Today in a chat room i heard the “Diary of Anne Frank,” was untrue.That it was written in ballpoint pen.I researched ballpoint pen,found the patent was taken out in 1943.Could this mean the chatter was correct,the book is fake?
Here’s a site that debunks this, despite being very critical of the diary in general:
http://www.heretical.com/supps/frank6.html
This site supports that claim:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/f/frank-anne/press/anne-frank-001.html
This reference to a German Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau supports the claim that only loose papers in the fourth volume were in ballpoint pen.
Arjuna34
Anne Frank received her diary in June, 1942. The Frank family went into hiding in July, 1943. What you’re asking is if a ballpoint pen, manufactured sometime in 1943, could have somehow made its way into a secret hiding place in Holland.
Think about it.
Ain’t a likely scenario, is it?
So it is your belief that books written by the people who supplied the Franks in hiding, photos of the family and the hiding place, and the museum of the Secret Annex in Amsterdam, all these are elaborate ruses to maintain the hoax?
Yes, I suppose it is hard to believe that friends of the Franks might have included a pen among the many supplies they brought to them, or that one of the Franks might have just taken a pen from the office below the secret annex. :rolleyes:
I think he simply posted too quickly. The second link in the Arjuna34 post one minute before VS’s answers all the questions.
This has to be another plot by the Holocaust-deniers, who will pick and pick and pick (with lies and distortions and total bunk) to try to pretend that the Holocaust never happened because they can “prove” (with lies and deceit) that a certain letter was forged or that a certain death was from malaria rather than gassing.
Wake up, folks.
This is the second month in a row where a poster’s question was answered in full by the current Smithsonian Magazine. Last month it was whirlpools, this month Anne Frank. Check out the article, mostly about the Anne Frank house itself but civering the fraud issue, at:
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues01/oct01/anne_frank.html
Really, you guys should subscribe!
And if you ever look for the book in your local library, remember that the book was published in English under the title “Diary of a Young Girl”.
When I visited the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam, I was struck by the fact that Anne Frank and my mother would have been the same age. One person got to live and another person got to die and it’s hard to figure out why such things occur.
thank you for your replies.i did some research on ballpoint pens,the patent was obtained in 1943,but they did not come into general use till 1945,when they were adopted for use by RAF pilots.
Have you ever seen facsimiles of the diary pages? That sure looks like a non-ballpont pen to me (see Melisa Muller’s bio of Anne Frank for copies of the pages).
BabT, your library doesn’t seem to have one of the best of the recent editions, which is called The Diary of Anne Frank: The Definitive Edition.
The newest editions have had the title “The Diary of Anne Frank”, but when the book was released and in its most prevalent format, it is “Diary of a Young Girl.” And most editions sold have the latter title, but some publishers have switched to the “Diary of Anne Frank” because the name Anne Frank is now well-known. The 1959 film was called “The Diary of Anne Frank”.
Its original Dutch title was “Het achterhuis”.
Thanks again for all replies.After some more research that says the ballpoint writing was from some other party i have decided to believe the book is NON fiction.
I think that the father, Otto?, was sued in a NY court and lost a civil judgement by the alleged writer of it, wasn’t he? in the 50s or 60s? i’m too busy now to find cites. sorry.
I think that the father, Otto?, was sued in a NY court and lost a civil judgement by the alleged writer of it, wasn’t he? in the 50s or 60s? i’m too busy now to find cites. sorry.
I have not been able to find anything corroborating this statement yet, but the Diary has certainly been the subject of several other lawsuits: http://www.annefrank.nl/eng/articles/authenticiteit.cfm
The detractors regularly lose in court. Considering the number of times the evidence has been examined and the book found to be genuine, there can’t be much doubt that it is legitimate.
CKDH has the right call on this one.
RR
Re the ballpoint ink issue, here is one interesting quote for the article cited: "The BKA was invited by the “Gerechtelijk Laboratorium” to indicate where on the loose-leaf pages they had found the ballpoint ink. The BKA was unable to point out a single alleged correction in ballpoint ink. "
This sounds like a garbled version of Meyer Levin suing Otto Frank. It wasn’t the “alleged writer of [the diary]”, it was someone who wrote a stage version based on it. Levin reviewed the book in the New York Times Book Review when it was first published in the US. Frank then appointed him as his US literary agent in order for him to try to get the story mounted as a play. Levin went ahead and wrote a stage version, but failed to get it produced. Frank then transferred the rights from him, with the result that the play was written by others. In 1958 Levin sued, claiming that this version plagerized his earlier draft. A jury found in Levin’s favour, but this was overturned on appeal. With the case likely to continue to higher courts, the parties settled out of court: Frank paid Levin 15K dollars in return for the latter dropping all claims to royalities and rights.
The case is discussed in Lipstadt’s Denying the Holocaust (it’s on p231 of the first UK edition, Penguin, 1994). It was also described at greater length in a New Yorker article coinciding with the revival of the play on Broadway a couple of years back.