“We all know that a good example is more effective than advice. So, set a good example, and it won’t take long for others to follow.” — Anne Frank
(If she actually wrote the diary that’s been attributed to her, she was wise far beyond her years. I’ve seen claims that someone else wrote it a few years after the war, as kind of a propaganda piece. I think it’s something that can’t possibly be proven, one way or another. Be well and do good, friends.) — YUR
With Otto Frank’s death in 1980, the original diary, including letters and loose sheets, were willed to the Dutch Institute for War Documentation,[97] which commissioned a forensic study of the diary through the Netherlands Ministry of Justice in 1986. They examined the handwriting against known examples and found that they matched. They determined that the paper, glue, and ink were readily available during the time the diary was said to have been written. They concluded that the diary is authentic, and their findings were published in what has become known as the “Critical Edition” of the diary.[98] On 23 March 1990, the Hamburg Regional Court confirmed the diary’s authenticity.[74] — From Wikipedia
I’ve seen this also, Lee. But, do you really think there would be a huge difference in paper and glue from say 1940, when the autograph book *might* have been produced (given to her in 1942), and 1946, when someone clever might have decided to write it? And, was the ink used from 1942 – 1944 that much different from that of 1946/47? And, why would there even be “known examples” of some random little girl’s handwriting? It’s only the story that has made her someone known. I’ve never read the diary, so I don’t know if it reflects a kind of maturity transitioning of a 13 year old to a 15 year old, but even something like that could have conceivably been fabricated.
If you’ve been reading my blog for a while, you know that I’m averse to accepting ALL I’m told. I think a certain level of skepticism is always necessary for getting at the truth.
— YUR