This particular version of the diary is more authentic than the typical definitive edition commonly found on book shelves today. This is very close to “The Diary Of A Young Girl” that I read when I was 12. I am 60 years old now and am very happy this version is available for I do not care for the seemingly emptier more modern version. The version that was edited by Anne herself but then by Otto her father. In this particular version more information is given. Still, a lot of stuff is missing. I clearly recall parts from the version I read around 1969 have been removed. However this is a close cigar. To read the whole absolute diary one would go to the Critical Edition but it’s like a complete college course regarding the diary, it’s authenticity, translations, etc. I have that edition but am not interested in all the investigational information to determine if the diary is legit. The researchers did conclude that yes, it indeed it is. I cannot find the version I read in 1969 but to try and pull it out from the Critical Edition is difficult as it takes away her feel, her energy, some of her personality. Like I said, it’s more like a college course. My desire is to just simply read the diary. To get to know Anne all over again. So I definitely advise readers to go to this unabridged version. I am thrillled to have found it. If you want to enjoy Anne and get to enjoy her personality this is the best choice available today. Happy reading! I give it 5 stars.
It happened. That thing, the reason I have put off reading this, happened. My heart broke. And I knew it would. Sure, I had heard of Anne Frank, I knew who she was, what she did, what happened. She is a historic figure, and a tragic one certainly. But I didn't make the really personal connection until I read her words, this diary. Her words bring her to life again. What a precocious young girl, so smart, so full of life; a life with so much promise, so much hope. She thinks, even writes, very mu ...more
The match was perfect. The video image of the photograph was imposed precisely over the video image of the skull. It was a face wrapped over a skull, subject over object, an image of life over an image of death. While the images helped to push the probability calculation further in the direction of a definitive identification, they did more than that, for it was the appearance of a previously unseen image that produced the potential for conviction.
I had this book for years. I actually have two copies, but I never read either one of them, and I had them since middle school. It wasn't required in any of my classes. I am starting to think my middle, and high school had major problems. We barely read any classics. It sounds really sad. In Michigan we have a Holocaust museum, called the Hol ...more
There was "practically no resistance" in the ghettos in Poland by the end of 1942, according to Peter Longerich. Raul Hilberg accounted for this by evoking the history of Jewish persecution: as had been the case before, appealing to their oppressors and complying with orders might avoid inflaming the situation until the onslaught abated. Henri Michel argued that resistance consisted not only of physical opposition but of any activity that gave the Jews humanity in inhumane conditions, while Yehuda Bauer defined resistance as actions that in any way opposed the German directives, laws, or conduct. Hilberg cautioned against overstating the extent of Jewish resistance, arguing that turning isolated incidents into resistance elevates the slaughter of innocent people into some kind of battle, diminishes the heroism of those who took active measures to resist, and deflects questions about the survival strategies and leadership of the Jewish community. Timothy Snyder noted that it was only during the three months after the deportations of July–September 1942 that agreement on the need for armed resistance was reached.
And once you finish this book, you'll have seen a vision of history through the eyes of an incredibly eloquent teenager—and, what's more, an incredibly real teenager. We're not just talking about the fact that these words were actually written down by the actual Anne Frank in the actual Secret Annex during the actual monstrosity that was the Holocaust (although that blows our mind every time). We're talking about the fact that Anne is completely relatable.
Romania implemented anti-Jewish measures in May and June 1940 as part of its efforts towards an alliance with Germany. Jews were forced from government service, pogroms were carried out, and by March 1941 all Jews had lost their jobs and had their property confiscated. After Romania joined the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, at least 13,266 Jews were killed in the Iași pogrom, and Romanian troops carried out massacres in Romanian-controlled territory, including the Odessa massacre of 20,000 Jews in Odessa in late 1941. Romania also set up concentration camps under its control in Transnistria, where 154,000–170,000 Jews were deported from 1941 to 1943.
But for all that this book has been set up as a work of Christian ethics and in that I think the book fails there is next to no specifically Christian ethical content. Why should one risk the lives of oneself and one's family for a stranger? Is the fact that so many didn't amount, as Eliezer Berkovits put it to "the moral bankruptcy of Christian civilization and the spiritual bankruptcy of Christian religion"? On these points Gushee is silent. And so, this book does not offer an account of the moral obligation the disciple of Christ owe to the persecuted Jew in particular or the persecuted stranger in general. It does however ask a very important question, and that alone makes this a book worth taking seriously.
In several instances, Jews took matters into their own hands and violently resisted the Nazis. The most notable was the 28-day battle waged inside the Warsaw Ghetto. There, a group of 750 Jews armed with smuggled-in weapons battled over 2000 SS soldiers armed with small tanks, artillery and flame throwers. Upon encountering stiff resistance from the Jews, the Nazis decided to burn down the entire ghetto.
Freund and his colleagues, including Harry Jol, a professor of geology and anthropology from the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, and Philip Reeder, a geoscientist and mapping expert from Duquesne University, in Pittsburgh, were brought in to explore further. They spent five days scanning the ground beneath the school and the surrounding landscape with ground-penetrating radar, and emerged with a detailed digital map that displayed not just the synagogue’s main altar and seating area but also a separate building that held a bathhouse containing two mikvaot, or ceremonial baths, a well for water and several latrines. Afterward, Freund met with the staff at the Vilna Gaon Jewish State Museum, named after the famed 18th-century Talmudic scholar from Vilnius, and a partner on the Great Synagogue project. Then, Freund said, “We asked them: ‘What else would you like us to do? We’ll do it for free.’”
Josef Mengele (/ˈmɛŋɡələ/; German: [ˈmɛŋələ]; 16 March 1911 – 7 February 1979) was a German Schutzstaffel (SS) officer and physician in Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II. He performed deadly human experiments on prisoners and was a member of the team of doctors who selected victims to be killed in the gas chambers. Arrivals that were judged able to work were admitted into the camp, while those deemed unsuitable for labor were sent to the gas chambers to be killed. With Red Army troops sweeping through Poland, Mengele was transferred 280 kilometers (170 mi) from Auschwitz to the Gross-Rosen concentration camp on 17 January 1945, just ten days before the arrival of the Soviet forces at Auschwitz. After the war, he fled to South America where he evaded capture for the rest of his life.