Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There are discrepancies in the article with regards the name of the family who shared the annexe with the Franks. In 'The Diary of a Young Girl, The Definitive Edition' it is stated that Van Daan was a pseudonym, the true family being Auguste, Hermann and Peter van Pels, with 'Albert Dussel' in this article, really being called Fritz Pffefer. Do we go with Anne's pseudonym, or the reality as published by Otto Frank?

Alspittle 14:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Reality. This is an article about a real person, and real people, so real names should be used. It could be mentioned that in the diary some people were known by pseudonyms (it is mentioned in the article), but any lengthy discussion of this fact should be left to the article about the diary itself, and perhaps the film, which also used the pseudonyms. Rossrs 14:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

have reverted to the real names - probably edited by someone who read the diary, but did not actually read this article in its entirety :-) Rossrs 14:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

well, maybe the van Daan name should be put in parenthesis as not to confuse the reader? The first time I read the page, I didn't get it either Shaferthejail 19:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

it is explained under the "publication of the diary" section. Rossrs 21:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Rossrs, what do you think about having a FAQ section somewhere here? Van Daans, ballpoint pen, German or Dutch?, authenticity of the diary, date of death, betrayal etc etc...?

Yallery Brown 21:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean, Yallery. I can see that these are topics that are questioned again and again. Could you please elaborate a little? Thanks Rossrs 11:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd thought it seemed they were points coming up more than once. We've answered talk questions, for example, about the authenticity of the diary several times, and new editors occasionally change death deaths to speculative ones and the names in the main article to the pseudodonyms they're familiar with. It might not be necessary to have a list of FAQs at the start of the talk page to aid new visitors, but I thought I'd run it by you anyway. Thanks Yallery Brown 11:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Yes, I think it would be a good idea. Rossrs 12:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile to include something in the article on the betrayal? I've noticed recently that people keep naming Lena van Hartog because of what they've seen in Anne Frank:the Movie. Maybe a piece about the investigations after the war and the more recent one a few years ago about Anton Ahlers, prompted by Carol Ann Lee's biography of Otto Frank, would help clarify the situation to readers. What do others think? Yallery Brown 10:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's interesting and would add to the article. I think it should be kept brief however. It's the kind of topic that, once started, could be expanded and expanded. As long as it's succinct - great. Rossrs 12:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get on to it later. Yallery Brown 15:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

With all the logical inconsistencies, revisions, etc in the diary, is there a chance it was a novel - like Miss Frank supposedly claimed in her writing. 159.105.80.141 11:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Which inconsistencies? Can you give us an example of the ones you're referring to? As to it being fiction it would have been preferable if it hadn't happened at all, wouldn't it? Who knows what Anne Frank would be writing had she not died in the Holocaust. To answer your question, Miss Frank didn't supposedly claim anything of the kind in her writing - where did you get that from? She did toy with the idea of writing a book about her time in hiding once the war was over. If you're about to come out and say that her diary was fiction, and therefore possibly the Holocaust was also fiction, can I refer you to the answers we've given to the same allegations on this very page?

Yallery Brown 12:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are at all interested in the Frank diary, I will assume you are familiar with most of the following. In March of 1944 the British wartime propaganda radio broadcasts asked people to write diaries that would be published after the war to show how bad the Nazis were. In May 20 ,1944 I believe Miss Frank started to rewrite her diary ( version A ) and created ( version B ) a much elaborated "diary". Later there were many ( 8 ? ) versions released. Substantial differences exist between German and other languages - not in translation - in content ( content concerning the same event - maybe like magazines, regional publishing ). Of course this leaves out ballpoint pen problems, etc. Miss Frank herself I believe May 20 , 1944 mentions the desire to be a novelist one day. Hiding behind the cupboard ( I remember this from when I was required to read the book in school many years ago - I have no idea which version was handed out in schools at that time but I have the book and the picture looks more like Elizabeth Taylor ( maybe from a movie )) never happened according to survivors, vacuuming while total silence ( some good excuses are available, more humorous than serious ), hiding in a four or five story ( large ) annex in the middle of urban area for 2+ years ( in plain view ), etc. I am surprised that Miss Frank's supporters think she had no ambition to be a novelist - I am sure her desire was not to have a diary published, that's why she beefed up her original writing, to have something good enough to publish in version B. After version A and B only the editor knows what happened. ( Check the May 1944 entries, I am certain she mentions rewtiing for publication ).159.105.80.141 15:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am familiar with all of that but not because of what I've read in Anne Frank's diary (no inverted commas necessary, it IS a diary). I'm familiar with it because it is trotted out by Holocaust deniers every so often - including on this page, who have clearly read the same neo-Nazi literature about the revision of Anne Frank's diary, and who have made no investigation of their own and make no reference to the facts whatsoever. It's true that Anne Frank revised and edited her diary, but so did Anais Nin, and Samuel Pepys, and so did Leonard Woolf when he was preparing his wife Virginia Woolf's diaries for publication. That editorial process is not grounds for rendering the original work of Nin, Pepys or Woolf inauthentic now, wouldn't you agree? We could ask ourselves why people don't claim their work was written by others. It's because they don't stand in the way of the rehabilitation of Nazism.

To answer your other points:

What do you mean by 8 versions released? This is fictional. It was translated from Dutch into English, German, French and other languages. And new translations have been made from Dutch since, but the differences in language and sentence structure can't be avoided when translating any work and approximating one phrase for another. It's simply not true that 'substantial changes exist'. If that were true it would suggest that translaters are not adapting but simply writing something based on the concept - and that doesn't ring true does it?

Readers can make up their own mind about the editorial differences by examining the Critical Edition of the Diary of Anne Frank, which shows the original entry, the edited version, and what was published.

The edition you have doesn't show Elizabeth Taylor on the cover, it shows Millie Perkins who played Anne Frank in the film adaptation. An internet search would have told you that. What has this to do with the authenticity of Anne Frank's diary?

She didn't hide behind a cupboard. How could that be done anyway? Surely one would hide IN a cupboard. The door to the hiding place was concealed with a bookcase, if that's what you mean. Again, the most cursory form of research - clicking elsewhere on this site for example - would have enlightened you.

It's a lie to say that survivors have denied that it happened.

There are no ballpoint pen problems. An annotation of numbers was made to one of Anne Frank's manuscripts by an identified editor during their preparation for publication.

The Annexe isn't in plain view - who told you this? If you'd looked at any of the articles about the Anne Frank House in this site or elsewhere online, or in fact visited it, you'd learn that the annexe is in fact enclosed within a courtyard and cannot be seen from the street.

'Miss Frank's supporters' don't suggest she didn't want to be a novelist. Again, where are you getting this? In my previous reply I've clearly stated that Anne Frank wanted to write a book after the war.

If you wish to make any other revisionist comments, please check that they haven't already been answered on this talk page.

Best wishes, Yallery Brown 17:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. is it a coincidence that all your user contributions Special:Contributions/159.105.80.141 relate to Holocaust denial?

Sorry for the hurt feelings - you should contact the Canadian Education Dept of Prince Edward Island and have them, among others, rephrase their listings - they have it as a novel. Covering just one detail - the courtyard has four sides - the annex is on just one of them - neighbors allround. Since it seems such a big deal - the authenticity of the book/diary - I am sure any interested person ( now with the internet - not when I was exposed to the book as a kid though ) can look up the inconsistencies to their heart's content. Hiding behind one cupboard/bookcase in a multi-story building - that's a good one.159.105.80.141 17:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• No hurt feelings, thanks, I'm just glad I can set you right. I'm not sure that library classifications of the Canadian Eduction Department of Prince Edward Island are my responsibility. They can categorise books however they choose. One would hope that librarians had enough knowledge to notice a glaring error in their systems though. It might be advisable to question the authority of them in future and not accept them as representative of historical fact. Again, to clarify the position of the annexe. Like many of the other buildings in Holland it stands independently IN a courtyard - not forming part of it - the front house it's connected to forms one part of it. As far as the neighbours being able to see it, well they can now, but during the war windows were covered with blackout screens and unless neighbours were able to see through walls I'm not sure how they'd be able to tell who was inside any given building. As far as 'the book/diary' (we can call it both actually. It's a diary and a book. It's just not a novel, which is what we call a work of fiction) is concerned I, like you, am glad that inquiring readers can investigate Holocaust denial claims on their own and see them for what they are.

Yallery Brown 18:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure about the authenticity of the book. I have seen pictures of the house - not just wiki ones - whether in, on, by, near... the annex is far different than one is/has benn lead to believe. The inconsitencies in the book - not to blame a young girl - are too big and many to believe. If what had really happened was what the book said happened - they wouldn't have lasted a week ( unless all the neighbors, etc were involved in hiding them). The first time you turned a vacuumcleaner on the gig would be up. Sorry but maybe version A was/started out as a diary - but what we see is literature.159.105.80.141 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been in the house and I'm familiar with the neighbourhood, and I didn't notice anything that didn't match the descriptions of the house and surrounds, as given in Frank's writings, but I'd be interested to hear what inconsistencies you mean. The annex is not particularly large, though that's relative isn't it? It certainly is not a "four or five story ( large )" annex, is not visible from the front and is completely contained within the facades of the Opekta office and its neighbours. The annex is on 2 levels (3 if you count the attic) and consists of 2 small bedrooms and a bathroom on the lower level, a staircase that leads to another larger room, and then a ladder to the attic. Not particularly big. To get to the annex you would have to go through the office in which the helpers worked, up a long steep staircase to a landing. At the end of the landing is a bookcase and behind the bookcase a door. Going through the door you come to the staircase that connects the two levels of the annex. It's completely consistent with numerous published photographs and diagrams, and surprisingly even the Hollywood movies are fairly accurate so I'm not sure what you mean when say it's different to what we've been led to believe. The windows in the offices face the street and the backgarden - none of them face back towards the annex so people working in the office would have been unable to see the annex. Likewise the warehouse on the ground level has windows front and back. Yes it's in the middle of an urban area and I dare say that it's much noisier and busier now than it was in the early 1940s, but somehow when you are in the house there is very little noise from outside. Of course that could easily be explained by renovations that have taken place, but also the building is brick and stone and pretty well insulated, and houses of that type tend to be fairly quiet. I've lived in a stone terrace house with neighbours either side - I never heard any of them, the walls are just too thick. Would a vacuum cleaner have been heard even by an immediate neighbour? I doubt it. The neighbours who could have seen the annex windows would have been the ones directly opposite, seperated by their own backgarden and that of Opekta. A considerable distance. If blackout curtains were the norm, there wouldn't have been too many people looking out of windows, and even if they had seen people - would they have known that it was supposedly an uninhabited space? If they'd seen a figure in the window, could they not have assumed that it was a house or flat? It's easy to be wise in hindsight but would the sound of an alarm clock or a vacuum cleaner or the sight of a person in a window, have meant anything to anyone else even if they had seen or heard them? The people in hiding were at most risk during working hours when there were people in the offices and warehouses. Frank's writings state that they kept very silent during these hours and for the rest of the time were quite relaxed. They only allowed themselves free movement within the house after one of the helpers had given an "all clear". As I've said, everything I've seen corresponds to Frank's writing.

Naturally Anne Frank's version of events is going to be closely examined, and rightly so, but this only happens because of the importance placed on her writings. Other Jews in hiding and survivors are not put to the same degree. Some Jews survived the Holocaust against incredible odds, but there's no doubt they survived. Is it possible that the danger, while great, was not perpetual? That there were times they may have made noise or done something that might have given themselves away, but didn't. There were other families that went into hiding and survived the war and their stories would probably be equally amazing. There's no denying that Otto Frank survived the war, and if he didn't live in the annex for over 2 years, where did he live? It's also a matter of record when the Frank family "disappeared" and this is supported by witnesses, as well as a dated callup notice for Margot Frank. The date they were arrested is also a matter of historical record as is the location of their arrest, so there is no getting away from the fact that they were in hiding somewhere for more than 2 years. If they weren't in the annex for all this time, where were they? This is the question the debunkers never attempt to answer. No matter where they were, in those times and in those circumstances, surviving for over 2 years is remarkable and the details would probably difficult to believe. I don't really understand why a few points that seem odd in Frank's writings is enough to cause anyone to dismiss it as fiction, especially when there is so much documented evidence and support, not only for the authenticity of Frank's writing, but for its accuracy. Rossrs 14:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm so glad you're no longer in doubt about the authenticity of the book. What's puzzling is that you've take it upon yourself to decide that the house described by Anne Frank is not the same as the Anne Frank House. How have you come to that conclusion? You are aware that the addresses are the same? Please feel free to give us an example of the 'big and many' inconsistencies you allude to. I'm presuming you haven't actually read versions A and B of the diary? If you had you'd already know that the differences reflect what was left out of the original publication, rather than what was put in. As far as the vaccum cleaner mention goes, for one thing, vaccuum cleaners available in the 1930s and 40s weren't as noisy or as effective as those of the 21st century. They were operated manually like carpet sweepers, and as the entry in question states it was used after all the employees of the building had gone home. Why didn't the sound of someone sweeping a carpet give them away? I'm guessing that the building between the annexe and the street insulated some noise and that passersby didn't automatically associate the distant sound of a vaccuum cleaner with Jews in hiding. The fact remains that they were in hiding for two years until they were betrayed. It's horrible more than unbelievable. A Nazi actually corroborated this, you'll be interested to hear. Karl Silberbauer arrested them in their hiding place and when he was interviewed after the war had a clear recollection of the incident. Will you suggest that he was in on a conspiracy to make a fiction seem real?

Yallery Brown 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"the distant sound of a vacuum cleaner" - sounds louder all the time. Browsing the HolocaustHistory site - there seems to be an awful lot of interest on the net about a child's diary/novel - Lipstadt jumps into the fray ( she doesn't do any original rsearch so I guess a cite from her and HH is wiki-okay ) - all you mentioned is repeated. Lipstadt throws in about Faurisson selectively quoting the book/diary - of course after the one-time use ( when everyone was gone from work ) she selectively leaves out that the vacuum later broke down ( must have been used at least once more - it appears the neighbors and passerbys must/may have gotten use to the "distant hum of a vacuum" ).The alarm clock ( Aug 4, 1944 ) must have created absolute pandemonium. If I was trying to hide from the SS, an alarm clock going off in the house would have caused me to faint - then move out to save my life ( what would they do next - put out flags. )

Mr Frank seems to have not read the book very closely - he should have, not a bad story ( citation[just the last sentence of above ] - Faurisson report to the court in one of the many suits filed against debunkers - French court records ).159.105.80.141 12:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• In error you've written 'diary/novel' again. These are contradictory terms, and as you know the correct term is 'diary'. Speaking of contradictions, have you managed to locate the 'big and many' contradictions in Anne Frank's diary that you were convinced existed until we began our correspondance? To answer one of your points - I hope you can find the time to answer any of my points from this or any of my previous replies - again, I repeat in emphasis that the sounds of activity in a city centre building don't suggest Jews in hiding. It's also factually wrong to assume that the Dutch citizens passing were so complicit as to run to the Nazis with a report of any untoward noise. Evidently, this did not happen in the case at hand. The families were only arrested after they were betrayed to the Nazis by someone who knew they were there, so if any sounds were emanating from the back-house, given that no suspicion was aroused it would suggest that there wasn't much to give them away at all. I find your quotation from Aug 4 1944 a little strange, as no such entry exists. Perhaps you meant something else? It is true that there is a lot of interest in Anne Frank's diary. It's a correct observation. Why shouldn't there be? Perhaps if you read it you'll understand that this is a testimony to her skills as a writer, and it may help you understand the impact fascism has on ordinary human beings. What makes you assume that Deborah Lipsadt has not researched this subject? It's not justifiable to accuse Deborah Lipstadt of neglecting her research - she had enough research to win out in a court of law against David Irving after all. Interestingly you've avoided my point about the Nazi testimony to the hiding of Anne Frank. Maybe you'd like to return to it? Your sentence about Mr Frank not having read the book closely ends incoherently in a parenthesis within a parenthesis. I'd be interested in any clarification you can make.

Yallery Brown 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - that date should have been Aug 4, 1943. The logical goofs in the story of a family hiding from the killer Nazis are too numerous to list - you know all of them if you are a scholar of her book. Many that are noticed have to do with sound - fights, dentists and sour teeth , peals of laughrt, alarm clocks, vacuum cleaners, hollering down stove pipes..... add a certain charm and humor to what would otherwise be a deadly read - like most diaries most of the time ( reason for version B and revisions I suppose ). Others like burnig trash - after piling up for months, hearty meals delivered by the grocery store - in the midst of a country on short food rations ( one thing hungry people on short rations notice is when food disappears into an empty building ) coffee in war ( no short rations for the Franks - even in the luxury department ). Of some historical worth to her book is the mention of hearing about gassings ( of course she and her sister were not gassed but instead even though I suspect they were of little use to Germany's war effort and they were Jews they were transported back to Germany while their father was spared while recuperating in the hospital at Auschwitz ) from British radio ( Oct 9 , 1942). Her date matches the latest archives ( memos and telegrams ) found in the British wartime proganda files. When she arrived at Auschwitz she et al must have been surprised - being a rich, young, slight, Jewish, unskilled she seemed to have not been picked ( during the height of the supposed gassings ) but died from illness after an evacuation ( no German would have left young girls behind for Russian troops - odd those Germans ). In short, it appears the British radio didn't match any of the Franks' experiences - Mr Frank never seems to have testified about gas chambers - did he ( I may have missed it if he did ). Some historical tidbits in an otherwise dramatized ( rewritten ) book - that may have started out as a diary ( give you that one ). A good book for kids if it not intended as just the first step in a propaganda campaign - which seems to be its main use.159.105.80.141 13:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• You don't seem to be aware that versions A and B of Anne Frank's diaries actually exist in an examinable written manuscript, in her handwriting (verified by known independent examples of her writing in school documents and a police form used to report a stolen bicycle), the paper and ink of which have been scientifically tested and verified as having been written by her in the stated period, and the full texts of these versions has been published. There's no mystery as to what was left out or put in. They'e in the public domain. Again, I can only assume that you're getting your slanted information from the pamphleteering of people like Robert Faurisson, and not from the work of genuine scholars of the Second World War. In your list of 'goofs' you mention, rather peculiarly, 'dentists and sour teeth'. The most pedestrian of research would have told you that Anne Frank was in hiding with a dentist Fritz Pfeffer, whom, she notes, had brought his dental equipment. This was also noticed by Karl Silberbauer the Nazi officer who arrested the families in Augist 1944, and who remembered it being confiscated. Again, the fact of Silberbauer's existence and his verification of the hiding of Anne Frank at 263 Prinsengracht seems to be something you continue to avoid acknowledging or discussing. Why would that be? Noise, as I've already clarified - as Anne Frank also clarifies in the entries in her diaries in which mentions people speaking above whispers - happened outside of working hours, when the premises below and on either side of her hiding place were clear of workers. As far as Auschwitz is concerned there were no 'supposed gassings', but actual gassings. It's a technical difference. Another correction, September 1944 was not the height of gassings in Auschwitz - that happened a year earlier. Check your facts again, please. Anne Frank was not chosen for the gas chambers because she appeared to be over 15. All others under that age on her transport were gassed. She was then sent to labour with the others. The merest form of investigation would have told you that. And that she didn't die in Auschwitz, which you seem to imply. Your statement that details about Auschwitz are "Some historical tidbits in an otherwise dramatized ( rewritten ) book" is muddy thinking on your part, as Anne Frank didn't write about her experiences of Auschwitz. However, you are correct to suspect that you're uninformed about Otto Frank as well. He did actually testify to the existence of gas chambers after the war. He mentioned in several interviews that he saw Hermann van Pels being marched to the gas chambers, where van Pels was murdered. Again, you ought not to suppose anything in error. Check your facts before you make a supposition based on Neo-Nazi hoaxes. Everything you have presented as being an inconsistency which disproves either Anne Frank's existence, OR that her diary wasn't written by her, OR that she wasn't in hiding at all (you seem not to be sure which one you'll go with as you've changed track several times) can be explained. You see, what you're actually encountering are not inconsistencies in the actual truth of Anne Frank's life and work, but the holes in the Neo-Nazi presentation of her life and her diary. Although your contention that Anne Frank's diary is "the first step in a propaganda campaign" is, frankly, laughable, I'll continue to be happy to answer any other questions you may have, Yallery Brown 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Merwedeplein is not "in an Amsterdam suburb." It is in Amsterdam.

confirmed and changed. Sander123 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A minor suggestion. Change sentence "However, she and her family were trapped when the Nazi occupation extended into the Netherlands" to "However, she and her family were trapped when the Nazis occupied the Netherlands." I think that the first form can suggest that the Nazi rule was in its entirety an occupation. This, of course, is false, since the enthusiastic support of most Germans for the regime is known. I believe that the sentence I propose resolves this ambiguity. The Behnam 10:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely correct, and that whole section is a bit wordy. I have been bold and merged a couple of sentences into Born in Frankfurt, Germany, Anne and her family moved to Amsterdam in 1933, after the Nazis gained power in Germany, and were trapped by the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. I think sentences that start with "however" are gramatically incorrect as "however" is a linking word. I don't mean to be pedantic, but my high school English teacher was very pedantic on that point and it's rubbed off :-) Rossrs 12:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. As long as that vagueness was resolved. Thanks. The Behnam 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I Would like to thank Anne and her father Otto for Writing and Publishing Annelies's Diary. That Diary Ment a lot to Mr. Frank. Mr. Frank passed away a few years back and i wanted to acnolladge him for succeding in fulfilling Annes Dream to become a writer. THANKS Mr.Frank Allendale 8th Grade Wikipedia is not a message board You very nice place 12:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have only a minor point--'Het Achterhuis' is translated as 'The Backhouse'. This is perfectly accurate ... but in American English at least, 'backhouse' means 'outhouse' or 'privy'. 'Achterhuis' is an architectural term for which there appears to be no real equivalent in English. Years ago, I had an edition of Anne Frank's stories which were called 'Tales from the House Behind'; that scans a bit better to my mind than 'Backhouse'. I'm not saying to change the translation of 'Achterhuis', but seeing 'backhouse' made me raise my eyebrows a bit. Eam531 17:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Several years ago we watched a movie about Anne Frank at school, and I don't know what it is called. I don't think it is the one with Natalie Portman. I remember the beginning shows her ice skating (I think, otherwise she is playing or something) and this movie eventually shows her in the concentration camps. I would like to see it again, so if anyone knows what it is called or what year it is from that would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.66.162.12 (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

• It sounds like 'Anne Frank: the whole story' Yallery Brown 12:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.