HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 396124614,
"image": {
"id": 1013,
"uuid": "dab8b2a0-ff64-4eff-b2bf-b9d9a810bc28",
"name": "Krantenknipsels",
"title": "Krantenknipsels",
"alt": "Collectie: Anne Frank Stichting",
"url": "",
"path": "https://research.annefrank.org/media/Krantenknipsels.jpg",
"filetype": "image",
"description": "Otto Frank wijdde een deel van zijn tijd aan processen tegen neonazis die beweerden dat het dagboek van zijn dochter een vervalsing was.",
"author": "De collectie kan worden ingezet voor het publiek",
"copyright": "AFS rechthebbende"
},
"url": "https://research.annefrank.org/en/onderwerpen/42405377-f044-4d4a-a988-f085228f8455/",
"published": true,
"uuid": "42405377-f044-4d4a-a988-f085228f8455",
"name": "Otto Frank and the attacks on the authenticity of the diary",
"name_nl": "Otto Frank en de aanvallen op de authenticiteit van het dagboek",
"name_en": "Otto Frank and the attacks on the authenticity of the diary",
"description": "<h1>The first allegations</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>The first allegations against the diary came in 1957 and 1958 in obscure Swedish and Norwegian periodicals. In them, among other claims, it was alleged that the American journalist and novelist Meyer Levin was the author of the diary. Levin wanted to make a stage adaptation and a film of the diary in the USA, but was not supported in this by Otto Frank. The conflict between Meyer Levin and Otto Frank reached the press, and was used by right-wing extremists as an argument to call the authenticity of the diary into question. It is unclear whether these first attacks on the diary were seen by Otto Frank, but the fact is that he did not lodge a complaint.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Lothar Stielau and Heinrich Buddeberg</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Early in 1959 he lodged a criminal complaint on the grounds of libel, slander, defamation, maligning the memory of a deceased person and antisemitic utterances against the German teacher Lothar Stielau (a teacher of English in Lübeck, and member of the extreme right-wing Deutsche Reichspartei). Stielau wrote in the magazine of the <em>Vereinigung ehemaliger Schüler und der Freunde der Oberschüle zur Dom e.V. Lübeck</em> of <strong>10 October 1958</strong>, an essay "Tom Sawyer's grosses Abenteuer", which included the passage: '<em>‘The forged diaries of Eva Braun, of the Queen of England and the hardly more authentic one of Anne Frank may have earned several millions for the profiteers from Germany's defeat, but they have also raised our own hackles quite a bit.’</em>' (<em>'Die gefälschten Tagebücher der Eva Braun, der Königin von England und das nicht viel echtere der Anne Frank haben den Nutzniessern </em><em>der deutschen Niederlage zwar einige Millionen eingebracht, uns dafür aber auch recht empfindlich werden lassen.' ) </em></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Otto Frank was a witness in the case, as were (among others) Miep Gies, Jan Gies and Bep Voskuyl.<sup data-footnote-id=\"0xk0o\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> Otto Frank, the publishers G. Bermann-Fischer and Lambert Schneider felt Stielau's allegation of falsity and the qualification 'profiteers of the German defeat' were attacks on their honour.<sup data-footnote-id=\"o1y32\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>17 October 1961,</strong> the case was heard before the <em>III. Strafkammer des Landgericht Lübeck</em>. Otto Frank also acted as a co-plaintiff. His criminal complaint was also directed against Stielau’s fellow party member Heinrich Buddeberg, who defended Stielau in a letter sent to the <em>Lübecker Nachrichten</em> newspaper. Following a detailed and thorough investigation into the authenticity of Anne Frank’s handwriting, the District Court in Lübeck ruled that the diary was authentic, and Otto Frank’s complaint was upheld.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>A sentence was never passed because Stielau and Buddeberg withdrew their allegations on the basis of the preliminary investigation. This investigation and the cross-examination of the witnesses had convinced them that the diary was genuine. They expressed remorse over their statements, which they had made without any attempted corroboration. <sup data-footnote-id=\"h65y4\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> As a result, Otto Frank and the others withdrew their complaint, so the trial did not proceed any further. At this, Otto Frank agreed to a settlement, something that he later regretted: ‘<em>Had I but known that there would be people who would consider a settlement in this case as insufficient proof [of the authenticity of the diary], I should certainly not have dropped the case.</em>’<sup data-footnote-id=\"eq0c7\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Walter Hainke</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>21 November 1966</strong>, the Oberstaatsanwalt in Darmstadt wrote to Otto Frank about a letter, which Walter Hainke, in April of that year, had sent to the mayor of Offenbach. This was in response to the decision to name a new school in Offenbach <em>Anne Frank Schule</em>. Walter Hainke called Anne the<em> "bedaurenwertens an Fleckfieber verstorbenes Mädchen"</em>, who was abused after her death by her<em> "geschäftstüchtige"</em> family, which earned fortunes from the obviously forged diary. The Oberstaatsanwalt gave Otto Frank the opportunity to file a criminal complaint.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zo082\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup> Otto Frank did so on <strong>9 December 1966.</strong> He was prepared to withdraw his complaint if Hainke publicly recanted his allegations.<sup data-footnote-id=\"estvo\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>18 February 1967</strong>, Otto Frank withdrew his indictment, despite the dubious wording of Hainke's recantation. Otto Frank felt that the case deserved little public attention and did not want additional attention through a trial. <sup data-footnote-id=\"rotns\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Publisher Ullstein and David Irving</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>In the introduction to the book <em>Hitler und seine Feldherren</em>, David Irving wrote in <strong>1975</strong>:<em> 'Viele Fälschungen sind aktenkundig wie diejenige des Tagebuchs der Anne Frank, hier erbrachte ein von einem New-Yorker Drehbuchautor angestrengter Zivilprozess den Beweis, dass er es in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Vater des Mädchens geschrieben hatte hatte.'</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"x0hzk\"><a href=\"#footnote-8\" id=\"footnote-marker-8-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[8]</a></sup> Otto Frank wrote an affidavit <strong>on 12 October 1975</strong> in which he asserted that he was Anne's father, that the diary had been written by Anne herself and that in the Stielau case this had been sufficiently established - also by graphological research.<sup data-footnote-id=\"yro6c\"><a href=\"#footnote-9\" id=\"footnote-marker-9-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[9]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>On 27 October 1975,</strong> Ernst Cramer of Axel Springer Verlag (which had had a majority stake in Ullstein since 1959) wrote a letter of apology to Otto Frank. The order to remove the challenged passage from Irving's preface had been given months earlier, but the verification of its execution had gone wrong. Ties with Irving had since been severed.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ma4i8\"><a href=\"#footnote-10\" id=\"footnote-marker-10-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[10]</a></sup> Otto Frank wrote on <strong>30 October 1975</strong> to his lawyer F. Fafflok that, although courteously stated, he took Cramer's letter as insincere. He did not believe in the order referred to and stressed the fact that the announcement of the book appeared in National Socialist magazines.<sup data-footnote-id=\"yulzl\"><a href=\"#footnote-11\" id=\"footnote-marker-11-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[11]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Fafflok wrote to Ullstein <strong>on 14 November 1975</strong> asking for compensation of DM 30,000 on behalf of Otto Frank, which would benefit the Anne Frank House.<sup data-footnote-id=\"truiz\"><a href=\"#footnote-12\" id=\"footnote-marker-12-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[12]</a></sup><br />\r\nOtto Frank said that he initially went after the publisher for making the various disclosures and causing the damage.<sup data-footnote-id=\"06do3\"><a href=\"#footnote-13\" id=\"footnote-marker-13-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[13]</a></sup> Around <strong>27 November 1975,</strong> Otto Frank noted that he was not aware of any attacks on the authenticity of the diary since the Stielau case in 1961. After the publication of Irving's book, they increased again.<sup data-footnote-id=\"571d1\"><a href=\"#footnote-14\" id=\"footnote-marker-14-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[14]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>On 16 December 1975,</strong> Otto Frank approached an English lawyer to find out whether he could have Irving prosecuted (although the book had not been published in English).<sup data-footnote-id=\"umkqx\"><a href=\"#footnote-15\" id=\"footnote-marker-15-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[15]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>On 9 January 1976,</strong> Otto Frank expressed dissatisfaction with the pace at which Fafflok was tackling the Ullstein case.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ly54t\"><a href=\"#footnote-16\" id=\"footnote-marker-16-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[16]</a></sup> According to a letter from Fafflok, allegations of falsity of the diary had now appeared in <em>Das Ostpreussenblatt, Deutsche Wochenzeitung and Neue Ordnung, </em>among others<em>.</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"112s5\"><a href=\"#footnote-17\" id=\"footnote-marker-17-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[17]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>On 22 January 1976,</strong> Otto Frank wrote that he had been told from England that the chances against Irving were slim because his book had not been released there. <sup data-footnote-id=\"p6uhc\"><a href=\"#footnote-18\" id=\"footnote-marker-18-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[18]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Fafflok called on Ullstein on <strong>18 February 1976</strong> on behalf of Otto Frank to publish in major daily and weekly newspapers no later than <strong>26 February 1976</strong> the notice that the claim in Irving's preface was incorrect, and that the authenticity of the diary was established.<sup data-footnote-id=\"v115w\"><a href=\"#footnote-19\" id=\"footnote-marker-19-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[19]</a></sup> The <em>Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Büchhandlung</em> published Ullstein's correction <strong>on 30 April 1976</strong>, although in more circumlocutory terms than Otto Frank would have liked. <sup data-footnote-id=\"9up7w\"><a href=\"#footnote-20\" id=\"footnote-marker-20-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[20]</a></sup><br />\r\n<br />\r\n<strong>On 16 June 1976</strong> Kempner wrote to Otto Frank that Ernst Cramer of Springer Verlag offered the following:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li>Springer Verlag would pay DM 7,000 to Otto Frank/the Anne Frank House. In addition, Mr Springer would pay a further DM 10,000 to the Anne Frank House.</li>\r\n\t<li>The publisher would pay all court and legal fees.</li>\r\n\t<li>The publisher would again place an announcement in the <em>Börsenblatt</em> and would call writers/publishers to account in the event of new allegations of forgery. <sup data-footnote-id=\"z3484\"><a href=\"#footnote-21\" id=\"footnote-marker-21-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[21]</a></sup></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>On 21 June 1976</strong> Otto Frank replied to Kempner that he accepted the proposal. He also informed Fafflok accordingly.<sup data-footnote-id=\"pmwre\"><a href=\"#footnote-22\" id=\"footnote-marker-22-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[22]</a></sup> Thereafter, the Irving issue remained quiet for over two years.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>15 October 1979</strong>, Irving made a proposal to Otto Frank to have the diaries examined for authenticity by the firm Hehner & Cox, which had unmasked Canaris and Mussolini forgeries, among others.<sup data-footnote-id=\"7n6pm\"><a href=\"#footnote-23\" id=\"footnote-marker-23-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[23]</a></sup> Otto Frank replied on <strong>23 October 1979</strong> that he had already acceded to a similar request from the Hamburg court on condition that the taking of paper and ink samples would be done in his presence in Switzerland. <sup data-footnote-id=\"imk81\"><a href=\"#footnote-24\" id=\"footnote-marker-24-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[24]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Irving again urged Otto Frank on <strong>2 November 1979</strong> to submit to investigation by Hehner & Cox, suggesting that rejection indicated there was something to hide.<sup data-footnote-id=\"28j0k\"><a href=\"#footnote-25\" id=\"footnote-marker-25-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[25]</a></sup> <strong>On 16 November 1979,</strong> Otto Frank replied that he trusted the competence of an expert appointed by a German court and did not appreciate further correspondence in the matter. <sup data-footnote-id=\"srruq\"><a href=\"#footnote-26\" id=\"footnote-marker-26-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[26]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Irving wrote to Otto Frank on <strong>16 January 1980</strong> that the latter wrongly refused to have the diary subjected to an impartial investigation. He believed this would reinforce the idea of a post-war fabrication.<sup data-footnote-id=\"78ve9\"><a href=\"#footnote-27\" id=\"footnote-marker-27-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[27]</a></sup> On <strong>4 February 1980</strong>, Irving sent Otto Frank a letter indicating that he had engaged a lawyer.<sup data-footnote-id=\"xv4vz\"><a href=\"#footnote-28\" id=\"footnote-marker-28-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[28]</a></sup> The Otto Frank Archive contains no further correspondence in this matter.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Richard Harwood</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>In the aftermath of the Ullstein/Irving affair, Otto Frank came across a piece by Richard Harwood, published by the <em>Historical Review Press</em> in Surrey. He expressed his intention to bring a case against it as well.<sup data-footnote-id=\"vqi39\"><a href=\"#footnote-29\" id=\"footnote-marker-29-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[29]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li><strong>11 March 1976</strong>: Harwood turned out to be the pseudonym of Richard Verrall. He appeared to be a member of the National Front. However, this was not certain. The pamphlet in question was titled <em>Did Six Million Really Die?</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"tf52g\"><a href=\"#footnote-30\" id=\"footnote-marker-30-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[30]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>30 November 1976</strong>: British magazine <em>Searchlight</em> determined that Harwood was indeed Verrall. <sup data-footnote-id=\"vdccu\"><a href=\"#footnote-31\" id=\"footnote-marker-31-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[31]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>4 December 1976</strong>: Otto Frank wanted to bring a case against Verrall, but doubted whether <em>Searchlight'</em> s evidence was even legally conclusive.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ycndb\"><a href=\"#footnote-32\" id=\"footnote-marker-32-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[32]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>5 December 1977</strong>: Otto Frank and the other members of the Anne Frank Fund (Fritzi Frank-Markovits, Buddy Elias, Stephan Elias, Vincent Frank, Ernst Levy) decided to take legal action against Verrall and the <em>Historical Review Press.</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"mctt9\"><a href=\"#footnote-33\" id=\"footnote-marker-33-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[33]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>22 May 1979</strong>: Otto Frank finally decided to abandon a court case in England, mainly for health reasons. <sup data-footnote-id=\"285e0\"><a href=\"#footnote-34\" id=\"footnote-marker-34-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[34]</a></sup></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n\r\n<p>It was pointed out to him from various quarters that there were opportunities to testify without travelling to London and appearing in court in person. Such suggestions came from the British judiciary, among other places. <sup data-footnote-id=\"9le4o\"><a href=\"#footnote-35\" id=\"footnote-marker-35-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[35]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li><strong>16 August 1979</strong>: given the major interest in the matter and the possibility of testifying from Switzerland, Otto Frank agreed to continue the case.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ioy5y\"><a href=\"#footnote-36\" id=\"footnote-marker-36-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[36]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>18 March 1980</strong>: Fritzi Frank-Markovits wrote to Appleman, who was going to bring the case, that Otto Frank was very ill. Moreover, the English consulate in Basel had now been closed, making it impossible to give testimony there. She also pointed out that the case had been stalled for seven months.<sup data-footnote-id=\"4f9zd\"><a href=\"#footnote-37\" id=\"footnote-marker-37-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[37]</a></sup></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n\r\n<p>With that, the case petered out.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Robert Faurisson</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Through the Anne Frank House, Otto Frank received a letter dated <strong>5 March</strong> <strong>1977 </strong>from Faurisson, who expressed interest in the diary as a scholar at the University of Lyon. Otto replied that he was willing to receive him on <strong>9 March 1977</strong> and show him the original diaries.<sup data-footnote-id=\"1kr6f\"><a href=\"#footnote-38\" id=\"footnote-marker-38-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[38]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>In a letter dated <strong>30 March</strong> <strong>1977</strong>, Otto Frank described Faurisson as an unsympathetic and suspicious man.<sup data-footnote-id=\"snx6d\"><a href=\"#footnote-39\" id=\"footnote-marker-39-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[39]</a></sup> On <strong>5 April 1978</strong>, Otto wrote that he had bad experiences with Faurisson, calling him a "disturbed man". According to Otto Frank, Faurisson did not believe the whole story of the period in hiding.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ocybb\"><a href=\"#footnote-40\" id=\"footnote-marker-40-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[40]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>In the course of his research, Faurisson also wrote to Kugler (on <strong>28 March 1977</strong>), the Gies couple (on <strong>4 September 1978</strong>), among others<sup data-footnote-id=\"3t4ce\"><a href=\"#footnote-41\" id=\"footnote-marker-41-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[41]</a></sup> and he visited Bep Voskuijl at home.<sup data-footnote-id=\"c5jl1\"><a href=\"#footnote-42\" id=\"footnote-marker-42-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[42]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Heinz Roth</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>In 1976, Otto Frank brought a legal action before the District Court in Frankfurt against Heinz Roth, from Odenhausen in Germany. Through his own publishing company, Roth had distributed numerous neo-Nazi pamphlets with titles like <em>The Diary of Anne Frank – A Forgery</em>, and <em>The Diary of Anne Frank – The Great Fraud</em>, and in a reader's letter in <em>Neue Ordnung</em> he denied the authenticity of the diary, refering to the book of Robert Irving. Otto also responded with a letter to the editor, which was not initially published.<sup data-footnote-id=\"lrqt5\"><a href=\"#footnote-43\" id=\"footnote-marker-43-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[43]</a></sup> Otto Frank wrote on <strong>30 March 1976</strong> that charges were pending against Roth, and that complaints had been made about the distribution of his pamphlet in Bochum, Hamburg and Wiesbaden.<sup data-footnote-id=\"h83a9\"><a href=\"#footnote-44\" id=\"footnote-marker-44-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[44]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>22 June</strong> <strong>1978</strong>, the Frankfurt am Main court banned Roth from making certain claims in his publications. This concerned in particular the claims that the diary was a forgery and a scam by Otto Frank, and that this had been a proven fact for more than a decade. The court imposed a fine of DM500,000 or six months' imprisonment for each offence.<sup data-footnote-id=\"m1ies\"><a href=\"#footnote-45\" id=\"footnote-marker-45-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[45]</a></sup> On appeal, Roth put forward the report of the French scientist Robert Faurisson in his defence, but this did not convince the German court. Although he had died in 1978, a higher appeal was still submitted to the Federal Supreme Court, which referred the case back to the Court of Appeal in Frankfurt. According to the Supreme Court, Roth had had too little opportunity to prove his allegations, and he should be given this opportunity in a retrial. The fact that the defendant had already been dead for two years apparently played no role in this judgement: ultimately the case never came before the Frankfurt Court of Appeal.Roth appealed, but this was rejected in <strong>1979</strong>. In the end, the case was not heard.<sup data-footnote-id=\"znwox\"><a href=\"#footnote-46\" id=\"footnote-marker-46-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[46]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Ernst Römer</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>On the ocasion of the performances of <em>Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank</em> in Hamburg, Römer distributed pamphlets in <strong>February 1976</strong>. These contained a translation of an article from the <em>Historical Review Press</em>. The pamphlet had the headline<em> 'Best-seller, ein Schwindel'</em>, and reappeared with the story about compensation to Meyer Levin. Otto Frank filed a lawsuit <strong>on 15 March 1976</strong>. Again, the findings of Minna Becker and Dr Hübner were cited. Römer was given a fine of DM 1,500.<sup data-footnote-id=\"5lvnx\"><a href=\"#footnote-47\" id=\"footnote-marker-47-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[47]</a></sup> Otto Frank acted as a co-plaintiff and witness in this case.<sup data-footnote-id=\"5za3a\"><a href=\"#footnote-48\" id=\"footnote-marker-48-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[48]</a></sup>.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Edgar Werner Geiss</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>During an appeal hearing in the Römer case on <strong>28 August 1978</strong>, Geiss distributed pamphlets attacking the authenticity of the diary. Geiss also arrived with Meyer Levin. He was sentenced to six months with the alternative of a fine of DM 1,500.<sup data-footnote-id=\"302xv\"><a href=\"#footnote-49\" id=\"footnote-marker-49-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[49]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Start of the ballpoint myth</h1>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>1-2 April 1980</strong>: In the Birsfelden town hall, experts examined the manuscripts on behalf of the Hamburg court. This was in connection with the cases against Römer and Geiss. They took samples of the paper and ink, and found, among other things, that correction marks - partly with biros due to later editing - had been applied. The paper and high-iron gallnut ink used were very common before <strong>1950</strong>. The exact age of the papers and inscriptions could not be determined unequivocally.<sup data-footnote-id=\"n0lil\"><a href=\"#footnote-50\" id=\"footnote-marker-50-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[50]</a></sup> Otto was already too ill at that point to play any part in it. At the time of his death, two cases were still running, one in Hamburg and one in Frankfurt.<sup data-footnote-id=\"b57wa\"><a href=\"#footnote-51\" id=\"footnote-marker-51-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[51]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"0xk0o\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Anne Frank Collectie (AFC), Otto Frank Archief (OFA), reg. code OFA_104: Aanklacht van de Staatsanwalt Lübeck, 13 januari 1961. De helpers leggen verklaringen af over de onderduikperiode en het schrijven van Anne.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"o1y32\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_104: Tenlastelegging tegen Stielau en Buddeberg, p. 15. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"h65y4\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Robert Kempner, 28 augustus 1975. Kempner was assistent-aanklager in de Neurenberg-processen en schreef <em>Anne Frank und Edith Stein. Zwei von Hunderttausend</em> (1968). Vanwege zijn persoonlijke bekendheid met Ullstein bemiddelt hij in de controverse op de achtergrond. Het Duitse strafrecht kent de mogelijkheid dat in bepaalde gevallen naast de staat, ook familieleden als aanklagers optreden. Otto Frank benutte die mogelijkheid verschillende keren.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"eq0c7\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, <em>The diary of Anne Frank: the revised critical edition</em>, prep. by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation; introd. by Harry Paape, Gerrold van der Stroom and David Barnouw; with a summary of the report by the Netherlands Forensic Institute comp. by H.J.J. Hardy; ed. by David Barnouw and Gerrold van der Stroom; transl. by Arnold J. Pomerans, transl. by Arnold J. Pomerans, Barbara M. Mooyaart-Doubleday & Susan Massotty, New York, NY: Doubleday, 2003, p. 90.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zo082\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_111: Brief Staatsaanwalt Bluhm aan Otto Frank, 21 november 1966</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"estvo\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_111: Brief Otto Frank aan Staatsaanwalt Bluhm, 9 december 1966. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"rotns\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_111: Brief Otto Frank aan herr Oberstatsanwalt, 18 februari 1967. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"x0hzk\" id=\"footnote-8\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-8-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>David Irving, <em>Hitler und seine Feldherren</em>, Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein Verlag, 1975; AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan zijn juridisch adviseur Fritz Fafflok, 25 september 1975.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"yro6c\" id=\"footnote-9\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-9-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Verklaring Otto Frank, 12 oktober 1975. Belangrijke getuigen-deskundigen in de Stielau zaak waren dr. Minna Becker, die handschrift onderzoek deed, en dr. Anne Marie Hübner. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ma4i8\" id=\"footnote-10\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-10-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Ernst Cramer aan Otto Frank, 27 oktober 1975.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"yulzl\" id=\"footnote-11\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-11-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Fritz Fafflok, 30 oktober 1975.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"truiz\" id=\"footnote-12\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-12-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 14 november 1975. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"06do3\" id=\"footnote-13\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-13-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Fafflok, 27 november 1975.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"571d1\" id=\"footnote-14\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-14-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: P.S. voor Fritz Fafflok in conceptbrief Otto Frank aan W.J. Siedler van Ullstein. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"umkqx\" id=\"footnote-15\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-15-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Andrew Bateson. Bateson heeft al eerder een succesvol proces tegen Irving gevoerd.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ly54t\" id=\"footnote-16\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-16-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Fafflok, 9 januari 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"112s5\" id=\"footnote-17\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-17-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 15 januari 1976. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"p6uhc\" id=\"footnote-18\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-18-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan C.C. Aronsfeld (Institute of Jewish Affairs, London).</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"v115w\" id=\"footnote-19\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-19-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 18 februari 1976. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9up7w\" id=\"footnote-20\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-20-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Advertentie.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"z3484\" id=\"footnote-21\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-21-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Robert Kempner aan Otto Frank, 16 juni 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"pmwre\" id=\"footnote-22\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-22-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Robert Kempner, 21 juni 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"7n6pm\" id=\"footnote-23\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-23-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 15 oktober 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"imk81\" id=\"footnote-24\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-24-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan David Irving, 23 oktober 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"28j0k\" id=\"footnote-25\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-25-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 2 november 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"srruq\" id=\"footnote-26\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-26-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan David Irving, 16 november 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"78ve9\" id=\"footnote-27\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-27-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC. reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 16 januari 1980.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"xv4vz\" id=\"footnote-28\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-28-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 4 februari 1980. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vqi39\" id=\"footnote-29\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-29-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan C.C. Aronsfeld, 22 januari 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"tf52g\" id=\"footnote-30\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-30-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Martin Savitt aan Otto Frank. Savitt is voorzitter van de Defence & Group Relations Department van The Board of Deputies of British Jews.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vdccu\" id=\"footnote-31\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-31-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Anne Frank Stichting aan Otto Frank, 30 november 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ycndb\" id=\"footnote-32\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-32-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Otto Frank aan Maurice Ludmer, 4 december 1976. Ludmer is hoofdredactreur van Searchlight.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"mctt9\" id=\"footnote-33\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-33-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Memorandum Anne Frank-Fonds.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"285e0\" id=\"footnote-34\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-34-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Otto Frank aan Martin Savitt, 22 mei 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9le4o\" id=\"footnote-35\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-35-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ioy5y\" id=\"footnote-36\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-36-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Otto Frank aan Stuart Appleman, 16 augustus 1979. Appleman is advocaat bij Parmenter & Co. en behandelt de zaak in Engeland.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"4f9zd\" id=\"footnote-37\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-37-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Fritzi Frank aan Stuart Appleman, 18 maart 1986.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"1kr6f\" id=\"footnote-38\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-38-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Otto Frank aan Robert Faurisson, 9 maart 1977.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"snx6d\" id=\"footnote-39\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-39-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Otto Frank aan L. de Jong, 30 maart 1977.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ocybb\" id=\"footnote-40\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-40-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Otto Frank aan C. Blom, 5 april 1978. Blom is een vroegere medewerker van Uitgeverij Contact.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"3t4ce\" id=\"footnote-41\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-41-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Diverse correspondentie inzake Faurisson.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"c5jl1\" id=\"footnote-42\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-42-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Bep Voskuijl aan Otto en Fritzi Frank, 29 augustus 1978.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"lrqt5\" id=\"footnote-43\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-43-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA 107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 15 januari 1976 en Otto Frank aan Fritz Fafflok, 21 januari 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"h83a9\" id=\"footnote-44\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-44-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan C.C. Aronsfeld, 30 maart 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"m1ies\" id=\"footnote-45\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-45-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Familiearchief Anne Frank-Fonds, Bazel, Otto Frank, AFF_OtF_bdoc_03: Vonnis Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, 22 juni 1978.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"znwox\" id=\"footnote-46\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-46-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Website Anne Frank Stichting, "The authenticity of the diary of Anne Frank | Anne Frank House" (<a href=\"https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/authenticity-diary-anne-frank/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/authenticity-diary-anne-frank</a>, geraadpleegd 20 september 2022).</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"5lvnx\" id=\"footnote-47\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-47-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Vonnis Amtsgerich Hamburg, 13 januari 1977.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"5za3a\" id=\"footnote-48\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-48-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Antwoord op vragen in Senaat van Hamburg.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"302xv\" id=\"footnote-49\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-49-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Vonnis Amtsgericht Hamburg-Altona, 6 april 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"n0lil\" id=\"footnote-50\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-50-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Rapport Bundeskriminalamt, 28 mei 1980.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"b57wa\" id=\"footnote-51\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-51-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_062: Necrologie Otto Frank door: onbekend, p. 3.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>\r\n\r\n<div> </div>",
"description_nl": "<h1>De eerste aantijgingen</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>De eerste aantijgingen tegen het dagboek verschenen in <strong>1957</strong> en <strong>1958</strong> in obscure Zweedse en Noorse tijdschriften. Daarin werd onder meer beweerd dat de Amerikaanse journalist en romanschrijver Meyer Levin de auteur van het dagboek was. Levin wilde in de VS een toneelbewerking en een film van het dagboek maken, maar werd daarin niet gesteund door Otto Frank. Het conflict tussen Meyer Levin en Otto Frank haalde de pers en werd door rechtsextremisten gebruikt als argument om de authenticiteit van het dagboek in twijfel te trekken. Het is onduidelijk of Otto Frank deze eerste aanvallen op het dagboek heeft gezien, maar feit is dat hij geen klacht heeft ingediend.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Lothar Stielau en Heinrich Buddeberg</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Begin 1959 diende Otto tegen de Duitse leraar Lothar Stielau (leraar Engels in Lübeck en lid van de extreem-rechtse <em>Deutsche Reichspartei</em>) een strafklacht in wegens smaad, laster, laster, belastering van de nagedachtenis van een overledene en antisemitische uitlatingen. Stielau schreef in het blad van de <em>Vereinigung ehemaliger Schüler und der Freunde der Oberschüle zur Dom e.V. Lübeck</em> van <strong>10 oktober 1958</strong> een opstel "Tom Sawyers grosses Abenteuer"met daarin de passage: "De vervalste dagboeken van Eva Braun, van de koningin van Engeland en het nauwelijks authentiekere dagboek van Anne Frank hebben de profiteurs van de Duitse nederlaag weliswaar enkele miljoenen opgeleverd, maar ze hebben ook onze eigen hachjes flink opgestookt." ('<em>Die gefälschten Tagebücher der Eva Braun, der Königin von England und das nicht viel echtere der Anne Frank haben den Nutzniessern </em><em>der deutschen Niederlage zwar einige Millionen eingebracht, uns dafür aber auch recht empfindlich werden lassen.' </em></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Otto Frank was getuige in de zaak, net als (o.a.) Miep Gies, Jan Gies en Bep Voskuyl.<sup data-footnote-id=\"0xk0o\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> Otto Frank, de uitgevers G. Bermann-Fischer en Lambert Schneider voelden zich door de aantijging van Stielau over de onechtheid en door de kwalificatie 'profiteurs van de Duitse nederlaag' in hun eer gekrenkt.<sup data-footnote-id=\"o1y32\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>17 oktober 1961</strong> diende de zaak voor de <em>III. Strafkammer des Landgericht Lübeck</em>. Otto Frank trad ook op als nevenaanklager. Zijn strafklacht was ook gericht tegen Stielau's partijgenoot Heinrich Buddeberg, die hem verdedigde in een brief aan de krant <em>Lübecker Nachrichten</em>. Na een uitgebreid en grondig onderzoek naar de echtheid van het handschrift van Anne Frank oordeelde de rechtbank in Lübeck dat het dagboek authentiek was en werd de klacht van Otto Frank gegrond verklaard.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Een vonnis is nooit uitgesproken omdat Stielau en Buddeberg op basis van het vooronderzoek hun beschuldigingen introkken. Dit onderzoek en het kruisverhoor van de getuigen hadden hen ervan overtuigd dat het dagboek echt was. Zij betuigden spijt over hun verklaringen, die zij zonder poging tot bevestiging hadden afgelegd. Dientengevolge trokken Otto Frank en de anderen hun klacht in, waardoor het proces geen verdere doorgang vond.<sup data-footnote-id=\"h65y4\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Hierop ging Otto Frank akkoord met een schikking, iets waar hij later spijt van kreeg: Als ik geweten had dat er mensen zijn voor wie een vergelijk in deze zaak iet als onvoldoende bewijs geldt [voor de echtheid van het dagboek], had ik het proeces wel doorgezet."<sup data-footnote-id=\"yd2zk\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Walter Hainke</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>De Oberstaatsanwalt in Darmstadt schreef op <strong>21 november 1966</strong> aan Otto Frank over een brief, die Walter Hainke, in april van dat jaar, aan de burgemeester van Offenbach stuurde. Dit naar aanleiding van het besluit een nieuwe school in Offenbach <em>Anne Frank Schule</em> te noemen. Walter Hainke noemde Anne het '<em>bedaurenwertens an Fleckfieber verstorbenes Mädchen'</em>, dat na haar dood werd misbruikt door haar '<em>geschäftstüchtige'</em> familie, die aan het overduidelijk vervalste dagboek schatten verdiende. De Oberstaatsanwalt stelde Otto Frank in de gelegenheid een strafklacht in te dienen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zo082\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup> Otto Frank deed dat op <strong>9 december 1966.</strong> Hij was bereid zijn klacht in te trekken als Hainke zijn beweringen openlijk zou herroepen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"estvo\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Op <strong>18 februari 1967</strong> trok Otto Frank zijn aanklacht in, ondanks de dubieuze formulering van Hainkes herroeping. Otto Frank vond dat de zaak weinig publieke aandacht verdiende en wilde geen extra aandacht door een proces. <sup data-footnote-id=\"rotns\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Uitgeverij Ullstein en David Irving</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>In de inleiding van het boek <em>Hitler und seine Feldherren</em> schreef David Irving in <strong>1975</strong>: '<em>Viele Fälschungen sind aktenkundig wie diejenige des Tagebuchs der Anne Frank, hier erbrachte ein von einem New-Yorker Drehbuchautor angestrengter Zivilprozess den Beweis, dass er es in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Vater des Mädchens geschrieben hatte.'</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"x0hzk\"><a href=\"#footnote-8\" id=\"footnote-marker-8-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[8]</a></sup> Otto Frank schreef <strong>12 oktober 1975</strong> een beëdigde verklaring waarin hij stelde de vader van Anne te zijn, dat het dagboek door Anne zelf was geschreven en dat dit in de zaak-Stielau genoegzaam - ook door grafologisch onderzoek - iwas vastgesteld.<sup data-footnote-id=\"yro6c\"><a href=\"#footnote-9\" id=\"footnote-marker-9-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[9]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>27 oktober 1975</strong> schreef Ernst Cramer van Axel Springer Verlag (meerderheidsbelang in Ullstein sinds 1959) een excuusbrief aan Otto Frank. De opdracht om de gewraakte passage uit het voorwoord van Irving te schrappen, was al maanden eerder gegeven, maar de controle op de uitvoering was misgegaan. De banden met Irving waren inmiddels verbroken.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ma4i8\"><a href=\"#footnote-10\" id=\"footnote-marker-10-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[10]</a></sup> Otto Frank schreef <strong>30 oktober 1975</strong> aan zijn advocaat F. Fafflok dat hij de brief van Cramer, hoewel hoffelijk gesteld, als onoprecht opvatte. Hij geloofde niet in de genoemde opdracht en benadrukte het feit dat de aankondiging van het boek in nationaalsocialistische bladen verscheen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"yulzl\"><a href=\"#footnote-11\" id=\"footnote-marker-11-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[11]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Fafflok schreef <strong>14 november 1975</strong> aan Ullstein dat hij namens Otto Frank een schadevergoeding vroeg van DM 30 000, die ten goede zou komen aan de Anne Frank Stichting.<sup data-footnote-id=\"truiz\"><a href=\"#footnote-12\" id=\"footnote-marker-12-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[12]</a></sup><br />\r\nOtto Frank zei dat hij in eerste instantie achter de uitgever aanging, omdat die e.e.a. openbaarde en de schade veroorzaakte.<sup data-footnote-id=\"06do3\"><a href=\"#footnote-13\" id=\"footnote-marker-13-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[13]</a></sup> Rond <strong>27 november 1975</strong> constateerde Otto Frank dat hem sinds de Stielau-zaak in 1961 geen aanvallen op de authenticiteit van het dagboek bekend waren. Na de uitgave van het boek van Irving namen ze weer toe.<sup data-footnote-id=\"571d1\"><a href=\"#footnote-14\" id=\"footnote-marker-14-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[14]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>16 december 1975</strong> benaderde Otto Frank een Engelse advocaat om uit te zoeken of hij Irving kon laten vervolgen (hoewel het boek niet in het Engels was verschenen).<sup data-footnote-id=\"umkqx\"><a href=\"#footnote-15\" id=\"footnote-marker-15-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[15]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>9 januari 1976</strong> toonde Otto Frank zich ontevreden met het tempo waarmee Fafflok de zaak Ullstein aanpakte.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ly54t\"><a href=\"#footnote-16\" id=\"footnote-marker-16-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[16]</a></sup> Volgens een brief van Fafflok waren er inmiddels beweringen over onechtheid van het dagboek verschenen in o.a. <em>Das Ostpreussenblatt, Deutsche Wochenzeitung en Neue Ordnung.</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"112s5\"><a href=\"#footnote-17\" id=\"footnote-marker-17-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[17]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>22 januari 1976</strong> schreef Otto Frank dat hem vanuit Engeland was gezegd dat de kansen tegen Irving gering waren, omdat zijn boek daar niet was uitgebracht. <sup data-footnote-id=\"p6uhc\"><a href=\"#footnote-18\" id=\"footnote-marker-18-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[18]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Fafflok riep Ullstein <strong>18 februari 1976</strong> namens Otto Frank op om uiterlijk <strong>26 februari 1976</strong> in grote dag- en weekbladen het bericht te plaatsen dat de bewering in het voorwoord van Irving onjuist was, en dat de authenticiteit van het dagboek vaststond.<sup data-footnote-id=\"v115w\"><a href=\"#footnote-19\" id=\"footnote-marker-19-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[19]</a></sup> In het <em>Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Büchhandlung</em> verscheen <strong>30 april 1976</strong> de rectificatie van Ullstein, hoewel in omfloerstere bewoordingen dan Otto Frank graag had gezien. <sup data-footnote-id=\"9up7w\"><a href=\"#footnote-20\" id=\"footnote-marker-20-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[20]</a></sup><br />\r\n<br />\r\n<strong>16 juni 1976</strong> schreef Kempner aan Otto Frank dat Ernst Cramer van Springer Verlag het volgende aanbood:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li>Springer Verlag zou DM 7.000 aan Otto Frank/Anne Frank Stichting betalen. Bovendien zou de heer Springer nog eens DM 10.000 aan de Anne Frank Stichting betalen.</li>\r\n\t<li>De uitgeverij zou alle gerechts- en advocatenkosten betalen.</li>\r\n\t<li>De uitgeverij zou opnieuw een advertentie in het <em>Börsenblatt</em> plaatsen en zou bij nieuwe beweringen over vervalsing schrijvers/uitgevers daarop aanspreken. <sup data-footnote-id=\"z3484\"><a href=\"#footnote-21\" id=\"footnote-marker-21-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[21]</a></sup></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>21 juni 1976</strong> antwoordde Otto Frank aan Kempner dat hij het voorstel aanneemt. Hij stelt ook Fafflok daarvan in kennis.<sup data-footnote-id=\"pmwre\"><a href=\"#footnote-22\" id=\"footnote-marker-22-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[22]</a></sup> Vervolgens bleef het in de kwestie-Irving ruim twee jaar stil.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Op <strong>15 oktober 1979</strong> deed Irving aan Otto Frank het voorstel de dagboeken op echtheid te laten onderzoeken door de firma Hehner & Cox, die onder meer vervalsingen van Canaris en Mussolini had ontmaskerd.<sup data-footnote-id=\"7n6pm\"><a href=\"#footnote-23\" id=\"footnote-marker-23-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[23]</a></sup> Otto Frank antwoorddde op <strong>23 oktober 1979</strong> dat hij al op een soortgelijk verzoek van de Hamburgse rechtbank ingegaan was, op voorwaarde dat het afnemen van papier- en inktmonsters in zijn aanwezigheid in Zwitserland zou gebeuren. <sup data-footnote-id=\"imk81\"><a href=\"#footnote-24\" id=\"footnote-marker-24-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[24]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Irving drong op <strong>2 november 1979</strong> opnieuw bij Otto Frank aan op onderzoek door Hehner & Cox, suggererend dat afwijzing erop duidde dat er iets te verbergen was.<sup data-footnote-id=\"28j0k\"><a href=\"#footnote-25\" id=\"footnote-marker-25-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[25]</a></sup> <strong>Op 16 november 1979</strong> antwoordde Otto Frank dat hij vertrouwde op de competentie van een door een Duitse rechtbank aangestelde deskundige en geen prijs stelde op verdere correspondentie. <sup data-footnote-id=\"srruq\"><a href=\"#footnote-26\" id=\"footnote-marker-26-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[26]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Irving schreef op <strong>16 januari 1980</strong> aan Otto Frank dat deze ten onrechte weigerde het dagboek aan een onpartijdig onderzoek te laten onderwerpen. Hij meende dat dit het idee van een naoorlogs maaksel zou versterken.<sup data-footnote-id=\"78ve9\"><a href=\"#footnote-27\" id=\"footnote-marker-27-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[27]</a></sup> Op <strong>4 februari 1980</strong> stuurde Irving Otto Frank een brief waaruit bleek dat hij een advocaat heeft ingezet.<sup data-footnote-id=\"xv4vz\"><a href=\"#footnote-28\" id=\"footnote-marker-28-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[28]</a></sup> Het Otto Frank Archief bevat geen verdere correspondentie in deze zaak.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Richard Harwood</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>In de nasleep van de Ullstein/Irving affaire kwam Otto Frank een publicatie tegen van Richard Harwood, uitgegeven door de <em>Historical Review Press</em> in Surrey. Hij uit het voornemen ook daar een zaak tegen te beginnen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"vqi39\"><a href=\"#footnote-29\" id=\"footnote-marker-29-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[29]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li><strong>11 maart 1976</strong>: Harwood bleek de schuilnaam van Richard Verrall te zijn. Hij bleek lid van het National Front te zijn. Zeker was dat echter niet. Het pamflet waar het om ging was getiteld <em>Did Six Million Really Die?</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"tf52g\"><a href=\"#footnote-30\" id=\"footnote-marker-30-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[30]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>30 november 1976</strong>: het Britse blad <em>Searchlight</em> stelde vast dat Harwood inderdaad Verrall was. <sup data-footnote-id=\"vdccu\"><a href=\"#footnote-31\" id=\"footnote-marker-31-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[31]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>4 december 1976</strong>: Otto Frank wilde een zaak tegen Verrall beginnen, maar twijfelde of het bewijs van <em>Searchlight</em> ook juridisch sluitend was.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ycndb\"><a href=\"#footnote-32\" id=\"footnote-marker-32-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[32]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>5 december 1977</strong>: Otto Frank en de andere leden van het Anne Frank Fonds (Fritzi Frank-Markovits, Buddy Elias, Stephan Elias, Vincent Frank, Ernst Levy) besloten tot juridische actie tegen Verrall en de <em>Historical Review Press.</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"mctt9\"><a href=\"#footnote-33\" id=\"footnote-marker-33-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[33]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>22 mei 1979</strong>: Otto Frank besloot definitief af te zien van een rechtzaak in Engeland, hoofdzakelijk om gezondheidsredenen. <sup data-footnote-id=\"285e0\"><a href=\"#footnote-34\" id=\"footnote-marker-34-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[34]</a></sup></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n\r\n<p>Van verschillende kanten werd hij erop gewezen dat er mogelijkheden waren te getuigen zonder persoonlijk naar London af te reizen en voor de rechtbank te verschijnen. Dergelijke geluiden kwamen onder meer uit de Britse rechterlijke macht. <sup data-footnote-id=\"9le4o\"><a href=\"#footnote-35\" id=\"footnote-marker-35-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[35]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li><strong>16 augustus 1979</strong>: gezien het grote belang en de mogelijkheid vanuit Zwitserland te getuigen, ging Otto Frank akkoord met voortzetting van de zaak.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ioy5y\"><a href=\"#footnote-36\" id=\"footnote-marker-36-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[36]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>18 maart 1980</strong>: Fritzi Frank-Markovits schreef aan Appleman, die de zaak aanhangig zou maken, dat Otto Frank erg ziek was. Bovendien was het Engelse consulaat in Bazel inmiddels gesloten, waardoor het onmogelijk was geworden daar een getuigenverklaring af te leggen. Ze wees er ook op dat de zaak zeven maanden lang stilgelegen had.<sup data-footnote-id=\"4f9zd\"><a href=\"#footnote-37\" id=\"footnote-marker-37-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[37]</a></sup></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n\r\n<p>Daarmee ging de zaak als een nachtkaars uit.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Robert Faurisson</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Otto Frank kreeg via de Anne Frank Stichting een op <strong>5 maart 1977</strong> gedateerde brief van Faurisson, die als geleerde van de universiteit van Lyon interesse voor het dagboek toonde. Otto antwoordde bereid te zijn hem <strong>9 maart 1977</strong> te ontvangen en hem de originele dagboeken te tonen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"1kr6f\"><a href=\"#footnote-38\" id=\"footnote-marker-38-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[38]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Otto Frank beschreef Faurisson in een brief van <strong>30 maart 1977</strong> als een onsympathieke en achterdochtige man.<sup data-footnote-id=\"snx6d\"><a href=\"#footnote-39\" id=\"footnote-marker-39-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[39]</a></sup> Op <strong>5 april 1978</strong> schreef Otto dat hij slechte ervaringen met Faurisson had, en noemde hem een 'gestoorde man'. Faurisson geloofde volgens Otto Frank het hele onderduikverhaal niet.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ocybb\"><a href=\"#footnote-40\" id=\"footnote-marker-40-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[40]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Faurisson schreef in de loop van zijn onderzoek onder meer nog aan Kugler (op <strong>28 maart 1977</strong>), het echtpaar Gies (op <strong>4 september 1978</strong>)<sup data-footnote-id=\"3t4ce\"><a href=\"#footnote-41\" id=\"footnote-marker-41-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[41]</a></sup> en hij bezocht Bep Voskuijl thuis.<sup data-footnote-id=\"c5jl1\"><a href=\"#footnote-42\" id=\"footnote-marker-42-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[42]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Heinz Roth</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>In <strong>1976</strong> spande Otto Frank voor de rechtbank in Frankfurt een rechtszaak aan tegen Heinz Roth uit Odenhausen in Duitsland. Roth had via zijn eigen uitgeverij talrijke neonazi-pamfletten verspreid met titels als <em>Het dagboek van Anne Frank - een vervalsing</em> en <em>Het dagboek van Anne Frank - de grote fraude</em>, en in een lezersbrief in <em>Neue Ordnung</em> ontkende hij n.a.v. het Irving-boek de authenticiteit van het dagboek. Otto reageerde ook met en ingezonden brief, die vooralsnog niet geplaatst werd.<sup data-footnote-id=\"lrqt5\"><a href=\"#footnote-43\" id=\"footnote-marker-43-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[43]</a></sup> Otto Frank schreef op <strong>30 maart 1976</strong> dat er een aanklacht tegen Roth liep, en dat er klachten waren ingediend wegens verspreiding van diens pamflet in Bochum, Hamburg en Wiesbaden.<sup data-footnote-id=\"h83a9\"><a href=\"#footnote-44\" id=\"footnote-marker-44-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[44]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>De rechtbank van Frankfurt am Main verbood Roth op <strong>22 juni 1978</strong> om in zijn publicaties bepaalde beweringen te doen. Dit ging met name om de beweringen dat het dagboek een vervalsing en een zwendel van Otto Frank was, en dat dit al meer dan tien jaar als bewezen feit gold. De rechtbank stelde Roth een dwangsom van 500.000 DM of 6 maanden hechtenis per overtreding in het vooruitzicht.<sup data-footnote-id=\"m1ies\"><a href=\"#footnote-45\" id=\"footnote-marker-45-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[45]</a></sup> In hoger beroep voerde Roth het rapport van de Franse wetenschapper Robert Faurisson ter verdediging aan, maar dit overtuigde de Duitse rechtbank niet. Hoewel hij in <strong>1978</strong> was overleden, werd alsnog een hoger beroep ingesteld bij het <em>Bundesgerichtshof</em>, dat de zaak terugverwees naar het Hof van Beroep in Frankfurt. Volgens het Hooggerechtshof had Roth te weinig gelegenheid gehad om zijn beweringen te bewijzen en moest hij die kans krijgen in een nieuw proces. Het feit dat de verdachte al twee jaar dood was speelde bij dit oordeel kennelijk geen rol: de zaak kwam uiteindelijk nooit voor het Hof van Beroep in Frankfurt. Uiteindelijk werd de zaak niet behandeld.<sup data-footnote-id=\"znwox\"><a href=\"#footnote-46\" id=\"footnote-marker-46-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[46]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Ernst Römer</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Bij de voorstellingen van <em>Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank</em> in Hamburg deelde Römer in <strong>februari 1976</strong> pamfletten uit. Deze bevatten een vertaling van een artikel uit de <em>Historical Review Press</em>. Het pamflet had de kop "<em>Bestseller - een leugen</em>" ('<em>Best-seller, ein Schwindel'</em>), en kwam met een verhaal over de schadevergoeding aan Meyer Levin. Otto Frank diende <strong>15 maart 1976</strong> een aanklacht in. Opnieuw werden de bevindingen van Minna Becker en dr. Hübner aangehaald. Römer kreeg een geldstraf van DM 1.500.<sup data-footnote-id=\"5lvnx\"><a href=\"#footnote-47\" id=\"footnote-marker-47-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[47]</a></sup> Otto Frank trad in deze zaak als nevenaanklager en getuige op.<sup data-footnote-id=\"5za3a\"><a href=\"#footnote-48\" id=\"footnote-marker-48-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[48]</a></sup>.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Edgar Werner Geiss</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Tijdens een zitting in hoger beroep in de zaak-Römer op <strong>28 augustus 1978</strong> verspreidde Edgar Werner Geiss pamfletten met aanvallen op de authenticiteit van het dagboek, met ene verwijzing naar het rumor rond Meyer Levin. Hij kreeg zes maanden subsidiair DM 1.500 boete.<sup data-footnote-id=\"302xv\"><a href=\"#footnote-49\" id=\"footnote-marker-49-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[49]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Begin van de balpen-mythe</h1>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>1-2 april 1980</strong>: In het gemeentehuis van Birsfelden onderzochten deskundigen in opdracht van de Hamburgse rechtbank de manuscripten. Dit in het kader van de zaken tegen Römer en Geiss. Ze namen monsters van het papier en de inkt, en stelden onder meer vast dat er correctietekens – deels met balpen vanwege latere bewerkingen - aangebracht waren. Het gebruikte papier en hoog-ijzerhoudende galnoteninkt waren voor <strong>1950 </strong>zeer gebruikelijk. De precieze ouderdom van de papieren en de opschriften was niet eenduidig vast te stellen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"n0lil\"><a href=\"#footnote-50\" id=\"footnote-marker-50-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[50]</a></sup> Otto was op dat moment al te ziek om daar een rol in te spelen. Op het moment van zijn overlijden liepen er nog twee zaken, een in Hamburg en een in Frankfurt.<sup data-footnote-id=\"b57wa\"><a href=\"#footnote-51\" id=\"footnote-marker-51-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[51]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"0xk0o\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Anne Frank Collectie (AFC), Otto Frank Archief (OFA), reg. code OFA_104: Aanklacht van de Staatsanwalt Lübeck, 13 januari 1961. De helpers leggen verklaringen af over de onderduikperiode en het schrijven van Anne.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"o1y32\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_104: Tenlastelegging tegen Stielau en Buddeberg, p. 15. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"h65y4\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Robert Kempner, 28 augustus 1975. Kempner was assistent-aanklager in de Neurenberg-processen en schreef <em>Anne Frank und Edith Stein. Zwei von Hunderttausend</em> (1968). Vanwege zijn persoonlijke bekendheid met Ullstein bemiddelt hij in de controverse op de achtergrond. Het Duitse strafrecht kent de mogelijkheid dat in bepaalde gevallen naast de staat, ook familieleden als aanklagers optreden. Otto Frank benutte die mogelijkheid verschillende keren.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"yd2zk\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, <em>De dagboeken van Anne Frank</em>, ingel. door David Barnouw, Harry Paape en Gerrold van der Stroom ; met de samenvatting van het rapport van het Gerechtelijk Laboratorium, opgesteld door H.J.J. Hardy; tekstverzorging door David Barnouw en Gerrold van der Stroom, 5e verbeterde en uitgebreide druk, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker i.s.m. het Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, 2001, p. 107.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zo082\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_111: Brief Staatsaanwalt Bluhm aan Otto Frank, 21 november 1966</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"estvo\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_111: Brief Otto Frank aan Staatsaanwalt Bluhm, 9 december 1966. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"rotns\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_111: Brief Otto Frank aan herr Oberstatsanwalt, 18 februari 1967. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"x0hzk\" id=\"footnote-8\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-8-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>David Irving, <em>Hitler und seine Feldherren</em>, Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein Verlag, 1975; AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan zijn juridisch adviseur Fritz Fafflok, 25 september 1975.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"yro6c\" id=\"footnote-9\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-9-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Verklaring Otto Frank, 12 oktober 1975. Belangrijke getuigen-deskundigen in de Stielau zaak waren dr. Minna Becker, die handschrift onderzoek deed, en dr. Anne Marie Hübner. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ma4i8\" id=\"footnote-10\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-10-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Ernst Cramer aan Otto Frank, 27 oktober 1975.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"yulzl\" id=\"footnote-11\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-11-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Fritz Fafflok, 30 oktober 1975.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"truiz\" id=\"footnote-12\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-12-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 14 november 1975. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"06do3\" id=\"footnote-13\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-13-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Fafflok, 27 november 1975.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"571d1\" id=\"footnote-14\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-14-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: P.S. voor Fritz Fafflok in conceptbrief Otto Frank aan W.J. Siedler van Ullstein. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"umkqx\" id=\"footnote-15\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-15-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Andrew Bateson. Bateson heeft al eerder een succesvol proces tegen Irving gevoerd.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ly54t\" id=\"footnote-16\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-16-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Fafflok, 9 januari 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"112s5\" id=\"footnote-17\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-17-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 15 januari 1976. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"p6uhc\" id=\"footnote-18\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-18-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan C.C. Aronsfeld (Institute of Jewish Affairs, London).</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"v115w\" id=\"footnote-19\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-19-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 18 februari 1976. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9up7w\" id=\"footnote-20\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-20-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Advertentie.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"z3484\" id=\"footnote-21\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-21-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Robert Kempner aan Otto Frank, 16 juni 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"pmwre\" id=\"footnote-22\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-22-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Robert Kempner, 21 juni 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"7n6pm\" id=\"footnote-23\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-23-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 15 oktober 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"imk81\" id=\"footnote-24\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-24-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan David Irving, 23 oktober 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"28j0k\" id=\"footnote-25\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-25-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 2 november 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"srruq\" id=\"footnote-26\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-26-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan David Irving, 16 november 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"78ve9\" id=\"footnote-27\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-27-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC. reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 16 januari 1980.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"xv4vz\" id=\"footnote-28\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-28-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 4 februari 1980. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vqi39\" id=\"footnote-29\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-29-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan C.C. Aronsfeld, 22 januari 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"tf52g\" id=\"footnote-30\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-30-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Martin Savitt aan Otto Frank. Savitt is voorzitter van de Defence & Group Relations Department van The Board of Deputies of British Jews.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vdccu\" id=\"footnote-31\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-31-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Anne Frank Stichting aan Otto Frank, 30 november 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ycndb\" id=\"footnote-32\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-32-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Otto Frank aan Maurice Ludmer, 4 december 1976. Ludmer is hoofdredactreur van Searchlight.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"mctt9\" id=\"footnote-33\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-33-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Memorandum Anne Frank-Fonds.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"285e0\" id=\"footnote-34\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-34-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Otto Frank aan Martin Savitt, 22 mei 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9le4o\" id=\"footnote-35\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-35-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ioy5y\" id=\"footnote-36\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-36-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Otto Frank aan Stuart Appleman, 16 augustus 1979. Appleman is advocaat bij Parmenter & Co. en behandelt de zaak in Engeland.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"4f9zd\" id=\"footnote-37\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-37-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Fritzi Frank aan Stuart Appleman, 18 maart 1986.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"1kr6f\" id=\"footnote-38\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-38-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Otto Frank aan Robert Faurisson, 9 maart 1977.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"snx6d\" id=\"footnote-39\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-39-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Otto Frank aan L. de Jong, 30 maart 1977.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ocybb\" id=\"footnote-40\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-40-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Otto Frank aan C. Blom, 5 april 1978. Blom is een vroegere medewerker van Uitgeverij Contact.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"3t4ce\" id=\"footnote-41\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-41-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Diverse correspondentie inzake Faurisson.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"c5jl1\" id=\"footnote-42\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-42-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Bep Voskuijl aan Otto en Fritzi Frank, 29 augustus 1978.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"lrqt5\" id=\"footnote-43\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-43-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA 107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 15 januari 1976 en Otto Frank aan Fritz Fafflok, 21 januari 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"h83a9\" id=\"footnote-44\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-44-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan C.C. Aronsfeld, 30 maart 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"m1ies\" id=\"footnote-45\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-45-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Familiearchief Anne Frank-Fonds, Bazel, Otto Frank, AFF_OtF_bdoc_03: Vonnis Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, 22 juni 1978.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"znwox\" id=\"footnote-46\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-46-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Website Anne Frank Stichting, 'De authenticiteit van het dagboek van Anne Frank', <a href=\"https://www.annefrank.org/nl/anne-frank/verdieping/de-authenticiteit-van-het-dagboek-van-anne-frank/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.annefrank.org/nl/anne-frank/verdieping/de-authenticiteit-van-het-dagboek-van-anne-frank/</a>, geraadpleegd 20 september 2022.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"5lvnx\" id=\"footnote-47\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-47-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Vonnis Amtsgerich Hamburg, 13 januari 1977.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"5za3a\" id=\"footnote-48\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-48-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Antwoord op vragen in Senaat van Hamburg.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"302xv\" id=\"footnote-49\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-49-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Vonnis Amtsgericht Hamburg-Altona, 6 april 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"n0lil\" id=\"footnote-50\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-50-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Rapport Bundeskriminalamt, 28 mei 1980.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"b57wa\" id=\"footnote-51\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-51-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_062: Necrologie Otto Frank door: onbekend, p. 3.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>\r\n\r\n<div> </div>",
"description_en": "<h1>The first allegations</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>The first allegations against the diary came in 1957 and 1958 in obscure Swedish and Norwegian periodicals. In them, among other claims, it was alleged that the American journalist and novelist Meyer Levin was the author of the diary. Levin wanted to make a stage adaptation and a film of the diary in the USA, but was not supported in this by Otto Frank. The conflict between Meyer Levin and Otto Frank reached the press, and was used by right-wing extremists as an argument to call the authenticity of the diary into question. It is unclear whether these first attacks on the diary were seen by Otto Frank, but the fact is that he did not lodge a complaint.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Lothar Stielau and Heinrich Buddeberg</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Early in 1959 he lodged a criminal complaint on the grounds of libel, slander, defamation, maligning the memory of a deceased person and antisemitic utterances against the German teacher Lothar Stielau (a teacher of English in Lübeck, and member of the extreme right-wing Deutsche Reichspartei). Stielau wrote in the magazine of the <em>Vereinigung ehemaliger Schüler und der Freunde der Oberschüle zur Dom e.V. Lübeck</em> of <strong>10 October 1958</strong>, an essay "Tom Sawyer's grosses Abenteuer", which included the passage: '<em>‘The forged diaries of Eva Braun, of the Queen of England and the hardly more authentic one of Anne Frank may have earned several millions for the profiteers from Germany's defeat, but they have also raised our own hackles quite a bit.’</em>' (<em>'Die gefälschten Tagebücher der Eva Braun, der Königin von England und das nicht viel echtere der Anne Frank haben den Nutzniessern </em><em>der deutschen Niederlage zwar einige Millionen eingebracht, uns dafür aber auch recht empfindlich werden lassen.' ) </em></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Otto Frank was a witness in the case, as were (among others) Miep Gies, Jan Gies and Bep Voskuyl.<sup data-footnote-id=\"0xk0o\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> Otto Frank, the publishers G. Bermann-Fischer and Lambert Schneider felt Stielau's allegation of falsity and the qualification 'profiteers of the German defeat' were attacks on their honour.<sup data-footnote-id=\"o1y32\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>17 October 1961,</strong> the case was heard before the <em>III. Strafkammer des Landgericht Lübeck</em>. Otto Frank also acted as a co-plaintiff. His criminal complaint was also directed against Stielau’s fellow party member Heinrich Buddeberg, who defended Stielau in a letter sent to the <em>Lübecker Nachrichten</em> newspaper. Following a detailed and thorough investigation into the authenticity of Anne Frank’s handwriting, the District Court in Lübeck ruled that the diary was authentic, and Otto Frank’s complaint was upheld.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>A sentence was never passed because Stielau and Buddeberg withdrew their allegations on the basis of the preliminary investigation. This investigation and the cross-examination of the witnesses had convinced them that the diary was genuine. They expressed remorse over their statements, which they had made without any attempted corroboration. <sup data-footnote-id=\"h65y4\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> As a result, Otto Frank and the others withdrew their complaint, so the trial did not proceed any further. At this, Otto Frank agreed to a settlement, something that he later regretted: ‘<em>Had I but known that there would be people who would consider a settlement in this case as insufficient proof [of the authenticity of the diary], I should certainly not have dropped the case.</em>’<sup data-footnote-id=\"eq0c7\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Walter Hainke</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>21 November 1966</strong>, the Oberstaatsanwalt in Darmstadt wrote to Otto Frank about a letter, which Walter Hainke, in April of that year, had sent to the mayor of Offenbach. This was in response to the decision to name a new school in Offenbach <em>Anne Frank Schule</em>. Walter Hainke called Anne the<em> "bedaurenwertens an Fleckfieber verstorbenes Mädchen"</em>, who was abused after her death by her<em> "geschäftstüchtige"</em> family, which earned fortunes from the obviously forged diary. The Oberstaatsanwalt gave Otto Frank the opportunity to file a criminal complaint.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zo082\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup> Otto Frank did so on <strong>9 December 1966.</strong> He was prepared to withdraw his complaint if Hainke publicly recanted his allegations.<sup data-footnote-id=\"estvo\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>18 February 1967</strong>, Otto Frank withdrew his indictment, despite the dubious wording of Hainke's recantation. Otto Frank felt that the case deserved little public attention and did not want additional attention through a trial. <sup data-footnote-id=\"rotns\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Publisher Ullstein and David Irving</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>In the introduction to the book <em>Hitler und seine Feldherren</em>, David Irving wrote in <strong>1975</strong>:<em> 'Viele Fälschungen sind aktenkundig wie diejenige des Tagebuchs der Anne Frank, hier erbrachte ein von einem New-Yorker Drehbuchautor angestrengter Zivilprozess den Beweis, dass er es in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Vater des Mädchens geschrieben hatte hatte.'</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"x0hzk\"><a href=\"#footnote-8\" id=\"footnote-marker-8-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[8]</a></sup> Otto Frank wrote an affidavit <strong>on 12 October 1975</strong> in which he asserted that he was Anne's father, that the diary had been written by Anne herself and that in the Stielau case this had been sufficiently established - also by graphological research.<sup data-footnote-id=\"yro6c\"><a href=\"#footnote-9\" id=\"footnote-marker-9-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[9]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>On 27 October 1975,</strong> Ernst Cramer of Axel Springer Verlag (which had had a majority stake in Ullstein since 1959) wrote a letter of apology to Otto Frank. The order to remove the challenged passage from Irving's preface had been given months earlier, but the verification of its execution had gone wrong. Ties with Irving had since been severed.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ma4i8\"><a href=\"#footnote-10\" id=\"footnote-marker-10-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[10]</a></sup> Otto Frank wrote on <strong>30 October 1975</strong> to his lawyer F. Fafflok that, although courteously stated, he took Cramer's letter as insincere. He did not believe in the order referred to and stressed the fact that the announcement of the book appeared in National Socialist magazines.<sup data-footnote-id=\"yulzl\"><a href=\"#footnote-11\" id=\"footnote-marker-11-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[11]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Fafflok wrote to Ullstein <strong>on 14 November 1975</strong> asking for compensation of DM 30,000 on behalf of Otto Frank, which would benefit the Anne Frank House.<sup data-footnote-id=\"truiz\"><a href=\"#footnote-12\" id=\"footnote-marker-12-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[12]</a></sup><br />\r\nOtto Frank said that he initially went after the publisher for making the various disclosures and causing the damage.<sup data-footnote-id=\"06do3\"><a href=\"#footnote-13\" id=\"footnote-marker-13-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[13]</a></sup> Around <strong>27 November 1975,</strong> Otto Frank noted that he was not aware of any attacks on the authenticity of the diary since the Stielau case in 1961. After the publication of Irving's book, they increased again.<sup data-footnote-id=\"571d1\"><a href=\"#footnote-14\" id=\"footnote-marker-14-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[14]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>On 16 December 1975,</strong> Otto Frank approached an English lawyer to find out whether he could have Irving prosecuted (although the book had not been published in English).<sup data-footnote-id=\"umkqx\"><a href=\"#footnote-15\" id=\"footnote-marker-15-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[15]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>On 9 January 1976,</strong> Otto Frank expressed dissatisfaction with the pace at which Fafflok was tackling the Ullstein case.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ly54t\"><a href=\"#footnote-16\" id=\"footnote-marker-16-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[16]</a></sup> According to a letter from Fafflok, allegations of falsity of the diary had now appeared in <em>Das Ostpreussenblatt, Deutsche Wochenzeitung and Neue Ordnung, </em>among others<em>.</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"112s5\"><a href=\"#footnote-17\" id=\"footnote-marker-17-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[17]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>On 22 January 1976,</strong> Otto Frank wrote that he had been told from England that the chances against Irving were slim because his book had not been released there. <sup data-footnote-id=\"p6uhc\"><a href=\"#footnote-18\" id=\"footnote-marker-18-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[18]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Fafflok called on Ullstein on <strong>18 February 1976</strong> on behalf of Otto Frank to publish in major daily and weekly newspapers no later than <strong>26 February 1976</strong> the notice that the claim in Irving's preface was incorrect, and that the authenticity of the diary was established.<sup data-footnote-id=\"v115w\"><a href=\"#footnote-19\" id=\"footnote-marker-19-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[19]</a></sup> The <em>Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Büchhandlung</em> published Ullstein's correction <strong>on 30 April 1976</strong>, although in more circumlocutory terms than Otto Frank would have liked. <sup data-footnote-id=\"9up7w\"><a href=\"#footnote-20\" id=\"footnote-marker-20-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[20]</a></sup><br />\r\n<br />\r\n<strong>On 16 June 1976</strong> Kempner wrote to Otto Frank that Ernst Cramer of Springer Verlag offered the following:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li>Springer Verlag would pay DM 7,000 to Otto Frank/the Anne Frank House. In addition, Mr Springer would pay a further DM 10,000 to the Anne Frank House.</li>\r\n\t<li>The publisher would pay all court and legal fees.</li>\r\n\t<li>The publisher would again place an announcement in the <em>Börsenblatt</em> and would call writers/publishers to account in the event of new allegations of forgery. <sup data-footnote-id=\"z3484\"><a href=\"#footnote-21\" id=\"footnote-marker-21-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[21]</a></sup></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>On 21 June 1976</strong> Otto Frank replied to Kempner that he accepted the proposal. He also informed Fafflok accordingly.<sup data-footnote-id=\"pmwre\"><a href=\"#footnote-22\" id=\"footnote-marker-22-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[22]</a></sup> Thereafter, the Irving issue remained quiet for over two years.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>15 October 1979</strong>, Irving made a proposal to Otto Frank to have the diaries examined for authenticity by the firm Hehner & Cox, which had unmasked Canaris and Mussolini forgeries, among others.<sup data-footnote-id=\"7n6pm\"><a href=\"#footnote-23\" id=\"footnote-marker-23-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[23]</a></sup> Otto Frank replied on <strong>23 October 1979</strong> that he had already acceded to a similar request from the Hamburg court on condition that the taking of paper and ink samples would be done in his presence in Switzerland. <sup data-footnote-id=\"imk81\"><a href=\"#footnote-24\" id=\"footnote-marker-24-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[24]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Irving again urged Otto Frank on <strong>2 November 1979</strong> to submit to investigation by Hehner & Cox, suggesting that rejection indicated there was something to hide.<sup data-footnote-id=\"28j0k\"><a href=\"#footnote-25\" id=\"footnote-marker-25-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[25]</a></sup> <strong>On 16 November 1979,</strong> Otto Frank replied that he trusted the competence of an expert appointed by a German court and did not appreciate further correspondence in the matter. <sup data-footnote-id=\"srruq\"><a href=\"#footnote-26\" id=\"footnote-marker-26-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[26]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Irving wrote to Otto Frank on <strong>16 January 1980</strong> that the latter wrongly refused to have the diary subjected to an impartial investigation. He believed this would reinforce the idea of a post-war fabrication.<sup data-footnote-id=\"78ve9\"><a href=\"#footnote-27\" id=\"footnote-marker-27-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[27]</a></sup> On <strong>4 February 1980</strong>, Irving sent Otto Frank a letter indicating that he had engaged a lawyer.<sup data-footnote-id=\"xv4vz\"><a href=\"#footnote-28\" id=\"footnote-marker-28-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[28]</a></sup> The Otto Frank Archive contains no further correspondence in this matter.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Richard Harwood</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>In the aftermath of the Ullstein/Irving affair, Otto Frank came across a piece by Richard Harwood, published by the <em>Historical Review Press</em> in Surrey. He expressed his intention to bring a case against it as well.<sup data-footnote-id=\"vqi39\"><a href=\"#footnote-29\" id=\"footnote-marker-29-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[29]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li><strong>11 March 1976</strong>: Harwood turned out to be the pseudonym of Richard Verrall. He appeared to be a member of the National Front. However, this was not certain. The pamphlet in question was titled <em>Did Six Million Really Die?</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"tf52g\"><a href=\"#footnote-30\" id=\"footnote-marker-30-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[30]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>30 November 1976</strong>: British magazine <em>Searchlight</em> determined that Harwood was indeed Verrall. <sup data-footnote-id=\"vdccu\"><a href=\"#footnote-31\" id=\"footnote-marker-31-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[31]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>4 December 1976</strong>: Otto Frank wanted to bring a case against Verrall, but doubted whether <em>Searchlight'</em> s evidence was even legally conclusive.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ycndb\"><a href=\"#footnote-32\" id=\"footnote-marker-32-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[32]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>5 December 1977</strong>: Otto Frank and the other members of the Anne Frank Fund (Fritzi Frank-Markovits, Buddy Elias, Stephan Elias, Vincent Frank, Ernst Levy) decided to take legal action against Verrall and the <em>Historical Review Press.</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"mctt9\"><a href=\"#footnote-33\" id=\"footnote-marker-33-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[33]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>22 May 1979</strong>: Otto Frank finally decided to abandon a court case in England, mainly for health reasons. <sup data-footnote-id=\"285e0\"><a href=\"#footnote-34\" id=\"footnote-marker-34-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[34]</a></sup></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n\r\n<p>It was pointed out to him from various quarters that there were opportunities to testify without travelling to London and appearing in court in person. Such suggestions came from the British judiciary, among other places. <sup data-footnote-id=\"9le4o\"><a href=\"#footnote-35\" id=\"footnote-marker-35-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[35]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li><strong>16 August 1979</strong>: given the major interest in the matter and the possibility of testifying from Switzerland, Otto Frank agreed to continue the case.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ioy5y\"><a href=\"#footnote-36\" id=\"footnote-marker-36-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[36]</a></sup></li>\r\n\t<li><strong>18 March 1980</strong>: Fritzi Frank-Markovits wrote to Appleman, who was going to bring the case, that Otto Frank was very ill. Moreover, the English consulate in Basel had now been closed, making it impossible to give testimony there. She also pointed out that the case had been stalled for seven months.<sup data-footnote-id=\"4f9zd\"><a href=\"#footnote-37\" id=\"footnote-marker-37-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[37]</a></sup></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n\r\n<p>With that, the case petered out.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Robert Faurisson</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Through the Anne Frank House, Otto Frank received a letter dated <strong>5 March</strong> <strong>1977 </strong>from Faurisson, who expressed interest in the diary as a scholar at the University of Lyon. Otto replied that he was willing to receive him on <strong>9 March 1977</strong> and show him the original diaries.<sup data-footnote-id=\"1kr6f\"><a href=\"#footnote-38\" id=\"footnote-marker-38-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[38]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>In a letter dated <strong>30 March</strong> <strong>1977</strong>, Otto Frank described Faurisson as an unsympathetic and suspicious man.<sup data-footnote-id=\"snx6d\"><a href=\"#footnote-39\" id=\"footnote-marker-39-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[39]</a></sup> On <strong>5 April 1978</strong>, Otto wrote that he had bad experiences with Faurisson, calling him a "disturbed man". According to Otto Frank, Faurisson did not believe the whole story of the period in hiding.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ocybb\"><a href=\"#footnote-40\" id=\"footnote-marker-40-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[40]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>In the course of his research, Faurisson also wrote to Kugler (on <strong>28 March 1977</strong>), the Gies couple (on <strong>4 September 1978</strong>), among others<sup data-footnote-id=\"3t4ce\"><a href=\"#footnote-41\" id=\"footnote-marker-41-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[41]</a></sup> and he visited Bep Voskuijl at home.<sup data-footnote-id=\"c5jl1\"><a href=\"#footnote-42\" id=\"footnote-marker-42-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[42]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Heinz Roth</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>In 1976, Otto Frank brought a legal action before the District Court in Frankfurt against Heinz Roth, from Odenhausen in Germany. Through his own publishing company, Roth had distributed numerous neo-Nazi pamphlets with titles like <em>The Diary of Anne Frank – A Forgery</em>, and <em>The Diary of Anne Frank – The Great Fraud</em>, and in a reader's letter in <em>Neue Ordnung</em> he denied the authenticity of the diary, refering to the book of Robert Irving. Otto also responded with a letter to the editor, which was not initially published.<sup data-footnote-id=\"lrqt5\"><a href=\"#footnote-43\" id=\"footnote-marker-43-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[43]</a></sup> Otto Frank wrote on <strong>30 March 1976</strong> that charges were pending against Roth, and that complaints had been made about the distribution of his pamphlet in Bochum, Hamburg and Wiesbaden.<sup data-footnote-id=\"h83a9\"><a href=\"#footnote-44\" id=\"footnote-marker-44-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[44]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>22 June</strong> <strong>1978</strong>, the Frankfurt am Main court banned Roth from making certain claims in his publications. This concerned in particular the claims that the diary was a forgery and a scam by Otto Frank, and that this had been a proven fact for more than a decade. The court imposed a fine of DM500,000 or six months' imprisonment for each offence.<sup data-footnote-id=\"m1ies\"><a href=\"#footnote-45\" id=\"footnote-marker-45-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[45]</a></sup> On appeal, Roth put forward the report of the French scientist Robert Faurisson in his defence, but this did not convince the German court. Although he had died in 1978, a higher appeal was still submitted to the Federal Supreme Court, which referred the case back to the Court of Appeal in Frankfurt. According to the Supreme Court, Roth had had too little opportunity to prove his allegations, and he should be given this opportunity in a retrial. The fact that the defendant had already been dead for two years apparently played no role in this judgement: ultimately the case never came before the Frankfurt Court of Appeal.Roth appealed, but this was rejected in <strong>1979</strong>. In the end, the case was not heard.<sup data-footnote-id=\"znwox\"><a href=\"#footnote-46\" id=\"footnote-marker-46-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[46]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Ernst Römer</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>On the ocasion of the performances of <em>Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank</em> in Hamburg, Römer distributed pamphlets in <strong>February 1976</strong>. These contained a translation of an article from the <em>Historical Review Press</em>. The pamphlet had the headline<em> 'Best-seller, ein Schwindel'</em>, and reappeared with the story about compensation to Meyer Levin. Otto Frank filed a lawsuit <strong>on 15 March 1976</strong>. Again, the findings of Minna Becker and Dr Hübner were cited. Römer was given a fine of DM 1,500.<sup data-footnote-id=\"5lvnx\"><a href=\"#footnote-47\" id=\"footnote-marker-47-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[47]</a></sup> Otto Frank acted as a co-plaintiff and witness in this case.<sup data-footnote-id=\"5za3a\"><a href=\"#footnote-48\" id=\"footnote-marker-48-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[48]</a></sup>.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Edgar Werner Geiss</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>During an appeal hearing in the Römer case on <strong>28 August 1978</strong>, Geiss distributed pamphlets attacking the authenticity of the diary. Geiss also arrived with Meyer Levin. He was sentenced to six months with the alternative of a fine of DM 1,500.<sup data-footnote-id=\"302xv\"><a href=\"#footnote-49\" id=\"footnote-marker-49-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[49]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Start of the ballpoint myth</h1>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>1-2 April 1980</strong>: In the Birsfelden town hall, experts examined the manuscripts on behalf of the Hamburg court. This was in connection with the cases against Römer and Geiss. They took samples of the paper and ink, and found, among other things, that correction marks - partly with biros due to later editing - had been applied. The paper and high-iron gallnut ink used were very common before <strong>1950</strong>. The exact age of the papers and inscriptions could not be determined unequivocally.<sup data-footnote-id=\"n0lil\"><a href=\"#footnote-50\" id=\"footnote-marker-50-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[50]</a></sup> Otto was already too ill at that point to play any part in it. At the time of his death, two cases were still running, one in Hamburg and one in Frankfurt.<sup data-footnote-id=\"b57wa\"><a href=\"#footnote-51\" id=\"footnote-marker-51-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[51]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"0xk0o\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Anne Frank Collectie (AFC), Otto Frank Archief (OFA), reg. code OFA_104: Aanklacht van de Staatsanwalt Lübeck, 13 januari 1961. De helpers leggen verklaringen af over de onderduikperiode en het schrijven van Anne.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"o1y32\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_104: Tenlastelegging tegen Stielau en Buddeberg, p. 15. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"h65y4\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Robert Kempner, 28 augustus 1975. Kempner was assistent-aanklager in de Neurenberg-processen en schreef <em>Anne Frank und Edith Stein. Zwei von Hunderttausend</em> (1968). Vanwege zijn persoonlijke bekendheid met Ullstein bemiddelt hij in de controverse op de achtergrond. Het Duitse strafrecht kent de mogelijkheid dat in bepaalde gevallen naast de staat, ook familieleden als aanklagers optreden. Otto Frank benutte die mogelijkheid verschillende keren.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"eq0c7\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, <em>The diary of Anne Frank: the revised critical edition</em>, prep. by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation; introd. by Harry Paape, Gerrold van der Stroom and David Barnouw; with a summary of the report by the Netherlands Forensic Institute comp. by H.J.J. Hardy; ed. by David Barnouw and Gerrold van der Stroom; transl. by Arnold J. Pomerans, transl. by Arnold J. Pomerans, Barbara M. Mooyaart-Doubleday & Susan Massotty, New York, NY: Doubleday, 2003, p. 90.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zo082\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_111: Brief Staatsaanwalt Bluhm aan Otto Frank, 21 november 1966</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"estvo\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_111: Brief Otto Frank aan Staatsaanwalt Bluhm, 9 december 1966. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"rotns\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_111: Brief Otto Frank aan herr Oberstatsanwalt, 18 februari 1967. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"x0hzk\" id=\"footnote-8\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-8-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>David Irving, <em>Hitler und seine Feldherren</em>, Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein Verlag, 1975; AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan zijn juridisch adviseur Fritz Fafflok, 25 september 1975.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"yro6c\" id=\"footnote-9\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-9-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Verklaring Otto Frank, 12 oktober 1975. Belangrijke getuigen-deskundigen in de Stielau zaak waren dr. Minna Becker, die handschrift onderzoek deed, en dr. Anne Marie Hübner. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ma4i8\" id=\"footnote-10\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-10-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Ernst Cramer aan Otto Frank, 27 oktober 1975.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"yulzl\" id=\"footnote-11\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-11-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Fritz Fafflok, 30 oktober 1975.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"truiz\" id=\"footnote-12\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-12-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 14 november 1975. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"06do3\" id=\"footnote-13\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-13-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Fafflok, 27 november 1975.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"571d1\" id=\"footnote-14\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-14-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: P.S. voor Fritz Fafflok in conceptbrief Otto Frank aan W.J. Siedler van Ullstein. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"umkqx\" id=\"footnote-15\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-15-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Andrew Bateson. Bateson heeft al eerder een succesvol proces tegen Irving gevoerd.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ly54t\" id=\"footnote-16\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-16-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Fafflok, 9 januari 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"112s5\" id=\"footnote-17\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-17-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 15 januari 1976. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"p6uhc\" id=\"footnote-18\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-18-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan C.C. Aronsfeld (Institute of Jewish Affairs, London).</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"v115w\" id=\"footnote-19\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-19-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 18 februari 1976. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9up7w\" id=\"footnote-20\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-20-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Advertentie.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"z3484\" id=\"footnote-21\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-21-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Robert Kempner aan Otto Frank, 16 juni 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"pmwre\" id=\"footnote-22\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-22-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Robert Kempner, 21 juni 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"7n6pm\" id=\"footnote-23\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-23-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 15 oktober 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"imk81\" id=\"footnote-24\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-24-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan David Irving, 23 oktober 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"28j0k\" id=\"footnote-25\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-25-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 2 november 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"srruq\" id=\"footnote-26\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-26-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan David Irving, 16 november 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"78ve9\" id=\"footnote-27\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-27-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC. reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 16 januari 1980.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"xv4vz\" id=\"footnote-28\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-28-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 4 februari 1980. </cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vqi39\" id=\"footnote-29\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-29-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan C.C. Aronsfeld, 22 januari 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"tf52g\" id=\"footnote-30\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-30-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Martin Savitt aan Otto Frank. Savitt is voorzitter van de Defence & Group Relations Department van The Board of Deputies of British Jews.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vdccu\" id=\"footnote-31\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-31-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Anne Frank Stichting aan Otto Frank, 30 november 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ycndb\" id=\"footnote-32\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-32-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Otto Frank aan Maurice Ludmer, 4 december 1976. Ludmer is hoofdredactreur van Searchlight.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"mctt9\" id=\"footnote-33\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-33-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Memorandum Anne Frank-Fonds.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"285e0\" id=\"footnote-34\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-34-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Otto Frank aan Martin Savitt, 22 mei 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9le4o\" id=\"footnote-35\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-35-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ioy5y\" id=\"footnote-36\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-36-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Otto Frank aan Stuart Appleman, 16 augustus 1979. Appleman is advocaat bij Parmenter & Co. en behandelt de zaak in Engeland.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"4f9zd\" id=\"footnote-37\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-37-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Fritzi Frank aan Stuart Appleman, 18 maart 1986.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"1kr6f\" id=\"footnote-38\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-38-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Otto Frank aan Robert Faurisson, 9 maart 1977.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"snx6d\" id=\"footnote-39\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-39-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Otto Frank aan L. de Jong, 30 maart 1977.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ocybb\" id=\"footnote-40\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-40-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Otto Frank aan C. Blom, 5 april 1978. Blom is een vroegere medewerker van Uitgeverij Contact.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"3t4ce\" id=\"footnote-41\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-41-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Diverse correspondentie inzake Faurisson.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"c5jl1\" id=\"footnote-42\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-42-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Bep Voskuijl aan Otto en Fritzi Frank, 29 augustus 1978.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"lrqt5\" id=\"footnote-43\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-43-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA 107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 15 januari 1976 en Otto Frank aan Fritz Fafflok, 21 januari 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"h83a9\" id=\"footnote-44\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-44-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan C.C. Aronsfeld, 30 maart 1976.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"m1ies\" id=\"footnote-45\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-45-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Familiearchief Anne Frank-Fonds, Bazel, Otto Frank, AFF_OtF_bdoc_03: Vonnis Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, 22 juni 1978.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"znwox\" id=\"footnote-46\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-46-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Website Anne Frank Stichting, "The authenticity of the diary of Anne Frank | Anne Frank House" (<a href=\"https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/authenticity-diary-anne-frank/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/authenticity-diary-anne-frank</a>, geraadpleegd 20 september 2022).</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"5lvnx\" id=\"footnote-47\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-47-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Vonnis Amtsgerich Hamburg, 13 januari 1977.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"5za3a\" id=\"footnote-48\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-48-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Antwoord op vragen in Senaat van Hamburg.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"302xv\" id=\"footnote-49\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-49-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Vonnis Amtsgericht Hamburg-Altona, 6 april 1979.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"n0lil\" id=\"footnote-50\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-50-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Rapport Bundeskriminalamt, 28 mei 1980.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"b57wa\" id=\"footnote-51\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-51-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_062: Necrologie Otto Frank door: onbekend, p. 3.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>\r\n\r\n<div> </div>",
"summary": "From the late 1950’s until his death in 1980, Otto Frank opposed attacks on the authenticity of the diary in his words and writings, but also by legal means.",
"summary_nl": "Vanaf eind jaren vijftig tot aan zijn dood in 1980 heeft Otto Frank zich verzet tegen aanvallen op de authenticiteit van het dagboek. In woord en geschrift, maar ook met juridische middelen.",
"summary_en": "From the late 1950’s until his death in 1980, Otto Frank opposed attacks on the authenticity of the diary in his words and writings, but also by legal means.",
"same_as": null,
"parent": 396124643,
"files": []
}
