Two examples of handwriting attributed to Anne Frank. The texts are dated four months apart.

INTRODUCTION by Dr. E.R. Fields

The Diary of Anne Frank is one of the most "heart rending" books ever written. The movie based, on this book, gained international sympathy for Jews from millions of viewers. It helps justify the \$90 billion in reparations extracted from Germany and is an excuse for the excessive foreign aid from the U.S. to Israel.

However, serious questions were raised concerning the authenticity of the Diary itself. Evidence now available through the research of Prof. Robert Faurisson and others demonstrates that almost all of the "diary" was written by Anne Frank's father, Otto Frank.

Anne Frank died of typhus in March, 1945 while under the care of German nurses. If indeed there was an actual German plan calling for the extermination of Jews - why were they not gassed instead of being given medical care so desperately needed by the bombed out German civilian population?

( Continued inside back cover )

Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine?

publish.

3. In order to study the question posed and to find an answer to

it, I have carried out the following investigations:

father. (Paragraphs 18-47.)

mity? (Paragraphs 64-71.)

Chapter One

Anne Frank 3

raspberries, 20 bottles of tomatoes, 10 pounds of rolled oats, and 8 pounds of rice. There enter, at other moments, some sacks of vegetables each weighing 25 kilos, or again a sack of 19 pounds of green peas (8 July 1944). The deliveries are made by a "nice green grocer," and always "during the lunch hour" (11 April 1944). This is hard to believe. In a city described elsewhere as starving, how could a green grocer leave his store, in broad daylight, with such loads to go to deliver them to a house located in a busy neighborhood? How could this green grocer, in his own neighborhood (he was "at the corner"), avoid meeting his normal customers for whom, in that time of scarcity, he ought normally to be a person to be sought out and begged for favors? There are many other mysteries in regard to other merchandise and the manner in which it reaches the hiding place. For holidays, and for the birthdays of the persons in hiding, the gifts are plentiful: carnations, peonies, narcissuses, hyacinths, flower pots, cakes, books, sweets, cigarette lighters, jewels, shaving necessities, roulette games, etc. I would draw attention to a real feat achieved by Elli. She finds the means of offering some grapes on 23 July 1943. I repeat: some grapes, in Amsterdam, on 23 July. They even tell us the price: 5 florins per kilo.

• 7. The invention of the "swinging cupboard" is an absurdity. In fact, the part of the house which is supposed to have protected the persons in hiding existed well before their arrival. Therefore, to install a cupboard is to point out, if not someone's presence, at least a change in that part of the property. That transformation of the premises—accompanied by the noise of the carpentry work—could not have escaped the notice of the "enemies" and, in particular, of the cleaning woman. And this pretended "subterfuge," intended to mislead the police in case of a search, is indeed likely, to the contrary, to put them on their guard. ("... a lot of houses are being searched for hidden bicycles," says Anne on 21 August 1942, and it is for that reason that the entrance door of the hiding place had been thus hidden.) The police, not finding any entrance door to the building which serves as a hiding place would have been surprised by this oddity and would have quickly discovered that someone had wanted to fool them, since they would find themselves before a residential building without an entrance!
• 9. On 27 February 1943, they tell us that the new owner has fortunately not insisted on visiting the annex. Koophuis told him that he did not have the key with him, and that the new owner, although accompanied by an architect, did not examine his new acquisition either on that day or on any other day.
• 10. When one has a whole year to choose a hiding place (see 5 July 1942), does one choose his office? Does one bring his family there? And a colleague? And the colleague's family? Do you choose a place full of "enemies" where the police and the Germans would come automatically to search for you if they do not find you at your home? Those Germans, it is true, are not very inquisitive. On 5 July 1942 (a Sunday) father Frank (unless it is Margot?!) received a "summons" from the SS (see the letter of 8 July 1942). That "summons" would not have any follow-up. Margot, sought by the SS, makes her way to the hiding place by bicycle, and on 6 July, when, according to the first of two letters dated 20 June, the Jews had had their bicycles confiscated for some time.
• 11. In order to dispute the authenticity of the Diary, one could call upon arguments of a psychological, literary or historical nature. I will refrain from that here. I will simply remark that the physical absurdities are so serious and numerous that they must have an effect on the psychological, literary and historical levels.
• 13. Study of the premises in Amsterdam: on the one hand, the physical impossibilities and, on the other hand, the explanations made up by Anne Frank's father severly compromise him.
• 14. Whoever has just read the Diary can normally only be shocked on seeing the "Anne Frank House" for the first time. He discovers a "glass house" which is visible and observable from all sides and accessible on its four sides. He discovers also that the plan of the house—as it is reproduced in the book through the good offices of Otto Frank—constitutes a distortion of reality. Otto Frank had taken care not to draw the ground floor and had taken care not to tell us that the small courtyard separating the front house from the annex only 12 feet 2 inches (3.7 meters) wide. He had especially taken care not to point out to us that this same small courtyard is common to the "Anne Frank House" (263 Prinsengracht) and to the house located to the right when you look at the facade (265 Prinsengracht). Thanks to a whole series of windows and window-doors, the people of 263 and those of 265 lived and moved about under the eyes and under the noses (cooking odors!) of their respective neighbors. The two houses are really only one. Besides, the museum today connects the two houses. Furthermore, the annex had its own entrance thanks to a door leading, from the rear, to a garden. This garden is common to 263 Prinsengracht and to the people opposite, living at 190 Keizersgracht. (When one is in the museum one very distinctly sees those people at 190 and many other addresses on Keizersgracht.) From this side (the garden side) and from the other side (the canal side) I counted two hundred windows of old houses from which people had a view of the "Anne Frank House."

Anne Frank

Even the residents of 261 Prinsengracht could have access to 263 by the roofs. It is foolish to let yourself believe in the least possibility of a really secret life in those premises. I say that while taking into account, of course, the changes made to the premises since the war. While pointing out the view on the garden, I asked ten successive visitors how Anne Frank could have lived there hidden with her family for twenty-five months. After a moment of surprise (for the visitors to the museum generally live in a sort of state of hypnosis), each of the ten successive visitors realized, in a few seconds, that it was totally impossible. The reactions were varied; with some, dismay; with others, an outburst of laughter ("My God!"). One visitor, no doubt offended, said to me: "Don't you think that it is better to leave the people to their dreams?" No one supported the thesis of the Diary in spite of some rather pitiful explanations furnished by the prospectus or by the inscriptions in the museum.

again to emit the smoke. And what smoke! Day and night! In winter as in summer, in sweltering heat or not. In the view of everyone (and, in particular, of "enemies" like Lewin who had formerly had his chemical laboratory there), the "small factory" would have started up again! But why did Mr. Frank strain his wits to find that explanation, since, in other respects, the annex is already described as a sort of ghost-house?

• 16. In conclusion on this point, I would say that, if I am not mistaken in denying any value in these "explanations," we have the right to assert: (1) Some facts that are very important to Mr. Otto Frank remain without explanation; (2) Mr. Otto Frank is capable of making up stories, even stupid and mediocre stories, exactly like the ones I have pointed out in my critical reading of the Diary. I ask that my reader remember this conclusion. He will see below what answer Mr. Frank personally made to me, in the presence of his wife.
• 17. For the photographic documentation concerning the "Anne Frank House," see Appendix No. 1.
• 19. I had made it known to Mr. Otto Frank that with my students I was preparing a study of the Diary. I had made it clear that my specialty was the criticism of texts and documents and that I needed an extended interview. Mr. Frank granted me that interview with eagerness, and it was thus that I was received at his residence in Birsfelden, a suburb of Basel, first on 24 March 1977, from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm, then from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm and, finally, the next day, from 9:30 am to 12:30 pm, Actually, on the next day the meeting place had been arranged to be in a bank in Basel. Mr. Frank was intent upon taking out of a safe deposit box, in my presence, what he called the manuscripts of his daughter. Our interview was therefore carried out on that day in part at the bank, in part on the road back toward Birsfelden and, in part, once more, at Mr. Frank's residence. All the interviews that took place at his residence were in the presence of his wife (his second wife, since the first died after being deported, from typhus it seems, as did Margot and Anne). After the first minute of our interview, I declared point blank to Mr. and Mrs Frank that I had some doubts about the authenticity of the Diary. Mr. Frank did

9

not show any surprise. He declared himself to be ready to furnish me all of the information I would want. I was struck, during those two days, by the extreme amiability of Mr. Frank. In spite of his age—88 years—he never used the excuse of his weariness in order to shorten our interview. In the Diary, he is described as a man full of charm (see 2 March 1944). He inspires confidence. He knows how to anticipate your unexpressed desires. He adapts himself remarkably to situations. He willingly adopts an argument based on emotion. He speaks very much of tolerance and of understanding. I only once saw him lose his temper and show himself to be uncompromising and violent; that was in regard to the Zionist cause, which must seem sacred to him. It was in that manner that he declared to me that he no longer even sets foot on the soil of France since, in his opinion, France is no longer interested in anything except Arab oil and doesn't care about Israel. On only three points did Mr. Frank fail in his promise to answer my questions. It is interesting to know that those three points were the following: (1) the address of Elli, in the Netherlands; (2) the means of rediscovering the trail of the store employee called V.M. in the book (I know that he is probably named Van Maaren); (3) the means of rediscovering the Austrian Karl Silberbauer who had arrested the persons in hiding on 4 August 1944.

there were . . . some omissions! Mr. Frank, noticing my surprise, gave me the following example (a no doubt harmless example, but are there not more serious ones that he hid from me?): Anne very much liked her uncles but in her Diary she had neglected to mention them among the persons that she cherished; therefore, Mr. Frank repaired that "omission" by mentioning those uncles in the "tapuscript." Mr. Frank said that he had changed some dates! He had likewise changed the names of the characters. It was Anne herself, it seems, who had no doubt thought of changing the names. She had envisaged the possibility of publication. Mr. Frank had discovered, on a piece of paper, the list of the real names with their equivalent false names. Anne is supposed to have thought of calling the Franks by the name of Robin. Mr. Frank had cut out of the manuscripts certain indications of the prices of things. More important, finding himself, at least for certain periods, in possession of two differest versions of the text, it had been necessary for him to "combine" (the word is his) two texts into one single text. Summarizing all those transformations, Mr. Frank finally declared to me: "That was a difficult task. I did that task according to my conscience."

• 22. The manuscripts that Mr. Frank presented to me as being those of his daughter form an impressive whole. I did not have the time to look at them closely. I trusted in the description of them that was given to me and I will summarize them in the following way:
      • A) the first date mentioned is that of 12 June 1942; the last is that of 1 August 1944 (three days before their arrest)
      • B) the period from 12 June 1942 to 5 December of the same year (but that date does not correspond to any printed letter); we have at our disposal a small note book with a linen cover, with a red, white and brown plaid design (the "Scotch notebook")
      • C) the period from 6 December 1942 to 21 December 1943; we do not possess any special notebook (but see below, the loose leaf sheets). This notebook is supposed to have been lost:

are contained, in an original form, in the above-mentioned notebooks: the "Scotch notebook," the missing notebook, and the first of the two black notebooks.

• 25. I have no competence in the matter of handwriting analysis and therefore I cannot express an opinion on that matter. I can only give here my impressions. My impressions were that the "Scotch notebook" contained some photos, pictures and drawings as well as a variety of very juvenile writing styles, the confusion and fantasy of which appeared authentic. It would be necessary to look closely at the handwriting of the texts which were used by Mr. Frank in order to form the basis of the Diary. The other notebooks and the whole of the 338 loose leaf sheets are in what I would call an adult handwriting. As regards the manuscript of the Stories, it very much surprised me. One would say that it was the work of an experienced accountant and not the work of a 14 year old child. The table of contents is presented as a list of the Stories with the date of composition, the title and the page number for each piece!
• 26. Mr. Frank had a high opinion of the conclusions of the two expert reports called for, about 1960, by the prosecutor in Lubeck in order to examine the case of a teacher (Lothar Stielau) who, in 1959, had expressed some doubts about the authenticity of the Diary (Case 2Js 19/59, VU 10/59). Mr. Frank had registered a complaint against that teacher. The handwriting report had been entrusted to Mrs. Minna Becker. Mrs. Annemarie Hubner had been charged with attesting whether the texts printed in Dutch and German were faithful to the texts of the manuscripts. The two expert reports, submitted as evidence in 1961, turned out to be favorable to Mr. Frank.
• 27. But, on the other hand, what Mr. Frank did not reveal to me—and what I had to learn after my visit, and from a German source—is that the prosecutor in Lubeck had decided to get a third expert report. Why a third expert report? And on what point, given that, according to all appearances, the whole field possible for investigation had been explored by the handwriting expert

and by Mrs. Hubner? The answer to these questions is the following: the prosecutor thought that an expert report of the kind done by Mrs. Hubner risked declaring that Lothar Stielau was right about the facts. In view of the first analyses, it was going to be impossible to declare that the Diary was "dokumentarish echt" ("documentarily genuine") (!). Perhaps they could have it declared "literarish echt" ("literarily genuine") (!). The novelist Friedrich Sieburg was going to be charged with answering that odd question.

• 28. Of those three expert reports, only that of Mrs. Hubner would have really been of interest to me. On 20 January 1978, a letter from Mrs. Hubner let me hope that I would obtain a copy of her expert report. A short time afterward, since Mrs. Hubner did not respond to my letters, I had a German friend telephone her. She made it known to him that "the question was very delicate, given that a trial on the question of the Diary was presently under way in Frankfurt." She added that she had gotten in touch with Mr. Frank. According to the few elements that I possess of the content of that expert's report, it is supposed to have noted a large number of facts that were interesting from the point of view of the comparison of the texts (manuscripts, "tapuscript", Dutch text, German text). Mrs. Hubner is supposed to have mentioned there some very numerous "omissions" (Auslassungen), "additions" (Zusatze), and "interpolations" (Interpolationen). She is supposed to have spoken of the text "adapted" for the necessities of publication (uberarbeitet). Furthermore, she is supposed to have gone so far as to name some persons who supposedly gave their "collaboration" (Zusammenarbeit) to Mr. Frank in his editing of the "tapuscript." Those persons are supposed to have collaborated in the drawing up of the German text, in place of contenting herself with the role of translator.

Anne Frank 13

• 30. In any case it is impossible to consider those three expert opinions (Becker, Hubner and Sieburg) as conclusive, since they had not been examined by a court. In fact, for some reasons of which I am unaware, Mr. Frank was to withdraw his complaint against Lothar Stielau. If my information is correct, Stielau agreed to pay 1000 Marks of the 15,712 Marks of the cost of the proceedings begun. I suppose that Mr. Frank paid to the court of Lubeck those 1000 Marks and that he had added to that sum 14,712 Marks for his own part. I recall that Mr. Frank told me that Lothar Stielau had, moreover, agreed to present him with his written apology. Lothar Stielau had lost his job as a teacher at the same time. Mr. Frank did not speak to me about Heinrich Buddeberg, Lothar Stielau's co-defendant. Perhaps Buddeberg himself also had to turn over 1000 Marks and to present his apologies.
• 31. I linger here on these matters of expert opinions only because in our interview Mr. Frank had himself lingered there, while not mentioning certain important facts (for example, the existence of a third expert opinion), and while presenting to me the two expert opinions as conclusive. The matter of the manuscripts did not interest me very much either. I knew that I would not have the time to examine them closely. What interested me most of all was to know how Mr. Frank would have explained to me the "unexplainable quantity of unlikely or inconceivable facts" that I had called attention to in reading the Diary. After all, what does it matter that some manuscripts, even declared authentic by some experts, contain this type of facts, if those facts could not have existed? But Mr. Frank was to show himself to be incapable of furnishing me with the least explanation. In my opinion he was expecting to see the authenticity of the Diary questioned by the usual arguments, of the psychological, literary or historical order. He did not expect arguments of internal criticism bearing on the realities of material life: the realities which, as one knows, are stubborn. In a moment of confusion, Mr. Frank moreover declared to me: "But... I had never thought about those material matters!"

33. That greengrocer, Mr. Frank told me, was named Van der Hoeven. Deported for having harbored Jews at his home, he came back from deportation. At the time of the commemorative ceremonies, he had come back to appear at the side of Mr. Frank I asked Mr. Frank if, after the war, some people from the neighborhood had declared to him: "We suspected the presence of people in hiding at 263 Prinsengracht." Mr. Frank clearly answered me that no one had suspected their presence, including the men of the store, including Lewin, also including Van der Hoeven. The latter supposedly helped them without knowing it!

34. On several occasions, at the beginning of our interview, Mr. Frank thus attempted to supply some explanations which, finally, did not explain anything at all and which led him, to the contrary, into some impasses. I must say here that the presence of his wife was to prove to be especially useful. Mrs. Frank, who was very well acquainted with the Diary, obviously believed up to then in the authenticity of the Diary as well as in the sincerity of her husband. Her surprise was only more striking in the face of the terrible quality of Mr. Frank's answers to my questions. For myself, I retain a painful memory of what I would call certain "realizations" by Mrs. Frank. I do not at all wish to say that Mrs. Frank today takes her husband for a liar. But I claim that Mrs. Frank was strongly conscious, at the time of our interview, of the anomalies and of the serious absurdities of the whole story of Anne Frank. Hearing the "explanations" of her husband, she came to use toward him some phrases of the following kind:

^"Nonsense!"

^"What you are saying is unbelievable!"

• "A vacuum cleaner! That is unbelievable! I had never noticed it!"
• "but you were really foolhardy!"
• ''That was really foolhardy!''

37. The list of the noises left Mr. Frank, and especially Mrs.

Frank, perplexed. As regards the vacuum cleaner, Mr. Frank was startled and declared to me: "But there could not have been a vacuum cleaner there." Then, in the face of my assurance that there had been one, he began to stammer. He told me that, if indeed there had been a vacuum cleaner, they must have run it in the evening, when the employees (the "enemies") had left the front house, after work. I objected that the noise of a vacuum cleaner of that era would have been so much better heard by the neighbors (the walls were "thin," 25 March 1943) as it would have occurred in empty rooms or close to empty rooms. I revealed to him that, in any case, Mrs. Van Daan, for her part, was supposed to have used that vacuum cleaner every day, regularly, at about 12:30 pm (the window probably being open). Silence from Mr. Frank, while Mrs. Frank was visibly moved. The same silence for the alarm clock, with the sometimes untimely alarm (4 August 1943). The same silence for the removal of the ashes, expecially on swelteringly hot days. The same silence about the borrowing, by the persons in hiding, from the supply of coal (a rare commodity) common to the whole house. Even silence about the question of the bicycles used after their confiscation and after the prohibition of their use by Iews.

• 38. A number of questions therefore remained without answers or even at first gave rise to some explanations by which Mr. Frank worsened his case. Then Mr. Frank had, as it were, a windfall: a magic formula. That formula was the following: "Mr. Faurisson, you are theoretically and scientifically right. I agree with you 100 percent. . . . What you pointed out to me was, in fact, impossible. But, in practice, it was nevertheless in that way that things happened." I pointed out to Mr. Frank that his statement troubled me. I told him that it was almost as if he agreed with me that a door could not be at the same time open and closed and as if, in spite of that, he stated that he had seen such a door. I pointed out to him, in another connection, that the words "scientifically" and "theoretically" and "in practice" were unnecessary and introduced a distinction devoid of meaning since, in any case, "theoretically," "scientifically" or "practically," a door at the same time open and closed quite simply cannot exist. I added that I would prefer to each particular question an appropriate response or, if need be, no answer at all.
• 40. That confidential remark enlightens us on what I believe to be a character trait of Mr. Frank: Mr. Frank has the sense of what pleases the public and he seeks to adapt himself to it, free to take liberties with the truth. Mr. Frank is not a man to give himself a headache. He knows that the general public is satisfied with little. The general public seeks a sort of comfort, a sort of dream, a sort of easy world where it will be brought exactly the kind of emotion that confirms it in its habits of feeling, seeing and reasoning. That smoke above the roof could disturb the general public? What does it matter? Let's make up an explanation not necessarily probable, but simple and, if it is necessary, simple and crude. Perfection is reached if that fabrication confirms some accepted ideas or habitual feelings: for example, it is very probable that for those who love Anne Frank and who come to visit her house, the Germans are brutes and beasts; well, they will find a confirmation of that in Mr. Frank's explanations: the Germans went so far as to be unaware of the architecture typical of the houses in Amsterdam (sic!). In a general way, Mr. Frank appeared to me, on more than one occasion, as a man devoid of finesse (but not of cunning) for whom a literary work is, in relation to reality, a form of lying contrivance, a domain where one takes liberties with the truth, a thing which "is not so serious" and which allows for writing almost anything.
• 41. I asked Mr. Frank what explanations he could furnish me on the two points where he agreed that he had said nothing serious to the visitors. He could not answer me. I questioned him about the layout of the premises. I had noted some anomalies in the plan of the house, such as it is reproduced—by Mr. Frank—in all the editions of the Diary. Those anomalies had been confirmed for me by my visit to the museum (taking account of the changes made in the premises in order to make it into a museum). It was then that once again Mr. Frank went on to be led, in the face of the physical evidence, to make some new and important concessions to me, especially, as is going to be seen in regard to the "swinging cupboard." He began by admitting that the diagram of the plan ought not to have concealed from the reader that the small courtyard which separates the front house from the annex

was common to No. 263 (the Frank house) and to No. 265 (the house of their neighbors and "enemies"). It is also bizarre that, in the Diary, there was not the slightest allusion to the fact which, for the persons in hiding, was of extreme importance. Mr. Frank then acknowledged that the diagram of the plan let people believe that on the third floor the flat roof was not accessible; but that roof was accessible by a door from the annex and it could very well have offered to the police or to the "enemies" an easy way of access into the very heart of the premises inhabited by the persons in hiding. Finally and especially, Mr. Frank conceded to me that the "swinging cupboard"... did not make any sense. He recognized that this ruse could not, in any case, have prevented a search of the annex, seeing that that annex was accessible in other ways, and especially in the most natural way—the entrance door leading out to the garden. That evidence, it is true, does not appear as one at the schema, since the schema does not contain any drawing of the whole ground floor. As to the museum visitors, they do not have access to this same ground floor. That famous "swinging cupboard" thus became a particularly strange invention of "the persons in hiding." One must, in fact, think here that the making of that "swinging cupboard" was a dangerous job. The destruction of the stair steps, the assembling of that false cupboard, the change of a passageway into an apparent dead end, all that could only give warning to the "enemies," All that had of course been suggested by Kraler and carried out by Vossen (21 August 1942)!

• 42. The more that my interview went on, the more the embarassment of Mr. Frank became visible. But his amiability did not fail; quite the contrary. At the end, Mr. Frank went on to use a sentimental argument, apparently clever and in a good natured tone. That argument was the following: "Yes, I agree with you, we were a little imprudent. Certain things were a little dangerous, it is necessary to recognize that. Besides, it is perhaps the reason why we were finally arrested. But do not believe, Mr. Faurisson, that the people were suspicious at that point." That curious argumentation went on to suggest to Mr. Frank sentences like: "The people were decent!" or even: "The Dutch were good!" or even, on two occasions: "The Police were good!"

that in resorting to his last arguments, Mr. Frank tried with one hand to fill in the cracks in a work which, with the other hand, he was dismantling.

Milig Li Mila

Ich setze mich zu ihm ans Bett und habe ihm alles gesagt. Er hing sehr an Herrn Frank, denn er kannte ihn lange (passage missing). Gesagt hat er nichts. Er hat nur dagelegen. (Anne Frank / Ein Bericht von Ernst Schnabel, Spur eines Kindes, Fischer Bucherei, 1958, 168 pages, p. 115.)

And here is the English texts

I sat down beside his bed and told him everything. He was deeply attached to Mr. Frank, who he had known a long time (passage missing). He said nothing. (Anne Frank: A Portait in Courage, Ernst Schnabel, Translated from the German by Richard and Clara Winston, Harbrace Paperback Library, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., New York, 1958, 181 pages, p. 132.)

• 46. After returning to France, it was easy for me to clear up this mystery: from many other points in the French text it became evident that there had existed two original German versions. The first version of Schnabel must have been sent in "tapuscript" to the French publishing house of Albin Michel so that from it there could be prepared a translation into French, without losing time. Thereupon Schnabel or, very probably, Mr. Frank, had gone on to do a revision of its text. He had then left out the problematical sentence about Vossen. Then Fischer published that corrected version. But in France they had done the job in double quick time and the book had already left the presses. It was too late to correct it. I note moreover a bibliographical curiosity: my copy of Sur les traces d'Anne Frank (translated from the German by Marthe Metzger Editions Albin Michel, 1958, 205 pages) bears a reference to "18th thousand" and its date for the completion of printing was in February 1958. But the first thousand of the original German edition was in March 1958. The translation therefore did indeed appear before the original.
• 47. It remains, of course, to know why Ernst Schnabel or Mr. Frank had believed it proper to proceed with that amazing correction. The fact remains that Mr. Frank showed his confusion once more in the face of this further anomaly. We took leave of each other in the most painful of atmospheres, where each token of friendliness that Mr. Frank showed me embarrassed me a little more. Shortly after my return to France, I wrote to Mr. Frank to thank him for his hospitality and to ask him Elli's address. He
• 48. Bibliographical examination: some curious silences and revelations.
• 49. The previously mentioned book by Schnabel (Anne Frank: A Portrait in Courage) has some curious omissions, while the long article, unsigned, that Der Spiegel (1 April 1959, pp.51-55) devoted to the Diary, in the wake of the Stielau case, brings us some curious revelations. The title of that article is eloquent: "Anne Frank. Was Schrieb das Kind?" ("Anne Frank. What did the Child Write?")
• 50. Ernst Schnabel openly defended Anne Frank and Otto Frank. His book is relatively rich on all that precedes and on all that follows the twenty-five months of their life at Prinsengracht. On the other hand, it is very poor concerning those twenty-five months. One would say that the direct witnesses (Miep, Elli, Kraler, Koophuis, Henk) have nothing to say on that very important period. Why do they remain silent in that way? Why have they said only some commonplace things like: "When we had our plate of soup upstairs with them at noon, . . ." (page 114)* or; "We always had lunch together, . . ." (page 117)? Not one concrete detail, not one description, not one anecdote is there that by its preciseness would give the impression that the persons in hiding and their faithful friends regularly ate together this way at noon. Everything appears in a kind of fog. But those witnesses were questioned only thirteen years, at the most, after the arrest of the Franks, and certain of them like Elli, Miep and Henk, were still young. I am not talking about numerous other persons whom Schnabel wrongly calls "witnesses" but who, in fact, had never known or even met the Franks. This is the case, for example, with the famous "green grocer." The "Gemusemann," "He did not know the Franks at all" (page 82). In a general way, the impression that I derived from reading Schnabel's book is the following: this Anne Frank had really existed; she had been a

A very interesting point about Anne's story concerns the manuscripts. I regret to say that I find very unlikely the account of the discovery of those many scripts, then their passing on to Mr. Frank by his secretary Miep. The police supposedly scattered the floor with all sorts of papers. Among those papers, Miep and Elli supposedly gathered up a "Scotch notebook" ("ein rot-kariertes Buch"; a red plaid book) and many other writings in which they are supposed to have recognized Anne's writing. They supposedly did not read anything. They are supposed to have put all these papers aside in the large office. Then, those papers supposedly were handed over to Mr. Frank at the time of his return from Poland (pages 179-181.) That account does not agree at all with the account of the arrest. The arrest was made slowly, methodically, correctly, exactly like the search. The testimonies are unanimous on that point (see chapter nine). After the arrest, the police came back to the premises on several occasions; they

Anne Frank 25

especially interrogated Miep. The police wished to know if the Franks were in contact with other persons in hiding. The Diary, such as we know it, would have revealed, at first glace, a great deal of information valuable to the police, and would have been terribly compromising for Miep, Elli, and for all the friends of the persons in hiding. The police could have disregarded the "Scotch notebook" if, in its original condition, it consisted, as I think, only of some drawings, some photographs or notes of a harmless nature. But it would appear unlikely that they would have left there several notebooks and several hundreds of scattered pages, on which the handwriting was, at least in appearance, that of an adult. On the part of Elli and Miep, it would have been madness to gather together and to keep, especially in the office, such a mass of compromising documents. It would appear that they knew that Anne kept a diary. In a diary one is supposed to tell what happens from day to day. Consequently, Anne risked mentioning Miep and Elli in them.

Verschoor. He got the latter's husband, Mr. Jan Romein, Professor of History of the Netherlands at the University of Amsterdam to write in the daily newspaper Het Parool a famous article which began with these words: "There has by chance fallen into my hands a diary (etc.)"; since the article was very laudatory, a modest Amsterdam publishing house (Contact) asked to publish that diary. Fifth form: with the agreement once concluded or in the process of being concluded, Mr. Frank went to find several "spiritual counselors" ("mehrere geistlich Ratgeber"), one of whom was Pastor Buskes; he granted them full authority to censor the text ("raumte ihnen freiwillig Zensoren-Befugnisse ein," pages 53-54). And that censorship was carried out.

54. But the oddities do not end there. The German text of the Diarv forms the subject of interesting remarks on

Anneliese Schutz, a great friend of the Franks, like them a Jewish German refugee in the Netherlands, and Anne's teacher, therefore prepared a text, in German, of the diary of her former pupil. She settled down to that work for Anne's grandmother! The latter, very aged, did not in fact read Dutch. She therefore needed a translation into German, the Franks' mother tongue. Anneliese Schutz composed her "translation" "in the perspective of the grandmother" ("aus der Grossmutter-Perspektive," page 55). She took some amazing liberties. Where, according to her recollections, Anne had expressed herself better, she made her express herself better! The grandmother had the right to that! "... die Grossmutter habe ein Recht darauf, mehr zu erfahren—vor allem dort, 'wo Anne nach meiner Erinnerung etwas besseres gesagt hatte'" (ibidem). Let it be said in passing that Anneliese Schutz is never mentioned by Anne Frank in the Diary. Are we to understand that she had lived close to Anne or that she had met her during the twenty-five months when she hid at the Prinsengracht? To the "perspective of the grandmother," which dictated certain "obligations," there was added what one can call the

Anne Frank 29

"commercial perspective" which dictated other obligations. As a matter of fact, when the time came to publish the Diary in Germany, Anneliese Schutz inserted some new alterations. Let us take an example that she herself mentions. The manuscript, they say, included the following sentence: "... no greater hostility in the world than between the Germans and the Jews" (ibidem). Anneliese Schutz declared to the journalist of Der Spiegel: "I always told myself that a book, destined to be sold in Germany, cannot contain an expression insulting to the Germans" (ibidem). For my part, I would say that that argumentation at one and the same time of the commercial, sentimental and political order is understandable, if need be coming from a woman of Berlin Jewish origin, who had been a militant before the war in a suffragette movement and who had had to leave her own country for political reasons, but otherwise that argumentation is all the less acceptable since the "insulting" remarks have been and continue to be spread in the millions of copies of the Diary sold throughout the world in languages other than German. And I am not speaking here from the simple point of view of respect for the truth.

the least fuss possible about Anne Frank and her Diary. She went so far as to disapprove of Mr. Frank and Ernst Schnabel for Spur eines Kindes: what need was there for that book? As regards to Stielau, if he had made the remark which Mr. Frank criticized him for, the latter had only to act as if he did not hear it. That "sharp" ("scharf") (ibidem) reaction by Anneliese Schutz was all the more peculiar since this woman presented herself as the "translator" of the Diary into German and since Ernst Schnabel had—but perhaps she did not know it—pushed kindness so far as to have declared with regard to that improbable "translation": "Ich wunschte, alle Ubersetzungen waren so getreu" (page 54) (I would wish that all translations were so faithful").

• 58. Without any illusions about the answer that he would give me, I posed those questions to Kraler (by his real name, Kugler) in a letter that I sent to him in Canada. I asked him likewise if Anne appeared to him to have been the author of the Diary and how he could explain to me why Vossen (by his real name, Voskuyl) had believed that the Franks were somewhere other than at 263 Prinsengracht, and even in Switzerland, to be precise. His response was discourteous. He sent my letter and his response to Mr. Frank. It is that letter which Mr. Frank called "idiotic" during a telephone conversation. It is, I suppose, that response which, one year later, earned Kraler a prize of \$10,000 from an institution for having "protected Anne Frank and her family during the war, in Amsterdam" (see the Hamburger Abendblatt, 6 June 1978, page 13). Disregarding its discourtesy, the response from Kraler was not lacking in interest for me. Kraler responded to me that Vossen's suggestion concerning the presence of the

nne Frank 31

the end of May of 1945, lived for seven years under their roof. It was only toward the end of June or the beginning of July of 1945 that she had returned the manuscripts to him.

• 61. In the wake of those two interviews my judgement became the following: These three persons must have, on the whole, told me the truth about their own lives. It is probably true that they had not been familiar with, so to speak, the annex. It is certainly true that, in the front house, life unfolded approximately as they had recounted it to me (mid-day meal taken together in the office of the secretaries; the men of the store eating in the store; small food errands made in the neighborhood, etc.). It is certainly true that a police raid took place on 4 August 1944 and the Miep had had business on that day and on the following days with a Karl Silberbauer. It is probable, on the other hand, that those three persons maintained some relations with the Frank family. In that case, why did they so obviously feel reluctant to speak about it? Let us suppose, as a matter of fact, that the Franks and some other persons in hiding had really lived for 25 months in proximity to those three persons. In that case, why such a silence?

those sufferings mattered little. But kindness has its limits. Mr. Frank found only one person to guarantee his account of the existence of the Diary. That person was his former secretary and friend: Miep Van Santen (by her real name: Miep Gies). Still the testimony of Miep is strangely hesitant. Her testimony comes back to saying that after the arrest of the Franks, she had gathered up from the floor of a room of the annex a diary, an account book, some notebooks and a certain number of loose leaf sheets. For her it was a matter of objects belonging to Anne Frank. Miep only gave that testimony in an official form thirty years after the events, on 5 June 1974, in the office of Mr. Antoun Jacob Dragt, a notary in Amsterdam. Miep added that she had made the discovery with Elli. But, on the same day, in the presence of the same notary, the latter declared that she remembered having been there when those things had been discovered. The restraint is important and it must not have pleased Mr. Frank.

63. Schnabel wrote (see above, paragraph 50) that all the "witnesses" whom he had questioned—including, consequently, Miep, Elli, Henk and Koophuis—had behaved as if they had to protect themselves against the legend of Anne Frank. He added that if they all had read the Diary, they nevertheless did not mention it. That last sentence means obviously that, in each interview with a witness, it was Schnabel himself who had to take the initiative in speaking of the Diary. We know that his book had not been published in the Netherlands, except in a shortened and censored form: it is in the Netherlands that the principal "witnesses" are located. For its part, the article from Der Spiegel (see, above, paragraph 55) proves that others of Mr. Frank's "Witnesses" have ended up having the same negative reactions. The foundations of the myth of Anne Frank—a myth that rests on the truth and authenticity of the Diary—have not been strengthened with time: they have crumbled.

Chapter Six

• 65. Since 1944, Mr. Frank and his friends knew that their alleged "betrayer" was named Van Maaren and the person who arrested them was named Silberbauer. Van Maaren was one of the employees in their store. Silberbauer was a non-commissioned officer of the Security Service (SD) in Amsterdam. In the Diary, as well as in the previously mentioned book by Schnabel, Van Maaren is called V.M. As regards Silberbauer, he is called

35

Silberthaler in Schnabel's book. It seems that at the time of the Liberation, Van Maaren had some trouble with the law in his country. His guilt could not be proved, Mr. Frank told me. "V.M. had had enough troubles like that and he should be left alone." Schnabel had not wanted to obtain the testimony of V.M. nor had he wanted to obtain that of the arresting officer.

66. In 1963, the world press suddenly echoed with a striking news story: Simon Wiesenthal had just rediscovered the person who arrested the Franks. He was named Karl Silberbauer. He was a police official in Vienna. Wiesenthal had not informed Mr. Frank about his research. The latter, questioned by journalists, declared that he had known for nearly twenty years the name of the person who arrested him. He added that that entire affair was unfortunate and that Silberbauer had only done his duty in arresting him. Miep, for her part, declared that if she had used the pseudonym of Silberthaler to designate the arresting officer, that was only at the request of Mr. Frank; the latter had pointed out that there could, as a matter of fact, be some other persons bearing the name of Silberbauer to whom, consequently, some harm could be done: "(De Heer Frank) had mij verzocht de naam Silberthaler te noemen, omdat er misschien nog meer mensen Silberbauer heetten en die zouden wij dan in diskrediet brengen" (Volkskrant, 21 November 1963).

67. There was a kind of struggle between Simon Wiesenthal and Mr. Frank. It was the latter who in a way got the best of it. As a matter of fact, Karl Silberbauer was, at the end of eleven months, reinstated in the Viennese police. A disciplinary commission, sitting behind closed doors (as is the custom), released him. The judgement in the appeal commission ("Oberdisziplinarkommission") was likewise favorable to Silberbauer, as were also conclusions of a commission of inquiry of the Ministry of the Interior. Silberbauer had indeed arrested the Franks at 263 Prinsengracht, but his participation in "war crimes against the Jews or members of the resistance" could not be proved. In June of 1978, I obtained an interview with Simon Wiesenthal in his office in Vienna. In regard to that affair, he declared to me that Mr. Frank was "crazy." In his opinion, Mr. Frank, in his concern to maintain a cult (that of his daughter), meant to spare the former Nazis, while he, Simon Wiesenthal, had only one concern: that of seeing justice done. Simon Wiesenthal did not know the real name of the store employee V.M. There again Mr. Frank had done what was necessary: the Royal Institute of Documentation (for the Second World War), directed by his friend Louis De Jong, responded, if we are to believe an Amsterdam newspaper (Trouw. 22 November 1963), that that name

68. The authorities in Vienna were not able to authorize me to consult the records of the commissions of inquiry. As to Karl Silberbauer, he died in 1972. My inquiry was therefore limited to the analysis of some Dutch, German and French newpapers from 1963 and 1964 and to the interviewing of a witness whom I believe to be well informed, honest and the possessor of a good memory. That witness begged us, my companion and myself, not to reveal his name. I have promised to say nothing about his name. I will keep my promise only half-way. The importance of his testimony is such that it seemed impossible to me to pass over it in silence. The name of that witness and his address as well as the name of my companion and his address are put down in a sealed envelope.

Anne Frank 37

diary could assert that the Jews were gassed." In the opinion of Silberbauer, nothing would have happened to the Franks if they had not kept themselves hidden.

could have given me very valuable testimony on the statements of Silberbauer, but that second witness preferred to say nothing.

• 72. Comparision of the Dutch and the German text: attempting to make too much of it, Mr. Frank has given himself away; he has signed a literary fraud.
• 73. I have two texts in front of me. The first is in Dutch (D), while the second is in German (G). The publishers tell me that D is the original text, while G is the translation of that original text. I do not have a priori any reason to challenge their word. But scientific rigor, as well as common sense and experience, teach that it is necessary to receive the statements of publishers with caution. It happens, as a matter of fact, that there can be error or deceit on their part. A book is a piece of merchandise like any other. The label can be deceiving about the content. As a consequence, I will set aside here the labels that are proposed to me or that are imposed upon me. I will speak neither about the "original version in Dutch," nor about the "translation into German." I will temporarily suspend all judgement. I will grant a precise name to those two books only with reservations. For the moment, I will give them a name which is, at the same time, equal and neutral. I will therefore speak of texts.
• 75. My text D is presented in this manner: Anne Frank/Het Achterhuis/Dagboekbrieven/14 Juni 1942-1 Augustus 1944/1977, Uitgeverij Contact, Amsterdam, Eerste druk 1947/Vijfenvijftigste druk 1977/. The author's text begins on page 22 with the photographic reproduction of a sort of dedication signed: "Anne Frank, 12 Juni 1942." On page 23 appears the first of the 169 entries which make up this "diary" to which they have given the title The Annex. The book has 273 pages. The last page of the text is page 269. I estimate the length of the text itself at about 72,500 Dutch words. I have not compared the text of that 55th edition with the text of the first edition. At the time of my investigation in Amsterdam, I received assurances from Messrs. Fred Batten and Christian Blom that no change had been made in the successive editions. Those two persons were employed by the Contact
• 76. My text G is presented in this manner: Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank/12 Juni 1942-1 August 1944/1977, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag/No. 77/Ungekurzte Ausgabe/43. Auflage 1293000-133200/Aus dem Hollandischen ubertragen von Anneliese Schutz/Hollandische Original-Ausgabe, "Het Achterhuis", Contact, Amsterdam. After the dedication page, the first of the entries appears on page 9. There are 175 entries. The last entry ends on page 201. I estimate the length of the text at about 77,000 German words. The book had 203 pages. This paperback was first published in March 1955. Fischer obtained the Lizensausgabe (distribution license) from the Lambert-Schneider publishing house, in Heidelberg.
• 77. I call attention to a first troubling fact. Text D has 169 entries while text G, which is presented as the translation of text D, has 175 entries.
• 78. I call attention to a second troubling fact. I set out in search of the extra entries of text G. It is not six entries that I discover (175 minus 169 equals 6), but seven entries. The explanation is the following: text G does not have the entry of "6 December 1943" from text D.
• 79. I point out a third troubling fact. Since the Dutch language and the German language are very close to each other, the translation ought not to be appreciably longer than the text that is being translated. But, even if I disregard the number of words that make up the seven entries in question, I am very far from reaching a difference of approximately 4,500 (G 77,000 minus D 72,500 equals 4,500). Therefore, text G even when it has some entries in common with text D, has them under another form: in every case, under a longer form. Here is my proof, supported by figures:
      • a) Additional entries that G has:

[Error on my part (R. Faurisson): The entry of 12 May 1944 (380 words) is not missing from text D. It is in text D but is dated 11 May. What is missing in text D is the entry of 11 May which, in text G. has . . . 520 words!]

b) The entry that G is lacking:

c) Extra words that G has, considering an equal number of entries:

4500 minus (3170 minus 380) equals 1710 words. In reality, as will be seen later on, this number only represents a small part of the surplus of words that G has. But, meanwhile, in order not to seem too attached to the calculations, I am going to give some precise examples involving approximately 550 words.

81. Among the entries that D and G apparently have in common, here are some entries (among many others) where G is missing some fragments, that is to say some fragments with which the German reader was never acquainted:

17 November 1942 "Speciale . . . overgelegd" . . . 15 words
13 June 1943 "Daar Pim . . . heeft" . . . . . 30 words
29 July 1943 "Ijdelheid . . . persoontje" . . . 20 "
Total of these simple examples . . . 65 words

One remarkable fact is that the fragments that are missing are very numerous and very short. For example, the letter of 20 August 1943 is cut by 19 words in the German text, and those 19 words are distributed in the following manner:

3+1+4+4+7=19.

Anne Frank 41

82. I call attention to a fourth troubling fact. That fact is independent of the quantities that are extra or lacking. This fact is that some fragments of entries move somehow from one letter to the other, from text D to text G. For example, the entire next-to-the-last paragraph of letter D of Donderdag, 27 April 1944 is found in the last paragraph of letter G of Dienstag, 25 April 1944. On the 7th of January 1944, the last paragraph of D becomes, in G, the sixth paragraph before the end. On 27 April 1944, the next-to-the-last paragraph of D becomes, in G, the last paragraph of the entry of 25 April 1944.

83. I had noted these few examples in inconsistencies in the course of a simple sample which did not go beyond the 54th entry of text D (18 May 1943). I decided then to initiate a much more rigorous sample, bearing on the eleven entries going from 19 July to 29 September 1943 (entries 60 to 73). To the inconsistencies, I decided to add the additions and the subtractions. The result was such that the simple enumeration of the differences noted would require several typewritten pages. I am not able to do that here. I will content myself with only a few examples here, avoiding the most striking ones since, unfortunately, the most striking are also the longest ones to cite.

•Entry of 19 July 1943 "parents killed" ("dode ouders") becomes "parents" ("Eltern");

• Entry of 23 July 1943: G has, in addition, at least 49 words plus 3 words;

• Entry of 26 July 1943: G has, in addition, four plus four words and is lacking two words: "over Italie";

• Entry of 29 July 1943: G has twenty words missing and "twenty years" ("twintig jaar") becomes "twenty-five years" ("25 Jahren");

• Entry of 3 August 1943: this letter of 210 words in text G is completely missing in text D;

• •Entry of 4 August 1943: D gives "couch" and G "lounge-chair." In D a flea "floats" ("drijft") in the wash water, "only in warm months or weeks" ("allen in de hete maanden of weeken"), while for G that flea must "lose his life" ("sein Leben lassen") there, without any other detail concerning weather. D gives: "to use some cotton [soaked] in hydrogen peroxide (that serves to bleach her black moustache fuzz)" ("waterstofwatjes hanteren [dient om zwarte snorharen te bleken]"), while G gives simply: "and other little toiletry secrets...") ("und andere kleine Tolettengeheimniss..."). The comparison of "like a brook falling from a mountain" ("als een beekje van een berg") becomes "like a brook on the boulders" ("wie ein Bachlein uber die Kiessel"). Some "irregular French verbs": this is what Anne thinks of in text D ("aan Franse onregelmatige wekworden"), but, in text G, this can only be about irregular Dutch verbs, it seems, since she says that she "dreams" ("traume ich") of "irregular verbs" ("von unregelmassigen Verben"). Text G contents itself with: "Rrrrring, upstairs [sounds the Van Daans'] alarm" ("Krrrrr, oben der Wecker"), while D gives: "Rrring... the little alarm [sounds], which at each hour of the day (when it is wanted or sometimes also without being wanted) can raise its little voice." ("Trrr... het wekkertje, dat op elk uur van de dag [als men er naar vraagt of soms ook sonder dat] zijn stemmetje kan verheffen");

• •Entry of 7 August 1943: this letter constitutes quite an interesting puzzle. A very long letter, it begins, in text G, with nine lines introducing a story of 74 lines entitled Kaatje as well as another story of 99 lines entitled Katrientje. This entry is completely absent from D. The Dutch, for their part, know of these stories only by way of a separate book entitled Stories, in which there appear, besides, some other "unedited stories" of Anne Frank;

• •Entry of 10 August 1943: the "war material" of D becomes the "guns" ("Kanonen") of G. The sentence concerning the bell in the Westertoren is entirely different. And, especially, G has an episode of 140 words which does not appear in D. Anne, who has received some new shoes, tells there about a series of misadventures that had happened to her on that same day: she had pricked her right thumb with a large needle; she had bumped her head against the door of the cupboard; because of the noise caused, she received a "scolding" ("Ruffel"); she was not able to soothe her forehead since it was necessary not to turn on the water; she had a large bruise over her right eye; she had stubbed her toe on the vacuum cleaner; her foot became infected, it is all swollen. Result: Anne cannot put on her pretty new shoes. (You will have noticed here the presence of a vacuum cleaner in a place where silence would have had to be necessary constantly;

• •Entry of 18 August 1943: among nine differences, we see some "beans" ("bonen") turn into green peas ("Erbsen");

location, without being precise about the second; the unfortunate thing is that the first location mentioned by D is a simple cupboard located in the office looking out on . . . the courtyard: the office of Kraler, and not that of Koophuis ("the bread, which is put in Kraler's room for us every day")! (About the respective offices of Kraler and of Koophuis, see the entry of 9 July 1942.) There is here a serious material contradiction between the two texts, with changes of words, of sentences, etc.:

• •Entry of 16 September 1943: "ten valerianes" ("tien Valeriaantjes") become "ten of the small white pills" ("zehn von den kleinen weissen Pillen"). "A long face and a drooping mouth" ("een uitgestreken gezicht en neerhangende mond") became "a tight-lipped mouth with worry lines" ("einen zusammengekniffenen Mund und Sorgenfalten"). The winter compared to a fearful obstacle, a "biting" winter, which is there like a "heavy block of stone" ("het grote rotsblok, dat winter heet"), is no more than a simple winter ("dem Winter"). An "overcoat" ("jas") becomes "hat and cane" ("Hut and Stock"). A sentence of 24 words claiming to describe a picturesque scene, finds itself reduced to five German words. On the other hand, six Dutch words become 13 German words with a very different meaning;

not exaggerated to say that the first entry of the collection gives us, in a way, the tone of the whole. In that short letter, the Dutch learn that, for her birthday, Anne received "a little plant" ("een plantje"). The Germans have the privilege of learning that that plant was "a cactus" ("eine Kaktee"). In return, the Dutch know that Anne received "two peony branches," while the Germans must content themselves with knowing that there were "some peony branches" ("einige Zweige Pfingstrosen"). The Dutch have the right to the following sentence: "such were, that morning, the children of Flora who sat on my table" ("dat waren die ochtend de kinderen van Flora die op mijn tafel stonden"). In the German text, the table has disappeared, as well as "the children of Flora" (a curious, hackneyed phrase from the pen of a child of thirteen; one would have expected it rather from an adult seeking laboriously and artlessly to "decorate" his style). The Germans simply have the right to: "These were the first flowers offered by way of greetings" ("Das waren die ersten Blumengrusse"). The Dutch learn that Anne, on that day, will offer to her teachers and to her classmates "some butter cakes" ("boterkoekjes"). The Germans have the right to some "candy" ("Bonbons"). The "chocolate," present for the Dutch, will disappear for the Germans. More surprising: a book that Anne will be able to buy for herself with the money that has just been given to her on that Sunday 14 June 1942, becomes, in the German text, a book that she has already bought for herself ("zodat ik me . . . kan kopen"/"habe ich mir . . . gekauft").

86. On the other hand, the last entry of the collection is identical in the two texts. That confirms for us, if there were need for it, that the German translator—if one must speak about "translation"—was quite capable of respecting the Dutch text. But it is too evident now that one cannot speak of translation, nor even of "adaptation." Is it to translate, is it to "adapt" to put day for night (10 March 1943)? books for shoes (13 January 1943)? candy for butter cakes (14 June 1942)? giants for fascist (20 October 1942)? Is "candles" translated by "day" and "cats" by "tarantula"? "to float" by "to die"? "large" by "small" (4 August 1943)? Only magicians can change an overcoat into a hat and a cane. With Mrs. Anneliese Schutz and Mr. Frank, the table disappears (14 June 1942) and the stairway steals away (the Dutch entry of 16 September 1943 mentions a very peculiar stairway, which would have led directly to the persons in hiding: "die direct naar boven leidt"). The bread storage place changes its location. What is behind is encountered again in front (Kraler's office). numbers appear and disappear. Hours change. Faces change. Events multiply or disappear. Beings as well as things are subject to eclipses and to sudden changes. Anne, one

• 87. Ten years after her death, Anne's text continues to change. In 1955, the Fischer publishing house publishes her Diary as a pocket-book under a "discreetly" reworked form. The reader could especially compare the following entries:
  • •11 July 1942: "bange" replaced by "besorgt";
  • •21 September 1942: "gerugt" replaced by "gescholten" and "drei Westen" changing itself into "drei Wolljacken";
  • •27 September 1942: "mit Margot bin ich nicht mehr so intim" becomes: "mit Margot verstehe mich nicht sehr gut";
  • 28 September 1942: "besturzt" replaced by "erschuttert";
  • •7 November 1942: "ohne den Hergang zu kennen" becomes: "ohne zu wissen, worum es ging" and "Er ist mein Ideal" becomes: "Er ist mein leuchtendes Vorbild". That last change of the text is not lacking in flavor, if one knows that it is a question here of Anne's father. Mr. Frank is no longer an "ideal" for his daughter, but "a shining model"! Another change: "und das Aergste ist" becomes: "und am schlimmsten ist":
  • •7 August 1943: I pointed out above (see paragraph 84) this very long letter which contains two stories. I suppose that these stories existed in the manuscript which had been reserved for them and that they had been wrongly inserted into the Diary. In that case, one asks oneself who wrote the nine lines of introduction, where Anne asks her correspondent especially if she believes that her stories are going to please children.

edition), I discovered that the author of the Diary (an especially prolific author) was still alive in 1950. That author could not have been Anne Frank, who, as we know, died in 1945.

90. I have noticed, in my samplings, neither more nor fewer inconsistencies for that period than for the other periods. In a uniform way, text D presents us an Anne Frank who has, if not the traits, at least fits the stereotype of the young adolescent while text G offers us the stereotype of the adolescent already near, in certain respects, to being a mature woman. There are, in text G, some passages that are incompatible with the corresponding passages of text D, and even formally incompatible with the entire substance of all of text D. There we reach the height of the intolerable in the manipulation of texts. Here is, for example, the letter of 5 January 1944. Anne confesses that before her time in hiding, that is to say, before the age of thirteen, she had happened, while spending the night at the home of a girlfriend, to

Anne Frank 49

or political events, one will make some discoveries in the entries of 6 June, 13 June and 27 June 1944. On Peter's character one will find some revelations in the entry of 11 May 1944. That entry of 400 words does not exist in text D. But nevertheless, in text D, we find a letter at that date of 11 May; however, the corresponding text is dated, in text G, on 12 May! Peter defies his mother while calling her "the old lady" ("Komm mit, Alte!"). Nothing like the Peter of text D!

• 91. It would be interesting to subject each of the principal characters of text D and of text G to analysis by psychologists or psychiatrists. Anne, in particular, would appear under some profoundly contradictory character traits. But this is purely hypothetical. I think that in fact those analysts would see that Anne has no more real consistency than a total invention of unrelated facets. The few so-called descriptions of Anne that I have been able to find have especially convinced me that their authors have read the Diary very superficially. It is true that the dullness of their descriptions could be explained by the dullness of the subject described. One stereotype calls for another, as one lie calls for another.
• 93. Mr. Frank has indulged in some story-telling. That is easily established when one sees how he has transformed the printed German text of 1950 (Lambert-Schneider) in order to make from it the text printed by Fischer (1955). It was on that occasion, in particular, that he made his daughter Anne say that her father is her "ideal" (1950 version); then, after thinking it over, that he is her "shining model" (1955 version). This inclination for story-telling did not come to Mr. Frank all at once. He had, we are told by one of Anne's former teachers, the harmless idiosyncrasy of composing stories and poems with his daughter ("Sometimes she told me stories and poems which she had made up together with her . . ." Anne Frank: A Portrait in Courage, page 41). That happened about 1940. Anne was eleven years old and her father was 51. In 1942, Mr. Frank, a former banker in Frankfurt and a former merchant and businessman in Amsterdam, took a forced retirement at the age of 53. I do not think that his inclination for writing had disappeared then during his long days of inactivity.

Anne Frank 51

In any case, the Diary hardly gives us any information about what Mr. Frank did with his days. But what does it matter! Mr. Frank is a story-teller who has given himself away. The drama of story-tellers is that they add more to their stories. The never stop retouching, reworking, cutting out, correcting. By doing this they end up incurring the distrust of certain people. And it is child's play for those people to prove the storytelling. It is very easy to confound Mr. Frank. It is sufficient to have at hand text D and one of the two different versions of text G. It is enough to remind him that he had declared in writing to the Dutch: "I guarantee to you that here, on such and such a date, Anne wrote: day or shoes or butter cakes or fascist or large," while to the Germans he has gone on to declare in writing regarding the same places and the same dates: "I guarantee to you that Anne wrote: night or books or candy or giant or small." If Mr. Frank told the truth in the first case, he told a story in the second case. And vice-versa. He has told a story either here, or there. Or again—and this is the most probable—he has made up the story here and there. In any case, one could never claim that Mr. Frank, in this affair of the Diary, is a man who has told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

94. The Diary can not be in any way authentic. Consultation with allegedly authentic manuscripts is unnecessary. As a matter of fact, no manuscript in the world could certify that Anne Frank succeeded in the miraculous feat of writing two words at the same time and—what is more—two words with incompatible meanings, and—even more—two complete texts at the same time, which are most of the time totally contradictory. It is well understood that every printed text can have a critical apparatus with its variant readings, its explanatory notes, its indications of the existence of possible interpolations, etc. But I have already said (see above, paragraph 88) that where one has at one's disposal only one manuscript, there are no longer any possible variant readings (barring specific cases: difficulties in deciphering a word, errors in preceding editions, etc.). And when one has at one's disposal several manuscripts (two, at the most, for certain periods of the Diary; perhaps three in some very limited cases), it is sufficient to eliminate those periods and those cases in order to confine oneself strictly to the periods and to the cases where it is necessary to be contented with a single manuscript (here, the period from 6 December 1942 to 21 December 1943).

95. To the hypothesis, henceforth inconceivable, according to which there would exist an authentic manuscript, I say that none of the printed texts can claim to reproduce the text of the manuscript. The following table establishes, in fact, that the Fischer

edition of 1955 comes in the eight position in the order of succession of the varying forms of the Diary. To understand this table, refer especially to paragraphs 52. and 53.

• The Manuscript of Anne Frank;

• II. Copy by Otto Frank, then by Otto Frank and Isa Cauvern:

• III. New Version of the Copy by Otto Frank and Isa Cauvern;

• IV. New-New Version of the Copy by Albert Cauvern;

• V. New-New-New Version by Otto Frank;

• VII. Contact Edition (1947):

• 96. The only interest in a study of the manuscripts which are, allegedly, by Anne Frank would be to bring to light some elements still more crushing for Mr. Frank: for example, some letters or fragments of letters which have never been published (the reasons for non-publication should be inquired into closely, without trusting in the reasons given by Mr. Frank, which always have a very suspicious sentimental coloring); for example also, some very changeable names for Anne's "correspondents" (the idea of showing her always addressing herself to the same "dear Kitty" seems to be a belated idea), etc.

Anne Frank 53

• 98. The reasoning which would consist of saying that there have only been some hundreds of changes between such and such form of the Diary is fallacious. The word "changes" is too vague. It allows, according to the taste of each person, all sorts of condemnations or, especially, all sorts of excuses. Furthermore, a change can involve, as we have seen, a single word or a text of 1600 words!
• 99. For my part, I have called attention to several hundreds of changes, only between the Dutch text and either of the two texts—which differ from each other—which have been published in Germany. I call those changes: additions, subtractions, transferences and alterations (by substitutions of one word for another, of one group of words of another—these words and these groups of words being incompatible with each other, even if indeed, by the rarest exception, the meaning could be maintained). The whole of these changes must affect approximately 25,000 words of the Fischer text which itself must be 77,000 words (that is, in any case, the number which I take for a base).
• 100. The French translation of Het Achterhuis can be called a "translation" in spite of the absence of one of the 169 entries of the Dutch Contact edition and notwithstanding indeed some weaknesses and also some bizarre things which lead one to think that there still could be some troublesome discoveries to be made. [Journal/de Anne Frank Het Achterhuis, translated from the Dutch by T. Caren and Suzanne Lombard, Calmann-Levy, 1950, printed 5 January 1974, 320 pages.) The Lambert Schneider edition cannot in any event, be presented as a translation. As to the Fischer edition, it cannot call itself a reproduction of the Lamber Schneider edition, nor a translation of Het Achterhuis.

friends of Mr. Frank, the existence of two such different books presented as one and the same Diary of Anne Frank—all these reveal a work which cannot, in any way, retain the prestige attached to an authentic testimony. The inconsistencies of the various texts are of all kinds. They concern the language and the style, the length and the form of the pieces that make up the Diary, the number and the kind of anecdotes reported, the description of the premises, the mention of material realities, the dialogues, the ideas exchanged, the tastes expressed; they concern the very personalities of the principal characters, to begin with the personality of Anne Frank, a personality which gives the impression of living in a world of pure fiction.

• 102. While offering himself as personal guarantor of the authenticity of this work, which is only fiction, Mr. Frank, who has besides obviously intervened at all stages of the genesis of the book, has signed what it is appropriate to call a literary fraud. The Diary of Anne Frank is to be placed on the already crowded shelf of false memoirs. Our post-war period has been fertile in works or writings of this kind. Among those false, apocryphal or suspicious works (either entirely, or by insertions of foreign elements) one can mention: the various "testimonies" of Rudolf Höss, Kurt Gerstein, Miklos Nyiszli, Emmanuel Ringelblum, the memoirs of Eva Braun, Adolf Eichmann, Walter Schellenberg, but also the document entitled: "Prayer of John XXIII for the Jews." One must mention especially the false diaries fabricated by the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw and denounced by the French historian Michel Borwicz, of Polish Jewish origin; among those diaries could appear that of one Therese Hescheles, age thirteen.²
• 103. I would take care not to forget that one of the most celebrated forgeries was fabricated against the Jews: the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I ask that people not misunderstand the direction that I have given to my research on the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank. Even if my personal conviction is that the work comes from Mr. Frank; even if I think that at the rate of two letters per day, three months would have been enough for him to prepare the first version of his clumsy fiction; even if I think that he did not believe that his work would know such an immense success (which, at the same time, would risk causing its terrible faults to become evident); even if I think that one can then find a thousand extenuating circumstances for
• 2. Michel Borowicz, Revue d'histoire de la Deuxieme Guerre mondiale, January 1962, page 93.

French Editor's Postscript (1980)

The report that you have just read was not destined for publication. In the mind of Professor Faurisson, it only constituted one piece, among others, of a work that he intended to devote to the Diary of Anne Frank.

We publish it today—in spite of the reticence of its author who, for his part, would have hoped for a more extended publication including some elements which are still being worked on—because the French press and the foreign press have created an uproar about the professor's opinion on the Diary of Anne Frank. The public itself may feel the need to judge these pieces. We have thus wished to put the essential part of these pieces at its disposal. You can thus make for yourself your own judgements on Faurisson's methods of work and on the results to which they had led him by August of 1978.

The court, after having heard the parties and having begun to examine the basis of the litigation, decided, to everyone's surprise, to adjourn any new session sine die.

According to the usual scenario, from the time the trial opened the press dictated to the court the conduct to follow. The Social Democratic Party of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt went into the front lines of the battle and in a long open letter vigorously took a position in favor of Mr. Frank. For this political party, the cause was judged in advance, and the authenticity of the Diary had been proved a long time ago.

Still, this refusal to judge constitutes progress. In a similar

Justice is equal for all, subject to the exceptio diabolica.

*With one exception. The original report contained an Appendix #3 which consisted of a statement from a French university professor who is highly regarded for his competence in the matter of textual criticism. The last phrase of the statement is the following: "It is certain that the customs of literary communication authorize Mr. Frank, or anyone else, to construct as many fictional characters of Anne Frank as he wants to, but on condition that he does not pretend that these fictional beings are identical with the character of his daughter." That argument from authority, that is, the statement of an eminent academic on the quality of the work carried out, is itself presentable to a court, but it is not justified in a public debate. Furthermore, two other professors were preparing to reach the same conclusions, when suddenly the "Faurisson Affair" broke out in the press in November of 1978. Those professors prudently decided to abstain. As a consequence, we have decided not to name anyone. The debate having become public, it behooves each one to determine if he wishes to intervene publicly.

Appendix i photographs

Photo no. 1 Map of Amsterdam, 263 Prinsengracht Street, a busy place right in the very heart of the city.

• 1. The Westerkirk church
• 2. The "Anne Frank Home" (recent construction).
• 3. House no. 265 (with an nex with black roof).
• 4. House no. 263 (with annex with red roof): the "Anne Frank House."
• long red roof (without annex). Note how the houses of the neighborhood crowd around a central greer space: the Anne Frank House and its "annex" were exposed from all directions, regardless of the trees.

Photo no. 3

A photo of the 263 Prinsengracht Anne Frank house in 1940 (facade looking out on the canal; at left no. 261 and at the right, no. 265). A five story "house of windows" (without shutters).

Photo no. 4

The eight persons lived in hiding in the annex. The four Franks and Dussel on the second floor, the three Van Daans on the third. On the second floor, the door/cupboard on the landing connected the house with the annex. This plan, to which I've added, appears in all the editions of the Diary. It does not seem really to scale: the facade of the building is approx. 8 meters wide and the court only 3.7 meters. To have a view of the whole, put the three levels indicated here on top of one another and add to them, at the first level, a ground floor, and at the fifth level, some mansarded attics to which stairways D and F respectively lead

Five revealing photos. The neighbors on the right (265 Prinsengracht) could have easily seen and heard what took place at 263 Prinsengracht. Photos 9 and 10 prove that they had seven openeings that looked out on no. 263.

Photo no. 7

Photo no. 8

2. You are in the corridor.
   Note, at your left, the swinging cupboard in the open position and, at the right, through the window, the wall of the "An

Photono 9

3. You are on the third floor on the connecting terrace between the "annex" and the "front house": a) the first gable on the court (at your right) belongs to the front of the Anne Frank house; the other is that of the neighboring house (no. 255); b) from the same position but looking steeply down on the courtyard, you note six openings: the first, at your right, belongs to the Anne Frank house and the five others to the neighboring house (no. 265); c) advancing on the terrace you note above you the bell tower of the Westerkirk as well as the "Anne Frank Home" (recent construction).

Photo no. 10 (3b)

Photo no. 11 (3c)

Photo no. 12

Photos n° 13 et n° 14

Deux spécimens de l'écriture attribuée à Anne Frank

The rol hoop it lan jou alles kunnen howerbrouwen, knals it het nog sen miemand gekund heb, en it hoop dal je llor grote Alemn oon me kull rijn. Anne Frank 12 Juni 1942.

Photo nº 1.

_______________________________________

Two examples of handwriting attributed to Anne Frank. If one can believe these dates, these two texts were written four months apart. One can compare separately both the texts themselves and their signatures. The first document is the facsimile of the epigraph of the Diary (Journal de Anne Frank), translated from the Dutch by Tylia Caren and Suzanne Lombard, Calman-Levy, 1950. The second is the facsimile of a text written by Anne Frank on the back of one of her photographs (Journal de Anne Frank), Livre de Poche, D.L. The "adult" handwriting is about four months prior to the "childish" printing!

Anne Frank may not have\ninked that famous diary

A REPORT by the Germ Federal Criminal Investig

tion Bureau (BKA) indicates that portions of The Diary of Anne Frank had been altered or added after 1951, casting doubt over the authenticity of the entire work, the West German news weekly Der Spie-

The diary, a day-to-day account of the anguish of a young Jewish girl and her family hiding in in their Amsterdam home during the Nazi invasion, has touched the hearts of mil-

This was the second suit against Roemer, a long-time critic of the book, by

The examination of the manuscript did not, however, unearth any conclusive evidence to lay to rest the speculations about the authenticity of the first

( Continued from inside front cover )

Unfortunately for Frank, a well-known Jewish writer, Myer Levin, sued him in 1956 for incorporating large segments of a film script that he had written into the diary for which he was never paid. A New York City court ordered Frank to pay Levin \$50,000 as indemnity because Levin was a victim of "fraud, default, and unauthorized employment of ideas".

In the 1970s, a German citizen named Ernst Roemer charged that the diary was a hoax and actually written by Otto Frank for profit. Because it is a serious crime under German law to cast doubt on "holocaust" claims, the court initially ruled for Frank. Roemer appealed the ruling, offering evidence of forensic experts in his defense. In 1980, these experts analyzed the original diary manuscript. Using microscopic and ultra-violet illumination, they determined that large portions of the "diary" were written with a ball point pen. They were not manufactured until 1951.

Otto Frank died just as questions about the diary were being publicized. He was thus spared the ordeal of being prosecuted for fraud. On Oct. 6,1980, the largest news magazine in Germany, Der Spiegel, further confirmed that the diary could not have been written by Anne Frank.

This fabrication has been promoted to the point that it exists in every library in America. It is required reading for most school children. They are never informed of the fact that it is a clever novel and not an authentic "diary." Let us never forget the admonition from noted American philosopher and poet Ralph Waldo Emerson that: "EVERY VIOLATION OF TRUTH IS A STAB AT THE HEALTH OF HUMAN SOCIETY."

About the Book

First published in 1947 in its original Dutch, the Diary was destined to appear in at least five languages in some nine different versions not even counting the English language editions

The 1963 U.S. edition of Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl came with an introduction by Eleanor Roosevelt. According to the publisher, Cardinal, more than 2,500,000 copies of the book had been sold by that year in American editions alone, and it had already been made into one of the most highly honored plays in Broadway history, capturing the Pulitzer Prize, the New York Drama Critics Circle Award and the Antoinette Perry Award. George Stevens had made it into a major motion picture starring Millie Perkins as Anne Frank.

This booklet is an exact reprint of the article which appeared with the same title in the Summer 1982 issue of The Journal of Historical Review. Dr. Faurisson opens his treatise with a critical internal analysis of the text of the Diary, followed by the details of an on-site forensic examination of the actual premises where Anne is supposed to have been in hiding (now a museum in Amsterdam). He then proceeds to a number of material discrepencies revealed during his interviews with the principal witness, Anne's father, Otto Frank, concluding the work with a bibliographic analysis and comparisons between two major texts of the Diary.

In reading this booklet you will not only discover the truth about the origins and evolution of this Diary attributed to a young girl, you'll also gain a healthy understanding of the incredible lengths to which people have gone to propagate and profit from this simple literary fraud—quite instructive as one delves deeper into the "Holocaust" literature.

About the Author