• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anne Frank died earlier than thought, new study says

Montecresto said:
Didn't Meyer Levin write it and sue Otto Frank over it winning $50,000.00. Maybe I'm thinking of something else.
Click to expand...

That theory has been advanced over the years by various people, mostly far right holocaust deniers.

What actually happened is that Otto Frank took the diary to Levin who was interested in making a screen play out of it. Levin then edited a copy of the diary given to him by Frank in part because he wanted to make it more suitable for a screen play (more condensed, more flowing etc). Levin also had an eye on marketability and may well have emphasized or de emphasized some parts for drama. Otto Frank and Levin then had a business dispute.

Anyways, in response to holocaust denial charges placed against various people over the years, both the German Federal Police and the Dutch police have examined the original diary and have forensically determined that Anne Frank did, in fact, write the diary.

That is not to say that there were no changes were made to the original manuscript as indicated by small portions written in ball point pen (several notations?). These notations could have been made by Levin, or by Otto Frank. Otto Frank did state that he edited some passages because he was either embrassed by how they portrayed the family or to protect the privacy of certain people accused of anti semitism / collaboration on grounds that were not established as fact.

Grant said:
Was going to go, stayed nearby, but the line-ups were too long. Another regret.
Click to expand...
I had the same experience. The line was huge. In addiiton, I think one needed to make reservations in advance if one wanted to be guaranteed entry. I needed to leave the next day so I could not do it.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
That theory has been advanced over the years by various people, mostly far right holocaust deniers.

What actually happened is that Otto Frank took the diary to Levin who was interested in making a screen play out of it. Levin then edited a copy of the diary given to him by Frank in part because he wanted to make it more suitable for a screen play (more condensed, more flowing etc). Levin also had an eye on marketability and may well have emphasized or de emphasized some parts for drama. Otto Frank and Levin then had a business dispute.

Anyways, in response to holocaust denial charges placed against various people over the years, both the German Federal Police and the Dutch police have examined the original diary and have forensically determined that Anne Frank did, in fact, write the diary.

That is not to say that there were no changes were made to the original manuscript as indicated by small portions written in ball point pen (several notations?). These notations could have been made by Levin, or by Otto Frank. Otto Frank did state that he edited some passages because he was either embrassed by how they portrayed the family or to protect the privacy of certain people accused of anti semitism / collaboration on grounds that were not established as fact.


I had the same experience. The line was huge. In addiiton, I think one needed to make reservations in advance if one wanted to be guaranteed entry. I needed to leave the next day so I could not do it.
Click to expand...

Edited?????????!!!!!!!!!! Lol. It's no theory that Levin sued Frank and won. Have you read the court docs, and what Levin sued for. And furthermore, was it Levin's screen play version that sold so many copies that everybody read and was so moved by, or was it the "original"?
 
minnie616 said:
Here is a short ( one page ) article that lists a few of the workers who may have turned them in.
And as this paragraph tells , it could have just been a person in the neighborhood who became aware that it looked like people might be living in the " warehouse".
Click to expand...

Or somebody from a wider circle. The Franks were not 100% concealed in the annex 100% of the time. The diary desribes episodes where Otto Frank leaves for business and others leave for brief shopping trips. Likewise, as your source indicates, precautions were relaxed at times.

These variations between total concealment and "laying low" were probably in response to chaninging conditions in Amsterdam. Unlike eastern Europe where Nazi atrocities against the jews were graphic, continuous and at times direct assisted by violently anti semitic locals, Nazi and collaborator round ups of jews in Amsterdam were more sporadic. Depending on alot of variables, their efforts could range from zealous to half hearted attempts to find jews.

As a result, the Franks and the others would modify their living based on what the immediate threat was. The informer could have been somebody who noticed the Franks "disappear" and then notified the police for a reward. In addition, there might not have been a civilian betrayer at all. It has been speculated that Otto Frank and the Dentist (both relatively wealthy) had paid bribes to local collaborators and / or Germans to not look too hard for them, or to pretend not to notice that the families had gone into hiding. They were then arrested when they could no longer pay the bribes.
 
Last edited:
Knowing how this wonderful person suffered back then isn't it pathetic today when a young girl of the same age today threatens to kill herself when her parent take her cell phone away??!!
 
Cryptic said:
Or somebody from a wider circle. The Franks were not 100% concealed in the annex 100% of the time. The diary desribes episodes where Otto Frank leaves for business and others leave for brief shopping trips. Likewise, as your source indicates, precautions were relaxed at times.

These variations between total concealment and "laying low" were probably in response to chaninging conditions in Amsterdam. Unlike eastern Europe where Nazi atrocities against the jews were graphic, continuous and at times direct assisted by violently anti semitic locals, Nazi and collaborator round ups of jews in Amsterdam were more sporadic. Depending on alot of variables, their efforts could range from zealous to half hearted attempts to find jews.

As a result, the Franks and the others would modify their living based on what the immediate threat was. The informer could have been somebody who noticed the Franks "disappear" and then notified the police for a reward. In addition, there might not have been a civilian betrayer at all. It has been speculated that Otto Frank and the Dentist (both relatively wealthy) had paid bribes to local collaborators and / or Germans to not look too hard for them, or to pretend not to notice that the families had gone into hiding. They were then arrested when they could no longer pay the bribes.
Click to expand...
This is not off topic, I believe, but is related to Anne Frank and how easily normal people can do such remarkable evil things. Stasi Files Revisited: The Banalities and Betrayals of Life in East Germany - SPIEGEL ONLINE

That Angela Merkel came out of this background and environment to become today's preeminent world leader is one of the most remarkable personal stories of the last century.
 
Montecresto said:
Edited?????????!!!!!!!!!! Lol. It's no theory that Levin sued Frank and won. Have you read the court docs, and what Levin sued for. And furthermore, was it Levin's screen play version that sold so many copies that everybody read and was so moved by, or was it the "original"?
Click to expand...

No, I have not read the court documents. I do know that the dispute between the two was apparently financial and personal. Meyer, a zionist, wanted a more jewish spin whereas Frank wanted a more "young girl" spin as his family was assimilated, largely non practicing, and did not hold zionist political views.

I also know that Germany has proscecuted several people of the years for holocaust denial regarding their specific claims about the Diary. To do so, the proscecutors had to demonstrate two things:
A. Neither Levin nor Otto Frank wrote the diary (as claimed by some)
B. The published book version of the diary is not a heavily edited / modified and unrecognizable version of the original (as claimed by others)

As a result, the original diary was forensically, historically and linguistically examined. The German investigation determined that the published version very largely reflects the original diary and that the diary was written by Anne Frank. The report also acknowledged that there have been instances of notations added in ball point, as well as indications of minor editing or modifications. Otto Frank never claimed that the published version was a verbatim copy.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
Here is a short ( one page ) article that lists a few of the workers who may have turned them in.
And as this paragraph tells , it could have just been a person in the neighborhood who became aware that it looked like people might be living in the " warehouse".



Read more :

Miep Gies :: The betrayal
Click to expand...

Interesting! That sounds very plausible about Sleegers (okay, and shame on me for saying that if it wasn't him). The night watchman would hear more noises given the lack of background noises that the day workers would hear. I remember hearing Tonny Ahlers name on a show I saw on Anne Frank, and I wish I could remember what it was and where I saw it (History Channel most likely). His story, as well as the others mentioned in that link seem less plausible.

For all anyone knows it was some kid who noticed them peering out of windows when they believed nobody saw them. Anne mentioned that a few times in her diary, even though she and the others knew they shouldn't.

I suspect we will never know for sure. Maybe that intrigue makes this already interesting story even more interesting.
 
Cryptic said:
No, I have not read the court documents. I do know that the dispute between the two was apparently financial and personal. Meyer, a zionist, wanted a more jewish spin whereas Frank wanted a more "young girl" spin as his family was assimilated, largely non practicing, and did not hold zionist political views.

I also know that Germany has proscecuted several people of the years for holocaust denial regarding their specific claims about the Diary. To do so, the proscecutors had to demonstrate two things:
A. Neither Levin nor Otto Frank wrote the diary (as claimed by some)
B. The published book version of the diary is not a heavily edited / modified and unrecognizable version of the original (as claimed by others)

As a result, the original diary was forensically, historically and linguistically examined. The German investigation determined that the published version very largely reflects the original diary and that the diary was written by Anne Frank. The report also acknowledged that there have been instances of notations added in ball point, as well as indications of minor editing or modifications. Otto Frank never claimed that the published version was a verbatim copy.
Click to expand...

That's a very pretty opinion. Denying the authenticity of AF's diary and holocaust denial are NOT synonymous.
 
Montecresto said:
That's a very pretty opinion. Denying the authenticity of AF's diary and holocaust denial are NOT synonymous.
Click to expand...

No, what you have stated is an opinion.

The fact is that German courts have held that denying the authenticity (either directly, of claiming that the published version does not reflect the original) of the diary constitutes an act of holocaust denial. Of course, this only applies in Germany.

That aside, you are ignoring the fact that the diary (diaries) as the diary consists of several binders and loose leaf pages, some of which contain Anne Frank's own editing, has been confirmed authentic by both German and Dutch Federal forensics examiners.

This 700 plus page edition of the diary (s) contains not only all the original material, but also forensics reports from Dutch investigators: Amazon.com: The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition, prepared by the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation (9780670820481): Anne Frank, David Barnouw, Gerrold van der Stroom: Books

Basically, the claims of the diary deniers like, the best propaganda, are based loosely on fact:

- There are minor notations made in ball point pen in the diary (made by Otto Frank or Levine)
-There are some variations in the original diaries (Anne Frank's editing, revisions to her own work)
-Otto Frank did edit some published passages (some sexual / puberty content, embarassing family quarrels, accusations of collaborating neighbors that were not confirmed)
-Levine did create a copy for a screen play that not only was tailored for a screen play, but emphasized the jewish aspect of the diaries more than the "any young girl" aspect favored by Otto Frank.

None of these acknowledged things, however, mean the diaries are fake.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
That's a very pretty opinion. Denying the authenticity of AF's diary and holocaust denial are NOT synonymous.
Click to expand...
Why would you, or anyone else, deny the authenticity of Anne Frank's diary? What is you interest here?
 
Grant said:
Why would you, or anyone else, deny the authenticity of Anne Frank's diary? What is you interest here?
Click to expand...

I don't know, ask the guy that made the 14th post.
 
Montecresto said:
That's a very pretty opinion. Denying the authenticity of AF's diary and holocaust denial are NOT synonymous.
Click to expand...

And yet every holocaust denier I have ever seen or read will deny its authenticity and every person I have ever seen that denies its authenticity is a holocaust denier, just a coincidence I suppose just like all those non-holocaust deniers who deny 6 million Jews died, deny that those who did die were systematically exterminated, that Hitler was not responsible for the deaths, etc etc and of course none of them are anti-Semites either. :roll:
 
face said:
And yet every holocaust denier I have ever seen or read will deny its authenticity and every person I have ever seen that denies its authenticity is a holocaust denier, just a coincidence I suppose just like all those non-holocaust deniers who deny 6 million Jews died, deny that those who did die were systematically exterminated, that Hitler was not responsible for the deaths, etc etc and of course none of them are anti-Semites either. :roll:
Click to expand...

I totally accept the figure of 6 million Jews killed by the nazis in the holocaust, don't lump me in with holocaust deniers.
 
Risky Thicket said:
The book had an impact on me as well.

It is the message. It isn't so much that it happened as it is that we understand how and why it could have happened.
Click to expand...
There were many thousands of young Anne Franks who died at the hands of the Nazis and she gave them a voice.
 
PoS said:
I never read her diary but what interests me about the Anne Frank story is that they never found out who betrayed the family to the Nazis- its a mystery that will probably never be solved- like Jack The Ripper.
Click to expand...

As a side note, the Dutch War Commission did a relatively recent archival search and rounds of interviews to look for evidence in the case before the last survivors of the era and perpertrators died. They basically downplayed suspiscions on some of the earlier suspects (but did not absolve them):

-Woman with family ties to Germany and a son in the German navy who probably knew in general terms that something strange was going on at the warehouse where her husband worked. Had she wanted to betray them, she probably would not have waited two years to do so.

-Employee at the warehouse known to have stolen merchandise from it, and would have known that a back portion was suddenly sealed off. People who knew him said that while he was a thief and a braggart, he was not the betraying sort. Also, why wait two years?

They also looked hard at a new suspect: A former business acquiantiance of Anne's Father- a known low life, had been briefly arrested after liberation for suspected collaboration. The guy and a pair of brothers were also suspected of running a protection scheme during the war that was directed at jews. Before the family went into hiding, he had shaken down Otto Frank on one occasion for some spending money. The investigators did determine that rumors that he blackmailed Frank after the war were false, but could they did not clear of him of being the betrayer.

In the end, the investigators concluded that it could have been anybody. Not only were there the "usual suspects" and the new one, they or another worker might have told a friend about it. In addition, the area was densely populated and long time residents could well have noticed that the "door to window" ratio had a gap, or it could have been somebody passing through who saw somebody at a window.

The investigators also emphasized that the betrayer need not have been a Nazi or German sympathizer, but could also have been a-political or even a politicaly pro allies but culturally anti semitic individual.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
I totally accept the figure of 6 million Jews killed by the nazis in the holocaust, don't lump me in with holocaust deniers.
Click to expand...

Do you believe they were systematically exterminated by gas chamber, firing squad, and hanging? Or do you believe that they died from the unintentional side effects of war; such as, disease and starvation? Do you admit the existence of extermination camps? Or were these Jews in your view arrested and sent to concentration camps because they were partisans?
 
face said:
Do you believe they were systematically exterminated by gas chamber, firing squad, and hanging? Or do you believe that they died from the unintentional side effects of war; such as, disease and starvation? Do you admit the existence of extermination camps? Or were these Jews in your view arrested and sent to concentration camps because they were partisans?
Click to expand...

Firing squads, gas chambers, hanging, disease, starvation, all the above atrocities were inflicted upon these defenceless people's.
 
Declan said:
Propaganda is what other people want you to hear, and you are a willing participant. Wonder why we don't hear much about the Russian victims. Did they deserve it because they were Russians? How about the gays? How about the Poles? Even the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is all about Jewish victims and scant on the other demographics. That is propaganda.
Click to expand...

I heard much about the Russian victims, and the Poles and the gays as well. You just seem offended over the Jewish aspect of the Anne Frank story. Why is that?
 
During Soviet times, the Communist regime did not distinguish victims. Everyone was lumped together as victims of Nazi murder and mayhem. Since the dissolution of the USSR, things are beginning to change in this regard and the Soviet archives regarding the Holocaust are now available to all researchers. There is a new (2010) Jewish museum in Moscow (it is huge and very high-tech) that has a large section devoted solely to the Holocaust.
 
Declan said:
Propaganda is what other people want you to hear, and you are a willing participant. Wonder why we don't hear much about the Russian victims. Did they deserve it because they were Russians? How about the gays? How about the Poles? Even the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is all about Jewish victims and scant on the other demographics. That is propaganda.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so its the Jews you have a problem with. Thanks for the clarification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom