Periodically, you can read that the world-famous records that the Jewish girl were conducted during the Holocaust were created by someone else after the war. We checked how justified these suspicions are.

Anneliz Maria Frank lived on Earth for only 15 full years, but the teenage thoughts that she is believed to be transferred to paper became a document of an era, which does not weaken in our days. In February 1945, Anna died of rash typhus in a concentration camp, and two years later her father Otto decided to publish a diary of her daughter called "Shelter". Since then, the book has been translated into 70 languages, a lot of films have been shot, and the Dutch house where it was hiding became Museum of Anna Frank.

However, over time, rumors began to arise that the girl’s diary is nothing more than a skillful fake. One of the first such doubts sounded back in 1959, when a high school teacher from Lubek expressed his opinion Lotar Shtleu, supported by the leader of the local neo -Nazis Heinride Budeberg. In the 1980s, a large resonance caused similar conclusions of the famous French literary critic and historical revisionist Robert Forisson, who poured into the book "Is Anna Frank's diary of Anna?". And these days, many works are created that question the authenticity of the literary monument - for example, the work of Alexei Tokarya "Diary of Anna Frank: a mixture of falsifications and descriptions of the genitals".

First you need to understand what Anna Frank is the original diary. Initially, the girl lived with her parents and sister in Germany, but in 1933-1934, after Hitler came to power, the family moved to Amsterdam. In 1940, Germany occupied the Netherlands, after which difficult times came here for Jewish families. Otto, Anna's father, tried to apply for a visa in the USA or Cuba, but the only approved application in December 1941 was canceled due to the entry of the Americans into the Second World War. The farther, the more distinct was the threat hanging over the family, and on July 16, 1942, parents outlined a move to the shelter, located in the second part of the building where Otto Frank worked. Access to this outbuilding was only through one pass, disguised as a cabinet with documents:

However, due to the suddenly incurring the agenda that ordered the family members to appear to be sent to the concentration camp, the flight to the shelter took place earlier-July 6, 1942. Three weeks before that, Anna was 13 years old. Among other things, she was presented with a notebook with a red-white-green cover-what is considered her first diary. It breaks off on December 5, 1942. The second preserved diary, the school notebook, covers the events from December 22, 1943 to April 17, 1944. Finally, the third and last part of the notes is dedicated to the period from April 17 to August 1, 1944. Three days after the date of the last entry in the shelter, representatives of the Gestapo and the Dutch police broke in the shelter and arrested all the people who were sheltered there, whom the concentration camp was waiting for.

In addition to the diary itself, “Stories from the secret extension” (in the accounting book) and “Notepad with favorite quotes” (in a checkbook) also remained from Anna. In addition, the girl rewritten and restrained many of her diary records on separate sheets of paper, hoping to publish them as a separate book in the future. This updated version mainly covers events from December 1942 to December 1943. When after the war, Otto returned to Amsterdam and through the Red Cross found out about the death of his daughters, the former colleague of MIP Giz gave him Anna’s notes, according to her, selected at one time in a family shelter.

Having familiarized himself with the diary, Otto began to transfer individual fragments to German and send his mother to Switzerland. When he was offered to publish a diary, he initially refused, because, firstly, he did not want to disclose some intimate things that he met in his diary, and secondly, he was afraid to involuntarily tarnish the memory of other inhabitants of the “shelter”. Then, agreeing to the publication, Otto Frank compiled a third, abbreviated version of the diary, removing, in his opinion, everything is superfluous. Thus, today there are three versions of Anna Frank's diary: the original, processed by Anna and processed by her father. All three versions Out Under one cover only in the 1980s, a few years after the death of Otto Frank.

So, what are the main theses of the denial of the authenticity of the diary? As he writes Alexey Tokar“In 1956-1958, in Europe, a much noise made a lawsuit on the claim of the real author of the diary, the famous writer and journalist Meyer Levin, to the father of Anna Otto Franc for Royalti (profit from the sale of the book). As a result, Levin sued $ 50,000 as compensation "for fraud, non -fulfillment of monetary obligations and illegal use of the idea." The subject of the lawsuit in this process was the most dramatic versions of the "diary", made, in particular, for film, radio, television and theatrical productions. Levin insisted on recognizing his copyright, and his lawsuit was satisfied with the New York City Court. The court found that Otto Frank promised to pay Meyer Levin at least $ 50,000 for the use of dialogues written by Levin, and their inclusion in the diary as his daughter’s intellectual work. Then the judge closed the data on the case for a hundred years with his disposal, that is, he classified the materials of the process, from which you can find out exactly which fragments of the "diary" "were written by Meyer Levin. Even the court decision, which confirmed the complete authenticity of the "Diary of Anna Frank", did not receive wide publicity in the press. "

In fact, American writer and journalist Meyer Levin after the war I met With the French translation of “Anna Frank's Diary” and, admiring it, he decided to put a play and a film based on a girl’s records. He enlisted Otto Frank to negotiate with potential producers, and also showed him a preliminary script. Frank approved the text, but left the right to evaluate theatrical professionals. However, Levin had the latter Problems, and other Americans went around it - Albert Hackkett and Francis Gudrich, whose Broadway setting On the same topic, not only was a great success with the audience, but also received the Pulitzer Prize. Then Levin filed a lawsuit about plagiarism, which even won, however, this case in no way concerned the original authorship of the diary, it was a purely about processing rights. Therefore, the above argument of Alexei Tokar and his other like -minded people is completely false.

Further, Alexei Tokar writes: “The editors of the“ Federation ”newspaper reproduced the cover of Life International magazine for August 1958 with an Anna Frank handwriting model and her photography, she posted one page published under the name of Anna Frank's Diary. It was very noticeable that the handwriting was completely dissimilar. ” And: “In 1976, Otto sued two Germans - Ernst Romer and Edgar Heis, who distributed the brochures, which stated that the“ Diary ”was a fake literary work (Jewish media immediately called them neo -Nazis, although when Jewier Levin sued the Jewish Francom, the media preferred not to mention this process at all). As part of the trial, German official experts conducted a study of handwriting and determined that the entire diary provided was written by one person. The person who wrote a diary everywhere used a ballpoint pen. Unfortunately for Mr. Frank, ballpoint pens were not available until 1951, while Anna, as you know, died of typhoid in 1944. At the request of the German court, the Bundes Kriminal AMT (BKA) Visbaden Laboratory conducted a forensic examination of the manuscript on special equipment, which at that time consisted of three notebooks in solid binding and 324 separate pages intertwined in the fourth block. The results of studies carried out in the VKA Laboratory showed that the “significant” part of the work, especially the fourth volume, were written using a ballpoint pen. Since ballpoint pens were not available until 1951, BKA came to the conclusion that these sections were most likely added later. Finally, BKA clearly determined that not a single handwriting from the diary corresponds to the well -known samples of Anna's handwriting. The information of the VKA at the urgent request of the Jewish community was then hidden, but later it accidentally became accessible to researchers in the United States. Based on this report, the German magazine Der Spiegel published its own sensational investigation, which proved that some changes were made after 1951, not everything was written with the same hand, other pages were also inserted into the diary and their numbering was changed - therefore, the whole diary is a post -war fake. ”

The processes that somehow affect the handwriting in the records began back in 1959. Then Otto Frank sued the teacher Lotar Shtleu and neo -Nazi Hinrid Budeberg mentioned above. After a detailed study of the authenticity of the handwriting of Anna Frank (who spilled into a 131-page report) of the Lubek district court Decidedthat the diary was real. Moreover, Shtleu and Bodeberg during the preliminary investigation apologized for their conclusions and abandoned them, making sure the authenticity of the diary.

It is also safe to say that there are no records made by a ballpoint pen in the diary - only in ink of different types and a colored pencil. The basis of the legend of the ballpoint pen really became report Federal Criminal Police Department in Wiesbaden, published in 1980. It said that on some unimposed sheets of the diary, “Corresponding Cutsuchka Corrections” were made. The fact is that experts were obliged to study all the papers submitted for analysis. The largest investigation on the authenticity of the girl’s diary, which was conducted by the Dutch Institute of Forensic Expertise in the mid-1980s, showedthat the recordings with a ballpoint pen were found only on two pages with abstracts that have nothing to do with the actual content of the diary. Obviously, they were placed between other pages later. In 1987, a certain Okelmann from Hamburg said that these annotations were made by his mother, a member of the commission, which conducted an graphological examination of Anna's handwriting in 1959-1960. Thus, the handwriting of the “real author of the diaries of Anna Frank” actually belongs to the grafting expert. As for the 65-page reporting of the institution of forensic examination, he formed the basis of the investigation of the National Institute of Military Documentation of the Netherlands, in which the conclusion was made unequivocal: “Both versions of Anna Frank's diary were written by her from 1942 to 1944. The allegations that the diary was written by someone else, thus, is finally refuted. ” To top it off in 2006, the Federal Department of the German Criminal Police even spread statement, in which it emphasized that the investigation of 1980 in no way questioned the authorship of the diary.

In 1998 surfaced Five previously unknown pages from Anna Frank's diary. All the same institution of forensic examination studied them and came to the conclusion that the handwriting on them coincides with other well -known samples of Anna Frank's handwriting "with a probability bordering on confidence." In all likelihood, Otto Frank did not want to publish these fragments of the diary because of Anna’s rather offensive remarks about his first wife, who died in Auschwitz, and about their marriage.

We add that all the loud processes regarding the authenticity of Anna Frank's diary were won by the defenders of the authenticity of the records, and they began before publishing the results of the Dutch investigation. Nowadays, such courts have become a rarity-apparently due to convincing arguments of the Dutch experts. In addition, on December 9, 1998, the District Court of Amsterdam is not only Forbidden The pamphlet of the aforementioned French revisionist Robert Forisson and his colleagues Siegfried Verbeke “Anna Frank Diary: a critical approach”, but also imposed a fine of 25,000 guilders for any further denial of the authenticity of the diary, as well as the undesirable spread of publications on this subject. Nevertheless, the negative of the authenticity of Anna Frank's diary, a considerable share among which are the renovators of the Holocaust and fighters with the “conspiracy of world Zionism”, exist today.