Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:42, 21 April 2006

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:FAOL

Anne Frank received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Discussion archives

• Archive(s): 1

Removal of her being "German"

Somehow, I don't think it's appropriate to go through all of wikipedia and claim that every German who the Nazi regime persecuted, and revoked the citizenship of, is not "German". Even worse, it's possibly a modern day justification of the Rootless_cosmopolitan and Wandering Jew libels. Ronabop 05:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think of Roman soldiers as being Italian?No because there was no Italy at the time.Do you think of Anne Frank as a German Jewish girl? No because there was no Germany for Jewish girls at the time. (As I recall even the German governement even changed the Jus sanguinis for Jews and other undesired people)

Furthermore she emigrated/fled to the Netherlands with her family,didn't speak German and hated Germany and Germans.Does that mean you're still a German? I don't think so.Stateless is a good solution. Sandertje 11:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"Stateless" is probably a correct term, but it is kind of redundant as all European Jews could have been considered stateless as their nationalities were stripped from them (temporarily and illegally) during the advance of Nazism. The article says she was born in Germany and that she fled to The Netherlands so we have all the information available to us. If it's a thorny issue would it not be better to just saying "was a Jewish girl" etc, rather than continue reverting? Rossrs 14:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

She was born German and died "stateless". This appears to be a form of revisionism. --Viriditas 01:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

We look at the end situation.When an American who was born in Germany, but they emmigrated a few weeks after it's birth, dies at 90 years old.Do they still say he's a German?

I repeat:

she emigrated/fled to the Netherlands with her family,didn't speak German and hated Germany and Germans.Does that mean you're still a German?

She did speak fluent German - she needed to because her mother was not confident speaking Dutch. German was spoken in the home and it was only while in hiding that Mrs Frank made a concerted effort to speak Dutch. Anne and Margot spoke Dutch to each other, and German to their parents and the van Pels couple. Mrs van Pels also spoke very little Dutch - this is all in the diary. Anne Frank chose not to speak German if she did not need to, which is another thing altogether. This is a very minor point though. I also think your comment about an American born in Germany etc... is a very poor analogy which bears no resemblance at all to Anne Frank's situation. Rossrs 13:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's offensive to Anne Frank herself, say she was a German girl in the intro.

She was stateless but born German.Which is explained in the 'early life' section.

--Sandertje 11:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What we think is offensive is irrelevant. You are engaging in revisionism. Anne Frank was born in Germany and raised there for the first four years of her life. I find it very strange that you think a four-year old child hated Germany and Germans. According to holocaust-history.org, "There are photographs of the family that show the comfortable, normal and happy life they led there surrounded by many friends. The Frank sisters grew up speaking German and playing with Catholic, Protestant and Jewish children. The Frank family expected to live their lives in Frankfurt as Otto Frank's family had done for generations but conditions of life in Germany were changing." --Viriditas 11:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not revisionism (you seem to like the word), read the diary.Then you'll see how much she loved the Germans. But that doesn't matter.She died Stateless and she was stateless during the largest part 75% of her life. --Sandertje 13:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

For the purposes of an encyclopedic article, the intent in the opening sentence is to reflect how a person was born. Then it can be clarified or qualified with additional information where necessary. She was born German. She was just as much a German Jew as every other Jewish person born in Germany before or since. Her nationality was stripped from her as it was from every other Jew in Europe during the course of the Holocaust. The Germans saying she was "not German", did not make her "not German". The stripping of her nationality was illegal and was part of the War Crime that was perpetrated against her. True, the diary is full of references whereby Anne Frank expressed a mixture of emotions towards Germany and Germans, most of them negative, and she did not identify as a German. She identified as Dutch - but this does not make her a Dutch Jew however, as I'm sure you'd agree. She was a German Jew in exile in The Netherlands. To me this is far more correct that using the word "stateless". I also agree that what we consider to be personally offensive is not relevant - if that's part of your argument for using the term "stateless" then it could not possibly be a more wrong reason. Rossrs 13:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted back to "German" for the reasons stated above. This has been reverted several times in the last couple of days and I have become the 4th person to take this viewpoint, the others being SlimVirgin, Viriditas and Ronabop. This is a venue that depends on consensus and you have presented your opinion at some length without swaying the consensus of opinion. Therefore, although there is likely to be further talk on this subject, it is not appropriate for you to continue reverting. Please feel free to make whatever comments you want, but please do not revert again. Rossrs 13:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What use is commenting when reverting is impossible? Tssk

--Sandertje 13:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What use is engaging in an edit war after four people have politely disagreed with your opinion? "German born" looks like a reasonable compromise to me. Rossrs 14:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What's there to compromise? If you really believed in your point there would be no compromise

--Sandertje 11:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I was arguing for "German" but maybe you should read my comments again before you suggest that my integrity is lacking - I've highlighted the relevant parts. I said "she was born German", which is another way of saying "she was German born" - so why exactly would I object to you using that exact term in the article? "German-born" is acceptable as far as I'm concerned, because it still conveys exactly the same meaning that I believe was needed. Being willing to accept an alternative does not in any way mean that I do not believe in my point! Rossrs 12:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Anne Frank was German and she did not hate HER country and at the point of her birth GERMANY WAS GERMANY Danke very much 69.1.20.34 22:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC) AC/DC rox

Hahahaha, yeah she sure loved Germany and the Germans.I mean her entire diary is like one big testimony of her great love for the Führer and the fatherland. I really have to stop now, the sarcasm is getting on my keyboard. Sander 22:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What's this 1986 "version"?

In 1986, a critical edition of the diary was published . It compared her original entries with her father's edited versions, and included discussion relating its authentication, and historical information relating to the family.

Since the link is bad I can't tell if its a denial or an authentication, or yet something else. I'd say giving the conclusions it reached are very important if it's going to be.

yeah i agree but the fact that the book opens up the fact that people all over the world were being persicuted because of their race it still happens today.

Date of move to hiding and general need for specific references

Hi all. I spotted these different statements of the date Anne went into hiding.

• 14:59, 19 January 2005 Rossrs - "On July 8 the family moved into the hiding place."
• 00:48, 3 May 2005 64.12.116.198 date changed to 5th July
• 18:59, 17 March 2006 84.115.5.117 date changed to 9th of July

I'm marking this as citation needed. Looking at internet sources, the 5th seems implausable. This appears to be the date they decided to move. The sixth and some later dates get some support so I can't immediately rule out the 9th. In order for us to verify this, I think that specific page references need to be added to cited source using some clear system such as footnotes through the article. If we can't find clear citation(s) then we should remove the statement from the article. Mozzerati 20:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

We should not remove the statement -that the family moved into hiding is not disputed. As for the date:

• According to Diary of a Young Girl page 21. Entry for Wednesday July 8, Frank relates the story of receiving the callup notice on Sunday (July 5). She describes Sunday night as the last night in her own bed, and writes that the family moved into hiding on the Monday morning. (July 6)
• 'Roses from the Earth by Carol Ann Lee, pp102-105 describes the events with the same dates.
• Anne Frank: The Biography by Melissa Muller p 163 categorically puts the date at "Monday, July 6, 1942"

I don't know where I got the July 8th date from and it may even have been a typo, so I will edit and attribute the correct date. I agree that the whole article would benefit from a rewrite of the references to allow for page numbers etc. This will be a big job which I don't have time to do right now, however I will get to it. Thanks for noticing and commenting on the discrepancy Mozzerati, after all the work I've put into this article, I'm glad that errors such as this one are being detected so they can be fixed. Rossrs 00:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Referencing of article

Following comments above I have started re-referencing the page to allow for the inclusion of specific information such as page numbers to allow verification. This is something I've been thinking about for a while and have changed the references for some other articles that I have contributed to, and for which I feel somewhat responsible for (having been the one who added the references in the first place). I have found that it is a time consuming task and to try to do it all in one edit in previous articles has resulted in edit conflicts. Therefore I will gradually and systematically fix the references for this article as my time permits. I realize that having two different edit styles within one article is not appropriate, but I ask that other users understand that I am working on it and to accept the two reference types for the time that I'm working on it. Rossrs 00:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to say, I think this is really great that someone is looking after this. When doing recent change patrolling, I see suspicious, subtle and strange changes in articles which, since they are quite random, I often don't know enough about to check directly. If nobody responds when such problems are identified, proper references are the only reasonable way to check. That's why I was suggesting content removal before (it's better not to say anything than to say the wrong thing) and I now don't need to. Mozzerati 22:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Denial

I think Holocaust-denial is ludicrous, or worse. Furthermore, I have not read all of Miss Frank's diary. I did, however, read her 6 June 1944 entry, and was struck how she saw this as THE liberation. That is, she immediately understood, according to the diary entry, the significance of the Allied invasion of Normandy. Contrast this with the German response to D-Day: The Germans weren't entirely sure what to do, without Hitler's instructions. Furthermore, nobody wanted to wake him up to ask! (They didn't think it significant enough to wake him and ask?) Towards the end of 6 June (or was it even the next day?), Hitler gave an order to get rid of the Allied forces at Normandy, as if some minor mopping up operation would get rid of them. So, my question is: How is it that a teenage girl in hiding was immediately able to understand the significance of the Allied invasion, but the German high command was apparently clueless as to its significance? What was the reaction of other people in German-occupied territory on 6 June itself (not days or weeks later)? Was Anne Frank's reaction typical? Or was Hitler's more typical?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that Anne Frank and civilians in occupied territories saw the arrival of Allied troops as liberators, and the Nazi occupiers didn't? She was able to understand the significance of the invasion because she was told that it was significant by the BBC in a radio broadcast, as she mentions at the start of the entry you have read. 'The liberation has come', it says. She writes that they announced 'The year 1944 is the year of complete victory'. It turned out of course that the Allied Invasion did not bring about the liberation of Europe in 1944 because fighting lasted until the following year. It is simply not true that Nazi forces were inactive until Hitler gave instructions to fight back. In the entry you mention Anne Frank herself describes the German reaction: 'British landing craft are in combat with German naval units.' It is probable that Anne Frank's optimisim about the invasion of Allied troops was shared by many people in the occupied territories because they wanted to be liberated, but I hardly think that Hitler's reaction to anything would be 'typical' of anyone. Don't you? Yallery Brown 10:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yallery -- Your points are well taken. Nonetheless, I keep coming back to the peculiarity of a teenage girl in hiding being able to understand the military significance of the event better than Hitler himself. It's possible, of course, but just surprising (to me anyway). And, yes, you're right, people tend to believe good news more than they believe bad news, so perhaps that's the answer to my question. TonyC, 3 April 2006.

Let me put this to you, Tony, doesn't it sound very improbable to you that a skilled tactician and military leader like Hitler would not think that enemy forces - consisting of 6,000 aircraft, 5,000 ships and 175,000 soldiers - invading his occupied territories was not important? Doesn't that sound unlikey? It is simply not what happened. What makes you think that Anne Frank understood the invasion better than Hitler? I'd like to read your source, because there's nothing to suggest that firstly Anne Frank had a better grasp of what was happening than Hitler and secondly that German troops were dormant until Hitler woke up to the idea that he might have to do something. There was a German military reaction from the moment Allied soldiers disembarked at Normandy. Allied troops were being shot at as soon as they left their ships to wade ashore. From the Allied arrival in Normandy to September 1944 Germany lost one and a quarter million troops during the invasion. Had Hitler been soundly asleep perhaps that wouldn't have happened.

We know how Anne Frank reacted to the broadcast news about the invasion (being broadcast from Britain where the invasion was planned) because she wrote her impressions down at the time and Hitler did not.

If, however, you are trying to imply that it only seems that Anne Frank understands the significance of D-Day because her diary was written in retrospect and not at the time, then there are other pages which deal with such refuted attempts at historical denial. Yallery Brown 09:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Tony Wkipedia should refrain from providing a fully impartial source of information taking into account the various proven facts as well as unresolved and slightly dubious issues a topic may bring up? Just because one explanation of historical events *seems* more plausable to one person than to another the article should reflect this doubt as well, and it shouldn't be seen as anything else - Holocaust Denial would be the more suitable page to make such claims without pushing a personal POV. --Spacepostman 07:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I get a sense that I've said something offensive, which is unfortunate because it's not what I want to do.

I read a significant amount of Stephen Ambrose's book about D-Day. I believe it was in there that I read that Hitler gave some order late on 6 June (or maybe even 7 June) to the effect that the German military should "mop up" the Allied invasion forces. (Or it just may be that I got this from Rise And Fall of The Third Reich?) Anyway, if my recollection is accurate, it certainly sounds like Hitler didn't "get" the significance of the Allied Invasion. And if he didn't, how on Earth did Ann Frank? Your theory -- that people much more readily believe good news than bad -- is quite plausible. And, yes, I suppose very slightly this would call into question the authenticity of the Diary, or at least of this particular entry, or at the very least of this particular entry's date anyway. That being said, if somebody held a gun to my head, and I had to guess right as to whether the Diary was authentic (or at least mostly so) or not, I would guess that it is authentic.

Since I cannot recall exactly where I read about Hitler's "mopping up" order, and since I have not read Miss Frank's diary in its entirety, that's why I put my entry in the Discussion page, rather than on the main entry page. If my discussion here is still not up to Misplaced Pages standards, then I am sorry. I have no problem with the Misplaced Pages article as it is, I am just raising one issue that, to me anyway, is interesting. Hey, I basically think that Oswald was the lone gunman, but I'm still allowed to express my doubts as to certain aspects of the JFK assasination that don't support the Lone Gunman Theory, right?

One last point: I am not saying that German troops did nothing as the Allies invaded. I am saying, however, that there was confusion about precisely how to respond to the invasion. Rommel, or other high-up German generals, wanted to move certain artillery/tanks to respond to the invasion in a certain way (I again don't have the details), but there was concern about whether that was OK with Hitler or not. Furthermore, they couldn't immediately find out what Hitler wanted to do about it, as his guards refused to wake him up.

TonyC, 4 April 2006.

You aren't causing offence, Tony, don't worry about that. Points like this are raised on these forums all the time. It's generally the case that someone will assert that Anne Frank's diary is not authentic, possibly unaware that Neo-Nazis first made these allegations in the 50s. Subsequently the manuscripts of the diaries were submitted for scientific testing by a Dutch governmental body. After examining the paper, ink, and handwriting found in them, and comparing it to known examples of Anne Frank's writing (in school reports and postcards) they concluded that it was written by her between 1942 and 1944.

Now, in the face of this, when people question the authenticity of Anne Frank's life and diary, we'd hope that they could provide some evidence to support their claim. It's therefore unfortunate that you don't have a clear recall of the quote or of the book you partly read where you may have read the information, which to you would 'slightly call into question the authenticity of the Diary'.

You'll have to forgive me for repeating myself but I think you're missing the important fact: the reason Anne Frank understood the significance of the Allied Invasion was because it was being reported as 'the liberation' of Europe by the BBC. She didn't deduce that herself. A news group broadcast it as such (and these broadcasts are still in existence if you want to double check they weren't recorded recently). Anne Frank heard that radio broadcast and wrote in her diary that the liberation had come, as did many others in diaries and letters which have survived the war. And yes, you are entitled to express your doubts about a Kennedy conspiracy but why would you conclude that because German high command refused to disturb Hitler doubt should be cast on the authenticity of the diary of Anne Frank? If, as you admit, German troops and the German high command were aware of the significance of the Allied invasion, as were civilians and ground troops, and that this operation was being reported on news broadcasts why is it unbelievable that Anne Frank would have heard it and recorded her reactions?

One last thing, please go back to the diary and read more than one page before you judge it. It'll give you an insight into the impact fascism has on the lives of ordinary individuals.

Yallery Brown 10:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Anne Frank references in popular culture

I have created a new article List of references to Anne Frank in popular culture and have moved the entire section from this article. I have a couple of reasons. First the article itself is quite large, and while the story of Anne Frank is for the most part, told, the references to her will continue, and as they do the list will grow. I foresee it eventually dominating the article, and this would be wrong. I also feel that some of the references are not appropriate for this article. For example, we have Frank's place in history discussed by such notables as Elie Wiesel and Nelson Mandela and in the same article we have a throwaway line from a Winona Ryder character, Hilary Duff in an SNL skit, the inane and offensive line from "Angela" in My So Called Life and the brain dead Karl Pilkington revealing his lack of knowledge along with his lack of humour. These are not earth shattering moments in the understanding of Anne Frank - most of them are throwaway references that will be forgotten next week, let alone next year. I think they cheapen the article. I can see a place for them though, just not here. Hence the new article. Rossrs 09:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I support splitting this section off due to article size, but not for your other reasons. Notice, I have renamed the article to conform with other articles in Category:In popular culture. —Viriditas | Talk 09:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Size was the main problem. Rossrs 20:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

does any one know who was the betreyer adulla mohammed--212.219.190.130 10:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Stupid Prank Editors

For some reason people are being silly and are editing the page. Only a couple of minutes ago I saw the page with a short, totally unrelated article about "a girl who met Peter Pan and fell in love with him who was so mad that the Police took away her diary and who lost her underwear". If anyone else sees articles like this please report them or simply edit them (appropriately) yourself. It becomes very frustrating for those who are researching the topic. ___________________________________

Agreed...This page needs protection from the childish and the moronic Holacaust deniers and Annaliese Marie Frank (Anne Frank) "Bashers"...right now! (Cathytreks 15:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

i also agree don't mess up the page because you can i'm doing a project and i don't want stupid stuff in the article.linkintigergurl 16:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Anneliese or Annelies?

Is the name supposed to have an "e" at the end or not? Can someone come up with evidence to prove either way? 204.52.215.107 20:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The Anne Frank House goes without the "e" at the end of "Annelies(e)". 204.52.215.107 20:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Her beloved name was Anneliese Marie Frank, this I know from my studys while co moderator of the old chat on Anna we used to have (sigh! buget crunch!) at www.annefrank.o-f.com a site recognised as legit even at wikipedea.com , it's a work in progress..input desired! (Cathytreks 21:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC))

• Old requests for peer review