Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Becoming Anne Frank: why did we turn an isolated teenage girl into the world's most famous Holocaust victim?

This article makes some interesting points I'd never considered before. Why is the most famous memoir by a Holocaust victim one that ends BEFORE she gets to a concentration camp? There are so many books by survivors that are nowhere near as well known. Is the popularity of Anne's diary a result of society kidding ourselves that we will remember the Holocaust, while not actually wanting to dwell on the horrendous details?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 96October 18, 2021 1:26 AM

Maybe because she was a good writer.

by Anonymousreply 1January 26, 2021 6:16 PM

The bigger question is why isn't a book that's a fairly obvious literary hoax called out as such? And don't misinterpret that statement as Holocaust denial.

by Anonymousreply 2January 26, 2021 6:16 PM

Yes, and because it was a remarkable document in various respects, not least of which were the very personal perspective on what it was like to live as a Jew under Nazi persecution, and the charm and relatability of Anne's personality. That it ends not in her own voice, silenced by her capture, but with the coda that she died in Bergen-Belsen, only adds to the tragedy.

In my opinion, its popularity has nothing to do with the fact that it doesn't deal with details of the concentration camps. It was a miracle that the diary survived, and people at the time it was published fully appreciated that. With hindsight now, others can go on about meta issues like our supposed distaste for hearing about the camps, but that information is found plenty of other places. Almost equally famous literary works like those of Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi cover it, as does copious documentary coverage. A young girl's voice reaching the world's ears after her death is a special kind of testament.

by Anonymousreply 3January 26, 2021 6:30 PM

Because she was a Belieber. No other Holocaust girl tweens were.

by Anonymousreply 4January 26, 2021 6:35 PM

There was nothing joyful and hopeful about the human spirit in her diary. She loved every single day in fear, in cramped quarters without enough food. Living on top of other people. Because monsters hated her religion. Then someone betrayed her and her family and she died a gruesome death from typhus in a pestilent concentration camp. But everybody who reviews the diary always talks about it in positive terms. “So uplifting...a triumph of the human spirit...”. She was exterminated.

by Anonymousreply 5January 26, 2021 6:35 PM

Her father was making some money off of this, let's not be naive. I found the whole thing tedious, and somehow "off". When I learned how much he edited it, that came as no surprise.

by Anonymousreply 6January 26, 2021 6:38 PM

I’m pretty sure this little girl’s diary isn’t entirely written by her. Just like Hellen Keller’s writings.

by Anonymousreply 7January 26, 2021 6:40 PM

The fact that it's written as if she knows the ending is a big giveaway, right down to the suspect last line -

"I get cross, then sad, and finally end up turning my heart inside g out, the bad part on the outside and the good part on the inside, and keep trying to find a way to become what I'd like to be and what I could be if… if only there were no other people in the world."

This seems obviously contrived.

by Anonymousreply 8January 26, 2021 6:47 PM

In the popular movie, she wasn't actually Jewish, or even a child. Mainstream audiences could relate better.

by Anonymousreply 9January 26, 2021 6:48 PM

I'd gladly trade her for Roman Polanski.

by Anonymousreply 10January 26, 2021 6:52 PM

[quote]Becoming Anne Frank: why did we turn an isolated teenage girl into the world's most famous Holocaust victim?

because it was written by a teeenage girl, probably

there was a much more interesting book called The Nazi Officer's Wife - good documentary but no film as yet.

glad the doc's had over 2 million views on YT

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11January 26, 2021 6:58 PM

Because most people read Anne Frank in elementary school, and it was their first exposure to something like this, a first person experience of a horrible time in history. Because she was a child, teen, young readers were riveted to her story and put themselves in her place, psychologically. It seemed like fiction, but it wasn't, so it became a profound experience to identify with this frightened young girl, who was helpless and innocent in dealing with the realities of war, just like we felt helpless with our own inner angst.

by Anonymousreply 12January 26, 2021 6:58 PM

Turns out there was a lot of fiction in this so-called "diary". That was a pretty big story when it came out that her father "fiddled" with it, now it seems to be buried again.

by Anonymousreply 13January 26, 2021 7:01 PM

As someone who reads a lot of adolescent's writing, it is hard to imagine this as a forgery. The preoccupations and world view are very teen. I have never seen any adult writer who could reproduce that voice as well.

by Anonymousreply 14January 26, 2021 7:01 PM

^^^Furthermore, teens are often brilliant writers. But most turn mediocre as they get to college age.

by Anonymousreply 15January 26, 2021 7:03 PM

[R14] Well, I'm a professional reader and I think it sounds contrived.

by Anonymousreply 16January 26, 2021 7:04 PM

[quote] Because most people read Anne Frank in elementary school, and it was their first exposure to something like this, a first person experience of a horrible time in history. Because she was a child, teen, young readers were riveted to her story and put themselves in her place, psychologically. It seemed like fiction, but it wasn't, so it became a profound experience to identify with this frightened young girl, who was helpless and innocent in dealing with the realities of war, just like we felt helpless with our own inner angst.

Ding, ding, ding!

We have a winner!

by Anonymousreply 17January 26, 2021 7:07 PM

R14 et al., I haven't researched it lately, but I think that what Anne's father did was more along the lines out taking out slightly risqué material (related to her sexual awakening, I believe?) as well as some of her anger, such as toward her mother. He did sanitize it, but I don't think he made anything up. I'll have to look it up, but I have a vague memory that he may have made up the "people are good at heart" line, though. That would be a biggie.

by Anonymousreply 18January 26, 2021 7:08 PM

Because it's a young adult novel about the universal theme of a young girl's awakening that happens to take place during the Shoah.

Not a story about the Shoah that includes some bits and pieces about a young girl's awakening.

Jerzy Kosinski's "The Painted Bird" and Art Spiegelman's "Maus" are both excellent stories about the horrors of the Shoah that happen to also be well told stories.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19January 26, 2021 7:15 PM

^^ OK, I'll have to take that back. She did write that line, but *not* in that context. So Otto did fiddle around with it.

[quote] But perhaps more insidious are the ways in which readers have misinterpreted Anne Frank’s legacy over time. The most well-known quote from her book: “In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart,” has been upheld as evidence of hope for humanity despite the horrors of the Holocaust. But Anne actually penned the words at the end of a long, introspective entry in which she examines loneliness, fear and the increasing terror of war.

[quote]“It’s utterly impossible for me to build my life on a foundation of chaos, suffering and death,” she wrote in the same entry. “I see the world being slowly transformed into a wilderness, I hear the approaching thunder that, one day, will destroy us too, I feel the suffering of millions.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20January 26, 2021 7:16 PM

The manuscripts are extant, and what you say, R18 is borne out by them.

The varioum edition is quite good for comparing, what Anne wrote, what she recopied, and what her father excised.

It is hard to imagine any manuscript examined, reexamined, could be a forgery but bear all that scrutiny.

by Anonymousreply 21January 26, 2021 7:17 PM

[quote] Why did we turn an isolated teenage girl into the world’s most famous Holocaust victim? BY DARA HORN

Speak for yourself, madam!

And don't drag me into your conspiracy theories. You assume too much!

by Anonymousreply 22January 26, 2021 7:21 PM

Also hard to imagine anyone in the late 40s forging a manuscript would have included the passages where Anne talks about her changing body and another girls breasts, plus her criticism of her parents knowing that these passages would be excised.

Only a clairvoyant could predict that the diary would still be of interest in future decades where those passages would have become acceptable.

But the "diary is a forgery" advocates would have us believe someone penned these parts in a book meant for publication in the 40s (rather than a girl writing only for herself).

by Anonymousreply 23January 26, 2021 7:22 PM

The "it's a forgery" guy is clearly antisemitic and borderline Holocaust denier.

by Anonymousreply 24January 26, 2021 7:24 PM

"I believe every word of it!"

by Anonymousreply 25January 26, 2021 7:26 PM

.

by Anonymousreply 26January 26, 2021 7:26 PM

Her own foundation admitted he co-wrote the diaries;

by Anonymousreply 27January 26, 2021 7:26 PM

Go to the house and ask yourself if the diary was a hoax. It is a very distressing and emotionally exhausting experience.

by Anonymousreply 28January 26, 2021 7:28 PM

R2 Are you my grandmother?

Seriously, she was adamant that Anne Frank's diary was a fraud. I was too afraid to ask for details regarding why.

by Anonymousreply 29January 26, 2021 7:31 PM

Why did Audrey Hepburn REFUSE to star in the movie version?

by Anonymousreply 30January 26, 2021 7:36 PM

Hepburn was 30 in 1959, so she did THE NUN'S STORY instead that year.

Millie Perkins was 20. Still too old.

by Anonymousreply 31January 26, 2021 7:38 PM

The Dutch government in exile made an appeal over radio for firsthand accounts of life in the occupied Netherlands. Miss Frank’s diary was edited with this appeal in mind. I think that’s why some passages seem a bit contrived.

by Anonymousreply 32January 26, 2021 7:38 PM

The movie is atrocious. They turned it into a love story between Anne and Peter. Ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 33January 26, 2021 7:43 PM

[quote] so she did THE NUN'S STORY instead that year.

Another tear-jerker from a different religion and equally avoidable.

by Anonymousreply 34January 26, 2021 7:44 PM

I wish it hadn't been edited by her father, but there was legitimate content in there from Anne.

I think the book strikes a chord because it puts an everyday person into an event we think is almost impossible to imagine.

But there should be an "uncut" version, if the original pages still exist.

by Anonymousreply 35January 26, 2021 7:47 PM

"In 1980, Otto sued two Germans, Ernst Romer and Edgar Geiss, for distributing literature denouncing the diary as a forgery. The trial produced a study by official German handwriting experts that determined everything in the diary was written by the same person. The person that wrote the diaries had used a ballpoint pen throughout. Unfortunately for Herr Frank, the ballpoint pen was not available until 1951 whereas Anne was known to have died of typhus in 1944.

Because of the lawsuit in a German court, the German state forensic bureau, the Bundes Kriminal Amt [BKA] forensically examined the manuscript, which at that point in time consisted of three hardbound notebooks and 324 loose pages bound in a fourth notebook, with special forensic equipment.

The results of tests, performed at the BKA laboratories, showed that "significant" portions of the work, especially the fourth volume, were written with a ballpoint pen. Since ballpoint pens were not available before 1951, the BKA concluded those sections must have been added subsequently.

In the end, BKA clearly determined that none of the diary handwriting matched known examples of Anne's handwriting. The German magazine, Der Spiegel, published an account of this report alleging that (a) some editing postdated 1951; (b) an earlier expert had held that all the writing in the journal was by the same hand; and thus (c) the entire diary was a postwar fake. "

by Anonymousreply 36January 26, 2021 7:58 PM

From the New York Post, 1980

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 37January 26, 2021 8:03 PM

And yet there is no record in the German courts of such a case. And the BKA study did not examine Anne's writing in the diary.

Nor did the article R37 cites actually appear in the New York Post.

by Anonymousreply 38January 26, 2021 8:08 PM

Here is a deeper dive than I am willing to make.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 39January 26, 2021 8:09 PM

Here is a conundrum, R36.

How could the forger of Anne Franks diary use a ball-point pen that was not available till 1951--four years after the diary was first published?

by Anonymousreply 40January 26, 2021 8:12 PM

[R40] Because the book was published in 1952.

by Anonymousreply 41January 26, 2021 8:13 PM

[bold] [italic] T H E

L I N K

A T

R36/R37

I S

F R O M

C O N V I C T E D

H O L O C A U S T

D E N I E R

D A V I D

I R V I N G ' S

W E B S I T E

by Anonymousreply 42January 26, 2021 8:39 PM

This is who David Irving, who R36/R37 links to and quotes is:

[quote] [bold] The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist,[7] who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".[7][8] In addition, the court found that Irving's books had distorted the history of Hitler's role in the Holocaust to depict Hitler in a favourable light.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 43January 26, 2021 8:40 PM

[quote]Are there really entries in the diary in ballpoint pen?

[quote]No, that is not correct. All the diary entries are written in various types of ink and (coloured) pencil, not in ballpoint. The document analysis by the Netherlands Forensic Institute showed that the main part of the diary and the loose sheets were written in grey-blue fountain pen ink. In addition, Anne also used thin red ink, green and red coloured pencils and black pencil for her annotations: not ballpoint.

Nevertheless, the allegation can still regularly be seen on extreme right-wing websites and elsewhere that the diary of Anne Frank is written in ballpoint pen. Sneering remarks are made about “A. Frank the ballpoint girl”, and it is pointed out that the ballpoint pen only came into common use in Europe after the Second World War. The conclusion forced by this allegation is that the texts in the diary could not have been written by Anne Frank herself.

[quote]The origin of the “ballpoint myth“

[quote]The origin of the “ballpoint myth” is the four-page report that the Federal Criminal Police Office (the Bundeskriminalamt or BKA) in Wiesbaden, which was published in 1980. In this investigation into the types of paper and ink used in the diary of Anne Frank it is stated that “ballpoint corrections” had been made on some loose sheets. The BKA’s task was to report on all the texts found among the diaries of Anne Frank, and therefore also on the annotations that were made in Anne’s manuscripts after the war.

[quote]However, the Dutch investigation by the Forensic Institute in the mid-1980’s shows that writing in ballpoint is only found on two loose pages of annotations, and that these annotations are of no significance for the actual content of the diary. They were clearly placed between the other pages later. The researchers of the Forensic Institute also concluded that the handwriting on these two annotation sheets differs from the writing in the diary ‘to a far-reaching degree.’ Photos of these loose annotation sheets are included in the NIOD’s publication (see The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition, 2003, pages 168 and 170).

[quote]In 1987, a Mr Ockelmann from Hamburg wrote that his mother had written the annotation sheets in question. Mrs Ockelmann was a member of the team that carried out the graphological investigation into the writings of Anne Frank around 1960.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 44January 26, 2021 9:31 PM

The paragraph beginning "Nevertheless" should also be a quotation. I missed formatting that one.

by Anonymousreply 45January 26, 2021 9:32 PM

Anyone who thinks that the diary is a fraud has mental health issues. What bugs me is what people have turned it into. Her death is as important as her life. Her death was gruesome; the reasons behind it were inhuman. That deserves as much attention, maybe even more, than her hiding in the attic.

by Anonymousreply 46January 26, 2021 11:35 PM

The same gutless, spineless cowards attacking Anne Frank and her family on this thread are the same jack asses who attack Greta Thunberg with glee.

What is it was grown men getting their jollies attacking teen aged girls?

by Anonymousreply 47January 26, 2021 11:40 PM

It's obviously a fraud but too many people are invested ($$$$$$) in it's "authenticity" to bring about a reckoning of the truth. It reads like a Hollywood screenwriter's account of "the Anne Frank story" - so contrived and tasteful. And so easily adapted and disseminated. I'm always astounded how easy it is to dupe people.

by Anonymousreply 48January 27, 2021 12:57 AM

R 41, no.

The Diary was published in 1947.

The English translation was published in 1952.

Whoever made up the ballpoint story was too dumb to realize that the book was a translation of an book published earlier.

by Anonymousreply 49January 27, 2021 1:06 AM

My biggest note would be that THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK adheres to narrative and story structures that could only have been superimposed later over the source material. It's simply not credible as a "diary." Publishers and editors' hands were all over this material. And now it's sacrosanct to a whole motley crew of academics and museum curators who'd cut your throat if you questioned its validity. But that doesn't make it true.

by Anonymousreply 50January 27, 2021 1:24 AM

She was a German Rhoda Morgenstern. They have one of her headscarves hanging from a bedpost in the attic.

by Anonymousreply 51January 27, 2021 1:27 AM

"What about me?"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 52January 27, 2021 1:29 AM

We went to the house and the gloom was overwhelming. We cried the rest of the day. IMHO her story is our story.

by Anonymousreply 53January 27, 2021 1:31 AM

[R53] You should have focused on the tulips.

by Anonymousreply 54January 27, 2021 1:33 AM

I love Anne Frank. She was very smart and had a sharp tongue and loved celebrity gossip. She called the grown ups on their bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 55January 27, 2021 1:36 AM

Well if it's a fraud the writer certainly channeled the growing feelings of adolescent sexuality very well with hints of same sex attraction which seems incredible for a writer in the 40s. In fact if the book is not a fake I'm shocked they didn't that take out in the first place.

by Anonymousreply 56January 27, 2021 1:48 AM

It's not a fraud. Let's stop entertaining that theory.

by Anonymousreply 57January 27, 2021 6:02 PM

The diary is not a fraud.

by Anonymousreply 58January 27, 2021 6:42 PM

If she's a fraud, I want my Oscar back.

by Anonymousreply 59January 27, 2021 6:51 PM

" I'm always astounded how easy it is to dupe people."

I'm willing to bet good money R48 voted for Trump twice.

by Anonymousreply 60January 27, 2021 7:10 PM

This is a harrowing documentary that includes interviews with people who knew her and saw her at the concentration camp.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 61January 27, 2021 8:03 PM

"The bigger question is why isn't a book that's a fairly obvious literary hoax called out as such? And don't misinterpret that statement as Holocaust denial."

It's been verified that the diary was genuine, you dumb fuck. There have been lots of assholes like you who have denied the authenticity of the diary. But it was proven to be real. Fuck off.

by Anonymousreply 62January 27, 2021 8:06 PM

It's a fucked-up case of journey vs destination. In her case, her journey was trying to AVOID the destination. Her journey was full of fear--and childlike hope--until it came to a sudden end. And the only reason her book ends is because she couldn't take it with her when she was forced to that destination.

by Anonymousreply 63January 27, 2021 8:09 PM

She’s in the attic!!

by Anonymousreply 64January 27, 2021 8:50 PM

She became the "world's most famous Holocaust victim" probably because her story was so compelling and resonates with so many people, especially young girls. And she was such a promising writer at such a young age. She's revered for her comment "In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart", even though that line was taken out of context; Anne Frank knew very well that there was a lot of evil in the world. And of course her story ended in utmost tragedy. All these things combine to make her the premiere Holocaust victim.

Anne Frank has certainly been put up on a pedestal, but reading her diary it's obviously she's a child with flaws like any other. She's rather spoiled, full of herself and frequently gets into snits with others in the Secret Annex. She rails at her poor mother: "I simply can’t stand Mother, and I have to force myself not to snap at her all the time, and to stay calm, when I’d rather slap her across the face." And of course she berates Fritz Pfeffer (she calls him "Albert Dussel", which translates to "Albert Dunce"), the fifty something dentist who shares a room with her. A fifty something man and a young teenage girl sharing a room? What a bad idea. Anyway, they are of course like oil and water and from the way she describes him he comes off as a doddering, not very bright, very unlikeable human being, but the fact was that he was an intelligent, attractive man only in his mid-fifties who pined for his much younger fiance and left like the odd man out in the midst of two quarreling families. He thought children should be respectful and obedient towards their elders; that was definitely NOT Anne Frank's style. She's equally uncomplimentary about Mrs. Van Pels. In contrast she eventually, after coming to 'love" him, rhapsodizes about the Peter Van Pels, who was actually an unprepossessing dimwit. All in all, Anne Frank, for all her writing ability was still a child with a lot of growing up to do.

by Anonymousreply 65January 28, 2021 2:37 AM

So, the fault is not Anne’s

But rather that of her stans.

See how clever I am 😉

by Anonymousreply 66January 28, 2021 12:02 PM

When I started this thread, I genuinely did not expect it to attract Holocaust deniers. Clearly, I'm much more naive than I realised.

by Anonymousreply 67January 28, 2021 9:16 PM

It's because her diary is considered so informative yet palatable to children, that it's been taught in schools and pushed by teachers for decades.

It's considered a great way to introduce children to the horrors of war, genocide, and persecution, precisely because it was written by another kid and contains no brutality. The people who want kids to read it would NEVER think of giving them the diary of someone who was actually in a Concentration Camp, they'd rather get the kids to like Anne and then tell their pupils that's how the poor girl died... without details.

by Anonymousreply 68January 29, 2021 12:14 AM

Anne Frank was a talented writer, but she could’ve been more descriptive about Peter’s dick, ass, and sexual prowess.

by Anonymousreply 69January 29, 2021 1:51 AM

"Anne Frank was a talented writer, but she could’ve been more descriptive about Peter’s dick, ass, and sexual prowess."

I seriously doubt Anne Frank ever got a look at Peter Van Pel's "dick and ass." I doubt she got a sample of his "sexual prowess", either. There would have been no way possible for them to have sex without it being known by the others in the attic. All they did was kiss, and even that was wasn't a secret. Anne's father admonished her for the "necking" going on between her and Peter. Anyway, her interest in him didn't last that long. Their "love" evaporated" quickly, at least on her part.

by Anonymousreply 70January 29, 2021 8:43 PM

Wasn't there a part where they discussed their genitalia?

by Anonymousreply 71September 6, 2021 10:05 PM

The definitive edition has three different versions of the diary side by side. It's been on my reading list for ages. I still haven't gotten to it yet.

by Anonymousreply 72September 6, 2021 10:19 PM

R35, the "uncut" diary has been published. First as part of a variorium edition. Then as a separate reading edition.

It is fascinating to read the variorium. Anne herself rewrote part of the diary and to see how she changed the original entries (sometimes for the better, sometimes now) is like watching her grow up on a page.

by Anonymousreply 73September 6, 2021 10:44 PM

Another brilliant teenager snuffed out during this time: Petr Ginz, who died at Auschwitz at age 16. He might have become another Kafka or Asimov if he'd lived.

He had terrible luck: He was at a less-deadly holding camp and was put on one of the last transports to Auschwitz.

He kept a diary, too.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 74September 6, 2021 11:28 PM

An English version of “The Sisters of Auschwitz” was just released. Those sisters met the Frank sisters as they were being deported from Amsterdam and ultimately buried the two in 1945. They describe a celebration on December 31, 1944 for Hanukkah, Christmas, and New Year’s. The others feasted on potato peels. Anne prepared a garlic clove.

If you have ever been to the museum, the reality just hits you. I wish I could be surprised by the deniers, but the last 5 years have convinced me there is no limit to how low people can go.

by Anonymousreply 75September 6, 2021 11:29 PM

Because the diary made her relatable to average people especially young ones. Did they ever figure out who ratted the family out? I think there's been a lot of speculation over the years but nothing conclusive. Interesting that the fatality rate among dutch Jews was so high. Much higher than france iirc. Someone once said that the Dutch are more German than the German....

by Anonymousreply 76September 6, 2021 11:44 PM

They have not conclusively determined who betrayed them.

The fatality rate was extremely high for Dutch Jews, but a lot of that had to do with how organized and bureaucratic the Dutch were. It was easy to find and track down the Jews. Actually, the Dutch protested anti-Jewish laws and hid many Jews. The French were more anti-Semitic, but were not fully occupied by the Germans. Still, three out of four Dutch Jews were killed.

If you go to Amsterdam, I highly recommend the Jewish Museum - which is actually four museums. Amsterdam was a haven of religious freedom and attracted a large Jewish population in the centuries before the Holocaust.

by Anonymousreply 77September 7, 2021 12:43 AM

R77 interesting post. If I ever go to Amsterdam I will check out the Jewish museum .

by Anonymousreply 78September 7, 2021 12:55 AM

At one point Mr. Van Daan wants to burn Anne's diary in case they get arrested and the Gestapo find it. How tragic that if not for the diary the existence of everyone in the attic would have been erased.

by Anonymousreply 79September 7, 2021 1:20 AM

What were her writings about poop?

It does seem odd she write about it.

by Anonymousreply 80September 7, 2021 1:27 AM

"Wrote" about it.

by Anonymousreply 81September 7, 2021 1:28 AM

When you've killed a million Palestians with the assistance of America and seized their land, you need a put a cute girl's face on the packaging. If only other peoples subject to genocide had been so smart they might have creamed it too. Dumb Armenians! Dumb Mongos! Oh that's right. They didn't want to steal other people's land!

by Anonymousreply 82September 7, 2021 1:35 AM

Here's something I wondered about. Did the married couples have to abstain from sex while in hiding? Did they send everyone downstairs so they could have some privacy?

by Anonymousreply 83September 7, 2021 1:45 AM

Someone upthread actually complained that the diary didn't continue when she went to the camps. SMDH

Gee maybe her Cloud account was unpaid so she couldn't upload her continued writings while in the camp.

by Anonymousreply 84September 7, 2021 4:34 AM

[quote] When you've killed a million Palestians with the assistance of America and seized their land, you need a put a cute girl's face on the packaging

Two completely separate things, but then, you’re not arguing in good faith anyway.

by Anonymousreply 85September 7, 2021 6:18 AM

R83, I hate to say it, but I’ve wondered about that too.

by Anonymousreply 86October 17, 2021 6:40 PM

Anne Frank's writing satisfied one of humanity great needs: to ready somebody else's diary without them knowing.

by Anonymousreply 87October 17, 2021 6:44 PM

This thread settles, once and for all, the question of whether there are Nazi sympathizers on DL.

I can’t even begin to imagine sinking to such depths of depravity.

by Anonymousreply 88October 17, 2021 6:51 PM

[quote] I seriously doubt Anne Frank ever got a look at Peter Van Pel's "dick and ass." I doubt she got a sample of his "sexual prowess", either.

When you got it, you got it...

by Anonymousreply 89October 17, 2021 7:12 PM

Because Andy Frank was really a trans man, and he threw the first brick at the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

by Anonymousreply 90October 17, 2021 7:13 PM

That is so bad, r90. But also so funny.

by Anonymousreply 91October 17, 2021 8:32 PM

Once Beanie is finished with Funny Girl on Broadway, she's doing the film remake of Diary. In this version, she's in the basement.

by Anonymousreply 92October 17, 2021 8:38 PM

^ the cafeteria kitchen, surely.

by Anonymousreply 93October 17, 2021 8:43 PM

As surely as the sun will rise in the East (it rises in the East, right? I gotta check that one out. Sometimes even life's simple things confuse me), there will be sick heads and their Fucktard followers who will write some shit mental masturbation that a Woketard publisher flavour of the SJW week will publish to take a story like that of Anne Frank, whose story has inspired millions of people from every race, every background, every socio-economic demographic, to make themselves and oftentimes the world around them a better place, AND MAKE IT ALL ABOUT THEM.

To quote Millie Jackson, "PISS ON THEM!"

by Anonymousreply 94October 17, 2021 8:59 PM

^That sentence is as long as her whole diary.

by Anonymousreply 95October 17, 2021 9:01 PM

[quote]When you've killed a million Palestians with the assistance of America

The Israel-Palestinian conflict has lasted decades, but has been low intensity. Using Wikipedia, FWIW, it seems Palestinian fatalities from 1920 until now have not yet reached 50,000. Yes, I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable source; still, I doubt it's off by an order of magnitude. Perhaps you should research this issue further.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 96October 18, 2021 1:26 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!