ballpoint myth” is easy to disprove. Thé careless wording de the BKA reporter from 1980 – a report that for the rest in no way challenges the authenticity ns the diary – jaune at any rate that openness venir several interpretations, has taken on a first of its own in too much right-wing circles.

The “ballpoint myth” is based nous the simple fact that, about 1960, two commenter sheets v ballpoint creating were inserted in between the original pages. These texts were written by a graphological researcher, and are not had in any type of edition du the diary (apart from auto Critical Edition, whereby photos de the poing sheets are reproduced). In July 2006, thé BKA found ce necessary to state in a push release that the 1980 enquête cannot be provided to appel the authenticity of the diary into doubt.


Who claim the the diary of ah oui Frank is a forgery?Apart from a few deluded eccentrics, tous the toutes les personnes (and groups du people) that seriously claim that the diary of anne Frank, or parts du it, space a forgery fall into thé category ns Holocaust deniers.

They are toutes les personnes who, passant par means of an attack conditions météorologiques the diary, effort to sow doubt about thé fact that auto Holocaust truly take it place, that six million Jews were murdered during the seconde World War, et that the nazus ever built any gas chambers. They are personnes with a political aim: par denying or trivialising thé Holocaust, lock try venir prove jaune make cette appear reasonable that Nazism was (and is) a much less malevolent system than anyone thinks. Because it forms année accessible introduction to auto Holocaust to people all over auto world, and is regularly used in schools, the journal intime of anne Frank is a popular target pour these old et new Nazis.

Historical revisionism

Holocaust deniers – also called negationists – come in toutes les personnes shapes et sizes. There room some who wrap us in a scientific cloak: they call themselves revisionists or historical revisionists. Utilizing pseudo-scientific arguments, lock try to revise auto history ns the second World War. One of the most widely translated et distributed revisionist texts about the diary of annane Frank is auto “study” by the french scientist Robert Faurisson, published in 1978 under the title Le un journal d’Anne frank est-il authentique? (The diary of annane Frank: Is it Authentic?). Faurisson has actually repeatedly to be sentenced to fines et prison terms pour spreading thé libellous claim that non gas chambers existed in the seconde World War, and for incitement venir discrimination and racial hatred.

Anti-zionism

Holocaust denial go not only take place in thé western world, but also – and in recent years progressively – in the Middle East. There cette is mostly used ont a weapon in auto struggle against auto state ns Israel. Sowing doubt about the fate of the Jews throughout the second World War, et proclaiming the the journal intime of annane Frank is no authentic, is done primarily venir ‘prove’ that auto Holocaust is “Zionist propaganda”. In this way, people try à undermine auto state de Israel‘s right à exist. In Iran, auto denial du the Holocaust is also official state ideology, but in auto Arabic human being too – and increasingly in Turkey – Holocaust deniers space presented in thé media ont serious scientists. It is striking comment many de the revisionist texts that circulate in auto Middle east (on auto Internet et elsewhere) are de European jaune American origin.


Why shouldn’t people claim that the diary is a forgery?Freedom of speech is an important human being right in every democratic society. Cette means that each separation, personal, instance is free to publicly express toutes les personnes kinds of ideas, opinions et standpoints, there is no prior censorship. Cible freedom of speech does not mean that anyone have the right to say jaune shout anything in auditeur with impunity. Seul like toutes les personnes other fundamental human rights, there are also limits venir freedom ns speech that peut faire not it is in crossed. Inciting hatred, murder or violence, et the livré of libel, are punishable offences. Thé spreading de demonstrable untruths around the diary of ah oui Frank is not seulement un extremely insulting to those straight involved, ce is also discriminatory and offensive to all victims of the Holocaust et their enduring relatives.

Lawful jaune unlawful

It is only after a statement has been made, the a court can decide si it is unlawful. Nous this point, auto United States and the countries du the europe Union ont very various traditions. A limit will certainly not be imposed nous freedom of speech soja quickly in auto United States. It is not à la nothing the the first Amendment de the American constitution states that non laws peut faire be made that unnecessarily limit this freedom.

In Europe, limits on freedom ns speech will be collection earlier, si the appropriate to abrite against discrimination is at issue. While auto denial of the Holocaust is not illegal in auto USA, over there are laws in Germany, France and some divers European countries that make the spreading of lies around “Auschwitz” – and thus also lies around the diary of anne Frank – a criminal offence. A considerable alors of auto books et websites whereby the journal intime of anne Frank is attacked come from thé USA.


Otto candide counters auto attacks on the authenticity ns the diaryFrom the late 1950’s until his fatality in 1980, Otto franc opposed attacks nous the authenticity du the journal intime in his words and writings, but also par legal means.

The life allegations

The tons allegations against the journal intime came in 1957 et 1958 in obscure Swedish et Norwegian periodicals. In them, among divers claims, cette was alleged that the American journalist et novelist Meyer Levin was the author du the diary. Levin wanted venir make a stage adaptation and a cinématique of the journal intime in thé USA, cible was not sustained in this by Otto Frank. Thé conflict between Meyer Levin and Otto frank reached the press, and was used passant par right-wing extremists as an argument to call the authenticity ns the diary into question. Ce is unclear whether these life attacks nous the diary were seen by Otto Frank, marqué the reality is that cette did no lodge a complaint.

Lothar Stielau and Heinrich Buddeberg

Otto franc took legal terrain in Germany conditions météorologiques three occasions against personnes who had asserted that his daughter’s diary was a forgery. Beforehand in 1959 hey lodged a criminal complaint conditions météorologiques the grounds ns libel, slander, defamation, maligning thé memory ns a deceased person et antisemitic utterances against auto German teacher Lothar Stielau (a teacher de English in Lübeck, and member du the excessive right-wing Deutsche Reichspartei). Stielau wrote in a écoles newspaper: ‘The forged diaries ns Eva Braun, de the Queen of England and the hardly more authentic une of ah oui Frank may oui earned several millions for the profiteers indigenous Germany"s defeat, but they have also increased our own hackles rather a bit.’

Otto Frank’s criminal complaint was additionally directed versus Stielau’s fellow party member heinrich Buddeberg, who defended Stielau in a letter sentiment to the Lübecker Nachrichten newspaper. Following a detailed et thorough investigation into the authenticity of anne Frank’s handwriting, the District bas in Lübeck ruled the the journal intime was authentic, and Otto Frank’s complaint was upheld.

A sentence was never ever passed because Stielau et Buddeberg withdrew your allegations nous the basis of the preliminary investigation. This investigation and the cross-examination ns the witnesses had persuaded them the the journal intime was genuine. They expressed remorse over their statements, which castle had fabriqué without any type of attempted corroboration. At this, Otto frank agreed à a settlement, something that cette later regretted: ‘Had I marqué known that there would certainly be toutes les personnes who would consider a settlement in this case oui insufficient proof , i should absolutely not have dropped thé case.’ (The diary of annane Frank. Thé Revised an important Edition, 2003, p. 90.)

Heinz Roth

In 1976, Otto candide brought a legal mouvement before thé District court in Frankfurt against Heinz Roth, indigenous Odenhausen in Germany. Through his own publishing company, Roth had actually distributed plenty of neo-Nazi tracts with titles like The diary of ah oui Frank – A Forgery, and The diary of anne Frank – thé Great Fraud.

After two years, the court ruled the Roth must not do these jaune similar explanation in public, conditions météorologiques penalty du a maximum fine of 500,000 Deutschmarks (about € 250,000). Nous appeal, Roth placed forward thé report ns the français scientist Robert Faurisson in his defence, but this did not convince the German court. Roth’s appeal was rejected in 1979. Although cette had passed away in 1978, a greater appeal was encore submitted to auto Federal supreme Court, i m sorry referred the boîte back to the meugler of appeal in Frankfurt. Follow to the Supreme Court, Roth had had too little opportunity à prove his allegations, and he need to be offered this possibility in a retrial. Auto fact that the defendant had currently been dead à la two years supposedly played no role in this judgement: eventually the boîte never came avant the Frankfurt meugler of Appeal.

Ernst Römer et Edgar Geiss

A third German lawsuit including Otto candide (as a découper plaintiff) ran native 1976 à 1993. It all began when sérieuse Römer handed out brochure after theatre productions de The journal intime of ah oui Frank with auto headline Bestseller – A Lie. The public Prosecution prestations de service decided à prosecute Römer, et later additionally his sympathiser edgar Geiss, that handed out the same tracts in thé courtroom.

The two des boites were make the efforts together. Römer to be sentenced venir a mince of 1,500 Deutschmarks (about € 750) and Geiss à six months imprisonment, and they lodged année appeal. The appeal case dragged on parce que le so longue mainly because an investigation was sapin carried out passant par the commonwealth Criminal police Office, et it was then decided to wait for the German translation ns The journal intime of ah oui Frank (the Critical Edition). This appeared in 1988, and could be used ont evidence.

Voir plus: Le Bon Coin Maison A Vendre A Doué La Fontaine, Doue Immobilier

Römer chose not à proceed with his appeal, because of his progressed age, so that only Geiss remained. One ns his appeals was successful: the livré of libel in brochure carries thé comparatively short temps limit pour prosecution de six months, so the caisse was dropped due to the fact that this statutory limite had expired.