Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Anne Frank. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pronunciation

I've heard her name was really pronounced Ann-uh (Anna), so why does everyone call her Anne as in Ah-N.

Anne Frank was German born, and in the German language any word with an "e" on the end of it is pronounced in the same manner as an English word with an "a" on the end of it. Therefore in German (and Dutch) "Anne" is pronounced "Anna". Rossrs 08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it officaly spelt Anne, Annè, Annë, Anné of Annė?--86.29.243.164 12:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, she spelt it 'Anne' without adding any accent to the 'e. Yallery Brown 21:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Yallery Brown. At last, I know which one she used. --86.29.243.164 00:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it was interchangable Ann (English books) and Anne (German books). --Createive lists 03:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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?

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)

In the diary, Anne Frank considers herself and her family to be stateless. At one point, she expresses concern that, after the war, the Dutch people will retaliate against surviving Jewish refugees for having contributed to the Netherlands' difficulties during the war.

"May 22, 1944 -- ... I love Holland. Once I hoped it would become a fatherland for me, since I had lost my own. And I hope so still!"

It's also helpful to know that the German translation of "Het Achterhuis" does not highlight the Frank family's animosity toward Germany. Vince Crawley, August 9, 2006.

I would suggest saying she was of German origine. The idea of saying she was German born would seem ok too. I would also suggest you people keep your heads cool about these things. What ever is put into the text is supposed to be objective information. She was born in Germany and German and what ever people may think of Germans in this context and what they did to her, does not change that fact. Saying, like it is now said in the text, that she was European looks quite odd... Why not just explain how it went with her nationality? Crockett616 193.166.21.101 09:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense. I fixed it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that her nationality being German be kept. Afterall, she was born in Germany, regardless of how the Nazis may have thought that she along with all other Jews were not good enough to be German. We cannot simply disregard a historical fact. Anne Frank was German, her parents were German and so was her sister. The only difference was that she immigrated to the Netherlands. --81.99.228.162 23:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What's this 1986 "version"?

In 1986, a critical edition of the diary was published [1]. 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.

This edition included entries that Otto Frank had previously censored, as Anne had said some mean things about her mother and others. He saw it as being in bad taste to publish them, though the entire diary was later published in 1986. I don't know if that was what you were asking, though... Michael 03:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I need to explain something here. Anne got a diary for her birthday and began writing in it just for herself. Then she heard about the possibilities of diaries like hers being published after the war, so she began to rewrite herself to make her story understandable and presentable to outsiders. When she died, her father used these two different versions of the diary to create a published version and changed most of the names, as many of the people mentioned were still living. He also did some minor editing. So to answer the question about the critical edition, it has as much of the three versions of the diary as could be found, so they can be compared or read independently, or whatever the reader wishes. It also has the remainder of Anne's writings, and other important historic information relating to Anne. It has been updated since its original publication. I think my version is from the 1990's. Celedor15 21:39, 9 March 2007 (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 Wikipedia standards, then I am sorry. I have no problem with the Wikipedia 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)

Hitler and his generals all realized the hopelessness of their efforts long before the Normandy invasion. I believe they had tried to sue for peace much earlier and had been turned down by the Allies. It was going to be a fight to the finish, the Germans knew they had no chance as did the Japanese. I doubt few Americans were ever in doubt of eventual victory - even though I doubt they could have guessed as to the loss of life it would take.

Hitler and his generals believed that the Normandy invasion was a diversion, and that the main attack would come at Calais, under the leadership of General Patton. To a lay person living in Europe, however, and hearing about the invasion, they would be overjoyed to know that the Allies were SOMEWHERE, and would not be concerned about whether it was the main event or some sort of diversionary tactic.

I have read the diary, and explanations of it, and I have doubts as to its complete authenticity. My guess is that the basic story is true and that Anne wrote a diary, and that it was embellished and revised prior to initial publication. Fortunately, I live in the United States, where freedom of speech and thought is constitutionally protected, and I am free to engage in a discussion about the diary. Unfortunately, despite the terrible sacrifice made for freedom during the Second World War, repression of critical analyis still exists in Germany and the Netherlands, particularly with respect to this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.0.225 (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In Germany and in the Netherlands you may not lie. That is no "repression of critical analyis", it is just giving people the right to know the truth, which was reached AFTER several critical analisyses in 1986. You can read about them in the article.

By the way, "guesses" are not allowed as source for Wikipedia-articles. Jeff5102 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2007 (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)

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.

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)

The Family Did move into hiding so we should not remove the statement That the family did move in to hiding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.204.168.42 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (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)

==

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)". [2]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))

I'd be inclined to believe that "Anne Frank House" would know the correct spelling, and if they say it's "Annelies", I would believe them. "Annelies" is also given as the correct spelling in the following publications:

Lee, Carol Ann (2000). The Biography of Anne Frank - Roses from the Earth. Viking. ISBN 0708991742.
Müller, Melissa; Kimber, Rita & Kimber, Robert (translators); With a note from Miep Gies (2000). Anne Frank - The Biography. Metropolitan books. ISBN 0747545235.
van der Rol, Ruud; Verhoeven, Rian (for the Anne Frank House); Quindlen, Anna (Introduction); Langham, Tony & Peters, Plym (translation) (1995). Anne Frank - Beyond the Diary - A Photographic Remembrance. Puffin. ISBN 0140369260.

The latter contains a reproduction of the Red Cross-issued "death certificate" in which her name is also spelt "Annelies". The only spelling of the name as "Anneliese" that I can find is on the "Judentransport" list of passengers from Westerbork to Auschwitz. I'm not sure the Nazis would have taken particular care to ensure her name was spelt correctly, so I don't think it's a useful reference. Actually I think correct spelling was the last thing they were considering. Rossrs 14:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would not know for sure, but I think the most common Dutch version would be 'Annelies', without the 'e' the latter being the more German style , but then again she born in Germany ... However, I think that even if she was called Anneliese officially, the e would most likely be droped during the major part of her life ... in the Netherlands.I would go with Annelies. Sander 16:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

However... The Critical Edition of the Diary has a facsimilie of the Frank family's registration papers (on page 17) filled in by Otto Frank in which Anne's full name is spelled 'Anneliese', yet Anne herself signs her name 'Annelies' in a letter to Juanita Wagner in 1941 (included in Searching for Anne Frank: letters from Amsterdam to Iowa, p11). I think we should go with the latter. Yallery Brown 09:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Anne Franks official name was: 'FRANK, Anneliese Marie'. The scientifical edition of the diaries of Anne Frank (Dutch - original - version: De Dagboeken van Anne Frank, 1986, edited by Harry Paape, Gerrold van der Stroom en David Barnouw of the NIOD - National Institute for War Documentation) states clearly on p. 3 the full names of the second daughter of the couple Otto Frank/Edith Höllander: 'Anneliese Marie'. The same work contains (p. 20) a photocopy of the original 'immigration request' issued on 20 January 1942 by the Joodsche Raad and the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung (Jewish Council and the Bureau of Jewish Emigration) and there her name is given as: 'Frank, Anneliese'.--Willem Huberts 07:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And here (vreemdelingenkaart van Otto Frank, uitgegeven op 16 augustus 1933) it says Anelies again (third red short line, first column), confusing. And here also (Anne Frank-fonds, Anne Frank, Biography), starts with: Annelies Marie Frank (ANNE FRANK), born in Frankfurt/Main on 12 June 1929, of German nationality. --Van helsing 21:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So does not all of the above just mean that her legal name (as used in official papers) was the German spelling Anneliese. But, by the time she was writing a diary, she used the Dutch spelling of Annelies, and further that the Anne Frank House—as well as most biographers—use her own preferred spelling? Could that not just be stated in a footnote in the article? —MJBurrage • TALK • 17:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)