soundofheaven.info Technology TAGEBUCH ANNE FRANK PDF

Tagebuch anne frank pdf

Friday, May 3, 2019 admin Comments(0)

Erläuterungen Zu Anne Frank, Das Tagebuch Der Anne Frank. Read more Reading the Diary of Anne Frank (The Engaged Reader). Read more. PDF en francais - The Diary of a Young Girl - Version 04 - The young Anne Frank wrote in her diary all the tension that the Frank family suffered during World. While Anne Frank was in hiding during the German Occupation of the 2 Anne Frank: From Diary to Het Achterhuis/Das Tagebuch/Le Journal/The Diary. (pp.


Author: ANGELA CALLAR
Language: English, Spanish, German
Country: Tajikistan
Genre: Politics & Laws
Pages: 242
Published (Last): 18.11.2015
ISBN: 588-4-78703-936-8
ePub File Size: 22.32 MB
PDF File Size: 9.53 MB
Distribution: Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Downloads: 29417
Uploaded by: NOLA

6. Apr. Tagebuch der Anne Frank (niederländischer Originaltitel: Het Achterhuis – „Das Hinweis: Die Lektionsreihe liegt als PDF-Dateien vor. by Radio-Islam pdf> by AAARGH Editions Internet Ditlieb FELDERER: Anne .. (Heinz Roth, Anne Frank's Tagebuch— Der Grosse Schwindel). For those who know and love Anne Frank, The Definitive Edition is a scholarly work The analisis tokoh dan penokohan anne frank dalam anne frank tagebuch.

Perhaps Elli Vossen, "a twenty-three years old typist. And what about all the others who did know the house, who were working there or paid the house a visit? Yesterday evening I discovered something new: The "epilogue" in the Cardinal edition states that: Frank's hate against the Germans could be explained by the fact that unless some people get all the cake they start screeching to the high heavens blasting out they are being unjustly treated. We pass the time in all sorts of crazy ways In any case it seems fairly certain the small laboratory was seldom used.

Nevertheless, we are struck by the fact that so few entries are made and why no explanation is given for this. Just as a last thought before leaving this issue we want to mention a curious fact.

Anne Franks'Diary — a Hoax We do not want to quarrel with the authoress but permit us to quote her statement that: We must state here we feel this time was a most unwise choice for her to "have a good look at the moon for once. That a child, and a girl at that, should go so far as to call her own father by a nickname would be worse than an insult to the father. Nevertheless, this American practice of being "cute" crops up continuously in the diary and the authoress calls her own father by his nickname "Pirn" Compare: Whether the nicknames are found in the original we do not know but if they do appear, they indicate the girl was a spoiled brat whose parents had neglected to inculcate common courtesy.

The Last Seven Months of Anne Frank

No decently brought up child would have used these nick names. Possible they may be interpolations. On Friday, 9 October Anne herself is said to ' have died of typhus. Also, on 13 Dec. H, is alleged to have said: How did the girl know about this secret? As we can see there is a logical explanation to this. The Franks were apparently constantly listening to the radio programs coming from England. Likely they had plenty of time to listen to the radio seeing they had little else to do.

The English radio programs were constantly sending out gruesome propaganda stories about German atrocities being committed and seeing the Franks hated the Germans they took of course these fictitious stores to be the truth. After further investigations most of us now recognize that we have been hoodwinked.

The whole thing was a bluff concocted mainly by the Jewish propaganda machine. On Thursday, 3 February Those wanting further information on the gas chamber, subject should consult: Butz, op. It was the Jewish, Bermann-Fischer Verlag who later brought out the Anne Frank "diary" in German and who succeeded in hoodwinking a whole world on it being an authentic document.

A [14] footnote states after the statement "Jews must wear a yellow star" that: We are told "the gaudy yellow star spoke for itself" 9 July Dussel wearing it on his coat, 17 Nov. The AFFA brochure has three pictures on page 18 where the star is displayed. Observe however the first picture on the left and you will find in the center of the picture the Magen David prominently displayed in a "Jewish" religious service.

The truth is of course that the Magen David has for a long time been; besides the Menorah - a candelabrum having seven or nine branches - the most prominent Jewish symbol. In fact it was the Jewish leaders themselves who demanded that Jews wear it prominently and proudly. More than six years before Jews were forced to wear the star by law the editor of the Zionist weekly Juedische Rundschau was the first to coin and make popular the slogan about the yellow star which Jews were later forced to wear: The same encyclop.

If the Red Cross could display a cross, the Nazis their swastika, the Salvation Army their emblems, etc. Indeed, the very first issue of Die Welt, Herzl's Zionist journal, bore it as its emblem. At a huge gathering and pageant "The Romance of a People" in Chicago, July , , the six pointed star and the white flag of Palestine with the two blue bars and this same star in between was most prominently exhibited Inquire Within, Trail of the Serpent, The Christian Book Club of America, Calif.

Seeing most people are unaware of these facts the Zionists have used it as evidence of their cruel persecution. The Jehovah's Witnesses who had never stated they would proudly wear a sign were forced to wear one. In their case it may be said they were punished in wearing a sign but certainly not the Jews who themselves wanted to wear it. Had Hitler meant to shame the Jews he could have forced them to wear the traditional dunce's hat.

He would hardly ask them to wear their most cherished symbol if he had meant to punish them by wearing it. Possibly these parts about the "yellow star" are interpolations or at least some of them. The diary has been heralded as the most truthful document coming out of the Second World War showing the cruelties of the German people under Hitler. Obviously one of Mr. Frank's and his cohorts' chief aims was to perpetuate hate against the Germans; make it out as if the Jews were the only real sufferers of these tragic events while giving an excuse to the world for the Jews' to barbarically evict the Palestinians from their homeland.

Anne Franks'Diary — a Hoax racket and insidious scheme ever perpetrated on mankind, was because they were constantly being reminded through Jewish propaganda who ruled, and still rule, who owned, and still own, the mass media about such cases - the pivotal example being Anne Frank. Through books, newspaper articles, condensed articles in magazines, movies, dramas, school plays, records, tourism and other schemes the world got brainwashed hearing about Anne Frank, and still keeps hearing about her.

That is why the "legend" of Anne Frank must never die. If it falls and dies the whole Zionistic conspiracy will fall with it. It must never die. And which sensible person would want that to happen to anyone, much less a child!

When these points are recognized the entire machination behind the Anne Frank diary takes the pro portion of one gigantic, sickening 'example of how the "God's chosen people" take revenge on their critics. In this spirit the diary says the "English have always told the truth" 3 Feb. The "Internationale" is heralded with enthusiasm 10 Sept. So are the "extra" communiques "from Stalin" 31 March No less so is the knowledge that the "Bolshevists really are on the way" 27 June As can be expected the worst lot are the Germans, those who made Jews wealthy in the first place.

The Franks had themselves made their wealth in Germany. Possibly they came from poor Khazar background, whose family later moved into Poland, Galicia, Hungary or Austria. Like so many a poor Khazar they soon recognized that Germany was their "Promised Land. Possibly most of Mr.

Frank's hate against the Germans could be explained by the fact that unless some people get all the cake they start screeching to the high heavens blasting out they are being unjustly treated. The diary is quite revealing on the fact that the Franks were wallowing in wealth while in Germany: I don't think I have, so I will begin now. And what a gold mine it proved to be. Anti-German films are still big incomes to the warmongers and hatemongers.

We are told that Anne is glad for that Hitler "took away our nationality long ago" 9 Oct. She feels that "Only a small percentage of Dutch people are on the wrong side" 29 March The one good thing when food gets worse is "so sabotage against the authorities steadily increases" Ibid.

In typical priestly hypocrisy this diary and its created Foundation will help and teach mankind "to attain the humility which alone can make us want to listen to our fellowman" AFFA: We find it exceedingly difficult to believe that a healthy girl at her age can be so possessed with hate and apparently even worse portions of this kind can be found in the uncensored material seeing we are told some passages were excluded by Mr.

Frank which he felt "might hurt other people's feelings" AFFA: We are willing of course to concede that a young child, having been thoroughly brainwashed by Talmudic ideals may end up with numerous aberrations of which these are some examples but even then this seems a bit farfetched.

An investigation of the prime source material may shed some light on whether these portions are mere concoctions of some other author or authors or whether she in fact wrote them. On the one hand we are led to believe that the group of eight Jews are under constant danger, risking their lives. Quietness was an absolute requisite for the group to survive.

On the other hand we note from the diary the constant racket they made and the boisterous atmosphere. It was by no means extraordinary but seems to have been the order of the day. The "Van Daan Product" 17 Nov. Here is another example from the diary which does not tolerate noise: As the clock strikes half past eight in the morning, Margot and Mummy are jittery: Daddy, Quiet, Otto, ssh Not a drop of water, no lavatory, no walking about, everything quiet.

As long as none of the office staff are there, everything can be heard in the warehouse" 23 Aug. The diary is replete with the constant quarrelling between the Jews. In another place Anne states: Van Daan It seems as if the biggest problem was the Jews themselves and not the Nazis. The matter is so bad that Anne is made to say some pages after: Unfortunately the problem persists. On Saturday, 15 January We are left wondering. If the group of Jews was in such a danger, how is it that they never got detected and how could they be so boisterous?

Perhaps the most peculiar piece of information we can gather from the diary is when we are told that the girl has a "craze for dancing and ballet at the moment" and that she "practices dance steps every evening diligently" This was as late as 12 January Equally peculiar is the information that, Peter chops wood and performs "acrobatics round the room with his cat" 10 Dec. We would believe that under the circumstances, if the story is to be believed at all, these sorts of activities should be totally prohibited at any time.

Anne Franks'Diary — a Hoax that the story about a group of Jews in hiding for the very lives is an exaggeration. In fact the diary itself contains no specific instance of Germans plundering their home. We first hear of Germans Austrians? Even then, the house itself was never plundered but only certain documents may have been searched for and confiscated and as the story indicates, the diary, along with a pile of other material was left unconfiscated.

The major problem was not the Germans [18] nor those Dutch who had sided with the Germans, but the indigenous possibly also Jewish Dutch groups and individuals who were constantly committing burglaries, stealing from the homes. Compare 10 March If the burglars who came to their home were not Dutch they may have been Jews which would hardly make the case more sympathetic.

We have already shown how the readers are expected, without any hesitation, to swallow its contents no matter how absurd the story may sound. In this respect those responsible seem to have been fully satisfied. Countless simpletons have swallowed its "message" as a dry sponge sucks up water.

We shall continue to give more examples of this fact but before we do so let us get some background of Mr. Frank's business activities. In her "convincing" attempt to explain to us "why" the "diary" was written, Anne gives the following details about her father: My sister Margot was born in in Frankfort on Main, I followed on June 12, , and, as we are Jewish, we emigrated to Holland in , where my father was appointed Managing Director ofTravies N.

In after the pogroms, my two uncles my mother's brothers escaped to the U. We detect obvious interpolations in this quotation. Nothing will convince us unless we are allowed to examine the original records, that young Anne, under this date, should have written an historical genealogy of her family. The swindle is far too apparent. Let us examine another point more closely.

The diary makes out as a matter of fact, that as they were Jewish, they "emigrated to Holland: First, if it was a matter of fact that Jews already as early as should emigrate why did not all Jews do so?

Frank tagebuch pdf anne

We would expect that at least the wealthy should have taken this opportunity particularly in view of the fact they had the freedom to do so. Often it was the poor Jew who emigrated, not the wealthy. Second, why did the "two uncles" remain in Germany? Not until did they escape to the USA. Third, why did not the Franks also escape to the USA?

ANNE FRANK: Was schrieb das Kind?

Having escaped Germany before the uncles they seemingly should have been more aware of the risks that the uncles who remained in Germany up to Fourth, we know that even after Hitler took power, 10, Jews immigrated to Germany between In , of 1, immigrants, 97 came from Palestine! The story now becomes rather interesting when we know this fact.

First, the reason given for their immigration to Holland in "as we are Jewish" becomes foolish in view of this fact.

Second, we must now ask the question, why did the Franks emigrate? Frank is preciously silent about himself and about the details we would want him to explain before we would accept his story. Anne Franks'Diary — a Hoax wealth? It is pity Mr. Frank has not let us know more about himself. After coming to Holland the family was still well off.

Anne writes: Perhaps this explains why the family did not bother to "flee" to the USA, Switzerland or elsewhere. About the business Anne informs us that: Koophuis has taken over Travies and Mr. Along with the Franks there were four other people. Why, of all places did the father choose to make a "hiding place" out of the very same building where he had his own business office 9 July The building was also supposed to have been a storage place for spices.

The place was therefore not only an office but also a warehouse for Mr. Frank's spices for as the AFFA brochure itself wants to remind us: The argument that may be brought up that others were now running the business explains nothing as Jews were allowed to work; the "Jewish chemist and dispenser" who worked at their business proves this fact.

The whole story about the "Secret Annexe" reaches the point of absurdity when we remember the above facts. How could the Germans, who were after the Franks and others, and whom, we are told, so meticulously searched out all secrets leaving nothing undone, have missed the "Secret Annexe" or even the whole house for that matter? What glories are left of this "document" are smothered when we examine these points.

If the SS had "sent a call up notice for Daddy" 8 July He could hardly have chosen a more unsuitable place. While at this point, not even from their own Jewish people could they feel safe for it is reported: Kraler in the kitchen. He knows the whole building well and therefore we are always afraid that he'll take it into his head to have a peep in the old laboratory.

We are as quiet as mice. Who, three months ago, would ever have guessed that quicksilver Anne would have to sit still for hours and, what's more could?

Could it be that Jewish Lewin was peacefully working at the warehouse for the same reason that thousands of Jews were left untouched also in Germany during the entire war? The fact that this Jewish person worked there makes the whole story the more fantastic.

May not the fact the Franks chose their own office and warehouse as their "hiding place" indicate to us how lenient the Germans in fact were about the Jewish questions at the time? We may just as well believe that Frank's real reason for not moving to the warehouse was not on account of the Germans but so that they could prevent burglaries [20] which according to the diary constantly occurred.

It may also be that Mr. Frank wanted to keep an eye on the new storekeepers, Mr. Kraler and Mr. Thus the story about the "Secret Annexe" may just prove to be an invention for the real underlying cause: In order that they could keep an eye on their business. However, it is not enough that we are to accept this drivel about the "Secret Annex" story. Please bear with us now as we unravel yet another fabulous tale from our "document: The owner of these premises has sold the house without informing Kraler and Koophuis.

One morning the new owner arrived with an architect to have a look at the house. Luckily, Mr. It will be all right as long as he doesn't come back and want to see the "Secret Annexe" ; because then it won't look too good for us. First we are to believe that the owner sold the house without prior inspection of the premises he was selling, then, that he had not informed those renting the warehouse about it being for sale and later sold.

We are further expected to believe that the new owner buying the house did not inspect it before buying it. If that isn't asking the readers too much they are now on top of it all supposed to swallow the notion that neither the architect, who should have seen the blueprints of the house, nor the new owner was interested in inspecting the entire warehouse!

Why for instance, did they not get suspicious about the "cupboard" in front of the door 21 Aug: More of this in our next heading. That the new owner should be so disinterested in an entire section of his newly bought warehouse seems incredible even if we were to accept that he shortly afterwards would see to it that keys were available so he could enter the place.

Several more questions should be asked. What about cigarette odors? The males inside the "Secret Annexe" smoked except Peter. Plenty of food was stored in the attic like peas, beans and cans of vegetables Nov: Sausages were also stored there 10 March Would not the new owner wonder why all this food was stored there? Even if the original diary did contain this section we still must question the story's credibility. While we may believe in "God's providence" we still feel the "document" seems a bit farfetched.

The "mystery door" no doubt puts an air of suspense and excitement over it. We are in no position to know whether this is but a story that was made up afterwards and whether it at all existed during their alleged confinement. But in view of all these discrepancies some observations are relevant.

The first time we meet it, it is described as "that plain grey door": There is a small landing at the top. One of those really steep Dutch staircases runs from the side to the other door opening on to the street C. Let us pause here for a moment before we move on. Why would a girl who had left to go to Holland from Germany in 20 June Let us not talk about the fact that a girl would hardly speak in this way but the statement becomes rather ludicrous when we remember that she hardly would have had a chance and interest to compare the Dutch staircases with other countries'.

Furthermore, why improve the entrance door seeing that "no one would ever guess that there would be so many rooms" hidden behind "that plain grey door"?

Would then not an alteration of it only bring forth some real causes for suspicion? We will go more into this point as we move on. Let us however continue on with the next description; the alteration of the actual entrance into the "Secret Annexe" which was supposed to be an improvement in spite of the above objections we have raised: Vossen made the whole thing.

We had already let him into the secret and he can't do enough to help. The first three days we were all going about with masses of lumps on our foreheads, because we all knocked ourselves against the low doorway. Now we have nailed a cloth filled with wool against the low doorway.

Let's see if that helps! Bear in mind now what our previous quotation stated. In spite of this, if we are to believe this story, the two gentlemen had no difficulties in observing "the secret hiding place"! Two photographs of the contraption with the "swinging bookcase" are shown in the AFFA brochure So how could Koophuis have told them he had forgotten the key to a door where there was no door?

The whole nonsense becomes apparently ludicrous when we remember the point, that what Koophuis was doing, was, that he in fact is supposed to have said that he had no key for an open [22] "bookcase" to be opened, which bookcase in the beginning never had a keyhole but could only be opened from the inside!

Let Mr. Frank and his likes try to untangle the dilemma. This information makes us wonder whether there at all was such a "secret entrance door. It would place an air of mystery and excitement over the story. This is not all by a long stretch. Vossen, Elli Vossen's father 9 July Remember the girl admits that: Now, someone may object Mr.

Vossen did his carpentry work in the evening or at night. But note the above citation of the noise problems that "even so" after working hours the noise could travel through the walls. The story's fabric simply does not make sense.

Alterations were apparently also made by making the entrance smaller. We must now ask ourselves about the owner of the house. The warehouse had not yet been sold to the new owner so the alterations were made prior to the house being sold. What would the owner think if he saw this contraption? Had he not been suspicious before he certainly should have wondered where his former door had gone, not to speak about an entire part of his warehouse.

What he now would see was only a "cupboard" in front of him. What about the "Jewish chemist and dispenser," Mr. Lewin, who knew "the whole building" 1 Oct. Would he not have wondered about where the door had disappeared? Where the "step" had gone? And what about all the others who did know the house, who were working there or paid the house a visit? What about all the repairs that went on with the house, the repairs that went on with the toilet inside the "Secret Annexe"? What about the fire department and others who had a right to inspect the premises?

In view of all these facts it would seem that this "secret door," instead of helping them, would have been one of the silliest inventions they could have made. They would have run the risk of being even more easily detected if that really was of any importance to them.

On this premise and on relevant points we may safely dismiss the "secret door" story. It may simply have been conjured up by those wanting to capitalize on a story. Anne Franks'Diary — a Hoax [23] in the story we would benefit by examining this problem a little further. It is claimed in the BG: If the entrance has been altered, then the perpetrators of the hoax have tampered with the most important part of the "Secret Annexe" story.

In their twisted mass of lies and half truths the perpetrators of the hoax may argue that what has not been changed concerns, not the entrance, but what was behind the entrance. If so, they only prove their own impudence. Besides, we have no reason to believe that what was behind the entrance has not also been altered to a greater or lesser degree.

Schnabel reports that when he visited the premises the bookcase had been removed. Where it was he does not state. In fact he leaves all important questions out or tries to excuse them.

He states that only the warped hinges remained 5: Again, another testimony for what it is worth , showing alterations had been made. Really this tells us nothing. His observation that the warped hinges were the only things left, is no proof that they belonged to a moveable bookcase. They may just as well have belonged to that "plain grey door.

It states about the door: It is beyond this door that the annex really begins. Here we have an official description of the contraption. However as already stated, the door was so easily detected by the new owner apparently he did not even ask if there was a door there for he had asked that the door be opened even though it had no keyhole and could be opened only from the inside! Even the "carpenter, or whatever you call him" who came to "fill" the "five fire extinguishers in the house" 20 Oct.

The carpenter who had "knocked at our door," the story tells, thus indicating there was a DOOR there, was unable to get in. Later Mr. Koophuis came and said: The story is indeed confusing to say the least for here it seems to indicate that the door could in fact be opened from the OUTSIDE by those who knew the secret. Possibly by some type of contraption the cupboard was fastened to the door. By removing the cupboard the door could be opened from the [24] outside. This seems to be a logical explanation.

However, if so, the door to the annex has not "been left unchanged. That the door could be opened from the outside maybe further indicated from the following: Likewise the following may indicate this: Anne Franks'Diary — a Hoax The preceding indicates also it may have been a "plain grey door" 9 July Compare also the remark that "the police rattled the cupboard door" 11 April Here is confusion galore! Frankly the story of the Franks does not convince us and we want to be frank with Mr.

Frank that unless he comes up with some real sound explanations that can be tested and verified the whole story of "Anne Frank" seems most suspicious.

Why for instance did the carpenter who was to fill the five fire extinguishers not demand to get into the annex? It happened on 20 Oct. Not before 4 Aug. It seems only reasonable to conclude that at least one of the inspectors came inside the annex. The fact that an entire part of the building was completely closed to them should have brought questions in their or his mind. The man or men, we should not forget, may very well have seen the place before.

If so, would not the alterations have seemed most strange? An investigation into the actual handwriting may give us additional clues. Until then we must regard the story as pure fantasy, mingled with whatever bits and pieces of truth there are.

Two more points should be considered before we leave. If Schnabel is right in his assumption it seems as if the bookcase was supported by hinges for he reports that when the "corporal" pushed the bookcase it gave way, stating he is citing Kraler's letter to him "perhaps the hook had not been properly fastened" 8: This is contradicted again by the very same "corporal" in an article we have before us where the corporal is quoted as having said that one of the men pushed away the bookcase.

No mention is made of it being on any hinges. Possibly then the entrance had not been made smaller and the bookcase which is there today is an altered product. No honest person can put credence in these constantly shifting stores besides it would be impossible with all the numerous factors contradicting each other.

The swindle is obvious. It is up to us to try and join the pieces together so we can determine where the truth possibly may lie. Much more we cannot do under the circumstances and in view of all the [25] alterations that have been made. They claim: The essence of the assumption is that we are made to believe the police were Germans and being Germans and unused to Dutch homes they missed the "Secret Annexe" of the warehouse.

Frank had made George Stevens believe that the Gestapo, "Sergeant Silverbauer, of the Green Police, and four subordinates" were Germans and "Nazi soldiers" whose "mission was to destroy" Cardinal ed: The information Schnabel gives in his book flatly contradicts this.

There, no mention is made that their "mission was to destroy" and it is evident by reading his book that nothing in the warehouse got destroyed. Rather we are told the group was quietly allowed to take their belongings with them. The leader told them: Kraler was even allowed to fetch his sandwiches while Miep was allowed to telephone 8: The information the AFFA brochure gives of the Germans being so confused on account of the warehouse topography is neither convincing nor is it supported by other information the Foundation and Mr.

Frank have given out. The explanation they give was likely invented so they could stifle sound objections. The indigenous Dutchman was the main group of the police.

Anne frank pdf tagebuch

Outsiders did of course supervise investigations but it was still the Dutch themselves who carried out the search. Apparently Anne could equate the Gestapo with the Dutch police. She writes that she "could see us all being taken away by the Gestapo" 11 April Hence the AFFA's argument becomes ludicrous. The Franks knew most of the police were Dutch and the Dutch people were well aware of these types of houses Compare Schnabel 8: Even Schnabel confirms the fact that the police were Dutch.

In Kraler's letter to Schnabel he mentions four policemen only one of which was "Green" police. Schnabel calls the "Green" policeman "Silberthaler. Surely then, to Dutch people there was nothing unusual at all about this particular house. The BG leaflet states definitely that: Does this not indicate there was nothing unusual about the construction? We have already mentioned it seems farfetched how an entire part of the house on the second and third floor can disappear.

On the third floor the kitchen and laboratory were located. Inside the "Secret Annexe" was also located a toilet which pipes went down to the toilet below; another reason indicating to us that fictitious inventions have been given to "explain" the story. Nor is it a house, really. Their hiding place was the back section of a canal bank building where Anne's father, Otto Frank, had operated a spice import business.

Rather it seems to be given as a smoke screen for gullible believers. The "document" is clearly a swindle and it rests on a hodgepodge of confusion and conflicting claims. But we need not end here. Let us investigate another most perplexing issue. It is related to what we just previously have written. The issue concerns the argument that the "Secret Annexe" could not be seen "through the warehouse windows" and so the "German police could not see the house lying at the back.

You may be wondering now perhaps, why the German police could not see the house lying at the back, through the warehouse windows. Everyone knows that the entrance to the "Secret Annexe " from the little landing was hidden behind a swinging bookcase. But even so, why couldn't the Annexe be seen through the windows? It is important to know that Mr. Frank was trading in spices at the time, and that the spices were stored in the warehouse.

Spices must be kept in the dark and to save hanging curtains, paper with a chequered pattern had been stuck onto the window panes, to keep out the daylight. Anne Franks'Diary — a Hoax windows, you could not see through them, and everyone took it for granted that they overlooked the garden. Perhaps this does not strike you, looking at the plan, but as you wander through the house, with all its passages, steps, doors and stairs, you will have soon lost your idea of the topography of the house.

See Plan fig. On the right hand side you will see the window which looks onto the inner courtyard. Several problems arise however with this explanation. The "little landing" AFFA: Frank would store his spices, therefore, there was no reason to cover the panes with anything. Spices are usually kept in drawers, wooden containers, jars or cans, thereby protecting them not so much from light as from giving out odors and absorbing odors. That the "little landing" was used as a storage place is ludicrous, to say the least, as very little could be stored there.

Fire regulations would further require that nothing be stored there and that the place should be kept clear and bright. It would hardly be advisable to keep these panes covered as the spot was generally well shaded due to the surrounding high walls. Covering the panes would only necessitate that artificial light would be used.

In turn, that would throw suspicion, for people on the outside could then see the light. Keeping the windows uncovered would have been best. We will also point out that if Mr. Frank stored his spices there, the only place apparently where the windows were covered in this way, he would have gone broke as an importer of spices or he would have to receive his income from other sources. There are other arguments in favor of our conclusion.

If darkness was of so much importance to Frank why did he not cover those windows where the spices were located instead of covering windows where they were not located?

If he really was worried about the light why then did he not keep his spices in the: No mention is made that any spices were kept here Compare 7 Dec. If so, the introduction on pp. No mention is made in this introduction that even one spice was kept at the "little landing. Seeing no spices were kept there why cover the panes?

Why were just the panes at the "small landing" covered? Anne says: In other words, the windows could hardly have been covered with papers. They let the sun shine in "through an open window in the attic" 21 Aug. Schnabel says that from the attic one could watch into the rooms on the other side 5: If one could do so then those people could also look into the windows of the warehouse. The "front office" where apparently most spices were kept was, [28] as we have already indicated, a "very light" room.

Margot and Anne had later chosen the "front office" for their scrubs and Anne says: She wrote later. We shall go further into the windows being covered afterwards but sufficient is to say that the above information is rather peculiar if Frank really was so concerned about his spices being protected from light. Anne Franks'Diary — a Hoax it be that the explanation about the panes at the "little landing" being covered came up in order to make the story more credible and dramatic about the "Secret Annexe"?

It seems to us, if Frank really was so worried about his spices he ought to have been much more concerned about cigarette smoke which really affects spices. Yet he never did anything about that and he himself smoked. It becomes clear that Frank's reason why the German police could not see the "Secret Annexe" does not make sense.

It does however give us another important clue that the story is a conglomeration of fact and fiction, mostly fiction. Likely the story about the panes being covered was invented afterwards to throw action and suspense on it and to ward off possible objections.

The real reason of course why the German police could not find the "Secret Annexe" was simply due to the fact they hadn't bothered to search the place. If you don't search for a thing it is logical you don't find it. When at last they did look for it, they also found it. So simple may the truth be. So simple in fact that few people have thought about it. Some points that may be touched on are: Odor the risk of detection, visible signs of smoke, fire risks, police finding a storage of tobacco, telltales, and the fact that people starving would hardly spend their money on tobacco.

Before we briefly touch on these points and the risks they entail let us see how the family were standing on the matter of tobacco. Van Daan: I must smoke and smoke and smoke? But if he hasn't anything to smoke, then nothing is right. However, even Mrs. Frank smoked for Anne reports of her mother saying: Van Daan I would have put a stop to Mr.

Anne reports of Dussel, Mr. Van Daan and her father that these "gentlemen puff at their pipes" 27 March Later on she writes: Under the same date she writes Miep and Henk brought them "cigarettes, tobacco, an ash tray" , compare 8 May On June 16 she reports that Mrs. Van Daan was afraid that her husband is [29] smoking all the fur coat money away" Above citations settle the issue.

Heavy smoking went on inside the house. Let us now reflect for a moment. The issue of "odor" brings up the question why Mr.

Frank, being so concerned about the light and his spices at a place where no spices were stored; why he was not equally concerned about his spices being affected by tobacco odor and smoke. And what about the odor leaving a telltale sign of people being there? Surely, if hiding was the great issue involved, the smell of tobacco would give them away sooner or later. Why did Mr. Frank choose Mr. Van Daan and Dussel as co dwellers knowing they smoked?

The house could be raided at any moment. No mention is made of tobacco being prohibited. All smokers and conscious non smokers are aware that tobacco smoke causes quite a lot of visible smoke.

Here we have another reason indicating to us the inmates were not particularly bothered about being detected. The noise of tobacco coughs is obvious.

Telltale signs of ashes, ash trays, cigarette butts, matches etc. The fire risk is obvious, particular in a warehouse which had a laboratory. The risk of the police finding a storage of tobacco is equally obvious. Why people who really are in need and risking their very lives would spend their money on tobacco is equally strange.

Their sufferings seem most luxurious. Indeed the "Secret Annexe" story appears positively unconvincing. No thinking persons in danger of their lives would take such obvious risks. Here we shall ponder over the points why only the panes at the "little landing" were covered with paper, where no spices were stored, whereas apparently, all other windows were never covered with paper in spite of spices likely being stored there.

We will also ponder over how people, especially the police, could avoid noticing them living there. The credibility of the story receives further blows when we consider the fact that it would have been simply impossible to avoid noticing them. We shall make some quotations from the diary, interrupting here and there with brief comments.

The quotations speak for themselves. Daddy's lamp blew a fuse, and all of a sudden we were sitting in darkness. Would that have been a wise choice in view of the light causing attraction; besides the fire hazard?

No light for a fortnight; a pleasant thought, that, but who knows, perhaps it won't happen after all! It's too dark to read [30] in the afternoons after four or half past.

We pass the time in all sorts of crazy ways Yesterday evening I discovered something new: In the daytime we can't allow even as much as a centimetre's chink to appear between our curtains, but it can't do any harm after dark.

I never knew before that neighbors could be such interesting people. At any rate, ours are. I found one couple having a meal, one family was in the act of showing a home movie; and the dentist opposite was just attending to an old lady, who was awfully scared.

Observe what Anne writes: Peter was doing acrobatics round the room with his cat Mummy was ironing. About Dussel, Anne writes: It seems to take simply hours. However the shooting outside provoked the father to extinguish it. The mother felt otherwise: When he complained her answer was firm: Pirn turned on the lamp. He reports also that Elli's father later looked into the warehouse through the windows but he could see no one inside 8: Clearly the windows were not covered to protect the spices.

It was much easier to talk beside the open window in the semidarkness than in bright light, and I believe Peter felt the same. And what do I have to face, when I reach the bottom of the staircase? The trouble was not the police but the temperature. Are these people really supposed to be hiding? She writes on July We ask ourselves the same question. We shall here briefly consider the "blackouts" at the premises.

Pdf frank tagebuch anne

We have already observed that not only could one look OUT through the windows but people from the outside could also look IN. Blackouts were usually set up to conceal lights that might be visible to enemy air raiders at night.

Warehouses of the sort that the Franks lived at were not in need of blackouts as people left the premises before the night came.

Blackouts would have indicated to others there were people living at the premises. Anne writes that "Daddy improved [32] the poor blackout" 10 July On August Van Daan's bed "is shifted to the window It seems however that they were put up inside Mr. Frank and Anne's room for Anne's room had also a window Compare Schnabel 5: The blackouts were put up at ten o'clock p. We are now faced pondering on two problems. First, the lights at the Van Daan's would have been observed from the outside.

Opening and closing the windows at will would be further indications that people were living there. Their kitchen stove, throwing out light would be another clue to outsiders. Peter had a flashlight If artificial light were not used, which by the way they had used above their quota 28 Nov. Second, the "Secret Annexe" had windows on all sides. If the blackouts were put up at such a late time the neighbors must have seen the lights previous to them setting up the blackouts.

It is impossible to believe that no people would observe the light coming from their windows. We remember that Anne got hold of a pair of binoculars and was able to see a "couple having a meal, one family was in the act of showing a home movie; and the dentist opposite was just attending to an old lady, who was awful scared" 28 Nov.

What tells us that these people could not have had binoculars and look into their windows? The dwellers at the warehouse may also have shown movies. We read for instance of that their "projector" had "disappeared from the cupboard" 1 March We have evidence, for whatever the "evidence" is worth in the "diary," that films were shown in Anne's home. On 25 June The putting up and down of the "blackouts" must sooner or later have been observed by the people. They should have seen that lights were no longer visible from the place or visible in a different way.

How could their neighbors, noticing all these activities, possibly miss observing there were people living in the warehouse? It seems next to incredible. In view of all these observations it is obvious that the "Secret Annexe" story simply doesn't fit facts. Evidently the story has been highly dramatized for what otherwise would have been a most dull and ordinary diary.

What the family underwent was no different; and in several ways as the diary itself indicates they had it a lot better, than any ordinary Dutch family in Holland who also may have written diaries.

ANNE FRANK: Was schrieb das Kind?

Even if the story was not stripped of all its fertile exaggerations one wonders how it could reach such fame and world wide acclaim.

Anne Franks'Diary — a Hoax tools could it have reached such fame. The blackouts were made of wood: That would certainly have involved making a noise. We further learn that Peter usually did carpentry work: About one and a half years later it is still reported he does carpentry: He went up to the loft instead and did some carpentry.

It even reported that Peter chops wood: From my favorite spot on the floor I look up at the blue sky and the bare chestnut tree, on whose branches little raindrops shine, appearing like silver, and the seagulls arid the other birds as they glide on the wind I watched him from where I stood, he was obviously doing his best to show off his strength. Now, if Peter perhaps daily chops wood, with the window open one would expect the noise carried not only to their own buildings on the sides but also onto the street outside.

Likely the wood was used for their stoves and perhaps "wood shavings" were used for Mouschi - the cat 10 May Vossen had done the carpentry of the "secret door" to their "Annexe" 21 Aug. It should not be necessary for us to point out that carpentry work, the chopping of wood etc. If they truly were in hiding and so concerned about noise, how is it they could have allowed all this racket occurring nearly every day?

There were for instance several stoves in the warehouse. One of the reasons for the "five fire extinguishers in the house" 20 Oct. Besides heating, the stoves would be used for cooking, baking, frying and burning refuse. They had to be lit for these purposes and kept burning which in turn would throw off possible lights besides keeping a chimney smoking. Van Daans' stove in particular was used for cooking, frying and baking.

Fried potatoes were apparently much enjoyed for Anne tells us that, "we," thereby meaning her family and not the Van Daans, "fry our own potatoes" 15 Jan. Seemingly they had "fried potatoes" daily 25 May Besides causing smoke from the stoves, cooked and fried foods cause noises, smoke and odors.

Even when it was [34] warm outside they lit fires. Perhaps Anne speaks of their own stove when she writes: We can't put anything in the garbage pails, because we must always think of the warehouse boy. How easily one could be betrayed by being a little careless. However "being a little careless" is indeed stating it lightly when it comes to this group. Boys are usually by nature very inquisitive and one would think the warehouse boy would have wondered even more how it came that the "plain grey door" suddenly disappeared.

For instead of a door he would now see a bookcase! Geburtstag seiner Tochter ,. Dezember bis zum Das hat er bis heute nicht getan.

Sanderlei - Vaaste Song 「Lyrics」 - English Translation - Dhvani Bhanushali

Ich habe aber keinen wissenschaftlichen Vergleich angestellt zwischen dem gedruckten Text und dem Manuskript. Mit dieser Wendung deutet der Frank: Romein schrieb, am 3. Albert Cauvern meint: Wenn etwa die Autorin "um den Hals fallen" schrieb, verbesserte Cauvern in "sehr dankbar sein".

Aber fremde Gedanken kommen im Tagebuch nicht vor. Ich hatte mir schon lange vorgenommen, ihn verschiedene Dinge zu fragen. Wo Anne Frank geschrieben hatte: Warum eigentlich? Tagebuch-Autorin Anne Frank: Heft lesen. Artikel als PDF. Gelesen Verschickt Gesehen 1. Nach Trump-Tweet: Hat eine US-Abgeordnete den