Publication '' In July 1945, after the sisters Janny and Lien Brilleslijper, who were with Anne and Margot Frank in Bergen-Belsen, confirmed the deaths of the sisters, Miep Gies gave Anne's father her notebooks (including the red-and-white checkered diary) and a bundle of loose notes that she and Bep Voskuijl had saved in the hope of returning them to Anne. Otto Frank later commented that he had not realized Anne had kept such an accurate and well-written record of their time in hiding. In his memoir, he described the painful process of reading the diary, recognizing the events described and recalling that he had already heard some of the more amusing episodes read aloud by his daughter. He saw for the first time the more private side of his daughter and those sections of the diary she had not discussed with anyone, noting: "For me it was a revelation ... I had no idea of the depth of her thoughts and feelings ... She had kept all these feelings to herself." Anne's diary began as a private expression of her thoughts. She wrote several times that she would never allow anyone to read it. She candidly described her life, her family and companions and their situation, while beginning to recognize her ambition to write fiction for publication. In March 1944, she heard a radio broadcast by
Gerrit Bolkestein—a member of the Dutch
government in exile, based in
London—who said that when the war ended, he would create a public record of the Dutch people's oppression under German occupation. On hearing Bolkestein's mention of the publication of letters and diaries, Anne decided to submit her work when the time came. She began editing her writing, removing some sections and rewriting others, with a view to publication. Her original notebook was supplemented by additional notebooks and
loose-leaf sheets of paper. She created pseudonyms for the members of the household and the helpers. The Van Pels family became Hermann, Petronella, and Peter van Daan; Fritz Pfeffer became Albert Düssell. In this edited version, she addressed each entry to "Kitty", a fictional character in
Cissy van Marxveldt's novels that Anne enjoyed reading. Moved by Anne's repeated wish to be an author, Otto Frank began to consider having it published. To produce the first version for publication, he used Anne's original diary, known as "version A", and her edited version, known as "version B". Although he restored the true identities of his own family, he retained all the other pseudonyms. He gave the diary to the historian
Annie Romein-Verschoor, but she was unsuccessful in having it published. She then gave it to her husband
Jan Romein, and he wrote an article about it titled (''A Child's Voice
), which was published in the newspaper (The Watchword'') on 3 April 1946. He wrote that the diary, "stammered out in a child's voice, embodies all the hideousness of fascism, more so than all the evidence at
Nuremberg put together." His article attracted attention from publishers, and the diary was published in the Netherlands as (
The Annex, literally, "the back house") in 1947, followed by five more printings by 1950. The diary was first published in Germany and France in 1950, and in the United Kingdom in 1952 after being rejected by several publishers. The first American edition, published in 1952 under the title
Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl, was positively reviewed. The book was also successful in France and Germany. In the United Kingdom, however, it failed to attract an audience and by 1953 was out of print. Its most noteworthy success was in Japan, where it received critical acclaim and sold more than 100,000 copies in its first edition; and Anne was quickly identified there as an important cultural figure who represented the destruction of youth during the war. A play by
Frances Goodrich and
Albert Hackett based on the diary premiered in New York City on 5 October 1955 and later won a
Pulitzer Prize for Drama. It was followed by the film
The Diary of Anne Frank (1959), a critical and commercial success. Biographer
Melissa Müller later wrote that the dramatization had "contributed greatly to the romanticizing, sentimentalizing and universalizing of Anne's story". Over the years the popularity of the diary grew, and in many schools, particularly in the United States, it was included as part of the curriculum, introducing Anne to new generations of readers. Cornelis Suijk—a former director of the
Anne Frank Foundation and president of the
U.S. Center for Holocaust Education Foundation—announced in 1999 that he had five pages of the diary which had been removed by Otto Frank before publication. Suijk claimed that Frank gave these pages to him shortly before he died in 1980. The missing entries contain critical remarks by Anne about her parents' strained marriage and discuss her lack of affection for her mother. Some controversy ensued when Suijk claimed publishing rights over the five pages. He intended to sell them to raise money for his foundation, but the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, the manuscript's formal owner, demanded the pages be handed over. In 2000 the
Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science agreed to donate US$300,000 to Suijk's foundation, and the pages were returned in 2001. Since then, they have been included in new editions of the diary.
Reception The diary has been praised for its literary merits. Commenting on Anne's writing style, the dramatist
Meyer Levin commended her for "sustaining the tension of a well-constructed novel", and was so impressed by the quality of her work that he collaborated with Otto Frank on a dramatization of the diary shortly after its publication. Levin became obsessed with Anne, which he wrote about in his autobiography
The Obsession. The poet
John Berryman called the book a unique depiction, not merely of adolescence but of the "conversion of a child into a person as it is happening in a precise, confident, economical style stunning in its honesty". In her introduction to the diary's first American edition,
Eleanor Roosevelt described it as "one of the wisest and most moving commentaries on war and its impact on human beings that I have ever read".
John F. Kennedy discussed Anne in a 1961 speech, and observed: "Of all the multitudes who throughout history have spoken for human dignity in times of great suffering and loss, no voice is more compelling than that of Anne Frank." In the same year, the Soviet writer
Ilya Ehrenburg wrote of her that "one voice speaks for six million—the voice not of a sage or a poet but of an ordinary little girl". As Anne's stature as both a writer and humanist has grown, she has been discussed specifically as a symbol of
the Holocaust and more broadly as a representative of persecution.
Hillary Clinton, in her acceptance speech for an
Elie Wiesel Humanitarian Award in 1994, read from Anne's diary and spoke of her "awakening us to the folly of indifference and the terrible toll it takes on our young", which Clinton related to contemporary events in
Sarajevo,
Somalia and
Rwanda. After receiving a humanitarian award from the Anne Frank Foundation in 1994,
Nelson Mandela addressed a crowd in
Johannesburg, saying he had read Anne's diary while in prison and "derived much encouragement from it". He likened her struggle against Nazism to his struggle against
apartheid, drawing a parallel between the two philosophies: "Because these beliefs are patently false, and because they were, and will always be, challenged by the likes of Anne Frank, they are bound to fail." Also in 1994,
Václav Havel said, "Anne Frank's legacy is very much alive and it can address us fully," in commenting on the political and social changes occurring at the time in former Eastern Bloc countries. Fellow Holocaust survivor
Primo Levi suggested that Anne was frequently identified as a single representative of the millions of people who suffered and died as she did because "[o]ne single Anne Frank moves us more than the countless others who suffered just as she did but whose faces have remained in the shadows. Perhaps it is better that way; if we were capable of taking in all the suffering of all those people, we would not be able to live." Miep Gies expressed a similar thought in her closing message in Müller's biography of Anne, though she attempted to dispel what she felt was a growing misconception that "Anne symbolizes the six million victims of the Holocaust," and commented: "Anne's life and death were her own individual fate, an individual fate that happened six million times over. Anne cannot, and should not, stand for the many individuals whom the Nazis robbed of their lives ... But her fate helps us grasp the immense loss the world suffered because of the Holocaust." Otto Frank spent the remainder of his life as custodian of his daughter's legacy, remarking: "It's a strange role. In the normal family relationship, it is the child of the famous parent who has the honour and the burden of continuing the task. In my case the role is reversed." He recalled his publisher's explanation of why he thought the diary has been so widely read with the comment that "he said that the diary encompasses so many areas of life that each reader can find something that moves him personally." Simon Wiesenthal expressed a similar sentiment when he said that the diary had raised more widespread awareness of the Holocaust than had been achieved during the
Nuremberg Trials, because "people identified with this child. This was the impact of the Holocaust, this was a family like my family, like your family and so you could understand this." In June 1999,
Time magazine published a special edition titled "
Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century". Anne Frank was selected as one of the "Heroes & Icons", and the writer Roger Rosenblatt described her legacy with the comment: "The passions the book ignites suggest that everyone owns Anne Frank, that she has risen above the Holocaust, Judaism, girlhood and even goodness and become a totemic figure of the modern world—the moral individual mind beset by the machinery of destruction, insisting on the right to live and question and hope for the future of human beings." Noting that although her courage and pragmatism were admired, her ability to analyze herself and the quality of her writing were the key components of her appeal; and thus "[t]he reason for her immortality was basically literary. She was an extraordinarily good writer, for any age, and the quality of her work seemed a direct result of a ruthlessly honest disposition".
Denials of authenticity and legal action After the diary became widely known in the late 1950s, various allegations against its veracity and contents appeared, with the earliest published criticisms occurring in Sweden and Norway. In 1957, ''
(Free Words''), the magazine of the Swedish
neofascist organization
National League of Sweden, published an article by Danish author and critic Harald Nielsen, who had previously written antisemitic articles about the Danish-Jewish author
Georg Brandes. Among other things, his article claimed that the diary had been written by Meyer Levin. In 1958, at a performance of
The Diary of Anne Frank in Vienna,
Simon Wiesenthal was challenged by a group of protesters who asserted that Anne Frank had never existed, and challenged Wiesenthal to prove her existence by finding the man who had arrested her. Wiesenthal indeed began searching for Karl Silberbauer and found him in 1963. When interviewed, Silberbauer admitted his role and identified Anne from a photograph as one of the people he arrested. Silberbauer provided a full account of events, even recalling emptying a briefcase full of papers onto the floor. His statement corroborated the version of events that had previously been presented by witnesses such as Otto Frank. In 1959, Otto Frank took legal action in
Lübeck against Lothar Stielau, a school teacher and former
Hitler Youth member who published a school paper describing the diary as a forgery. The complaint was extended to include Heinrich Buddegerg, who wrote a letter in support of Stielau that was published in a Lübeck newspaper. The court examined the diary in 1960 and authenticated the handwriting as matching that in letters known to have been written by Anne Frank, declaring the diary to be genuine. Stielau recanted his earlier statement, and Otto Frank did not pursue the case further. In 1976, Otto Frank took action against Heinz Roth of Frankfurt, who also stated that the diary was a forgery, publishing pamphlets about that. The judge ruled that if Roth were to publish any further statements, he would be subjected to a fine of 500,000
Deutsche marks and a six-month jail sentence. Roth appealed the court's decision, but he died in 1978 and after a year his appeal was rejected. Otto Frank mounted a lawsuit in 1976 against a third promoter of disbelief in the diary's authenticity, Ernst Römer, who distributed a pamphlet titled "The Diary of Anne Frank, Bestseller, A Lie". When a man named Edgar Geiss distributed the same pamphlet in the courtroom, he too was prosecuted. Römer was fined 1,500 Deutsche marks, and Geiss was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The sentence of Geiss was reduced on appeal, however, and the case was eventually dropped following a subsequent appeal because the time limit for filing a libel case had expired. With Otto Frank's death in 1980, the original diary, including letters and loose sheets, was willed to the Dutch Institute for War Documentation, 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 a match. They also determined that paper, glue and ink were readily available during the time the diary was said to have been written. They concluded that the diary was authentic, and their findings were published in what has become known as the "Critical Edition" of the diary. In 1990, the Hamburg Regional Court confirmed the diary's authenticity. In 1991, two
Holocaust deniers—
Robert Faurisson and
Siegfried Verbeke—produced a booklet titled
The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach, in which they revived the allegation that Otto Frank wrote the diary. Purported evidence, as before, included several contradictions in the diary: that the prose style and handwriting were not those of a teenager, and that hiding in the Secret Annex would have been impossible. In 1993, the
Anne Frank House in Amsterdam and the Anne Frank Fonds (Foundation) in Basel filed a civil lawsuit to prohibit further distribution of Faurisson and Verbeke's booklet in the Netherlands. In 1998, the Amsterdam District Court ruled in favor of the claimants, forbade any further denial of the authenticity of the diary and unsolicited distribution of publications to that effect, and imposed a penalty of 25,000 guilders per infringement.
Censored sections Since the original publication of the diary, several sections of Anne's diaries that were initially edited out have been revealed and included in new editions. These contain passages relating to her sexuality, exploration of her genitalia and thoughts on menstruation. Following the conclusion of an ownership dispute in 2001, new editions have also incorporated pages removed by Otto Frank prior to publication that contain critical remarks about her parents' strained marriage and discuss her difficult relationship with her mother. Two additional pages that Anne had pasted over with brown paper were deciphered in 2018, and contained an attempt to explain sex education and a handful of "dirty" jokes. ==Legacy==