Hannover wrote:Huh? Why would a 'dairy' have different versions? Sounds like 'editing' indeed would make it more 'publishable' so that it portrays false events.
Anne Frank did not have much to do while she was in hiding. She was reading a lot, and writing stories, and she kept a diary. After some time she wrote a book "The Attic" based on her diary.
But the block letters, whoever wrote them, are not consistent with the conflicting, later handwriting.
I fail to see how block letters could be inconsistent with normal running script.
I see no further samples there. But there are plenty of examples on the net, of course.
Here is a post card written in 1941 to her grandmother in Switzerland:
So, there's 2 stories here:
1. Frank's ball point pen material is consistent to 1940-43
2. The ball point pen additions were really "mostly notes to try to order these loose pages."
I do not have the Critical Edition here right now, so I tried to be careful, and was not very clear.
The BKA said that the ink and the paper, etc were consistent with 1940-43 (they did not look at content or writing style, they just did physical or chemical text). But they noted corrections in ball point ink of different colors. Maybe they meant something like what can be seen in this Java program where one can zoom in on one of those loose pages:
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/onl ... om_5_2.php
The word "proberen
" there was crossed over in red ink (might very well be from a ball point pen) and replaced by the word "schrijven
" in red block letters. Further down on that page there is a correction in blue ink.
I wrote "mostly" and "seems" because BKA did not say exactly what and where. But at least some of the page numbers were added by Otto Frank and/or other editors.
I do not understand what problems the revisionists have with Anne Frank's diary. Does anybody deny that Jews tried to hide to escape deportation?