Digitized Anne Frank manuscripts

[Archie]

There is a website that has facsimiles of the original pages of the source material for the Anne Frank diary.
https://www.annefrankmanuscripten.org/

See also here:
https://www.annefrank.org/en/about-us/n ... -entirely/

As it explains in the link above, there are copyright issues, so it's not available in all countries (including the United States and UK). It will geo-block you if your IP is from a country where it's still under copyright.

Here's the list of countries where it is available. If you live in one of these places you should be able to access it, no problem.


How to Get Around the Geo-Blocking

For the rest of us: You need to change your IP to be from a country on the approved list. There are multiple ways to do this.

• Proxy Server - there's a browser extension called GeoProxy that is free. You can select a country and it will try to connect you. You might have to try a few times and try out different countries.
• VPN - this usually costs money, but if you already subscribe to a service you can set a location
• Tor

Possibilities for Research

From looking over the materials, it looks like it would be useful for doing textual criticism and for handwriting analysis.

The "diary" entries are actually from three different books. This is often called the "A" text.
-The Checkered Notebook
-A Dark Notebook
-Another Dark Notebook

Additionally, she supposedly started "rewriting" her own diary on a bunch of loose sheets. This is often called the "B" text.

The published version(s) edit parts of the A and B texts together. And there are numerous textual variations between the published editions.

If anyone wants to do a deep dive on this, you will probably also want to get a hold of the Revised Critical Edition by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD). Ikuo Suzuki's book was based largely on that. I don't think he had access to these manuscripts at the time he was doing his research.

Most of the diary appears to be in a very mature cursive script. Here's a sample page from one of the dark notebooks.


The NIOD swore up and down that the handwriting has all been authenticated. Yet we also have some rather juvenile-looking samples that are attributed to her.


There appears to be a little bit of non-cursive in the diary pages.


HDOT has a page on this (and some other Anne Frank pages) but they don't really go into any detail. They just say we should trust the NIOD.
https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/a ... authentic/

[Hektor]

The hand-writing does look quite different. But I think one argument is going to be that one is fast writing style, while the other one is print-writing style. Sure there is other arguments they can come up with.

[DavidM]

There is an obvious possibility that has never been explored.
"According to the diary of her younger sister, Anne, Margot kept a diary of her own, but no trace of it has ever been found."

Margot was born in 16 February 1926 and was 3 years and 4 months older than Anne (born 12 June 1929)


What is called the Diary of Anne Frank seems to have two levels of writing, one obviously more childish than the other.
A childish diary by Anne Frank was found but much of what has been included in the "Diary" are various sheets found scattered about the Annex. It is also clear that Otto Frank had edited various parts.

[Hektor]

There is an obvious possibility that has never been explored.
"According to the diary of her younger sister, Anne, Margot kept a diary of her own, but no trace of it has ever been found."

Margot was born in 16 February 1926 and was 3 years and 4 months older than Anne (born 12 June 1929)


What is called the Diary of Anne Frank seems to have two levels of writing, one obviously more childish than the other.
A childish diary by Anne Frank was found but much of what has been included in the "Diary" are various sheets found scattered about the Annex. It is also clear that Otto Frank had edited various parts.

That was the challenging to the text... That it was edited (Not really tragically), but that there was stuff added on a later stage. Now you can do that with virtually any historical text... And it's mostly done with the bible, especially the NT-transcripts.... But nobody would blink an eye about is and the debates on the issue are rather civil.... While it does confuse many students in their first years, there will also be scholars that will point out that this textual criticism helped them to understand the text better and actually affirmed many things that they previously thought were challenged. It also helped to gain certitude on which parts of historical texts are actually originals and which parts are 'later notes'.

Sure a lot of it still remains speculation, because texts were written in the past with authors mostly dead long ago.

[Archie]

There is an obvious possibility that has never been explored.
"According to the diary of her younger sister, Anne, Margot kept a diary of her own, but no trace of it has ever been found."

Margot was born in 16 February 1926 and was 3 years and 4 months older than Anne (born 12 June 1929)


What is called the Diary of Anne Frank seems to have two levels of writing, one obviously more childish than the other.
A childish diary by Anne Frank was found but much of what has been included in the "Diary" are various sheets found scattered about the Annex. It is also clear that Otto Frank had edited various parts.

According to Suzuki, in addition to being older, by most accounts Margot was also the bright one and was the better student. He argues that the diary as published is beyond the writing ability of someone Anne's age and Anne could not have written it unless she were truly exceptional and gifted (and he argues she was not). He ends up favoring the Meyer Levin authorship theory, mostly by process of elimination. I found the book interesting, but personally I don't find the Levin authorship theory very persuasive.

[Archie]

There is an obvious possibility that has never been explored.
"According to the diary of her younger sister, Anne, Margot kept a diary of her own, but no trace of it has ever been found."

Margot was born in 16 February 1926 and was 3 years and 4 months older than Anne (born 12 June 1929)


What is called the Diary of Anne Frank seems to have two levels of writing, one obviously more childish than the other.
A childish diary by Anne Frank was found but much of what has been included in the "Diary" are various sheets found scattered about the Annex. It is also clear that Otto Frank had edited various parts.

That was the challenging to the text... That it was edited (Not really tragically), but that there was stuff added on a later stage. Now you can do that with virtually any historical text... And it's mostly done with the bible, especially the NT-transcripts.... But nobody would blink an eye about is and the debates on the issue are rather civil.... While it does confuse many students in their first years, there will also be scholars that will point out that this textual criticism helped them to understand the text better and actually affirmed many things that they previously thought were challenged. It also helped to gain certitude on which parts of historical texts are actually originals and which parts are 'later notes'.

Sure a lot of it still remains speculation, because texts were written in the past with authors mostly dead long ago.

Faurisson's work on Anne Frank has a lot of textual criticism. Early on he only had access to published versions, but even these vary substantially. In particular, the Dutch versions and the German version had notable differences. The German version had more text than the Dutch version, so it could not have been a straight translation of the original. It seems it was prepared from a somewhat different text. The English paperback version that I have is called the "definitive" edition and it seems they've worked in some bits that aren't present in many of the earlier published versions. Even the NIOD conceded that Otto Frank was very liberal with the editing and seems to have had little concern for the integrity of the supposed original.

[Hektor]

.....
Faurisson's work on Anne Frank has a lot of textual criticism. Early on he only had access to published versions, but even these vary substantially. In particular, the Dutch versions and the German version had notable differences. The German version had more text than the Dutch version, so it could not have been a straight translation of the original. It seems it was prepared from a somewhat different text. The English paperback version that I have is called the "definitive" edition and it seems they've worked in some bits that aren't present in many of the earlier published versions. Even the NIOD conceded that Otto Frank was very liberal with the editing and seems to have had little concern for the integrity of the supposed original.

Textual Criticism can of course also be overdone, easily. This can be observed with deconstructivism, where you can find contradictions and/or fault with any text.
The thing is that the Diary of Anne Frank texts are, at least in part not original Anne Frank. It is far-going an appeal to emotion, designed especially for middle class girls that are coming of age. Little princess persecuted by evil man, implying that they want to kill the family. Don't recall too much detail though, as I did find it too anecdotal anyway. The biographies of the Anne Frank family do in no way support the Holocaust Narrative, but are perfectly in line with the Revisionist thesis.