Anne Frank - Date Question

Maybe some of you guys can help me with this one. On April 27, 1944 Anne Frank wrote in her diary about some books she's reading and than..

Since I had some time left, I glanced through a genealogical chart: John the Old, William Louis, Ernest Casimir I, Henry Casimir I, right up to little Margriet Franciska (born in 1943 in Ottawa).

How can she have a book with the geneological chart of the Dutch Royal Family including Princess Margriet Franciska born in 1943?? The Princess was born there, because the Royal Family fled the Netherlands which were under the Nazi Regime.

Anne Frank and her Family were living in that hidden apartment since July 6, 1942. So how is it possible that she has a book like this?

I hope somebody can enlighten me on this one...

Originally posted by HarryCat
How can she have a book with the geneological chart of the Dutch Royal Family including Princess Margriet Franciska born in 1943??

Simple, someone heard the news and wrote it in

Simple, they were hiding in 'het achterhuis' but had help of the family living there and some other people.

They could have brought in these books, just like they brought food and other supplies.

it's certainly not unthinkable that someone who wanted to help a trapped family with a child gives a book. To keep them up to date, or even just or distract the mind a little bit from the horror around

Hm, I don't know how fast this kind of news spread in a country which is under foreign dictatorship, so it would also be validated and printed in books. But that's just me speculating..

Thanks for the answers

and we all know, most probably, that the Nazi's burned more books than they put out and published!

so, maybe
just maybe

Anne Frank lived outside of time?
maybe her mail was delivered months and years ahead of time?
it arrived before it was sent?



how does the mail come early, anyway?

reply to post by HarryCat

So how is it possible that she has a book like this?

It's possible she didn't. Do a seach for diary anne frank fiction and you'll get 1.4 million results.

Some casual reading might lead to the conclusion that the published version is historical fiction. For example, some researchers claim that when forensic examiners were given access to the orginal diary, they discovered that it had been "embellished" by entries and edits made by several writing styles that did not match the majority of the text, some of which were made using ballpoint pens, which did not come into common use until many years after Anne Frank's death.

It's also worth noting that allegedly there was a court case regarding the book that was taken before the New York Supreme Court. Unfortuantely...different sources make different claims about what transpired. Some source claim that the case awarded $50,000 in damages to jewish author Meyer Levin for his uncredited contributions to the novel. But other sources claim that the case concerned a film adaptation that he wanted to produce. It's unclear where the truth lies, and I'm having difficulty locating the official court documents, but I do find this reference that could probably be used to help you retreive them if you feel so inclined:

Content from external source:
“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 care 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.”

[edit on 5-12-2009 by LordBucket]

Originally posted by LordBucket
Some casual reading might lead to the conclusion that the published version is historical fiction. For example, some researchers claim that when forensic examiners were given access to the orginal diary, they discovered that it had been "embellished" by entries and edits made by several writing styles that did not match the majority of the text, some of which were made using ballpoint pens, which did not come into common use until many years after Anne Frank's death.

Check your sources before quoting this racist BS spread by convicted neo-Nazi David Irving.

Sometime in the late 50s Anne Frank's father numbered the pages of the diary and put in a couple pages on a separate sheet - with a ballpoint pen.

Beginning and end of story.

A lot of hate-filled sickos on this site.





[edit on 5-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by HarryCat

 

So how is it possible that she has a book like this?

It's possible she didn't. Do a seach for diary anne frank fiction and you'll get 1.4 million results.

Some casual reading might lead to the conclusion that the published version is historical fiction. For example, some researchers claim that when forensic examiners were given access to the original diary, they discovered that it had been "embellished" by entries and edits made by several writing styles that did not match the majority of the text, some of which were made using ballpoint pens, which did not come into common use until many years after Anne Frank's death.

blah blah blah

the Diary of Anne Frank is not fiction nor was it embellished or edited in later editions...

there were several translations and a handful of outside additions made to the text (all of which were outright and clearly declared as to not imply or mislead the reader) in the years since Anne kept her journal.

have you ever read The Diary of Anne Frank?
that would suffice, i think, as proof that it is the non-fictional and genuine first hand account of a young girl whose dreams and hopes clashed with the plans of a world gone to war.

none but an innocent and sincere young heart could have expressed such a will to live and love against such overwhelming likelihood for tragedy and heartbreak....she never hated on the Nazi's or dwelt on the poisonous thoughts of retaliation or revenge...she just kept trusting GOD and loving man until the end of her short life

now, tell me, WHO in the world, after the war or even in our present times, could be able to portray such feelings if they had not, themselves, experienced them first hand in history?

no one!
that is why her account has proven to be so treasured and widely read, consistently, in all the time that has passed from then until now!

it is unique unto itself and those forensic examiners that you quote don't seem to be able to grasp this

after all, forensics is described, at Wikipedia, as:

Forensic science (often shortened to forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest to a legal system. This may be in relation to a crime or a civil action. Besides its relevance to a legal system, more generally forensics encompasses the accepted scholarly or scientific methodology and norms under which the facts regarding an event, or an artifact, or some other physical item (such as a corpse) are ascertained as being the case. In that regard the concept is related to the notion of authentication, where by an interest outside of a legal form exists in determining whether an object is what it purports to be, or is alleged as being.

what was the purpose for a forensic investigation, anyway, given the facts that it was Anne's father, Otto, who first brought her writings forth to share with the public, and that subsequent provenance of the diary has not been compromised, concealed, or forgotten?

there wasn't any question about any of it until they decided they needed to question something that never lacked an answer!

it's a lot like the saying of if it ain't broken, don't fix it!

if there is no question, don't question it!
save the asking for the stuff we still don't know!

I don't know what the use of ball pens etc, have to do with being racist, but I find it very interesting. Also her articulation is not the one of a 13 year old, but let's give her that.

I would prefer a good discussion over "you racist" confrotations.

Originally posted by HarryCat
I don't know what the use of ball pens etc, have to do with being racist, but I find it very interesting. Also her articulation is not the one of a 13 year old, but let's give her that.

I would prefer a good discussion over "you racist" confrotations.

Neo-Nazis have been trying to discredit the Holocaust for years. One of their claims is the diary of Anne Frank is a fake. They try to claim the minor additions like page numbering, made by her father Otto Frank in ball point pen in the late 50s, are evidence of forgery.

This is on the Internet, as seen here. Some gullible people buy into it, as seen here.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Neo-Nazis have been trying to discredit the Holocaust for years. One of their claims is the diary of Anne Frank is a fake. They try to claim the minor additions like page numbering, made by her father Otto Frank in ball point pen in the late 50s, are evidence of forgery.

This is on the Internet, as seen here. Some gullible people buy into it, as seen here.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by mmiichael]

There is always Propaganda on every side. Having said that, I wasn't trying to have that kind of discussion here. I was just talking about a passage in her book and something that seems odd to me. This has nothing to do with discrediting the Holocaust whatsoever.

Originally posted by HarryCat

There is always Propaganda on every side. Having said that, I wasn't trying to have that kind of discussion here. I was just talking about a passage in her book and something that seems odd to me. This has nothing to do with discrediting the Holocaust whatsoever.

Just pointing out a piece of disinformation.

Sorry if it was construed as being directed at you.


Mike

I've been debating whether or not to even bother responding again to this thread. The more time I spend on ATS the more convinced I become that some people are simply not worth responding to. However, at times like this I remember that there are always lurkers not involved with any discussion.

So with that in mind...

Just pointing out a piece of disinformation.

Ok. Exactly which piece of "disinformation were you trying to point out? Because all I got out of the various respones to my post was basically "GRA!!!!! ANGRY!!! MUST DEFEND SOMETHING I'M EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO!!!!"

Let's take a look. But before we do that, let me point out that I my attachment to this topic is virtually nil. I have no agenda regarding the book, nor am I on any crusade here. I simply object to the mindless, emotional bandwagon perspectivs that pass for thought around here.

Let's start with mmiichael:

Check your sources before quoting this racist
BS spread by convicted neo-Nazi David Irving.

First off, I cited my sources. I gave multiple links and quotes from external sources so people could see exactly where I was getting the information. What are you bringing to the table to counter it? All I see you saying here is "I don't like the guy you quoted, therefore the information must be wrong."

That's a lousy way of thinking.

Sometime in the late 50s Anne Frank's father numbered the pages of the diary and put in a couple pages on a separate sheet - with a ballpoint pen.

That's a blind assertion. You have cited no sources. You have given no reason to believe what you're saying. You're simply stating that something "is true" for no apparent reason.

Why do you believe this? Or do you believe it solely because it's convenient for you to believe it? Solely because it helps to justify some sort of emotional baggage you aparrently have related to this subject?

A lot of hate-filled sickos on this site.

I assume this was aimed at me? Why, exactly are you suggesting I'm a "hate-filled sicko" simply for quoting some external sources that you happen to disgree with?

Read my post.

Look at the way I phrase things:

"It's possible she didn't. "

"Some casual reading might lead to the conclusion that"

"allegedly there was a court case regarding the book "

"Unfortuantely...different sources make different claims about what transpired."

I made it totally clear that there was uncertainty, and I even made a point to cite both sides of the argument. Read my post. There's no "hate-filled" agenda here. I provided sources to both sides, and stated clearly that "It's unclear where the truth lies," gave some relevant information, and leave room to allow people to come to their own conclusions.

How am I a "hate-filled sicko?"

Or are you so mentally bankrupt that all you can do is spew anger whenever somebody doesn't magically assume that what you believe is truth direct from God?

You are the one hurling insults. How am I the "hate-filled" sicko here?

reply to post by queenannie38


Next let's move on to queenannie38:

blah blah blah

Oh, great way to start a discussion. The implication of "blah blah blah" here is that you're not even listening to what's being said. You're not even going to listen, but you're going to insult me and expect others to take you seriously. Ok, then.

the Diary of Anne Frank is not fiction nor was it embellished or edited in later editions.

Once again, argument by blind assertion. WHY DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE SO MUCH FAITH in something just because it's written in a book? Why do you have so much faith in things simply because it's emotionally convenient for you to believe them?

You wouldn't believe something I said simply because I mindlessly repeated that it was true. Why do you expect anyone else to believe you when you do the same?

there were several translations and a handful of outside additions made to the text (all of which were outright and clearly declared as to not imply or mislead the reader) in the years since Anne kept her journal.

Ok, great. Cite me some sources. Why am I the only one in this thread providing any external evidence to back up anything? I've cited sources both in favor of, as well as opposed to, the idea that the published version is verbatim as she wrote it. I notice that the people who are not citing sources are the same people making blind assertions and getting angry at people for "daring" to not blindly accept a written work as absolute truth.

To the lurkers I ask: who do you think has an agenda?

have you ever read The Diary of Anne Frank?

Nope. It was assigned to some people in highschool, and I wasn't one of those people. never had any particular interest in the topic, and never felt the need to go out of my way to read it?

Why?

Are you dismissing quotes and sources cited by me making reference to completely third parties based solely on the fact that I've never read this book?

What kind of thinking is that?

Or is there some sort of "magical emotional mystery" here that someone who hasn't read the book can't be expected to bond with? Are you so dependant on emotion to make your decisions for you that you can't even take seriously anyone who doesn't have that same common emotional ground?

have you ever read The Diary of Anne Frank?
that would suffice, i think, as proof that it is the non-fictional and genuine first hand account of a young girl whose dreams and hopes clashed with the plans of a world gone to war.

...wait, WHAT!?!?!

You're serious? You actually said this? Do you even understand what you're saying? You seem to be stating that the fact of the book itself is proof of the validity of what the book says.

I'm sorry, but this is the kind of brainlessness that makes me want to retreat from society and stop talking to you people. Do you understand the danger that this kind of thinking leads to? Let's play the hitler card. What if sombody read mein kamph and used the same kind of thinking that you're using? "Oh, well, it was written, and that's enough proof for me to believe what's written."

That kind of thinking is fantastically dangerous.

Since this whole post is directed at the lurking audience...all I can say here is that this is the kind of thinking that causes wars, death, human misery and pointless internet flame wars. People who think this way are the people you should avoid at all costs because they're dangerous to your health.

none but an innocent and sincere young heart could have expressed such a will to live and love against such overwhelming likelihood for tragedy and heartbreak

Look...this discussion obviously isn't even about Anne Frank. It's about two philosophically different ways of viewing the universe. It's intellect vs emotion. I don't want to take sides in that debate because there's no way it can be won. To be a complete human being we need both. Choosing intellect to the exclusion of the heart leads to lifeless, empty socities and hopelessness. It leads to factory farms for profit and cold manipulation of others for material profit. It's not a philosphy I can stand behind. But choosing the tides of emotion to the exclusion of the head leads to crusades, with hunts and hideously broken marriages.

To be a complete, healthy human being you must listen to both the heart as well as the head. I'm not the first person to say this, and I won't be the last.

But I might be the lat to say it to some of you, because some of us are tired of saying it. Yes, I feel for society, yes I feel for those who suffer because they can listen to either only their heart or only their head. But sooner or later my head must step and and help my heart to accept that there's nothing I can do for people who wilfully choose to deny half their being as a way of life.

There's more, and some of the rest of queenannie38's post basically resorts to "how dare they question it" as a method of dispute, but I'm going to end this post here. These past few paragraphs are far more important than insignificant arguments over the origins of some book.

If something touches your heart, that is far more important than where it came from. Some of you appear to need to believe that Anne Frank's diary was published verbatim as she wrote it. So be it. As someone who has personally been involved in editing four works of historical fiction, I don't share your need.

I will simply try to accept it.

Originally posted by HarryCat
Maybe some of you guys can help me with this one. On April 27, 1944 Anne Frank wrote in her diary about some books she's reading and than..

(....)

Anne Frank and her Family were living in that hidden apartment since July 6, 1942. So how is it possible that she has a book like this?

I hope somebody can enlighten me on this one...

Harry Kat, i think i've found a possible explanation for what's puzzling you about those dates.

my first reply was facetious but i was puzzled, too, and i kept thinking about what i could remember about the Frank family's situation. McFlemish's reply, earlier in the thread, sparked my brain, and this is the bulb that lit up:

-------------------------------

Otto Frank had four employees that he trusted with the family's dire circumstances and their need for supplies and, no doubt, some sort of contact with the outside world while they were in hiding.

from Wiki's page on Otto Frank:

Their concealment was aided by Otto Frank's colleagues Johannes Kleiman, whom he had known since 1923, Miep Gies, Victor Kugler, and Bep Voskuijl.

Additionally, from the Anne Frank Wiki page:

The Franks were liberal Jews and lived in an assimilated community of Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, where the children grew up with Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish friends. The Frank family did not observe all of the customs and traditions of Judaism. Edith Frank was the more devout parent, while Otto Frank, a decorated German officer from World War I, was interested in scholarly pursuits and had an extensive library; both parents encouraged the children to read.

also, remember that the entrance to the hidden rear annex was concealed by, and accessed through, a movable book case. here is a page with a photo of the bookcase and the following excerpt:

Now our Secret Annex has truly become secret… Mr. Kugler thought it would be better to have a bookcase built in front of the entrance to our hiding place. It swings out on its hinges and opens like a door.

we know, too, about the need of everyone in the annex to be as silent and still as possible during the daytime, in order to avoid being heard by the employees at work in the front building. reading and studying was one way to alleviate the boredom, quietly.

the family was provided with as much reading material as possible, along with the more basic necessities delivered by the four employees trusted by Mr. Frank. in fact, Anne writes, about the helpers:

They come upstairs every day and talk to the men about business and politics, to the women about food and wartime difficulties and to the children about books and newspapers. They put on their most cheerful expressions, bring flowers and gifts for birthdays and holidays and are always ready to do what they can.

(from annefrank.org)

--------------

a new book with the genealogical chart of the Dutch Royal Family would have been of great interest to the Franks - chosen by the helpers in the hope that it would serve to feed faith in the idea that eventually, their lives and nation would be their own again.

mystery solved, Harry Kat??

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by HarryCat
Maybe some of you guys can help me with this one. On April 27, 1944 Anne Frank wrote in her diary about some books she's reading and than..

(....)

Anne Frank and her Family were living in that hidden apartment since July 6, 1942. So how is it possible that she has a book like this?

I hope somebody can enlighten me on this one...

Harry Kat, i think i've found a possible explanation for what's puzzling you about those dates.

my first reply was facetious but i was puzzled, too, and i kept thinking about what i could remember about the Frank family's situation. McFlemish's reply, earlier in the thread, sparked my brain, and this is the bulb that lit up:

-------------------------------

Otto Frank had four employees that he trusted with the family's dire circumstances and their need for supplies and, no doubt, some sort of contact with the outside world while they were in hiding.

from Wiki's page on Otto Frank:

Their concealment was aided by Otto Frank's colleagues Johannes Kleiman, whom he had known since 1923, Miep Gies, Victor Kugler, and Bep Voskuijl.

Additionally, from the Anne Frank Wiki page:

The Franks were liberal Jews and lived in an assimilated community of Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, where the children grew up with Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish friends. The Frank family did not observe all of the customs and traditions of Judaism. Edith Frank was the more devout parent, while Otto Frank, a decorated German officer from World War I, was interested in scholarly pursuits and had an extensive library; both parents encouraged the children to read.

also, remember that the entrance to the hidden rear annex was concealed by, and accessed through, a movable book case. here is a page with a photo of the bookcase and the following excerpt:

Now our Secret Annex has truly become secret… Mr. Kugler thought it would be better to have a bookcase built in front of the entrance to our hiding place. It swings out on its hinges and opens like a door.

we know, too, about the need of everyone in the annex to be as silent and still as possible during the daytime, in order to avoid being heard by the employees at work in the front building. reading and studying was one way to alleviate the boredom, quietly.

the family was provided with as much reading material as possible, along with the more basic necessities delivered by the four employees trusted by Mr. Frank. in fact, Anne writes, about the helpers:

They come upstairs every day and talk to the men about business and politics, to the women about food and wartime difficulties and to the children about books and newspapers. They put on their most cheerful expressions, bring flowers and gifts for birthdays and holidays and are always ready to do what they can.

(from annefrank.org)

--------------

a new book with the genealogical chart of the Dutch Royal Family would have been of great interest to the Franks - chosen by the helpers in the hope that it would serve to feed faith in the idea that eventually, their lives and nation would be their own again.

mystery solved, Harry Kat??

thx for the help!! Appreciate it

Originally posted by LordBucket
Next let's move on to queenannie38:

blah blah blah

Oh, great way to start a discussion. The implication of "blah blah blah" here is that you're not even listening to what's being said. You're not even going to listen, but you're going to insult me and expect others to take you seriously.

not at all. i read and consider each and every post i choose to reply to, here at ATS. as much as possible, i try to read 100% of every thread before replying. sometimes the threads are way too long to do that, and unless i really feel compelled to add my thoughts, i usually refrain from replying.

and to be quite honest, there's often as much "blah blah blah" in any given thread as there is pertinent and accurate information and valid debate.

if i insulted you, then i apologize for being so blunt. i wasn't aiming at you, but rather at your posted reply. i admit that i contributed to the "blah blah blah" in this thread, as well. but there is a difference, as i see it. more on that later.

Once again, argument by blind assertion. WHY DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE SO MUCH FAITH in something just because it's written in a book? Why do you have so much faith in things simply because it's emotionally convenient for you to believe them?

emotionally convenient?
are your discussions and replies here at ATS driven by your emotions?
if the answer is "no," then what leads you to believe such about other members?

You wouldn't believe something I said simply because I mindlessly repeated that it was true.

EXACTLY. hence my reply to your post that you deemed an 'insult,' based on a 'blind assertion.'

Why do you expect anyone else to believe you when you do the same?

i DON'T expect you to believe anything i say, just because i say it. what i DO expect is for you to investigate that which you don't know for sure or find hard to believe. which means that you have to look at what's behind the OTHER side of the debate, rather than your own. Finding flaw in the opposing argument means nothing if it isn't supported empirically.

there were several translations and a handful of outside additions made to the text (all of which were outright and clearly declared as to not imply or mislead the reader) in the years since Anne kept her journal.

Ok, great. Cite me some sources.

From Wiki:

The first transcription of Anne's diary was made by Otto Frank for his relatives in Switzerland. The second, a composition of Anne Frank's rewritten draft, excerpts from her essays, and scenes from her original diaries, became the first draft submitted for publication, with an epilogue written by a family friend explaining the fate of its author.

In 1989 The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition presented the Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday translation alongside Anne Frank's two other draft versions, and incorporated the findings of the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation into allegations of the Diary's authenticity.

The Diary of Anne Frank, The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition, and The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition at Google books.

Why am I the only one in this thread providing any external evidence to back up anything?

uh....because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?

I've cited sources both in favor of, as well as opposed to, the idea that the published version is verbatim as she wrote it.

i'm sorry, but i didn't find the link(s) 'in favor of,' in your posts. would you mind re-posting those links?

The first edition of the diary had certain parts ommitted, by Otto Frank, for various reasons, such as personal family details he preferred to keep quiet as well as Anne's thoughts and feelings related to puberty and growing into a woman. This can be found on the wiki pages i cited, above. The ommitted portions were eventually restored and published, in full.

As far as the diaries not being 'verbatim' what Anne, herself, wrote, there is absolutely no evidence to support that idea. Her writings were preserved by a family friend, untouched, until after the war, when they were given back to Otto Frank. He, himself, typed out the manuscript from his daughter's handwritten originals, for publication. He is quoted as being amazed at what his daughter wrote: that she was so deep in her thoughts and so talented with her writing abilities. Again, from Wiki:

When Otto Frank eventually began to read his daughter's diary, he was astonished. He said to Miep Gies, "I never knew my little Anne was so deep". He also remarked that the clarity with which Anne had described many everyday situations brought those since-forgotten moments back to him vividly.

I notice that the people who are not citing sources are the same people making blind assertions and getting angry at people for "daring" to not blindly accept a written work as absolute truth.

who's angry? are you?
i never was, nor am i angry now.
i don't like the ranting, though, so i'm answering your reply in the appropriate fashion

To the lurkers I ask: who do you think has an agenda?

agenda?
i didn't know it was required!
i left mine at home.

have you ever read The Diary of Anne Frank?

Nope. It was assigned to some people in highschool, and I wasn't one of those people. never had any particular interest in the topic, and never felt the need to go out of my way to read it?

Why?

do you not understand why i asked that?
or what is revealed by your answer and comments?

Are you dismissing quotes and sources cited by me making reference to completely third parties based solely on the fact that I've never read this book?

no, i'm dismissing your quotes and sources due to lack of empirical evidence and scholarly support. i'm dismissing the idea that The Diary of Anne Frank was fictionalized or altered by other writers and then promoted as 'non-fiction' based on the documented and verified provenance of the original manuscript and other important related details.

if you want to see, for yourself, if the original manuscript, handwritten in Dutch, matches the published English translations, then just click here.

Or is there some sort of "magical emotional mystery" here that someone who hasn't read the book can't be expected to bond with? Are you so dependant on emotion to make your decisions for you that you can't even take seriously anyone who doesn't have that same common emotional ground?

again, emotions have nothing to do with it. i find that the best investigation starts at the SOURCE. which, in this case, is the actual book in question.

why read third-party opinions and criticisms of a book, if you have no interest in reading the book for yourself? why quote things that other people think about something that you otherwise know nothing about?

That kind of thinking is fantastically dangerous.

the LACK of thinking for one's self is the only true danger, my friend. at least we must try.

Since this whole post is directed at the lurking audience...all I can say here is that this is the kind of thinking that causes wars, death, human misery and pointless internet flame wars. People who think this way are the people you should avoid at all costs because they're dangerous to your health.

i thought this post was directed at one of my earlier posts?
pointless internet flame wars are caused by people who choose to REACT rather than RESPOND, especially with third-hand opinions.

i don't mind discussing differences of opinions, but please, let's discuss our own opinions rather than those of other people neither one of us even knows!

Look...this discussion obviously isn't even about Anne Frank.

sure it is
or at least, it should be.

There's more, and some of the rest of queenannie38's post basically resorts to "how dare they question it" as a method of dispute, but I'm going to end this post here. These past few paragraphs are far more important than insignificant arguments over the origins of some book.

oh, good grief!
i NEVER used the word 'dare' in any of its conjugations.
what i meant is that a second forensic examination was unnecessary and seemed only to be for the purpose of proving someone's personal theory and was otherwise invalidated by what has already been established and verified without contentions!

and if you have no interest in the book, why any interest in this thread??!?