EN

Otto Frank and the attacks on the authenticity of the diary

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.

Subject
Collectie: Anne Frank Stichting

Krantenknipsels

Collectie: Anne Frank Stichting Copyright: AFS rechthebbende

The first allegations

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.

Lothar Stielau and Heinrich Buddeberg

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 Vereinigung ehemaliger Schüler und der Freunde der Oberschüle zur Dom e.V. Lübeck of 10 October 1958, an essay "Tom Sawyer's grosses Abenteuer", which included the passage: '‘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.’' ('Die gefälschten Tagebücher der Eva Braun, der Königin von England und das nicht viel echtere der Anne Frank haben den Nutzniessern der deutschen Niederlage zwar einige Millionen eingebracht, uns dafür aber auch recht empfindlich werden lassen.' )

Otto Frank was a witness in the case, as were (among others) Miep Gies, Jan Gies and Bep Voskuyl.[1] 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.[2]

On 17 October 1961, the case was heard before the III. Strafkammer des Landgericht Lübeck. 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 Lübecker Nachrichten 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.

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.  [3] 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: ‘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.’[4]

Walter Hainke

On 21 November 1966, 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 Anne Frank Schule. Walter Hainke called Anne the "bedaurenwertens an Fleckfieber verstorbenes Mädchen", who was abused after her death by her "geschäftstüchtige" family, which earned fortunes from the obviously forged diary. The Oberstaatsanwalt gave Otto Frank the opportunity to file a criminal complaint.[5] Otto Frank did so on 9 December 1966. He was prepared to withdraw his complaint if Hainke publicly recanted his allegations.[6]

On 18 February 1967, 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. [7]

Publisher Ullstein and David Irving

In the introduction to the book Hitler und seine Feldherren, David Irving wrote in 1975: '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.'[8] Otto Frank wrote an affidavit on 12 October 1975 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.[9]

On 27 October 1975, 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.[10] Otto Frank wrote on 30 October 1975 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.[11]

Fafflok wrote to Ullstein on 14 November 1975 asking for compensation of DM 30,000 on behalf of Otto Frank, which would benefit the Anne Frank House.[12]
Otto Frank said that he initially went after the publisher for making the various disclosures and causing the damage.[13] Around 27 November 1975, 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.[14]

On 16 December 1975, Otto Frank approached an English lawyer to find out whether he could have Irving prosecuted (although the book had not been published in English).[15]

On 9 January 1976, Otto Frank expressed dissatisfaction with the pace at which Fafflok was tackling the Ullstein case.[16] According to a letter from Fafflok, allegations of falsity of the diary had now appeared in Das Ostpreussenblatt, Deutsche Wochenzeitung and Neue Ordnung, among others.[17]

On 22 January 1976, 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. [18]

Fafflok called on Ullstein on 18 February 1976 on behalf of Otto Frank to publish in major daily and weekly newspapers no later than 26 February 1976 the notice that the claim in Irving's preface was incorrect, and that the authenticity of the diary was established.[19] The Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Büchhandlung published Ullstein's correction on 30 April 1976, although in more circumlocutory terms than Otto Frank would have liked. [20]

On 16 June 1976 Kempner wrote to Otto Frank that Ernst Cramer of Springer Verlag offered the following:

  • 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.
  • The publisher would pay all court and legal fees.
  • The publisher would again place an announcement in the Börsenblatt and would call writers/publishers to account in the event of new allegations of forgery. [21]

On 21 June 1976 Otto Frank replied to Kempner that he accepted the proposal. He also informed Fafflok accordingly.[22] Thereafter, the Irving issue remained quiet for over two years.

On 15 October 1979, 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.[23] Otto Frank replied on 23 October 1979 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. [24]

Irving again urged Otto Frank on 2 November 1979 to submit to investigation by Hehner & Cox, suggesting that rejection indicated there was something to hide.[25] On 16 November 1979, 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. [26]

Irving wrote to Otto Frank on 16 January 1980 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.[27] On 4 February 1980, Irving sent Otto Frank a letter indicating that he had engaged a lawyer.[28] The Otto Frank Archive contains no further correspondence in this matter.

Richard Harwood

In the aftermath of the Ullstein/Irving affair, Otto Frank came across a piece by Richard Harwood, published by the Historical Review Press in Surrey. He expressed his intention to bring a case against it as well.[29]

  • 11 March 1976: 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 Did Six Million Really Die?[30]
  • 30 November 1976: British magazine Searchlight determined that Harwood was indeed Verrall. [31]
  • 4 December 1976: Otto Frank wanted to bring a case against Verrall, but doubted whether Searchlight' s evidence was even legally conclusive.[32]
  • 5 December 1977: 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 Historical Review Press.[33]
  • 22 May 1979: Otto Frank finally decided to abandon a court case in England, mainly for health reasons. [34]

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. [35]

  • 16 August 1979: given the major interest in the matter and the possibility of testifying from Switzerland, Otto Frank agreed to continue the case.[36]
  • 18 March 1980: 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.[37]

With that, the case petered out.

Robert Faurisson

Through the Anne Frank House, Otto Frank received a letter dated 5 March 1977 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 9 March 1977 and show him the original diaries.[38]

In a letter dated 30 March 1977, Otto Frank described Faurisson as an unsympathetic and suspicious man.[39] On 5 April 1978, 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.[40]

In the course of his research, Faurisson also wrote to Kugler (on 28 March 1977), the Gies couple (on 4 September 1978), among others[41] and he visited Bep Voskuijl at home.[42]

Heinz Roth

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 The Diary of Anne Frank – A Forgery, and The Diary of Anne Frank – The Great Fraud, and in a reader's letter in Neue Ordnung 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.[43] Otto Frank wrote on 30 March 1976 that charges were pending against Roth, and that complaints had been made about the distribution of his pamphlet in Bochum, Hamburg and Wiesbaden.[44]

On 22 June 1978, 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.[45] 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 1979. In the end, the case was not heard.[46]

Ernst Römer

On the ocasion of the performances of Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank in Hamburg, Römer distributed pamphlets in February 1976. These contained a translation of an article from the Historical Review Press. The pamphlet had the headline 'Best-seller, ein Schwindel', and reappeared with the story about compensation to Meyer Levin. Otto Frank filed a lawsuit on 15 March 1976. Again, the findings of Minna Becker and Dr Hübner were cited. Römer was given a fine of DM 1,500.[47] Otto Frank acted as a co-plaintiff and witness in this case.[48].

Edgar Werner Geiss

During an appeal hearing in the Römer case on 28 August 1978, 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.[49]

Start of the ballpoint myth

1-2 April 1980: 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 1950. The exact age of the papers and inscriptions could not be determined unequivocally.[50] 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.[51]

Footnotes

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_104: Tenlastelegging tegen Stielau en Buddeberg, p. 15. 
  3. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Robert Kempner, 28 augustus 1975. Kempner was assistent-aanklager in de Neurenberg-processen en schreef Anne Frank und Edith Stein. Zwei von Hunderttausend (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.
  4. ^ Anne Frank, The diary of Anne Frank: the revised critical edition, 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.
  5. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_111: Brief Staatsaanwalt Bluhm aan Otto Frank, 21 november 1966
  6. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_111: Brief Otto Frank aan Staatsaanwalt Bluhm, 9 december 1966. 
  7. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_111: Brief Otto Frank aan herr Oberstatsanwalt, 18 februari 1967. 
  8. ^ David Irving, Hitler und seine Feldherren, Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein Verlag, 1975; AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan zijn juridisch adviseur Fritz Fafflok, 25 september 1975.
  9. ^ 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.  
  10. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Ernst Cramer aan Otto Frank, 27 oktober 1975.
  11. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Fritz Fafflok, 30 oktober 1975.
  12. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 14 november 1975. 
  13. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Fafflok, 27 november 1975.
  14. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: P.S. voor Fritz Fafflok in conceptbrief Otto Frank aan W.J. Siedler van Ullstein. 
  15. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Andrew Bateson. Bateson heeft al eerder een succesvol proces tegen Irving gevoerd.
  16. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Fafflok, 9 januari 1976.
  17. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 15 januari 1976. 
  18. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan C.C. Aronsfeld (Institute of Jewish Affairs, London).
  19. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 18 februari 1976. 
  20. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Advertentie.
  21. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Robert Kempner aan Otto Frank, 16 juni 1976.
  22. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan Robert Kempner, 21 juni 1976.
  23. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 15 oktober 1979.
  24. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan David Irving, 23 oktober 1979.
  25. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 2 november 1979.
  26. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan David Irving, 16 november 1979.
  27. ^ AFS, AFC. reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 16 januari 1980.
  28. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: David Irving aan Otto Frank, 4 februari 1980. 
  29. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan C.C. Aronsfeld, 22 januari 1976.
  30. ^ 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.
  31. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Anne Frank Stichting aan Otto Frank, 30 november 1976.
  32. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Otto Frank aan Maurice Ludmer, 4 december 1976. Ludmer is hoofdredactreur van Searchlight.
  33. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Memorandum Anne Frank-Fonds.
  34. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Otto Frank aan Martin Savitt, 22 mei 1979.
  35. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112.
  36. ^ 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.
  37. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_112: Fritzi Frank aan Stuart Appleman, 18 maart 1986.
  38. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Otto Frank aan Robert Faurisson, 9 maart 1977.
  39. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Otto Frank aan L. de Jong, 30 maart 1977.
  40. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Otto Frank aan C. Blom, 5 april 1978. Blom is een vroegere medewerker van Uitgeverij Contact.
  41. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Diverse correspondentie inzake Faurisson.
  42. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_109: Bep Voskuijl aan Otto en Fritzi Frank, 29 augustus 1978.
  43. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA 107: Fritz Fafflok aan Ullstein Verlag, 15 januari 1976 en Otto Frank aan Fritz Fafflok, 21 januari 1976.
  44. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_107: Otto Frank aan C.C. Aronsfeld, 30 maart 1976.
  45. ^ Familiearchief Anne Frank-Fonds, Bazel, Otto Frank, AFF_OtF_bdoc_03: Vonnis Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, 22 juni 1978.
  46. ^ Website Anne Frank House, The authenticity of the diary of Anne Frank.
  47. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Vonnis Amtsgerich Hamburg, 13 januari 1977.
  48. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Antwoord op vragen in Senaat van Hamburg.
  49. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Vonnis Amtsgericht Hamburg-Altona, 6 april 1979.
  50. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_108: Rapport Bundeskriminalamt, 28 mei 1980.
  51. ^ AFS, AFC, reg. code OFA_062: Necrologie Otto Frank door: onbekend, p. 3.