What role did Otto Frank play in the publication of Anne Frank's diary?

1. The recipient and steward who made publication possible

After the war Miep Gies and Bep Voskuijl handed Anne’s notebooks and loose papers to Otto Frank, the family’s only survivor, and he became the diary’s custodian and principal decision‑maker about its fate ^{[1] [8]}. Initially unable to bring himself to read them, Otto eventually copied passages, showed them to friends, and—persuaded by acquaintances that the material had public value—decided to pursue publication ^{[2] [9]}.

2. The editor who compiled multiple Anne texts into one book

Anne had produced multiple “versions” of her writing—original diary entries and a later, self‑edited manuscript—and Otto combined these sources into the 1947 Dutch book Het Achterhuis, selecting, transcribing and sometimes altering entries to create a publishable narrative ^{[6] [8]}. Scholars and the Anne Frank House make clear that Otto used “version A” and “version B” and added material from short stories to form the first edition ^{[6] [8]}.

3. The man who censored and sanitised—by choice or necessity

Otto removed and accepted editorial deletions of passages he judged too intimate, too harsh toward family members, or potentially objectionable to postwar readers—cuts that modern editors later restored and that remain a source of controversy about authorial intent and posthumous editing ^{[10] [9] [7]}. Five pages given later to a colleague and withheld from early printings contained frank material about sexuality and criticism of family relations, fueling debate about whether Otto’s choices protected or distorted Anne’s voice ^{[7] [6]}.

4. The networker who found a publisher and promoted the book

Otto did not publish alone: he solicited reactions from friends, showed the manuscript to historians Jan and Annie Romein, and those endorsements—especially Jan Romein’s newspaper column—helped attract Contact Publishing and launch the Dutch edition in 1947 ^{[3] [9]}. That initial Dutch success led Otto to seek translations and to shepherd English and later theatrical and cinematic adaptations, making Anne’s diary an international phenomenon ^{[3] [4]}.

5. The rights‑holder who shaped future uses and legal disputes

From the outset Otto negotiated publishing contracts that preserved translation and film rights, and he later designated foundations as heirs to guard the text and Anne’s image—decisions motivated by a desire to protect her legacy but that also produced long legal battles and criticism about access and copyright ^{[4] [5] [11]}. Critics argue those arrangements extended control beyond the usual copyright term and limited some uses of the diary, while defenders say they prevented exploitation of Anne’s words ^{[11] [4]}.

6. The contested figure in authenticity and authorship debates

Otto’s editorial role produced two recurrent controversies: accusations by some critics that the diary was forged or overly mediated, which Otto fought legally, and later claims that his editorial hand made him a de facto co‑author for copyright purposes—contentions complicated by documentary evidence, later “definitive” editions and forensic studies affirming Anne’s authorship of the original material ^{[5] [7] [8]}. Official investigations authenticated the handwriting and scientific editions have since presented Anne’s originals alongside Otto’s compiled text so readers can see his interventions ^{[6] [8]}.

7. Legacy: fulfilling a wish while shaping a narrative

Otto framed publication as fulfilling Anne’s expressed wish to “go on living” through her writing and repeatedly insisted the diary was essentially Anne’s work even as he made pragmatic and protective edits ^{[10] [12]}. The result is a global landmark text that survives as both Anne’s voice and a mediated artifact whose provenance, editorial choices and legal custody remain vital to how the diary is read, taught and adapted today ^{[12] [5]}.