-Caveat Lector-
an excerpt from:
Denying the Holocaust
Deborah Lipstadt
The Vidal Sasson International Center for the Study of Antisemitism(C)1993
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
The Free Pree
Macmillan, Inc.
New York, NY
ISBN 0-02-919235-8
-----
The Diary of Anne Frank
Anne Frank's diary has become one of the deniers' most popular targets. For
more than thirty years they have tried to prove that it was written after the
war. It would seem to be a dubious allocation of the deniers' energies that
they try to prove that a small book by a young girl full of musings about her
life, relationship with her parents, emerging sexuality, and movie stars was
not really written by her. But they have chosen their target purposefully.
Since its publication shortly after the war, the diary has sold more than
twenty million copies in more than forty countries. For many readers it is
their introduction to the Holocaust. Countless grade school and high school
classes use it as a required text. The diary's popularity and impact,
particularly on the young, make discrediting it as important a goal for the
deniers as their attack on the gas chambers. By instilling doubts in the minds
of young people about this powerful book, they hope also to instill doubts
about the Holocaust itself.
On what do these deniers and neo-Nazis build their case? A brief history of
the publication of the diary, and of some of the subsequent events surrounding
its production as a play and film, demonstrates how the deniers twist the
truth to fit their ideological agenda.
Anne Frank began her diary on June 12, 1942. In the subsequent twentv-six
months she filled a series of albums, loose sheets of paper, and exercise and
account books. In addition she wrote a set of stories called Tales From the
Secret Annex.* [*The Secret Annex was the name Anne gave to the family's
hiding place.] Anne, who frequently referred to her desire to be a writer,
took her diary very seriously. Approximately five months before the family's
arrest, listening to a clandestine radio she heard the Dutch minister of
education request in a broadcast from London that people save "ordinary
documents--a diary, letters from a Dutch forced laborer in Germany, a
collection of sermons given by a parson or a priest." This would help future
generations understand what the nation bad endured during those terrible
years. The next day Anne noted, "Of course they all made a rush at my diary
immediately."[30] Anxious to publish her recollections in book form after the
war, she rewrote the first volumes of the diary on loose copy paper. In it she
changed some of the names of the principal characters, including her Own (Anne
Frank became Anne Robin.[31]
When Otto Frank was liberated from Auschwitz and returned from the war, he
learned that his daughters were dead. He prepared a typed edition of the diary
for relatives and friends, making certain grammatical corrections,
incorporating items from the different versions, and omitting details that
might offend living people or that concerned private family matters, such as
Anne's stormy relationship with her mother. He gave his typed manuscript to a
friend and asked him to edit it.[32] (Other people apparently also made
editorial alterations to it.) The friend's wife prepared a typed version of
the edited manuscript. Frank approached a number of publishers with this
version, which was repeatedly rejected.* [*Even after the diary was published
to wide acclaim in Europe, American publishers were wary. Ten rejected it
before Doubleday published it in 1951. It was an immediate success.] When it
was accepted the publishers suggested that references to sex, menstruation,
and two girls touching each other's breasts be deleted because they lacked the
proper degree of "propriety" for a Dutch audience. When the diary was
published in England, Germany, France, and the United States, additional
changes were made. The deniers cite these different versions and different
copies of the typescript to buttress their claim that it is all a fabrication
and that there was no original diary. They also point to the fact that two
different types of handwriting-printing and cursive writing-were used in the
diary. They claim that the paper and the ink used were not produced until the
1950s and would have been unavailable to a girl hiding in an attic in
Amsterdam in 1942.
But it is the Meyer Levin affair on which the deniers have most often relied
to make their spurious charges. Levin, who had first read the diary while he
was living in France, wrote a laudatory review of it when Doubleday published
it. Levin's review, which appeared in the New York Times Book Review, was
followed by other articles by him on the diary in which he urged that it be
made into a play and film.[33] In 1952 Otto Frank appointed Levin his literary
agent in the United States to explore the possibility of producing a play.
Levin wrote a script that was turned down by a series of producers. Frustrated
by Levin's failures and convinced that this script would not be accepted,
Frank awarded the production rights to Kermit Bloomgarden, who turned, at the
suggestion of American author Lillian Hellman, to two accomplished MGM
screenwriters. Their version of the play was a success and won the 1955
Pulitzer Prize.
Levin, deeply embittered, sued, charging that the playwrights had plagiarized
his material and ideas. In January 1958 a jury ruled that Levin should be
awarded fifty thousand dollars in damages. However, the New York State Supreme
Court set aside the jury's verdict, explaining that since Levin and the MGM
playwrights had both relied on the same original source-Anne's diary-there
were bound to be similarities between the two.[34]
Since it appeared that another lawsuit would be filed, the court refused to
lift the freeze that Levin had placed on the royalties. After two years of an
impasse, Frank and Levin reached an out-of-court settlement. Frank agreed to
pay fifteen thousand dollars to Levin, who dropped all his claims to royalties
and rights to the dramatization of the play. Levin remained obsessed by his
desire to dramatize the diary.* [*In fact, in 1973 lie wrote a book, The
Obsession, about the entire episode.] In 1966 he attempted to stage a
production in Israel, though he did not have the right to do so, and Frank's
lawyers insisted that it be terminated.[35]
It is against this background that the deniers built their assault on the
diary. The first documented attack appeared in Sweden in 1957. A Danish
literary critic claimed that the diary had actually been produced by Levin,
citing as one of his "proofs" that names such as Peter and Anne were not
Jewish names.[36] His charges were repeated in Norway, Austria, and West
Germany. In 1958 a German high school teacher who had been a member of the SA
and a Hitler Youth leader charged that Anne Frank's diary was a forgery that
had earned "millions for the profiteers from Germany's defeat.[37] His
allegations were reiterated by the chairman of a right-wing German political
party. Otto Frank and the diary's publishers sued them for libel, slander,
defamation of the memory of a dead person, and antisemitic utterances. The
case was settled out of court when the defendants declared that they were
convinced the diary was not a forgery and apologized for unverified statements
they had made.[38]
In 1967 American Mercury published an article by Teressa Hendry, entitled "Was
Anne Frank's Diary a Hoax?" in which she suggested that the diary might be the
work of Meyer Levin and that if it was, a massive fraud had been
perpetrated.[39] In a fashion that will by now have become familiar to readers
of this book, Hendry's allegations were repeated by other deniers as
established fact. This is their typical pattern of cross-fertilization as they
create a merry-go-round of allegations. In Did Six Million Really Die? The
Truth at Last, Harwood repeated these charges, unequivocally declaring the
diary to be a hoax.[40] In one short paragraph in his book, Arthur Butz
likewise stated that he had "looked it over" and determined that the diary was
a hoax.[41]
In his 1975 attack on the diary, David Irving relied on the familiar charge
that an American court had "proved" that a New York scriptwriter had written
it "in collaboration with the girl's father." in 1978 Ditlieb Felderer,
publisher of the sexually explicit cartoons of Holocaust survivors, produced a
book devoted to certifying the diary as a hoax. He repeated the Levin charge
but then went on to label Anne a sex fiend and the book "the first child
porno."[42] (Some of his chapter titles are indicative of his approach:
"Sexual Extravaganza" and "Anne's Character-Not Even a Nice Girl.." Felderer's
charges are designed to build on what is often part of the inventory of
antisemitic stereotypes: Jews, unnaturally concerned about sex, are also
producers of pornography designed to corrupt young children.)
In 1975 Heinz Roth, a West German publisher of neo-Nazi brochures, began to
circulate pamphlets calling the diary a forgery actually written by a New York
playwright. He cited Irving's and Harwood's findings as "proof" of his
charges. When asked to desist by Otto Frank, he refused, claiming, in the
familiar defense used by deniers, that he was only interested in "pure
historical truth." At this point Frank took him to court in West Germany. Roth
defended himself by citing statements by Harwood and Butz declaring the diary
to be fraudulent. In addition, Roth's lawyers produced an "expert opinion" by
Robert Faurisson, among whose charges to prove the diary fictitious was that
the annex's inhabitants had made too much noise. Anne wrote of vacuum cleaners
being used, "resounding" laughter, and noise that was "enough to wake the
dead."[43] How, Faurisson asked, could people in hiding, knowing that the
slightest noise would be their undoing, have behaved in this fashion and not
been discovered?[44] But Faurisson quoted the diary selectively, distorting
its contents to build his case. When Anne wrote of the use of the -vacuum
cleaner, she preceded it by noting that the "warehouse men have gone home
now."[45] The scene in which she described resounding laughter among the
inhabitants of the annex took place the preceding evening--a Sunday night-when
the warehouse would have been empty.[46] When she wrote that a sack of beans
broke open and the noise was enough to "wake the dead," Faurisson neglected to
quote the next sentence in the diary: "Thank God there were no strangers in
the house."[47]
In his description of his visit to Otto Frank, Faurisson engaged in the same
tactics he used in relation to his encounter with the official from the
Auschwitz museum. He tried to make it appear as if be had caught Frank in a
monstrous lie: "The interview turned out to be grueling for Anne Frank's
father."" Not surprisingly Frank's description of the interchange differs
markedly, and he challenged the veracity of much of what Faurisson claimed he
said. Faurisson also claimed to have found a witness who was "well informed
and of good faith" but who refused to allow his name to be made public.
Faurisson assured readers that the name and address of this secret witness had
been placed in a "sealed envelope." As proof of this evidence he included a
photograph of the sealed envelope as an appendix to his "investigation."[49]
In 1980 the court, unconvinced by Faurisson's claims, found that Roth had not
proved the diary false.
In 1977 charges were again brought against two men in the West German courts
for distributing pamphlets charging that the diary was a hoax. The
Bundeskriminalamt (The BKA, or Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau) was
asked to prepare a report as to whether the paper and writing material used in
the diary were available between 1941 and- 1944. The BKA report, which ran
just four pages in length, did not deal with the authenticity of the diary
itself. It found that the materials had all been manufactured prior to 1950-51
and consequently could have been used by Anne. It also observed, almost
parenthetically, that emendations had been made in ballpoint pen on loose
pages found with the diary. The ink used to make them had only been on the
market since 1951.[50] (The BKA did not address itself to the sub stance of
the emendations, nor did it publish any data explaining how it had reached
this conclusion. When the editors of the critical edition of the diary asked
for the data they were told by the BKA that they had none.[51]
Given the history of the editing of the diary it is not surprising that these
kinds of corrections were made. This did not prevent Der Spiegel from
publishing a sensationalist article on the diary which began with the
following boldface paragraph: "'The Diary of Anne Frank' was edited at a later
date. Further doubt is therefore cast on the authenticity of that document."
The author of the article did not question whether these corrections had been
substantive or grammatical, whether they had been incorporated into the
printed text, or when they had been made. Nor did he refer to them as
corrections as the BKA had. He referred to the possibility of an imposter at
work and charged that the diary had been subjected to countless
"manipulations."
These sensationalist observations notwithstanding, Der Spiegel dismissed the
charge made by David Irving and other deniers that Levin wrote the diary as an
"oft-repeated legend." It also stressed that those who wished to shed doubt on
the diary were the same types who wished to end "gas chamber fraud."[52]
On Otto Frank's death in 1980, the diary was given to the Netherlands State
Institute for War Documentation. By that time the attacks on it had become so
frequent and vehement-though the charges that were made were all essentially
the same-that the institute felt obliged to subject the diary, as well as the
paper on which it was written, glue that bound it together, and ink to a
myriad of scientific tests in order to determine whether they were authentic.
They also tested postage stamps, postmarks, and censorship stamps on
postcards, letters, and greeting cards sent by Anne and her family during this
period (in addition to the diary the institute examined twenty-two different
documents containing writings by Anne and her family). Forensic science
experts analyzed Anne's handwriting, paying particular attention to the two
different scripts, and produced a 250-page highly technical report of their
findings.
The reports found that the paper, glue, fibers in the binding, and ink were
all in use in the 1940s. The ink contained iron, which was standard for inks
used prior to 1950. (After that date ink with no, or a much lower, iron
content was used.) The conclusions of the forensic experts were unequivocal:
The diaries were written by one person during the period in question. The
emendations were of a limited nature and varied from a single letter to three
words. They did not in any way alter the meaning of the text when compared to
the earlier version.[53] The institute determined that the different
handwriting styles were indicative of normal development in a child and left
no doubt that it was convinced that it had all been written in the same hand
that wrote the letters and cards Anne had sent to classmates in previous
years.
The final result of the institute's investigation was a 712 page critical
edition of the diary containing the original version, Anne's edited copy, and
the published version as well as the experts' findings. While some may argue
that the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation used an elephant to
swat a fly, once again it becomes clear that the deniers' claims have no
relationship to the most basic rules of truth and evidence.
pp. 229-235
--[notes]--
30. March 29, 1944, Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (New York,
1989), p. 578 (hereafter cited as Diary of Anne Frank).
31. Gerrold van der Stroom, "The Diaries, Het Achterhuis and the
Translations," Diary of Anne Frank, pp. 59-61.
32. Ibid., p. 63.
33. New York Times Book Review, June 15, 1952; Congress Weekly, Nov. 13,1950;
National Jewish Post, June 30, 1952; David Barnouw, "The Play," Diary of Anne
Frank, p. 78.
34. New York Law journal, Feb. 27, 1959 cited in Barnouw, "The Play," p. 80.
35. New York Times, Nov. 27, 1966; Meyer Levin, The Obsession (New York,
1973), p. 262.
36. David Barnouw, "Attacks on the Authenticity of the Diary," Diary of Anne
Frank, p. 84.
37. Ibid., p. 84.
38. Ibid., pp. 84-89.
39. Teressa Hendry, "Was Anne Frank's Diary a Hoax?" American Mercury (Summer
1967), reprinted in Myth of the Six Million, pp. 109-111.
40. Harwood, Did Six Million Really Die?, p. 19.
41. Hoax, p. 37.
42. Ditlieb Velderer, Anne Franks Diary--A Hoax? (Taby, Sweden, 1978). When
the book was reprinted by the IHR the question mark was omitted from the
title.
43. Dec. 6, 1943, Diary, pp. 424, 425.
44. Robert Faurisson, Le journal d'Anne Frank est-il authentique? in Serge
Thion, Verite historique or verite politique? (Paris, 1980), Barnouw, "Attacks
on the Authenticity," pp. 94-95.
45. Aug. 5, 1943, Diary of Anne Frank, p. 385.
46. Dec. 6, 1943, Ibid., p. 424.
47. Nov. 9, 1943, Ibid., p. 301.
48. Robert Faurisson, Het Dagboek van Anne Frank--een vervalsing (The diary of
Anne Frank--a forgery) (Antwerp, 1985), p. 18, cited in Barnouw, p. 95.
49. Barnouw, "Attacks on the Authenticity," p. 96.
50. Opinion of Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau, May 28, 1980; Hamburg,
Landgericht, Romer/Geiss dossier, cited in Barnouw, "Attacks on the
Authenticity," pp. 97-98.
51. Barnouw, "Attacks on the Authenticity," p. 99.
52. Der Spiegel, Oct. 6, 1980, cited in ibid., p. 98.
53. H. J. J. Hardy, "Document Examination and Handwriting Identification of
the Text Known as the Diary of Anne Frank: Summary of Findings," Diary of Anne
Frank, p. 164.
-----
In a message dated 12/10/98 10:33:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>As a kid one of the greatest factors that made
>me have sympathy for the "jews" was a movie
>called "The diary of Anne Frank"
>It was all about a poor little jewish girl and her
>family hiding out in ww2.
>The movie displayed the poor little girl hiding
>out in terror and how finally the dirty Germans
>found them and took them to prison camps.
>Poor little Anne was never heard from again.
>
>#1 Begin to look at the records of the Frank
>family and know what their heridity actually is.
>#2 Today on the news (dec 10, 98 - channel 4)
>It was revealed that the "Diary of Anne Frank"
>was never the Diary of Anne Frank, it was a
>hoax created by her "father" to get rich from.
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
