Husband of Isa Monas and acquaintance of Otto Frank. He married Isa Monas in Amsterdam on 17 May 1939. On 27 September 1941 their daughter Ruth was born.[1] The marriage to Isa Monas was dissolved on 6 April 1943, but they continued to live at the same address.
\r\n\r\nAfter the war Otto Frank gave Anne's diary, which he had edited and typed out on the basis of the manuscript, to Cauvern for revision and correction. The latter thus produced "Typescript I". [2] In Otto Frank's naturalisation file, Cauvern is mentioned as one of his social contacts.[3] He worked successively as an office clerk at the Nederlandsche Radio Omroep, as a bookkeeper at VARA (a Dutch broadcasting association), and later as head of radio plays at VARA.[4]
\r\n\r\nOn 19 July 1962 he married Gerry Hendrika van Bockel in Nijmegen.[5]
\r\n\r\nSource personal data.[6] Addresses: Johannes Geradtsweg 57, Hilversum (’30); Oude Kerkweg 25, Laren (’39), Jekerstraat 65 II, Amsterdam (’46); Van Linschotenlaan 24, Hilversum (’53).[4]
\r\n\r\nAnnie Romein-Verschoor was a writer and historian.
\r\n\r\nLike her husband, Jan Romein, Annie Romein had Marxist sympathies. During World War II, Annie and Jan helped several people in hiding. They also participated in other forms of resistance work. Both were involved in the underground press, for example. Jan was imprisoned in Camp Amersfoort for several months in 1942. During this period, Annie was urged to join the 'Kultuurkamer' (Culture Chamber), which she refused on principle.[1] The Kultuurkamer was an institution established by the occupying forces, to which writers and journalists had to be affiliated in order to practice their profession.
\r\n\r\nIn 1946, Annie obtained a copy of Anne Frank's diary, as Otto Frank was an acquaintance of hers. Otto Frank later stated that his friend Werner Cahn (to whom he had read the original manuscript and who worked at Querido publishers) had taken typescript II to Annie Romein-Verschoor without his knowledge. Annie remembered that Otto himself had given the manuscript to Annie.[2]
\r\n\r\nAt that time, Annie was already known as a celebrated writer and had been awarded the Dr. Wijnaendts-Francken Prize. Annie helped Otto, initially unsuccessfully, find a publisher through her own contacts. She recommended the diary to Querido, the publishing house with whom she worked. Querido rejected the book, as they expected there would be no interest in war diaries so soon after the war.[1]
\r\n\r\nDuring this period, Otto also spoke with other acquaintances about his desire to publish the book. In such conversations, he also mentioned Annie Romein's help in this search.[3]
\r\n\r\nAnnie shared the diary and the challenges of finding a publisher with her husband, Jan. Thanks in part to a column by Jan in newspaper Het Parool on the 3 April 1946, Otto finally found a publisher, Contact, for the book.[4] The Dutch version of The Diary of a Young Girld (Het Achterhuis) published in 1947 included a foreword written by Annie.
\r\n\r\nCorrespondence between Otto and the Romeins was largely through Annie; for example, Otto addressed the first edition of Het Achterhuis primarily to her.[5]
\r\n\r\nLater in life, Annie wrote about the importance of remembering World War II and the accompanying racism. She also wrote about her own aversion to museums that emerged from the restoration of relevant sites, such as the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum and the Anne Frank House, which she personally prefered not to visit because they felt inauthentic to her.[1]
\r\n\r\nSource personal data.[6]
\r\n\r\nJan Marius Romein was a historian and professor at the University of Amsterdam.
\r\n\r\nJan was a member of the Communist Party of the Netherlands. During World War II, he participated in resistance work; with his wife Annie Romein-Verschoor, he helped several people in hiding and collaborated with the underground press. Because of his Marxist sympathies, he was also suspected by the occupying forces. He was imprisoned in Camp Amersfoort between January and April 1942, where he suffered from hunger edema.[1]
\r\n\r\nIn 1946, his wife Annie received a copy of the (as of yet unpublished) diary of Anne Frank from her acquaintance Otto Frank. He had difficulty finding a publisher. Otto Frank later stated that his friend Werner Cahn (to whom he had read the original manuscript and who worked at Querido publishers) had taken typescript II to Annie Romein-Verschoor without his knowledge. Jan and Annie remembered that Otto himself had given the manuscript to Annie.[2] In his diary of 22 March 1946, Otto Frank noted: "Werner Cahn-(Romein)".[3]
\r\n\r\nAnnie, a writer herself, tried to help Otto find a publisher in her network, as she was very impressed with the diary. However, shortly after the war, there was little interest. Annie let Jan read the diary, who in turn wrote a column about it in newspaper Het Parool on 3 April 1946.[4] He wrote:
\r\n\r\n"When I finished it, it was night, and I was amazed that the light was still on, that there was still bread and tea available, that I didn't hear any planes roaring or the sound of soldiers' boots on the street. Reading it had captivated me so much and transported me back to the surreal world that has now been behind us for almost a year."[5]
\r\n\r\nJan was very complimentary about the diary, which sparked interest from publishers.[4] Otto Frank thanked Jan and Annie for their compassion and dedication during the publication process.[6]
\r\n\r\nJaap Meijer, the history teacher at the Jewish Lyceum who also taught Anne Frank, received his doctorate under Jan Romein.[7]
\r\n\r\nSource personal data.[8]
\r\n\r\nOtto Heinrich Frank was born on Sunday, 12 May 1889 in Frankfurt am Main, the son of Kaufman (merchant) Michael Frank and Alice Betty Frank-Stern.[1] Otto was the second child of a family of four children, all born in Frankfurt am Main. He had two brothers, Robert Hermann and Herbert August, and a sister named Helene (Leni). At the time of Otto Frank's birth, the Frank family lived at Gärtnerweg 58 in Frankfurt am Main.
\r\n\r\nThe Jewish Frank family belonged to the wealthy circles of Frankfurt.[2] Otto's father Michael managed to set up a successful banking business in the last decades of the nineteenth century. The family was a typical product of the German Bildungsbürgertum. After attending the Lessing Gymnasium, Otto went to the University of Heidelberg for a summer semester, where he took art history classes. After this he completed an apprenticeship at the Ferdinand Sander bank in Frankfurt. Then he left for New York. He worked as an intern at Macy's and at a bank in the Financial District. Back in Germany, he worked for Fenestra, a manufacturer of various steel constructions and industrial installations. After the outbreak of World War I, Otto worked in a horseshoe factory before joining the army.[3]
\r\n\r\nIn August 1915, he joined the Third Regiment Fussartillerie in Mainz. After his training, his unit ended up in the area of Bapaume. Otto was a telephone operator and observer, so he was at some distance from the actual battle line. After his demobilisation he took over the management of the family bank. The company had fallen on hard times due to the economic and political chaos in Germany. In 1923 Otto and some relatives in Amsterdam founded two companies in the financial sector. Jo Kleiman was involved in both companies as managing director and deputy manager.
\r\n\r\nIn 1925 Otto married Edith Holländer. Her family had a business very similar to Fenestra. The couple had two daughters, Margot and Anne. The economic situation worsened after 1929. The political climate in Germany also deteriorated rapidly. After Hitler's rise to power, Otto and his family moved to Amsterdam. In the summer of 1933 Otto founded the Nederlandsche Opekta Maatschappij. In December 1933 he became a supervisory director of the 'Centrale Maatschappij voor Handel en Industrie', of which Kleiman was a director. At the end of the 1930s, an attempt to set up a business in England came to nothing. The 'Centrale Maatschappij' disappeared, after which Otto and Kleiman concentrated on building up Pectacon.
\r\n\r\nIn the early stages of the war Otto tried to emigrate with his family to the United States, which failed due to the impossible procedure and bureaucracy. When the persecution measures increased, the plan to go into hiding was born. At Kleiman's initiative, the Secret Annex was made ready for this. The family moved into the hiding place on 6 July 1942.
\r\n\r\nOtto was the only one of the eight people in hiding to return from Auschwitz after the arrest and deportation. He resumed his work and also did a lot to place orphaned Jewish children with relatives or foster families. He also edited Anne's diary and made sure it was published.[4] He saw Anne as a representative of all the murdered Jewish children and hoped that her diary would bring mankind to its senses.
\r\n\r\nAfter his return Otto lived with Miep and Jan Gies for seven years. He then moved to Basel and married Elfriede Markovits, who had had similar war experiences. He continued corresponding until an advanced age about Anne and her world of ideas, especially with young people from all over the world. He died in a Swiss hospital at the age of 91.
\r\n\r\n12 June 1942 was Anne Frank’s thirteenth birthday. Among the presents she received was a notebook: an almost square book with a red-white-gray checkered cover and a clasp. In this she was going to keep her diary. Her first diary ends on 5 December 1942. Her second surviving diary book, a school exercise book, begins on 22 December 1943 and continues up to 17 April 1944. It is highly improbable that Anne Frank did not keep a diary between December 1942 and December 1943, so we must assume that this section has been lost. Her third and last diary volume, also a school exercise book, begins on 17 April 1944 and ends on 1 August 1944.
\r\n\r\nBesides her diary, Anne also wrote Verhaaltjes, en gebeurtenissen uit het Achterhuis (Tales from the Secret Annex) in a large accounts book, and she filled a small, narrow cash book with quotations: her Mooie-Zinnenboek (Favourite Quotes Notebook). This Verhaaltjesboek and Mooie-Zinnenboek have both been preserved.
\r\n\r\nFrom June 1942 onwards, the diaries of Anne Frank describe in a penetrating way the daily life of the eight Jewish people in hiding in the annex on the Prinsengracht canal in Amsterdam. Anne Frank rewrote her diary entries herself in the annex, with a view to them possibly being published after the war.
\r\n\r\nShe did this on sheets of carbon copy paper, referred to as the “loose sheets.” On these loose sheets of paper she reorganised and rewrote her earlier diary entries: she reordered texts, sometimes combining entries from various dates under one date, and considerably shortening some sections. In this way she created a second version, in which the events of December 1942 to December 1943 are described. The loose sheets have been preserved: their last entries date from 29 March 1944. So the first version of the diary was not fully preserved, while the second version was unfinished.
\r\n\r\nTo help in the search for a publisher for Het Achterhuis (The Secret Annex, as Anne had named her second version) Otto Frank had parts of the diary entries typed out in late 1945.
\r\nIn doing so he left out some sections, moved others and made some corrections. This created a typescript, but it was not yet a book. At Otto Frank’s request, his friend Albert Cauvern then made a second typescript. With Otto Frank’s permission, Cauvern changed nine of the thirteen names that Anne herself – with a view to possible publication – had invented for the people in hiding in the secret annexe and their helpers.
Both typescripts have been preserved. Finally, an editor from Contact Publishers became the third person to work on the texts, correcting typing errors and bringing the manuscript into line with the publisher’s style guide. All of this resulted in the first Dutch publication of Het Achterhuis in June 1947.[1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank, who died 19 August 1980, stated in his will that all of his daughter’s manuscripts should be left to the Dutch nation. The Dutch government transferred the stewardship of the manuscripts to the National Institute for War Documentation (Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, RIOD), which later became the Dutch Institute for War Documentation (Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, NIOD).
\r\n\r\nIn 1986, RIOD published the three versions of the diary described above – the preserved original diary entries, the version rewritten by Anne Frank herself, and the edition compiled by Otto Frank and published by Contact Publishers in 1947 – together under one cover: De Dagboeken van Anne Frank.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1998, five previously unknown pages from the diary of Anne Frank turned up. They were five loose sheets that Otto Frank had already set apart before the publication of the diary in 1947. In all probability, Otto Frank did not want to make these diary fragments public because of Anne’s rather hurtful observations about his first wife, who died in Auschwitz, and their marriage.
\r\n\r\nThey were made public by Cor Suijk, a former employee of the Anne Frank House. Suijk’s explanation was that Otto Frank had given him the five sheets for safe keeping. The loose sheets were sold by Suijk to the Dutch nation, and subsequently added to the rest of the diary, which was held by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD). The five pages were first included in the fifth, revised edition of De Dagboeken van Anne Frank (2001).[3]
\r\n\r\nThe NIOD asked the Forensic Institute – which had already carried out extensive research into the authenticity of the diary in the first half of the 1980’s – to also investigate these five loose sheets. The Forensic Institute concluded after forensic document and handwriting analysis that ‘the handwriting in the questioned documents and the handwriting in the reference material, consisting of loose sheets in the diary of Anne Frank, were produced – with a probability bordering on certainty – by the same hand.’[4] That is the most certain degree of identification that the Netherlands Forensic Institute can give. In other words: there is no reason whatsoever to presume that the five returned loose sheets were not written by Anne Frank.
\r\n\r\n12 juni 1942 was de dertiende verjaardag van Anne Frank. Ze kreeg onder andere een schrift: een bijna vierkant boekje met een harde rood-wit-grijs geruite omslag en een slotje. Hierin ging ze haar dagboek bijhouden. Haar eerste dagboek eindigt op 5 december 1942. Haar tweede bewaard gebleven dagboek, een schoolschrift, begint op 22 december 1943 en loopt door tot 17 april 1944. Het is zeer onwaarschijnlijk dat Anne Frank tussen december 1942 en december 1943 geen dagboek heeft bijgehouden, dus we moeten aannemen dat dit deel verloren is gegaan. Haar derde en laatste dagboekdeel, ook een schoolschrift, begint op 17 april 1944 en eindigt op 1 augustus 1944.
\r\n\r\nNaast haar dagboek schreef Anne ook Verhaaltjes, en gebeurtenissen uit het Achterhuis in een grootboek en vulde zij een klein, smal kasboek met citaten: haar Mooie Zinnenboek. Dit Verhaaltjesboek en Mooie Zinnenboek zijn beide bewaard gebleven.
\r\n\r\nDe dagboeken van Anne Frank beschrijven vanaf juni 1942 op indringende wijze het dagelijks leven van de acht Joodse onderduikers in het achterhuis aan de Prinsengracht in Amsterdam. In het achterhuis heeft Anne Frank haar dagboekaantekeningen zelf herschreven met het oog op eventuele publicatie na de oorlog.
\r\n\r\nZij deed dit op vellen doorschrijfpapier: de zogenaamde "losse vellen". Op deze losse vellen reorganiseerde en herschreef zij haar eerdere dagboekaantekeningen: zij herschikte teksten, voegde soms aantekeningen van verschillende data samen onder één datum en kortte sommige delen aanzienlijk in. Zo ontstond een tweede versie, waarin de gebeurtenissen van december 1942 tot december 1943 worden beschreven. De losse vellen zijn bewaard gebleven: de laatste aantekeningen ervan dateren van 29 maart 1944. De eerste versie van het dagboek is dus niet volledig bewaard gebleven, terwijl de tweede versie onvoltooid is gebleven.
\r\n\r\nOm een uitgever te vinden voor Het Achterhuis (zoals Anne haar tweede versie had genoemd) liet Otto Frank eind 1945 delen van de dagboekaantekeningen uittypen.
\r\n\r\nDaarbij heeft hij sommige delen weggelaten, andere verplaatst en enkele correcties aangebracht. Zo ontstond een typoscript, maar het was nog geen boek. Op verzoek van Otto Frank maakte zijn vriend Albert Cauvern vervolgens een tweede typoscript. Met toestemming van Otto Frank veranderde Cauvern negen van de dertien namen die Anne zelf - met het oog op eventuele publicatie - had bedacht voor de onderduikers in het achterhuis en hun helpers.
\r\n\r\nBeide typoscripten zijn bewaard gebleven. Tenslotte heeft een redacteur van Uitgeverij Contact als derde aan de teksten gewerkt, typefouten gecorrigeerd en het manuscript in overeenstemming gebracht met de stijlgids van de uitgeverij. Dit alles resulteerde in de eerste Nederlandse uitgave van Het Achterhuis in juni 1947.[1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank, die op 19 augustus 1980 overleed, verklaarde in zijn testament dat alle manuscripten van zijn dochter aan de Nederlandse staat moesten worden nagelaten. De Nederlandse regering droeg het beheer van de manuscripten over aan het Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie (RIOD), dat later het Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie (NIOD) werd.
\r\n\r\nIn 1986 publiceerde het RIOD de drie hierboven beschreven versies van het dagboek - de bewaard gebleven originele dagboekaantekeningen, de door Anne Frank zelf herschreven versie en de door Otto Frank samengestelde uitgave die in 1947 door uitgeverij Contact werd uitgegeven - samen onder één omslag: De Dagboeken van Anne Frank.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1998 doken vijf voorheen onbekende pagina's uit het dagboek van Anne Frank op. Het waren vijf losse bladen die Otto Frank al voor de publicatie van het dagboek in 1947 apart had gelegd. Otto Frank wilde deze dagboekfragmenten naar alle waarschijnlijkheid niet openbaar maken vanwege Annes nogal kwetsende opmerkingen over zijn in Auschwitz omgekomen eerste vrouw en hun huwelijk.
\r\n\r\nZe zijn openbaar gemaakt door Cor Suijk, een voormalig medewerker van de Anne Frank Stichting. Suijk's verklaring was dat Otto Frank hem de vijf bladen in bewaring had gegeven. De losse vellen zijn door Suijk verkocht aan de Nederlandse staat en vervolgens gevoegd bij de rest van het dagboek, dat bij het Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie (NIOD) berustte. De vijf pagina's werden voor het eerst opgenomen in de vijfde druk van De Dagboeken van Anne Frank (2001).[3]
\r\n
Het NIOD heeft het Gerechtelijk Laboratorium - dat in de eerste helft van de jaren tachtig al uitgebreid onderzoek had gedaan naar de authenticiteit van het dagboek - gevraagd ook deze vijf losse bladen te onderzoeken. Het Gerechtelijk Laboratorium concludeerde na forensisch document- en handschriftonderzoek dat 'het schrift voorkomend op het te onderzoeken materiaal enerzijds en het referentiemateriaal, bestaande uit het schrift op de losse vellen van het dagboek van Anne Frank anderzijds, zijn met aan zekerheid grenzende waarschijnlijkheid van dezelfde hand'.[4] Dat is de meest zekere mate van identificatie die het Nederlands Gerechtelijk Laboratorium kan geven. Met andere woorden: er is geen enkele reden om aan te nemen dat de vijf geretourneerde losse vellen niet door Anne Frank zijn geschreven.
\r\n\r\n12 June 1942 was Anne Frank’s thirteenth birthday. Among the presents she received was a notebook: an almost square book with a red-white-gray checkered cover and a clasp. In this she was going to keep her diary. Her first diary ends on 5 December 1942. Her second surviving diary book, a school exercise book, begins on 22 December 1943 and continues up to 17 April 1944. It is highly improbable that Anne Frank did not keep a diary between December 1942 and December 1943, so we must assume that this section has been lost. Her third and last diary volume, also a school exercise book, begins on 17 April 1944 and ends on 1 August 1944.
\r\n\r\nBesides her diary, Anne also wrote Verhaaltjes, en gebeurtenissen uit het Achterhuis (Tales from the Secret Annex) in a large accounts book, and she filled a small, narrow cash book with quotations: her Mooie-Zinnenboek (Favourite Quotes Notebook). This Verhaaltjesboek and Mooie-Zinnenboek have both been preserved.
\r\n\r\nFrom June 1942 onwards, the diaries of Anne Frank describe in a penetrating way the daily life of the eight Jewish people in hiding in the annex on the Prinsengracht canal in Amsterdam. Anne Frank rewrote her diary entries herself in the annex, with a view to them possibly being published after the war.
\r\n\r\nShe did this on sheets of carbon copy paper, referred to as the “loose sheets.” On these loose sheets of paper she reorganised and rewrote her earlier diary entries: she reordered texts, sometimes combining entries from various dates under one date, and considerably shortening some sections. In this way she created a second version, in which the events of December 1942 to December 1943 are described. The loose sheets have been preserved: their last entries date from 29 March 1944. So the first version of the diary was not fully preserved, while the second version was unfinished.
\r\n\r\nTo help in the search for a publisher for Het Achterhuis (The Secret Annex, as Anne had named her second version) Otto Frank had parts of the diary entries typed out in late 1945.
\r\nIn doing so he left out some sections, moved others and made some corrections. This created a typescript, but it was not yet a book. At Otto Frank’s request, his friend Albert Cauvern then made a second typescript. With Otto Frank’s permission, Cauvern changed nine of the thirteen names that Anne herself – with a view to possible publication – had invented for the people in hiding in the secret annexe and their helpers.
Both typescripts have been preserved. Finally, an editor from Contact Publishers became the third person to work on the texts, correcting typing errors and bringing the manuscript into line with the publisher’s style guide. All of this resulted in the first Dutch publication of Het Achterhuis in June 1947.[1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank, who died 19 August 1980, stated in his will that all of his daughter’s manuscripts should be left to the Dutch nation. The Dutch government transferred the stewardship of the manuscripts to the National Institute for War Documentation (Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, RIOD), which later became the Dutch Institute for War Documentation (Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, NIOD).
\r\n\r\nIn 1986, RIOD published the three versions of the diary described above – the preserved original diary entries, the version rewritten by Anne Frank herself, and the edition compiled by Otto Frank and published by Contact Publishers in 1947 – together under one cover: De Dagboeken van Anne Frank.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1998, five previously unknown pages from the diary of Anne Frank turned up. They were five loose sheets that Otto Frank had already set apart before the publication of the diary in 1947. In all probability, Otto Frank did not want to make these diary fragments public because of Anne’s rather hurtful observations about his first wife, who died in Auschwitz, and their marriage.
\r\n\r\nThey were made public by Cor Suijk, a former employee of the Anne Frank House. Suijk’s explanation was that Otto Frank had given him the five sheets for safe keeping. The loose sheets were sold by Suijk to the Dutch nation, and subsequently added to the rest of the diary, which was held by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD). The five pages were first included in the fifth, revised edition of De Dagboeken van Anne Frank (2001).[3]
\r\n\r\nThe NIOD asked the Forensic Institute – which had already carried out extensive research into the authenticity of the diary in the first half of the 1980’s – to also investigate these five loose sheets. The Forensic Institute concluded after forensic document and handwriting analysis that ‘the handwriting in the questioned documents and the handwriting in the reference material, consisting of loose sheets in the diary of Anne Frank, were produced – with a probability bordering on certainty – by the same hand.’[4] That is the most certain degree of identification that the Netherlands Forensic Institute can give. In other words: there is no reason whatsoever to presume that the five returned loose sheets were not written by Anne Frank.
\r\n\r\nThe 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.
\r\n\r\nEarly 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.' )
\r\n\r\nOtto 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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.
\r\n\r\nA 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nFafflok 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]
\r\nOtto 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nFafflok 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]
\r\n
\r\nOn 16 June 1976 Kempner wrote to Otto Frank that Ernst Cramer of Springer Verlag offered the following:
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.
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nIrving 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]
\r\n\r\nIrving 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.
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nIt 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]
\r\n\r\nWith that, the case petered out.
\r\n\r\nThrough 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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].
\r\n\r\nDuring 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]
\r\n\r\n1-2 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]
\r\n\r\nDe eerste aantijgingen tegen het dagboek verschenen in 1957 en 1958 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.
\r\n\r\nBegin 1959 diende Otto tegen de Duitse leraar Lothar Stielau (leraar Engels in Lübeck en lid van de extreem-rechtse Deutsche Reichspartei) een strafklacht in wegens smaad, laster, laster, belastering van de nagedachtenis van een overledene en antisemitische uitlatingen. Stielau schreef in het blad van de Vereinigung ehemaliger Schüler und der Freunde der Oberschüle zur Dom e.V. Lübeck van 10 oktober 1958 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." ('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.'
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank was getuige in de zaak, net als (o.a.) Miep Gies, Jan Gies en Bep Voskuyl.[1] 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.[2]
\r\n\r\n17 oktober 1961 diende de zaak voor de III. Strafkammer des Landgericht Lübeck. 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 Lübecker Nachrichten. 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.
\r\n\r\nEen 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.[3] 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."[4]
\r\n\r\nDe Oberstaatsanwalt in Darmstadt schreef op 21 november 1966 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 Anne Frank Schule te noemen. Walter Hainke noemde Anne het 'bedaurenwertens an Fleckfieber verstorbenes Mädchen', dat na haar dood werd misbruikt door haar 'geschäftstüchtige' familie, die aan het overduidelijk vervalste dagboek schatten verdiende. De Oberstaatsanwalt stelde Otto Frank in de gelegenheid een strafklacht in te dienen.[5] Otto Frank deed dat op 9 december 1966. Hij was bereid zijn klacht in te trekken als Hainke zijn beweringen openlijk zou herroepen.[6]
\r\n\r\nOp 18 februari 1967 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. [7]
\r\n\r\nIn de inleiding van het boek Hitler und seine Feldherren schreef David Irving 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.'[8] Otto Frank schreef 12 oktober 1975 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 - was vastgesteld.[9]
\r\n\r\n27 oktober 1975 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.[10] Otto Frank schreef 30 oktober 1975 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.[11]
\r\n\r\nFafflok schreef 14 november 1975 aan Ullstein dat hij namens Otto Frank een schadevergoeding vroeg van DM 30 000, die ten goede zou komen aan de Anne Frank Stichting.[12]
\r\nOtto Frank zei dat hij in eerste instantie achter de uitgever aanging, omdat die e.e.a. openbaarde en de schade veroorzaakte.[13] Rond 27 november 1975 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.[14]
16 december 1975 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).[15]
\r\n\r\n9 januari 1976 toonde Otto Frank zich ontevreden met het tempo waarmee Fafflok de zaak Ullstein aanpakte.[16] Volgens een brief van Fafflok waren er inmiddels beweringen over onechtheid van het dagboek verschenen in o.a. Das Ostpreussenblatt, Deutsche Wochenzeitung en Neue Ordnung.[17]
\r\n\r\n22 januari 1976 schreef Otto Frank dat hem vanuit Engeland was gezegd dat de kansen tegen Irving gering waren, omdat zijn boek daar niet was uitgebracht. [18]
\r\n\r\nFafflok riep Ullstein 18 februari 1976 namens Otto Frank op om uiterlijk 26 februari 1976 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.[19] In het Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Büchhandlung verscheen 30 april 1976 de rectificatie van Ullstein, hoewel in omfloerstere bewoordingen dan Otto Frank graag had gezien. [20]
\r\n
\r\n16 juni 1976 schreef Kempner aan Otto Frank dat Ernst Cramer van Springer Verlag het volgende aanbood:
21 juni 1976 antwoordde Otto Frank aan Kempner dat hij het voorstel aanneemt. Hij stelt ook Fafflok daarvan in kennis.[22] Vervolgens bleef het in de kwestie-Irving ruim twee jaar stil.
\r\n\r\nOp 15 oktober 1979 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.[23] Otto Frank antwoorddde op 23 oktober 1979 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. [24]
\r\n\r\nIrving drong op 2 november 1979 opnieuw bij Otto Frank aan op onderzoek door Hehner & Cox, suggererend dat afwijzing erop duidde dat er iets te verbergen was.[25] Op 16 november 1979 antwoordde Otto Frank dat hij vertrouwde op de competentie van een door een Duitse rechtbank aangestelde deskundige en geen prijs stelde op verdere correspondentie. [26]
\r\n\r\nIrving schreef op 16 januari 1980 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.[27] Op 4 februari 1980 stuurde Irving Otto Frank een brief waaruit bleek dat hij een advocaat heeft ingezet.[28] Het Otto Frank Archief bevat geen verdere correspondentie in deze zaak.
\r\n\r\nIn de nasleep van de Ullstein/Irving affaire kwam Otto Frank een publicatie tegen van Richard Harwood, uitgegeven door de Historical Review Press in Surrey. Hij uit het voornemen ook daar een zaak tegen te beginnen.[29]
\r\n\r\nVan 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. [35]
\r\n\r\nDaarmee ging de zaak als een nachtkaars uit.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank kreeg via de Anne Frank Stichting een op 5 maart 1977 gedateerde brief van Faurisson, die als geleerde van de universiteit van Lyon interesse voor het dagboek toonde. Otto antwoordde bereid te zijn hem 9 maart 1977 te ontvangen en hem de originele dagboeken te tonen.[38]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank beschreef Faurisson in een brief van 30 maart 1977 als een onsympathieke en achterdochtige man.[39] Op 5 april 1978 schreef Otto dat hij slechte ervaringen met Faurisson had, en noemde hem een 'gestoorde man'. Faurisson geloofde volgens Otto Frank het hele onderduikverhaal niet.[40]
\r\n\r\nFaurisson schreef in de loop van zijn onderzoek onder meer nog aan Kugler (op 28 maart 1977), het echtpaar Gies (op 4 september 1978)[41] en hij bezocht Bep Voskuijl thuis.[42]
\r\n\r\nIn 1976 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 Het dagboek van Anne Frank - een vervalsing en Het dagboek van Anne Frank - de grote fraude, en in een lezersbrief in Neue Ordnung 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.[43] Otto Frank schreef op 30 maart 1976 dat er een aanklacht tegen Roth liep, en dat er klachten waren ingediend wegens verspreiding van diens pamflet in Bochum, Hamburg en Wiesbaden.[44]
\r\n\r\nDe rechtbank van Frankfurt am Main verbood Roth op 22 juni 1978 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.[45] 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 1978 was overleden, werd alsnog een hoger beroep ingesteld bij het Bundesgerichtshof, 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.[46]
\r\n\r\nBij de voorstellingen van Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank in Hamburg deelde Römer in februari 1976 pamfletten uit. Deze bevatten een vertaling van een artikel uit de Historical Review Press. Het pamflet had de kop "Bestseller - een leugen" ('Best-seller, ein Schwindel'), en kwam met een verhaal over de schadevergoeding aan Meyer Levin. Otto Frank diende 15 maart 1976 een aanklacht in. Opnieuw werden de bevindingen van Minna Becker en dr. Hübner aangehaald. Römer kreeg een geldstraf van DM 1.500.[47] Otto Frank trad in deze zaak als nevenaanklager en getuige op.[48].
\r\n\r\nTijdens een zitting in hoger beroep in de zaak-Römer op 28 augustus 1978 verspreidde Edgar Werner Geiss pamfletten met aanvallen op de authenticiteit van het dagboek, met een verwijzing naar het rumor rond Meyer Levin. Hij kreeg zes maanden subsidiair DM 1.500 boete.[49]
\r\n\r\n1-2 april 1980: 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 1950 zeer gebruikelijk. De precieze ouderdom van de papieren en de opschriften was niet eenduidig vast te stellen.[50] 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.[51]
\r\n\r\nThe 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.
\r\n\r\nEarly 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.' )
\r\n\r\nOtto 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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.
\r\n\r\nA 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nFafflok 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]
\r\nOtto 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nFafflok 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]
\r\n
\r\nOn 16 June 1976 Kempner wrote to Otto Frank that Ernst Cramer of Springer Verlag offered the following:
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.
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nIrving 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]
\r\n\r\nIrving 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.
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nIt 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]
\r\n\r\nWith that, the case petered out.
\r\n\r\nThrough 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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].
\r\n\r\nDuring 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]
\r\n\r\n1-2 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]
\r\n\r\nThe handwritten manuscript of Anne Frank's diaries on the basis of which Otto Frank compiled the first edition of The Secret Annex (1947) consists of a red-checkered booklet, two cardboard notebooks and over 200 sheets of copy paper. Otto also included four short stories by Anne in his edition.[1]
\r\n\r\nIt is customary to refer to these manuscripts successively as diary A1, A2, A3 (A-version) and the loose sheets (B-version). [2] Diary A1, A2 and A3 contain Anne Frank's original diary entries. On the loose sheets (B version), Anne Frank rewrote her original diary entries with a view to possible publication after the war.[3] Together with the Tales Book, the Beautiful Phrase Book and a photo album (called the Blank Monster Electro Household Book), these manuscripts form [4] Otto Frank's legacy to the state of the Netherlands. [5]
\r\n\r\nAnne Frank was given this red-checked diary for her thirteenth birthday. It runs from 12 June 1942 to 5 December 1942. At the back are three more notes in red ink, dated 2 May 1943. Anne was present when the diary was bought; where is not clear. 'I'll begin from the moment I got you, the moment I saw you lying on the table among my other birthday presents. (I went along when you were bought, but that doesn't count.)' [6] As early as 20 October 1942, Anne indicated that her diary was becoming full. She stuck white sheets in it to "stretch it a bit more" and she was allowed to ask Bep to visit Perry's and see if there were any diaries in stock there.[7]
\r\n\r\nNo diary entries from the period 5 December 1942 to 22 December 1943 have survived. So between diary A1 and A2, over a year is missing. However, Anne did include this period when rewriting her diary on the loose sheets (B version). From this it can be concluded that the missing notes did exist. There are also passages in Anne's narrative that refer to the existence of the missing diary entries.[8]
\r\n\r\nA cardboard (black) school notebook contains the diary entries from 22 December 1943 to 17 April 1944. The first diary entry begins as follows: 'Dear Kitty, Daddy has tracked down another new diary for me and this one of a respectable thickness, as you will see for yourself in good time..'[9]
\r\n\r\nDiary A3 follows on from diary A2: a cardboard (green marbled) school notebook covering the period 17 April to 1 August 1944 (the last diary entry). On Tuesday 18 April 1944, Anne writes: 'Dear Kitty, Someone's been a real darling again and has torn up a chemistry exercise book for me to make a new diary, this time the someone was Margot.'[10]
\r\n\r\nIn diary A3, Anne Frank writes on Wednesday 29 March 1944: 'Dear Kitty, Bolkesteyn, an MP, was speaking in the Dutch News from London, and he said that they ought to make a collection of diaries and letters after the war. Of course they all made a rush at my diary immediately. Just imagine how interesting it would be if I were to publish a romance of the 'Secret Annexe', the title alone would be enough to make people think it was a detective story.'[11]
\r\n\r\nTwo months after that call from Education Minister Bolkestein on Radio Orange, on 28 March 1944, Anne actually began rewriting her original diary. On Saturday 20 May 1944, she notes: 'At long last after a great deal of reflection I have started my 'Achterhuis', in my head it is as good as finished, although it won't go as quickly as that really, if it ever comes off at all.' [12] Anne did this on loose, light yellow, light blue, pink and white copy sheets called the loose sheets. While Anne was rewriting her diaries, she also continued writing in her running diary (Diary A). The 'loose sheets' cover the period from 20 June 1942 to 29 March 1944.[13]Anne processed much of Diary A into Diary B in about two months.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank used both Anne's A version and Anne's B version for the first edition of The Secret Annex in 1947,[14] due to the absence of almost all of 1943 in the original manuscript. He also included four stories: The Best Little Table, A Daily Chore in Our Little Community: Peeling Potatoes!, Freedom in the Annexe, and Wenn die Uhr halb neune schlägt...
\r\n\r\nHet handgeschreven manuscript van de dagboeken van Anne Frank op basis waarvan Otto Frank de eerste editie van Het Achterhuis (1947) samenstelde, bestaat uit een roodgeruit boekje, twee gekartonneerde schriften en ruim 200 vellen doorslagpapier. Otto nam daarnaast ook vier korte verhaaltjes van Anne op in zijn editie.[1]
\r\n\r\nHet is gebruikelijk deze handschriften achtereenvolgens dagboek A1, A2, A3 (A-versie) en de losse vellen (B-versie) te noemen. [2] Dagboek A1, A2 en A3 bevatten de oorspronkelijke dagboekaantekeningen van Anne Frank. Op de losse vellen (B-versie) heeft Anne Frank haar oorspronkelijke dagboekaantekeningen herschreven met het oog op een mogelijke publicatie na de oorlog.[3] Samen met het Verhaaltjesboek, het Mooie Zinnenboek en een fotoalbum (het zogenaamde Blanco Monster Electro Huishoudboek) vormen deze handschriften[4] de nalatenschap van Otto Frank aan de staat der Nederlanden.[5]
\r\n\r\nAnne Frank kreeg dit roodgeruite dagboek voor haar dertiende verjaardag. Het loopt van 12 juni 1942 t/m 5 december 1942. Achterin staan nog drie notities in rode inkt, die gedateerd zijn op 2 mei 1943. Anne was er bij toen het dagboek gekocht werd, waar is niet duidelijk. 'Ik zal maar beginnen vanaf het ogenblik dat ik je gekregen heb, dus dat ik je heb zien liggen op mijn verjaardagstafel, (want het kopen, waar ik ook bij ben geweest, telt niet mee.)' [6] Al op 20 oktober 1942 gaf Anne aan dat haar dagboek vol raakte. Ze plakte er witte velletjes in om het nog 'wat te strekken' en ze mocht Bep vragen om bij Perry langs te gaan en te kijken of daar nog dagboeken in voorraad waren.[7]
\r\n\r\nEr zijn geen dagboekaantekeningen uit de periode 5 december 1942 tot 22 december 1943 overgeleverd. Tussen dagboek A1 en A2 ontbreekt dus ruim een jaar. Wel heeft Anne deze periode opgenomen bij het herschrijven van haar dagboek op de losse vellen (B-versie). Daar uit kan geconcludeerd worden dat de ontbrekende notities wel bestaan hebben. Ook zijn er passages in Anne's verhaaltjes die verwijzen naar het bestaan van de ontbrekende dagboekaantekeningen.[8]
\r\n\r\nIn een gekartonneerd (zwart) schoolschrift staan de dagboekaantekeningen van 22 december 1943 tot 17 april 1944. De eerste dagboekbrief begint als volgt: 'Lieve Kitty, Vader heeft toch weer een nieuw dagboek voor me opgespoord en dat het een respectabele dikte heeft, daar kan, je je ten zijnen tijde zelf van overtuigen.'[9]
\r\n\r\nDagboek A3 sluit aan op dagboek A2: een gekartonneerd (groengemarmerd) schoolschrift dat de periode 17 april tot 1 augustus 1944 (de laatste dagboeknotitie) beslaat. Op dinsdag 18 april 1944 schrijft Anne hierover: 'Lieve Kitty, weer is er een schat geweest die een scheikundeschrift voor mij uit elkaar gehaald heeft om me een nieuw dagboek te bezorgen, dit keer is het Margot.'[10]
\r\n\r\nIn dagboek A3 schrijft Anne Frank op woensdag 29 maart 1944: 'Lieve Kitty, Gisterenavond sprak minister Bolkesteyn aan de Oranjezender erover dat er na de oorlog een inzameling van dagboeken en brieven van deze oorlog zou worden gehouden. Natuurlijk stormden ze allemaal direct op mijn dagboek af. Stel je eens voor hoe interessant het zou zijn, als ik een roman van het Achterhuis uit zou geven, aan de titel alleen zouden de mensen denken dat het een detective-roman was.'[11]
\r\n\r\nTwee maanden na die oproep van de minister van Onderwijs, Bolkestein, op radio Oranje, op 28 maart 1944, begon Anne daadwerkelijk met het herschrijven van haar originele dagboek. Op zaterdag 20 mei 1944 noteert ze: 'Eindelijk na heel veel overpeinzingen ben ik dan met m’n Achterhuis begonnen, in m’n hoofd is het al zover af als het kan, maar in werkelijkheid zal het wel heel wat minder gauw gaan, als het wel ooit afkomt.' [12] Anne deed dit op losse, lichtgele, lichtblauwe, roze en witte doorslagvellen, die de losse vellen genoemd worden. Terwijl Anne haar dagboeken herschreef, schreef ze ook nog door in haar lopende dagboek (dagboek A). De ‘losse vellen’ beslaan de periode van 20 juni 1942 t/m 29 maart 1944.[13] Anne heeft in ongeveer twee maanden een groot deel Dagboek A verwerkt tot Dagboek B.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank heeft voor de eerste editie van Het Achterhuis in 1947,[14] door het ontbreken van bijna geheel 1943 in het originele manuscript, zowel Annes A-versie als Annes B-versie gebruikt. Ook nam hij vier verhaaltjes op: Het beste tafeltje, De plicht v.d. dag in de gemeenschap: Aardappelschillen!, De vrijheid in het Achterhuis en Wenn die Uhr halb neune schlägt…
\r\n\r\nThe handwritten manuscript of Anne Frank's diaries on the basis of which Otto Frank compiled the first edition of The Secret Annex (1947) consists of a red-checkered booklet, two cardboard notebooks and over 200 sheets of copy paper. Otto also included four short stories by Anne in his edition.[1]
\r\n\r\nIt is customary to refer to these manuscripts successively as diary A1, A2, A3 (A-version) and the loose sheets (B-version). [2] Diary A1, A2 and A3 contain Anne Frank's original diary entries. On the loose sheets (B version), Anne Frank rewrote her original diary entries with a view to possible publication after the war.[3] Together with the Tales Book, the Beautiful Phrase Book and a photo album (called the Blank Monster Electro Household Book), these manuscripts form [4] Otto Frank's legacy to the state of the Netherlands. [5]
\r\n\r\nAnne Frank was given this red-checked diary for her thirteenth birthday. It runs from 12 June 1942 to 5 December 1942. At the back are three more notes in red ink, dated 2 May 1943. Anne was present when the diary was bought; where is not clear. 'I'll begin from the moment I got you, the moment I saw you lying on the table among my other birthday presents. (I went along when you were bought, but that doesn't count.)' [6] As early as 20 October 1942, Anne indicated that her diary was becoming full. She stuck white sheets in it to "stretch it a bit more" and she was allowed to ask Bep to visit Perry's and see if there were any diaries in stock there.[7]
\r\n\r\nNo diary entries from the period 5 December 1942 to 22 December 1943 have survived. So between diary A1 and A2, over a year is missing. However, Anne did include this period when rewriting her diary on the loose sheets (B version). From this it can be concluded that the missing notes did exist. There are also passages in Anne's narrative that refer to the existence of the missing diary entries.[8]
\r\n\r\nA cardboard (black) school notebook contains the diary entries from 22 December 1943 to 17 April 1944. The first diary entry begins as follows: 'Dear Kitty, Daddy has tracked down another new diary for me and this one of a respectable thickness, as you will see for yourself in good time..'[9]
\r\n\r\nDiary A3 follows on from diary A2: a cardboard (green marbled) school notebook covering the period 17 April to 1 August 1944 (the last diary entry). On Tuesday 18 April 1944, Anne writes: 'Dear Kitty, Someone's been a real darling again and has torn up a chemistry exercise book for me to make a new diary, this time the someone was Margot.'[10]
\r\n\r\nIn diary A3, Anne Frank writes on Wednesday 29 March 1944: 'Dear Kitty, Bolkesteyn, an MP, was speaking in the Dutch News from London, and he said that they ought to make a collection of diaries and letters after the war. Of course they all made a rush at my diary immediately. Just imagine how interesting it would be if I were to publish a romance of the 'Secret Annexe', the title alone would be enough to make people think it was a detective story.'[11]
\r\n\r\nTwo months after that call from Education Minister Bolkestein on Radio Orange, on 28 March 1944, Anne actually began rewriting her original diary. On Saturday 20 May 1944, she notes: 'At long last after a great deal of reflection I have started my 'Achterhuis', in my head it is as good as finished, although it won't go as quickly as that really, if it ever comes off at all.' [12] Anne did this on loose, light yellow, light blue, pink and white copy sheets called the loose sheets. While Anne was rewriting her diaries, she also continued writing in her running diary (Diary A). The 'loose sheets' cover the period from 20 June 1942 to 29 March 1944.[13]Anne processed much of Diary A into Diary B in about two months.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank used both Anne's A version and Anne's B version for the first edition of The Secret Annex in 1947,[14] due to the absence of almost all of 1943 in the original manuscript. He also included four stories: The Best Little Table, A Daily Chore in Our Little Community: Peeling Potatoes!, Freedom in the Annexe, and Wenn die Uhr halb neune schlägt...
\r\n\r\nAnne's diaries were retyped in parts by Otto Frank himself to give to his friends to read, and to be translated for his family in Switzerland. When the idea of publishing the diary took hold, the typescripts were created, eventually resulting in the publication of the first edition on 25 June 1947.[1]
\r\n
\r\nOn 22 August 1945, Otto Frank writes to his mother: ' (...) Miep hat zufällig eine Alben [sic] retten können und auch Anne's Tagebucher. Ich habe jedoch noch nicht die Kraft darin zu lesen.'[2] Soon, however, he became engrossed in the diary as evidenced by a letter dated 26 September 1945 to his sister Leni: 'Was ich da lese ist unbeschreiblich aufregend u. doch lese ich. Ich kann es euch nicht schildern, ich bin auch nicht fertig mit Lesen und will alles erst durchgelesen haben, bevor ich Auszüge oder übersetzungen mache.' [3]
In November 1945, Otto Frank read from the manuscripts to friends who encouraged him to publish.[4] He first had the stories typed out, which he then had translated into German by Anneliese Schütz.[5] He did not want to keep passing around the fables and short stories, and did not want to pass around the diaries at all. [6]
\r\n
\r\nBy mid-November 1945, he had not finished copying the diaries and he was not quite sure what to do with some passages, for example about his marriage to Edith: ' (...) it is a disagreeable feeling to publish things against her mother- and I have to do it. (…) It keeps my brains busy every day.' [7] This first typescript created by Otto Frank has not survived.[8]
\r\n
\r\nOtto Frank sent diary excerpts translated into German to relatives in Switzerland. [9]
In the Otto Frank Archive there are two complete typescripts that have been referred to as Typescript I and II since the research for the scholarly edition.[10] Typescript I was compiled by Otto Frank on the basis of the loose sheets supplemented with fragments from diary A1, A2 and A3 (see the Manuscript entry). Some passages he deliberately left out: 'There are passages I can scrap f.i [for instance] what she thought about my marriage, her view on politics.'[7]
\r\n
\r\nIn Typescript I, linguistic and stylistic changes were made. As a result, Typescript II was created. Typescript II is the modified version of Typescript I and it was typed out by Isa Cauvern.[8] Annie and Jan Romein saw this second version.[8] Publisher Contact used Typescript II as the starting point for the first edition of the diary.[11] Typescript II was also the basis of the German translation by Anneliese Schütz.[12]
Annes dagboeken werden door Otto Frank zelf in delen overgetypt om aan zijn vrienden te laten lezen en om te laten vertalen voor zijn familie in Zwitserland. Toen het idee om het dagboek uit te geven postvatte, ontstonden de typescripts die uiteindelijk resulteerden in de publicatie van de eerste editie op 25 juni 1947.[1]
\r\n
\r\nOp 22 augustus 1945 schrijft Otto Frank aan zijn moeder: '(…) Miep hat zufällig eine Alben [sic] retten können und auch Anne’s Tagebucher. Ich habe jedoch noch nicht die Kraft darin zu lesen.'[2] Al gauw raakte hij echter in de greep van het dagboek zoals blijkt uit een brief van 26 september 1945 aan zijn zus Leni: 'Was ich da lese ist unbeschreiblich aufregend u. doch lese ich. Ich kann es euch nicht schildern, ich bin auch nicht fertig mit Lesen und will alles erst durchgelesen haben, bevor ich Auszüge oder übersetzungen mache.' [3]
In november 1945 las Otto Frank voor uit de manuscripten aan vrienden die hem aanmoedigden tot publiceren.[4] Hij liet eerst de verhaaltjes uittypen, die hij vervolgens door Anneliese Schütz in het Duits liet vertalen.[5] De verhaaltjes wilde hij niet steeds uit handen geven, de dagboeken helemaal niet. [6]
\r\n
\r\nHalverwege november 1945 was hij nog niet klaar met het kopiëren van de dagboeken en hij wist niet goed wat hij met sommige passages, bijvoorbeeld over zijn huwelijk met Edith, aan moest: '(…) it is a disagreeable feeling to publish things against her mother- and I have to do it. (…) It keeps my brains busy every day.' [7] Dit eerste, door Otto Frank gemaakte typescript is niet bewaard gebleven.[8]
\r\n
\r\nOtto Frank stuurde in het Duits vertaalde dagboekfragmenten naar familie in Zwitserland. [9]
In het Otto Frank Archief bevinden zich twee complete typescripts die sinds het onderzoek voor de wetenschappelijke uitgave Typescript I en II worden genoemd.[10] Typescript I stelde Otto Frank samen op basis van de losse vellen aangevuld met fragmenten uit dagboek A1, A2 en A3 (zie lemma manuscript). Een aantal passages liet hij bewust weg: 'There are passages I can scrap f.i [for instance] what she thought about my marriage, her view on politics.'[7]
\r\n
\r\nIn Typescript I werden taalkundige en stilistische veranderingen aangebracht. Hierdoor ontstond Typescript II. Typescript II is de aangepaste versie van Typescript I en het werd door Isa Cauvern uitgetypt.[8] Annie en Jan Romein kregen deze tweede versie onder ogen.[8] Uitgeverij Contact gebruikte Typescript II als uitgangspunt voor de eerste editie van het dagboek.[11] Typescript II was ook de basis van de Duitse vertaling door Anneliese Schütz.[12]
Anne's diaries were retyped in parts by Otto Frank himself to give to his friends to read, and to be translated for his family in Switzerland. When the idea of publishing the diary took hold, the typescripts were created, eventually resulting in the publication of the first edition on 25 June 1947.[1]
\r\n
\r\nOn 22 August 1945, Otto Frank writes to his mother: ' (...) Miep hat zufällig eine Alben [sic] retten können und auch Anne's Tagebucher. Ich habe jedoch noch nicht die Kraft darin zu lesen.'[2] Soon, however, he became engrossed in the diary as evidenced by a letter dated 26 September 1945 to his sister Leni: 'Was ich da lese ist unbeschreiblich aufregend u. doch lese ich. Ich kann es euch nicht schildern, ich bin auch nicht fertig mit Lesen und will alles erst durchgelesen haben, bevor ich Auszüge oder übersetzungen mache.' [3]
In November 1945, Otto Frank read from the manuscripts to friends who encouraged him to publish.[4] He first had the stories typed out, which he then had translated into German by Anneliese Schütz.[5] He did not want to keep passing around the fables and short stories, and did not want to pass around the diaries at all. [6]
\r\n
\r\nBy mid-November 1945, he had not finished copying the diaries and he was not quite sure what to do with some passages, for example about his marriage to Edith: ' (...) it is a disagreeable feeling to publish things against her mother- and I have to do it. (…) It keeps my brains busy every day.' [7] This first typescript created by Otto Frank has not survived.[8]
\r\n
\r\nOtto Frank sent diary excerpts translated into German to relatives in Switzerland. [9]
In the Otto Frank Archive there are two complete typescripts that have been referred to as Typescript I and II since the research for the scholarly edition.[10] Typescript I was compiled by Otto Frank on the basis of the loose sheets supplemented with fragments from diary A1, A2 and A3 (see the Manuscript entry). Some passages he deliberately left out: 'There are passages I can scrap f.i [for instance] what she thought about my marriage, her view on politics.'[7]
\r\n
\r\nIn Typescript I, linguistic and stylistic changes were made. As a result, Typescript II was created. Typescript II is the modified version of Typescript I and it was typed out by Isa Cauvern.[8] Annie and Jan Romein saw this second version.[8] Publisher Contact used Typescript II as the starting point for the first edition of the diary.[11] Typescript II was also the basis of the German translation by Anneliese Schütz.[12]
Otto Frank spent a lot of time - often together with his second wife Fritzi - on his correspondence: 'It is part of my daily work to answer to letters from different countries of people who were moved by the Diary.' [1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank called the reactions evoked by the diary 'Weerklank' - Resonance:
\r\n\r\n'Gradually, the diary was published in many countries. Everywhere it made a deep impression on readers. And when the diary was also made into a play and later a film, Anne became a symbol all over the world for all those who were or still are subjected to persecution innocently because of their race or religion. The diary's resonance proved to come from many directions. I received countless letters from all over the world, mainly from young people. Artists were inspired. Some made sculptures, others painted portraits of Anne. Requiems and pieces of music dedicated to her were composed and many, many poems were written in her memory. Many schools and institutions bear her name.' [2]\r\n\r\n
Weerklank van Anne Frank is the title of a book that collects that wide range of responses to the Diary of Anne Frank. Anneke Steenmeyer edited the book on behalf of and in close cooperation with Otto Frank.[3] The book was translated into English[4] and Japanese.[5]
\r\n
\r\nResonance is also the name of a sub-collection of the Anne Frank Collection owned by the Anne Frank House which consists of documents and objects inspired by Anne Frank's diary and life, going into hiding, etc. The foundation of this collection was laid by Otto Frank who saw it as his duty to answer and preserve letters and responses from all parts of the world.[6]
Otto Frank besteedde - vaak samen met zijn tweede vrouw Fritzi - veel tijd aan zijn correspondentie: 'It is part of my daily work to answer to letters from different countries of people who were moved by the Diary.' [1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank noemde de reacties die het dagboek oproept Weerklank:
\r\n\r\n'Langzamerhand werd het dagboek in veel landen gepubliceerd. Overal maakte het een diepe indruk op de lezers. En toen van het dagboek ook een toneelstuk en later een film werd gemaakt, werd Anne overal ter wereld een symbool voor al diegenen die onschuldig wegens hun ras of hun geloof vervolgd werden of nog steeds aan vervolgingen bloot staan. De weerklank van het dagboek bleek uit allerlei richtingen te komen. Ik kreeg ontelbare brieven uit de hele wereld, hoofdzakelijk van jonge mensen. Kunstenaars werden geïnspireerd. Sommigen maakten beelden, anderen schilderden portretten van Anne. Requiems en aan haar opgedragen muziekstukken werden gecomponeerd en vele, vele gedichten werden er te harer nagedachtenis geschreven. Veel scholen en instellingen dragen haar naam.' [2]\r\n\r\n
Weerklank van Anne Frank is de titel van het boek waarin die verschillende soorten reacties op het dagboek van Anne Frank zijn verzameld. Anneke Steenmeyer redigeerde het boek in opdracht van en in nauwe samenwerking met Otto Frank.[3] Het boek werd vertaald in het Engels[4] en in het Japans.[5]
\r\n
\r\nWeerklank is ook de benaming van de deelcollectie uit de Anne Frank Collectie in bezit van de Anne Frank Stichting die bestaat uit documenten en objecten geïnspireerd op het dagboek en het leven van Anne Frank, de onderduik etc. De basis van deze collectie is gelegd door Otto Frank die het als zijn plicht zag brieven en reacties uit alle delen van de wereld te beantwoorden en te bewaren.[6]
Otto Frank spent a lot of time - often together with his second wife Fritzi - on his correspondence: 'It is part of my daily work to answer to letters from different countries of people who were moved by the Diary.' [1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank called the reactions evoked by the diary 'Weerklank' - Resonance:
\r\n\r\n'Gradually, the diary was published in many countries. Everywhere it made a deep impression on readers. And when the diary was also made into a play and later a film, Anne became a symbol all over the world for all those who were or still are subjected to persecution innocently because of their race or religion. The diary's resonance proved to come from many directions. I received countless letters from all over the world, mainly from young people. Artists were inspired. Some made sculptures, others painted portraits of Anne. Requiems and pieces of music dedicated to her were composed and many, many poems were written in her memory. Many schools and institutions bear her name.' [2]\r\n\r\n
Weerklank van Anne Frank is the title of a book that collects that wide range of responses to the Diary of Anne Frank. Anneke Steenmeyer edited the book on behalf of and in close cooperation with Otto Frank.[3] The book was translated into English[4] and Japanese.[5]
\r\n
\r\nResonance is also the name of a sub-collection of the Anne Frank Collection owned by the Anne Frank House which consists of documents and objects inspired by Anne Frank's diary and life, going into hiding, etc. The foundation of this collection was laid by Otto Frank who saw it as his duty to answer and preserve letters and responses from all parts of the world.[6]
The first edition of Het Achterhuis ('The Secret Annex') appeared on 25 June 1947 in publisher Contact's Proloog series.[1] Otto Frank notes on that date in his diary: "I Book".[2]
\r\n
\r\nIn late September 1945, Otto Frank made excerpts from the diary for friends and his family to read in translation.[3] This was because he felt there was too much in the original diary that was not intended for others.[4] Around November 1945, he decided to publish his daughter's diary anyway.[5] In retrospect, he said about this that friends had convinced him not to keep this document for himself.[6] But finding a publisher proved difficult.[7]
Otto Frank stated that his friend Werner Cahn (to whom he had read the original manuscript and who worked at Querido publishers) had taken typescript II to Annie Romein-Verschoor without his knowledge.[8] In his diary of 22 March 1946, Otto Frank noted: "Werner Cahn-(Romein)". [9]
\r\n\r\nAnnie Romein had the manuscript read by her husband, Jan Romein. He wrote the article Kinderstem (A Child's Voice) that appeared on the front page of Het Parool on 3 April 1946. After this, Contact Publishers wanted to publish the diary.[10] On 10 September 1946, Otto Frank sent the signed contract back to Contact Publishers. He had stipulated that he himself retained the translation and film rights and that if the diary sold out, the publisher undertook to prepare a new edition within six months.[11]
\r\n
\r\nThe basis for the edition was the typescript II compiled by Otto Frank. The publisher edited this text and removed passages related to sexuality. [12] The foreword was by Annie Romein-Verschoor and not, as initially planned, an adapted version of the Parool article Kinderstem.[13] Ab Cauvern later stated that he had written the epilogue and that Otto Frank had adapted it.[14] An advance copy of the diary appeared in De Nieuwe Stem.[15]
\r\n
\r\nThe first edition of the diary was published on 25 June 1947 in an edition of 3,036 copies, which were sold out with the publisher by early July 1947.
\r\n\r\n\r\n' Ja, Anne's Buch liegt täglich vor mir, täglich rufen Leute an, ich habe viel Korrespondenz und es halt mich mehr in Atem als das Geschäft. Es geht mir ja auch näher! (...) Der Verlag ist ausverkauft, in Geschäften ist auch schon viel Frage und in vielen die vorhandenen Exemplare weg, Nachlieferung kann ja nicht vorgenommen werden '.[16]
\r\n
The second edition, in December 1947, had a print run of 6,830.[17] A third edition of 10,500 copies followed in February 1948.
\r\n
\r\nThe Otto Frank Archive contains a list of names of the friends, acquaintances, politicians and dignitaries to whom Otto Frank sent a first edition of the diary.[18] He remained actively involved in publishing the diary even after the first edition was published.[19]
De eerste editie van Het Achterhuis verscheen op 25 juni 1947 in de Proloogreeks van uitgeverij Contact.[1] Otto Frank noteert op die datum in zijn agenda: I Boek.[2]
\r\n\r\nEind september 1945 maakte Otto Frank uittreksels van het dagboek om aan vrienden en zijn familie in vertaling te kunnen laten lezen.[3] Dit omdat hij vond dat er in het originele dagboek te veel stond wat niet voor anderen bestemd was.[4] Omstreeks november 1945 besloot hij het dagboek van zijn dochter toch te publiceren.[5] Achteraf zei hij hierover dat vrienden hem overtuigd hadden dat hij dit document niet voor zich zelf mocht houden.[6] Maar het bleek moeilijk om een uitgever te vinden.[7]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank verklaarde dat zijn vriend Werner Cahn (aan wie hij het oorspronkelijke manuscript had voorgelezen en die bij uitgeverij Querido werkte) buiten zijn medeweten typescript II naar Annie Romein-Verschoor had gebracht.[8] In zijn agenda van 22 maart 1946 noteerde Otto Frank: Werner Cahn-(Romein). [9]
\r\n\r\nAnnie Romein liet het manuscript lezen aan haar man, Jan Romein. Van zijn hand verscheen op de voorpagina van Het Parool van 3 april 1946 het artikel: Kinderstem. Hierna wil de Uitgeverij Contact het dagboek uitgeven.[10] Op 10 september 1946 stuurde Otto Frank het contract ondertekend terug naar Uitgeverij Contact. Hij had bedongen dat hij zelf de vertaal- en filmrechten behield en dat als het dagboek was uitverkocht de uitgever zich verplichtte na zes maanden een nieuwe uitgave voor te bereiden.[11]
\r\n\r\nDe basis voor de uitgave was het door Otto Frank samengestelde typescript II. De uitgever redigeerde deze tekst en verwijderde passages die met seksualiteit te maken hadden.[12] Het voorwoord was van Annie Romein-Verschoor en niet, zoals aanvankelijk het plan was, een aangepaste versie van het Parool-artikel Kinderstem.[13] Ab Cauvern heeft verklaard dat hij het slotwoord had geschreven en dat Otto Frank het had aangepast.[14] Er verscheen een voorpublicatie van het dagboek in De Nieuwe Stem.[15]
\r\n\r\nDe eerste druk van het dagboek verscheen op 25 juni 1947 in een oplage van 3.036 exemplaren die begin juli 1947 bij de uitgever waren uitverkocht.
\r\n\r\n'Ja, Anne’s Buch liegt täglich vor mir, täglich rufen Leute an, ich habe viel Korrespondenz und es halt mich mehr in Atem als das Geschäft. Es geht mir ja auch näher! (…) Der Verlag ist ausverkauft, in Geschäften ist auch schon viel Frage und in vielen die vorhandenen Exemplare weg, Nachlieferung kann ja nicht vorgenommen werden’.[16]\r\n\r\n
De tweede druk, in december 1947, had een oplage van 6.830.[17] In februari 1948 volgde een derde druk van 10.500 exemplaren.[1]
\r\n\r\nIn het Otto Frank Archief bevindt zich een namenlijst van de vrienden, bekenden, politici en hoogwaardigheidsbekleders aan wie Otto Frank een eerste druk van het dagboek toestuurde.[18] Hij bleef zich, ook na het verschijnen van de eerste editie, actief bezighouden met de uitgave van het dagboek.[19]
\r\n\r\nThe first edition of Het Achterhuis ('The Secret Annex') appeared on 25 June 1947 in publisher Contact's Proloog series.[1] Otto Frank notes on that date in his diary: "I Book".[2]
\r\n
\r\nIn late September 1945, Otto Frank made excerpts from the diary for friends and his family to read in translation.[3] This was because he felt there was too much in the original diary that was not intended for others.[4] Around November 1945, he decided to publish his daughter's diary anyway.[5] In retrospect, he said about this that friends had convinced him not to keep this document for himself.[6] But finding a publisher proved difficult.[7]
Otto Frank stated that his friend Werner Cahn (to whom he had read the original manuscript and who worked at Querido publishers) had taken typescript II to Annie Romein-Verschoor without his knowledge.[8] In his diary of 22 March 1946, Otto Frank noted: "Werner Cahn-(Romein)". [9]
\r\n\r\nAnnie Romein had the manuscript read by her husband, Jan Romein. He wrote the article Kinderstem (A Child's Voice) that appeared on the front page of Het Parool on 3 April 1946. After this, Contact Publishers wanted to publish the diary.[10] On 10 September 1946, Otto Frank sent the signed contract back to Contact Publishers. He had stipulated that he himself retained the translation and film rights and that if the diary sold out, the publisher undertook to prepare a new edition within six months.[11]
\r\n
\r\nThe basis for the edition was the typescript II compiled by Otto Frank. The publisher edited this text and removed passages related to sexuality. [12] The foreword was by Annie Romein-Verschoor and not, as initially planned, an adapted version of the Parool article Kinderstem.[13] Ab Cauvern later stated that he had written the epilogue and that Otto Frank had adapted it.[14] An advance copy of the diary appeared in De Nieuwe Stem.[15]
\r\n
\r\nThe first edition of the diary was published on 25 June 1947 in an edition of 3,036 copies, which were sold out with the publisher by early July 1947.
\r\n\r\n\r\n' Ja, Anne's Buch liegt täglich vor mir, täglich rufen Leute an, ich habe viel Korrespondenz und es halt mich mehr in Atem als das Geschäft. Es geht mir ja auch näher! (...) Der Verlag ist ausverkauft, in Geschäften ist auch schon viel Frage und in vielen die vorhandenen Exemplare weg, Nachlieferung kann ja nicht vorgenommen werden '.[16]
\r\n
The second edition, in December 1947, had a print run of 6,830.[17] A third edition of 10,500 copies followed in February 1948.
\r\n
\r\nThe Otto Frank Archive contains a list of names of the friends, acquaintances, politicians and dignitaries to whom Otto Frank sent a first edition of the diary.[18] He remained actively involved in publishing the diary even after the first edition was published.[19]
In this context it particularly concerns the businesses founded by Otto Frank and companies that traded with them. After settling in Amsterdam in 1933, he started a company there under the name NV Nederlandsche Opekta Mij. It was a branch of the Cologne-based parent company Opekta GmbH. The name Opekta stood for Obstpektin aus dem Apfel, or fruit pectin from apples.
\r\n\r\nA few years later, Frank started a second company under the name Pectacon NV. This company focused on the sale of herbs and spices. At the beginning of 1940, both companies moved to Prinsengracht 263.
","description_nl":"Het gaat in dit verband in het bijzonder om de bedrijven die door Otto Frank werden opgericht en firma's die daarmee zaken deden. Nadat hij zich in 1933 in Amsterdam had gevestigd, begon hij daar een bedrijf onder de naam NV Nederlandsche Opekta Mij. Het was een filiaal van het in Keulen gevestigde moederbedrijf Opekta GmbH. De naam Opekta stond voor Obstpektin aus dem Apfel, ofwel vruchtpectine uit de appel.
\r\n\r\nEen paar jaar later begon Frank onder de naam Pectacon NV nog een tweede bedrijf. Deze onderneming richtte zich op de verkoop van kruiden en specerijen. Begin 1940 verhuisden beide bedrijven naar het adres Prinsengracht 263.
","description_en":"In this context it particularly concerns the businesses founded by Otto Frank and companies that traded with them. After settling in Amsterdam in 1933, he started a company there under the name NV Nederlandsche Opekta Mij. It was a branch of the Cologne-based parent company Opekta GmbH. The name Opekta stood for Obstpektin aus dem Apfel, or fruit pectin from apples.
\r\n\r\nA few years later, Frank started a second company under the name Pectacon NV. This company focused on the sale of herbs and spices. At the beginning of 1940, both companies moved to Prinsengracht 263.
","summary":"Businesses aim to sell products and/or services to customers, thereby generating revenue.","summary_nl":"Bedrijven hebben tot doel producten en/of diensten te verkopen aan klanten, waardoor omzet kan worden gedraaid.","summary_en":"Businesses aim to sell products and/or services to customers, thereby generating revenue.","same_as":["https://data.niod.nl/WO2_Thesaurus/2210"],"parent":null,"files":[]},{"id":396124643,"image":null,"url":"https://research.annefrank.org/en/onderwerpen/77e2d1df-a034-4a82-88b2-2a5ab0bb9471/","published":true,"uuid":"77e2d1df-a034-4a82-88b2-2a5ab0bb9471","modified_on":"2026-08-26T14:43:48.911584+02:00","name":"The diary of Anne Frank","name_nl":"Het dagboek van Anne Frank","name_en":"The diary of Anne Frank","description":"12 June 1942 was Anne Frank’s thirteenth birthday. Among the presents she received was a notebook: an almost square book with a red-white-gray checkered cover and a clasp. In this she was going to keep her diary. Her first diary ends on 5 December 1942. Her second surviving diary book, a school exercise book, begins on 22 December 1943 and continues up to 17 April 1944. It is highly improbable that Anne Frank did not keep a diary between December 1942 and December 1943, so we must assume that this section has been lost. Her third and last diary volume, also a school exercise book, begins on 17 April 1944 and ends on 1 August 1944.
\r\n\r\nBesides her diary, Anne also wrote Verhaaltjes, en gebeurtenissen uit het Achterhuis (Tales from the Secret Annex) in a large accounts book, and she filled a small, narrow cash book with quotations: her Mooie-Zinnenboek (Favourite Quotes Notebook). This Verhaaltjesboek and Mooie-Zinnenboek have both been preserved.
\r\n\r\nFrom June 1942 onwards, the diaries of Anne Frank describe in a penetrating way the daily life of the eight Jewish people in hiding in the annex on the Prinsengracht canal in Amsterdam. Anne Frank rewrote her diary entries herself in the annex, with a view to them possibly being published after the war.
\r\n\r\nShe did this on sheets of carbon copy paper, referred to as the “loose sheets.” On these loose sheets of paper she reorganised and rewrote her earlier diary entries: she reordered texts, sometimes combining entries from various dates under one date, and considerably shortening some sections. In this way she created a second version, in which the events of December 1942 to December 1943 are described. The loose sheets have been preserved: their last entries date from 29 March 1944. So the first version of the diary was not fully preserved, while the second version was unfinished.
\r\n\r\nTo help in the search for a publisher for Het Achterhuis (The Secret Annex, as Anne had named her second version) Otto Frank had parts of the diary entries typed out in late 1945.
\r\nIn doing so he left out some sections, moved others and made some corrections. This created a typescript, but it was not yet a book. At Otto Frank’s request, his friend Albert Cauvern then made a second typescript. With Otto Frank’s permission, Cauvern changed nine of the thirteen names that Anne herself – with a view to possible publication – had invented for the people in hiding in the secret annexe and their helpers.
Both typescripts have been preserved. Finally, an editor from Contact Publishers became the third person to work on the texts, correcting typing errors and bringing the manuscript into line with the publisher’s style guide. All of this resulted in the first Dutch publication of Het Achterhuis in June 1947.[1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank, who died 19 August 1980, stated in his will that all of his daughter’s manuscripts should be left to the Dutch nation. The Dutch government transferred the stewardship of the manuscripts to the National Institute for War Documentation (Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, RIOD), which later became the Dutch Institute for War Documentation (Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, NIOD).
\r\n\r\nIn 1986, RIOD published the three versions of the diary described above – the preserved original diary entries, the version rewritten by Anne Frank herself, and the edition compiled by Otto Frank and published by Contact Publishers in 1947 – together under one cover: De Dagboeken van Anne Frank.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1998, five previously unknown pages from the diary of Anne Frank turned up. They were five loose sheets that Otto Frank had already set apart before the publication of the diary in 1947. In all probability, Otto Frank did not want to make these diary fragments public because of Anne’s rather hurtful observations about his first wife, who died in Auschwitz, and their marriage.
\r\n\r\nThey were made public by Cor Suijk, a former employee of the Anne Frank House. Suijk’s explanation was that Otto Frank had given him the five sheets for safe keeping. The loose sheets were sold by Suijk to the Dutch nation, and subsequently added to the rest of the diary, which was held by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD). The five pages were first included in the fifth, revised edition of De Dagboeken van Anne Frank (2001).[3]
\r\n\r\nThe NIOD asked the Forensic Institute – which had already carried out extensive research into the authenticity of the diary in the first half of the 1980’s – to also investigate these five loose sheets. The Forensic Institute concluded after forensic document and handwriting analysis that ‘the handwriting in the questioned documents and the handwriting in the reference material, consisting of loose sheets in the diary of Anne Frank, were produced – with a probability bordering on certainty – by the same hand.’[4] That is the most certain degree of identification that the Netherlands Forensic Institute can give. In other words: there is no reason whatsoever to presume that the five returned loose sheets were not written by Anne Frank.
\r\n\r\n12 juni 1942 was de dertiende verjaardag van Anne Frank. Ze kreeg onder andere een schrift: een bijna vierkant boekje met een harde rood-wit-grijs geruite omslag en een slotje. Hierin ging ze haar dagboek bijhouden. Haar eerste dagboek eindigt op 5 december 1942. Haar tweede bewaard gebleven dagboek, een schoolschrift, begint op 22 december 1943 en loopt door tot 17 april 1944. Het is zeer onwaarschijnlijk dat Anne Frank tussen december 1942 en december 1943 geen dagboek heeft bijgehouden, dus we moeten aannemen dat dit deel verloren is gegaan. Haar derde en laatste dagboekdeel, ook een schoolschrift, begint op 17 april 1944 en eindigt op 1 augustus 1944.
\r\n\r\nNaast haar dagboek schreef Anne ook Verhaaltjes, en gebeurtenissen uit het Achterhuis in een grootboek en vulde zij een klein, smal kasboek met citaten: haar Mooie Zinnenboek. Dit Verhaaltjesboek en Mooie Zinnenboek zijn beide bewaard gebleven.
\r\n\r\nDe dagboeken van Anne Frank beschrijven vanaf juni 1942 op indringende wijze het dagelijks leven van de acht Joodse onderduikers in het achterhuis aan de Prinsengracht in Amsterdam. In het achterhuis heeft Anne Frank haar dagboekaantekeningen zelf herschreven met het oog op eventuele publicatie na de oorlog.
\r\n\r\nZij deed dit op vellen doorschrijfpapier: de zogenaamde "losse vellen". Op deze losse vellen reorganiseerde en herschreef zij haar eerdere dagboekaantekeningen: zij herschikte teksten, voegde soms aantekeningen van verschillende data samen onder één datum en kortte sommige delen aanzienlijk in. Zo ontstond een tweede versie, waarin de gebeurtenissen van december 1942 tot december 1943 worden beschreven. De losse vellen zijn bewaard gebleven: de laatste aantekeningen ervan dateren van 29 maart 1944. De eerste versie van het dagboek is dus niet volledig bewaard gebleven, terwijl de tweede versie onvoltooid is gebleven.
\r\n\r\nOm een uitgever te vinden voor Het Achterhuis (zoals Anne haar tweede versie had genoemd) liet Otto Frank eind 1945 delen van de dagboekaantekeningen uittypen.
\r\n\r\nDaarbij heeft hij sommige delen weggelaten, andere verplaatst en enkele correcties aangebracht. Zo ontstond een typoscript, maar het was nog geen boek. Op verzoek van Otto Frank maakte zijn vriend Albert Cauvern vervolgens een tweede typoscript. Met toestemming van Otto Frank veranderde Cauvern negen van de dertien namen die Anne zelf - met het oog op eventuele publicatie - had bedacht voor de onderduikers in het achterhuis en hun helpers.
\r\n\r\nBeide typoscripten zijn bewaard gebleven. Tenslotte heeft een redacteur van Uitgeverij Contact als derde aan de teksten gewerkt, typefouten gecorrigeerd en het manuscript in overeenstemming gebracht met de stijlgids van de uitgeverij. Dit alles resulteerde in de eerste Nederlandse uitgave van Het Achterhuis in juni 1947.[1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank, die op 19 augustus 1980 overleed, verklaarde in zijn testament dat alle manuscripten van zijn dochter aan de Nederlandse staat moesten worden nagelaten. De Nederlandse regering droeg het beheer van de manuscripten over aan het Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie (RIOD), dat later het Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie (NIOD) werd.
\r\n\r\nIn 1986 publiceerde het RIOD de drie hierboven beschreven versies van het dagboek - de bewaard gebleven originele dagboekaantekeningen, de door Anne Frank zelf herschreven versie en de door Otto Frank samengestelde uitgave die in 1947 door uitgeverij Contact werd uitgegeven - samen onder één omslag: De Dagboeken van Anne Frank.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1998 doken vijf voorheen onbekende pagina's uit het dagboek van Anne Frank op. Het waren vijf losse bladen die Otto Frank al voor de publicatie van het dagboek in 1947 apart had gelegd. Otto Frank wilde deze dagboekfragmenten naar alle waarschijnlijkheid niet openbaar maken vanwege Annes nogal kwetsende opmerkingen over zijn in Auschwitz omgekomen eerste vrouw en hun huwelijk.
\r\n\r\nZe zijn openbaar gemaakt door Cor Suijk, een voormalig medewerker van de Anne Frank Stichting. Suijk's verklaring was dat Otto Frank hem de vijf bladen in bewaring had gegeven. De losse vellen zijn door Suijk verkocht aan de Nederlandse staat en vervolgens gevoegd bij de rest van het dagboek, dat bij het Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie (NIOD) berustte. De vijf pagina's werden voor het eerst opgenomen in de vijfde druk van De Dagboeken van Anne Frank (2001).[3]
\r\n
Het NIOD heeft het Gerechtelijk Laboratorium - dat in de eerste helft van de jaren tachtig al uitgebreid onderzoek had gedaan naar de authenticiteit van het dagboek - gevraagd ook deze vijf losse bladen te onderzoeken. Het Gerechtelijk Laboratorium concludeerde na forensisch document- en handschriftonderzoek dat 'het schrift voorkomend op het te onderzoeken materiaal enerzijds en het referentiemateriaal, bestaande uit het schrift op de losse vellen van het dagboek van Anne Frank anderzijds, zijn met aan zekerheid grenzende waarschijnlijkheid van dezelfde hand'.[4] Dat is de meest zekere mate van identificatie die het Nederlands Gerechtelijk Laboratorium kan geven. Met andere woorden: er is geen enkele reden om aan te nemen dat de vijf geretourneerde losse vellen niet door Anne Frank zijn geschreven.
\r\n\r\n12 June 1942 was Anne Frank’s thirteenth birthday. Among the presents she received was a notebook: an almost square book with a red-white-gray checkered cover and a clasp. In this she was going to keep her diary. Her first diary ends on 5 December 1942. Her second surviving diary book, a school exercise book, begins on 22 December 1943 and continues up to 17 April 1944. It is highly improbable that Anne Frank did not keep a diary between December 1942 and December 1943, so we must assume that this section has been lost. Her third and last diary volume, also a school exercise book, begins on 17 April 1944 and ends on 1 August 1944.
\r\n\r\nBesides her diary, Anne also wrote Verhaaltjes, en gebeurtenissen uit het Achterhuis (Tales from the Secret Annex) in a large accounts book, and she filled a small, narrow cash book with quotations: her Mooie-Zinnenboek (Favourite Quotes Notebook). This Verhaaltjesboek and Mooie-Zinnenboek have both been preserved.
\r\n\r\nFrom June 1942 onwards, the diaries of Anne Frank describe in a penetrating way the daily life of the eight Jewish people in hiding in the annex on the Prinsengracht canal in Amsterdam. Anne Frank rewrote her diary entries herself in the annex, with a view to them possibly being published after the war.
\r\n\r\nShe did this on sheets of carbon copy paper, referred to as the “loose sheets.” On these loose sheets of paper she reorganised and rewrote her earlier diary entries: she reordered texts, sometimes combining entries from various dates under one date, and considerably shortening some sections. In this way she created a second version, in which the events of December 1942 to December 1943 are described. The loose sheets have been preserved: their last entries date from 29 March 1944. So the first version of the diary was not fully preserved, while the second version was unfinished.
\r\n\r\nTo help in the search for a publisher for Het Achterhuis (The Secret Annex, as Anne had named her second version) Otto Frank had parts of the diary entries typed out in late 1945.
\r\nIn doing so he left out some sections, moved others and made some corrections. This created a typescript, but it was not yet a book. At Otto Frank’s request, his friend Albert Cauvern then made a second typescript. With Otto Frank’s permission, Cauvern changed nine of the thirteen names that Anne herself – with a view to possible publication – had invented for the people in hiding in the secret annexe and their helpers.
Both typescripts have been preserved. Finally, an editor from Contact Publishers became the third person to work on the texts, correcting typing errors and bringing the manuscript into line with the publisher’s style guide. All of this resulted in the first Dutch publication of Het Achterhuis in June 1947.[1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank, who died 19 August 1980, stated in his will that all of his daughter’s manuscripts should be left to the Dutch nation. The Dutch government transferred the stewardship of the manuscripts to the National Institute for War Documentation (Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, RIOD), which later became the Dutch Institute for War Documentation (Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, NIOD).
\r\n\r\nIn 1986, RIOD published the three versions of the diary described above – the preserved original diary entries, the version rewritten by Anne Frank herself, and the edition compiled by Otto Frank and published by Contact Publishers in 1947 – together under one cover: De Dagboeken van Anne Frank.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1998, five previously unknown pages from the diary of Anne Frank turned up. They were five loose sheets that Otto Frank had already set apart before the publication of the diary in 1947. In all probability, Otto Frank did not want to make these diary fragments public because of Anne’s rather hurtful observations about his first wife, who died in Auschwitz, and their marriage.
\r\n\r\nThey were made public by Cor Suijk, a former employee of the Anne Frank House. Suijk’s explanation was that Otto Frank had given him the five sheets for safe keeping. The loose sheets were sold by Suijk to the Dutch nation, and subsequently added to the rest of the diary, which was held by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD). The five pages were first included in the fifth, revised edition of De Dagboeken van Anne Frank (2001).[3]
\r\n\r\nThe NIOD asked the Forensic Institute – which had already carried out extensive research into the authenticity of the diary in the first half of the 1980’s – to also investigate these five loose sheets. The Forensic Institute concluded after forensic document and handwriting analysis that ‘the handwriting in the questioned documents and the handwriting in the reference material, consisting of loose sheets in the diary of Anne Frank, were produced – with a probability bordering on certainty – by the same hand.’[4] That is the most certain degree of identification that the Netherlands Forensic Institute can give. In other words: there is no reason whatsoever to presume that the five returned loose sheets were not written by Anne Frank.
\r\n\r\nJohannes Kleiman had a major role in commemorating Anne Frank and the other people in hiding between the end of World War II and his death in 1959.
\r\nHe was involved in the first publication of Anne Frank's diary in 1947. He was also involved in the publication of Do You Remember? and the Fables and Short Stories and actively worked to tell the story of the people in hiding to a wide audience. He gave tours of the Secret Annex at Prinsengracht 263 and corresponded about the memory of the people in hiding with several letter writers.
In addition, bij remained involved in Otto Frank's business ventures, acting together with or on behalf of Otto Frank in that capacity. Johannes Kleiman also played a major role in the establishment and opening of the Anne Frank House and the Anne Frank Foundation. In doing so, he often stood in for Otto Frank, who lived in Basel, Switzerland.
\r\n\r\nNo correspondence has survived from the years around the first diary publication, but it has been preserved pretty much from Otto Frank's departure for Switzerland. A few letters give a fragmentary impression of Kleiman's involvement. Otto himself conducted the correspondence with those people who received a copy of the diary. On 13 October 1948, however, it was Kleiman who provided the accompanying letter to Dr J. Groen.[1]
\r\n\r\nSeveral helpers described, possibly at Otto Frank's request, how they had met Anne and what they knew of her writing. Kleiman described how he once laid eyes on a letter Anne wrote to her grandma as an 11-year-old in which she wittily recounted how all the housemates and family members were making out. He also mentioned writing in her diary, and how in it she fantasised how she would later participate in normal life again.[2]
\r\n\r\nOn 2 September 1952, Kleiman wrote to Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday about translations of the stories Blurry the Explorer and Katrien. Otto Frank was in Switzerland at the time, and subsequently left for England and America.[3] Apparently Kleiman took care of the ongoing business.
\r\n\r\nIn a letter dated 27 February 1953, Kleiman called Anne a mediocre pupil, but thought her descriptions of the teachers (Keesing and Biegel) showed 'powers of observation and expression '. He concluded the letter with a promotional P.S.: 'You may be interested to know that a collection of stories and fairy tales by Anne Frank has also been published under the title: Do You Remember?'[4]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank conducted the correspondence with publisher Contact about the diary and payments himself for many years. In a letter dated 2 April 1957, Contact wrote that copies of the letters and financial statements were also sent to Kleiman.[5]
\r\n\r\nJohannes Kleiman had tussen het einde van de Tweede Wereldoorlog en zijn overlijden in 1959 een grote rol in de herdenking van Anne Frank en de andere onderduikers.
\r\nHij was betrokken bij de eerste publicatie van het dagboek van Anne Frank in 1947. Ook was hij betrokken bij de publicatie van Weet je nog? en de Verhaaltjes en zette hij zich actief in om het verhaal van de onderduikers te vertellen aan een groot publiek. Hij gaf rondleidingen in het Achterhuis van Prinsengracht 263 en correspondeerde over de herinnering aan de onderduik met meerdere briefschrijvers.
Daarnaast bleef bij betrokken bij de zakelijke ondernemingen van Otto Frank, en trad in die hoedanigheid samen of namens Otto Frank op. Johannes Kleiman speelde ook een grote rol bij de totstandkoming en openstelling van het Anne Frank Huis en de Anne Frank Stichting. Hij nam daarbij vaak de honneurs waar van Otto Frank, die in het Zwitserse Bazel woonde.
\r\n\r\nVan de jaren rond de eerste dagboekuitgave is geen correspondentie bewaard gebleven, wel zo ongeveer vanaf het vertrek van Otto Frank naar Zwitserland. Enkele brieven geven een fragmentarische indruk van Kleimans betrokkenheid. Otto voerde zelf de correspondentie met degenen, die een exemplaar van het dagboek kregen. Op 13 oktober 1948 echter was het Kleiman die het begeleidend schrijven aan dr. J. Groen verzorgde.[1]
\r\n\r\nVerschillende helpers beschreven, mogelijk op verzoek van Otto Frank, hoe ze Anne hadden leren kennen en wat ze van haar schrijven wisten. Kleiman beschreef hoe hij eens een brief, die Anne als elfjarige aan oma hand geschreven, onder ogen kreeg waarin zij op geestige wijze verhaalde hoe alle huisgenoten en familieleden het maakten. Ook noemde hij het schrijven van haar dagboek, en hoe zij daarin fantaseerde hoe ze later weer aan het gewone leven zou deelnemen.[2]
\r\n\r\nOp 2 september 1952 schreef Kleiman met Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday over vertalingen van de verhaaltjes Blurry en Katrientje. Otto Frank bevond zich toen in Zwitserland, en zou daarna naar Engeland en Amerika vertrekken.[3] Blijkbaar nam Kleiman de lopende zaken waar.
\r\n\r\nKleiman noemde Anne in een brief van 27 februari 1953 een middelmatige scholier, maar vond haar beschrijvingen van de leraren (Keesing en Biegel) getuigen van 'opmerkings- en uitdrukkingsvermogen.' Hij besloot de brief met het wervende P.S.: 'Wellicht interesseert het U te weten, dat er van Anne Frank eveneens een bundeltje verhaaltjes en sprookjes is verschenen onder de titel: Weet je nog.'[4]
\r\n\r\nDe correspondentie met uitgeverij Contact over het dagboek en de afrekeningen voerde Otto Frank jarenlang zelf. In een brief van 2 april 1957 schreef Contact dat kopieën van brief en afrekening eveneens naar Kleiman werden gestuurd.[5]
\r\n\r\nJohannes Kleiman had a major role in commemorating Anne Frank and the other people in hiding between the end of World War II and his death in 1959.
\r\nHe was involved in the first publication of Anne Frank's diary in 1947. He was also involved in the publication of Do You Remember? and the Fables and Short Stories and actively worked to tell the story of the people in hiding to a wide audience. He gave tours of the Secret Annex at Prinsengracht 263 and corresponded about the memory of the people in hiding with several letter writers.
In addition, bij remained involved in Otto Frank's business ventures, acting together with or on behalf of Otto Frank in that capacity. Johannes Kleiman also played a major role in the establishment and opening of the Anne Frank House and the Anne Frank Foundation. In doing so, he often stood in for Otto Frank, who lived in Basel, Switzerland.
\r\n\r\nNo correspondence has survived from the years around the first diary publication, but it has been preserved pretty much from Otto Frank's departure for Switzerland. A few letters give a fragmentary impression of Kleiman's involvement. Otto himself conducted the correspondence with those people who received a copy of the diary. On 13 October 1948, however, it was Kleiman who provided the accompanying letter to Dr J. Groen.[1]
\r\n\r\nSeveral helpers described, possibly at Otto Frank's request, how they had met Anne and what they knew of her writing. Kleiman described how he once laid eyes on a letter Anne wrote to her grandma as an 11-year-old in which she wittily recounted how all the housemates and family members were making out. He also mentioned writing in her diary, and how in it she fantasised how she would later participate in normal life again.[2]
\r\n\r\nOn 2 September 1952, Kleiman wrote to Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday about translations of the stories Blurry the Explorer and Katrien. Otto Frank was in Switzerland at the time, and subsequently left for England and America.[3] Apparently Kleiman took care of the ongoing business.
\r\n\r\nIn a letter dated 27 February 1953, Kleiman called Anne a mediocre pupil, but thought her descriptions of the teachers (Keesing and Biegel) showed 'powers of observation and expression '. He concluded the letter with a promotional P.S.: 'You may be interested to know that a collection of stories and fairy tales by Anne Frank has also been published under the title: Do You Remember?'[4]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank conducted the correspondence with publisher Contact about the diary and payments himself for many years. In a letter dated 2 April 1957, Contact wrote that copies of the letters and financial statements were also sent to Kleiman.[5]
\r\n\r\nThe 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.
\r\n\r\nEarly 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.' )
\r\n\r\nOtto 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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.
\r\n\r\nA 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nFafflok 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]
\r\nOtto 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nFafflok 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]
\r\n
\r\nOn 16 June 1976 Kempner wrote to Otto Frank that Ernst Cramer of Springer Verlag offered the following:
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.
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nIrving 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]
\r\n\r\nIrving 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.
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nIt 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]
\r\n\r\nWith that, the case petered out.
\r\n\r\nThrough 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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].
\r\n\r\nDuring 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]
\r\n\r\n1-2 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]
\r\n\r\nDe eerste aantijgingen tegen het dagboek verschenen in 1957 en 1958 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.
\r\n\r\nBegin 1959 diende Otto tegen de Duitse leraar Lothar Stielau (leraar Engels in Lübeck en lid van de extreem-rechtse Deutsche Reichspartei) een strafklacht in wegens smaad, laster, laster, belastering van de nagedachtenis van een overledene en antisemitische uitlatingen. Stielau schreef in het blad van de Vereinigung ehemaliger Schüler und der Freunde der Oberschüle zur Dom e.V. Lübeck van 10 oktober 1958 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." ('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.'
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank was getuige in de zaak, net als (o.a.) Miep Gies, Jan Gies en Bep Voskuyl.[1] 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.[2]
\r\n\r\n17 oktober 1961 diende de zaak voor de III. Strafkammer des Landgericht Lübeck. 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 Lübecker Nachrichten. 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.
\r\n\r\nEen 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.[3] 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."[4]
\r\n\r\nDe Oberstaatsanwalt in Darmstadt schreef op 21 november 1966 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 Anne Frank Schule te noemen. Walter Hainke noemde Anne het 'bedaurenwertens an Fleckfieber verstorbenes Mädchen', dat na haar dood werd misbruikt door haar 'geschäftstüchtige' familie, die aan het overduidelijk vervalste dagboek schatten verdiende. De Oberstaatsanwalt stelde Otto Frank in de gelegenheid een strafklacht in te dienen.[5] Otto Frank deed dat op 9 december 1966. Hij was bereid zijn klacht in te trekken als Hainke zijn beweringen openlijk zou herroepen.[6]
\r\n\r\nOp 18 februari 1967 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. [7]
\r\n\r\nIn de inleiding van het boek Hitler und seine Feldherren schreef David Irving 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.'[8] Otto Frank schreef 12 oktober 1975 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 - was vastgesteld.[9]
\r\n\r\n27 oktober 1975 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.[10] Otto Frank schreef 30 oktober 1975 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.[11]
\r\n\r\nFafflok schreef 14 november 1975 aan Ullstein dat hij namens Otto Frank een schadevergoeding vroeg van DM 30 000, die ten goede zou komen aan de Anne Frank Stichting.[12]
\r\nOtto Frank zei dat hij in eerste instantie achter de uitgever aanging, omdat die e.e.a. openbaarde en de schade veroorzaakte.[13] Rond 27 november 1975 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.[14]
16 december 1975 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).[15]
\r\n\r\n9 januari 1976 toonde Otto Frank zich ontevreden met het tempo waarmee Fafflok de zaak Ullstein aanpakte.[16] Volgens een brief van Fafflok waren er inmiddels beweringen over onechtheid van het dagboek verschenen in o.a. Das Ostpreussenblatt, Deutsche Wochenzeitung en Neue Ordnung.[17]
\r\n\r\n22 januari 1976 schreef Otto Frank dat hem vanuit Engeland was gezegd dat de kansen tegen Irving gering waren, omdat zijn boek daar niet was uitgebracht. [18]
\r\n\r\nFafflok riep Ullstein 18 februari 1976 namens Otto Frank op om uiterlijk 26 februari 1976 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.[19] In het Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Büchhandlung verscheen 30 april 1976 de rectificatie van Ullstein, hoewel in omfloerstere bewoordingen dan Otto Frank graag had gezien. [20]
\r\n
\r\n16 juni 1976 schreef Kempner aan Otto Frank dat Ernst Cramer van Springer Verlag het volgende aanbood:
21 juni 1976 antwoordde Otto Frank aan Kempner dat hij het voorstel aanneemt. Hij stelt ook Fafflok daarvan in kennis.[22] Vervolgens bleef het in de kwestie-Irving ruim twee jaar stil.
\r\n\r\nOp 15 oktober 1979 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.[23] Otto Frank antwoorddde op 23 oktober 1979 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. [24]
\r\n\r\nIrving drong op 2 november 1979 opnieuw bij Otto Frank aan op onderzoek door Hehner & Cox, suggererend dat afwijzing erop duidde dat er iets te verbergen was.[25] Op 16 november 1979 antwoordde Otto Frank dat hij vertrouwde op de competentie van een door een Duitse rechtbank aangestelde deskundige en geen prijs stelde op verdere correspondentie. [26]
\r\n\r\nIrving schreef op 16 januari 1980 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.[27] Op 4 februari 1980 stuurde Irving Otto Frank een brief waaruit bleek dat hij een advocaat heeft ingezet.[28] Het Otto Frank Archief bevat geen verdere correspondentie in deze zaak.
\r\n\r\nIn de nasleep van de Ullstein/Irving affaire kwam Otto Frank een publicatie tegen van Richard Harwood, uitgegeven door de Historical Review Press in Surrey. Hij uit het voornemen ook daar een zaak tegen te beginnen.[29]
\r\n\r\nVan 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. [35]
\r\n\r\nDaarmee ging de zaak als een nachtkaars uit.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank kreeg via de Anne Frank Stichting een op 5 maart 1977 gedateerde brief van Faurisson, die als geleerde van de universiteit van Lyon interesse voor het dagboek toonde. Otto antwoordde bereid te zijn hem 9 maart 1977 te ontvangen en hem de originele dagboeken te tonen.[38]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank beschreef Faurisson in een brief van 30 maart 1977 als een onsympathieke en achterdochtige man.[39] Op 5 april 1978 schreef Otto dat hij slechte ervaringen met Faurisson had, en noemde hem een 'gestoorde man'. Faurisson geloofde volgens Otto Frank het hele onderduikverhaal niet.[40]
\r\n\r\nFaurisson schreef in de loop van zijn onderzoek onder meer nog aan Kugler (op 28 maart 1977), het echtpaar Gies (op 4 september 1978)[41] en hij bezocht Bep Voskuijl thuis.[42]
\r\n\r\nIn 1976 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 Het dagboek van Anne Frank - een vervalsing en Het dagboek van Anne Frank - de grote fraude, en in een lezersbrief in Neue Ordnung 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.[43] Otto Frank schreef op 30 maart 1976 dat er een aanklacht tegen Roth liep, en dat er klachten waren ingediend wegens verspreiding van diens pamflet in Bochum, Hamburg en Wiesbaden.[44]
\r\n\r\nDe rechtbank van Frankfurt am Main verbood Roth op 22 juni 1978 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.[45] 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 1978 was overleden, werd alsnog een hoger beroep ingesteld bij het Bundesgerichtshof, 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.[46]
\r\n\r\nBij de voorstellingen van Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank in Hamburg deelde Römer in februari 1976 pamfletten uit. Deze bevatten een vertaling van een artikel uit de Historical Review Press. Het pamflet had de kop "Bestseller - een leugen" ('Best-seller, ein Schwindel'), en kwam met een verhaal over de schadevergoeding aan Meyer Levin. Otto Frank diende 15 maart 1976 een aanklacht in. Opnieuw werden de bevindingen van Minna Becker en dr. Hübner aangehaald. Römer kreeg een geldstraf van DM 1.500.[47] Otto Frank trad in deze zaak als nevenaanklager en getuige op.[48].
\r\n\r\nTijdens een zitting in hoger beroep in de zaak-Römer op 28 augustus 1978 verspreidde Edgar Werner Geiss pamfletten met aanvallen op de authenticiteit van het dagboek, met een verwijzing naar het rumor rond Meyer Levin. Hij kreeg zes maanden subsidiair DM 1.500 boete.[49]
\r\n\r\n1-2 april 1980: 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 1950 zeer gebruikelijk. De precieze ouderdom van de papieren en de opschriften was niet eenduidig vast te stellen.[50] 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.[51]
\r\n\r\nThe 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.
\r\n\r\nEarly 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.' )
\r\n\r\nOtto 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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.
\r\n\r\nA 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nFafflok 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]
\r\nOtto 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nFafflok 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]
\r\n
\r\nOn 16 June 1976 Kempner wrote to Otto Frank that Ernst Cramer of Springer Verlag offered the following:
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.
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nIrving 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]
\r\n\r\nIrving 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.
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nIt 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]
\r\n\r\nWith that, the case petered out.
\r\n\r\nThrough 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nIn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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]
\r\n\r\nOn 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].
\r\n\r\nDuring 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]
\r\n\r\n1-2 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]
\r\n\r\nEven before the publication of Het Achterhuis 'The Secret Annex', Otto Frank approached several publishers to publish Anne's short stories, which she had written while in hiding.
\r\n\r\nAnne started writing these stories in the summer of 1943:
\r\n\r\n'A break in the Secret Annex sketches. A few weeks ago I started writing a story, something I made up from beginning to end, and I've enjoyed it so much that the products of my pen are piling up.[1] The short stories are recorded in the diary, on loose sheets and in a cardboard notebook: Short stories, and events from the Secret Annex described by Anne Frank. Dedicated Thursday 2 September 1943.'[2]\r\n\r\n
Anne got the idea to publish them during the period in hiding: 'Dear Kitty, (…) I want to ask the magazine The Prince if they'll take one of my fairy tales, under a pseudonym of course. But up to now all my fairy tales have been too long, so I don't think I have much of a chance'.[3] Otto Frank related in 1959 that Anne asked Jo Kleiman to send the story Blurry the Explorer, among others, under the name of his daughter Corrie (a pseudonym for Jopie Kleiman). But Kleiman thought this was too dangerous. [4]
\r\n\r\nAfter Otto Frank retrieved his daughter's writings, he first had the short stories written out and translated to send to his family in autumn 1945. The first story is: Blurry, der Weltentdekker [sic], which is about a little bear.[5] Otto Frank wrote to his mother on 12 December 1945: 'Frl. Schütz wird Dir wohl eine Uebersetzung von Annes Märchen Eva's Traum senden, was sie mir im letzten Jahr zum Geburtstag gegeben hatte.'[6]
\r\n\r\nIn the little story Why? Otto Frank recognised the influence of the letter he had sent her when she was 10 and which she had pasted in her diary, through the text: 'It will be a support to me for life.'[7] According to Otto Frank, the little story Give! was childishly idealistic, but typical of Anne. Following the example of her mother and grandmother, she used the oft-used phrase: 'No one has yet become poor from giving.'[8] Otto Frank found the story A Maths Lesson telling about Anne's psychology.[9]
\r\n\r\nOn two occasions, Contact Publishers rejected the manuscript of the short stories.[10] Then Otto Frank tried in vain to interest other publishers.[11] Eventually, he and Contact came to an agreement. The publisher suggested editing the collection in such a way that Kaatje, judged to be less strong, would not be included. Moreover, the school memories were given a place in the back, mainly because of their importance for Anne's "psychology". In 1949. Contact nevertheless published Weet je nog? Verhalen en sprookjes ('Do You Remember? Fables and Short Stories').[12]
\r\nA wider selection of Anne's stories was also published by Contact in 1960: Tales from the House Behind[13] The publisher would have preferred a complete edition but understood that Otto Frank did not want the "weaker parts" published.[14]
Nog voor publicatie van Het Achterhuis benaderde Otto Frank verschillende uitgevers om Annes verhaaltjes uit te geven, die zij tijdens de onderduikperiode had geschreven.
\r\n\r\nAnne begon met het schrijven van deze verhaaltjes in de zomer van 1943:
\r\n\r\n'Een onderbreking in de Achterhuisschetsen. Ik ben een paar weken geleden begonnen om eens een verhaal te schrijven, iets dat helemaal verzonnen is en heb daar zo'n plezier aan gekregen dat m'n pennekinderen zich opstapelen.[1] De verhaaltjes zijn opgetekend in het dagboek, op de losse vellen en in een gekartonneerd schrift: Verhaaltjes, en gebeurtenissen uit het Achterhuis beschreven door Anne Frank. Ingewijd Donderdag 2 september 1943.'[2]\r\n\r\n
Tijdens de onderduik kreeg Anne het idee om ze uit te geven: 'Liefste Kitty, (…) Ik wil bij de "Prins" aanvragen of ze een sprookje van me plaatsen, natuurlijk onder een pseudoniem, maar daar mijn sprookjes tot nu toe nog te lang zijn, denk ik niet dat ik veel kans op slagen heb.'[3] Otto Frank vertelde hierover in 1959 dat Anne aan Jo Kleiman vroeg om onder andere het verhaaltje Blurry op te sturen onder de naam van zijn dochter Corrie (= pseudoniem voor Jopie Kleiman). Maar Kleiman vond dit te gevaarlijk.[4]
\r\n\r\nNadat Otto Frank de geschriften van zijn dochter kreeg, liet hij najaar 1945 eerst de verhaaltjes uitschrijven en vertalen om aan zijn familie te sturen. Het eerste verhaaltje is: Blurry, der Weltentdekker [sic], dat gaat over een beertje.[5] Otto Frank schreef aan zijn moeder op 12 december 1945: 'Frl. Schütz wird Dir wohl eine Uebersetzung von Annes Märchen Eva’s Traum senden, was sie mir im letzten Jahr zum Geburtstag gegeben hatte.'[6]
\r\n\r\nIn het verhaaltje Waarom? herkende Otto Frank de invloed van de brief die hij haar op haar tiende had gestuurd en die zij in haar dagboek had geplakt, door de tekst: 'Het zal me een steun voor het leven zijn.'[7] Het verhaaltje Geef! was volgens Otto Frank kinderlijk idealistisch, maar wel typisch Anne. In navolging van haar moeder en grootmoeder gebruikte ze het veel gebezigde zinnetje: 'Niemand is nog van geven arm geworden.'[8] Het verhaal Een Wiskunde-les vond Otto Frank veelzeggend over de psychologie van Anne.[9]
\r\n\r\nTot tweemaal toe wees Uitgeverij Contact het manuscript van de verhaaltjes af.[10] Vervolgens probeerde Otto Frank tevergeefs andere uitgeverijen te interesseren.[11] Uiteindelijk werden hij en Contact het toch eens. De uitgeverij stelde voor de bundel zodanig te redigeren dat Kaatje, beoordeeld als minder sterk, er niet in kwam. Bovendien kregen de schoolherinneringen een plaats achterin, vooral vanwege hun belang voor de "psychologie" van Anne. Zo verscheen in 1949 Weet je nog? Verhalen en sprookjes toch bij Contact.[12]
\r\nIn 1960 verscheen bij Contact ook nog een ruimere selectie van Anne’s verhaaltjes: Verhalen rondom het Achterhuis.[13] De uitgever wilde het liefst een integrale uitgave maar begreep dat Otto Frank de "zwakkere gedeelten" niet gepubliceerd wilde zien.[14]
Even before the publication of Het Achterhuis 'The Secret Annex', Otto Frank approached several publishers to publish Anne's short stories, which she had written while in hiding.
\r\n\r\nAnne started writing these stories in the summer of 1943:
\r\n\r\n'A break in the Secret Annex sketches. A few weeks ago I started writing a story, something I made up from beginning to end, and I've enjoyed it so much that the products of my pen are piling up.[1] The short stories are recorded in the diary, on loose sheets and in a cardboard notebook: Short stories, and events from the Secret Annex described by Anne Frank. Dedicated Thursday 2 September 1943.'[2]\r\n\r\n
Anne got the idea to publish them during the period in hiding: 'Dear Kitty, (…) I want to ask the magazine The Prince if they'll take one of my fairy tales, under a pseudonym of course. But up to now all my fairy tales have been too long, so I don't think I have much of a chance'.[3] Otto Frank related in 1959 that Anne asked Jo Kleiman to send the story Blurry the Explorer, among others, under the name of his daughter Corrie (a pseudonym for Jopie Kleiman). But Kleiman thought this was too dangerous. [4]
\r\n\r\nAfter Otto Frank retrieved his daughter's writings, he first had the short stories written out and translated to send to his family in autumn 1945. The first story is: Blurry, der Weltentdekker [sic], which is about a little bear.[5] Otto Frank wrote to his mother on 12 December 1945: 'Frl. Schütz wird Dir wohl eine Uebersetzung von Annes Märchen Eva's Traum senden, was sie mir im letzten Jahr zum Geburtstag gegeben hatte.'[6]
\r\n\r\nIn the little story Why? Otto Frank recognised the influence of the letter he had sent her when she was 10 and which she had pasted in her diary, through the text: 'It will be a support to me for life.'[7] According to Otto Frank, the little story Give! was childishly idealistic, but typical of Anne. Following the example of her mother and grandmother, she used the oft-used phrase: 'No one has yet become poor from giving.'[8] Otto Frank found the story A Maths Lesson telling about Anne's psychology.[9]
\r\n\r\nOn two occasions, Contact Publishers rejected the manuscript of the short stories.[10] Then Otto Frank tried in vain to interest other publishers.[11] Eventually, he and Contact came to an agreement. The publisher suggested editing the collection in such a way that Kaatje, judged to be less strong, would not be included. Moreover, the school memories were given a place in the back, mainly because of their importance for Anne's "psychology". In 1949. Contact nevertheless published Weet je nog? Verhalen en sprookjes ('Do You Remember? Fables and Short Stories').[12]
\r\nA wider selection of Anne's stories was also published by Contact in 1960: Tales from the House Behind[13] The publisher would have preferred a complete edition but understood that Otto Frank did not want the "weaker parts" published.[14]
Otto Frank also wanted a German and English translation of the diary.[1] As with the Dutch edition, he had to go to great lengths to interest foreign publishers. Only after the success of the French edition did this change. Otto Frank was closely involved in the translations and also in choosing the writers of the foreword.
\r\n\r\nCalmann-Lévy published Le Journal d'Anne Frank, the first foreign edition of the diary, in March 1950. This translation was based on the first edition of Het Achterhuis published by Contact and had a foreword by Daniel-Rops.[2] Otto Frank wrote to Gilles de Neve of Contact on 27 January 1949 that Calmann-Lévy had the manuscript. On 7 March 1949, Otto Frank signed the contract with Editions Calmann-Lévy.[3] Within 18 months of signing, Calmann-Lévy had to publish the book, otherwise the rights would return to Otto Frank. On 11 March 1950, the French edition had still not been published.[4] On 26 May 1950, De Neve thanked Otto Frank for sending him the French edition.[5] According to Otto Frank, this translation by Tylia Caren and Suzanne Lombard was so successful because, as a Dutch Frenchwoman, Tylia Caren had a perfect command of Dutch and Suzanne Lombard was well versed in the language of French youth.[6] This first French edition of the diary impressed Meyer Levin. He then worked on the English translation and became interested in the film rights.[7] The success of the French edition meant that English and American publishers also became seriously interested.[8]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank first translated excerpts of the stories and diary into German himself for his family in Basel:
\r\n\r\n'Endlich komme ich dazu, den Anfang von Anne’s Tagebuch in deutscher Uebersetzung zu senden und hoff, dass ich bald die Fortsetzung schicken kann. Da ich nur wenige exemplare habe muss das vorliegende weiter gegeben werden und ich füge eine Liste bei, wie ich mir den Weg denke. Es ist schwer, alles sinn- und stilgemäss in eine andere Sprache zu übertragen, viel vom original geht verloren. Das ist nicht zu vermeiden und ich bitte jeden von Euch, evtl. Unklarheiten oder Sprachfehler zu notieren und mir mit zuteilen.'[9]\r\n\r\n
In the winter of 1945 - 1946, commissioned by Otto Frank, Anneliese Schütz began translating the diary into German. She did this on the basis of typescript II.[10] By summer 1947, the manuscript was at Paul Szolnay Verlag in Vienna.[11] Otto Frank was in contact with Dr Fritz Landshoff, the director of the German-language department of Querido publishers, about publishing the diary. At the end of 1948, this came to nothing.[12] Otto Frank approached several German publishers from late 1948 to 1950 including: Verlag Kurt Desch (Munich); Volk und Welt (Berlin); Rowohlt (Hamburg); Kiepenheuer Verlag (Berlin); Europa Express (Zurich); Limes Verlag (Wiesbaden); Societäts Verlag (Frankfurt) and an unnamed publisher in Koblenz.[13]
\r\n\r\nIn searching for a publisher, he enlisted the help of the lawyer Max Cahn, a former classmate at the Lessing Grammar School and also his legal adviser E.D. Hirsch Ballin. Max Cahn in turn also enlisted the help of an old classmate, Walter Carstanjen, the chief editor of the Börssenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel. He sent Otto Frank a list of possible publishers.[14] One reason the German publishers rejected the diary was the crisis situation in the German book trade. As there had just been a money purge, no one dared to take a risk. Another reason was that the diary would not be literary enough and was therefore not suitable for the general German public.[15]
\r\n\r\nOn 20 January 1950, Otto Frank met Lambert Schneider of the publishing house of the same name and gave him the German manuscript of the diary.[16] On 22 March 1950, Schneider responded positively and the contract was signed on 25/28 July 1950.[17] Otto Frank was closely involved in the final translation and publication of the diary.[18] Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank appeared in November 1950 in an edition of 4,600 copies. The foreword was by Marie Baum. Previous candidates for the foreword were Herman Hesse (too ill) and Eugen Kogon.[19] Sales figures were relatively low.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank thought a wide distribution of the diary among German youth was very important. In his opinion, this was only possible with a cheaper edition.[21] In March 1955, the paperback edition of the Tagebuch der Anne Frank was published (under licence from the Lambert Schneider Verlag) by the Fischer Bücherei (Frankfurt am Main und Hamburg) in an edition of 50,000 copies.[22] The German translation by Anneliese Schütz had been revised by Maria Honeit, who corrected many errors and made the language use more 'natural'.[23] Within a month, 30,000 copies were sold.[24]
\r\n\r\nBecause the German-language editions were based on a fuller version of Typescript II than the first Dutch edition of Contact, questions were raised not only about the person Anne Frank but also about the authenticity of the diary.[25] Ernst Schnabel was therefore commissioned by the Fischer Bücherei to investigate the historicity of the character Anne Frank, which resulted in the book Spur eines Kindes. [26] The proceeds were earmarked for the Anne Frank Stipend, which aimed to give Israeli students the opportunity to study in Europe.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank also attached great importance to a cheap edition in East Germany. In 1957, Union Verlag published the diary there. [27]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank had an English translation of the diary by Rosey Pool very early on. She, like Anneliese Schütz, was an acquaintance of Otto Frank and his family. With this translation, Otto approached English publishers. Rosey Pool began her translation at about the same time as Anneliese Schütz.[9] Pool had taught English to Edith Frank.[28] Literary agent Robert Harben approached Otto Frank about publishing the diary in England, but several English publishers turned it down, including: Heineman Ltd, Gollancz; Allen & Unwin; New Universal Encyclopedia; Falcon Press; Hamish Hamilton; Martin Secker.[29] According to Harben, because the publishers and the public were averse to more books on war and resistance. [30]
\r\n
\r\nIn the United States, Otto Frank was also in contact with several publishers: Secker & Warburg, Gollanz, Heineman, Allen & Unwin, Mc Millan, Scribners, Siggewick & Jackson, Doubleday Doran, Hutchinson, John Lehman, Viking Press, Vanguard Press, Warendorf, Simon & Shuster, Appleton Century, Knopf, Schocken, Random House, Little Brown & Company.[31] Due to the success of the French edition of the diary, the English publisher Vallentine Mitchell & Company offered to publish the diary.[32]
Because Rosey Pool's translation was not satisfactory, Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday was commissioned by Vallentine Mitchell to retranslate the diary.[33] Otto Frank kept in close contact with her about the translation and also had her translate some passages that were missing from the Dutch edition.[34] The Diary of a Young Girl, with a foreword by writer Margaret Storm Jameson, was released in England on 30 April 1952. Reviews were good, but sales were disappointing.[35]
\r\n
\r\nLengthy negotiations between Otto Frank and Little, Brown and Company for the American edition of the diary stranded in March 1951 due to disagreements over the translation, Canadian rights and film rights to the diary.[36] Then Otto Frank quickly reached an agreement with US publisher Doubleday and Company.[36] Through the mediation of Nathan Straus Jr., the foreword was written by Eleanor Roosevelt.[37] The diary was published in the United States on 12 June 1952 (Anne's birthday). After a wildly enthusiastic review by Meyer Levin in The New York Times Book Review of 15 June 1952, the diary ranked sixth on the bestseller list in the United States five weeks after its publication.[38]
Otto Frank wilde ook een Duitse en Engelse vertaling van het dagboek.[1] Net als bij de Nederlandse uitgave moest hij veel moeite doen om buitenlandse uitgevers te interesseren. Pas na het succes van de Franse uitgave veranderde dat. Otto Frank was nauw betrokken bij de vertalingen en ook bij de keuze voor de schrijvers van het voorwoord.
\r\n\r\nBij Calmann-Lévy verscheen in maart 1950 Le Journal d’Anne Frank, de eerste buitenlandse uitgave van het dagboek. Deze vertaling was gebaseerd op de eerste uitgave van Het Achterhuis bij Contact en had een voorwoord van Daniel-Rops.[2] Otto Frank schreef op 27 januari 1949 aan Gilles de Neve van Contact dat Calmann-Lévy het manuscript in handen had. Op 7 maart 1949 ondertekende Otto Frank het contract met Editions Calmann-Lévy.[3] Binnen achttien maanden na ondertekening zou Calmann-Lévy het boek uitgeven, anders vielen de rechten terug aan Otto Frank. Op 11 maart 1950 was de Franse editie nog steeds niet verschenen.[4] Op 26 mei 1950 bedankte de Neve Otto Frank voor toezending van de Franse uitgave.[5] Volgens Otto Frank was deze vertaling door Tylia Caren en Suzanne Lombard zo geslaagd omdat Tylia Caren als Nederlandse française het Nederlands perfect beheerste en Suzanne Lombard de taal van de Franse jeugd goed eigen was.[6] Deze eerste Franse editie van het dagboek maakte indruk op Meyer Levin. Hij beijverde zich vervolgens voor de Engelse vertaling en raakte geïnteresseerd in de filmrechten.[7] Het succes van de Franse uitgave zorgde ervoor dat ook Engelse en Amerikaanse uitgevers serieus geïnteresseerd raakten.[8]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank vertaalde eerst zelf fragmenten van de verhaaltjes en het dagboek in het Duits voor zijn familie in Bazel:
\r\n\r\n'Endlich komme ich dazu, den Anfang von Anne’s Tagebuch in deutscher Uebersetzung zu senden und hoff, dass ich bald die Fortsetzung schicken kann. Da ich nur wenige exemplare habe muss das vorliegende weiter gegeben werden und ich füge eine Liste bei, wie ich mir den Weg denke. Es ist schwer, alles sinn- und stilgemäss in eine andere Sprache zu übertragen, viel vom original geht verloren. Das ist nicht zu vermeiden und ich bitte jeden von Euch, evtl. Unklarheiten oder Sprachfehler zu notieren und mir mit zuteilen.'[9]\r\n\r\n
In de winter van 1945 – 1946 begon Anneliese Schütz, in opdracht van Otto Frank met de vertaling van het dagboek in het Duits. Zij deed dit op basis van typescript II.[10] Zomer 1947 lag het manuscript bij Paul Szolnay Verlag in Wenen.[11] Otto Frank had contact met Dr. Fritz Landshoff, de directeur van de Duitstalige afdeling van uitgeverij Querido over de uitgave van het dagboek. Eind 1948 liep dit op niets uit.[12] Otto Frank benaderde verschillende Duitse uitgevers van eind 1948 tot 1950 waaronder: Verlag Kurt Desch (München); Volk und Welt (Berlijn); Rowohlt (Hamburg); Kiepenheuer Verlag (Berlijn); Europa Express (Zürich); Limes Verlag (Wiesbaden); Societäts Verlag (Frankfurt) en een niet nader genoemde uitgeverij in Koblenz.[13]
\r\n\r\nBij het zoeken naar een uitgever schakelde hij de hulp in van de advocaat Max Cahn, een vroegere klasgenoot van het Lessing Gymnasium en ook van zijn juridisch adviseur E.D. Hirsch Ballin. Max Cahn schakelde op zijn beurt ook een oude klasgenoot in, Walter Carstanjen, de chef-redacteur van het Börssenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel. Hij stuurde Otto Frank een lijst toe met mogelijke uitgevers.[14] Een reden waarom de Duitse uitgevers het dagboek afwezen was de crisissituatie in de Duitse boekhandel. Omdat er net een geldzuivering was geweest, durfde niemand risico te nemen. Een andere reden was dat het dagboek niet literair genoeg zou zijn en daarom niet geschikt was voor het grote Duitse publiek.[15]
\r\n\r\nOp 20 januari 1950 ontmoette Otto Frank Lambert Schneider van de gelijknamige uitgeverij en gaf hem het Duitse manuscript van het dagboek.[16] Op 22 maart 1950 reageerde Schneider positief en op 25/28 juli 1950 werd het contract getekend.[17] Otto Frank was nauw betrokken bij de uiteindelijke vertaling en uitgave van het dagboek.[18] Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank verscheen in november 1950 in een oplage van 4.600 exemplaren. Het voorwoord was van Marie Baum. Eerdere kandidaten voor het voorwoord waren Herman Hesse (te ziek) en Eugen Kogon.[19] De verkoopcijfers waren relatief laag.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank vond een grote verspreiding van het dagboek onder de Duitse jeugd erg belangrijk. Dat was volgens hem alleen mogelijk bij een goedkopere uitgave.[21] In maart 1955 verscheen (in licentie van het Lambert Schneider Verlag) de pocketuitgave van het Tagebuch der Anne Frank bij de Fischer Bücherei (Frankfurt am Main und Hamburg) in een oplage van 50.000 exemplaren.[22] De Duitse vertaling van Anneliese Schütz was herzien door Maria Honeit die veel fouten verbeterde en het taalgebruik 'natuurlijker' maakte.[23]Binnen een maand werden 30 000 exemplaren verkocht.[24]
\r\n\r\nOmdat de Duitstalige uitgaven waren gebaseerd op een vollediger versie van Typescript II dan de eerste Nederlandse editie van Contact, werden er behalve over de persoon Anne Frank ook vragen gesteld over de authenticiteit van het dagboek.[25] Ernst Schnabel kreeg daarom opdracht van de Fischer Bücherei om de historiciteit van het personage Anne Frank te onderzoeken, wat resulteerde in het boek Spur eines Kindes. [26] De opbrengsten waren bestemd voor het Anne Frank Stipendium dat Israëlische studenten de gelegenheid moest geven in Europa te studeren.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank hechtte ook veel waarde aan een goedkope uitgave in Oost Duitsland. In 1957 verscheen daar het dagboek daar bij Union Verlag. [27]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank beschikte al vroeg over een Engelse vertaling van het dagboek door Rosey Pool. Zij was net als Anneliese Schütz een bekende van Otto Frank en zijn gezin. Met deze vertaling benaderde Otto Engelse uitgevers. Rosey Pool begon ongeveer tegelijk met Anneliese Schütz aan haar vertaling.[9] Pool had Engelse les gegeven aan Edith Frank.[28] Literair agent Robert Harben benaderde Otto Frank voor de uitgave van het dagboek in Engeland, maar verschillende Engelse uitgevers wezen het af, zoals: Heineman Ltd., Gollancz; Allen & Unwin; New Universal Encyclopedia; Falcon Press; Hamish Hamilton; Martin Secker.[29] Volgens Harben omdat de uitgevers en het publiek afkerig stonden tegenover nog meer boeken over oorlog en verzet. [30]
\r\n
\r\nIn de Verenigde Staten had Otto Frank ook contact met diverse uitgevers: Secker & Warburg, Gollanz, Heineman, Allen & Unwit, Mc Millan, Scribners, Siggewick & Jackson, Doubleday Doran, Hutchinson, John Lehman, Viking Press, Vanguard Press, Warendorf, Simon & Shuster, Appleton Century, Knopf, Schocken, Random House, Little Brown & Company.[31] Door het succes van de Franse uitgave van het dagboek bood de Engelse uitgever Vallentine Mitchell & Company zich aan het dagboek uit te geven.[32]
Omdat de vertaling van Rosey Pool niet voldeed, kreeg Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday de opdracht van Vallentine Mitchell het dagboek opnieuw te vertalen.[33] Otto Frank hield nauw contact met haar over de vertaling en liet haar ook een aantal passages vertalen die in de Nederlandse editie ontbraken.[34] The Diary of a young girl, met een voorwoord van schrijfster Margaret Storm Jameson, kwam in Engeland uit op 30 april 1952. De besprekingen waren goed, maar de verkoopcijfers stelden teleur.[35]
\r\n
\r\nLangdurige onderhandelingen van Otto Frank met Little, Brown and Company over de Amerikaanse uitgave van het dagboek strandden maart 1951 door onenigheid over de vertaling, de Canadese rechten en de filmrechten van het dagboek.[36] Daarna werd Otto Frank het snel eens met de Amerikaanse uitgeverij Doubleday and Company.[36] Door bemiddeling van Nathan Straus Jr. werd het voorwoord geschreven door Eleanor Roosevelt.[37] Het dagboek verscheen op 12 juni 1952 (Annes geboortedag) in de Verenigde Staten. Na een laaiend enthousiaste recensie van Meyer Levin in The New York Times Book Review van 15 juni 1952 stond het dagboek vijf weken na verschijnen op de zesde plaats van de bestsellerlijst in de Verenigde staten.[38]
Otto Frank also wanted a German and English translation of the diary.[1] As with the Dutch edition, he had to go to great lengths to interest foreign publishers. Only after the success of the French edition did this change. Otto Frank was closely involved in the translations and also in choosing the writers of the foreword.
\r\n\r\nCalmann-Lévy published Le Journal d'Anne Frank, the first foreign edition of the diary, in March 1950. This translation was based on the first edition of Het Achterhuis published by Contact and had a foreword by Daniel-Rops.[2] Otto Frank wrote to Gilles de Neve of Contact on 27 January 1949 that Calmann-Lévy had the manuscript. On 7 March 1949, Otto Frank signed the contract with Editions Calmann-Lévy.[3] Within 18 months of signing, Calmann-Lévy had to publish the book, otherwise the rights would return to Otto Frank. On 11 March 1950, the French edition had still not been published.[4] On 26 May 1950, De Neve thanked Otto Frank for sending him the French edition.[5] According to Otto Frank, this translation by Tylia Caren and Suzanne Lombard was so successful because, as a Dutch Frenchwoman, Tylia Caren had a perfect command of Dutch and Suzanne Lombard was well versed in the language of French youth.[6] This first French edition of the diary impressed Meyer Levin. He then worked on the English translation and became interested in the film rights.[7] The success of the French edition meant that English and American publishers also became seriously interested.[8]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank first translated excerpts of the stories and diary into German himself for his family in Basel:
\r\n\r\n'Endlich komme ich dazu, den Anfang von Anne’s Tagebuch in deutscher Uebersetzung zu senden und hoff, dass ich bald die Fortsetzung schicken kann. Da ich nur wenige exemplare habe muss das vorliegende weiter gegeben werden und ich füge eine Liste bei, wie ich mir den Weg denke. Es ist schwer, alles sinn- und stilgemäss in eine andere Sprache zu übertragen, viel vom original geht verloren. Das ist nicht zu vermeiden und ich bitte jeden von Euch, evtl. Unklarheiten oder Sprachfehler zu notieren und mir mit zuteilen.'[9]\r\n\r\n
In the winter of 1945 - 1946, commissioned by Otto Frank, Anneliese Schütz began translating the diary into German. She did this on the basis of typescript II.[10] By summer 1947, the manuscript was at Paul Szolnay Verlag in Vienna.[11] Otto Frank was in contact with Dr Fritz Landshoff, the director of the German-language department of Querido publishers, about publishing the diary. At the end of 1948, this came to nothing.[12] Otto Frank approached several German publishers from late 1948 to 1950 including: Verlag Kurt Desch (Munich); Volk und Welt (Berlin); Rowohlt (Hamburg); Kiepenheuer Verlag (Berlin); Europa Express (Zurich); Limes Verlag (Wiesbaden); Societäts Verlag (Frankfurt) and an unnamed publisher in Koblenz.[13]
\r\n\r\nIn searching for a publisher, he enlisted the help of the lawyer Max Cahn, a former classmate at the Lessing Grammar School and also his legal adviser E.D. Hirsch Ballin. Max Cahn in turn also enlisted the help of an old classmate, Walter Carstanjen, the chief editor of the Börssenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel. He sent Otto Frank a list of possible publishers.[14] One reason the German publishers rejected the diary was the crisis situation in the German book trade. As there had just been a money purge, no one dared to take a risk. Another reason was that the diary would not be literary enough and was therefore not suitable for the general German public.[15]
\r\n\r\nOn 20 January 1950, Otto Frank met Lambert Schneider of the publishing house of the same name and gave him the German manuscript of the diary.[16] On 22 March 1950, Schneider responded positively and the contract was signed on 25/28 July 1950.[17] Otto Frank was closely involved in the final translation and publication of the diary.[18] Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank appeared in November 1950 in an edition of 4,600 copies. The foreword was by Marie Baum. Previous candidates for the foreword were Herman Hesse (too ill) and Eugen Kogon.[19] Sales figures were relatively low.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank thought a wide distribution of the diary among German youth was very important. In his opinion, this was only possible with a cheaper edition.[21] In March 1955, the paperback edition of the Tagebuch der Anne Frank was published (under licence from the Lambert Schneider Verlag) by the Fischer Bücherei (Frankfurt am Main und Hamburg) in an edition of 50,000 copies.[22] The German translation by Anneliese Schütz had been revised by Maria Honeit, who corrected many errors and made the language use more 'natural'.[23] Within a month, 30,000 copies were sold.[24]
\r\n\r\nBecause the German-language editions were based on a fuller version of Typescript II than the first Dutch edition of Contact, questions were raised not only about the person Anne Frank but also about the authenticity of the diary.[25] Ernst Schnabel was therefore commissioned by the Fischer Bücherei to investigate the historicity of the character Anne Frank, which resulted in the book Spur eines Kindes. [26] The proceeds were earmarked for the Anne Frank Stipend, which aimed to give Israeli students the opportunity to study in Europe.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank also attached great importance to a cheap edition in East Germany. In 1957, Union Verlag published the diary there. [27]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank had an English translation of the diary by Rosey Pool very early on. She, like Anneliese Schütz, was an acquaintance of Otto Frank and his family. With this translation, Otto approached English publishers. Rosey Pool began her translation at about the same time as Anneliese Schütz.[9] Pool had taught English to Edith Frank.[28] Literary agent Robert Harben approached Otto Frank about publishing the diary in England, but several English publishers turned it down, including: Heineman Ltd, Gollancz; Allen & Unwin; New Universal Encyclopedia; Falcon Press; Hamish Hamilton; Martin Secker.[29] According to Harben, because the publishers and the public were averse to more books on war and resistance. [30]
\r\n
\r\nIn the United States, Otto Frank was also in contact with several publishers: Secker & Warburg, Gollanz, Heineman, Allen & Unwin, Mc Millan, Scribners, Siggewick & Jackson, Doubleday Doran, Hutchinson, John Lehman, Viking Press, Vanguard Press, Warendorf, Simon & Shuster, Appleton Century, Knopf, Schocken, Random House, Little Brown & Company.[31] Due to the success of the French edition of the diary, the English publisher Vallentine Mitchell & Company offered to publish the diary.[32]
Because Rosey Pool's translation was not satisfactory, Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday was commissioned by Vallentine Mitchell to retranslate the diary.[33] Otto Frank kept in close contact with her about the translation and also had her translate some passages that were missing from the Dutch edition.[34] The Diary of a Young Girl, with a foreword by writer Margaret Storm Jameson, was released in England on 30 April 1952. Reviews were good, but sales were disappointing.[35]
\r\n
\r\nLengthy negotiations between Otto Frank and Little, Brown and Company for the American edition of the diary stranded in March 1951 due to disagreements over the translation, Canadian rights and film rights to the diary.[36] Then Otto Frank quickly reached an agreement with US publisher Doubleday and Company.[36] Through the mediation of Nathan Straus Jr., the foreword was written by Eleanor Roosevelt.[37] The diary was published in the United States on 12 June 1952 (Anne's birthday). After a wildly enthusiastic review by Meyer Levin in The New York Times Book Review of 15 June 1952, the diary ranked sixth on the bestseller list in the United States five weeks after its publication.[38]
Anne's diaries were retyped in parts by Otto Frank himself to give to his friends to read, and to be translated for his family in Switzerland. When the idea of publishing the diary took hold, the typescripts were created, eventually resulting in the publication of the first edition on 25 June 1947.[1]
\r\n
\r\nOn 22 August 1945, Otto Frank writes to his mother: ' (...) Miep hat zufällig eine Alben [sic] retten können und auch Anne's Tagebucher. Ich habe jedoch noch nicht die Kraft darin zu lesen.'[2] Soon, however, he became engrossed in the diary as evidenced by a letter dated 26 September 1945 to his sister Leni: 'Was ich da lese ist unbeschreiblich aufregend u. doch lese ich. Ich kann es euch nicht schildern, ich bin auch nicht fertig mit Lesen und will alles erst durchgelesen haben, bevor ich Auszüge oder übersetzungen mache.' [3]
In November 1945, Otto Frank read from the manuscripts to friends who encouraged him to publish.[4] He first had the stories typed out, which he then had translated into German by Anneliese Schütz.[5] He did not want to keep passing around the fables and short stories, and did not want to pass around the diaries at all. [6]
\r\n
\r\nBy mid-November 1945, he had not finished copying the diaries and he was not quite sure what to do with some passages, for example about his marriage to Edith: ' (...) it is a disagreeable feeling to publish things against her mother- and I have to do it. (…) It keeps my brains busy every day.' [7] This first typescript created by Otto Frank has not survived.[8]
\r\n
\r\nOtto Frank sent diary excerpts translated into German to relatives in Switzerland. [9]
In the Otto Frank Archive there are two complete typescripts that have been referred to as Typescript I and II since the research for the scholarly edition.[10] Typescript I was compiled by Otto Frank on the basis of the loose sheets supplemented with fragments from diary A1, A2 and A3 (see the Manuscript entry). Some passages he deliberately left out: 'There are passages I can scrap f.i [for instance] what she thought about my marriage, her view on politics.'[7]
\r\n
\r\nIn Typescript I, linguistic and stylistic changes were made. As a result, Typescript II was created. Typescript II is the modified version of Typescript I and it was typed out by Isa Cauvern.[8] Annie and Jan Romein saw this second version.[8] Publisher Contact used Typescript II as the starting point for the first edition of the diary.[11] Typescript II was also the basis of the German translation by Anneliese Schütz.[12]
Annes dagboeken werden door Otto Frank zelf in delen overgetypt om aan zijn vrienden te laten lezen en om te laten vertalen voor zijn familie in Zwitserland. Toen het idee om het dagboek uit te geven postvatte, ontstonden de typescripts die uiteindelijk resulteerden in de publicatie van de eerste editie op 25 juni 1947.[1]
\r\n
\r\nOp 22 augustus 1945 schrijft Otto Frank aan zijn moeder: '(…) Miep hat zufällig eine Alben [sic] retten können und auch Anne’s Tagebucher. Ich habe jedoch noch nicht die Kraft darin zu lesen.'[2] Al gauw raakte hij echter in de greep van het dagboek zoals blijkt uit een brief van 26 september 1945 aan zijn zus Leni: 'Was ich da lese ist unbeschreiblich aufregend u. doch lese ich. Ich kann es euch nicht schildern, ich bin auch nicht fertig mit Lesen und will alles erst durchgelesen haben, bevor ich Auszüge oder übersetzungen mache.' [3]
In november 1945 las Otto Frank voor uit de manuscripten aan vrienden die hem aanmoedigden tot publiceren.[4] Hij liet eerst de verhaaltjes uittypen, die hij vervolgens door Anneliese Schütz in het Duits liet vertalen.[5] De verhaaltjes wilde hij niet steeds uit handen geven, de dagboeken helemaal niet. [6]
\r\n
\r\nHalverwege november 1945 was hij nog niet klaar met het kopiëren van de dagboeken en hij wist niet goed wat hij met sommige passages, bijvoorbeeld over zijn huwelijk met Edith, aan moest: '(…) it is a disagreeable feeling to publish things against her mother- and I have to do it. (…) It keeps my brains busy every day.' [7] Dit eerste, door Otto Frank gemaakte typescript is niet bewaard gebleven.[8]
\r\n
\r\nOtto Frank stuurde in het Duits vertaalde dagboekfragmenten naar familie in Zwitserland. [9]
In het Otto Frank Archief bevinden zich twee complete typescripts die sinds het onderzoek voor de wetenschappelijke uitgave Typescript I en II worden genoemd.[10] Typescript I stelde Otto Frank samen op basis van de losse vellen aangevuld met fragmenten uit dagboek A1, A2 en A3 (zie lemma manuscript). Een aantal passages liet hij bewust weg: 'There are passages I can scrap f.i [for instance] what she thought about my marriage, her view on politics.'[7]
\r\n
\r\nIn Typescript I werden taalkundige en stilistische veranderingen aangebracht. Hierdoor ontstond Typescript II. Typescript II is de aangepaste versie van Typescript I en het werd door Isa Cauvern uitgetypt.[8] Annie en Jan Romein kregen deze tweede versie onder ogen.[8] Uitgeverij Contact gebruikte Typescript II als uitgangspunt voor de eerste editie van het dagboek.[11] Typescript II was ook de basis van de Duitse vertaling door Anneliese Schütz.[12]
Anne's diaries were retyped in parts by Otto Frank himself to give to his friends to read, and to be translated for his family in Switzerland. When the idea of publishing the diary took hold, the typescripts were created, eventually resulting in the publication of the first edition on 25 June 1947.[1]
\r\n
\r\nOn 22 August 1945, Otto Frank writes to his mother: ' (...) Miep hat zufällig eine Alben [sic] retten können und auch Anne's Tagebucher. Ich habe jedoch noch nicht die Kraft darin zu lesen.'[2] Soon, however, he became engrossed in the diary as evidenced by a letter dated 26 September 1945 to his sister Leni: 'Was ich da lese ist unbeschreiblich aufregend u. doch lese ich. Ich kann es euch nicht schildern, ich bin auch nicht fertig mit Lesen und will alles erst durchgelesen haben, bevor ich Auszüge oder übersetzungen mache.' [3]
In November 1945, Otto Frank read from the manuscripts to friends who encouraged him to publish.[4] He first had the stories typed out, which he then had translated into German by Anneliese Schütz.[5] He did not want to keep passing around the fables and short stories, and did not want to pass around the diaries at all. [6]
\r\n
\r\nBy mid-November 1945, he had not finished copying the diaries and he was not quite sure what to do with some passages, for example about his marriage to Edith: ' (...) it is a disagreeable feeling to publish things against her mother- and I have to do it. (…) It keeps my brains busy every day.' [7] This first typescript created by Otto Frank has not survived.[8]
\r\n
\r\nOtto Frank sent diary excerpts translated into German to relatives in Switzerland. [9]
In the Otto Frank Archive there are two complete typescripts that have been referred to as Typescript I and II since the research for the scholarly edition.[10] Typescript I was compiled by Otto Frank on the basis of the loose sheets supplemented with fragments from diary A1, A2 and A3 (see the Manuscript entry). Some passages he deliberately left out: 'There are passages I can scrap f.i [for instance] what she thought about my marriage, her view on politics.'[7]
\r\n
\r\nIn Typescript I, linguistic and stylistic changes were made. As a result, Typescript II was created. Typescript II is the modified version of Typescript I and it was typed out by Isa Cauvern.[8] Annie and Jan Romein saw this second version.[8] Publisher Contact used Typescript II as the starting point for the first edition of the diary.[11] Typescript II was also the basis of the German translation by Anneliese Schütz.[12]
In 1933, Contact publishers was founded by Gilles Pieter de Neve. Contact was a distinctly left-wing publishing house during the 1930s, with publications such as We Slaves of Suriname by the anti-colonial writer Anton de Kom.[1] Contact saw it as its mission to warn of the dangers of national socialism and also published many anti-fascist works at the time, such as a critical biography by the historian Konrad Heiden[2] on Adolf Hitler.[3]
\r\n\r\nAfter Nazi Germany invaded the Netherlands, Contact therefore destroyed some print runs as a precaution. Thirty-eight publications of the publishing house were banned during the occupation. Despite its earlier anti-fascist stance, the business was not banned or taken over. Contact took a pragmatic stance during the war and published works that were considered "safe". The proceeds were partly used to finance writers who did not join the Nederlandse Kultuurkamer. This institution was set up in the Netherlands by the occupying forces on 22 January 1941 to control and censor the press and the art world.[4] Artists, journalists and writers had to join the Nederlandse Kultuurkamer to be allowed to publish. Contact's financial support allowed some writers to secretly work on books outside the restrictions of the Nederlandse Kultuurkamer, which Contact could then publish after the war.[5]
\r\n\r\nOn 3 April 1946, the front page of Het Parool featured the article 'Kinderstem' by Jan Romein, in which he wrote about Anne Frank's diary. Otto Frank had taken his daughter's book to several publishers, but was repeatedly turned down. After the publication in Het Parool, Contact publishers approached him and they started an exchange of letters about a contract.[6]
\r\n\r\nContact was keen to publish Het Achterhuis ('The Secret Annex') in the Proloog series. This was a book series linked to the literary magazine Proloog, founded in 1945. It was to be a series of books by young authors. Initially, Otto Frank was not in favour of this. This was because the books in this series had a limit of 240 pages and were not illustrated. These objections were met by the publisher. The first edition of the diary was allowed more pages and included some photos and a map of the secret annex. In addition, Otto was keen to have it recorded that once the first edition was sold out there would be a reprint within six months and that the film and translation rights remained with him. These wishes were granted as well before Otto signed the contract.[7]
\r\n\r\nThe basis for the first edition was the typescript II compiled by Otto Frank. In it, he had deliberately left out a number of passages. These included excerpts in which Anne was critical of her parents' marriage. Contact publishers edited this text and also removed some passages in consultation with Otto. However, there is uncertainty about who exactly made which changes. According to Chris Blom, co-director of Contact, Gilles Pieter de Neve allegedly removed Anne's comments on sexuality and menstruation at Otto Frank's request.[8] In a letter to Chris Blom, Otto wrote that the publisher wished to delete these passages.[9]
\r\n\r\nThe first edition of Het Achterhuis appeared on 25 June 1947 in an edition of 3,036 copies that were sold out with the publisher by early July 1947. The second edition appeared in December 1947 in an edition of 6,830 copies, followed by a third edition in Februari 1948 of 10.500 copies. Two years later in 1949, Contact also published the book Weet je nog? Verhalen en sprookjes ('Do You Remember? Fables and Short Stories'), a collection of eight short stories and fairy tales written by Anne Frank. In 1960, Contact also published a wider selection of Anne's stories: Verhalen rondom het Achterhuis.[10]
\r\n\r\nIn 1974, Contact was incorporated into Bert Bakker publishers. Contact's name was still used for a limited number of publications. Until 1984, Contact's logo still appeared on the cover of Het Achterhuis, but at the 67th edition this was changed to Bert Bakker's logo. Contact made an independent restart in 1985, but Bert Bakker continued to publish Het Achterhuis.[11]
\r\n\r\nIn 1993, Bert Bakker then became part of Prometheus publishers. Until 2010, Bert Bakker's logo appeared on the cover of Het Achterhuis. That year, with the 58th edition of the 1991 version revised by Mirjam Pressler, this was changed to Prometheus' logo.
\r\n\r\nContact publishers merged with a number of other publishing houses to form Atlas Contact in 2012.[12]
\r\n\r\nIn 1933 werd uitgeverij Contact opgericht door Gilles Pieter de Neve. Contact was gedurende de jaren dertig een uitgesproken linkse uitgeverij met publicaties als Wij slaven van Suriname van de antikoloniale schrijver Anton de Kom.[1] Contact zag het als missie om te waarschuwen voor de gevaren van het nationaalsocialisme en gaf in die tijd ook veel antifascistische werken uit, zoals een kritische biografie van de historicus Konrad Heiden[2] over Adolf Hitler.[3]
\r\n\r\nNa de inval van nazi-Duitsland in Nederland vernietigde Contact daarom uit voorzorg enkele oplagen. Van de uitgeverij werden er tijdens de bezetting achtendertig publicaties verboden verklaard. Ondanks de eerdere antifascistische opstelling, werd het bedrijf niet verboden of overgenomen. Contact nam tijdens de oorlog een pragmatische houding aan en publiceerde werken die als “veilig” werden beschouwd. De opbrengsten hiervan werden deels gebruikt om schrijvers te financieren die zich niet aansloten bij de Nederlandse Kultuurkamer. Dit instituut werd op 22 januari 1942 door de bezetter opgericht om de pers en de kunstwereld te controleren en te censureren.[4] Kunstenaars, journalisten en schrijvers moesten zich bij de Nederlandse Kultuurkamer aansluiten om te mogen publiceren. Dankzij de financiële steun van Contact konden enkele schrijvers buiten de Nederlandse Kultuurkamer om toch in het geheim aan boeken werken. Contact zou dan na de oorlog deze boeken kunnen publiceren.[5]
\r\n\r\nOp 3 april 1946 verscheen op de voorpagina van Het Parool het artikel 'Kinderstem' van Jan Romein, waarin hij schreef over het dagboek van Anne Frank. Otto Frank was met het boek van zijn dochter langs meerdere uitgevers geweest, maar werd steeds afgewezen. Na de publicatie in Het Parool benaderde uitgeverij Contact hem en er ontstond een briefwisseling over een contract.[6]
\r\n\r\nContact wilde Het Achterhuis graag publiceren in de Proloogreeks. Dit was een boekenserie die aansloot bij het in 1945 opgerichte literaire tijdschrift Proloog. Het moest een reeks boeken worden van jonge auteurs. Aanvankelijk was Otto Frank hier geen voorstander van. De boeken in deze reeks hadden namelijk een limiet van 240 bladzijden en waren niet geïllustreerd. Deze bezwaren werden door de uitgever tegemoetgekomen. De eerste editie van het dagboek mocht meer pagina’s bevatten en er werden enkele foto’s en een plattegrond van het achterhuis in opgenomen. Daarnaast wilde Otto graag vastgelegd hebben dat zodra de eerste uitgave was uitverkocht er binnen zes maanden een herdruk zou komen en dat de film- en vertaalrechten bij hem bleven. Ook deze wensen werden ingewilligd voordat Otto het contract ondertekende.[7]
\r\n\r\nDe basis voor de eerste uitgave was het door Otto Frank samengestelde typescript II. Hierin had hij een aantal passages bewust weggelaten. Dit waren onder andere fragmenten waarin Anne zich kritisch uitliet over het huwelijk van haar ouders. Uitgeverij Contact redigeerde deze tekst en verwijderde in overleg met Otto ook enkele passages. Er bestaat onduidelijkheid over wie precies welke aanpassingen heeft doorgevoerd. Volgens Chris Blom, mededirecteur van Contact, zou Gilles Pieter de Neve op verzoek van Otto Frank de opmerkingen van Anne over seksualiteit en menstruatie hebben verwijderd.[8] In een brief aan Chris Blom schreef Otto dat de uitgever de wens had deze passages te schrappen.[9]
\r\n\r\nDe eerste editie van Het Achterhuis verscheen op 25 juni 1947 in een oplage van 3.036 exemplaren die begin juli 1947 bij de uitgever waren uitverkocht. De tweede druk verscheen in december 1947 in een oplage van 6.830 exemplaren en in februari 1948 volgde een derde druk van 10.500 exemplaren. Twee jaar later in 1949 publiceerde Contact ook het boek Weet je nog? Verhalen en sprookjes, een bundel van acht korte verhaaltjes en sprookjes geschreven door Anne Frank. In 1960 verscheen bij Contact ook een ruimere selectie van Anne’s verhaaltjes: Verhalen rondom het Achterhuis.[10]
\r\n\r\nIn 1974 werd Contact ondergebracht bij uitgeverij Bert Bakker. De naam van Contact werd nog voor een beperkt aantal publicaties gebruikte. Tot 1984 stond het logo van Contact nog op de kaft van Het Achterhuis, maar bij de 67e druk werd dit veranderd in het logo van Bert Bakker. Contact maakte in 1985 een onafhankelijke doorstart, maar Bert Bakker bleef Het Achterhuis uitgeven.[11]
\r\n\r\nIn 1993 werd Bert Bakker vervolgens onderdeel van uitgeverij Prometheus. Tot 2010 stond het logo van Bert Bakker op de kaft van Het Achterhuis. In dat jaar werd dit bij de 58e druk van de door Mirjam Pressler herziene versie uit 1991 veranderd in het logo van Prometheus.
\r\n\r\nUitgeverij Contact fuseerde in 2012 met een aantal andere uitgeverijen tot Atlas Contact.[12]
\r\n\r\nIn 1933, Contact publishers was founded by Gilles Pieter de Neve. Contact was a distinctly left-wing publishing house during the 1930s, with publications such as We Slaves of Suriname by the anti-colonial writer Anton de Kom.[1] Contact saw it as its mission to warn of the dangers of national socialism and also published many anti-fascist works at the time, such as a critical biography by the historian Konrad Heiden[2] on Adolf Hitler.[3]
\r\n\r\nAfter Nazi Germany invaded the Netherlands, Contact therefore destroyed some print runs as a precaution. Thirty-eight publications of the publishing house were banned during the occupation. Despite its earlier anti-fascist stance, the business was not banned or taken over. Contact took a pragmatic stance during the war and published works that were considered "safe". The proceeds were partly used to finance writers who did not join the Nederlandse Kultuurkamer. This institution was set up in the Netherlands by the occupying forces on 22 January 1941 to control and censor the press and the art world.[4] Artists, journalists and writers had to join the Nederlandse Kultuurkamer to be allowed to publish. Contact's financial support allowed some writers to secretly work on books outside the restrictions of the Nederlandse Kultuurkamer, which Contact could then publish after the war.[5]
\r\n\r\nOn 3 April 1946, the front page of Het Parool featured the article 'Kinderstem' by Jan Romein, in which he wrote about Anne Frank's diary. Otto Frank had taken his daughter's book to several publishers, but was repeatedly turned down. After the publication in Het Parool, Contact publishers approached him and they started an exchange of letters about a contract.[6]
\r\n\r\nContact was keen to publish Het Achterhuis ('The Secret Annex') in the Proloog series. This was a book series linked to the literary magazine Proloog, founded in 1945. It was to be a series of books by young authors. Initially, Otto Frank was not in favour of this. This was because the books in this series had a limit of 240 pages and were not illustrated. These objections were met by the publisher. The first edition of the diary was allowed more pages and included some photos and a map of the secret annex. In addition, Otto was keen to have it recorded that once the first edition was sold out there would be a reprint within six months and that the film and translation rights remained with him. These wishes were granted as well before Otto signed the contract.[7]
\r\n\r\nThe basis for the first edition was the typescript II compiled by Otto Frank. In it, he had deliberately left out a number of passages. These included excerpts in which Anne was critical of her parents' marriage. Contact publishers edited this text and also removed some passages in consultation with Otto. However, there is uncertainty about who exactly made which changes. According to Chris Blom, co-director of Contact, Gilles Pieter de Neve allegedly removed Anne's comments on sexuality and menstruation at Otto Frank's request.[8] In a letter to Chris Blom, Otto wrote that the publisher wished to delete these passages.[9]
\r\n\r\nThe first edition of Het Achterhuis appeared on 25 June 1947 in an edition of 3,036 copies that were sold out with the publisher by early July 1947. The second edition appeared in December 1947 in an edition of 6,830 copies, followed by a third edition in Februari 1948 of 10.500 copies. Two years later in 1949, Contact also published the book Weet je nog? Verhalen en sprookjes ('Do You Remember? Fables and Short Stories'), a collection of eight short stories and fairy tales written by Anne Frank. In 1960, Contact also published a wider selection of Anne's stories: Verhalen rondom het Achterhuis.[10]
\r\n\r\nIn 1974, Contact was incorporated into Bert Bakker publishers. Contact's name was still used for a limited number of publications. Until 1984, Contact's logo still appeared on the cover of Het Achterhuis, but at the 67th edition this was changed to Bert Bakker's logo. Contact made an independent restart in 1985, but Bert Bakker continued to publish Het Achterhuis.[11]
\r\n\r\nIn 1993, Bert Bakker then became part of Prometheus publishers. Until 2010, Bert Bakker's logo appeared on the cover of Het Achterhuis. That year, with the 58th edition of the 1991 version revised by Mirjam Pressler, this was changed to Prometheus' logo.
\r\n\r\nContact publishers merged with a number of other publishing houses to form Atlas Contact in 2012.[12]
\r\n\r\nThe first edition of Het Achterhuis ('The Secret Annex') appeared on 25 June 1947 in publisher Contact's Proloog series.[1] Otto Frank notes on that date in his diary: "I Book".[2]
\r\n
\r\nIn late September 1945, Otto Frank made excerpts from the diary for friends and his family to read in translation.[3] This was because he felt there was too much in the original diary that was not intended for others.[4] Around November 1945, he decided to publish his daughter's diary anyway.[5] In retrospect, he said about this that friends had convinced him not to keep this document for himself.[6] But finding a publisher proved difficult.[7]
Otto Frank stated that his friend Werner Cahn (to whom he had read the original manuscript and who worked at Querido publishers) had taken typescript II to Annie Romein-Verschoor without his knowledge.[8] In his diary of 22 March 1946, Otto Frank noted: "Werner Cahn-(Romein)". [9]
\r\n\r\nAnnie Romein had the manuscript read by her husband, Jan Romein. He wrote the article Kinderstem (A Child's Voice) that appeared on the front page of Het Parool on 3 April 1946. After this, Contact Publishers wanted to publish the diary.[10] On 10 September 1946, Otto Frank sent the signed contract back to Contact Publishers. He had stipulated that he himself retained the translation and film rights and that if the diary sold out, the publisher undertook to prepare a new edition within six months.[11]
\r\n
\r\nThe basis for the edition was the typescript II compiled by Otto Frank. The publisher edited this text and removed passages related to sexuality. [12] The foreword was by Annie Romein-Verschoor and not, as initially planned, an adapted version of the Parool article Kinderstem.[13] Ab Cauvern later stated that he had written the epilogue and that Otto Frank had adapted it.[14] An advance copy of the diary appeared in De Nieuwe Stem.[15]
\r\n
\r\nThe first edition of the diary was published on 25 June 1947 in an edition of 3,036 copies, which were sold out with the publisher by early July 1947.
\r\n\r\n\r\n' Ja, Anne's Buch liegt täglich vor mir, täglich rufen Leute an, ich habe viel Korrespondenz und es halt mich mehr in Atem als das Geschäft. Es geht mir ja auch näher! (...) Der Verlag ist ausverkauft, in Geschäften ist auch schon viel Frage und in vielen die vorhandenen Exemplare weg, Nachlieferung kann ja nicht vorgenommen werden '.[16]
\r\n
The second edition, in December 1947, had a print run of 6,830.[17] A third edition of 10,500 copies followed in February 1948.
\r\n
\r\nThe Otto Frank Archive contains a list of names of the friends, acquaintances, politicians and dignitaries to whom Otto Frank sent a first edition of the diary.[18] He remained actively involved in publishing the diary even after the first edition was published.[19]
De eerste editie van Het Achterhuis verscheen op 25 juni 1947 in de Proloogreeks van uitgeverij Contact.[1] Otto Frank noteert op die datum in zijn agenda: I Boek.[2]
\r\n\r\nEind september 1945 maakte Otto Frank uittreksels van het dagboek om aan vrienden en zijn familie in vertaling te kunnen laten lezen.[3] Dit omdat hij vond dat er in het originele dagboek te veel stond wat niet voor anderen bestemd was.[4] Omstreeks november 1945 besloot hij het dagboek van zijn dochter toch te publiceren.[5] Achteraf zei hij hierover dat vrienden hem overtuigd hadden dat hij dit document niet voor zich zelf mocht houden.[6] Maar het bleek moeilijk om een uitgever te vinden.[7]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank verklaarde dat zijn vriend Werner Cahn (aan wie hij het oorspronkelijke manuscript had voorgelezen en die bij uitgeverij Querido werkte) buiten zijn medeweten typescript II naar Annie Romein-Verschoor had gebracht.[8] In zijn agenda van 22 maart 1946 noteerde Otto Frank: Werner Cahn-(Romein). [9]
\r\n\r\nAnnie Romein liet het manuscript lezen aan haar man, Jan Romein. Van zijn hand verscheen op de voorpagina van Het Parool van 3 april 1946 het artikel: Kinderstem. Hierna wil de Uitgeverij Contact het dagboek uitgeven.[10] Op 10 september 1946 stuurde Otto Frank het contract ondertekend terug naar Uitgeverij Contact. Hij had bedongen dat hij zelf de vertaal- en filmrechten behield en dat als het dagboek was uitverkocht de uitgever zich verplichtte na zes maanden een nieuwe uitgave voor te bereiden.[11]
\r\n\r\nDe basis voor de uitgave was het door Otto Frank samengestelde typescript II. De uitgever redigeerde deze tekst en verwijderde passages die met seksualiteit te maken hadden.[12] Het voorwoord was van Annie Romein-Verschoor en niet, zoals aanvankelijk het plan was, een aangepaste versie van het Parool-artikel Kinderstem.[13] Ab Cauvern heeft verklaard dat hij het slotwoord had geschreven en dat Otto Frank het had aangepast.[14] Er verscheen een voorpublicatie van het dagboek in De Nieuwe Stem.[15]
\r\n\r\nDe eerste druk van het dagboek verscheen op 25 juni 1947 in een oplage van 3.036 exemplaren die begin juli 1947 bij de uitgever waren uitverkocht.
\r\n\r\n'Ja, Anne’s Buch liegt täglich vor mir, täglich rufen Leute an, ich habe viel Korrespondenz und es halt mich mehr in Atem als das Geschäft. Es geht mir ja auch näher! (…) Der Verlag ist ausverkauft, in Geschäften ist auch schon viel Frage und in vielen die vorhandenen Exemplare weg, Nachlieferung kann ja nicht vorgenommen werden’.[16]\r\n\r\n
De tweede druk, in december 1947, had een oplage van 6.830.[17] In februari 1948 volgde een derde druk van 10.500 exemplaren.[1]
\r\n\r\nIn het Otto Frank Archief bevindt zich een namenlijst van de vrienden, bekenden, politici en hoogwaardigheidsbekleders aan wie Otto Frank een eerste druk van het dagboek toestuurde.[18] Hij bleef zich, ook na het verschijnen van de eerste editie, actief bezighouden met de uitgave van het dagboek.[19]
\r\n\r\nThe first edition of Het Achterhuis ('The Secret Annex') appeared on 25 June 1947 in publisher Contact's Proloog series.[1] Otto Frank notes on that date in his diary: "I Book".[2]
\r\n
\r\nIn late September 1945, Otto Frank made excerpts from the diary for friends and his family to read in translation.[3] This was because he felt there was too much in the original diary that was not intended for others.[4] Around November 1945, he decided to publish his daughter's diary anyway.[5] In retrospect, he said about this that friends had convinced him not to keep this document for himself.[6] But finding a publisher proved difficult.[7]
Otto Frank stated that his friend Werner Cahn (to whom he had read the original manuscript and who worked at Querido publishers) had taken typescript II to Annie Romein-Verschoor without his knowledge.[8] In his diary of 22 March 1946, Otto Frank noted: "Werner Cahn-(Romein)". [9]
\r\n\r\nAnnie Romein had the manuscript read by her husband, Jan Romein. He wrote the article Kinderstem (A Child's Voice) that appeared on the front page of Het Parool on 3 April 1946. After this, Contact Publishers wanted to publish the diary.[10] On 10 September 1946, Otto Frank sent the signed contract back to Contact Publishers. He had stipulated that he himself retained the translation and film rights and that if the diary sold out, the publisher undertook to prepare a new edition within six months.[11]
\r\n
\r\nThe basis for the edition was the typescript II compiled by Otto Frank. The publisher edited this text and removed passages related to sexuality. [12] The foreword was by Annie Romein-Verschoor and not, as initially planned, an adapted version of the Parool article Kinderstem.[13] Ab Cauvern later stated that he had written the epilogue and that Otto Frank had adapted it.[14] An advance copy of the diary appeared in De Nieuwe Stem.[15]
\r\n
\r\nThe first edition of the diary was published on 25 June 1947 in an edition of 3,036 copies, which were sold out with the publisher by early July 1947.
\r\n\r\n\r\n' Ja, Anne's Buch liegt täglich vor mir, täglich rufen Leute an, ich habe viel Korrespondenz und es halt mich mehr in Atem als das Geschäft. Es geht mir ja auch näher! (...) Der Verlag ist ausverkauft, in Geschäften ist auch schon viel Frage und in vielen die vorhandenen Exemplare weg, Nachlieferung kann ja nicht vorgenommen werden '.[16]
\r\n
The second edition, in December 1947, had a print run of 6,830.[17] A third edition of 10,500 copies followed in February 1948.
\r\n
\r\nThe Otto Frank Archive contains a list of names of the friends, acquaintances, politicians and dignitaries to whom Otto Frank sent a first edition of the diary.[18] He remained actively involved in publishing the diary even after the first edition was published.[19]
Eleanor Roosevelt was an American politician and activist. She served as first lady of the United States from 1933 to 1945, during the presidency of her husband Franklin D. Roosevelt. She campaigned for civil rights of minority groups, among other things, and acted as an advocate for war refugees during World War II. In 1946, she was elected as the first chair of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. In this position, she led the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[1]
\r\n\r\nBecause of this profile, Eleanor Roosevelt was approached by the publisher Doubleday & Co. to write an introduction for The Diary of a Young Girl, the US edition of the English translation of Het Achterhuis. She was suggested by Otto Frank, who had probably met her through his friends Nathan and Helen Straus.[2]
\r\n\r\nBetween December 1935 and September 1962, Eleanor Roosevelt wrote a daily column called My Day.[3] After reading Anne Frank's diary, she began her column on 22 April 1952 with a short recommendation:
\r\n\r\n‘I think it is well for us who have forgotten so much of that period to read about it now, just to remind ourselves that we never want to go through such things again if possible. […] This diary should teach us all the wisdom of preventing any kind of totalitarianism that could lead to oppression and suffering of this kind.’[4]
\r\n\r\nThe first US edition, containing Eleanor Roosevelt's foreword, was published seven weeks later on 12 June 1952. It begins with:
\r\n\r\n‘This is a remarkable book. Written by a young girl – and the young are not afraid of telling the truth – it is one of the wisest and most moving commentaries on war and its impact on human beings that I have ever read.’[5]
\r\n\r\nThe text was likely written with the help of Barbara Zimmerman, the editor on behalf of the publisher.Barbara Epstein.[6] It is possible that the foreword was written entirely by her and signed by Eleanor Roosevelt.[7]
\r\n\r\nOn 15 October 1955, Eleanor Roosevelt again paid attention to Anne Frank's story in her column. Earlier that week she had attended a performance of the play The Diary of Anne Frank. She writes in praise of the play and the cast.[8]
\r\n\r\nShe became involved in a long-running conflict between Otto Frank and Meyer Levin, who had written a first draft for a play but had been rejected by the producer.[9] Meyer Levin filed a lawsuit in 1955 and repeatedly sought the press.[10] In 1957, he convinced Eleanor Roosevelt to send a critical letter to Otto.[11] Otto was very upset by this and asked his friend Nathan Straus Jr. to mediate.[12] He sent a comprehensive letter to Eleanor Roosevelt asking her to write Otto a reassuring message.[13] On 22 April 1957, she wrote him a letter apologising.[14]
\r\n\r\nIn the 1950s, the building at Prinsengracht 263, including the Secret Annex, was in danger of being demolished. Otto founded the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam in 1957 to prevent this. To raise funds for this cause in the United States as well, an American Anne Frank Foundation was founded in New York on 7 October 1958.[15] Eleanor Roosevelt was involved in its establishment and fulfilled the role of honorary president within the board.[16] To also raise funds for the International Youth Center in Amsterdam, which was linked to the Anne Frank House, the American foundation established the American Committee for the International Anne Frank Youth Center on 9 March 1959.[17] Eleanor Roosevelt approached former US presidents Herbet Hoover and Harry Truman to become honorary chairpersons of this new committee, but eventually she herself took on this role.[15]
\r\n\r\nEleanor Roosevelt died on 7 November 1962 at the age of 78. Otto sent a letter of condolence to her family on 21 November 1962.[18]
\r\n\r\nSource personal data.[1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Heinrich Frank was born on Sunday, 12 May 1889 in Frankfurt am Main, the son of Kaufman (merchant) Michael Frank and Alice Betty Frank-Stern.[1] Otto was the second child of a family of four children, all born in Frankfurt am Main. He had two brothers, Robert Hermann and Herbert August, and a sister named Helene (Leni). At the time of Otto Frank's birth, the Frank family lived at Gärtnerweg 58 in Frankfurt am Main.
\r\n\r\nThe Jewish Frank family belonged to the wealthy circles of Frankfurt.[2] Otto's father Michael managed to set up a successful banking business in the last decades of the nineteenth century. The family was a typical product of the German Bildungsbürgertum. After attending the Lessing Gymnasium, Otto went to the University of Heidelberg for a summer semester, where he took art history classes. After this he completed an apprenticeship at the Ferdinand Sander bank in Frankfurt. Then he left for New York. He worked as an intern at Macy's and at a bank in the Financial District. Back in Germany, he worked for Fenestra, a manufacturer of various steel constructions and industrial installations. After the outbreak of World War I, Otto worked in a horseshoe factory before joining the army.[3]
\r\n\r\nIn August 1915, he joined the Third Regiment Fussartillerie in Mainz. After his training, his unit ended up in the area of Bapaume. Otto was a telephone operator and observer, so he was at some distance from the actual battle line. After his demobilisation he took over the management of the family bank. The company had fallen on hard times due to the economic and political chaos in Germany. In 1923 Otto and some relatives in Amsterdam founded two companies in the financial sector. Jo Kleiman was involved in both companies as managing director and deputy manager.
\r\n\r\nIn 1925 Otto married Edith Holländer. Her family had a business very similar to Fenestra. The couple had two daughters, Margot and Anne. The economic situation worsened after 1929. The political climate in Germany also deteriorated rapidly. After Hitler's rise to power, Otto and his family moved to Amsterdam. In the summer of 1933 Otto founded the Nederlandsche Opekta Maatschappij. In December 1933 he became a supervisory director of the 'Centrale Maatschappij voor Handel en Industrie', of which Kleiman was a director. At the end of the 1930s, an attempt to set up a business in England came to nothing. The 'Centrale Maatschappij' disappeared, after which Otto and Kleiman concentrated on building up Pectacon.
\r\n\r\nIn the early stages of the war Otto tried to emigrate with his family to the United States, which failed due to the impossible procedure and bureaucracy. When the persecution measures increased, the plan to go into hiding was born. At Kleiman's initiative, the Secret Annex was made ready for this. The family moved into the hiding place on 6 July 1942.
\r\n\r\nOtto was the only one of the eight people in hiding to return from Auschwitz after the arrest and deportation. He resumed his work and also did a lot to place orphaned Jewish children with relatives or foster families. He also edited Anne's diary and made sure it was published.[4] He saw Anne as a representative of all the murdered Jewish children and hoped that her diary would bring mankind to its senses.
\r\n\r\nAfter his return Otto lived with Miep and Jan Gies for seven years. He then moved to Basel and married Elfriede Markovits, who had had similar war experiences. He continued corresponding until an advanced age about Anne and her world of ideas, especially with young people from all over the world. He died in a Swiss hospital at the age of 91.
\r\n\r\n12 June 1942 was Anne Frank’s thirteenth birthday. Among the presents she received was a notebook: an almost square book with a red-white-gray checkered cover and a clasp. In this she was going to keep her diary. Her first diary ends on 5 December 1942. Her second surviving diary book, a school exercise book, begins on 22 December 1943 and continues up to 17 April 1944. It is highly improbable that Anne Frank did not keep a diary between December 1942 and December 1943, so we must assume that this section has been lost. Her third and last diary volume, also a school exercise book, begins on 17 April 1944 and ends on 1 August 1944.
\r\n\r\nBesides her diary, Anne also wrote Verhaaltjes, en gebeurtenissen uit het Achterhuis (Tales from the Secret Annex) in a large accounts book, and she filled a small, narrow cash book with quotations: her Mooie-Zinnenboek (Favourite Quotes Notebook). This Verhaaltjesboek and Mooie-Zinnenboek have both been preserved.
\r\n\r\nFrom June 1942 onwards, the diaries of Anne Frank describe in a penetrating way the daily life of the eight Jewish people in hiding in the annex on the Prinsengracht canal in Amsterdam. Anne Frank rewrote her diary entries herself in the annex, with a view to them possibly being published after the war.
\r\n\r\nShe did this on sheets of carbon copy paper, referred to as the “loose sheets.” On these loose sheets of paper she reorganised and rewrote her earlier diary entries: she reordered texts, sometimes combining entries from various dates under one date, and considerably shortening some sections. In this way she created a second version, in which the events of December 1942 to December 1943 are described. The loose sheets have been preserved: their last entries date from 29 March 1944. So the first version of the diary was not fully preserved, while the second version was unfinished.
\r\n\r\nTo help in the search for a publisher for Het Achterhuis (The Secret Annex, as Anne had named her second version) Otto Frank had parts of the diary entries typed out in late 1945.
\r\nIn doing so he left out some sections, moved others and made some corrections. This created a typescript, but it was not yet a book. At Otto Frank’s request, his friend Albert Cauvern then made a second typescript. With Otto Frank’s permission, Cauvern changed nine of the thirteen names that Anne herself – with a view to possible publication – had invented for the people in hiding in the secret annexe and their helpers.
Both typescripts have been preserved. Finally, an editor from Contact Publishers became the third person to work on the texts, correcting typing errors and bringing the manuscript into line with the publisher’s style guide. All of this resulted in the first Dutch publication of Het Achterhuis in June 1947.[1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank, who died 19 August 1980, stated in his will that all of his daughter’s manuscripts should be left to the Dutch nation. The Dutch government transferred the stewardship of the manuscripts to the National Institute for War Documentation (Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, RIOD), which later became the Dutch Institute for War Documentation (Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, NIOD).
\r\n\r\nIn 1986, RIOD published the three versions of the diary described above – the preserved original diary entries, the version rewritten by Anne Frank herself, and the edition compiled by Otto Frank and published by Contact Publishers in 1947 – together under one cover: De Dagboeken van Anne Frank.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1998, five previously unknown pages from the diary of Anne Frank turned up. They were five loose sheets that Otto Frank had already set apart before the publication of the diary in 1947. In all probability, Otto Frank did not want to make these diary fragments public because of Anne’s rather hurtful observations about his first wife, who died in Auschwitz, and their marriage.
\r\n\r\nThey were made public by Cor Suijk, a former employee of the Anne Frank House. Suijk’s explanation was that Otto Frank had given him the five sheets for safe keeping. The loose sheets were sold by Suijk to the Dutch nation, and subsequently added to the rest of the diary, which was held by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD). The five pages were first included in the fifth, revised edition of De Dagboeken van Anne Frank (2001).[3]
\r\n\r\nThe NIOD asked the Forensic Institute – which had already carried out extensive research into the authenticity of the diary in the first half of the 1980’s – to also investigate these five loose sheets. The Forensic Institute concluded after forensic document and handwriting analysis that ‘the handwriting in the questioned documents and the handwriting in the reference material, consisting of loose sheets in the diary of Anne Frank, were produced – with a probability bordering on certainty – by the same hand.’[4] That is the most certain degree of identification that the Netherlands Forensic Institute can give. In other words: there is no reason whatsoever to presume that the five returned loose sheets were not written by Anne Frank.
\r\n\r\n12 juni 1942 was de dertiende verjaardag van Anne Frank. Ze kreeg onder andere een schrift: een bijna vierkant boekje met een harde rood-wit-grijs geruite omslag en een slotje. Hierin ging ze haar dagboek bijhouden. Haar eerste dagboek eindigt op 5 december 1942. Haar tweede bewaard gebleven dagboek, een schoolschrift, begint op 22 december 1943 en loopt door tot 17 april 1944. Het is zeer onwaarschijnlijk dat Anne Frank tussen december 1942 en december 1943 geen dagboek heeft bijgehouden, dus we moeten aannemen dat dit deel verloren is gegaan. Haar derde en laatste dagboekdeel, ook een schoolschrift, begint op 17 april 1944 en eindigt op 1 augustus 1944.
\r\n\r\nNaast haar dagboek schreef Anne ook Verhaaltjes, en gebeurtenissen uit het Achterhuis in een grootboek en vulde zij een klein, smal kasboek met citaten: haar Mooie Zinnenboek. Dit Verhaaltjesboek en Mooie Zinnenboek zijn beide bewaard gebleven.
\r\n\r\nDe dagboeken van Anne Frank beschrijven vanaf juni 1942 op indringende wijze het dagelijks leven van de acht Joodse onderduikers in het achterhuis aan de Prinsengracht in Amsterdam. In het achterhuis heeft Anne Frank haar dagboekaantekeningen zelf herschreven met het oog op eventuele publicatie na de oorlog.
\r\n\r\nZij deed dit op vellen doorschrijfpapier: de zogenaamde "losse vellen". Op deze losse vellen reorganiseerde en herschreef zij haar eerdere dagboekaantekeningen: zij herschikte teksten, voegde soms aantekeningen van verschillende data samen onder één datum en kortte sommige delen aanzienlijk in. Zo ontstond een tweede versie, waarin de gebeurtenissen van december 1942 tot december 1943 worden beschreven. De losse vellen zijn bewaard gebleven: de laatste aantekeningen ervan dateren van 29 maart 1944. De eerste versie van het dagboek is dus niet volledig bewaard gebleven, terwijl de tweede versie onvoltooid is gebleven.
\r\n\r\nOm een uitgever te vinden voor Het Achterhuis (zoals Anne haar tweede versie had genoemd) liet Otto Frank eind 1945 delen van de dagboekaantekeningen uittypen.
\r\n\r\nDaarbij heeft hij sommige delen weggelaten, andere verplaatst en enkele correcties aangebracht. Zo ontstond een typoscript, maar het was nog geen boek. Op verzoek van Otto Frank maakte zijn vriend Albert Cauvern vervolgens een tweede typoscript. Met toestemming van Otto Frank veranderde Cauvern negen van de dertien namen die Anne zelf - met het oog op eventuele publicatie - had bedacht voor de onderduikers in het achterhuis en hun helpers.
\r\n\r\nBeide typoscripten zijn bewaard gebleven. Tenslotte heeft een redacteur van Uitgeverij Contact als derde aan de teksten gewerkt, typefouten gecorrigeerd en het manuscript in overeenstemming gebracht met de stijlgids van de uitgeverij. Dit alles resulteerde in de eerste Nederlandse uitgave van Het Achterhuis in juni 1947.[1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank, die op 19 augustus 1980 overleed, verklaarde in zijn testament dat alle manuscripten van zijn dochter aan de Nederlandse staat moesten worden nagelaten. De Nederlandse regering droeg het beheer van de manuscripten over aan het Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie (RIOD), dat later het Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie (NIOD) werd.
\r\n\r\nIn 1986 publiceerde het RIOD de drie hierboven beschreven versies van het dagboek - de bewaard gebleven originele dagboekaantekeningen, de door Anne Frank zelf herschreven versie en de door Otto Frank samengestelde uitgave die in 1947 door uitgeverij Contact werd uitgegeven - samen onder één omslag: De Dagboeken van Anne Frank.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1998 doken vijf voorheen onbekende pagina's uit het dagboek van Anne Frank op. Het waren vijf losse bladen die Otto Frank al voor de publicatie van het dagboek in 1947 apart had gelegd. Otto Frank wilde deze dagboekfragmenten naar alle waarschijnlijkheid niet openbaar maken vanwege Annes nogal kwetsende opmerkingen over zijn in Auschwitz omgekomen eerste vrouw en hun huwelijk.
\r\n\r\nZe zijn openbaar gemaakt door Cor Suijk, een voormalig medewerker van de Anne Frank Stichting. Suijk's verklaring was dat Otto Frank hem de vijf bladen in bewaring had gegeven. De losse vellen zijn door Suijk verkocht aan de Nederlandse staat en vervolgens gevoegd bij de rest van het dagboek, dat bij het Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie (NIOD) berustte. De vijf pagina's werden voor het eerst opgenomen in de vijfde druk van De Dagboeken van Anne Frank (2001).[3]
\r\n
Het NIOD heeft het Gerechtelijk Laboratorium - dat in de eerste helft van de jaren tachtig al uitgebreid onderzoek had gedaan naar de authenticiteit van het dagboek - gevraagd ook deze vijf losse bladen te onderzoeken. Het Gerechtelijk Laboratorium concludeerde na forensisch document- en handschriftonderzoek dat 'het schrift voorkomend op het te onderzoeken materiaal enerzijds en het referentiemateriaal, bestaande uit het schrift op de losse vellen van het dagboek van Anne Frank anderzijds, zijn met aan zekerheid grenzende waarschijnlijkheid van dezelfde hand'.[4] Dat is de meest zekere mate van identificatie die het Nederlands Gerechtelijk Laboratorium kan geven. Met andere woorden: er is geen enkele reden om aan te nemen dat de vijf geretourneerde losse vellen niet door Anne Frank zijn geschreven.
\r\n\r\n12 June 1942 was Anne Frank’s thirteenth birthday. Among the presents she received was a notebook: an almost square book with a red-white-gray checkered cover and a clasp. In this she was going to keep her diary. Her first diary ends on 5 December 1942. Her second surviving diary book, a school exercise book, begins on 22 December 1943 and continues up to 17 April 1944. It is highly improbable that Anne Frank did not keep a diary between December 1942 and December 1943, so we must assume that this section has been lost. Her third and last diary volume, also a school exercise book, begins on 17 April 1944 and ends on 1 August 1944.
\r\n\r\nBesides her diary, Anne also wrote Verhaaltjes, en gebeurtenissen uit het Achterhuis (Tales from the Secret Annex) in a large accounts book, and she filled a small, narrow cash book with quotations: her Mooie-Zinnenboek (Favourite Quotes Notebook). This Verhaaltjesboek and Mooie-Zinnenboek have both been preserved.
\r\n\r\nFrom June 1942 onwards, the diaries of Anne Frank describe in a penetrating way the daily life of the eight Jewish people in hiding in the annex on the Prinsengracht canal in Amsterdam. Anne Frank rewrote her diary entries herself in the annex, with a view to them possibly being published after the war.
\r\n\r\nShe did this on sheets of carbon copy paper, referred to as the “loose sheets.” On these loose sheets of paper she reorganised and rewrote her earlier diary entries: she reordered texts, sometimes combining entries from various dates under one date, and considerably shortening some sections. In this way she created a second version, in which the events of December 1942 to December 1943 are described. The loose sheets have been preserved: their last entries date from 29 March 1944. So the first version of the diary was not fully preserved, while the second version was unfinished.
\r\n\r\nTo help in the search for a publisher for Het Achterhuis (The Secret Annex, as Anne had named her second version) Otto Frank had parts of the diary entries typed out in late 1945.
\r\nIn doing so he left out some sections, moved others and made some corrections. This created a typescript, but it was not yet a book. At Otto Frank’s request, his friend Albert Cauvern then made a second typescript. With Otto Frank’s permission, Cauvern changed nine of the thirteen names that Anne herself – with a view to possible publication – had invented for the people in hiding in the secret annexe and their helpers.
Both typescripts have been preserved. Finally, an editor from Contact Publishers became the third person to work on the texts, correcting typing errors and bringing the manuscript into line with the publisher’s style guide. All of this resulted in the first Dutch publication of Het Achterhuis in June 1947.[1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank, who died 19 August 1980, stated in his will that all of his daughter’s manuscripts should be left to the Dutch nation. The Dutch government transferred the stewardship of the manuscripts to the National Institute for War Documentation (Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, RIOD), which later became the Dutch Institute for War Documentation (Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, NIOD).
\r\n\r\nIn 1986, RIOD published the three versions of the diary described above – the preserved original diary entries, the version rewritten by Anne Frank herself, and the edition compiled by Otto Frank and published by Contact Publishers in 1947 – together under one cover: De Dagboeken van Anne Frank.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1998, five previously unknown pages from the diary of Anne Frank turned up. They were five loose sheets that Otto Frank had already set apart before the publication of the diary in 1947. In all probability, Otto Frank did not want to make these diary fragments public because of Anne’s rather hurtful observations about his first wife, who died in Auschwitz, and their marriage.
\r\n\r\nThey were made public by Cor Suijk, a former employee of the Anne Frank House. Suijk’s explanation was that Otto Frank had given him the five sheets for safe keeping. The loose sheets were sold by Suijk to the Dutch nation, and subsequently added to the rest of the diary, which was held by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD). The five pages were first included in the fifth, revised edition of De Dagboeken van Anne Frank (2001).[3]
\r\n\r\nThe NIOD asked the Forensic Institute – which had already carried out extensive research into the authenticity of the diary in the first half of the 1980’s – to also investigate these five loose sheets. The Forensic Institute concluded after forensic document and handwriting analysis that ‘the handwriting in the questioned documents and the handwriting in the reference material, consisting of loose sheets in the diary of Anne Frank, were produced – with a probability bordering on certainty – by the same hand.’[4] That is the most certain degree of identification that the Netherlands Forensic Institute can give. In other words: there is no reason whatsoever to presume that the five returned loose sheets were not written by Anne Frank.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank also wanted a German and English translation of the diary.[1] As with the Dutch edition, he had to go to great lengths to interest foreign publishers. Only after the success of the French edition did this change. Otto Frank was closely involved in the translations and also in choosing the writers of the foreword.
\r\n\r\nCalmann-Lévy published Le Journal d'Anne Frank, the first foreign edition of the diary, in March 1950. This translation was based on the first edition of Het Achterhuis published by Contact and had a foreword by Daniel-Rops.[2] Otto Frank wrote to Gilles de Neve of Contact on 27 January 1949 that Calmann-Lévy had the manuscript. On 7 March 1949, Otto Frank signed the contract with Editions Calmann-Lévy.[3] Within 18 months of signing, Calmann-Lévy had to publish the book, otherwise the rights would return to Otto Frank. On 11 March 1950, the French edition had still not been published.[4] On 26 May 1950, De Neve thanked Otto Frank for sending him the French edition.[5] According to Otto Frank, this translation by Tylia Caren and Suzanne Lombard was so successful because, as a Dutch Frenchwoman, Tylia Caren had a perfect command of Dutch and Suzanne Lombard was well versed in the language of French youth.[6] This first French edition of the diary impressed Meyer Levin. He then worked on the English translation and became interested in the film rights.[7] The success of the French edition meant that English and American publishers also became seriously interested.[8]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank first translated excerpts of the stories and diary into German himself for his family in Basel:
\r\n\r\n'Endlich komme ich dazu, den Anfang von Anne’s Tagebuch in deutscher Uebersetzung zu senden und hoff, dass ich bald die Fortsetzung schicken kann. Da ich nur wenige exemplare habe muss das vorliegende weiter gegeben werden und ich füge eine Liste bei, wie ich mir den Weg denke. Es ist schwer, alles sinn- und stilgemäss in eine andere Sprache zu übertragen, viel vom original geht verloren. Das ist nicht zu vermeiden und ich bitte jeden von Euch, evtl. Unklarheiten oder Sprachfehler zu notieren und mir mit zuteilen.'[9]\r\n\r\n
In the winter of 1945 - 1946, commissioned by Otto Frank, Anneliese Schütz began translating the diary into German. She did this on the basis of typescript II.[10] By summer 1947, the manuscript was at Paul Szolnay Verlag in Vienna.[11] Otto Frank was in contact with Dr Fritz Landshoff, the director of the German-language department of Querido publishers, about publishing the diary. At the end of 1948, this came to nothing.[12] Otto Frank approached several German publishers from late 1948 to 1950 including: Verlag Kurt Desch (Munich); Volk und Welt (Berlin); Rowohlt (Hamburg); Kiepenheuer Verlag (Berlin); Europa Express (Zurich); Limes Verlag (Wiesbaden); Societäts Verlag (Frankfurt) and an unnamed publisher in Koblenz.[13]
\r\n\r\nIn searching for a publisher, he enlisted the help of the lawyer Max Cahn, a former classmate at the Lessing Grammar School and also his legal adviser E.D. Hirsch Ballin. Max Cahn in turn also enlisted the help of an old classmate, Walter Carstanjen, the chief editor of the Börssenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel. He sent Otto Frank a list of possible publishers.[14] One reason the German publishers rejected the diary was the crisis situation in the German book trade. As there had just been a money purge, no one dared to take a risk. Another reason was that the diary would not be literary enough and was therefore not suitable for the general German public.[15]
\r\n\r\nOn 20 January 1950, Otto Frank met Lambert Schneider of the publishing house of the same name and gave him the German manuscript of the diary.[16] On 22 March 1950, Schneider responded positively and the contract was signed on 25/28 July 1950.[17] Otto Frank was closely involved in the final translation and publication of the diary.[18] Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank appeared in November 1950 in an edition of 4,600 copies. The foreword was by Marie Baum. Previous candidates for the foreword were Herman Hesse (too ill) and Eugen Kogon.[19] Sales figures were relatively low.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank thought a wide distribution of the diary among German youth was very important. In his opinion, this was only possible with a cheaper edition.[21] In March 1955, the paperback edition of the Tagebuch der Anne Frank was published (under licence from the Lambert Schneider Verlag) by the Fischer Bücherei (Frankfurt am Main und Hamburg) in an edition of 50,000 copies.[22] The German translation by Anneliese Schütz had been revised by Maria Honeit, who corrected many errors and made the language use more 'natural'.[23] Within a month, 30,000 copies were sold.[24]
\r\n\r\nBecause the German-language editions were based on a fuller version of Typescript II than the first Dutch edition of Contact, questions were raised not only about the person Anne Frank but also about the authenticity of the diary.[25] Ernst Schnabel was therefore commissioned by the Fischer Bücherei to investigate the historicity of the character Anne Frank, which resulted in the book Spur eines Kindes. [26] The proceeds were earmarked for the Anne Frank Stipend, which aimed to give Israeli students the opportunity to study in Europe.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank also attached great importance to a cheap edition in East Germany. In 1957, Union Verlag published the diary there. [27]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank had an English translation of the diary by Rosey Pool very early on. She, like Anneliese Schütz, was an acquaintance of Otto Frank and his family. With this translation, Otto approached English publishers. Rosey Pool began her translation at about the same time as Anneliese Schütz.[9] Pool had taught English to Edith Frank.[28] Literary agent Robert Harben approached Otto Frank about publishing the diary in England, but several English publishers turned it down, including: Heineman Ltd, Gollancz; Allen & Unwin; New Universal Encyclopedia; Falcon Press; Hamish Hamilton; Martin Secker.[29] According to Harben, because the publishers and the public were averse to more books on war and resistance. [30]
\r\n
\r\nIn the United States, Otto Frank was also in contact with several publishers: Secker & Warburg, Gollanz, Heineman, Allen & Unwin, Mc Millan, Scribners, Siggewick & Jackson, Doubleday Doran, Hutchinson, John Lehman, Viking Press, Vanguard Press, Warendorf, Simon & Shuster, Appleton Century, Knopf, Schocken, Random House, Little Brown & Company.[31] Due to the success of the French edition of the diary, the English publisher Vallentine Mitchell & Company offered to publish the diary.[32]
Because Rosey Pool's translation was not satisfactory, Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday was commissioned by Vallentine Mitchell to retranslate the diary.[33] Otto Frank kept in close contact with her about the translation and also had her translate some passages that were missing from the Dutch edition.[34] The Diary of a Young Girl, with a foreword by writer Margaret Storm Jameson, was released in England on 30 April 1952. Reviews were good, but sales were disappointing.[35]
\r\n
\r\nLengthy negotiations between Otto Frank and Little, Brown and Company for the American edition of the diary stranded in March 1951 due to disagreements over the translation, Canadian rights and film rights to the diary.[36] Then Otto Frank quickly reached an agreement with US publisher Doubleday and Company.[36] Through the mediation of Nathan Straus Jr., the foreword was written by Eleanor Roosevelt.[37] The diary was published in the United States on 12 June 1952 (Anne's birthday). After a wildly enthusiastic review by Meyer Levin in The New York Times Book Review of 15 June 1952, the diary ranked sixth on the bestseller list in the United States five weeks after its publication.[38]
Otto Frank wilde ook een Duitse en Engelse vertaling van het dagboek.[1] Net als bij de Nederlandse uitgave moest hij veel moeite doen om buitenlandse uitgevers te interesseren. Pas na het succes van de Franse uitgave veranderde dat. Otto Frank was nauw betrokken bij de vertalingen en ook bij de keuze voor de schrijvers van het voorwoord.
\r\n\r\nBij Calmann-Lévy verscheen in maart 1950 Le Journal d’Anne Frank, de eerste buitenlandse uitgave van het dagboek. Deze vertaling was gebaseerd op de eerste uitgave van Het Achterhuis bij Contact en had een voorwoord van Daniel-Rops.[2] Otto Frank schreef op 27 januari 1949 aan Gilles de Neve van Contact dat Calmann-Lévy het manuscript in handen had. Op 7 maart 1949 ondertekende Otto Frank het contract met Editions Calmann-Lévy.[3] Binnen achttien maanden na ondertekening zou Calmann-Lévy het boek uitgeven, anders vielen de rechten terug aan Otto Frank. Op 11 maart 1950 was de Franse editie nog steeds niet verschenen.[4] Op 26 mei 1950 bedankte de Neve Otto Frank voor toezending van de Franse uitgave.[5] Volgens Otto Frank was deze vertaling door Tylia Caren en Suzanne Lombard zo geslaagd omdat Tylia Caren als Nederlandse française het Nederlands perfect beheerste en Suzanne Lombard de taal van de Franse jeugd goed eigen was.[6] Deze eerste Franse editie van het dagboek maakte indruk op Meyer Levin. Hij beijverde zich vervolgens voor de Engelse vertaling en raakte geïnteresseerd in de filmrechten.[7] Het succes van de Franse uitgave zorgde ervoor dat ook Engelse en Amerikaanse uitgevers serieus geïnteresseerd raakten.[8]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank vertaalde eerst zelf fragmenten van de verhaaltjes en het dagboek in het Duits voor zijn familie in Bazel:
\r\n\r\n'Endlich komme ich dazu, den Anfang von Anne’s Tagebuch in deutscher Uebersetzung zu senden und hoff, dass ich bald die Fortsetzung schicken kann. Da ich nur wenige exemplare habe muss das vorliegende weiter gegeben werden und ich füge eine Liste bei, wie ich mir den Weg denke. Es ist schwer, alles sinn- und stilgemäss in eine andere Sprache zu übertragen, viel vom original geht verloren. Das ist nicht zu vermeiden und ich bitte jeden von Euch, evtl. Unklarheiten oder Sprachfehler zu notieren und mir mit zuteilen.'[9]\r\n\r\n
In de winter van 1945 – 1946 begon Anneliese Schütz, in opdracht van Otto Frank met de vertaling van het dagboek in het Duits. Zij deed dit op basis van typescript II.[10] Zomer 1947 lag het manuscript bij Paul Szolnay Verlag in Wenen.[11] Otto Frank had contact met Dr. Fritz Landshoff, de directeur van de Duitstalige afdeling van uitgeverij Querido over de uitgave van het dagboek. Eind 1948 liep dit op niets uit.[12] Otto Frank benaderde verschillende Duitse uitgevers van eind 1948 tot 1950 waaronder: Verlag Kurt Desch (München); Volk und Welt (Berlijn); Rowohlt (Hamburg); Kiepenheuer Verlag (Berlijn); Europa Express (Zürich); Limes Verlag (Wiesbaden); Societäts Verlag (Frankfurt) en een niet nader genoemde uitgeverij in Koblenz.[13]
\r\n\r\nBij het zoeken naar een uitgever schakelde hij de hulp in van de advocaat Max Cahn, een vroegere klasgenoot van het Lessing Gymnasium en ook van zijn juridisch adviseur E.D. Hirsch Ballin. Max Cahn schakelde op zijn beurt ook een oude klasgenoot in, Walter Carstanjen, de chef-redacteur van het Börssenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel. Hij stuurde Otto Frank een lijst toe met mogelijke uitgevers.[14] Een reden waarom de Duitse uitgevers het dagboek afwezen was de crisissituatie in de Duitse boekhandel. Omdat er net een geldzuivering was geweest, durfde niemand risico te nemen. Een andere reden was dat het dagboek niet literair genoeg zou zijn en daarom niet geschikt was voor het grote Duitse publiek.[15]
\r\n\r\nOp 20 januari 1950 ontmoette Otto Frank Lambert Schneider van de gelijknamige uitgeverij en gaf hem het Duitse manuscript van het dagboek.[16] Op 22 maart 1950 reageerde Schneider positief en op 25/28 juli 1950 werd het contract getekend.[17] Otto Frank was nauw betrokken bij de uiteindelijke vertaling en uitgave van het dagboek.[18] Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank verscheen in november 1950 in een oplage van 4.600 exemplaren. Het voorwoord was van Marie Baum. Eerdere kandidaten voor het voorwoord waren Herman Hesse (te ziek) en Eugen Kogon.[19] De verkoopcijfers waren relatief laag.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank vond een grote verspreiding van het dagboek onder de Duitse jeugd erg belangrijk. Dat was volgens hem alleen mogelijk bij een goedkopere uitgave.[21] In maart 1955 verscheen (in licentie van het Lambert Schneider Verlag) de pocketuitgave van het Tagebuch der Anne Frank bij de Fischer Bücherei (Frankfurt am Main und Hamburg) in een oplage van 50.000 exemplaren.[22] De Duitse vertaling van Anneliese Schütz was herzien door Maria Honeit die veel fouten verbeterde en het taalgebruik 'natuurlijker' maakte.[23]Binnen een maand werden 30 000 exemplaren verkocht.[24]
\r\n\r\nOmdat de Duitstalige uitgaven waren gebaseerd op een vollediger versie van Typescript II dan de eerste Nederlandse editie van Contact, werden er behalve over de persoon Anne Frank ook vragen gesteld over de authenticiteit van het dagboek.[25] Ernst Schnabel kreeg daarom opdracht van de Fischer Bücherei om de historiciteit van het personage Anne Frank te onderzoeken, wat resulteerde in het boek Spur eines Kindes. [26] De opbrengsten waren bestemd voor het Anne Frank Stipendium dat Israëlische studenten de gelegenheid moest geven in Europa te studeren.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank hechtte ook veel waarde aan een goedkope uitgave in Oost Duitsland. In 1957 verscheen daar het dagboek daar bij Union Verlag. [27]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank beschikte al vroeg over een Engelse vertaling van het dagboek door Rosey Pool. Zij was net als Anneliese Schütz een bekende van Otto Frank en zijn gezin. Met deze vertaling benaderde Otto Engelse uitgevers. Rosey Pool begon ongeveer tegelijk met Anneliese Schütz aan haar vertaling.[9] Pool had Engelse les gegeven aan Edith Frank.[28] Literair agent Robert Harben benaderde Otto Frank voor de uitgave van het dagboek in Engeland, maar verschillende Engelse uitgevers wezen het af, zoals: Heineman Ltd., Gollancz; Allen & Unwin; New Universal Encyclopedia; Falcon Press; Hamish Hamilton; Martin Secker.[29] Volgens Harben omdat de uitgevers en het publiek afkerig stonden tegenover nog meer boeken over oorlog en verzet. [30]
\r\n
\r\nIn de Verenigde Staten had Otto Frank ook contact met diverse uitgevers: Secker & Warburg, Gollanz, Heineman, Allen & Unwit, Mc Millan, Scribners, Siggewick & Jackson, Doubleday Doran, Hutchinson, John Lehman, Viking Press, Vanguard Press, Warendorf, Simon & Shuster, Appleton Century, Knopf, Schocken, Random House, Little Brown & Company.[31] Door het succes van de Franse uitgave van het dagboek bood de Engelse uitgever Vallentine Mitchell & Company zich aan het dagboek uit te geven.[32]
Omdat de vertaling van Rosey Pool niet voldeed, kreeg Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday de opdracht van Vallentine Mitchell het dagboek opnieuw te vertalen.[33] Otto Frank hield nauw contact met haar over de vertaling en liet haar ook een aantal passages vertalen die in de Nederlandse editie ontbraken.[34] The Diary of a young girl, met een voorwoord van schrijfster Margaret Storm Jameson, kwam in Engeland uit op 30 april 1952. De besprekingen waren goed, maar de verkoopcijfers stelden teleur.[35]
\r\n
\r\nLangdurige onderhandelingen van Otto Frank met Little, Brown and Company over de Amerikaanse uitgave van het dagboek strandden maart 1951 door onenigheid over de vertaling, de Canadese rechten en de filmrechten van het dagboek.[36] Daarna werd Otto Frank het snel eens met de Amerikaanse uitgeverij Doubleday and Company.[36] Door bemiddeling van Nathan Straus Jr. werd het voorwoord geschreven door Eleanor Roosevelt.[37] Het dagboek verscheen op 12 juni 1952 (Annes geboortedag) in de Verenigde Staten. Na een laaiend enthousiaste recensie van Meyer Levin in The New York Times Book Review van 15 juni 1952 stond het dagboek vijf weken na verschijnen op de zesde plaats van de bestsellerlijst in de Verenigde staten.[38]
Otto Frank also wanted a German and English translation of the diary.[1] As with the Dutch edition, he had to go to great lengths to interest foreign publishers. Only after the success of the French edition did this change. Otto Frank was closely involved in the translations and also in choosing the writers of the foreword.
\r\n\r\nCalmann-Lévy published Le Journal d'Anne Frank, the first foreign edition of the diary, in March 1950. This translation was based on the first edition of Het Achterhuis published by Contact and had a foreword by Daniel-Rops.[2] Otto Frank wrote to Gilles de Neve of Contact on 27 January 1949 that Calmann-Lévy had the manuscript. On 7 March 1949, Otto Frank signed the contract with Editions Calmann-Lévy.[3] Within 18 months of signing, Calmann-Lévy had to publish the book, otherwise the rights would return to Otto Frank. On 11 March 1950, the French edition had still not been published.[4] On 26 May 1950, De Neve thanked Otto Frank for sending him the French edition.[5] According to Otto Frank, this translation by Tylia Caren and Suzanne Lombard was so successful because, as a Dutch Frenchwoman, Tylia Caren had a perfect command of Dutch and Suzanne Lombard was well versed in the language of French youth.[6] This first French edition of the diary impressed Meyer Levin. He then worked on the English translation and became interested in the film rights.[7] The success of the French edition meant that English and American publishers also became seriously interested.[8]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank first translated excerpts of the stories and diary into German himself for his family in Basel:
\r\n\r\n'Endlich komme ich dazu, den Anfang von Anne’s Tagebuch in deutscher Uebersetzung zu senden und hoff, dass ich bald die Fortsetzung schicken kann. Da ich nur wenige exemplare habe muss das vorliegende weiter gegeben werden und ich füge eine Liste bei, wie ich mir den Weg denke. Es ist schwer, alles sinn- und stilgemäss in eine andere Sprache zu übertragen, viel vom original geht verloren. Das ist nicht zu vermeiden und ich bitte jeden von Euch, evtl. Unklarheiten oder Sprachfehler zu notieren und mir mit zuteilen.'[9]\r\n\r\n
In the winter of 1945 - 1946, commissioned by Otto Frank, Anneliese Schütz began translating the diary into German. She did this on the basis of typescript II.[10] By summer 1947, the manuscript was at Paul Szolnay Verlag in Vienna.[11] Otto Frank was in contact with Dr Fritz Landshoff, the director of the German-language department of Querido publishers, about publishing the diary. At the end of 1948, this came to nothing.[12] Otto Frank approached several German publishers from late 1948 to 1950 including: Verlag Kurt Desch (Munich); Volk und Welt (Berlin); Rowohlt (Hamburg); Kiepenheuer Verlag (Berlin); Europa Express (Zurich); Limes Verlag (Wiesbaden); Societäts Verlag (Frankfurt) and an unnamed publisher in Koblenz.[13]
\r\n\r\nIn searching for a publisher, he enlisted the help of the lawyer Max Cahn, a former classmate at the Lessing Grammar School and also his legal adviser E.D. Hirsch Ballin. Max Cahn in turn also enlisted the help of an old classmate, Walter Carstanjen, the chief editor of the Börssenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel. He sent Otto Frank a list of possible publishers.[14] One reason the German publishers rejected the diary was the crisis situation in the German book trade. As there had just been a money purge, no one dared to take a risk. Another reason was that the diary would not be literary enough and was therefore not suitable for the general German public.[15]
\r\n\r\nOn 20 January 1950, Otto Frank met Lambert Schneider of the publishing house of the same name and gave him the German manuscript of the diary.[16] On 22 March 1950, Schneider responded positively and the contract was signed on 25/28 July 1950.[17] Otto Frank was closely involved in the final translation and publication of the diary.[18] Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank appeared in November 1950 in an edition of 4,600 copies. The foreword was by Marie Baum. Previous candidates for the foreword were Herman Hesse (too ill) and Eugen Kogon.[19] Sales figures were relatively low.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank thought a wide distribution of the diary among German youth was very important. In his opinion, this was only possible with a cheaper edition.[21] In March 1955, the paperback edition of the Tagebuch der Anne Frank was published (under licence from the Lambert Schneider Verlag) by the Fischer Bücherei (Frankfurt am Main und Hamburg) in an edition of 50,000 copies.[22] The German translation by Anneliese Schütz had been revised by Maria Honeit, who corrected many errors and made the language use more 'natural'.[23] Within a month, 30,000 copies were sold.[24]
\r\n\r\nBecause the German-language editions were based on a fuller version of Typescript II than the first Dutch edition of Contact, questions were raised not only about the person Anne Frank but also about the authenticity of the diary.[25] Ernst Schnabel was therefore commissioned by the Fischer Bücherei to investigate the historicity of the character Anne Frank, which resulted in the book Spur eines Kindes. [26] The proceeds were earmarked for the Anne Frank Stipend, which aimed to give Israeli students the opportunity to study in Europe.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank also attached great importance to a cheap edition in East Germany. In 1957, Union Verlag published the diary there. [27]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank had an English translation of the diary by Rosey Pool very early on. She, like Anneliese Schütz, was an acquaintance of Otto Frank and his family. With this translation, Otto approached English publishers. Rosey Pool began her translation at about the same time as Anneliese Schütz.[9] Pool had taught English to Edith Frank.[28] Literary agent Robert Harben approached Otto Frank about publishing the diary in England, but several English publishers turned it down, including: Heineman Ltd, Gollancz; Allen & Unwin; New Universal Encyclopedia; Falcon Press; Hamish Hamilton; Martin Secker.[29] According to Harben, because the publishers and the public were averse to more books on war and resistance. [30]
\r\n
\r\nIn the United States, Otto Frank was also in contact with several publishers: Secker & Warburg, Gollanz, Heineman, Allen & Unwin, Mc Millan, Scribners, Siggewick & Jackson, Doubleday Doran, Hutchinson, John Lehman, Viking Press, Vanguard Press, Warendorf, Simon & Shuster, Appleton Century, Knopf, Schocken, Random House, Little Brown & Company.[31] Due to the success of the French edition of the diary, the English publisher Vallentine Mitchell & Company offered to publish the diary.[32]
Because Rosey Pool's translation was not satisfactory, Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday was commissioned by Vallentine Mitchell to retranslate the diary.[33] Otto Frank kept in close contact with her about the translation and also had her translate some passages that were missing from the Dutch edition.[34] The Diary of a Young Girl, with a foreword by writer Margaret Storm Jameson, was released in England on 30 April 1952. Reviews were good, but sales were disappointing.[35]
\r\n
\r\nLengthy negotiations between Otto Frank and Little, Brown and Company for the American edition of the diary stranded in March 1951 due to disagreements over the translation, Canadian rights and film rights to the diary.[36] Then Otto Frank quickly reached an agreement with US publisher Doubleday and Company.[36] Through the mediation of Nathan Straus Jr., the foreword was written by Eleanor Roosevelt.[37] The diary was published in the United States on 12 June 1952 (Anne's birthday). After a wildly enthusiastic review by Meyer Levin in The New York Times Book Review of 15 June 1952, the diary ranked sixth on the bestseller list in the United States five weeks after its publication.[38]
Otto Frank spent a lot of time - often together with his second wife Fritzi - on his correspondence: 'It is part of my daily work to answer to letters from different countries of people who were moved by the Diary.' [1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank called the reactions evoked by the diary 'Weerklank' - Resonance:
\r\n\r\n'Gradually, the diary was published in many countries. Everywhere it made a deep impression on readers. And when the diary was also made into a play and later a film, Anne became a symbol all over the world for all those who were or still are subjected to persecution innocently because of their race or religion. The diary's resonance proved to come from many directions. I received countless letters from all over the world, mainly from young people. Artists were inspired. Some made sculptures, others painted portraits of Anne. Requiems and pieces of music dedicated to her were composed and many, many poems were written in her memory. Many schools and institutions bear her name.' [2]\r\n\r\n
Weerklank van Anne Frank is the title of a book that collects that wide range of responses to the Diary of Anne Frank. Anneke Steenmeyer edited the book on behalf of and in close cooperation with Otto Frank.[3] The book was translated into English[4] and Japanese.[5]
\r\n
\r\nResonance is also the name of a sub-collection of the Anne Frank Collection owned by the Anne Frank House which consists of documents and objects inspired by Anne Frank's diary and life, going into hiding, etc. The foundation of this collection was laid by Otto Frank who saw it as his duty to answer and preserve letters and responses from all parts of the world.[6]
Otto Frank besteedde - vaak samen met zijn tweede vrouw Fritzi - veel tijd aan zijn correspondentie: 'It is part of my daily work to answer to letters from different countries of people who were moved by the Diary.' [1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank noemde de reacties die het dagboek oproept Weerklank:
\r\n\r\n'Langzamerhand werd het dagboek in veel landen gepubliceerd. Overal maakte het een diepe indruk op de lezers. En toen van het dagboek ook een toneelstuk en later een film werd gemaakt, werd Anne overal ter wereld een symbool voor al diegenen die onschuldig wegens hun ras of hun geloof vervolgd werden of nog steeds aan vervolgingen bloot staan. De weerklank van het dagboek bleek uit allerlei richtingen te komen. Ik kreeg ontelbare brieven uit de hele wereld, hoofdzakelijk van jonge mensen. Kunstenaars werden geïnspireerd. Sommigen maakten beelden, anderen schilderden portretten van Anne. Requiems en aan haar opgedragen muziekstukken werden gecomponeerd en vele, vele gedichten werden er te harer nagedachtenis geschreven. Veel scholen en instellingen dragen haar naam.' [2]\r\n\r\n
Weerklank van Anne Frank is de titel van het boek waarin die verschillende soorten reacties op het dagboek van Anne Frank zijn verzameld. Anneke Steenmeyer redigeerde het boek in opdracht van en in nauwe samenwerking met Otto Frank.[3] Het boek werd vertaald in het Engels[4] en in het Japans.[5]
\r\n
\r\nWeerklank is ook de benaming van de deelcollectie uit de Anne Frank Collectie in bezit van de Anne Frank Stichting die bestaat uit documenten en objecten geïnspireerd op het dagboek en het leven van Anne Frank, de onderduik etc. De basis van deze collectie is gelegd door Otto Frank die het als zijn plicht zag brieven en reacties uit alle delen van de wereld te beantwoorden en te bewaren.[6]
Otto Frank spent a lot of time - often together with his second wife Fritzi - on his correspondence: 'It is part of my daily work to answer to letters from different countries of people who were moved by the Diary.' [1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank called the reactions evoked by the diary 'Weerklank' - Resonance:
\r\n\r\n'Gradually, the diary was published in many countries. Everywhere it made a deep impression on readers. And when the diary was also made into a play and later a film, Anne became a symbol all over the world for all those who were or still are subjected to persecution innocently because of their race or religion. The diary's resonance proved to come from many directions. I received countless letters from all over the world, mainly from young people. Artists were inspired. Some made sculptures, others painted portraits of Anne. Requiems and pieces of music dedicated to her were composed and many, many poems were written in her memory. Many schools and institutions bear her name.' [2]\r\n\r\n
Weerklank van Anne Frank is the title of a book that collects that wide range of responses to the Diary of Anne Frank. Anneke Steenmeyer edited the book on behalf of and in close cooperation with Otto Frank.[3] The book was translated into English[4] and Japanese.[5]
\r\n
\r\nResonance is also the name of a sub-collection of the Anne Frank Collection owned by the Anne Frank House which consists of documents and objects inspired by Anne Frank's diary and life, going into hiding, etc. The foundation of this collection was laid by Otto Frank who saw it as his duty to answer and preserve letters and responses from all parts of the world.[6]
Five years after its first publication in the Netherlands, Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl was released in 1952 in a modest edition of 5,000 copies. After an enthusiastic review by writer Meyer Levin in The New York Times Book Review[1] sales of the book began to take off. A second print run of 15,000 copies soon followed and even a third printing of 45,000 a shorty after. In a short time, the diary went through print run after print run and millions of Americans had read the book.
\r\n\r\nVijf jaar na de eerste uitgave in Nederland komt in 1952 Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl op de markt in een bescheiden oplage van 5.000 exemplaren. Na een enthousiaste recensie door schrijver Meyer Levin in de The New York Times Book Review[1] begon de verkoop van het boek te lopen. Er kwam snel een tweede oplage van 15.000 exemplaren en kort daarna zelfs een derde druk van 45.000. In korte tijd beleefde het dagboek druk na druk en hadden miljoenen Amerikanen het boek gelezen.
\r\n\r\nFive years after its first publication in the Netherlands, Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl was released in 1952 in a modest edition of 5,000 copies. After an enthusiastic review by writer Meyer Levin in The New York Times Book Review[1] sales of the book began to take off. A second print run of 15,000 copies soon followed and even a third printing of 45,000 a shorty after. In a short time, the diary went through print run after print run and millions of Americans had read the book.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank also wanted a German and English translation of the diary.[1] As with the Dutch edition, he had to go to great lengths to interest foreign publishers. Only after the success of the French edition did this change. Otto Frank was closely involved in the translations and also in choosing the writers of the foreword.
\r\n\r\nCalmann-Lévy published Le Journal d'Anne Frank, the first foreign edition of the diary, in March 1950. This translation was based on the first edition of Het Achterhuis published by Contact and had a foreword by Daniel-Rops.[2] Otto Frank wrote to Gilles de Neve of Contact on 27 January 1949 that Calmann-Lévy had the manuscript. On 7 March 1949, Otto Frank signed the contract with Editions Calmann-Lévy.[3] Within 18 months of signing, Calmann-Lévy had to publish the book, otherwise the rights would return to Otto Frank. On 11 March 1950, the French edition had still not been published.[4] On 26 May 1950, De Neve thanked Otto Frank for sending him the French edition.[5] According to Otto Frank, this translation by Tylia Caren and Suzanne Lombard was so successful because, as a Dutch Frenchwoman, Tylia Caren had a perfect command of Dutch and Suzanne Lombard was well versed in the language of French youth.[6] This first French edition of the diary impressed Meyer Levin. He then worked on the English translation and became interested in the film rights.[7] The success of the French edition meant that English and American publishers also became seriously interested.[8]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank first translated excerpts of the stories and diary into German himself for his family in Basel:
\r\n\r\n'Endlich komme ich dazu, den Anfang von Anne’s Tagebuch in deutscher Uebersetzung zu senden und hoff, dass ich bald die Fortsetzung schicken kann. Da ich nur wenige exemplare habe muss das vorliegende weiter gegeben werden und ich füge eine Liste bei, wie ich mir den Weg denke. Es ist schwer, alles sinn- und stilgemäss in eine andere Sprache zu übertragen, viel vom original geht verloren. Das ist nicht zu vermeiden und ich bitte jeden von Euch, evtl. Unklarheiten oder Sprachfehler zu notieren und mir mit zuteilen.'[9]\r\n\r\n
In the winter of 1945 - 1946, commissioned by Otto Frank, Anneliese Schütz began translating the diary into German. She did this on the basis of typescript II.[10] By summer 1947, the manuscript was at Paul Szolnay Verlag in Vienna.[11] Otto Frank was in contact with Dr Fritz Landshoff, the director of the German-language department of Querido publishers, about publishing the diary. At the end of 1948, this came to nothing.[12] Otto Frank approached several German publishers from late 1948 to 1950 including: Verlag Kurt Desch (Munich); Volk und Welt (Berlin); Rowohlt (Hamburg); Kiepenheuer Verlag (Berlin); Europa Express (Zurich); Limes Verlag (Wiesbaden); Societäts Verlag (Frankfurt) and an unnamed publisher in Koblenz.[13]
\r\n\r\nIn searching for a publisher, he enlisted the help of the lawyer Max Cahn, a former classmate at the Lessing Grammar School and also his legal adviser E.D. Hirsch Ballin. Max Cahn in turn also enlisted the help of an old classmate, Walter Carstanjen, the chief editor of the Börssenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel. He sent Otto Frank a list of possible publishers.[14] One reason the German publishers rejected the diary was the crisis situation in the German book trade. As there had just been a money purge, no one dared to take a risk. Another reason was that the diary would not be literary enough and was therefore not suitable for the general German public.[15]
\r\n\r\nOn 20 January 1950, Otto Frank met Lambert Schneider of the publishing house of the same name and gave him the German manuscript of the diary.[16] On 22 March 1950, Schneider responded positively and the contract was signed on 25/28 July 1950.[17] Otto Frank was closely involved in the final translation and publication of the diary.[18] Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank appeared in November 1950 in an edition of 4,600 copies. The foreword was by Marie Baum. Previous candidates for the foreword were Herman Hesse (too ill) and Eugen Kogon.[19] Sales figures were relatively low.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank thought a wide distribution of the diary among German youth was very important. In his opinion, this was only possible with a cheaper edition.[21] In March 1955, the paperback edition of the Tagebuch der Anne Frank was published (under licence from the Lambert Schneider Verlag) by the Fischer Bücherei (Frankfurt am Main und Hamburg) in an edition of 50,000 copies.[22] The German translation by Anneliese Schütz had been revised by Maria Honeit, who corrected many errors and made the language use more 'natural'.[23] Within a month, 30,000 copies were sold.[24]
\r\n\r\nBecause the German-language editions were based on a fuller version of Typescript II than the first Dutch edition of Contact, questions were raised not only about the person Anne Frank but also about the authenticity of the diary.[25] Ernst Schnabel was therefore commissioned by the Fischer Bücherei to investigate the historicity of the character Anne Frank, which resulted in the book Spur eines Kindes. [26] The proceeds were earmarked for the Anne Frank Stipend, which aimed to give Israeli students the opportunity to study in Europe.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank also attached great importance to a cheap edition in East Germany. In 1957, Union Verlag published the diary there. [27]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank had an English translation of the diary by Rosey Pool very early on. She, like Anneliese Schütz, was an acquaintance of Otto Frank and his family. With this translation, Otto approached English publishers. Rosey Pool began her translation at about the same time as Anneliese Schütz.[9] Pool had taught English to Edith Frank.[28] Literary agent Robert Harben approached Otto Frank about publishing the diary in England, but several English publishers turned it down, including: Heineman Ltd, Gollancz; Allen & Unwin; New Universal Encyclopedia; Falcon Press; Hamish Hamilton; Martin Secker.[29] According to Harben, because the publishers and the public were averse to more books on war and resistance. [30]
\r\n
\r\nIn the United States, Otto Frank was also in contact with several publishers: Secker & Warburg, Gollanz, Heineman, Allen & Unwin, Mc Millan, Scribners, Siggewick & Jackson, Doubleday Doran, Hutchinson, John Lehman, Viking Press, Vanguard Press, Warendorf, Simon & Shuster, Appleton Century, Knopf, Schocken, Random House, Little Brown & Company.[31] Due to the success of the French edition of the diary, the English publisher Vallentine Mitchell & Company offered to publish the diary.[32]
Because Rosey Pool's translation was not satisfactory, Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday was commissioned by Vallentine Mitchell to retranslate the diary.[33] Otto Frank kept in close contact with her about the translation and also had her translate some passages that were missing from the Dutch edition.[34] The Diary of a Young Girl, with a foreword by writer Margaret Storm Jameson, was released in England on 30 April 1952. Reviews were good, but sales were disappointing.[35]
\r\n
\r\nLengthy negotiations between Otto Frank and Little, Brown and Company for the American edition of the diary stranded in March 1951 due to disagreements over the translation, Canadian rights and film rights to the diary.[36] Then Otto Frank quickly reached an agreement with US publisher Doubleday and Company.[36] Through the mediation of Nathan Straus Jr., the foreword was written by Eleanor Roosevelt.[37] The diary was published in the United States on 12 June 1952 (Anne's birthday). After a wildly enthusiastic review by Meyer Levin in The New York Times Book Review of 15 June 1952, the diary ranked sixth on the bestseller list in the United States five weeks after its publication.[38]
Otto Frank wilde ook een Duitse en Engelse vertaling van het dagboek.[1] Net als bij de Nederlandse uitgave moest hij veel moeite doen om buitenlandse uitgevers te interesseren. Pas na het succes van de Franse uitgave veranderde dat. Otto Frank was nauw betrokken bij de vertalingen en ook bij de keuze voor de schrijvers van het voorwoord.
\r\n\r\nBij Calmann-Lévy verscheen in maart 1950 Le Journal d’Anne Frank, de eerste buitenlandse uitgave van het dagboek. Deze vertaling was gebaseerd op de eerste uitgave van Het Achterhuis bij Contact en had een voorwoord van Daniel-Rops.[2] Otto Frank schreef op 27 januari 1949 aan Gilles de Neve van Contact dat Calmann-Lévy het manuscript in handen had. Op 7 maart 1949 ondertekende Otto Frank het contract met Editions Calmann-Lévy.[3] Binnen achttien maanden na ondertekening zou Calmann-Lévy het boek uitgeven, anders vielen de rechten terug aan Otto Frank. Op 11 maart 1950 was de Franse editie nog steeds niet verschenen.[4] Op 26 mei 1950 bedankte de Neve Otto Frank voor toezending van de Franse uitgave.[5] Volgens Otto Frank was deze vertaling door Tylia Caren en Suzanne Lombard zo geslaagd omdat Tylia Caren als Nederlandse française het Nederlands perfect beheerste en Suzanne Lombard de taal van de Franse jeugd goed eigen was.[6] Deze eerste Franse editie van het dagboek maakte indruk op Meyer Levin. Hij beijverde zich vervolgens voor de Engelse vertaling en raakte geïnteresseerd in de filmrechten.[7] Het succes van de Franse uitgave zorgde ervoor dat ook Engelse en Amerikaanse uitgevers serieus geïnteresseerd raakten.[8]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank vertaalde eerst zelf fragmenten van de verhaaltjes en het dagboek in het Duits voor zijn familie in Bazel:
\r\n\r\n'Endlich komme ich dazu, den Anfang von Anne’s Tagebuch in deutscher Uebersetzung zu senden und hoff, dass ich bald die Fortsetzung schicken kann. Da ich nur wenige exemplare habe muss das vorliegende weiter gegeben werden und ich füge eine Liste bei, wie ich mir den Weg denke. Es ist schwer, alles sinn- und stilgemäss in eine andere Sprache zu übertragen, viel vom original geht verloren. Das ist nicht zu vermeiden und ich bitte jeden von Euch, evtl. Unklarheiten oder Sprachfehler zu notieren und mir mit zuteilen.'[9]\r\n\r\n
In de winter van 1945 – 1946 begon Anneliese Schütz, in opdracht van Otto Frank met de vertaling van het dagboek in het Duits. Zij deed dit op basis van typescript II.[10] Zomer 1947 lag het manuscript bij Paul Szolnay Verlag in Wenen.[11] Otto Frank had contact met Dr. Fritz Landshoff, de directeur van de Duitstalige afdeling van uitgeverij Querido over de uitgave van het dagboek. Eind 1948 liep dit op niets uit.[12] Otto Frank benaderde verschillende Duitse uitgevers van eind 1948 tot 1950 waaronder: Verlag Kurt Desch (München); Volk und Welt (Berlijn); Rowohlt (Hamburg); Kiepenheuer Verlag (Berlijn); Europa Express (Zürich); Limes Verlag (Wiesbaden); Societäts Verlag (Frankfurt) en een niet nader genoemde uitgeverij in Koblenz.[13]
\r\n\r\nBij het zoeken naar een uitgever schakelde hij de hulp in van de advocaat Max Cahn, een vroegere klasgenoot van het Lessing Gymnasium en ook van zijn juridisch adviseur E.D. Hirsch Ballin. Max Cahn schakelde op zijn beurt ook een oude klasgenoot in, Walter Carstanjen, de chef-redacteur van het Börssenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel. Hij stuurde Otto Frank een lijst toe met mogelijke uitgevers.[14] Een reden waarom de Duitse uitgevers het dagboek afwezen was de crisissituatie in de Duitse boekhandel. Omdat er net een geldzuivering was geweest, durfde niemand risico te nemen. Een andere reden was dat het dagboek niet literair genoeg zou zijn en daarom niet geschikt was voor het grote Duitse publiek.[15]
\r\n\r\nOp 20 januari 1950 ontmoette Otto Frank Lambert Schneider van de gelijknamige uitgeverij en gaf hem het Duitse manuscript van het dagboek.[16] Op 22 maart 1950 reageerde Schneider positief en op 25/28 juli 1950 werd het contract getekend.[17] Otto Frank was nauw betrokken bij de uiteindelijke vertaling en uitgave van het dagboek.[18] Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank verscheen in november 1950 in een oplage van 4.600 exemplaren. Het voorwoord was van Marie Baum. Eerdere kandidaten voor het voorwoord waren Herman Hesse (te ziek) en Eugen Kogon.[19] De verkoopcijfers waren relatief laag.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank vond een grote verspreiding van het dagboek onder de Duitse jeugd erg belangrijk. Dat was volgens hem alleen mogelijk bij een goedkopere uitgave.[21] In maart 1955 verscheen (in licentie van het Lambert Schneider Verlag) de pocketuitgave van het Tagebuch der Anne Frank bij de Fischer Bücherei (Frankfurt am Main und Hamburg) in een oplage van 50.000 exemplaren.[22] De Duitse vertaling van Anneliese Schütz was herzien door Maria Honeit die veel fouten verbeterde en het taalgebruik 'natuurlijker' maakte.[23]Binnen een maand werden 30 000 exemplaren verkocht.[24]
\r\n\r\nOmdat de Duitstalige uitgaven waren gebaseerd op een vollediger versie van Typescript II dan de eerste Nederlandse editie van Contact, werden er behalve over de persoon Anne Frank ook vragen gesteld over de authenticiteit van het dagboek.[25] Ernst Schnabel kreeg daarom opdracht van de Fischer Bücherei om de historiciteit van het personage Anne Frank te onderzoeken, wat resulteerde in het boek Spur eines Kindes. [26] De opbrengsten waren bestemd voor het Anne Frank Stipendium dat Israëlische studenten de gelegenheid moest geven in Europa te studeren.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank hechtte ook veel waarde aan een goedkope uitgave in Oost Duitsland. In 1957 verscheen daar het dagboek daar bij Union Verlag. [27]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank beschikte al vroeg over een Engelse vertaling van het dagboek door Rosey Pool. Zij was net als Anneliese Schütz een bekende van Otto Frank en zijn gezin. Met deze vertaling benaderde Otto Engelse uitgevers. Rosey Pool begon ongeveer tegelijk met Anneliese Schütz aan haar vertaling.[9] Pool had Engelse les gegeven aan Edith Frank.[28] Literair agent Robert Harben benaderde Otto Frank voor de uitgave van het dagboek in Engeland, maar verschillende Engelse uitgevers wezen het af, zoals: Heineman Ltd., Gollancz; Allen & Unwin; New Universal Encyclopedia; Falcon Press; Hamish Hamilton; Martin Secker.[29] Volgens Harben omdat de uitgevers en het publiek afkerig stonden tegenover nog meer boeken over oorlog en verzet. [30]
\r\n
\r\nIn de Verenigde Staten had Otto Frank ook contact met diverse uitgevers: Secker & Warburg, Gollanz, Heineman, Allen & Unwit, Mc Millan, Scribners, Siggewick & Jackson, Doubleday Doran, Hutchinson, John Lehman, Viking Press, Vanguard Press, Warendorf, Simon & Shuster, Appleton Century, Knopf, Schocken, Random House, Little Brown & Company.[31] Door het succes van de Franse uitgave van het dagboek bood de Engelse uitgever Vallentine Mitchell & Company zich aan het dagboek uit te geven.[32]
Omdat de vertaling van Rosey Pool niet voldeed, kreeg Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday de opdracht van Vallentine Mitchell het dagboek opnieuw te vertalen.[33] Otto Frank hield nauw contact met haar over de vertaling en liet haar ook een aantal passages vertalen die in de Nederlandse editie ontbraken.[34] The Diary of a young girl, met een voorwoord van schrijfster Margaret Storm Jameson, kwam in Engeland uit op 30 april 1952. De besprekingen waren goed, maar de verkoopcijfers stelden teleur.[35]
\r\n
\r\nLangdurige onderhandelingen van Otto Frank met Little, Brown and Company over de Amerikaanse uitgave van het dagboek strandden maart 1951 door onenigheid over de vertaling, de Canadese rechten en de filmrechten van het dagboek.[36] Daarna werd Otto Frank het snel eens met de Amerikaanse uitgeverij Doubleday and Company.[36] Door bemiddeling van Nathan Straus Jr. werd het voorwoord geschreven door Eleanor Roosevelt.[37] Het dagboek verscheen op 12 juni 1952 (Annes geboortedag) in de Verenigde Staten. Na een laaiend enthousiaste recensie van Meyer Levin in The New York Times Book Review van 15 juni 1952 stond het dagboek vijf weken na verschijnen op de zesde plaats van de bestsellerlijst in de Verenigde staten.[38]
Otto Frank also wanted a German and English translation of the diary.[1] As with the Dutch edition, he had to go to great lengths to interest foreign publishers. Only after the success of the French edition did this change. Otto Frank was closely involved in the translations and also in choosing the writers of the foreword.
\r\n\r\nCalmann-Lévy published Le Journal d'Anne Frank, the first foreign edition of the diary, in March 1950. This translation was based on the first edition of Het Achterhuis published by Contact and had a foreword by Daniel-Rops.[2] Otto Frank wrote to Gilles de Neve of Contact on 27 January 1949 that Calmann-Lévy had the manuscript. On 7 March 1949, Otto Frank signed the contract with Editions Calmann-Lévy.[3] Within 18 months of signing, Calmann-Lévy had to publish the book, otherwise the rights would return to Otto Frank. On 11 March 1950, the French edition had still not been published.[4] On 26 May 1950, De Neve thanked Otto Frank for sending him the French edition.[5] According to Otto Frank, this translation by Tylia Caren and Suzanne Lombard was so successful because, as a Dutch Frenchwoman, Tylia Caren had a perfect command of Dutch and Suzanne Lombard was well versed in the language of French youth.[6] This first French edition of the diary impressed Meyer Levin. He then worked on the English translation and became interested in the film rights.[7] The success of the French edition meant that English and American publishers also became seriously interested.[8]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank first translated excerpts of the stories and diary into German himself for his family in Basel:
\r\n\r\n'Endlich komme ich dazu, den Anfang von Anne’s Tagebuch in deutscher Uebersetzung zu senden und hoff, dass ich bald die Fortsetzung schicken kann. Da ich nur wenige exemplare habe muss das vorliegende weiter gegeben werden und ich füge eine Liste bei, wie ich mir den Weg denke. Es ist schwer, alles sinn- und stilgemäss in eine andere Sprache zu übertragen, viel vom original geht verloren. Das ist nicht zu vermeiden und ich bitte jeden von Euch, evtl. Unklarheiten oder Sprachfehler zu notieren und mir mit zuteilen.'[9]\r\n\r\n
In the winter of 1945 - 1946, commissioned by Otto Frank, Anneliese Schütz began translating the diary into German. She did this on the basis of typescript II.[10] By summer 1947, the manuscript was at Paul Szolnay Verlag in Vienna.[11] Otto Frank was in contact with Dr Fritz Landshoff, the director of the German-language department of Querido publishers, about publishing the diary. At the end of 1948, this came to nothing.[12] Otto Frank approached several German publishers from late 1948 to 1950 including: Verlag Kurt Desch (Munich); Volk und Welt (Berlin); Rowohlt (Hamburg); Kiepenheuer Verlag (Berlin); Europa Express (Zurich); Limes Verlag (Wiesbaden); Societäts Verlag (Frankfurt) and an unnamed publisher in Koblenz.[13]
\r\n\r\nIn searching for a publisher, he enlisted the help of the lawyer Max Cahn, a former classmate at the Lessing Grammar School and also his legal adviser E.D. Hirsch Ballin. Max Cahn in turn also enlisted the help of an old classmate, Walter Carstanjen, the chief editor of the Börssenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel. He sent Otto Frank a list of possible publishers.[14] One reason the German publishers rejected the diary was the crisis situation in the German book trade. As there had just been a money purge, no one dared to take a risk. Another reason was that the diary would not be literary enough and was therefore not suitable for the general German public.[15]
\r\n\r\nOn 20 January 1950, Otto Frank met Lambert Schneider of the publishing house of the same name and gave him the German manuscript of the diary.[16] On 22 March 1950, Schneider responded positively and the contract was signed on 25/28 July 1950.[17] Otto Frank was closely involved in the final translation and publication of the diary.[18] Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank appeared in November 1950 in an edition of 4,600 copies. The foreword was by Marie Baum. Previous candidates for the foreword were Herman Hesse (too ill) and Eugen Kogon.[19] Sales figures were relatively low.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank thought a wide distribution of the diary among German youth was very important. In his opinion, this was only possible with a cheaper edition.[21] In March 1955, the paperback edition of the Tagebuch der Anne Frank was published (under licence from the Lambert Schneider Verlag) by the Fischer Bücherei (Frankfurt am Main und Hamburg) in an edition of 50,000 copies.[22] The German translation by Anneliese Schütz had been revised by Maria Honeit, who corrected many errors and made the language use more 'natural'.[23] Within a month, 30,000 copies were sold.[24]
\r\n\r\nBecause the German-language editions were based on a fuller version of Typescript II than the first Dutch edition of Contact, questions were raised not only about the person Anne Frank but also about the authenticity of the diary.[25] Ernst Schnabel was therefore commissioned by the Fischer Bücherei to investigate the historicity of the character Anne Frank, which resulted in the book Spur eines Kindes. [26] The proceeds were earmarked for the Anne Frank Stipend, which aimed to give Israeli students the opportunity to study in Europe.[20]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank also attached great importance to a cheap edition in East Germany. In 1957, Union Verlag published the diary there. [27]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank had an English translation of the diary by Rosey Pool very early on. She, like Anneliese Schütz, was an acquaintance of Otto Frank and his family. With this translation, Otto approached English publishers. Rosey Pool began her translation at about the same time as Anneliese Schütz.[9] Pool had taught English to Edith Frank.[28] Literary agent Robert Harben approached Otto Frank about publishing the diary in England, but several English publishers turned it down, including: Heineman Ltd, Gollancz; Allen & Unwin; New Universal Encyclopedia; Falcon Press; Hamish Hamilton; Martin Secker.[29] According to Harben, because the publishers and the public were averse to more books on war and resistance. [30]
\r\n
\r\nIn the United States, Otto Frank was also in contact with several publishers: Secker & Warburg, Gollanz, Heineman, Allen & Unwin, Mc Millan, Scribners, Siggewick & Jackson, Doubleday Doran, Hutchinson, John Lehman, Viking Press, Vanguard Press, Warendorf, Simon & Shuster, Appleton Century, Knopf, Schocken, Random House, Little Brown & Company.[31] Due to the success of the French edition of the diary, the English publisher Vallentine Mitchell & Company offered to publish the diary.[32]
Because Rosey Pool's translation was not satisfactory, Barbara Mooyaart-Doubleday was commissioned by Vallentine Mitchell to retranslate the diary.[33] Otto Frank kept in close contact with her about the translation and also had her translate some passages that were missing from the Dutch edition.[34] The Diary of a Young Girl, with a foreword by writer Margaret Storm Jameson, was released in England on 30 April 1952. Reviews were good, but sales were disappointing.[35]
\r\n
\r\nLengthy negotiations between Otto Frank and Little, Brown and Company for the American edition of the diary stranded in March 1951 due to disagreements over the translation, Canadian rights and film rights to the diary.[36] Then Otto Frank quickly reached an agreement with US publisher Doubleday and Company.[36] Through the mediation of Nathan Straus Jr., the foreword was written by Eleanor Roosevelt.[37] The diary was published in the United States on 12 June 1952 (Anne's birthday). After a wildly enthusiastic review by Meyer Levin in The New York Times Book Review of 15 June 1952, the diary ranked sixth on the bestseller list in the United States five weeks after its publication.[38]
By 1947, it was the largest book publisher in the United States.[1]
\r\n\r\nIn 1947 was het de grootste boekenuitgever in de Verenigde Staten.[1]
\r\n\r\nBy 1947, it was the largest book publisher in the United States.[1]
\r\n\r\nFive years after its first publication in the Netherlands, Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl was released in 1952 in a modest edition of 5,000 copies. After an enthusiastic review by writer Meyer Levin in The New York Times Book Review[1] sales of the book began to take off. A second print run of 15,000 copies soon followed and even a third printing of 45,000 a shorty after. In a short time, the diary went through print run after print run and millions of Americans had read the book.
\r\n\r\nVijf jaar na de eerste uitgave in Nederland komt in 1952 Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl op de markt in een bescheiden oplage van 5.000 exemplaren. Na een enthousiaste recensie door schrijver Meyer Levin in de The New York Times Book Review[1] begon de verkoop van het boek te lopen. Er kwam snel een tweede oplage van 15.000 exemplaren en kort daarna zelfs een derde druk van 45.000. In korte tijd beleefde het dagboek druk na druk en hadden miljoenen Amerikanen het boek gelezen.
\r\n\r\nFive years after its first publication in the Netherlands, Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl was released in 1952 in a modest edition of 5,000 copies. After an enthusiastic review by writer Meyer Levin in The New York Times Book Review[1] sales of the book began to take off. A second print run of 15,000 copies soon followed and even a third printing of 45,000 a shorty after. In a short time, the diary went through print run after print run and millions of Americans had read the book.
\r\n\r\nJoseph Schildkraut was an Austrian-American actor. His family were Jewish. Joseph’s father, Rudolph Schildkraut, was also a well-known actor. He had taken on acting roles in the United States in 1910–1911, and Joseph accompanied him.[1] Back in Europe, Joseph began his career as a stage actor in Germany and Austria. He appeared in several German films before emigrating to the United States with his family in 1920.[2]
\r\n\r\nSchildkraut played the role of Otto Frank in the Broadway play The Diary of Anne Frank from 1955 to 1957. The Broadway play was a major inspiration for the 1959 film of the same name, in which Joseph reprised the role of Otto Frank. He was not the only actor to do so; Gusti Huber played Edith Frank in both the play and the film. Schildkraut was nominated for a Golden Globe for his role in The Diary of Anne Frank, but did not win.[1]
\r\n\r\nBetween 1955 and 1978, Joseph (and after his death in 1964, his wife Leonora) corresponded with Otto Frank. They often wrote in German. In the early letters, Schildkraut primarily asked questions about Otto's life and the other people in hiding to better understand the role he was about to play, but the letters soon became friendlier. For example, Otto calls him "Pepi" in his letters, a nickname only Schildkraut's friends used for him. The correspondence with Leonora after Joseph's death shows that Anne's diary had a strong influence on Joseph.[3]
\r\n\r\nBesides playing Otto Frank, Schildkraut portrayed other historical (Jewish) characters; for example, in 1937 he played Alfred Dreyfus in the film The Life of Emile Zola, for which he received an Academy Award (also known as an Oscar) for Best Actor in a Supporting Role.[2] This made him the first Jewish actor to receive this award.[4] In 1961, he appeared in "Deaths-Head Revisited," an episode of the television series The Twilight Zone. In this episode, he played Alfred Becker, a fictional prisoner of the Dachau concentration camp.[2]
\r\n\r\nSchildkraut maintained an archive containing all information, clippings, and correspondence linked to the Frank family. This archive was auctioned off in 2012 and acquired by the Anne Frank House. This archive included letters between Otto Frank and his friend Nathan Straus Jr. from 1941. Straus attempted to help the Frank family flee occupied Europe for the United States. The archive also contained annotated old photographs, a transcript of a 1939 letter from Otto to Anne, and a monogrammed handkerchief that Otto had given to Schildkraut.[5]
\r\n\r\nSource personal data.[1]
\r\n\r\nIn the contract with publisher Contact (1946), Otto Frank had explicitly arranged that he would retain the translation and film rights to the diary.[1] After Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was rejected, writer couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett were commissioned to write it in late 1953. Their play The Diary of Anne Frank premiered on Broadway on 5 October 1955, after try-outs in Philadelphia. The play, produced by Kermit Bloomgarden and directed by Carson Kanin, received the Pulitzer Prize, among other awards, and was translated into many languages and performed in many countries.
\r\n\r\nMeyer Levin read the French edition of the diary and sought contact with Otto Frank through the publisher (Calman-Lévy).[2] He was moved by the diary and saw it as his task to translate it into English. He helped Otto Frank find an English and American publisher and was convinced from the start of the diary's potential for film and stage adaptation.[3] Levin put Otto Frank in touch with the diary's English publisher, Vallentine Mitchell.[4] He approached several people from the theatre and film world and made a passionate appeal to Otto Frank to let him write the play.[5] In early September 1952, Otto Frank agreed, but with the caveat that Meyer Levin's suggested producer, Cheryl Crawford, would judge the quality of the play.[6] Otto Frank felt he could not do this himself because he was too emotionally involved.[7]
\r\n\r\nBy mid-September 1952, Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was ready.[8] But Cheryl Crawford rejected it (October 1952). Meyer Levin did not accept this [9] and asked Kermit Bloomgarden to be producer. But Bloomgarden also rejected the play. Bloomgarden had also turned to Otto Frank in August 1952, asking to produce the play.[10] To get out of the impasse, Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Meyer Levin struck a deal. Levin was given one month (until 21 December 1952) to submit his play to 14 producers. If there was no interest, he would withdraw the play.[11] When subsequently all fourteen producers rejected the play, Meyer Levin did not keep his end of the bargain and made every effort to still get his stage adaptation performed. The Otto Frank Archive holds extensive correspondence and documentation on the conflict between Meyer Levin and Otto Frank, in which Meyer Levin repeatedly tried to mobilise public opinion and the Jewish community in favour of his stage adaptation of the diary by engaging the press. [12]
\r\n\r\nWhen Cheryl Crawford stepped down as producer in April 1953, Otto Frank signed a contract with Kermit Bloomgarden on 2 October 1953. Crawford resigned because she had had enough of the difficulties with Meyer Levin and because she had run into financial difficulties producing another play.[13] For a new stage adaptation, the choice fell on married couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett. They signed the contract on 23 February 1954. Carson McCullers, who had already been approached by Cheryl Crawford in November 1952, had initially agreed to write the play, but she had to withdraw in April 1953 due to health reasons.[14]
\r\n\r\nFrom January 1955, Meyer Levin filed lawsuits against Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Kermit Bloomgarden accusing them of fraud, breach of contract and plagiarism.[15] The charges were eventually upheld only in terms of plagiarism. The trial was settled on appeal in a settlement: Otto Frank paid Meyer Levin $50,000, and the latter then waived his adaptations of the diary. (26 October 1959).[11] After this ruling, Meyer Levin continued to publicly voice his displeasure. When he did stage his play in Israel in 1966, tensions again ran high.[16] In his 1973 book The Obsession, he gave his own take on the whole affair.[17]
\r\n\r\nThe $50,000 settlement amount awarded to Meyer Levin was seized upon by 'diary deniers' in the 1980s to label the diary of Anne Frank as a forgery, written by Meyer Levin at the behest of Otto Frank.
\r\n\r\nThe Hacketts began their stage adaptation on 15 December 1953.[18] On 27 December 1953, the Hacketts first sought contact with Otto Frank.[19] Thereafter, an intensive correspondence ensued in which Otto Frank gave them comments and advice and answered all their questions. This is how Otto Frank put the Hacketts in touch with Ernst Meyer and his family, who lived in America. These were good friends of his, who could tell the writers a lot about the Frank family, the other people in hiding and Amsterdam.[19] For the Jewish-religious aspects of the diary, the Hacketts were in contact with liberal rabbi Max Nussbaum.[19] Nussbaum was the husband of Ruth Nussbaum-Offenstadt, mother of Hannah Toby and previously married to Fritz Toby. A famous photo of Anne and her friends in the sandpit (1937) was taken in their garden.
\r\n\r\nThe fourth version of the play script was the first version Otto Frank got to read in June 1954.[20] Otto Frank found the result disappointing:
\r\n\r\n'(…) I am not moved. (…) Whereas with the Levin play I felt that the psychological development and the characters were good, but that I could not judge the dramatic value, my first impression of the Hackett version is to be excellent routine work, but not giving the spirit of the book. (…) Perhaps it is anyhow a base which, with many changes could be worked out to a higher standard. (…) I cannot say that the script is against the spirit of Anne but it is not working up to the high spirit of Anne and in its present form would never convey the message which the book contains. You can imagine that I feel very miserable about the situation.'[21]\r\n\r\n
Concerned, he wrote a letter to the Hacketts criticising that the play did not reflect the depth of Anne's character nor the message of the book.[22] For the development of Anne's character, he recommended an article by remedial educationalist Jean Schick Grossman for which she had spoken extensively with Otto Frank, Johannes Kleiman and Miep Gies.[23]
\r\n\r\nIn New York, the Hacketts worked on the fourth, fifth and sixth versions of the play.[24] These versions pleased Otto much better: 'I admire the way you caught the spirit of the book.'[25] He thought the inserted scenes fitted in superbly. He also had sympathy for the 'bread stealing' scene (Hermann van Pels steals a loaf of bread). Although he wondered whether there would be any legal consequences, as a brother of Hermann van Pels was still alive in the United States. He attached to the letter a list of 'observations and suggestions'.
\r\n\r\nAfter the seventh version of the script, the Hacketts came to Amsterdam where, on 6 December 1954, they met Otto Frank for the first time. They visited the Secret Annex, the 6th Montessori school, Merwedeplein 37-II and an ice cream parlour where 'Jews were allowed' the following day. [26] There was a meeting with Lou de Jong, who checked the script, and an extensive photo-reportage of and in the Secret Annex was made by photographer Maria Austria. Based on this visit, the play was revised again: the eighth version.
\r\n\r\nAround this time, the Secret Annex was photographed extensively and in detail by Maria Austria for two days.[27] Otto Frank noted in his diary on 8 December 1954: Photos. - Austria. On 11 December 1954: Photos with Haket [sic] + Kanin.[28]
\r\n\r\nAs it was now too late in the season, the producer postponed the play until autumn 1955.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank answered an extensive list of questions from Joseph Schildkraut, who was to play the role of Otto Frank in the play.[29] Furthermore, he was kept closely informed about the casting, sets, invitations to the premiere, etc.[30]
\r\n\r\nThe first rehearsal was on 22 August 1955. Try-outs began in Philadelphia on 15 September 1955.[31] There were rave reviews, and film companies also showed interest.[32] During the try-outs, the 'bread stealing' scene was moved from morning to night for dramatic effect.[33]
\r\n\r\nIt was followed by its New York premiere on 5 October 1955. Otto Frank never wanted to attend a stage or film screening of the diary. Just before the premiere, he wished the actors well and let them know: 'You will all realize that for me his play is a part of my life, and the idea that my wife and children as well as I will be presented on the stage is a painful one to me. Therefore it is impossible for me to come and see it.' Otto Frank had already wished success to the Hacketts on 9 September 1954, leaving it up to them whether to show the letter to the players in Philadelphia or in New York. [34]
\r\n\r\nIn het contract met uitgeverij Contact (1946) had Otto Frank expliciet geregeld dat hij de vertaal- en filmrechten van het dagboek zou behouden.[1] Nadat Meyer Levins toneelbewerking was afgewezen, kreeg het schrijversechtpaar Frances Goodrich en Albert Hackett eind 1953 de opdracht. Hun toneelstuk Het dagboek van Anne Frank ging, na try-outs in Philadelphia, op Broadway in première op 5 oktober 1955. Het stuk, geproduceerd door Kermit Bloomgarden en geregisseerd door Carson Kanin, kreeg onder andere de Pulitzerprijs en werd in veel talen vertaald en in veel landen opgevoerd.
\r\n\r\nMeyer Levin las de Franse editie van het dagboek en zocht via de uitgever (Calman-Lévy) contact met Otto Frank.[2] Hij was geraakt door het dagboek en zag het als zijn taak het in het Engels te vertalen. Hij hiep Otto Frank bij het vinden van een Engelse en Amerikaanse uitgever en was van meet af aan overtuigd van de mogelijkheden van het dagboek voor verfilming en toneelbewerking.[3] Levin bracht Otto Frank in contact met de Engelse uitgever van het dagboek, Vallentine Mitchell.[4] Hij benaderde diverse mensen uit de toneel- en filmwereld en deed een hartstochtelijk beroep op Otto Frank om hem het toneelstuk te laten schrijven.[5] Begin september 1952 stemde Otto Frank toe, maar wel onder voorbehoud dat de door Meyer Levin voorgestelde producente, Cheryl Crawford de kwaliteit van het stuk zou beoordelen.[6] Otto Frank vond dat hij dit zelf niet kon, omdat hij er gevoelsmatig te veel bij betrokken was.[7]
\r\n\r\nHalf september 1952 was Meyer Levins toneelbewerking klaar.[8] Maar Cheryl Crawford wees het af (oktober 1952). Meyer Levin legde zich hier niet bij neer[9] en vroeg Kermit Bloomgarden als producent. Maar ook Bloomgarden wees het stuk af. Bloomgarden had zich ook al in augustus 1952 tot Otto Frank gericht met het verzoek het toneelstuk te mogen produceren.[10] Om uit de impasse te komen, sloten Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford en Meyer Levin een overeenkomst. Levin kreeg een maand de tijd (tot 21 december 1952) om zijn stuk aan veertien producenten voor te leggen. Als er geen interesse was, zou hij het stuk terugtrekken.[11] Toen vervolgens alle veertien producenten het stuk afwezen, hield Meyer Levin zich niet aan de afspraak en stelde hij alles in het werk zijn toneelbewerking alsnog opgevoerd te krijgen. In het Otto Frank Archief bevindt zich uitgebreide correspondentie en documentatie over het conflict tussen Meyer Levin en Otto Frank, waarbij Meyer Levin herhaaldelijk de publieke opinie en de Joodse gemeenschap probeerde te mobiliseren ten gunste van zijn toneelbewerking van het dagboek door de pers in te schakelen. [12]
\r\n\r\nToen Cheryl Crawford zich in april 1953 terugtrok als producente, sloot Otto Frank op 2 oktober 1953 een contract met Kermit Bloomgarden. Crawford zag er vanaf omdat ze genoeg had van de moeilijkheden met Meyer Levin en omdat ze in financiële moeilijkheden was gekomen door de productie van een ander toneelstuk.[13] Voor een nieuwe toneelbewerking viel de keuze op het echtpaar Frances Goodrich en Albert Hackett. Zij tekenden het contract op 23 februari 1954. Carson McCullers, die al november 1952 door Cheryl Crawford werd benaderd, had eerst toegezegd het toneelstuk te schrijven, maar zij moest zich in april 1953 vanwege gezondheidsredenen terug trekken.[14]
\r\n\r\nVanaf januari 1955 voerde Meyer Levin rechtszaken tegen Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford en Kermit Bloomgarden waarin hij hen beschuldigde van fraude, contractbreuk en plagiaat.[15] De aanklacht werd uiteindelijk alleen toegewezen wat betreft plagiaat. Het proces werd in hoger beroep beslecht in een schikking: Otto Frank betaalde Meyer Levin 50.000 dollar die daarbij afstand deed van zijn bewerkingen van het dagboek. (26 oktober 1959).[11] Na deze uitspraak bleef Meyer Levin in het openbaar zijn ongenoegen uiten. Toen hij zijn toneelstuk in 1966 toch in Israël op de planken bracht, liepen de spanningen weer hoog op.[16] In zijn boek The Obsession uit 1973 gaf hij zijn eigen visie op de hele affaire.[17]
\r\n\r\nHet aan Meyer Levin toegekende schikkingsbedrag van 50.000 dollar werd in de jaren ’80 aangegrepen door 'dagboekontkenners' om het dagboek van Anne Frank te bestempelen als een vervalsing, door Meyer Levin geschreven in opdracht van Otto Frank.
\r\n\r\nDe Hacketts begonnen met hun toneelbewerking op 15 december 1953.[18] Op 27 december 1953 zochten de Hacketts voor het eerst contact met Otto Frank.[19] Daarna ontstond er een intensieve briefwisseling waarbij Otto Frank hen commentaar en advies gaf en al hun vragen beantwoordde. Zo bracht Otto Frank de Hacketts in contact met de in Amerika woonachtige Ernst Meyer en zijn gezin. Dit waren goede vrienden van hem, die de schrijvers veel over de familie Frank, de andere onderduikers en Amsterdam konden vertellen.[19]Voor de joods-religieuze aspecten uit het dagboek hadden de Hacketts contact met de liberale rabbijn Max Nussbaum.[19] Nussbaum was de echtgenoot van Ruth Nussbaum-Offenstadt, moeder van Hannah Toby en eerder getrouwd met Fritz Toby. Een bekende foto van Anne en haar vriendinnen in de zandbak (1937) werd bij hen in de tuin gemaakt.
\r\n\r\nDe vierde versie van het toneelscript was de eerste versie die Otto Frank in juni 1954 onder ogen kreeg.[20] Otto Frank vond het resultaat teleurstellend:
\r\n\r\n'{…) I am not moved. (…) Whereas with the Levin play I felt that the psychological development and the characters were good, but that I could not judge the dramatic value, my first impression of the Hackett version is to be excellent routine work, but not giving the spirit of the book. (…) Perhaps it is anyhow a base which, with many changes could be worked out to a higher standard. (…) I cannot say that the script is against the spirit of Anne but it is not working up to the high spirit of Anne and in its present form would never convey the message which the book contains. You can imagine that I feel very miserable about the situation.'[21]\r\n\r\n
Bezwaard schreef hij een brief aan de Hacketts met zijn kritiek dat het toneelstuk de diepgang van Annes karakter noch de boodschap van het boek weergaf.[22] Voor de ontwikkeling van Annes karakter beval hij een artikel aan van orthopedagoge Jean Schick Grossman waarvoor zij uitgebreid met Otto Frank, Johannes Kleiman en Miep Gies had gesproken.[23]
\r\n\r\nIn New York werkten de Hacketts aan de vierde, vijfde en zesde versie van het stuk.[24] Deze versies bevielen Otto veel beter: 'I admire the way you caught the spirit of the book.'[25]Hij vond de ingevoegde scènes uitstekend in het geheel passen. Ook voor de 'broodsteel'-scene (Hermann van Pels steelt een brood) had hij begrip. Hoewel hij zich afvroeg of er juridische consequenties waren, omdat er nog een broer van Hermann van Pels in de Verenigde Staten in leven was. Bij de brief voegde hij een lijst met 'observations'and suggestions' .
\r\n\r\nNa de zevende bewerking van het script, kwamen de Hacketts naar Amsterdam waar ze, op 6 december 1954, voor het eerst Otto Frank ontmoetten. Ze bezochten de dag erop het Achterhuis, de 6e Montessorischool, Merwedeplein 37-II en een ijssalon waar 'Jews were allowed'. [26] Er was een ontmoeting met Lou de Jong die het script controleerde en er werd een uitgebreide fotoreportage van en in het Achterhuis gemaakt door fotografe Maria Austria. Op grond van dit bezoek werd het toneelstuk nogmaals herzien: de achtste versie.
\r\n\r\nRond deze tijd werd het Achterhuis gedurende twee dagen uitvoerig en in detail door Maria Austria gefotografeerd.[27] Otto Frank noteerde in zijn agenda op 8 december 1954: Fotos. - Austria. Op 11 december 1954: Fotos met Haket [sic] + Kanin.[28]
\r\n\r\nOmdat het inmiddels te laat in het seizoen was, stelde de producent het toneelstuk uit tot najaar 1955.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank beantwoorde een uitgebreide vragenlijst van Joseph Schildkraut, die de rol van Otto Frank in het toneelstuk zou gaan spelen.[29] Verder liet hij zich nauwgezet op de hoogte houden over de casting, decors, uitnodigingen voor de première etc.[30]
\r\n\r\nOp 22 augustus 1955 was de eerste repetitie. De try-outs begonnen in Philadelphia op 15 september 1955.[31] De recensies waren lovend en ook filmmaatschappijen toonden interesse.[32] Tijdens de try-outs werd de ‘broodsteel’-scene verplaatst van de ochtend naar de nacht vanwege het dramatische effect.[33]
\r\n\r\nOp 5 oktober 1955 volgde de première in New York. Otto Frank wilde nooit een toneel- of filmvoorstelling van het dagboek bijwonen. Vlak voor de première wenstte hij de spelers succes en liet hen weten: 'You will all realize that for me his play is a part of my life, and the idea that my wife and children as well as I will be presented on the stage is a painful one to me. Therefore it is impossible for me to come and see it.' Otto Frank had zijn succeswensen al op 9 september 1954 gestuurd aan de Hacketts en liet het aan hen over of ze de brief in Philadelphia of in New York aan de spelers wilden laten zien. [34]
\r\n\r\nIn the contract with publisher Contact (1946), Otto Frank had explicitly arranged that he would retain the translation and film rights to the diary.[1] After Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was rejected, writer couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett were commissioned to write it in late 1953. Their play The Diary of Anne Frank premiered on Broadway on 5 October 1955, after try-outs in Philadelphia. The play, produced by Kermit Bloomgarden and directed by Carson Kanin, received the Pulitzer Prize, among other awards, and was translated into many languages and performed in many countries.
\r\n\r\nMeyer Levin read the French edition of the diary and sought contact with Otto Frank through the publisher (Calman-Lévy).[2] He was moved by the diary and saw it as his task to translate it into English. He helped Otto Frank find an English and American publisher and was convinced from the start of the diary's potential for film and stage adaptation.[3] Levin put Otto Frank in touch with the diary's English publisher, Vallentine Mitchell.[4] He approached several people from the theatre and film world and made a passionate appeal to Otto Frank to let him write the play.[5] In early September 1952, Otto Frank agreed, but with the caveat that Meyer Levin's suggested producer, Cheryl Crawford, would judge the quality of the play.[6] Otto Frank felt he could not do this himself because he was too emotionally involved.[7]
\r\n\r\nBy mid-September 1952, Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was ready.[8] But Cheryl Crawford rejected it (October 1952). Meyer Levin did not accept this [9] and asked Kermit Bloomgarden to be producer. But Bloomgarden also rejected the play. Bloomgarden had also turned to Otto Frank in August 1952, asking to produce the play.[10] To get out of the impasse, Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Meyer Levin struck a deal. Levin was given one month (until 21 December 1952) to submit his play to 14 producers. If there was no interest, he would withdraw the play.[11] When subsequently all fourteen producers rejected the play, Meyer Levin did not keep his end of the bargain and made every effort to still get his stage adaptation performed. The Otto Frank Archive holds extensive correspondence and documentation on the conflict between Meyer Levin and Otto Frank, in which Meyer Levin repeatedly tried to mobilise public opinion and the Jewish community in favour of his stage adaptation of the diary by engaging the press. [12]
\r\n\r\nWhen Cheryl Crawford stepped down as producer in April 1953, Otto Frank signed a contract with Kermit Bloomgarden on 2 October 1953. Crawford resigned because she had had enough of the difficulties with Meyer Levin and because she had run into financial difficulties producing another play.[13] For a new stage adaptation, the choice fell on married couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett. They signed the contract on 23 February 1954. Carson McCullers, who had already been approached by Cheryl Crawford in November 1952, had initially agreed to write the play, but she had to withdraw in April 1953 due to health reasons.[14]
\r\n\r\nFrom January 1955, Meyer Levin filed lawsuits against Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Kermit Bloomgarden accusing them of fraud, breach of contract and plagiarism.[15] The charges were eventually upheld only in terms of plagiarism. The trial was settled on appeal in a settlement: Otto Frank paid Meyer Levin $50,000, and the latter then waived his adaptations of the diary. (26 October 1959).[11] After this ruling, Meyer Levin continued to publicly voice his displeasure. When he did stage his play in Israel in 1966, tensions again ran high.[16] In his 1973 book The Obsession, he gave his own take on the whole affair.[17]
\r\n\r\nThe $50,000 settlement amount awarded to Meyer Levin was seized upon by 'diary deniers' in the 1980s to label the diary of Anne Frank as a forgery, written by Meyer Levin at the behest of Otto Frank.
\r\n\r\nThe Hacketts began their stage adaptation on 15 December 1953.[18] On 27 December 1953, the Hacketts first sought contact with Otto Frank.[19] Thereafter, an intensive correspondence ensued in which Otto Frank gave them comments and advice and answered all their questions. This is how Otto Frank put the Hacketts in touch with Ernst Meyer and his family, who lived in America. These were good friends of his, who could tell the writers a lot about the Frank family, the other people in hiding and Amsterdam.[19] For the Jewish-religious aspects of the diary, the Hacketts were in contact with liberal rabbi Max Nussbaum.[19] Nussbaum was the husband of Ruth Nussbaum-Offenstadt, mother of Hannah Toby and previously married to Fritz Toby. A famous photo of Anne and her friends in the sandpit (1937) was taken in their garden.
\r\n\r\nThe fourth version of the play script was the first version Otto Frank got to read in June 1954.[20] Otto Frank found the result disappointing:
\r\n\r\n'(…) I am not moved. (…) Whereas with the Levin play I felt that the psychological development and the characters were good, but that I could not judge the dramatic value, my first impression of the Hackett version is to be excellent routine work, but not giving the spirit of the book. (…) Perhaps it is anyhow a base which, with many changes could be worked out to a higher standard. (…) I cannot say that the script is against the spirit of Anne but it is not working up to the high spirit of Anne and in its present form would never convey the message which the book contains. You can imagine that I feel very miserable about the situation.'[21]\r\n\r\n
Concerned, he wrote a letter to the Hacketts criticising that the play did not reflect the depth of Anne's character nor the message of the book.[22] For the development of Anne's character, he recommended an article by remedial educationalist Jean Schick Grossman for which she had spoken extensively with Otto Frank, Johannes Kleiman and Miep Gies.[23]
\r\n\r\nIn New York, the Hacketts worked on the fourth, fifth and sixth versions of the play.[24] These versions pleased Otto much better: 'I admire the way you caught the spirit of the book.'[25] He thought the inserted scenes fitted in superbly. He also had sympathy for the 'bread stealing' scene (Hermann van Pels steals a loaf of bread). Although he wondered whether there would be any legal consequences, as a brother of Hermann van Pels was still alive in the United States. He attached to the letter a list of 'observations and suggestions'.
\r\n\r\nAfter the seventh version of the script, the Hacketts came to Amsterdam where, on 6 December 1954, they met Otto Frank for the first time. They visited the Secret Annex, the 6th Montessori school, Merwedeplein 37-II and an ice cream parlour where 'Jews were allowed' the following day. [26] There was a meeting with Lou de Jong, who checked the script, and an extensive photo-reportage of and in the Secret Annex was made by photographer Maria Austria. Based on this visit, the play was revised again: the eighth version.
\r\n\r\nAround this time, the Secret Annex was photographed extensively and in detail by Maria Austria for two days.[27] Otto Frank noted in his diary on 8 December 1954: Photos. - Austria. On 11 December 1954: Photos with Haket [sic] + Kanin.[28]
\r\n\r\nAs it was now too late in the season, the producer postponed the play until autumn 1955.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank answered an extensive list of questions from Joseph Schildkraut, who was to play the role of Otto Frank in the play.[29] Furthermore, he was kept closely informed about the casting, sets, invitations to the premiere, etc.[30]
\r\n\r\nThe first rehearsal was on 22 August 1955. Try-outs began in Philadelphia on 15 September 1955.[31] There were rave reviews, and film companies also showed interest.[32] During the try-outs, the 'bread stealing' scene was moved from morning to night for dramatic effect.[33]
\r\n\r\nIt was followed by its New York premiere on 5 October 1955. Otto Frank never wanted to attend a stage or film screening of the diary. Just before the premiere, he wished the actors well and let them know: 'You will all realize that for me his play is a part of my life, and the idea that my wife and children as well as I will be presented on the stage is a painful one to me. Therefore it is impossible for me to come and see it.' Otto Frank had already wished success to the Hacketts on 9 September 1954, leaving it up to them whether to show the letter to the players in Philadelphia or in New York. [34]
\r\n\r\nOn 5 October 1955, The Diary of Anne Frank premiered at the Cort Theatre in New York. Before the premiere.[1] Otto Frank wished the cast good luck; he himself could not see it, and did not want to. The thought of his family being portrayed on stage was too much for him.
\r\n\r\nThe play was produced by Kermit Bloomgarden and directed by Garson Kanin, with as cast:
\r\n\r\nThe decor was designed by Boris Aronson and the costumes by Helene Pons, with lighting by Leland Watson.[2]
\r\n\r\nThe last performance on Broadway was on 22 June 1957. After 717 performances, the play toured the country, beginning a tour of cities across the United States. The Diary of Anne Frank won major awards, including the Pulitzer Prize for Drama, the Tony Award and the New York Drama Critics' Circle Award for Best Play.[3]
\r\n\r\nOp 5 oktober 1955 ging The Diary of Anne Frank in première in het Cort Theatre in New York.[1] Voor de première wenstte Otto Frank de cast veel succes, zelf kon en wilde hij het niet zien. De gedachte dat zijn gezin op het toneel zal staan, viel hem te zwaar.
\r\n\r\nHet toneelstuk was geproduceerd door Kermit Bloomgarden en geregisseerd door Garson Kanin, met als rolverdeling:
\r\n\r\nHet decor was ontworpen door Boris Aronson en de kostuums door Helene Pons. Leland Watson verzorgde de belichting.[2]
\r\n\r\nDe laatste opvoering op Broadway was op 22 juni 1957. Na 717 voorstellingen ging het toneelstuk het land in en begint het aan een tournee langs steden in de Verenigde Staten. The Diary of Anne Frank won belangrijke prijzen, waaronder de Pulitzerprijs voor toneel, de Tony Award en de New York Drama Critics’ Circle Award voor Best Play.[3]
\r\n\r\nOn 5 October 1955, The Diary of Anne Frank premiered at the Cort Theatre in New York. Before the premiere.[1] Otto Frank wished the cast good luck; he himself could not see it, and did not want to. The thought of his family being portrayed on stage was too much for him.
\r\n\r\nThe play was produced by Kermit Bloomgarden and directed by Garson Kanin, with as cast:
\r\n\r\nThe decor was designed by Boris Aronson and the costumes by Helene Pons, with lighting by Leland Watson.[2]
\r\n\r\nThe last performance on Broadway was on 22 June 1957. After 717 performances, the play toured the country, beginning a tour of cities across the United States. The Diary of Anne Frank won major awards, including the Pulitzer Prize for Drama, the Tony Award and the New York Drama Critics' Circle Award for Best Play.[3]
\r\n\r\nIn the contract with publisher Contact (1946), Otto Frank had explicitly arranged that he would retain the translation and film rights to the diary.[1] After Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was rejected, writer couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett were commissioned to write it in late 1953. Their play The Diary of Anne Frank premiered on Broadway on 5 October 1955, after try-outs in Philadelphia. The play, produced by Kermit Bloomgarden and directed by Carson Kanin, received the Pulitzer Prize, among other awards, and was translated into many languages and performed in many countries.
\r\n\r\nMeyer Levin read the French edition of the diary and sought contact with Otto Frank through the publisher (Calman-Lévy).[2] He was moved by the diary and saw it as his task to translate it into English. He helped Otto Frank find an English and American publisher and was convinced from the start of the diary's potential for film and stage adaptation.[3] Levin put Otto Frank in touch with the diary's English publisher, Vallentine Mitchell.[4] He approached several people from the theatre and film world and made a passionate appeal to Otto Frank to let him write the play.[5] In early September 1952, Otto Frank agreed, but with the caveat that Meyer Levin's suggested producer, Cheryl Crawford, would judge the quality of the play.[6] Otto Frank felt he could not do this himself because he was too emotionally involved.[7]
\r\n\r\nBy mid-September 1952, Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was ready.[8] But Cheryl Crawford rejected it (October 1952). Meyer Levin did not accept this [9] and asked Kermit Bloomgarden to be producer. But Bloomgarden also rejected the play. Bloomgarden had also turned to Otto Frank in August 1952, asking to produce the play.[10] To get out of the impasse, Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Meyer Levin struck a deal. Levin was given one month (until 21 December 1952) to submit his play to 14 producers. If there was no interest, he would withdraw the play.[11] When subsequently all fourteen producers rejected the play, Meyer Levin did not keep his end of the bargain and made every effort to still get his stage adaptation performed. The Otto Frank Archive holds extensive correspondence and documentation on the conflict between Meyer Levin and Otto Frank, in which Meyer Levin repeatedly tried to mobilise public opinion and the Jewish community in favour of his stage adaptation of the diary by engaging the press. [12]
\r\n\r\nWhen Cheryl Crawford stepped down as producer in April 1953, Otto Frank signed a contract with Kermit Bloomgarden on 2 October 1953. Crawford resigned because she had had enough of the difficulties with Meyer Levin and because she had run into financial difficulties producing another play.[13] For a new stage adaptation, the choice fell on married couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett. They signed the contract on 23 February 1954. Carson McCullers, who had already been approached by Cheryl Crawford in November 1952, had initially agreed to write the play, but she had to withdraw in April 1953 due to health reasons.[14]
\r\n\r\nFrom January 1955, Meyer Levin filed lawsuits against Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Kermit Bloomgarden accusing them of fraud, breach of contract and plagiarism.[15] The charges were eventually upheld only in terms of plagiarism. The trial was settled on appeal in a settlement: Otto Frank paid Meyer Levin $50,000, and the latter then waived his adaptations of the diary. (26 October 1959).[11] After this ruling, Meyer Levin continued to publicly voice his displeasure. When he did stage his play in Israel in 1966, tensions again ran high.[16] In his 1973 book The Obsession, he gave his own take on the whole affair.[17]
\r\n\r\nThe $50,000 settlement amount awarded to Meyer Levin was seized upon by 'diary deniers' in the 1980s to label the diary of Anne Frank as a forgery, written by Meyer Levin at the behest of Otto Frank.
\r\n\r\nThe Hacketts began their stage adaptation on 15 December 1953.[18] On 27 December 1953, the Hacketts first sought contact with Otto Frank.[19] Thereafter, an intensive correspondence ensued in which Otto Frank gave them comments and advice and answered all their questions. This is how Otto Frank put the Hacketts in touch with Ernst Meyer and his family, who lived in America. These were good friends of his, who could tell the writers a lot about the Frank family, the other people in hiding and Amsterdam.[19] For the Jewish-religious aspects of the diary, the Hacketts were in contact with liberal rabbi Max Nussbaum.[19] Nussbaum was the husband of Ruth Nussbaum-Offenstadt, mother of Hannah Toby and previously married to Fritz Toby. A famous photo of Anne and her friends in the sandpit (1937) was taken in their garden.
\r\n\r\nThe fourth version of the play script was the first version Otto Frank got to read in June 1954.[20] Otto Frank found the result disappointing:
\r\n\r\n'(…) I am not moved. (…) Whereas with the Levin play I felt that the psychological development and the characters were good, but that I could not judge the dramatic value, my first impression of the Hackett version is to be excellent routine work, but not giving the spirit of the book. (…) Perhaps it is anyhow a base which, with many changes could be worked out to a higher standard. (…) I cannot say that the script is against the spirit of Anne but it is not working up to the high spirit of Anne and in its present form would never convey the message which the book contains. You can imagine that I feel very miserable about the situation.'[21]\r\n\r\n
Concerned, he wrote a letter to the Hacketts criticising that the play did not reflect the depth of Anne's character nor the message of the book.[22] For the development of Anne's character, he recommended an article by remedial educationalist Jean Schick Grossman for which she had spoken extensively with Otto Frank, Johannes Kleiman and Miep Gies.[23]
\r\n\r\nIn New York, the Hacketts worked on the fourth, fifth and sixth versions of the play.[24] These versions pleased Otto much better: 'I admire the way you caught the spirit of the book.'[25] He thought the inserted scenes fitted in superbly. He also had sympathy for the 'bread stealing' scene (Hermann van Pels steals a loaf of bread). Although he wondered whether there would be any legal consequences, as a brother of Hermann van Pels was still alive in the United States. He attached to the letter a list of 'observations and suggestions'.
\r\n\r\nAfter the seventh version of the script, the Hacketts came to Amsterdam where, on 6 December 1954, they met Otto Frank for the first time. They visited the Secret Annex, the 6th Montessori school, Merwedeplein 37-II and an ice cream parlour where 'Jews were allowed' the following day. [26] There was a meeting with Lou de Jong, who checked the script, and an extensive photo-reportage of and in the Secret Annex was made by photographer Maria Austria. Based on this visit, the play was revised again: the eighth version.
\r\n\r\nAround this time, the Secret Annex was photographed extensively and in detail by Maria Austria for two days.[27] Otto Frank noted in his diary on 8 December 1954: Photos. - Austria. On 11 December 1954: Photos with Haket [sic] + Kanin.[28]
\r\n\r\nAs it was now too late in the season, the producer postponed the play until autumn 1955.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank answered an extensive list of questions from Joseph Schildkraut, who was to play the role of Otto Frank in the play.[29] Furthermore, he was kept closely informed about the casting, sets, invitations to the premiere, etc.[30]
\r\n\r\nThe first rehearsal was on 22 August 1955. Try-outs began in Philadelphia on 15 September 1955.[31] There were rave reviews, and film companies also showed interest.[32] During the try-outs, the 'bread stealing' scene was moved from morning to night for dramatic effect.[33]
\r\n\r\nIt was followed by its New York premiere on 5 October 1955. Otto Frank never wanted to attend a stage or film screening of the diary. Just before the premiere, he wished the actors well and let them know: 'You will all realize that for me his play is a part of my life, and the idea that my wife and children as well as I will be presented on the stage is a painful one to me. Therefore it is impossible for me to come and see it.' Otto Frank had already wished success to the Hacketts on 9 September 1954, leaving it up to them whether to show the letter to the players in Philadelphia or in New York. [34]
\r\n\r\nIn het contract met uitgeverij Contact (1946) had Otto Frank expliciet geregeld dat hij de vertaal- en filmrechten van het dagboek zou behouden.[1] Nadat Meyer Levins toneelbewerking was afgewezen, kreeg het schrijversechtpaar Frances Goodrich en Albert Hackett eind 1953 de opdracht. Hun toneelstuk Het dagboek van Anne Frank ging, na try-outs in Philadelphia, op Broadway in première op 5 oktober 1955. Het stuk, geproduceerd door Kermit Bloomgarden en geregisseerd door Carson Kanin, kreeg onder andere de Pulitzerprijs en werd in veel talen vertaald en in veel landen opgevoerd.
\r\n\r\nMeyer Levin las de Franse editie van het dagboek en zocht via de uitgever (Calman-Lévy) contact met Otto Frank.[2] Hij was geraakt door het dagboek en zag het als zijn taak het in het Engels te vertalen. Hij hiep Otto Frank bij het vinden van een Engelse en Amerikaanse uitgever en was van meet af aan overtuigd van de mogelijkheden van het dagboek voor verfilming en toneelbewerking.[3] Levin bracht Otto Frank in contact met de Engelse uitgever van het dagboek, Vallentine Mitchell.[4] Hij benaderde diverse mensen uit de toneel- en filmwereld en deed een hartstochtelijk beroep op Otto Frank om hem het toneelstuk te laten schrijven.[5] Begin september 1952 stemde Otto Frank toe, maar wel onder voorbehoud dat de door Meyer Levin voorgestelde producente, Cheryl Crawford de kwaliteit van het stuk zou beoordelen.[6] Otto Frank vond dat hij dit zelf niet kon, omdat hij er gevoelsmatig te veel bij betrokken was.[7]
\r\n\r\nHalf september 1952 was Meyer Levins toneelbewerking klaar.[8] Maar Cheryl Crawford wees het af (oktober 1952). Meyer Levin legde zich hier niet bij neer[9] en vroeg Kermit Bloomgarden als producent. Maar ook Bloomgarden wees het stuk af. Bloomgarden had zich ook al in augustus 1952 tot Otto Frank gericht met het verzoek het toneelstuk te mogen produceren.[10] Om uit de impasse te komen, sloten Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford en Meyer Levin een overeenkomst. Levin kreeg een maand de tijd (tot 21 december 1952) om zijn stuk aan veertien producenten voor te leggen. Als er geen interesse was, zou hij het stuk terugtrekken.[11] Toen vervolgens alle veertien producenten het stuk afwezen, hield Meyer Levin zich niet aan de afspraak en stelde hij alles in het werk zijn toneelbewerking alsnog opgevoerd te krijgen. In het Otto Frank Archief bevindt zich uitgebreide correspondentie en documentatie over het conflict tussen Meyer Levin en Otto Frank, waarbij Meyer Levin herhaaldelijk de publieke opinie en de Joodse gemeenschap probeerde te mobiliseren ten gunste van zijn toneelbewerking van het dagboek door de pers in te schakelen. [12]
\r\n\r\nToen Cheryl Crawford zich in april 1953 terugtrok als producente, sloot Otto Frank op 2 oktober 1953 een contract met Kermit Bloomgarden. Crawford zag er vanaf omdat ze genoeg had van de moeilijkheden met Meyer Levin en omdat ze in financiële moeilijkheden was gekomen door de productie van een ander toneelstuk.[13] Voor een nieuwe toneelbewerking viel de keuze op het echtpaar Frances Goodrich en Albert Hackett. Zij tekenden het contract op 23 februari 1954. Carson McCullers, die al november 1952 door Cheryl Crawford werd benaderd, had eerst toegezegd het toneelstuk te schrijven, maar zij moest zich in april 1953 vanwege gezondheidsredenen terug trekken.[14]
\r\n\r\nVanaf januari 1955 voerde Meyer Levin rechtszaken tegen Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford en Kermit Bloomgarden waarin hij hen beschuldigde van fraude, contractbreuk en plagiaat.[15] De aanklacht werd uiteindelijk alleen toegewezen wat betreft plagiaat. Het proces werd in hoger beroep beslecht in een schikking: Otto Frank betaalde Meyer Levin 50.000 dollar die daarbij afstand deed van zijn bewerkingen van het dagboek. (26 oktober 1959).[11] Na deze uitspraak bleef Meyer Levin in het openbaar zijn ongenoegen uiten. Toen hij zijn toneelstuk in 1966 toch in Israël op de planken bracht, liepen de spanningen weer hoog op.[16] In zijn boek The Obsession uit 1973 gaf hij zijn eigen visie op de hele affaire.[17]
\r\n\r\nHet aan Meyer Levin toegekende schikkingsbedrag van 50.000 dollar werd in de jaren ’80 aangegrepen door 'dagboekontkenners' om het dagboek van Anne Frank te bestempelen als een vervalsing, door Meyer Levin geschreven in opdracht van Otto Frank.
\r\n\r\nDe Hacketts begonnen met hun toneelbewerking op 15 december 1953.[18] Op 27 december 1953 zochten de Hacketts voor het eerst contact met Otto Frank.[19] Daarna ontstond er een intensieve briefwisseling waarbij Otto Frank hen commentaar en advies gaf en al hun vragen beantwoordde. Zo bracht Otto Frank de Hacketts in contact met de in Amerika woonachtige Ernst Meyer en zijn gezin. Dit waren goede vrienden van hem, die de schrijvers veel over de familie Frank, de andere onderduikers en Amsterdam konden vertellen.[19]Voor de joods-religieuze aspecten uit het dagboek hadden de Hacketts contact met de liberale rabbijn Max Nussbaum.[19] Nussbaum was de echtgenoot van Ruth Nussbaum-Offenstadt, moeder van Hannah Toby en eerder getrouwd met Fritz Toby. Een bekende foto van Anne en haar vriendinnen in de zandbak (1937) werd bij hen in de tuin gemaakt.
\r\n\r\nDe vierde versie van het toneelscript was de eerste versie die Otto Frank in juni 1954 onder ogen kreeg.[20] Otto Frank vond het resultaat teleurstellend:
\r\n\r\n'{…) I am not moved. (…) Whereas with the Levin play I felt that the psychological development and the characters were good, but that I could not judge the dramatic value, my first impression of the Hackett version is to be excellent routine work, but not giving the spirit of the book. (…) Perhaps it is anyhow a base which, with many changes could be worked out to a higher standard. (…) I cannot say that the script is against the spirit of Anne but it is not working up to the high spirit of Anne and in its present form would never convey the message which the book contains. You can imagine that I feel very miserable about the situation.'[21]\r\n\r\n
Bezwaard schreef hij een brief aan de Hacketts met zijn kritiek dat het toneelstuk de diepgang van Annes karakter noch de boodschap van het boek weergaf.[22] Voor de ontwikkeling van Annes karakter beval hij een artikel aan van orthopedagoge Jean Schick Grossman waarvoor zij uitgebreid met Otto Frank, Johannes Kleiman en Miep Gies had gesproken.[23]
\r\n\r\nIn New York werkten de Hacketts aan de vierde, vijfde en zesde versie van het stuk.[24] Deze versies bevielen Otto veel beter: 'I admire the way you caught the spirit of the book.'[25]Hij vond de ingevoegde scènes uitstekend in het geheel passen. Ook voor de 'broodsteel'-scene (Hermann van Pels steelt een brood) had hij begrip. Hoewel hij zich afvroeg of er juridische consequenties waren, omdat er nog een broer van Hermann van Pels in de Verenigde Staten in leven was. Bij de brief voegde hij een lijst met 'observations'and suggestions' .
\r\n\r\nNa de zevende bewerking van het script, kwamen de Hacketts naar Amsterdam waar ze, op 6 december 1954, voor het eerst Otto Frank ontmoetten. Ze bezochten de dag erop het Achterhuis, de 6e Montessorischool, Merwedeplein 37-II en een ijssalon waar 'Jews were allowed'. [26] Er was een ontmoeting met Lou de Jong die het script controleerde en er werd een uitgebreide fotoreportage van en in het Achterhuis gemaakt door fotografe Maria Austria. Op grond van dit bezoek werd het toneelstuk nogmaals herzien: de achtste versie.
\r\n\r\nRond deze tijd werd het Achterhuis gedurende twee dagen uitvoerig en in detail door Maria Austria gefotografeerd.[27] Otto Frank noteerde in zijn agenda op 8 december 1954: Fotos. - Austria. Op 11 december 1954: Fotos met Haket [sic] + Kanin.[28]
\r\n\r\nOmdat het inmiddels te laat in het seizoen was, stelde de producent het toneelstuk uit tot najaar 1955.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank beantwoorde een uitgebreide vragenlijst van Joseph Schildkraut, die de rol van Otto Frank in het toneelstuk zou gaan spelen.[29] Verder liet hij zich nauwgezet op de hoogte houden over de casting, decors, uitnodigingen voor de première etc.[30]
\r\n\r\nOp 22 augustus 1955 was de eerste repetitie. De try-outs begonnen in Philadelphia op 15 september 1955.[31] De recensies waren lovend en ook filmmaatschappijen toonden interesse.[32] Tijdens de try-outs werd de ‘broodsteel’-scene verplaatst van de ochtend naar de nacht vanwege het dramatische effect.[33]
\r\n\r\nOp 5 oktober 1955 volgde de première in New York. Otto Frank wilde nooit een toneel- of filmvoorstelling van het dagboek bijwonen. Vlak voor de première wenstte hij de spelers succes en liet hen weten: 'You will all realize that for me his play is a part of my life, and the idea that my wife and children as well as I will be presented on the stage is a painful one to me. Therefore it is impossible for me to come and see it.' Otto Frank had zijn succeswensen al op 9 september 1954 gestuurd aan de Hacketts en liet het aan hen over of ze de brief in Philadelphia of in New York aan de spelers wilden laten zien. [34]
\r\n\r\nIn the contract with publisher Contact (1946), Otto Frank had explicitly arranged that he would retain the translation and film rights to the diary.[1] After Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was rejected, writer couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett were commissioned to write it in late 1953. Their play The Diary of Anne Frank premiered on Broadway on 5 October 1955, after try-outs in Philadelphia. The play, produced by Kermit Bloomgarden and directed by Carson Kanin, received the Pulitzer Prize, among other awards, and was translated into many languages and performed in many countries.
\r\n\r\nMeyer Levin read the French edition of the diary and sought contact with Otto Frank through the publisher (Calman-Lévy).[2] He was moved by the diary and saw it as his task to translate it into English. He helped Otto Frank find an English and American publisher and was convinced from the start of the diary's potential for film and stage adaptation.[3] Levin put Otto Frank in touch with the diary's English publisher, Vallentine Mitchell.[4] He approached several people from the theatre and film world and made a passionate appeal to Otto Frank to let him write the play.[5] In early September 1952, Otto Frank agreed, but with the caveat that Meyer Levin's suggested producer, Cheryl Crawford, would judge the quality of the play.[6] Otto Frank felt he could not do this himself because he was too emotionally involved.[7]
\r\n\r\nBy mid-September 1952, Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was ready.[8] But Cheryl Crawford rejected it (October 1952). Meyer Levin did not accept this [9] and asked Kermit Bloomgarden to be producer. But Bloomgarden also rejected the play. Bloomgarden had also turned to Otto Frank in August 1952, asking to produce the play.[10] To get out of the impasse, Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Meyer Levin struck a deal. Levin was given one month (until 21 December 1952) to submit his play to 14 producers. If there was no interest, he would withdraw the play.[11] When subsequently all fourteen producers rejected the play, Meyer Levin did not keep his end of the bargain and made every effort to still get his stage adaptation performed. The Otto Frank Archive holds extensive correspondence and documentation on the conflict between Meyer Levin and Otto Frank, in which Meyer Levin repeatedly tried to mobilise public opinion and the Jewish community in favour of his stage adaptation of the diary by engaging the press. [12]
\r\n\r\nWhen Cheryl Crawford stepped down as producer in April 1953, Otto Frank signed a contract with Kermit Bloomgarden on 2 October 1953. Crawford resigned because she had had enough of the difficulties with Meyer Levin and because she had run into financial difficulties producing another play.[13] For a new stage adaptation, the choice fell on married couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett. They signed the contract on 23 February 1954. Carson McCullers, who had already been approached by Cheryl Crawford in November 1952, had initially agreed to write the play, but she had to withdraw in April 1953 due to health reasons.[14]
\r\n\r\nFrom January 1955, Meyer Levin filed lawsuits against Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Kermit Bloomgarden accusing them of fraud, breach of contract and plagiarism.[15] The charges were eventually upheld only in terms of plagiarism. The trial was settled on appeal in a settlement: Otto Frank paid Meyer Levin $50,000, and the latter then waived his adaptations of the diary. (26 October 1959).[11] After this ruling, Meyer Levin continued to publicly voice his displeasure. When he did stage his play in Israel in 1966, tensions again ran high.[16] In his 1973 book The Obsession, he gave his own take on the whole affair.[17]
\r\n\r\nThe $50,000 settlement amount awarded to Meyer Levin was seized upon by 'diary deniers' in the 1980s to label the diary of Anne Frank as a forgery, written by Meyer Levin at the behest of Otto Frank.
\r\n\r\nThe Hacketts began their stage adaptation on 15 December 1953.[18] On 27 December 1953, the Hacketts first sought contact with Otto Frank.[19] Thereafter, an intensive correspondence ensued in which Otto Frank gave them comments and advice and answered all their questions. This is how Otto Frank put the Hacketts in touch with Ernst Meyer and his family, who lived in America. These were good friends of his, who could tell the writers a lot about the Frank family, the other people in hiding and Amsterdam.[19] For the Jewish-religious aspects of the diary, the Hacketts were in contact with liberal rabbi Max Nussbaum.[19] Nussbaum was the husband of Ruth Nussbaum-Offenstadt, mother of Hannah Toby and previously married to Fritz Toby. A famous photo of Anne and her friends in the sandpit (1937) was taken in their garden.
\r\n\r\nThe fourth version of the play script was the first version Otto Frank got to read in June 1954.[20] Otto Frank found the result disappointing:
\r\n\r\n'(…) I am not moved. (…) Whereas with the Levin play I felt that the psychological development and the characters were good, but that I could not judge the dramatic value, my first impression of the Hackett version is to be excellent routine work, but not giving the spirit of the book. (…) Perhaps it is anyhow a base which, with many changes could be worked out to a higher standard. (…) I cannot say that the script is against the spirit of Anne but it is not working up to the high spirit of Anne and in its present form would never convey the message which the book contains. You can imagine that I feel very miserable about the situation.'[21]\r\n\r\n
Concerned, he wrote a letter to the Hacketts criticising that the play did not reflect the depth of Anne's character nor the message of the book.[22] For the development of Anne's character, he recommended an article by remedial educationalist Jean Schick Grossman for which she had spoken extensively with Otto Frank, Johannes Kleiman and Miep Gies.[23]
\r\n\r\nIn New York, the Hacketts worked on the fourth, fifth and sixth versions of the play.[24] These versions pleased Otto much better: 'I admire the way you caught the spirit of the book.'[25] He thought the inserted scenes fitted in superbly. He also had sympathy for the 'bread stealing' scene (Hermann van Pels steals a loaf of bread). Although he wondered whether there would be any legal consequences, as a brother of Hermann van Pels was still alive in the United States. He attached to the letter a list of 'observations and suggestions'.
\r\n\r\nAfter the seventh version of the script, the Hacketts came to Amsterdam where, on 6 December 1954, they met Otto Frank for the first time. They visited the Secret Annex, the 6th Montessori school, Merwedeplein 37-II and an ice cream parlour where 'Jews were allowed' the following day. [26] There was a meeting with Lou de Jong, who checked the script, and an extensive photo-reportage of and in the Secret Annex was made by photographer Maria Austria. Based on this visit, the play was revised again: the eighth version.
\r\n\r\nAround this time, the Secret Annex was photographed extensively and in detail by Maria Austria for two days.[27] Otto Frank noted in his diary on 8 December 1954: Photos. - Austria. On 11 December 1954: Photos with Haket [sic] + Kanin.[28]
\r\n\r\nAs it was now too late in the season, the producer postponed the play until autumn 1955.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank answered an extensive list of questions from Joseph Schildkraut, who was to play the role of Otto Frank in the play.[29] Furthermore, he was kept closely informed about the casting, sets, invitations to the premiere, etc.[30]
\r\n\r\nThe first rehearsal was on 22 August 1955. Try-outs began in Philadelphia on 15 September 1955.[31] There were rave reviews, and film companies also showed interest.[32] During the try-outs, the 'bread stealing' scene was moved from morning to night for dramatic effect.[33]
\r\n\r\nIt was followed by its New York premiere on 5 October 1955. Otto Frank never wanted to attend a stage or film screening of the diary. Just before the premiere, he wished the actors well and let them know: 'You will all realize that for me his play is a part of my life, and the idea that my wife and children as well as I will be presented on the stage is a painful one to me. Therefore it is impossible for me to come and see it.' Otto Frank had already wished success to the Hacketts on 9 September 1954, leaving it up to them whether to show the letter to the players in Philadelphia or in New York. [34]
\r\n\r\nThe James Earl Jones Theatre, originally the Cort Theatre, is a Broadway theater in Midtown Manhattan's theater district.[1]
\r\n\r\nHet James Earl Jones Theatre, oorspronkelijk het Cort Theatre, is een Broadway-theater in het theaterdistrict van Midtown Manhattan.[1]
\r\n\r\nThe James Earl Jones Theatre, originally the Cort Theatre, is a Broadway theater in Midtown Manhattan's theater district.[1]
\r\n\r\nOn 5 October 1955, The Diary of Anne Frank premiered at the Cort Theatre in New York. Before the premiere.[1] Otto Frank wished the cast good luck; he himself could not see it, and did not want to. The thought of his family being portrayed on stage was too much for him.
\r\n\r\nThe play was produced by Kermit Bloomgarden and directed by Garson Kanin, with as cast:
\r\n\r\nThe decor was designed by Boris Aronson and the costumes by Helene Pons, with lighting by Leland Watson.[2]
\r\n\r\nThe last performance on Broadway was on 22 June 1957. After 717 performances, the play toured the country, beginning a tour of cities across the United States. The Diary of Anne Frank won major awards, including the Pulitzer Prize for Drama, the Tony Award and the New York Drama Critics' Circle Award for Best Play.[3]
\r\n\r\nOp 5 oktober 1955 ging The Diary of Anne Frank in première in het Cort Theatre in New York.[1] Voor de première wenstte Otto Frank de cast veel succes, zelf kon en wilde hij het niet zien. De gedachte dat zijn gezin op het toneel zal staan, viel hem te zwaar.
\r\n\r\nHet toneelstuk was geproduceerd door Kermit Bloomgarden en geregisseerd door Garson Kanin, met als rolverdeling:
\r\n\r\nHet decor was ontworpen door Boris Aronson en de kostuums door Helene Pons. Leland Watson verzorgde de belichting.[2]
\r\n\r\nDe laatste opvoering op Broadway was op 22 juni 1957. Na 717 voorstellingen ging het toneelstuk het land in en begint het aan een tournee langs steden in de Verenigde Staten. The Diary of Anne Frank won belangrijke prijzen, waaronder de Pulitzerprijs voor toneel, de Tony Award en de New York Drama Critics’ Circle Award voor Best Play.[3]
\r\n\r\nOn 5 October 1955, The Diary of Anne Frank premiered at the Cort Theatre in New York. Before the premiere.[1] Otto Frank wished the cast good luck; he himself could not see it, and did not want to. The thought of his family being portrayed on stage was too much for him.
\r\n\r\nThe play was produced by Kermit Bloomgarden and directed by Garson Kanin, with as cast:
\r\n\r\nThe decor was designed by Boris Aronson and the costumes by Helene Pons, with lighting by Leland Watson.[2]
\r\n\r\nThe last performance on Broadway was on 22 June 1957. After 717 performances, the play toured the country, beginning a tour of cities across the United States. The Diary of Anne Frank won major awards, including the Pulitzer Prize for Drama, the Tony Award and the New York Drama Critics' Circle Award for Best Play.[3]
\r\n\r\nPrincess Juliana was the daughter and only child of Queen Wilhelmina and Prince Hendrik. On 7 January 1937, she married Prince Bernard zur Lippe. Princesses Beatrix, Irene, Margriet and Christina were born from this marriage. Juliana spent the war years in Canada with her daughters.
\r\n\r\nIn 1943, a picture postcard was produced from a photograph of the Dutch Royal family, livinh in exile in Ottawa Canada, and then illegally distributed throughout the country. Anne was given one of these cards by the Bep, and she noted in her diary: “Bep has had a picture postcard of the whole royal family copied for me. Juliana looks very young, and so does the queen. The three girls are lovely. It was terribly nice of Bep, don’t you think?”[1] Anne first put this postcard into her photo album. She later pinned it to the wall, next to the image of the British Royal family, using a thumbtack.[2]
\r\n\r\nJuliana was Queen of the Netherlands from 1948 to 1980.[3] Juliana's private secretary wrote a letter of thanks to Otto Frank for the copy of Het Achterhuis that he had sent.[4]
\r\n\r\nIn the contract with publisher Contact (1946), Otto Frank had explicitly arranged that he would retain the translation and film rights to the diary.[1] After Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was rejected, writer couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett were commissioned to write it in late 1953. Their play The Diary of Anne Frank premiered on Broadway on 5 October 1955, after try-outs in Philadelphia. The play, produced by Kermit Bloomgarden and directed by Carson Kanin, received the Pulitzer Prize, among other awards, and was translated into many languages and performed in many countries.
\r\n\r\nMeyer Levin read the French edition of the diary and sought contact with Otto Frank through the publisher (Calman-Lévy).[2] He was moved by the diary and saw it as his task to translate it into English. He helped Otto Frank find an English and American publisher and was convinced from the start of the diary's potential for film and stage adaptation.[3] Levin put Otto Frank in touch with the diary's English publisher, Vallentine Mitchell.[4] He approached several people from the theatre and film world and made a passionate appeal to Otto Frank to let him write the play.[5] In early September 1952, Otto Frank agreed, but with the caveat that Meyer Levin's suggested producer, Cheryl Crawford, would judge the quality of the play.[6] Otto Frank felt he could not do this himself because he was too emotionally involved.[7]
\r\n\r\nBy mid-September 1952, Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was ready.[8] But Cheryl Crawford rejected it (October 1952). Meyer Levin did not accept this [9] and asked Kermit Bloomgarden to be producer. But Bloomgarden also rejected the play. Bloomgarden had also turned to Otto Frank in August 1952, asking to produce the play.[10] To get out of the impasse, Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Meyer Levin struck a deal. Levin was given one month (until 21 December 1952) to submit his play to 14 producers. If there was no interest, he would withdraw the play.[11] When subsequently all fourteen producers rejected the play, Meyer Levin did not keep his end of the bargain and made every effort to still get his stage adaptation performed. The Otto Frank Archive holds extensive correspondence and documentation on the conflict between Meyer Levin and Otto Frank, in which Meyer Levin repeatedly tried to mobilise public opinion and the Jewish community in favour of his stage adaptation of the diary by engaging the press. [12]
\r\n\r\nWhen Cheryl Crawford stepped down as producer in April 1953, Otto Frank signed a contract with Kermit Bloomgarden on 2 October 1953. Crawford resigned because she had had enough of the difficulties with Meyer Levin and because she had run into financial difficulties producing another play.[13] For a new stage adaptation, the choice fell on married couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett. They signed the contract on 23 February 1954. Carson McCullers, who had already been approached by Cheryl Crawford in November 1952, had initially agreed to write the play, but she had to withdraw in April 1953 due to health reasons.[14]
\r\n\r\nFrom January 1955, Meyer Levin filed lawsuits against Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Kermit Bloomgarden accusing them of fraud, breach of contract and plagiarism.[15] The charges were eventually upheld only in terms of plagiarism. The trial was settled on appeal in a settlement: Otto Frank paid Meyer Levin $50,000, and the latter then waived his adaptations of the diary. (26 October 1959).[11] After this ruling, Meyer Levin continued to publicly voice his displeasure. When he did stage his play in Israel in 1966, tensions again ran high.[16] In his 1973 book The Obsession, he gave his own take on the whole affair.[17]
\r\n\r\nThe $50,000 settlement amount awarded to Meyer Levin was seized upon by 'diary deniers' in the 1980s to label the diary of Anne Frank as a forgery, written by Meyer Levin at the behest of Otto Frank.
\r\n\r\nThe Hacketts began their stage adaptation on 15 December 1953.[18] On 27 December 1953, the Hacketts first sought contact with Otto Frank.[19] Thereafter, an intensive correspondence ensued in which Otto Frank gave them comments and advice and answered all their questions. This is how Otto Frank put the Hacketts in touch with Ernst Meyer and his family, who lived in America. These were good friends of his, who could tell the writers a lot about the Frank family, the other people in hiding and Amsterdam.[19] For the Jewish-religious aspects of the diary, the Hacketts were in contact with liberal rabbi Max Nussbaum.[19] Nussbaum was the husband of Ruth Nussbaum-Offenstadt, mother of Hannah Toby and previously married to Fritz Toby. A famous photo of Anne and her friends in the sandpit (1937) was taken in their garden.
\r\n\r\nThe fourth version of the play script was the first version Otto Frank got to read in June 1954.[20] Otto Frank found the result disappointing:
\r\n\r\n'(…) I am not moved. (…) Whereas with the Levin play I felt that the psychological development and the characters were good, but that I could not judge the dramatic value, my first impression of the Hackett version is to be excellent routine work, but not giving the spirit of the book. (…) Perhaps it is anyhow a base which, with many changes could be worked out to a higher standard. (…) I cannot say that the script is against the spirit of Anne but it is not working up to the high spirit of Anne and in its present form would never convey the message which the book contains. You can imagine that I feel very miserable about the situation.'[21]\r\n\r\n
Concerned, he wrote a letter to the Hacketts criticising that the play did not reflect the depth of Anne's character nor the message of the book.[22] For the development of Anne's character, he recommended an article by remedial educationalist Jean Schick Grossman for which she had spoken extensively with Otto Frank, Johannes Kleiman and Miep Gies.[23]
\r\n\r\nIn New York, the Hacketts worked on the fourth, fifth and sixth versions of the play.[24] These versions pleased Otto much better: 'I admire the way you caught the spirit of the book.'[25] He thought the inserted scenes fitted in superbly. He also had sympathy for the 'bread stealing' scene (Hermann van Pels steals a loaf of bread). Although he wondered whether there would be any legal consequences, as a brother of Hermann van Pels was still alive in the United States. He attached to the letter a list of 'observations and suggestions'.
\r\n\r\nAfter the seventh version of the script, the Hacketts came to Amsterdam where, on 6 December 1954, they met Otto Frank for the first time. They visited the Secret Annex, the 6th Montessori school, Merwedeplein 37-II and an ice cream parlour where 'Jews were allowed' the following day. [26] There was a meeting with Lou de Jong, who checked the script, and an extensive photo-reportage of and in the Secret Annex was made by photographer Maria Austria. Based on this visit, the play was revised again: the eighth version.
\r\n\r\nAround this time, the Secret Annex was photographed extensively and in detail by Maria Austria for two days.[27] Otto Frank noted in his diary on 8 December 1954: Photos. - Austria. On 11 December 1954: Photos with Haket [sic] + Kanin.[28]
\r\n\r\nAs it was now too late in the season, the producer postponed the play until autumn 1955.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank answered an extensive list of questions from Joseph Schildkraut, who was to play the role of Otto Frank in the play.[29] Furthermore, he was kept closely informed about the casting, sets, invitations to the premiere, etc.[30]
\r\n\r\nThe first rehearsal was on 22 August 1955. Try-outs began in Philadelphia on 15 September 1955.[31] There were rave reviews, and film companies also showed interest.[32] During the try-outs, the 'bread stealing' scene was moved from morning to night for dramatic effect.[33]
\r\n\r\nIt was followed by its New York premiere on 5 October 1955. Otto Frank never wanted to attend a stage or film screening of the diary. Just before the premiere, he wished the actors well and let them know: 'You will all realize that for me his play is a part of my life, and the idea that my wife and children as well as I will be presented on the stage is a painful one to me. Therefore it is impossible for me to come and see it.' Otto Frank had already wished success to the Hacketts on 9 September 1954, leaving it up to them whether to show the letter to the players in Philadelphia or in New York. [34]
\r\n\r\nIn het contract met uitgeverij Contact (1946) had Otto Frank expliciet geregeld dat hij de vertaal- en filmrechten van het dagboek zou behouden.[1] Nadat Meyer Levins toneelbewerking was afgewezen, kreeg het schrijversechtpaar Frances Goodrich en Albert Hackett eind 1953 de opdracht. Hun toneelstuk Het dagboek van Anne Frank ging, na try-outs in Philadelphia, op Broadway in première op 5 oktober 1955. Het stuk, geproduceerd door Kermit Bloomgarden en geregisseerd door Carson Kanin, kreeg onder andere de Pulitzerprijs en werd in veel talen vertaald en in veel landen opgevoerd.
\r\n\r\nMeyer Levin las de Franse editie van het dagboek en zocht via de uitgever (Calman-Lévy) contact met Otto Frank.[2] Hij was geraakt door het dagboek en zag het als zijn taak het in het Engels te vertalen. Hij hiep Otto Frank bij het vinden van een Engelse en Amerikaanse uitgever en was van meet af aan overtuigd van de mogelijkheden van het dagboek voor verfilming en toneelbewerking.[3] Levin bracht Otto Frank in contact met de Engelse uitgever van het dagboek, Vallentine Mitchell.[4] Hij benaderde diverse mensen uit de toneel- en filmwereld en deed een hartstochtelijk beroep op Otto Frank om hem het toneelstuk te laten schrijven.[5] Begin september 1952 stemde Otto Frank toe, maar wel onder voorbehoud dat de door Meyer Levin voorgestelde producente, Cheryl Crawford de kwaliteit van het stuk zou beoordelen.[6] Otto Frank vond dat hij dit zelf niet kon, omdat hij er gevoelsmatig te veel bij betrokken was.[7]
\r\n\r\nHalf september 1952 was Meyer Levins toneelbewerking klaar.[8] Maar Cheryl Crawford wees het af (oktober 1952). Meyer Levin legde zich hier niet bij neer[9] en vroeg Kermit Bloomgarden als producent. Maar ook Bloomgarden wees het stuk af. Bloomgarden had zich ook al in augustus 1952 tot Otto Frank gericht met het verzoek het toneelstuk te mogen produceren.[10] Om uit de impasse te komen, sloten Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford en Meyer Levin een overeenkomst. Levin kreeg een maand de tijd (tot 21 december 1952) om zijn stuk aan veertien producenten voor te leggen. Als er geen interesse was, zou hij het stuk terugtrekken.[11] Toen vervolgens alle veertien producenten het stuk afwezen, hield Meyer Levin zich niet aan de afspraak en stelde hij alles in het werk zijn toneelbewerking alsnog opgevoerd te krijgen. In het Otto Frank Archief bevindt zich uitgebreide correspondentie en documentatie over het conflict tussen Meyer Levin en Otto Frank, waarbij Meyer Levin herhaaldelijk de publieke opinie en de Joodse gemeenschap probeerde te mobiliseren ten gunste van zijn toneelbewerking van het dagboek door de pers in te schakelen. [12]
\r\n\r\nToen Cheryl Crawford zich in april 1953 terugtrok als producente, sloot Otto Frank op 2 oktober 1953 een contract met Kermit Bloomgarden. Crawford zag er vanaf omdat ze genoeg had van de moeilijkheden met Meyer Levin en omdat ze in financiële moeilijkheden was gekomen door de productie van een ander toneelstuk.[13] Voor een nieuwe toneelbewerking viel de keuze op het echtpaar Frances Goodrich en Albert Hackett. Zij tekenden het contract op 23 februari 1954. Carson McCullers, die al november 1952 door Cheryl Crawford werd benaderd, had eerst toegezegd het toneelstuk te schrijven, maar zij moest zich in april 1953 vanwege gezondheidsredenen terug trekken.[14]
\r\n\r\nVanaf januari 1955 voerde Meyer Levin rechtszaken tegen Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford en Kermit Bloomgarden waarin hij hen beschuldigde van fraude, contractbreuk en plagiaat.[15] De aanklacht werd uiteindelijk alleen toegewezen wat betreft plagiaat. Het proces werd in hoger beroep beslecht in een schikking: Otto Frank betaalde Meyer Levin 50.000 dollar die daarbij afstand deed van zijn bewerkingen van het dagboek. (26 oktober 1959).[11] Na deze uitspraak bleef Meyer Levin in het openbaar zijn ongenoegen uiten. Toen hij zijn toneelstuk in 1966 toch in Israël op de planken bracht, liepen de spanningen weer hoog op.[16] In zijn boek The Obsession uit 1973 gaf hij zijn eigen visie op de hele affaire.[17]
\r\n\r\nHet aan Meyer Levin toegekende schikkingsbedrag van 50.000 dollar werd in de jaren ’80 aangegrepen door 'dagboekontkenners' om het dagboek van Anne Frank te bestempelen als een vervalsing, door Meyer Levin geschreven in opdracht van Otto Frank.
\r\n\r\nDe Hacketts begonnen met hun toneelbewerking op 15 december 1953.[18] Op 27 december 1953 zochten de Hacketts voor het eerst contact met Otto Frank.[19] Daarna ontstond er een intensieve briefwisseling waarbij Otto Frank hen commentaar en advies gaf en al hun vragen beantwoordde. Zo bracht Otto Frank de Hacketts in contact met de in Amerika woonachtige Ernst Meyer en zijn gezin. Dit waren goede vrienden van hem, die de schrijvers veel over de familie Frank, de andere onderduikers en Amsterdam konden vertellen.[19]Voor de joods-religieuze aspecten uit het dagboek hadden de Hacketts contact met de liberale rabbijn Max Nussbaum.[19] Nussbaum was de echtgenoot van Ruth Nussbaum-Offenstadt, moeder van Hannah Toby en eerder getrouwd met Fritz Toby. Een bekende foto van Anne en haar vriendinnen in de zandbak (1937) werd bij hen in de tuin gemaakt.
\r\n\r\nDe vierde versie van het toneelscript was de eerste versie die Otto Frank in juni 1954 onder ogen kreeg.[20] Otto Frank vond het resultaat teleurstellend:
\r\n\r\n'{…) I am not moved. (…) Whereas with the Levin play I felt that the psychological development and the characters were good, but that I could not judge the dramatic value, my first impression of the Hackett version is to be excellent routine work, but not giving the spirit of the book. (…) Perhaps it is anyhow a base which, with many changes could be worked out to a higher standard. (…) I cannot say that the script is against the spirit of Anne but it is not working up to the high spirit of Anne and in its present form would never convey the message which the book contains. You can imagine that I feel very miserable about the situation.'[21]\r\n\r\n
Bezwaard schreef hij een brief aan de Hacketts met zijn kritiek dat het toneelstuk de diepgang van Annes karakter noch de boodschap van het boek weergaf.[22] Voor de ontwikkeling van Annes karakter beval hij een artikel aan van orthopedagoge Jean Schick Grossman waarvoor zij uitgebreid met Otto Frank, Johannes Kleiman en Miep Gies had gesproken.[23]
\r\n\r\nIn New York werkten de Hacketts aan de vierde, vijfde en zesde versie van het stuk.[24] Deze versies bevielen Otto veel beter: 'I admire the way you caught the spirit of the book.'[25]Hij vond de ingevoegde scènes uitstekend in het geheel passen. Ook voor de 'broodsteel'-scene (Hermann van Pels steelt een brood) had hij begrip. Hoewel hij zich afvroeg of er juridische consequenties waren, omdat er nog een broer van Hermann van Pels in de Verenigde Staten in leven was. Bij de brief voegde hij een lijst met 'observations'and suggestions' .
\r\n\r\nNa de zevende bewerking van het script, kwamen de Hacketts naar Amsterdam waar ze, op 6 december 1954, voor het eerst Otto Frank ontmoetten. Ze bezochten de dag erop het Achterhuis, de 6e Montessorischool, Merwedeplein 37-II en een ijssalon waar 'Jews were allowed'. [26] Er was een ontmoeting met Lou de Jong die het script controleerde en er werd een uitgebreide fotoreportage van en in het Achterhuis gemaakt door fotografe Maria Austria. Op grond van dit bezoek werd het toneelstuk nogmaals herzien: de achtste versie.
\r\n\r\nRond deze tijd werd het Achterhuis gedurende twee dagen uitvoerig en in detail door Maria Austria gefotografeerd.[27] Otto Frank noteerde in zijn agenda op 8 december 1954: Fotos. - Austria. Op 11 december 1954: Fotos met Haket [sic] + Kanin.[28]
\r\n\r\nOmdat het inmiddels te laat in het seizoen was, stelde de producent het toneelstuk uit tot najaar 1955.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank beantwoorde een uitgebreide vragenlijst van Joseph Schildkraut, die de rol van Otto Frank in het toneelstuk zou gaan spelen.[29] Verder liet hij zich nauwgezet op de hoogte houden over de casting, decors, uitnodigingen voor de première etc.[30]
\r\n\r\nOp 22 augustus 1955 was de eerste repetitie. De try-outs begonnen in Philadelphia op 15 september 1955.[31] De recensies waren lovend en ook filmmaatschappijen toonden interesse.[32] Tijdens de try-outs werd de ‘broodsteel’-scene verplaatst van de ochtend naar de nacht vanwege het dramatische effect.[33]
\r\n\r\nOp 5 oktober 1955 volgde de première in New York. Otto Frank wilde nooit een toneel- of filmvoorstelling van het dagboek bijwonen. Vlak voor de première wenstte hij de spelers succes en liet hen weten: 'You will all realize that for me his play is a part of my life, and the idea that my wife and children as well as I will be presented on the stage is a painful one to me. Therefore it is impossible for me to come and see it.' Otto Frank had zijn succeswensen al op 9 september 1954 gestuurd aan de Hacketts en liet het aan hen over of ze de brief in Philadelphia of in New York aan de spelers wilden laten zien. [34]
\r\n\r\nIn the contract with publisher Contact (1946), Otto Frank had explicitly arranged that he would retain the translation and film rights to the diary.[1] After Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was rejected, writer couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett were commissioned to write it in late 1953. Their play The Diary of Anne Frank premiered on Broadway on 5 October 1955, after try-outs in Philadelphia. The play, produced by Kermit Bloomgarden and directed by Carson Kanin, received the Pulitzer Prize, among other awards, and was translated into many languages and performed in many countries.
\r\n\r\nMeyer Levin read the French edition of the diary and sought contact with Otto Frank through the publisher (Calman-Lévy).[2] He was moved by the diary and saw it as his task to translate it into English. He helped Otto Frank find an English and American publisher and was convinced from the start of the diary's potential for film and stage adaptation.[3] Levin put Otto Frank in touch with the diary's English publisher, Vallentine Mitchell.[4] He approached several people from the theatre and film world and made a passionate appeal to Otto Frank to let him write the play.[5] In early September 1952, Otto Frank agreed, but with the caveat that Meyer Levin's suggested producer, Cheryl Crawford, would judge the quality of the play.[6] Otto Frank felt he could not do this himself because he was too emotionally involved.[7]
\r\n\r\nBy mid-September 1952, Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was ready.[8] But Cheryl Crawford rejected it (October 1952). Meyer Levin did not accept this [9] and asked Kermit Bloomgarden to be producer. But Bloomgarden also rejected the play. Bloomgarden had also turned to Otto Frank in August 1952, asking to produce the play.[10] To get out of the impasse, Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Meyer Levin struck a deal. Levin was given one month (until 21 December 1952) to submit his play to 14 producers. If there was no interest, he would withdraw the play.[11] When subsequently all fourteen producers rejected the play, Meyer Levin did not keep his end of the bargain and made every effort to still get his stage adaptation performed. The Otto Frank Archive holds extensive correspondence and documentation on the conflict between Meyer Levin and Otto Frank, in which Meyer Levin repeatedly tried to mobilise public opinion and the Jewish community in favour of his stage adaptation of the diary by engaging the press. [12]
\r\n\r\nWhen Cheryl Crawford stepped down as producer in April 1953, Otto Frank signed a contract with Kermit Bloomgarden on 2 October 1953. Crawford resigned because she had had enough of the difficulties with Meyer Levin and because she had run into financial difficulties producing another play.[13] For a new stage adaptation, the choice fell on married couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett. They signed the contract on 23 February 1954. Carson McCullers, who had already been approached by Cheryl Crawford in November 1952, had initially agreed to write the play, but she had to withdraw in April 1953 due to health reasons.[14]
\r\n\r\nFrom January 1955, Meyer Levin filed lawsuits against Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Kermit Bloomgarden accusing them of fraud, breach of contract and plagiarism.[15] The charges were eventually upheld only in terms of plagiarism. The trial was settled on appeal in a settlement: Otto Frank paid Meyer Levin $50,000, and the latter then waived his adaptations of the diary. (26 October 1959).[11] After this ruling, Meyer Levin continued to publicly voice his displeasure. When he did stage his play in Israel in 1966, tensions again ran high.[16] In his 1973 book The Obsession, he gave his own take on the whole affair.[17]
\r\n\r\nThe $50,000 settlement amount awarded to Meyer Levin was seized upon by 'diary deniers' in the 1980s to label the diary of Anne Frank as a forgery, written by Meyer Levin at the behest of Otto Frank.
\r\n\r\nThe Hacketts began their stage adaptation on 15 December 1953.[18] On 27 December 1953, the Hacketts first sought contact with Otto Frank.[19] Thereafter, an intensive correspondence ensued in which Otto Frank gave them comments and advice and answered all their questions. This is how Otto Frank put the Hacketts in touch with Ernst Meyer and his family, who lived in America. These were good friends of his, who could tell the writers a lot about the Frank family, the other people in hiding and Amsterdam.[19] For the Jewish-religious aspects of the diary, the Hacketts were in contact with liberal rabbi Max Nussbaum.[19] Nussbaum was the husband of Ruth Nussbaum-Offenstadt, mother of Hannah Toby and previously married to Fritz Toby. A famous photo of Anne and her friends in the sandpit (1937) was taken in their garden.
\r\n\r\nThe fourth version of the play script was the first version Otto Frank got to read in June 1954.[20] Otto Frank found the result disappointing:
\r\n\r\n'(…) I am not moved. (…) Whereas with the Levin play I felt that the psychological development and the characters were good, but that I could not judge the dramatic value, my first impression of the Hackett version is to be excellent routine work, but not giving the spirit of the book. (…) Perhaps it is anyhow a base which, with many changes could be worked out to a higher standard. (…) I cannot say that the script is against the spirit of Anne but it is not working up to the high spirit of Anne and in its present form would never convey the message which the book contains. You can imagine that I feel very miserable about the situation.'[21]\r\n\r\n
Concerned, he wrote a letter to the Hacketts criticising that the play did not reflect the depth of Anne's character nor the message of the book.[22] For the development of Anne's character, he recommended an article by remedial educationalist Jean Schick Grossman for which she had spoken extensively with Otto Frank, Johannes Kleiman and Miep Gies.[23]
\r\n\r\nIn New York, the Hacketts worked on the fourth, fifth and sixth versions of the play.[24] These versions pleased Otto much better: 'I admire the way you caught the spirit of the book.'[25] He thought the inserted scenes fitted in superbly. He also had sympathy for the 'bread stealing' scene (Hermann van Pels steals a loaf of bread). Although he wondered whether there would be any legal consequences, as a brother of Hermann van Pels was still alive in the United States. He attached to the letter a list of 'observations and suggestions'.
\r\n\r\nAfter the seventh version of the script, the Hacketts came to Amsterdam where, on 6 December 1954, they met Otto Frank for the first time. They visited the Secret Annex, the 6th Montessori school, Merwedeplein 37-II and an ice cream parlour where 'Jews were allowed' the following day. [26] There was a meeting with Lou de Jong, who checked the script, and an extensive photo-reportage of and in the Secret Annex was made by photographer Maria Austria. Based on this visit, the play was revised again: the eighth version.
\r\n\r\nAround this time, the Secret Annex was photographed extensively and in detail by Maria Austria for two days.[27] Otto Frank noted in his diary on 8 December 1954: Photos. - Austria. On 11 December 1954: Photos with Haket [sic] + Kanin.[28]
\r\n\r\nAs it was now too late in the season, the producer postponed the play until autumn 1955.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank answered an extensive list of questions from Joseph Schildkraut, who was to play the role of Otto Frank in the play.[29] Furthermore, he was kept closely informed about the casting, sets, invitations to the premiere, etc.[30]
\r\n\r\nThe first rehearsal was on 22 August 1955. Try-outs began in Philadelphia on 15 September 1955.[31] There were rave reviews, and film companies also showed interest.[32] During the try-outs, the 'bread stealing' scene was moved from morning to night for dramatic effect.[33]
\r\n\r\nIt was followed by its New York premiere on 5 October 1955. Otto Frank never wanted to attend a stage or film screening of the diary. Just before the premiere, he wished the actors well and let them know: 'You will all realize that for me his play is a part of my life, and the idea that my wife and children as well as I will be presented on the stage is a painful one to me. Therefore it is impossible for me to come and see it.' Otto Frank had already wished success to the Hacketts on 9 September 1954, leaving it up to them whether to show the letter to the players in Philadelphia or in New York. [34]
\r\n\r\nThe originally American play The Diary of Anne Frank was also performed in many other countries, including the Netherlands. It premiered on 27 November 1956 in the Nieuwe De la Mar Theater, in the presence of Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard.[1]
\r\n\r\nThe play was performed by the Arnhem-based theatre group 'Theater'. It had been translated into Dutch by Antoinette Westerling and was directed by Karl Guttmann, with as cast:
\r\n\r\nThe play made a big impression in Germany as well, where more than two million people came to see it. The audience was often silent for minutes afterwards. The play contributed greatly to the diary's fame in Germany and many other countries.
\r\n\r\nHet oorsponkelijk Amerikaanse toneelstuk The Diary of Anne Frank werd ook in tal van andere landen opgevoerd, waaronder Nederland. De première vond plaats op 27 november 1956 in het Nieuwe De la Mar Theater, in bijzijn van koningin Juliana en prins Bernhard.[1]
\r\n\r\nHet toneelstuk werd opgevoerd door toneelgroep "Theater" uit Arnhem. Het was naar het Nederlands vertaald door Antoinette Westerling en werd geregiseerd door Karl Guttmann, met als rolverdeling:
\r\n\r\nIn Duitsland maakte het stuk ook grote indruk, meer dan twee miljoen mensen kwamen kijken. Vaak was het na afloop minutenlang stil. Het toneelstuk droeg in Duitsland en in tal van andere landen in grote mate bij aan de bekendheid van het dagboek.
\r\n\r\nThe originally American play The Diary of Anne Frank was also performed in many other countries, including the Netherlands. It premiered on 27 November 1956 in the Nieuwe De la Mar Theater, in the presence of Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard.[1]
\r\n\r\nThe play was performed by the Arnhem-based theatre group 'Theater'. It had been translated into Dutch by Antoinette Westerling and was directed by Karl Guttmann, with as cast:
\r\n\r\nThe play made a big impression in Germany as well, where more than two million people came to see it. The audience was often silent for minutes afterwards. The play contributed greatly to the diary's fame in Germany and many other countries.
\r\n\r\nIn the contract with publisher Contact (1946), Otto Frank had explicitly arranged that he would retain the translation and film rights to the diary.[1] After Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was rejected, writer couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett were commissioned to write it in late 1953. Their play The Diary of Anne Frank premiered on Broadway on 5 October 1955, after try-outs in Philadelphia. The play, produced by Kermit Bloomgarden and directed by Carson Kanin, received the Pulitzer Prize, among other awards, and was translated into many languages and performed in many countries.
\r\n\r\nMeyer Levin read the French edition of the diary and sought contact with Otto Frank through the publisher (Calman-Lévy).[2] He was moved by the diary and saw it as his task to translate it into English. He helped Otto Frank find an English and American publisher and was convinced from the start of the diary's potential for film and stage adaptation.[3] Levin put Otto Frank in touch with the diary's English publisher, Vallentine Mitchell.[4] He approached several people from the theatre and film world and made a passionate appeal to Otto Frank to let him write the play.[5] In early September 1952, Otto Frank agreed, but with the caveat that Meyer Levin's suggested producer, Cheryl Crawford, would judge the quality of the play.[6] Otto Frank felt he could not do this himself because he was too emotionally involved.[7]
\r\n\r\nBy mid-September 1952, Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was ready.[8] But Cheryl Crawford rejected it (October 1952). Meyer Levin did not accept this [9] and asked Kermit Bloomgarden to be producer. But Bloomgarden also rejected the play. Bloomgarden had also turned to Otto Frank in August 1952, asking to produce the play.[10] To get out of the impasse, Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Meyer Levin struck a deal. Levin was given one month (until 21 December 1952) to submit his play to 14 producers. If there was no interest, he would withdraw the play.[11] When subsequently all fourteen producers rejected the play, Meyer Levin did not keep his end of the bargain and made every effort to still get his stage adaptation performed. The Otto Frank Archive holds extensive correspondence and documentation on the conflict between Meyer Levin and Otto Frank, in which Meyer Levin repeatedly tried to mobilise public opinion and the Jewish community in favour of his stage adaptation of the diary by engaging the press. [12]
\r\n\r\nWhen Cheryl Crawford stepped down as producer in April 1953, Otto Frank signed a contract with Kermit Bloomgarden on 2 October 1953. Crawford resigned because she had had enough of the difficulties with Meyer Levin and because she had run into financial difficulties producing another play.[13] For a new stage adaptation, the choice fell on married couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett. They signed the contract on 23 February 1954. Carson McCullers, who had already been approached by Cheryl Crawford in November 1952, had initially agreed to write the play, but she had to withdraw in April 1953 due to health reasons.[14]
\r\n\r\nFrom January 1955, Meyer Levin filed lawsuits against Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Kermit Bloomgarden accusing them of fraud, breach of contract and plagiarism.[15] The charges were eventually upheld only in terms of plagiarism. The trial was settled on appeal in a settlement: Otto Frank paid Meyer Levin $50,000, and the latter then waived his adaptations of the diary. (26 October 1959).[11] After this ruling, Meyer Levin continued to publicly voice his displeasure. When he did stage his play in Israel in 1966, tensions again ran high.[16] In his 1973 book The Obsession, he gave his own take on the whole affair.[17]
\r\n\r\nThe $50,000 settlement amount awarded to Meyer Levin was seized upon by 'diary deniers' in the 1980s to label the diary of Anne Frank as a forgery, written by Meyer Levin at the behest of Otto Frank.
\r\n\r\nThe Hacketts began their stage adaptation on 15 December 1953.[18] On 27 December 1953, the Hacketts first sought contact with Otto Frank.[19] Thereafter, an intensive correspondence ensued in which Otto Frank gave them comments and advice and answered all their questions. This is how Otto Frank put the Hacketts in touch with Ernst Meyer and his family, who lived in America. These were good friends of his, who could tell the writers a lot about the Frank family, the other people in hiding and Amsterdam.[19] For the Jewish-religious aspects of the diary, the Hacketts were in contact with liberal rabbi Max Nussbaum.[19] Nussbaum was the husband of Ruth Nussbaum-Offenstadt, mother of Hannah Toby and previously married to Fritz Toby. A famous photo of Anne and her friends in the sandpit (1937) was taken in their garden.
\r\n\r\nThe fourth version of the play script was the first version Otto Frank got to read in June 1954.[20] Otto Frank found the result disappointing:
\r\n\r\n'(…) I am not moved. (…) Whereas with the Levin play I felt that the psychological development and the characters were good, but that I could not judge the dramatic value, my first impression of the Hackett version is to be excellent routine work, but not giving the spirit of the book. (…) Perhaps it is anyhow a base which, with many changes could be worked out to a higher standard. (…) I cannot say that the script is against the spirit of Anne but it is not working up to the high spirit of Anne and in its present form would never convey the message which the book contains. You can imagine that I feel very miserable about the situation.'[21]\r\n\r\n
Concerned, he wrote a letter to the Hacketts criticising that the play did not reflect the depth of Anne's character nor the message of the book.[22] For the development of Anne's character, he recommended an article by remedial educationalist Jean Schick Grossman for which she had spoken extensively with Otto Frank, Johannes Kleiman and Miep Gies.[23]
\r\n\r\nIn New York, the Hacketts worked on the fourth, fifth and sixth versions of the play.[24] These versions pleased Otto much better: 'I admire the way you caught the spirit of the book.'[25] He thought the inserted scenes fitted in superbly. He also had sympathy for the 'bread stealing' scene (Hermann van Pels steals a loaf of bread). Although he wondered whether there would be any legal consequences, as a brother of Hermann van Pels was still alive in the United States. He attached to the letter a list of 'observations and suggestions'.
\r\n\r\nAfter the seventh version of the script, the Hacketts came to Amsterdam where, on 6 December 1954, they met Otto Frank for the first time. They visited the Secret Annex, the 6th Montessori school, Merwedeplein 37-II and an ice cream parlour where 'Jews were allowed' the following day. [26] There was a meeting with Lou de Jong, who checked the script, and an extensive photo-reportage of and in the Secret Annex was made by photographer Maria Austria. Based on this visit, the play was revised again: the eighth version.
\r\n\r\nAround this time, the Secret Annex was photographed extensively and in detail by Maria Austria for two days.[27] Otto Frank noted in his diary on 8 December 1954: Photos. - Austria. On 11 December 1954: Photos with Haket [sic] + Kanin.[28]
\r\n\r\nAs it was now too late in the season, the producer postponed the play until autumn 1955.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank answered an extensive list of questions from Joseph Schildkraut, who was to play the role of Otto Frank in the play.[29] Furthermore, he was kept closely informed about the casting, sets, invitations to the premiere, etc.[30]
\r\n\r\nThe first rehearsal was on 22 August 1955. Try-outs began in Philadelphia on 15 September 1955.[31] There were rave reviews, and film companies also showed interest.[32] During the try-outs, the 'bread stealing' scene was moved from morning to night for dramatic effect.[33]
\r\n\r\nIt was followed by its New York premiere on 5 October 1955. Otto Frank never wanted to attend a stage or film screening of the diary. Just before the premiere, he wished the actors well and let them know: 'You will all realize that for me his play is a part of my life, and the idea that my wife and children as well as I will be presented on the stage is a painful one to me. Therefore it is impossible for me to come and see it.' Otto Frank had already wished success to the Hacketts on 9 September 1954, leaving it up to them whether to show the letter to the players in Philadelphia or in New York. [34]
\r\n\r\nIn het contract met uitgeverij Contact (1946) had Otto Frank expliciet geregeld dat hij de vertaal- en filmrechten van het dagboek zou behouden.[1] Nadat Meyer Levins toneelbewerking was afgewezen, kreeg het schrijversechtpaar Frances Goodrich en Albert Hackett eind 1953 de opdracht. Hun toneelstuk Het dagboek van Anne Frank ging, na try-outs in Philadelphia, op Broadway in première op 5 oktober 1955. Het stuk, geproduceerd door Kermit Bloomgarden en geregisseerd door Carson Kanin, kreeg onder andere de Pulitzerprijs en werd in veel talen vertaald en in veel landen opgevoerd.
\r\n\r\nMeyer Levin las de Franse editie van het dagboek en zocht via de uitgever (Calman-Lévy) contact met Otto Frank.[2] Hij was geraakt door het dagboek en zag het als zijn taak het in het Engels te vertalen. Hij hiep Otto Frank bij het vinden van een Engelse en Amerikaanse uitgever en was van meet af aan overtuigd van de mogelijkheden van het dagboek voor verfilming en toneelbewerking.[3] Levin bracht Otto Frank in contact met de Engelse uitgever van het dagboek, Vallentine Mitchell.[4] Hij benaderde diverse mensen uit de toneel- en filmwereld en deed een hartstochtelijk beroep op Otto Frank om hem het toneelstuk te laten schrijven.[5] Begin september 1952 stemde Otto Frank toe, maar wel onder voorbehoud dat de door Meyer Levin voorgestelde producente, Cheryl Crawford de kwaliteit van het stuk zou beoordelen.[6] Otto Frank vond dat hij dit zelf niet kon, omdat hij er gevoelsmatig te veel bij betrokken was.[7]
\r\n\r\nHalf september 1952 was Meyer Levins toneelbewerking klaar.[8] Maar Cheryl Crawford wees het af (oktober 1952). Meyer Levin legde zich hier niet bij neer[9] en vroeg Kermit Bloomgarden als producent. Maar ook Bloomgarden wees het stuk af. Bloomgarden had zich ook al in augustus 1952 tot Otto Frank gericht met het verzoek het toneelstuk te mogen produceren.[10] Om uit de impasse te komen, sloten Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford en Meyer Levin een overeenkomst. Levin kreeg een maand de tijd (tot 21 december 1952) om zijn stuk aan veertien producenten voor te leggen. Als er geen interesse was, zou hij het stuk terugtrekken.[11] Toen vervolgens alle veertien producenten het stuk afwezen, hield Meyer Levin zich niet aan de afspraak en stelde hij alles in het werk zijn toneelbewerking alsnog opgevoerd te krijgen. In het Otto Frank Archief bevindt zich uitgebreide correspondentie en documentatie over het conflict tussen Meyer Levin en Otto Frank, waarbij Meyer Levin herhaaldelijk de publieke opinie en de Joodse gemeenschap probeerde te mobiliseren ten gunste van zijn toneelbewerking van het dagboek door de pers in te schakelen. [12]
\r\n\r\nToen Cheryl Crawford zich in april 1953 terugtrok als producente, sloot Otto Frank op 2 oktober 1953 een contract met Kermit Bloomgarden. Crawford zag er vanaf omdat ze genoeg had van de moeilijkheden met Meyer Levin en omdat ze in financiële moeilijkheden was gekomen door de productie van een ander toneelstuk.[13] Voor een nieuwe toneelbewerking viel de keuze op het echtpaar Frances Goodrich en Albert Hackett. Zij tekenden het contract op 23 februari 1954. Carson McCullers, die al november 1952 door Cheryl Crawford werd benaderd, had eerst toegezegd het toneelstuk te schrijven, maar zij moest zich in april 1953 vanwege gezondheidsredenen terug trekken.[14]
\r\n\r\nVanaf januari 1955 voerde Meyer Levin rechtszaken tegen Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford en Kermit Bloomgarden waarin hij hen beschuldigde van fraude, contractbreuk en plagiaat.[15] De aanklacht werd uiteindelijk alleen toegewezen wat betreft plagiaat. Het proces werd in hoger beroep beslecht in een schikking: Otto Frank betaalde Meyer Levin 50.000 dollar die daarbij afstand deed van zijn bewerkingen van het dagboek. (26 oktober 1959).[11] Na deze uitspraak bleef Meyer Levin in het openbaar zijn ongenoegen uiten. Toen hij zijn toneelstuk in 1966 toch in Israël op de planken bracht, liepen de spanningen weer hoog op.[16] In zijn boek The Obsession uit 1973 gaf hij zijn eigen visie op de hele affaire.[17]
\r\n\r\nHet aan Meyer Levin toegekende schikkingsbedrag van 50.000 dollar werd in de jaren ’80 aangegrepen door 'dagboekontkenners' om het dagboek van Anne Frank te bestempelen als een vervalsing, door Meyer Levin geschreven in opdracht van Otto Frank.
\r\n\r\nDe Hacketts begonnen met hun toneelbewerking op 15 december 1953.[18] Op 27 december 1953 zochten de Hacketts voor het eerst contact met Otto Frank.[19] Daarna ontstond er een intensieve briefwisseling waarbij Otto Frank hen commentaar en advies gaf en al hun vragen beantwoordde. Zo bracht Otto Frank de Hacketts in contact met de in Amerika woonachtige Ernst Meyer en zijn gezin. Dit waren goede vrienden van hem, die de schrijvers veel over de familie Frank, de andere onderduikers en Amsterdam konden vertellen.[19]Voor de joods-religieuze aspecten uit het dagboek hadden de Hacketts contact met de liberale rabbijn Max Nussbaum.[19] Nussbaum was de echtgenoot van Ruth Nussbaum-Offenstadt, moeder van Hannah Toby en eerder getrouwd met Fritz Toby. Een bekende foto van Anne en haar vriendinnen in de zandbak (1937) werd bij hen in de tuin gemaakt.
\r\n\r\nDe vierde versie van het toneelscript was de eerste versie die Otto Frank in juni 1954 onder ogen kreeg.[20] Otto Frank vond het resultaat teleurstellend:
\r\n\r\n'{…) I am not moved. (…) Whereas with the Levin play I felt that the psychological development and the characters were good, but that I could not judge the dramatic value, my first impression of the Hackett version is to be excellent routine work, but not giving the spirit of the book. (…) Perhaps it is anyhow a base which, with many changes could be worked out to a higher standard. (…) I cannot say that the script is against the spirit of Anne but it is not working up to the high spirit of Anne and in its present form would never convey the message which the book contains. You can imagine that I feel very miserable about the situation.'[21]\r\n\r\n
Bezwaard schreef hij een brief aan de Hacketts met zijn kritiek dat het toneelstuk de diepgang van Annes karakter noch de boodschap van het boek weergaf.[22] Voor de ontwikkeling van Annes karakter beval hij een artikel aan van orthopedagoge Jean Schick Grossman waarvoor zij uitgebreid met Otto Frank, Johannes Kleiman en Miep Gies had gesproken.[23]
\r\n\r\nIn New York werkten de Hacketts aan de vierde, vijfde en zesde versie van het stuk.[24] Deze versies bevielen Otto veel beter: 'I admire the way you caught the spirit of the book.'[25]Hij vond de ingevoegde scènes uitstekend in het geheel passen. Ook voor de 'broodsteel'-scene (Hermann van Pels steelt een brood) had hij begrip. Hoewel hij zich afvroeg of er juridische consequenties waren, omdat er nog een broer van Hermann van Pels in de Verenigde Staten in leven was. Bij de brief voegde hij een lijst met 'observations'and suggestions' .
\r\n\r\nNa de zevende bewerking van het script, kwamen de Hacketts naar Amsterdam waar ze, op 6 december 1954, voor het eerst Otto Frank ontmoetten. Ze bezochten de dag erop het Achterhuis, de 6e Montessorischool, Merwedeplein 37-II en een ijssalon waar 'Jews were allowed'. [26] Er was een ontmoeting met Lou de Jong die het script controleerde en er werd een uitgebreide fotoreportage van en in het Achterhuis gemaakt door fotografe Maria Austria. Op grond van dit bezoek werd het toneelstuk nogmaals herzien: de achtste versie.
\r\n\r\nRond deze tijd werd het Achterhuis gedurende twee dagen uitvoerig en in detail door Maria Austria gefotografeerd.[27] Otto Frank noteerde in zijn agenda op 8 december 1954: Fotos. - Austria. Op 11 december 1954: Fotos met Haket [sic] + Kanin.[28]
\r\n\r\nOmdat het inmiddels te laat in het seizoen was, stelde de producent het toneelstuk uit tot najaar 1955.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank beantwoorde een uitgebreide vragenlijst van Joseph Schildkraut, die de rol van Otto Frank in het toneelstuk zou gaan spelen.[29] Verder liet hij zich nauwgezet op de hoogte houden over de casting, decors, uitnodigingen voor de première etc.[30]
\r\n\r\nOp 22 augustus 1955 was de eerste repetitie. De try-outs begonnen in Philadelphia op 15 september 1955.[31] De recensies waren lovend en ook filmmaatschappijen toonden interesse.[32] Tijdens de try-outs werd de ‘broodsteel’-scene verplaatst van de ochtend naar de nacht vanwege het dramatische effect.[33]
\r\n\r\nOp 5 oktober 1955 volgde de première in New York. Otto Frank wilde nooit een toneel- of filmvoorstelling van het dagboek bijwonen. Vlak voor de première wenstte hij de spelers succes en liet hen weten: 'You will all realize that for me his play is a part of my life, and the idea that my wife and children as well as I will be presented on the stage is a painful one to me. Therefore it is impossible for me to come and see it.' Otto Frank had zijn succeswensen al op 9 september 1954 gestuurd aan de Hacketts en liet het aan hen over of ze de brief in Philadelphia of in New York aan de spelers wilden laten zien. [34]
\r\n\r\nIn the contract with publisher Contact (1946), Otto Frank had explicitly arranged that he would retain the translation and film rights to the diary.[1] After Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was rejected, writer couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett were commissioned to write it in late 1953. Their play The Diary of Anne Frank premiered on Broadway on 5 October 1955, after try-outs in Philadelphia. The play, produced by Kermit Bloomgarden and directed by Carson Kanin, received the Pulitzer Prize, among other awards, and was translated into many languages and performed in many countries.
\r\n\r\nMeyer Levin read the French edition of the diary and sought contact with Otto Frank through the publisher (Calman-Lévy).[2] He was moved by the diary and saw it as his task to translate it into English. He helped Otto Frank find an English and American publisher and was convinced from the start of the diary's potential for film and stage adaptation.[3] Levin put Otto Frank in touch with the diary's English publisher, Vallentine Mitchell.[4] He approached several people from the theatre and film world and made a passionate appeal to Otto Frank to let him write the play.[5] In early September 1952, Otto Frank agreed, but with the caveat that Meyer Levin's suggested producer, Cheryl Crawford, would judge the quality of the play.[6] Otto Frank felt he could not do this himself because he was too emotionally involved.[7]
\r\n\r\nBy mid-September 1952, Meyer Levin's stage adaptation was ready.[8] But Cheryl Crawford rejected it (October 1952). Meyer Levin did not accept this [9] and asked Kermit Bloomgarden to be producer. But Bloomgarden also rejected the play. Bloomgarden had also turned to Otto Frank in August 1952, asking to produce the play.[10] To get out of the impasse, Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Meyer Levin struck a deal. Levin was given one month (until 21 December 1952) to submit his play to 14 producers. If there was no interest, he would withdraw the play.[11] When subsequently all fourteen producers rejected the play, Meyer Levin did not keep his end of the bargain and made every effort to still get his stage adaptation performed. The Otto Frank Archive holds extensive correspondence and documentation on the conflict between Meyer Levin and Otto Frank, in which Meyer Levin repeatedly tried to mobilise public opinion and the Jewish community in favour of his stage adaptation of the diary by engaging the press. [12]
\r\n\r\nWhen Cheryl Crawford stepped down as producer in April 1953, Otto Frank signed a contract with Kermit Bloomgarden on 2 October 1953. Crawford resigned because she had had enough of the difficulties with Meyer Levin and because she had run into financial difficulties producing another play.[13] For a new stage adaptation, the choice fell on married couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett. They signed the contract on 23 February 1954. Carson McCullers, who had already been approached by Cheryl Crawford in November 1952, had initially agreed to write the play, but she had to withdraw in April 1953 due to health reasons.[14]
\r\n\r\nFrom January 1955, Meyer Levin filed lawsuits against Otto Frank, Cheryl Crawford and Kermit Bloomgarden accusing them of fraud, breach of contract and plagiarism.[15] The charges were eventually upheld only in terms of plagiarism. The trial was settled on appeal in a settlement: Otto Frank paid Meyer Levin $50,000, and the latter then waived his adaptations of the diary. (26 October 1959).[11] After this ruling, Meyer Levin continued to publicly voice his displeasure. When he did stage his play in Israel in 1966, tensions again ran high.[16] In his 1973 book The Obsession, he gave his own take on the whole affair.[17]
\r\n\r\nThe $50,000 settlement amount awarded to Meyer Levin was seized upon by 'diary deniers' in the 1980s to label the diary of Anne Frank as a forgery, written by Meyer Levin at the behest of Otto Frank.
\r\n\r\nThe Hacketts began their stage adaptation on 15 December 1953.[18] On 27 December 1953, the Hacketts first sought contact with Otto Frank.[19] Thereafter, an intensive correspondence ensued in which Otto Frank gave them comments and advice and answered all their questions. This is how Otto Frank put the Hacketts in touch with Ernst Meyer and his family, who lived in America. These were good friends of his, who could tell the writers a lot about the Frank family, the other people in hiding and Amsterdam.[19] For the Jewish-religious aspects of the diary, the Hacketts were in contact with liberal rabbi Max Nussbaum.[19] Nussbaum was the husband of Ruth Nussbaum-Offenstadt, mother of Hannah Toby and previously married to Fritz Toby. A famous photo of Anne and her friends in the sandpit (1937) was taken in their garden.
\r\n\r\nThe fourth version of the play script was the first version Otto Frank got to read in June 1954.[20] Otto Frank found the result disappointing:
\r\n\r\n'(…) I am not moved. (…) Whereas with the Levin play I felt that the psychological development and the characters were good, but that I could not judge the dramatic value, my first impression of the Hackett version is to be excellent routine work, but not giving the spirit of the book. (…) Perhaps it is anyhow a base which, with many changes could be worked out to a higher standard. (…) I cannot say that the script is against the spirit of Anne but it is not working up to the high spirit of Anne and in its present form would never convey the message which the book contains. You can imagine that I feel very miserable about the situation.'[21]\r\n\r\n
Concerned, he wrote a letter to the Hacketts criticising that the play did not reflect the depth of Anne's character nor the message of the book.[22] For the development of Anne's character, he recommended an article by remedial educationalist Jean Schick Grossman for which she had spoken extensively with Otto Frank, Johannes Kleiman and Miep Gies.[23]
\r\n\r\nIn New York, the Hacketts worked on the fourth, fifth and sixth versions of the play.[24] These versions pleased Otto much better: 'I admire the way you caught the spirit of the book.'[25] He thought the inserted scenes fitted in superbly. He also had sympathy for the 'bread stealing' scene (Hermann van Pels steals a loaf of bread). Although he wondered whether there would be any legal consequences, as a brother of Hermann van Pels was still alive in the United States. He attached to the letter a list of 'observations and suggestions'.
\r\n\r\nAfter the seventh version of the script, the Hacketts came to Amsterdam where, on 6 December 1954, they met Otto Frank for the first time. They visited the Secret Annex, the 6th Montessori school, Merwedeplein 37-II and an ice cream parlour where 'Jews were allowed' the following day. [26] There was a meeting with Lou de Jong, who checked the script, and an extensive photo-reportage of and in the Secret Annex was made by photographer Maria Austria. Based on this visit, the play was revised again: the eighth version.
\r\n\r\nAround this time, the Secret Annex was photographed extensively and in detail by Maria Austria for two days.[27] Otto Frank noted in his diary on 8 December 1954: Photos. - Austria. On 11 December 1954: Photos with Haket [sic] + Kanin.[28]
\r\n\r\nAs it was now too late in the season, the producer postponed the play until autumn 1955.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank answered an extensive list of questions from Joseph Schildkraut, who was to play the role of Otto Frank in the play.[29] Furthermore, he was kept closely informed about the casting, sets, invitations to the premiere, etc.[30]
\r\n\r\nThe first rehearsal was on 22 August 1955. Try-outs began in Philadelphia on 15 September 1955.[31] There were rave reviews, and film companies also showed interest.[32] During the try-outs, the 'bread stealing' scene was moved from morning to night for dramatic effect.[33]
\r\n\r\nIt was followed by its New York premiere on 5 October 1955. Otto Frank never wanted to attend a stage or film screening of the diary. Just before the premiere, he wished the actors well and let them know: 'You will all realize that for me his play is a part of my life, and the idea that my wife and children as well as I will be presented on the stage is a painful one to me. Therefore it is impossible for me to come and see it.' Otto Frank had already wished success to the Hacketts on 9 September 1954, leaving it up to them whether to show the letter to the players in Philadelphia or in New York. [34]
\r\n\r\nAfter Theater De la Mar ran into financial difficulties in 1950, Wim Sonneveld took over the management of the theater. The name was changed to the Nieuwe De la Mar Theater and Wim Sonneveld remained involved with the DeLaMar theater until his death in 1974.[1]
\r\n\r\nNadat Theater De la Mar in 1950 in geldnood kwam nam Wim Sonneveld de leiding van het theater op zich. De naam werd gewijzigd in het Nieuwe De la Mar theater en Wim Sonneveld bleef tot zijn dood in 1974 betrokken bij het DeLaMar theater.[1]
\r\n\r\nAfter Theater De la Mar ran into financial difficulties in 1950, Wim Sonneveld took over the management of the theater. The name was changed to the Nieuwe De la Mar Theater and Wim Sonneveld remained involved with the DeLaMar theater until his death in 1974.[1]
\r\n\r\nThe originally American play The Diary of Anne Frank was also performed in many other countries, including the Netherlands. It premiered on 27 November 1956 in the Nieuwe De la Mar Theater, in the presence of Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard.[1]
\r\n\r\nThe play was performed by the Arnhem-based theatre group 'Theater'. It had been translated into Dutch by Antoinette Westerling and was directed by Karl Guttmann, with as cast:
\r\n\r\nThe play made a big impression in Germany as well, where more than two million people came to see it. The audience was often silent for minutes afterwards. The play contributed greatly to the diary's fame in Germany and many other countries.
\r\n\r\nHet oorsponkelijk Amerikaanse toneelstuk The Diary of Anne Frank werd ook in tal van andere landen opgevoerd, waaronder Nederland. De première vond plaats op 27 november 1956 in het Nieuwe De la Mar Theater, in bijzijn van koningin Juliana en prins Bernhard.[1]
\r\n\r\nHet toneelstuk werd opgevoerd door toneelgroep "Theater" uit Arnhem. Het was naar het Nederlands vertaald door Antoinette Westerling en werd geregiseerd door Karl Guttmann, met als rolverdeling:
\r\n\r\nIn Duitsland maakte het stuk ook grote indruk, meer dan twee miljoen mensen kwamen kijken. Vaak was het na afloop minutenlang stil. Het toneelstuk droeg in Duitsland en in tal van andere landen in grote mate bij aan de bekendheid van het dagboek.
\r\n\r\nThe originally American play The Diary of Anne Frank was also performed in many other countries, including the Netherlands. It premiered on 27 November 1956 in the Nieuwe De la Mar Theater, in the presence of Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard.[1]
\r\n\r\nThe play was performed by the Arnhem-based theatre group 'Theater'. It had been translated into Dutch by Antoinette Westerling and was directed by Karl Guttmann, with as cast:
\r\n\r\nThe play made a big impression in Germany as well, where more than two million people came to see it. The audience was often silent for minutes afterwards. The play contributed greatly to the diary's fame in Germany and many other countries.
\r\n\r\nGeorge Stevens was an American filmmaker. Before World War II, he was primarily known for his comedies. In 1943, Stevens joined the U.S. Army, serving in the United States Army Signal Corps. This division was responsible for communications and intelligence sharing. Stevens was the head of the US Army’s military photography department. His unit, the Special Coverage Unit (SPECOU), was tasked with documenting the liberation of Europe.[1]
\r\n\r\nStevens was present at - and filmed the Normandy landings (D-Day), the liberation of Paris, and the only known colour film footage of World War II in Europe. Stevens also filmed several concentration- and extermination camps shortly after their liberation. This footage was used as evidence during the Nuremberg trials.[2]
\r\n\r\nAfter World War II, Stevens' films became more serious in tone. He stated that his wartime experiences prompted him to make a different kind of film, and he was no longer able to make a comedy. Therefore, The Diary of Anne Frank was an important film for him.[3]
\r\n\r\nHe did a lot of research and recreated the Secret Annex as faithfully as possible for the filmset.[3] Historian Loe de Jong is said to have guided Stevens through Amsterdam in preparation.[4] According to actress Shelley Winters, who played Petronella van Daan, Stevens turned up the heat on set for the summer scenes and the air conditioning for the winter scenes. He also used music to influence the actors' emotions of-set and showed them the footage he himself shot of the concentration camps.[5] The recreated Secret Annex stood on movable plates so that it could actually shake during the bombing scenes, something that was normally simulated with a shaking camera. Stevens arranged various Dutch wartime artifacts for his Hollywood set.[1] He was advised by Tony van Renterghem, who had served in the resistance in occupied Amsterdam and now worked as a historical film advisor.[3] Stevens originally planned to include more scenes from before and after the hiding period in the film, but these did not make it into the final cut.[1]
\r\n\r\nIn 1963, after directing The Diary of Anne Frank, Stevens recounted a recent visit to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. After making the film, he was motivated to see where Anne had been.[3]
\r\n\r\nA documentary has been made about George Stevens' life by his son: George Stevens: A Filmmaker's Journey.[6]
\r\n\r\nSource: personal data.[2]
\r\n\r\nJoseph Schildkraut was an Austrian-American actor. His family were Jewish. Joseph’s father, Rudolph Schildkraut, was also a well-known actor. He had taken on acting roles in the United States in 1910–1911, and Joseph accompanied him.[1] Back in Europe, Joseph began his career as a stage actor in Germany and Austria. He appeared in several German films before emigrating to the United States with his family in 1920.[2]
\r\n\r\nSchildkraut played the role of Otto Frank in the Broadway play The Diary of Anne Frank from 1955 to 1957. The Broadway play was a major inspiration for the 1959 film of the same name, in which Joseph reprised the role of Otto Frank. He was not the only actor to do so; Gusti Huber played Edith Frank in both the play and the film. Schildkraut was nominated for a Golden Globe for his role in The Diary of Anne Frank, but did not win.[1]
\r\n\r\nBetween 1955 and 1978, Joseph (and after his death in 1964, his wife Leonora) corresponded with Otto Frank. They often wrote in German. In the early letters, Schildkraut primarily asked questions about Otto's life and the other people in hiding to better understand the role he was about to play, but the letters soon became friendlier. For example, Otto calls him "Pepi" in his letters, a nickname only Schildkraut's friends used for him. The correspondence with Leonora after Joseph's death shows that Anne's diary had a strong influence on Joseph.[3]
\r\n\r\nBesides playing Otto Frank, Schildkraut portrayed other historical (Jewish) characters; for example, in 1937 he played Alfred Dreyfus in the film The Life of Emile Zola, for which he received an Academy Award (also known as an Oscar) for Best Actor in a Supporting Role.[2] This made him the first Jewish actor to receive this award.[4] In 1961, he appeared in "Deaths-Head Revisited," an episode of the television series The Twilight Zone. In this episode, he played Alfred Becker, a fictional prisoner of the Dachau concentration camp.[2]
\r\n\r\nSchildkraut maintained an archive containing all information, clippings, and correspondence linked to the Frank family. This archive was auctioned off in 2012 and acquired by the Anne Frank House. This archive included letters between Otto Frank and his friend Nathan Straus Jr. from 1941. Straus attempted to help the Frank family flee occupied Europe for the United States. The archive also contained annotated old photographs, a transcript of a 1939 letter from Otto to Anne, and a monogrammed handkerchief that Otto had given to Schildkraut.[5]
\r\n\r\nSource personal data.[1]
\r\n\r\nMillie Perkins played the role of Anne Frank in the film The Diary of Anne Frank (1959). Susan Strasberg had preceded her in this role in the 1955 Broadway play of the same name.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank and director George Stevens initially asked Audrey Hepburn to play Anne. Hepburn politely declined, citing personal reasons. Due to her own experiences during World War II, she felt the role of Anne was too challenging. She also considered herself, now 30, too old for the role.[1][2] A search for a suitable actress then began, with George Stevens expressing a preference for new talent over an already established name. Millie Perkins had never acted before, but was known as a model. She caught the eye of the production team, who asked her to audition.[1]
\r\n
\r\nAccording to Shelley Winters, the actress who played Petronella van Daan (Auguste van Pels) in the film, Millie Perkins, who was catholic, found it challenging to immerse herself in the Jewish faith, something she knew little about. Winters, who was Jewish herself, helped Perkins with this. Winters described Perkins as an optimistic girl and saw similarities with the Anne she had met through the diary.[3]
After her film debut in The Diary of Anne Frank, Perkins continued to act in films and television series.
\r\n\r\nSource personal data.[4]
\r\n\r\nShirley Schrift, who became famous under the name Shelley Winters, was an American actress. She played Petronella van Daan (real name Auguste van Pels) in the film The Diary of Anne Frank (1959). For this role, she received the Academy Award, also known as an Oscar, for Best Supporting Actress. Winters later donated the very same Oscar statue to the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam in 1975.[1] By this point, she had also received a second Oscar, again for Best Supporting Actress, for her role in A Patch of Blue in 1965.[2] The donated Oscar award needed a restoration in 1993. Shelly offered to cover the cost of this.[3]
\r\n\r\nThe Diary of Anne Frank was directed by George Stevens, with whom Winters had already worked on the film A Place in the Sun in 1951.
\r\n\r\nAccording to Winters, the actress who played Anne, the Millie Perkins, found it challenging to immerse herself in the Jewish faith. Being catholic herself, she knew little about it. Winters, who was of Jewish descent, helped Perkins with this. During filming The Diary of Anne Frank, Winters also met with Otto Frank.[4]
\r\n\r\nSource of personal data.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn the contract with Contact Publishers (1946) on the publication of the diary, Otto Frank had explicitly included that he retained the translation and film rights to the diary.[1]
\r\n\r\nAmerican writer/journalist Meyer Levin was convinced of the potential for a stage and/or film adaptation of the diary after reading the diary in its French translation (September 1950).[2] Otto Frank, on the other hand, was not so sure of this:
\r\n\r\n' As far as the film is concerned I am a layman and cannot imagine a good solution to bring out the thoughts and ideas. I am afraid that the exciting and thrilling actions would prevail, to please the public. But if you see it in another way just go on and I shall not interfere. It even would be possible to film the original place and I would try my best to overcome my inner feelings. '[3]\r\n\r\n
With Otto Frank's permission, Meyer Levin tried unsuccessfully to establish contacts with film producers.[4] Only after the diary's success in the United States did theatre and film producers show interest. For instance, according to Otto Frank, the American publisher Doubleday received daily requests for film, radio and television adaptations.[5] Otto Frank saw more in a film adaptation independent of the play and did not think 'that Hollywood would be the right sphere'. [6]
\r\n\r\nWhen Cheryl Crawford threatened to withdraw as producer of the play, and before there was an agreement with producer Kermit Bloomgarden, Otto Frank briefly considered stopping the stage adaptation and starting negotiations on a film adaptation, for which there was sufficient interest.[7]
\r\n\r\nBut when Italian producers and directors showed interest in the film adaptation after the Italian translation appeared in the summer of 1954, Otto Frank decided that, as long as there was no stage play, he still thought it was too premature. [8]
\r\n\r\nLater, Otto Frank agreed with producer Kermit Bloomgarden and the Hacketts, the play's writers, not to negotiate film rights with third parties before the play's premiere on Broadway in New York on 5 October 1955.[9] After the try-outs in Philadelphia and the premiere, there were negotiations with several film companies.[10]
\r\n\r\nOn 30 April 1957, Otto Frank and the Hacketts signed a contract with Twentieth Century Fox for the film adaptation based on the English and American editions of the diary in Barbara Mooyaart's translation.[11] The US premiere of the film The Diary of Anne Frank, directed by George Stevens, was on 18 March 1959. The Dutch premiere followed on 16 April 1959.[12]
\r\n\r\nAuguste van Pels' sister, Greta Goldsmith, reacted angrily to the film:
\r\n\r\n'Ich hoerte schon durch Anni v. Pels, durch Ida und mehrere andere Familiemitglieder von der wenig sympathischen Rolle, die "Schwager Hermann" drin spielte. (...) ich war entzetst, dass Sie so etwas erlaubt haben, dass Sie werter Otto Frank sich nicht dagegen gewehrt haben. (...) (aber musste man eine "Streicherfigur" wählen????) \\u2014 und somit einem Menschen, der schon durch seinen fuertlichen Tod im Konzentrtionslager so best punished worden ist, derartig verunglimpfen??????? '\r\n\r\n
In the same letter, Greta Goldschmith suggested that Otto Frank publish a tribute to her brother-in-law Hermann van Pels in the German emigrant magazine Aufbau.[13] No sources are known to indicate that this actually happened.
\r\n\r\nAfter seeing the Dutch premiere - with a reception attended by Queen Juliana - Miep Gies, Bep van Wijk-Voskuijl and Joke Kleiman (now the widow of Johannes Kleiman) wrote to Otto with their thoughts on the film. [14]
\r\n\r\nIn het contract met Uitgeverij Contact (1946) over de publicatie van het dagboek had Otto Frank expliciet opgenomen dat hij de vertaal- en filmrechten van het dagboek behield.[1]
\r\n\r\nDe Amerikaanse schrijver/journalist Meyer Levin wass na lezing van het dagboek in de Franse vertaling (september 1950) overtuigd van de mogelijkheden voor een toneel- en/of een filmbewerking van het dagboek.[2] Otto Frank daarentegen was hiervan niet zo zeker:
\r\n\r\n' As far as the film is concerned I am a layman and cannot imagine a good solution to bring out the thoughts and ideas. I am afraid that the exciting and thrilling actions would prevail, to please the public. But if you see it in another way just go on and I shall not interfere. It even would be possible to film the original place and I would try my best to overwin my inner feelings.'[3]\r\n\r\n
Met toestemming van Otto Frank probeerde Meyer Levin tevergeefs contacten te leggen met filmproducenten.[4] Pas na het succes van het dagboek in de Verenigde Staten toonden theater- en filmproducenten belangstelling. Zo kreeg de Amerikaanse uitgever Doubleday volgens Otto Frank dagelijks verzoeken voor verfilming, radio- en televisie-bewerkingen.[5]Otto Frank zag meer in een verfilming onafhankelijk van het toneelstuk en dacht niet ' that Hollywood would be the right sphere.' [6]
\r\n\r\nToen Cheryl Crawford zich dreigde terug te trekken als producente van het toneelstuk en voordat er een overeenkomst was met producent Kermit Bloomgarden, overwoog Otto Frank even om de toneelbewerking te stoppen en te starten met onderhandelingen over verfilming, waarvoor wel voldoende belangstelling bestond.[7]
\r\n\r\nMaar als toen het verschijnen van de Italiaanse vertaling in de zomer van 1954 Italiaanse producenten en regisseurs interesse toonden voor de verfilming, besloot Otto Frank dat hij dat, zolang er geen toneelstuk was, toch te voorbarig vond. [8]
\r\n\r\nLater kwam Otto Frank met producent Kermit Bloomgarden en de Hacketts, de schrijvers van het toneelstuk overeen niet met derden over filmrechten te onderhandelen vóór de première van het toneelstuk op 5 oktober 1955 op Broadway in New York.[9] Na de try-outs in Philadelphia en de première waren er onderhandelingen met verschillende filmmaatschappijen.[10]
\r\n\r\nOp 30 april 1957 sloten Otto Frank en de Hacketts een contract met Twentieth Century Fox voor verfilming op basis van de Engelse en Amerikaanse editie van het dagboek in de vertaling van Barbara Mooyaart.[11] Op 18 maart 1959 was de Amerikaanse première van de film The Diary of Anne Frank, geregisseerd door George Stevens. De Nederlandse première volgde op 16 april 1959.[12]
\r\n\r\nDe zus van Auguste van Pels, Greta Goldsmith, reageerde boos op de film:
\r\n\r\n'Ich hoerte schon durch Anni v. Pels, durch Ida und mehrere andere Familiemitglieder von der wenig sympathischen Rolle, die „Schwager Hermann“ drin spielte. (…) ich war entzetst, dass Sie so etwas erlaubt haben, dass Sie werter Otto Frank sich nicht dagegen gewehrt haben. (…) (aber musste man eine „Streicherfigur“ wählen????) – und somit einem Menschen, der schon durch seinen fuertlichen Tod im Konzentrtionslager so bestraft worden ist, derartig verunglimpfen??????? '\r\n\r\n
Greta Goldschmith stelde in diezelfde brief voor dat Otto Frank in het Duitse emigrantentijdschrift Aufbau een eerherstel voor haar zwager Hermann van Pels zou publiceren.[13] Er zijn geen bronnen bekend waaruit blijkt dat dit ook is gebeurd.
\r\n\r\nNa het zien van de Nederlandse première - met ontvangst door koningin Juliana - schreven Miep Gies, Bep van Wijk-Voskuijl en Joke Kleiman (inmiddels weduwe van Johannes Kleiman) hun bevindingen aan Otto. [14]
\r\n\r\nIn the contract with Contact Publishers (1946) on the publication of the diary, Otto Frank had explicitly included that he retained the translation and film rights to the diary.[1]
\r\n\r\nAmerican writer/journalist Meyer Levin was convinced of the potential for a stage and/or film adaptation of the diary after reading the diary in its French translation (September 1950).[2] Otto Frank, on the other hand, was not so sure of this:
\r\n\r\n' As far as the film is concerned I am a layman and cannot imagine a good solution to bring out the thoughts and ideas. I am afraid that the exciting and thrilling actions would prevail, to please the public. But if you see it in another way just go on and I shall not interfere. It even would be possible to film the original place and I would try my best to overcome my inner feelings. '[3]\r\n\r\n
With Otto Frank's permission, Meyer Levin tried unsuccessfully to establish contacts with film producers.[4] Only after the diary's success in the United States did theatre and film producers show interest. For instance, according to Otto Frank, the American publisher Doubleday received daily requests for film, radio and television adaptations.[5] Otto Frank saw more in a film adaptation independent of the play and did not think 'that Hollywood would be the right sphere'. [6]
\r\n\r\nWhen Cheryl Crawford threatened to withdraw as producer of the play, and before there was an agreement with producer Kermit Bloomgarden, Otto Frank briefly considered stopping the stage adaptation and starting negotiations on a film adaptation, for which there was sufficient interest.[7]
\r\n\r\nBut when Italian producers and directors showed interest in the film adaptation after the Italian translation appeared in the summer of 1954, Otto Frank decided that, as long as there was no stage play, he still thought it was too premature. [8]
\r\n\r\nLater, Otto Frank agreed with producer Kermit Bloomgarden and the Hacketts, the play's writers, not to negotiate film rights with third parties before the play's premiere on Broadway in New York on 5 October 1955.[9] After the try-outs in Philadelphia and the premiere, there were negotiations with several film companies.[10]
\r\n\r\nOn 30 April 1957, Otto Frank and the Hacketts signed a contract with Twentieth Century Fox for the film adaptation based on the English and American editions of the diary in Barbara Mooyaart's translation.[11] The US premiere of the film The Diary of Anne Frank, directed by George Stevens, was on 18 March 1959. The Dutch premiere followed on 16 April 1959.[12]
\r\n\r\nAuguste van Pels' sister, Greta Goldsmith, reacted angrily to the film:
\r\n\r\n'Ich hoerte schon durch Anni v. Pels, durch Ida und mehrere andere Familiemitglieder von der wenig sympathischen Rolle, die "Schwager Hermann" drin spielte. (...) ich war entzetst, dass Sie so etwas erlaubt haben, dass Sie werter Otto Frank sich nicht dagegen gewehrt haben. (...) (aber musste man eine "Streicherfigur" wählen????) \\u2014 und somit einem Menschen, der schon durch seinen fuertlichen Tod im Konzentrtionslager so best punished worden ist, derartig verunglimpfen??????? '\r\n\r\n
In the same letter, Greta Goldschmith suggested that Otto Frank publish a tribute to her brother-in-law Hermann van Pels in the German emigrant magazine Aufbau.[13] No sources are known to indicate that this actually happened.
\r\n\r\nAfter seeing the Dutch premiere - with a reception attended by Queen Juliana - Miep Gies, Bep van Wijk-Voskuijl and Joke Kleiman (now the widow of Johannes Kleiman) wrote to Otto with their thoughts on the film. [14]
\r\n\r\nA Hollywood film version of the play was made by director George Stevens in 1958, with the following cast:
\r\n\r\nThe film's screenplay was based on the play The Diary of Anne Frank. The writing couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett wrote both the play and the film script. The film was partly shot in Amsterdam, but the interior of the Secret Annex was recreated as accurately as possible in a studio in Hollywood. Some actors from the play, including Joseph Schildkraut (Otto Frank), Gusti Huber (Edith Frank) and Lou Jacobi (Mr. Van Daan) also appeared in the film. Susan Strasberg, the actress who played Anne Frank in the play, did not want to reprise her role in the film. Otto Frank gunned for Audrey Hepburn as Anne Frank, but she turned down the role.[1] Ultimately the role went to the young American fashion model Millie Perkins.
\r\n\r\nThe American actress Shelley Winters plays the role of Mrs. Van Pels. In her memoirs she elaborates about the film. She recalls meeting Otto Frank: "One day about four months into the shooting, George Stevens annouced to us that we were having lunch with Mr. Otto Frank, the real Anne's father. He had never seen a production of the play; it would have been too difficult a thing for him to do. In fact, it was rather courageous for him to come and watch some of the filming that afternoon. We all had lunch with him in our costumes, shabby, smelly wartime Dutch clothes. He looked around the table at all the actors who were portraying his friends and family. He was trembling, and had tears in his eyes."[2]
\r\n\r\nThe film won three Oscars.[3] Like the play, the film certainly contributed to the fame of The Diary of Anne Frank.
\r\n\r\nIn 1958 werd er van het toneelstuk een film gemaakt door regisseur George Stevens, met als rolverdeling:
\r\n\r\nHet scenario van de film werd gebaseerd op het gelijknamige toneelstuk The Diary of Anne Frank. Het schrijversechtpaar Frances Goodrich en Albert Hackett schreef zowel het toneelstuk als het filmscenario. De film werd deels opgenomen in Amsterdam, maar het interieur van het Achterhuis werd zo nauwkeurig mogelijk nagebouwd in een studio in Hollywood. Enkele acteurs uit de toneelstuk, waaronder Joseph Schildkraut (Otto Frank), Gusti Huber (Edith Frank) en Lou Jacobi (mijnheer Van Daan) speelden ook in de film. Susan Strasberg, de actrice die Anne Frank in het toneelstuk speelde, wilde haar rol niet in de film herhalen. Otto Frank wilde Audrey Hepburn als Anne Frank, maar die weigerde de rol.[1] Uiteindelijk ging de rol naar het jonge Amerikaanse fotomodel Millie Perkins.
\r\n\r\nShelley Winters speelde mevrouw Van Pels. In haar memoires stond zij uitgebreid stil bij de film. Zij herinnerde zich een ontmoeting met Otto Frank: 'Op een dag, toen wij al een maand of vier aan het filmen waren, vertelde George Stevens ons dat wij met Otto Frank zouden lunchen. Hij had het toneelstuk nooit gezien, dat was te zwaar voor hem. Het was erg moedig van hem om 's middags te komen en te kijken naar de opnames. We lunchten met hem in onze armoedige, stinkende kleding uit het Nederland van de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Hij bekeek de acteurs, die zijn vrienden en familie speelden. Hij beefde en had tranen in zijn ogen.'[2]
\r\n\r\nDe film was geen kasssucces maar won wel drie Oscars.[3] Net als het toneelstuk droeg de film zeker bij aan de bekendheid van het dagboek van Anne Frank.
\r\n\r\nA Hollywood film version of the play was made by director George Stevens in 1958, with the following cast:
\r\n\r\nThe film's screenplay was based on the play The Diary of Anne Frank. The writing couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett wrote both the play and the film script. The film was partly shot in Amsterdam, but the interior of the Secret Annex was recreated as accurately as possible in a studio in Hollywood. Some actors from the play, including Joseph Schildkraut (Otto Frank), Gusti Huber (Edith Frank) and Lou Jacobi (Mr. Van Daan) also appeared in the film. Susan Strasberg, the actress who played Anne Frank in the play, did not want to reprise her role in the film. Otto Frank gunned for Audrey Hepburn as Anne Frank, but she turned down the role.[1] Ultimately the role went to the young American fashion model Millie Perkins.
\r\n\r\nThe American actress Shelley Winters plays the role of Mrs. Van Pels. In her memoirs she elaborates about the film. She recalls meeting Otto Frank: "One day about four months into the shooting, George Stevens annouced to us that we were having lunch with Mr. Otto Frank, the real Anne's father. He had never seen a production of the play; it would have been too difficult a thing for him to do. In fact, it was rather courageous for him to come and watch some of the filming that afternoon. We all had lunch with him in our costumes, shabby, smelly wartime Dutch clothes. He looked around the table at all the actors who were portraying his friends and family. He was trembling, and had tears in his eyes."[2]
\r\n\r\nThe film won three Oscars.[3] Like the play, the film certainly contributed to the fame of The Diary of Anne Frank.
\r\n\r\nThe Palace Theatre is a Broadway theater at 1564 Broadway, facing Times Square, in Manhattan.[1]
\r\n\r\nHet Palace Theatre is een Broadway-theater op 1564 Broadway, tegenover Times Square, in Manhattan.[1]
\r\n\r\nThe Palace Theatre is a Broadway theater at 1564 Broadway, facing Times Square, in Manhattan.[1]
\r\n\r\nA Hollywood film version of the play was made by director George Stevens in 1958, with the following cast:
\r\n\r\nThe film's screenplay was based on the play The Diary of Anne Frank. The writing couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett wrote both the play and the film script. The film was partly shot in Amsterdam, but the interior of the Secret Annex was recreated as accurately as possible in a studio in Hollywood. Some actors from the play, including Joseph Schildkraut (Otto Frank), Gusti Huber (Edith Frank) and Lou Jacobi (Mr. Van Daan) also appeared in the film. Susan Strasberg, the actress who played Anne Frank in the play, did not want to reprise her role in the film. Otto Frank gunned for Audrey Hepburn as Anne Frank, but she turned down the role.[1] Ultimately the role went to the young American fashion model Millie Perkins.
\r\n\r\nThe American actress Shelley Winters plays the role of Mrs. Van Pels. In her memoirs she elaborates about the film. She recalls meeting Otto Frank: "One day about four months into the shooting, George Stevens annouced to us that we were having lunch with Mr. Otto Frank, the real Anne's father. He had never seen a production of the play; it would have been too difficult a thing for him to do. In fact, it was rather courageous for him to come and watch some of the filming that afternoon. We all had lunch with him in our costumes, shabby, smelly wartime Dutch clothes. He looked around the table at all the actors who were portraying his friends and family. He was trembling, and had tears in his eyes."[2]
\r\n\r\nThe film won three Oscars.[3] Like the play, the film certainly contributed to the fame of The Diary of Anne Frank.
\r\n\r\nIn 1958 werd er van het toneelstuk een film gemaakt door regisseur George Stevens, met als rolverdeling:
\r\n\r\nHet scenario van de film werd gebaseerd op het gelijknamige toneelstuk The Diary of Anne Frank. Het schrijversechtpaar Frances Goodrich en Albert Hackett schreef zowel het toneelstuk als het filmscenario. De film werd deels opgenomen in Amsterdam, maar het interieur van het Achterhuis werd zo nauwkeurig mogelijk nagebouwd in een studio in Hollywood. Enkele acteurs uit de toneelstuk, waaronder Joseph Schildkraut (Otto Frank), Gusti Huber (Edith Frank) en Lou Jacobi (mijnheer Van Daan) speelden ook in de film. Susan Strasberg, de actrice die Anne Frank in het toneelstuk speelde, wilde haar rol niet in de film herhalen. Otto Frank wilde Audrey Hepburn als Anne Frank, maar die weigerde de rol.[1] Uiteindelijk ging de rol naar het jonge Amerikaanse fotomodel Millie Perkins.
\r\n\r\nShelley Winters speelde mevrouw Van Pels. In haar memoires stond zij uitgebreid stil bij de film. Zij herinnerde zich een ontmoeting met Otto Frank: 'Op een dag, toen wij al een maand of vier aan het filmen waren, vertelde George Stevens ons dat wij met Otto Frank zouden lunchen. Hij had het toneelstuk nooit gezien, dat was te zwaar voor hem. Het was erg moedig van hem om 's middags te komen en te kijken naar de opnames. We lunchten met hem in onze armoedige, stinkende kleding uit het Nederland van de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Hij bekeek de acteurs, die zijn vrienden en familie speelden. Hij beefde en had tranen in zijn ogen.'[2]
\r\n\r\nDe film was geen kasssucces maar won wel drie Oscars.[3] Net als het toneelstuk droeg de film zeker bij aan de bekendheid van het dagboek van Anne Frank.
\r\n\r\nA Hollywood film version of the play was made by director George Stevens in 1958, with the following cast:
\r\n\r\nThe film's screenplay was based on the play The Diary of Anne Frank. The writing couple Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett wrote both the play and the film script. The film was partly shot in Amsterdam, but the interior of the Secret Annex was recreated as accurately as possible in a studio in Hollywood. Some actors from the play, including Joseph Schildkraut (Otto Frank), Gusti Huber (Edith Frank) and Lou Jacobi (Mr. Van Daan) also appeared in the film. Susan Strasberg, the actress who played Anne Frank in the play, did not want to reprise her role in the film. Otto Frank gunned for Audrey Hepburn as Anne Frank, but she turned down the role.[1] Ultimately the role went to the young American fashion model Millie Perkins.
\r\n\r\nThe American actress Shelley Winters plays the role of Mrs. Van Pels. In her memoirs she elaborates about the film. She recalls meeting Otto Frank: "One day about four months into the shooting, George Stevens annouced to us that we were having lunch with Mr. Otto Frank, the real Anne's father. He had never seen a production of the play; it would have been too difficult a thing for him to do. In fact, it was rather courageous for him to come and watch some of the filming that afternoon. We all had lunch with him in our costumes, shabby, smelly wartime Dutch clothes. He looked around the table at all the actors who were portraying his friends and family. He was trembling, and had tears in his eyes."[2]
\r\n\r\nThe film won three Oscars.[3] Like the play, the film certainly contributed to the fame of The Diary of Anne Frank.
\r\n\r\nPrincess Beatrix was born on the 31th of January 1938 as the eldest daughter of Crown Princess Juliana and Prince Bernard. She spent the war years in Canada with her mother and sisters. n 1943, a picture postcard was produced from a photograph of the Dutch Royal family, livinh in exile in Ottawa Canada, and then illegally distributed throughout the country. Anne was given one of these cards by the Bep, and she noted in her diary: “Bep has had a picture postcard of the whole royal family copied for me. Juliana looks very young, and so does the queen. The three girls are lovely. It was terribly nice of Bep, don’t you think?”[1] Anne first put this postcard into her photo album. She later pinned it to the wall, next to the image of the British Royal family, using a thumbtack.[2]
\r\n\r\nPrincess Beatrix was on Otto Frank's mailing list when Anne Frank's book of tales was published in 1948.[3] On 10 March 1966, she married Claus von Amsberg. From 30 April 1980 to 30 April 2013, she was Queen of the Netherlands.[4]
\r\n\r\nGeorge Stevens was an American filmmaker. Before World War II, he was primarily known for his comedies. In 1943, Stevens joined the U.S. Army, serving in the United States Army Signal Corps. This division was responsible for communications and intelligence sharing. Stevens was the head of the US Army’s military photography department. His unit, the Special Coverage Unit (SPECOU), was tasked with documenting the liberation of Europe.[1]
\r\n\r\nStevens was present at - and filmed the Normandy landings (D-Day), the liberation of Paris, and the only known colour film footage of World War II in Europe. Stevens also filmed several concentration- and extermination camps shortly after their liberation. This footage was used as evidence during the Nuremberg trials.[2]
\r\n\r\nAfter World War II, Stevens' films became more serious in tone. He stated that his wartime experiences prompted him to make a different kind of film, and he was no longer able to make a comedy. Therefore, The Diary of Anne Frank was an important film for him.[3]
\r\n\r\nHe did a lot of research and recreated the Secret Annex as faithfully as possible for the filmset.[3] Historian Loe de Jong is said to have guided Stevens through Amsterdam in preparation.[4] According to actress Shelley Winters, who played Petronella van Daan, Stevens turned up the heat on set for the summer scenes and the air conditioning for the winter scenes. He also used music to influence the actors' emotions of-set and showed them the footage he himself shot of the concentration camps.[5] The recreated Secret Annex stood on movable plates so that it could actually shake during the bombing scenes, something that was normally simulated with a shaking camera. Stevens arranged various Dutch wartime artifacts for his Hollywood set.[1] He was advised by Tony van Renterghem, who had served in the resistance in occupied Amsterdam and now worked as a historical film advisor.[3] Stevens originally planned to include more scenes from before and after the hiding period in the film, but these did not make it into the final cut.[1]
\r\n\r\nIn 1963, after directing The Diary of Anne Frank, Stevens recounted a recent visit to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. After making the film, he was motivated to see where Anne had been.[3]
\r\n\r\nA documentary has been made about George Stevens' life by his son: George Stevens: A Filmmaker's Journey.[6]
\r\n\r\nSource: personal data.[2]
\r\n\r\nJoseph Schildkraut was an Austrian-American actor. His family were Jewish. Joseph’s father, Rudolph Schildkraut, was also a well-known actor. He had taken on acting roles in the United States in 1910–1911, and Joseph accompanied him.[1] Back in Europe, Joseph began his career as a stage actor in Germany and Austria. He appeared in several German films before emigrating to the United States with his family in 1920.[2]
\r\n\r\nSchildkraut played the role of Otto Frank in the Broadway play The Diary of Anne Frank from 1955 to 1957. The Broadway play was a major inspiration for the 1959 film of the same name, in which Joseph reprised the role of Otto Frank. He was not the only actor to do so; Gusti Huber played Edith Frank in both the play and the film. Schildkraut was nominated for a Golden Globe for his role in The Diary of Anne Frank, but did not win.[1]
\r\n\r\nBetween 1955 and 1978, Joseph (and after his death in 1964, his wife Leonora) corresponded with Otto Frank. They often wrote in German. In the early letters, Schildkraut primarily asked questions about Otto's life and the other people in hiding to better understand the role he was about to play, but the letters soon became friendlier. For example, Otto calls him "Pepi" in his letters, a nickname only Schildkraut's friends used for him. The correspondence with Leonora after Joseph's death shows that Anne's diary had a strong influence on Joseph.[3]
\r\n\r\nBesides playing Otto Frank, Schildkraut portrayed other historical (Jewish) characters; for example, in 1937 he played Alfred Dreyfus in the film The Life of Emile Zola, for which he received an Academy Award (also known as an Oscar) for Best Actor in a Supporting Role.[2] This made him the first Jewish actor to receive this award.[4] In 1961, he appeared in "Deaths-Head Revisited," an episode of the television series The Twilight Zone. In this episode, he played Alfred Becker, a fictional prisoner of the Dachau concentration camp.[2]
\r\n\r\nSchildkraut maintained an archive containing all information, clippings, and correspondence linked to the Frank family. This archive was auctioned off in 2012 and acquired by the Anne Frank House. This archive included letters between Otto Frank and his friend Nathan Straus Jr. from 1941. Straus attempted to help the Frank family flee occupied Europe for the United States. The archive also contained annotated old photographs, a transcript of a 1939 letter from Otto to Anne, and a monogrammed handkerchief that Otto had given to Schildkraut.[5]
\r\n\r\nSource personal data.[1]
\r\n\r\nPrincess Juliana was the daughter and only child of Queen Wilhelmina and Prince Hendrik. On 7 January 1937, she married Prince Bernard zur Lippe. Princesses Beatrix, Irene, Margriet and Christina were born from this marriage. Juliana spent the war years in Canada with her daughters.
\r\n\r\nIn 1943, a picture postcard was produced from a photograph of the Dutch Royal family, livinh in exile in Ottawa Canada, and then illegally distributed throughout the country. Anne was given one of these cards by the Bep, and she noted in her diary: “Bep has had a picture postcard of the whole royal family copied for me. Juliana looks very young, and so does the queen. The three girls are lovely. It was terribly nice of Bep, don’t you think?”[1] Anne first put this postcard into her photo album. She later pinned it to the wall, next to the image of the British Royal family, using a thumbtack.[2]
\r\n\r\nJuliana was Queen of the Netherlands from 1948 to 1980.[3] Juliana's private secretary wrote a letter of thanks to Otto Frank for the copy of Het Achterhuis that he had sent.[4]
\r\n\r\nMillie Perkins played the role of Anne Frank in the film The Diary of Anne Frank (1959). Susan Strasberg had preceded her in this role in the 1955 Broadway play of the same name.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank and director George Stevens initially asked Audrey Hepburn to play Anne. Hepburn politely declined, citing personal reasons. Due to her own experiences during World War II, she felt the role of Anne was too challenging. She also considered herself, now 30, too old for the role.[1][2] A search for a suitable actress then began, with George Stevens expressing a preference for new talent over an already established name. Millie Perkins had never acted before, but was known as a model. She caught the eye of the production team, who asked her to audition.[1]
\r\n
\r\nAccording to Shelley Winters, the actress who played Petronella van Daan (Auguste van Pels) in the film, Millie Perkins, who was catholic, found it challenging to immerse herself in the Jewish faith, something she knew little about. Winters, who was Jewish herself, helped Perkins with this. Winters described Perkins as an optimistic girl and saw similarities with the Anne she had met through the diary.[3]
After her film debut in The Diary of Anne Frank, Perkins continued to act in films and television series.
\r\n\r\nSource personal data.[4]
\r\n\r\nShirley Schrift, who became famous under the name Shelley Winters, was an American actress. She played Petronella van Daan (real name Auguste van Pels) in the film The Diary of Anne Frank (1959). For this role, she received the Academy Award, also known as an Oscar, for Best Supporting Actress. Winters later donated the very same Oscar statue to the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam in 1975.[1] By this point, she had also received a second Oscar, again for Best Supporting Actress, for her role in A Patch of Blue in 1965.[2] The donated Oscar award needed a restoration in 1993. Shelly offered to cover the cost of this.[3]
\r\n\r\nThe Diary of Anne Frank was directed by George Stevens, with whom Winters had already worked on the film A Place in the Sun in 1951.
\r\n\r\nAccording to Winters, the actress who played Anne, the Millie Perkins, found it challenging to immerse herself in the Jewish faith. Being catholic herself, she knew little about it. Winters, who was of Jewish descent, helped Perkins with this. During filming The Diary of Anne Frank, Winters also met with Otto Frank.[4]
\r\n\r\nSource of personal data.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn the contract with Contact Publishers (1946) on the publication of the diary, Otto Frank had explicitly included that he retained the translation and film rights to the diary.[1]
\r\n\r\nAmerican writer/journalist Meyer Levin was convinced of the potential for a stage and/or film adaptation of the diary after reading the diary in its French translation (September 1950).[2] Otto Frank, on the other hand, was not so sure of this:
\r\n\r\n' As far as the film is concerned I am a layman and cannot imagine a good solution to bring out the thoughts and ideas. I am afraid that the exciting and thrilling actions would prevail, to please the public. But if you see it in another way just go on and I shall not interfere. It even would be possible to film the original place and I would try my best to overcome my inner feelings. '[3]\r\n\r\n
With Otto Frank's permission, Meyer Levin tried unsuccessfully to establish contacts with film producers.[4] Only after the diary's success in the United States did theatre and film producers show interest. For instance, according to Otto Frank, the American publisher Doubleday received daily requests for film, radio and television adaptations.[5] Otto Frank saw more in a film adaptation independent of the play and did not think 'that Hollywood would be the right sphere'. [6]
\r\n\r\nWhen Cheryl Crawford threatened to withdraw as producer of the play, and before there was an agreement with producer Kermit Bloomgarden, Otto Frank briefly considered stopping the stage adaptation and starting negotiations on a film adaptation, for which there was sufficient interest.[7]
\r\n\r\nBut when Italian producers and directors showed interest in the film adaptation after the Italian translation appeared in the summer of 1954, Otto Frank decided that, as long as there was no stage play, he still thought it was too premature. [8]
\r\n\r\nLater, Otto Frank agreed with producer Kermit Bloomgarden and the Hacketts, the play's writers, not to negotiate film rights with third parties before the play's premiere on Broadway in New York on 5 October 1955.[9] After the try-outs in Philadelphia and the premiere, there were negotiations with several film companies.[10]
\r\n\r\nOn 30 April 1957, Otto Frank and the Hacketts signed a contract with Twentieth Century Fox for the film adaptation based on the English and American editions of the diary in Barbara Mooyaart's translation.[11] The US premiere of the film The Diary of Anne Frank, directed by George Stevens, was on 18 March 1959. The Dutch premiere followed on 16 April 1959.[12]
\r\n\r\nAuguste van Pels' sister, Greta Goldsmith, reacted angrily to the film:
\r\n\r\n'Ich hoerte schon durch Anni v. Pels, durch Ida und mehrere andere Familiemitglieder von der wenig sympathischen Rolle, die "Schwager Hermann" drin spielte. (...) ich war entzetst, dass Sie so etwas erlaubt haben, dass Sie werter Otto Frank sich nicht dagegen gewehrt haben. (...) (aber musste man eine "Streicherfigur" wählen????) \\u2014 und somit einem Menschen, der schon durch seinen fuertlichen Tod im Konzentrtionslager so best punished worden ist, derartig verunglimpfen??????? '\r\n\r\n
In the same letter, Greta Goldschmith suggested that Otto Frank publish a tribute to her brother-in-law Hermann van Pels in the German emigrant magazine Aufbau.[13] No sources are known to indicate that this actually happened.
\r\n\r\nAfter seeing the Dutch premiere - with a reception attended by Queen Juliana - Miep Gies, Bep van Wijk-Voskuijl and Joke Kleiman (now the widow of Johannes Kleiman) wrote to Otto with their thoughts on the film. [14]
\r\n\r\nIn het contract met Uitgeverij Contact (1946) over de publicatie van het dagboek had Otto Frank expliciet opgenomen dat hij de vertaal- en filmrechten van het dagboek behield.[1]
\r\n\r\nDe Amerikaanse schrijver/journalist Meyer Levin wass na lezing van het dagboek in de Franse vertaling (september 1950) overtuigd van de mogelijkheden voor een toneel- en/of een filmbewerking van het dagboek.[2] Otto Frank daarentegen was hiervan niet zo zeker:
\r\n\r\n' As far as the film is concerned I am a layman and cannot imagine a good solution to bring out the thoughts and ideas. I am afraid that the exciting and thrilling actions would prevail, to please the public. But if you see it in another way just go on and I shall not interfere. It even would be possible to film the original place and I would try my best to overwin my inner feelings.'[3]\r\n\r\n
Met toestemming van Otto Frank probeerde Meyer Levin tevergeefs contacten te leggen met filmproducenten.[4] Pas na het succes van het dagboek in de Verenigde Staten toonden theater- en filmproducenten belangstelling. Zo kreeg de Amerikaanse uitgever Doubleday volgens Otto Frank dagelijks verzoeken voor verfilming, radio- en televisie-bewerkingen.[5]Otto Frank zag meer in een verfilming onafhankelijk van het toneelstuk en dacht niet ' that Hollywood would be the right sphere.' [6]
\r\n\r\nToen Cheryl Crawford zich dreigde terug te trekken als producente van het toneelstuk en voordat er een overeenkomst was met producent Kermit Bloomgarden, overwoog Otto Frank even om de toneelbewerking te stoppen en te starten met onderhandelingen over verfilming, waarvoor wel voldoende belangstelling bestond.[7]
\r\n\r\nMaar als toen het verschijnen van de Italiaanse vertaling in de zomer van 1954 Italiaanse producenten en regisseurs interesse toonden voor de verfilming, besloot Otto Frank dat hij dat, zolang er geen toneelstuk was, toch te voorbarig vond. [8]
\r\n\r\nLater kwam Otto Frank met producent Kermit Bloomgarden en de Hacketts, de schrijvers van het toneelstuk overeen niet met derden over filmrechten te onderhandelen vóór de première van het toneelstuk op 5 oktober 1955 op Broadway in New York.[9] Na de try-outs in Philadelphia en de première waren er onderhandelingen met verschillende filmmaatschappijen.[10]
\r\n\r\nOp 30 april 1957 sloten Otto Frank en de Hacketts een contract met Twentieth Century Fox voor verfilming op basis van de Engelse en Amerikaanse editie van het dagboek in de vertaling van Barbara Mooyaart.[11] Op 18 maart 1959 was de Amerikaanse première van de film The Diary of Anne Frank, geregisseerd door George Stevens. De Nederlandse première volgde op 16 april 1959.[12]
\r\n\r\nDe zus van Auguste van Pels, Greta Goldsmith, reageerde boos op de film:
\r\n\r\n'Ich hoerte schon durch Anni v. Pels, durch Ida und mehrere andere Familiemitglieder von der wenig sympathischen Rolle, die „Schwager Hermann“ drin spielte. (…) ich war entzetst, dass Sie so etwas erlaubt haben, dass Sie werter Otto Frank sich nicht dagegen gewehrt haben. (…) (aber musste man eine „Streicherfigur“ wählen????) – und somit einem Menschen, der schon durch seinen fuertlichen Tod im Konzentrtionslager so bestraft worden ist, derartig verunglimpfen??????? '\r\n\r\n
Greta Goldschmith stelde in diezelfde brief voor dat Otto Frank in het Duitse emigrantentijdschrift Aufbau een eerherstel voor haar zwager Hermann van Pels zou publiceren.[13] Er zijn geen bronnen bekend waaruit blijkt dat dit ook is gebeurd.
\r\n\r\nNa het zien van de Nederlandse première - met ontvangst door koningin Juliana - schreven Miep Gies, Bep van Wijk-Voskuijl en Joke Kleiman (inmiddels weduwe van Johannes Kleiman) hun bevindingen aan Otto. [14]
\r\n\r\nIn the contract with Contact Publishers (1946) on the publication of the diary, Otto Frank had explicitly included that he retained the translation and film rights to the diary.[1]
\r\n\r\nAmerican writer/journalist Meyer Levin was convinced of the potential for a stage and/or film adaptation of the diary after reading the diary in its French translation (September 1950).[2] Otto Frank, on the other hand, was not so sure of this:
\r\n\r\n' As far as the film is concerned I am a layman and cannot imagine a good solution to bring out the thoughts and ideas. I am afraid that the exciting and thrilling actions would prevail, to please the public. But if you see it in another way just go on and I shall not interfere. It even would be possible to film the original place and I would try my best to overcome my inner feelings. '[3]\r\n\r\n
With Otto Frank's permission, Meyer Levin tried unsuccessfully to establish contacts with film producers.[4] Only after the diary's success in the United States did theatre and film producers show interest. For instance, according to Otto Frank, the American publisher Doubleday received daily requests for film, radio and television adaptations.[5] Otto Frank saw more in a film adaptation independent of the play and did not think 'that Hollywood would be the right sphere'. [6]
\r\n\r\nWhen Cheryl Crawford threatened to withdraw as producer of the play, and before there was an agreement with producer Kermit Bloomgarden, Otto Frank briefly considered stopping the stage adaptation and starting negotiations on a film adaptation, for which there was sufficient interest.[7]
\r\n\r\nBut when Italian producers and directors showed interest in the film adaptation after the Italian translation appeared in the summer of 1954, Otto Frank decided that, as long as there was no stage play, he still thought it was too premature. [8]
\r\n\r\nLater, Otto Frank agreed with producer Kermit Bloomgarden and the Hacketts, the play's writers, not to negotiate film rights with third parties before the play's premiere on Broadway in New York on 5 October 1955.[9] After the try-outs in Philadelphia and the premiere, there were negotiations with several film companies.[10]
\r\n\r\nOn 30 April 1957, Otto Frank and the Hacketts signed a contract with Twentieth Century Fox for the film adaptation based on the English and American editions of the diary in Barbara Mooyaart's translation.[11] The US premiere of the film The Diary of Anne Frank, directed by George Stevens, was on 18 March 1959. The Dutch premiere followed on 16 April 1959.[12]
\r\n\r\nAuguste van Pels' sister, Greta Goldsmith, reacted angrily to the film:
\r\n\r\n'Ich hoerte schon durch Anni v. Pels, durch Ida und mehrere andere Familiemitglieder von der wenig sympathischen Rolle, die "Schwager Hermann" drin spielte. (...) ich war entzetst, dass Sie so etwas erlaubt haben, dass Sie werter Otto Frank sich nicht dagegen gewehrt haben. (...) (aber musste man eine "Streicherfigur" wählen????) \\u2014 und somit einem Menschen, der schon durch seinen fuertlichen Tod im Konzentrtionslager so best punished worden ist, derartig verunglimpfen??????? '\r\n\r\n
In the same letter, Greta Goldschmith suggested that Otto Frank publish a tribute to her brother-in-law Hermann van Pels in the German emigrant magazine Aufbau.[13] No sources are known to indicate that this actually happened.
\r\n\r\nAfter seeing the Dutch premiere - with a reception attended by Queen Juliana - Miep Gies, Bep van Wijk-Voskuijl and Joke Kleiman (now the widow of Johannes Kleiman) wrote to Otto with their thoughts on the film. [14]
\r\n\r\nJust like they were at the play's premiere, members of the Dutch Royal Family are once again present. Queen Juliana and Crown Princess Beatrix attended.[1] At the end of the film, the Wilhelmus, the Dutch National Anthem, was played.[2]
\r\n\r\nA month before the Dutch premiere, critic Alex Burnham wrote a review in newspaper Het Vrije Volk: 'Last night I read The Diary of Anne Frank for the second time and I was reminded of the theatre performance in New York. As I write this, I think that they are both better than the film. But for those who neither know the diary itself nor the play, they will find the film exceptionally moving. I have already said that it is a good film, and that is true; and I do not think that the people of Amsterdam and Dutch people as a whole will feel disappointed when they see it..' Although he praised the performances of the actors, in particular those of Millie Perkins (Anne Frank), Joseph Schildkraut (Otto Frank) and Ed Wynn (Dussel), he was critical of the, in his view, annoying score and the direction of George Stevens, especially the ending of the film. 'The film does not end at the moment where the play left us deeply affected and in tears. The film fades away, in bits and pieces. The love story between Anne and the boy is too stretched. The Nazis' approach is taking too long.' Nevertheless, he concluded: 'Still, one must see the film, if only to be reminded of the bestiality of human beings. And also of the greatness of the human heart. Of Anne's heart.''[3]
\r\n\r\nNet als eerder bij het toneelstuk was het Koninklijk Huis ook bij deze première vertegenwoordigd door koningin Juliana samen met kroonprinses Beatrix.[1] Aan het einde van de voorstelling werd het Wilhelmus gespeeld.[2]
\r\n\r\nEen maand voor de Nederlandse première schreef recensent Alex Burnham voor het dagblad Het Vrije Volk: 'Gisteravond heb ik voor de tweede maal het dagboek van Anne Frank gelezen. En ik herinnerde me de toneeluitvoering ervan in New York. Terwijl ik dit schrijf, vind ik ze allebei beter dan de film. Maar voor wie noch het dagboek zelf, noch de toneelversie kent, zal de film buitengewoon aangrijpend blijken. Ik zei al dat het een goede film is. Dat is ook zo. En ik geloof niet, dat Amsterdammers en andere Nederlanders zich teleurgesteld zullen voelen, wanneer ze eenmaal de gelegenheid hebben om het te bekijken.' Alhoewel lovend over de prestaties van de acteurs, in het bijzonder die van Millie Perkins (Anne Frank), Joseph Schildkraut (Otto Frank) en Ed Wynn (Dussel / Fritz Pfeffer), kraakte hij kritische noten over de in zijn ogen irriterende muziek en over de regie van George Stevens, met name over het einde van de film. 'De film breekt niet af op het ogenblik, waar het toneelstuk ons diep-getroffen in tranen achterliet. De film ebt weg, bij stukjes en beetjes. Het liefdesverhaal tussen Anne en de jongen is te gerekt. De nadering van de nazi's duurt te lang.' Desalniettemin besloot hij: 'Toch moet men de film zien, al was het alleen maar om zich te laten herinneren aan de beestachtigheid van menselijke wezens. En óók aan de grootheid van 's mensen hart. Van Annes hart.'[3]
\r\n\r\nJust like they were at the play's premiere, members of the Dutch Royal Family are once again present. Queen Juliana and Crown Princess Beatrix attended.[1] At the end of the film, the Wilhelmus, the Dutch National Anthem, was played.[2]
\r\n\r\nA month before the Dutch premiere, critic Alex Burnham wrote a review in newspaper Het Vrije Volk: 'Last night I read The Diary of Anne Frank for the second time and I was reminded of the theatre performance in New York. As I write this, I think that they are both better than the film. But for those who neither know the diary itself nor the play, they will find the film exceptionally moving. I have already said that it is a good film, and that is true; and I do not think that the people of Amsterdam and Dutch people as a whole will feel disappointed when they see it..' Although he praised the performances of the actors, in particular those of Millie Perkins (Anne Frank), Joseph Schildkraut (Otto Frank) and Ed Wynn (Dussel), he was critical of the, in his view, annoying score and the direction of George Stevens, especially the ending of the film. 'The film does not end at the moment where the play left us deeply affected and in tears. The film fades away, in bits and pieces. The love story between Anne and the boy is too stretched. The Nazis' approach is taking too long.' Nevertheless, he concluded: 'Still, one must see the film, if only to be reminded of the bestiality of human beings. And also of the greatness of the human heart. Of Anne's heart.''[3]
\r\n\r\nCity Theater was a Dutch cinema chain. The first City Theater was opened in The Hague in 1923. In 1935, the City Theater opened in Amsterdam, the company's fifth cinema.[1]
\r\n\r\nCity Theater was een Nederlandse bioscoopketen. In 1923 werd in Den Haag het eerste City Theater geopend. In 1935 opende het City Theater in Amsterdam, de vijfde bioscoop van de firma.[1]
\r\n\r\nCity Theater was a Dutch cinema chain. The first City Theater was opened in The Hague in 1923. In 1935, the City Theater opened in Amsterdam, the company's fifth cinema.[1]
\r\n\r\nJust like they were at the play's premiere, members of the Dutch Royal Family are once again present. Queen Juliana and Crown Princess Beatrix attended.[1] At the end of the film, the Wilhelmus, the Dutch National Anthem, was played.[2]
\r\n\r\nA month before the Dutch premiere, critic Alex Burnham wrote a review in newspaper Het Vrije Volk: 'Last night I read The Diary of Anne Frank for the second time and I was reminded of the theatre performance in New York. As I write this, I think that they are both better than the film. But for those who neither know the diary itself nor the play, they will find the film exceptionally moving. I have already said that it is a good film, and that is true; and I do not think that the people of Amsterdam and Dutch people as a whole will feel disappointed when they see it..' Although he praised the performances of the actors, in particular those of Millie Perkins (Anne Frank), Joseph Schildkraut (Otto Frank) and Ed Wynn (Dussel), he was critical of the, in his view, annoying score and the direction of George Stevens, especially the ending of the film. 'The film does not end at the moment where the play left us deeply affected and in tears. The film fades away, in bits and pieces. The love story between Anne and the boy is too stretched. The Nazis' approach is taking too long.' Nevertheless, he concluded: 'Still, one must see the film, if only to be reminded of the bestiality of human beings. And also of the greatness of the human heart. Of Anne's heart.''[3]
\r\n\r\nNet als eerder bij het toneelstuk was het Koninklijk Huis ook bij deze première vertegenwoordigd door koningin Juliana samen met kroonprinses Beatrix.[1] Aan het einde van de voorstelling werd het Wilhelmus gespeeld.[2]
\r\n\r\nEen maand voor de Nederlandse première schreef recensent Alex Burnham voor het dagblad Het Vrije Volk: 'Gisteravond heb ik voor de tweede maal het dagboek van Anne Frank gelezen. En ik herinnerde me de toneeluitvoering ervan in New York. Terwijl ik dit schrijf, vind ik ze allebei beter dan de film. Maar voor wie noch het dagboek zelf, noch de toneelversie kent, zal de film buitengewoon aangrijpend blijken. Ik zei al dat het een goede film is. Dat is ook zo. En ik geloof niet, dat Amsterdammers en andere Nederlanders zich teleurgesteld zullen voelen, wanneer ze eenmaal de gelegenheid hebben om het te bekijken.' Alhoewel lovend over de prestaties van de acteurs, in het bijzonder die van Millie Perkins (Anne Frank), Joseph Schildkraut (Otto Frank) en Ed Wynn (Dussel / Fritz Pfeffer), kraakte hij kritische noten over de in zijn ogen irriterende muziek en over de regie van George Stevens, met name over het einde van de film. 'De film breekt niet af op het ogenblik, waar het toneelstuk ons diep-getroffen in tranen achterliet. De film ebt weg, bij stukjes en beetjes. Het liefdesverhaal tussen Anne en de jongen is te gerekt. De nadering van de nazi's duurt te lang.' Desalniettemin besloot hij: 'Toch moet men de film zien, al was het alleen maar om zich te laten herinneren aan de beestachtigheid van menselijke wezens. En óók aan de grootheid van 's mensen hart. Van Annes hart.'[3]
\r\n\r\nJust like they were at the play's premiere, members of the Dutch Royal Family are once again present. Queen Juliana and Crown Princess Beatrix attended.[1] At the end of the film, the Wilhelmus, the Dutch National Anthem, was played.[2]
\r\n\r\nA month before the Dutch premiere, critic Alex Burnham wrote a review in newspaper Het Vrije Volk: 'Last night I read The Diary of Anne Frank for the second time and I was reminded of the theatre performance in New York. As I write this, I think that they are both better than the film. But for those who neither know the diary itself nor the play, they will find the film exceptionally moving. I have already said that it is a good film, and that is true; and I do not think that the people of Amsterdam and Dutch people as a whole will feel disappointed when they see it..' Although he praised the performances of the actors, in particular those of Millie Perkins (Anne Frank), Joseph Schildkraut (Otto Frank) and Ed Wynn (Dussel), he was critical of the, in his view, annoying score and the direction of George Stevens, especially the ending of the film. 'The film does not end at the moment where the play left us deeply affected and in tears. The film fades away, in bits and pieces. The love story between Anne and the boy is too stretched. The Nazis' approach is taking too long.' Nevertheless, he concluded: 'Still, one must see the film, if only to be reminded of the bestiality of human beings. And also of the greatness of the human heart. Of Anne's heart.''[3]
\r\n\r\n