Anne Frank

Why there's so many pictures of her with same magazine front cover smile? Was photography really that common back in 1930s? I mean there's like hundreds of her god damn photos and they are all different, some modern day people don't have that many photos of their childhood but somehow this exact Jewess who supposedly wrote legendary diary has her entire life captured

When do you think photography became popular user?

>entire life captured
>wearing the same clothes and hair style in each photo

user...

Not talking about that exact image

So which images do you have a problem with?

I bet they were thinking "What's a good picture to use to make money off of the holocaust".

I mean, she has that many photos, when no family member of mine (even in the 70s) had that many pics taken.
My great grandfather, for example, was in the military, and there was only one picture of him throughout his whole life.

I'm supposed to believe that her family were wage cucks?

>I'm supposed to believe that her family were wage cucks?
What, no. Why are you supposed to believe that?

>I'm supposed to believe that her family were wage cucks

It's another "stormfaggot without the faintest idea of what he's actually arguing about" episode

veri meni

Maybe it's a conspiracy. Plus some sources say she was jew...

What third world shithole are you from? I live in a not-very-rich country and I have an entire lifetime worth of pictures of my grandfather dating from the 1920s onwards.

Maybe you're just poorer than you think user.

>being so dumb that you didn't post this on /p/ where you could've actually gotten a somewhat serious answer

Nigger, do you even realize what fucking board you're on?

Also all those photos were clearly taken at the same time as part of a photoshoot.

t. younger brother is a semi-professional photographer

>Anne Frank was a forgery because she had pictures taken of her!!! There was no way someone would have more than 1 photo in the 1930s because it was so rare!!!

This is what /pol/tards have come to, eh?

>that filename

kek

They're just poorfags who don't know the glory of having a photo of every one of your ancestors dating back to the 1840s hanging on a family tree

The image dumping begins

Bingo

>why does someone have lots of photos of them
You have to go back.

What the fuck are you even talking about?
Without getting into what OP was trying to imply, why is it abnormal to question anything let alone why some child in the thirties has a crap load of photos of them
It's your kind of attitude, that questioning things in and of itself can be wrong, that leads people to cherry pick evidence and create false narratives, because people who ought to be listening are plugging their ears on principle
Tl;dr kys

It would have taken OP a shorter amount of time to Google an answer to his question than post a pointless thread. So much of the time these threads are from people who have no intention of hearing the answer but rather plan to use holocaust denial tactics.

>he thinks a fairly affluent Jewish family couldn't afford to shower their youngest daughter with a few photographs

Matthew Brady alone took 10,000 photos during the Civil War. All but a very notable handful of which were personal portraits. If some Yeoman net-worth-lower-than-the-cumulative-value-of-the-gear-issued-by-the-army Confederate private could manage to pay for a photograph with his irregular salary of hyper-inflated, worthless currency, surely a well-to-do Jewish family could do the same.

See

Anne Frank probably never existed at all.

Search you heart and reject foreign memes.

Let me think about that...

No.

I don't get this art, why does she have only half of her pubes?

They were definitely better off than my family was at the time.

Maybe Peter helped her shave

And he stopped halfway? It must be Charly.