We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Some of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
latest news
best of news




A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List


IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

View article without comments

City Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Claiming Pasadena Police Officer Had His Sister Falsely Arre

by Pasadena for Justice idVer:0001e96b86d5e0085a Sunday, Feb. 04, 2018 at 11:17 PM

City Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Claiming Pasadena Police Officer Had His Sister Falsely Arrested


City Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Claiming Pasadena Police Officer Had His Sister Falsely Arrested

Published : Thursday, May 18, 2017

The City of Pasadena has agreed to settle a lawsuit which claimed a Pasadena Police officer improperly used his position of authority to have his sister falsely arrested and to wage a campaign against her and her longtime best friend to deprive them of their civil rights.

Attorney William Paparian, former Mayor of Pasadena, who along with nationally recognized police misconduct litigator John Burton represented plaintiffs Michelle Rodgers and Selah Chavet, said the City agreed in a signed document to pay 0,000.


Federal Lawsuit Against Pasadena Filed in Christopher Ballew Case

Suit names City, Mayor, City Manager, Police Chief and numerous Officers as defendants, charges battery, false arrest and imprisonment

By EDDIE RIVERA, Community Editor

Published : Wednesday, January 31, 2018


Black Journalist Sues Los Angeles Police Chief For False Arrest

By Sentinel News Service

Published December 8, 2016

Attorney’s for renowned Black journalist and LAPD critic Jasmyne Cannick filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck for false arrestment, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and violations of her First Amendment rights.
Report this post as:


by ALETH Thursday, Mar. 08, 2018 at 6:11 PM


The so-called diary of anne frank is part rewrite, part forgery by persons other than anne. It was heavily interpolated and edited by her father otto and several collaborators of his, in primis anneliese schütz and ab cauvern. It consists of 3 basic elements :

1. plagiarism of der trotzkopf ;

2. plagiarism of jakob von gunten : ein tagebuch ;

3. misrepresented real events, mixed with fabricated events, from the franks´ family life 1942 - 1944.

We are looking at patchwork here. Collage . Many other tesserae of the fraudulent mosaic were filched from : samuel richardson´s 1740 pamela; or, virtue rewarded ; goethe´s 1795-96 wilhelm meister´s apprenticeship ; 3 e.t.a.hoffmann early-XIX-century tales ; cissy van marxveldt ´s 1919-1925 joop ter heul ; h.g.well´s 1894 short story Through a window ; cornell woolrich´s 1942 short story It had to be murder.

As my reference editions, I shall use for the diary, DIE TAGEBÜCHER DER ANNE FRANK, aus dem niederländischen von mirjam pressler, rijksinstitut voor oorlogsdocumentatie, s. fischer verlag 1988, 2. auflage, printed in germany 1993. Hereafter, FRANK. The first edition of the diary of anne frank came out in holland in 1947.

For der trotzkopf, der trotzkopf: eine pensionsgeschichte für erwachsene mädchen, by emmy von rhoden, 39. auflage, stuttgart, verlag von gustav weise. The year is not available, anyway this is a reprint of the original edition that came out in 1885. I shall reference the online text here :


Hereafter, TROTZ.

For gunten : jakob von gunten: ein tagebuch by robert walser, bruno cassirer berlin

1909, online here :


Hereafter, GUNTEN

Let´s get off into this whole dirty affair.


Now picture yourself hiding from the nazis who are out to get you and send you to auschwitz, slave work et similia : would you write a diary, featuring all of the real names of your jewish friends, christian helpers, plus your antinazi and pro-allies stance ? Would you really do that, in view of the very real possibility you might get discovered and arrested ? Would you not only aggravate your own position in nazi eyes, but also endanger dozens of your friends and helpers ? Maybe you would do that, as a 13-year-old girl, not so smart and all alone but - would 5 adults all around you, hiding with you, aware you are keeping a diary as the diary explicitly states, allow you to keep it ?

That would be criminal, irresponsible and suicidal at the very least ! No, I guess you really wouldn´t do that would you ? So why do you blindly believe that anne frank actually did do that crazy thing ?


Now FRANK begins on p.214, with a full-page photo of anne frank. Where does this pic come from ? In the allegedly original manuscript diary, this pic is missing, as FRANK informs us on page 797, editors´ note 1. Again if there is no photo at all in the manuscript, why was this photo printed here at the start of the diary´s alleged text, as if it were part thereof, when in fact it s not ? And again : what is the source of this photo ? How did it survive the war, the alleged arrest and house-search, and the holocaust ? How can a scientific edition, as FRANK purports to be, start a text with a photo of unknown, undeclared provenance, that is not part of the manuscript ? The popular edition of the diary of anne frank does not feature this picture, nor the manuscript´s comment to it that opens the diary´s verbal text in FRANK : . Thus the scientific edition dupes the reader into believing the actual manuscript featured that photo - which it doesn´t. Therefore anne may have been commenting on a totally different photo for ought we know. But it gets worse.

We must now introduce a 4th important book here : ANNE FRANK HAUS, EIN MUSEUM MIT EINER GESCHICHTE, anne frank stichting, amsterdam 1999, deutsch s.fischer verlag, translated into german by waltraud hüsmert, henceforth AFH.

On its front cover, and again on page 218, this book features the very same photo as FRANK - only this time, to our utter astonishment, included in the manuscript - this first of a series of diary manuscripts being a photo album. Now why does FRANK tell us in 1986 (first edition of the original dutch edition) that this photo is missing, whereas AFH shows us in 1999 that the photo is right there in its place ? AFH says nothing either about the photo´s provenance - only that it belongs to either the anne frank stichting, amsterdam, or to one allard bovenberg, amsterdam - unclear to which one, the way the photo sourcing is written on page 264 of AFH. Thus we are again left in the dark as to where this photo comes from and how it survived WW2. And we are left wondering whether or not it actually belonged to the manuscript, since FRANK and AFH contradict each other.

We also notice from this photographic reproduction of the diary´s alleged manuscript´s first 2 pages, AFH 218, that this looks like an album - a photo album, not a proper diary at all.

Look at the photo: it is a reproduction of AFH 218, itself a photographic repro of the first page of the first alleged diary of anne frank, the one that was allegedly presented to her for her 13th birthday on june 12, 1942. This object again, does not look like a proper diary at all. It is a photo album, with the left page featuring photo encasements , into which the pic is inserted, and a blank right page for writing captions to the photos on the left. And, indeed, we do have anne´s original caption on the right side : it is written in what appears to be a red pencil, and it reads : : the photo has clearly been taken at school, in the classroom, at her desk, during the schoolyear 1941/42, when she was attending the jüdisches lyzeum in amsterdam, and the deportation of local jews had not begun yet.


Now what strikes us as very odd here on this reproduction above is, that there clearly appear to be 4 different hands at work : 1. the hand that wrote the caption in red, plausibly anne frank´s own hand, a childish, feminine handwriting befitting a 13-year-old ;

2. the hand that wrote the last line on the right-hand page, similar to but not quite identical with the red hand, female but somewhat more mature and organized and regular, using a different ink, brown in color, from a pen not a pencil : it could be anne, or it could be someone imitating anne´s red hand ;

3. a totally different adult cursive hand for most of the text, using a similar but not identical ink, thicker than that of the last line; this is an entirely different person, cannot possibly be anne ;

4. the hand that wrote the line numbers on the right margin of the right page, apparently using a black pencil.

It is implausible, improbable in the extreme that hands 1 - 4 be the same hand - a 13-year-old girl´s hand. And, it is illogical and implausible that anne frank herself would use 4 such different handwritings on the same page, in the space of a few weeks or months or even on the same day !!!

Actually, it is possible that there be a 5th hand at work on these 2 pages to boot : the hand that wrote the sept. 28, 1942 entry looks, at closer inspection, remarkably different than the hand that wrote the june 12, 1942 entry. The inks too differ in the 2 entries, the later one´s being less thick.

Let me be clear : look at the photo above : this is supposed to be the original diary that was presented to anne frank on june 12, 1942, for her 13th birthday. Now : does the cursive hand look to you, like it could be from a 13-year-old girl ? And even if it were, how come it is so radically different than the handwriting for the caption, in red ? Or than the one for the last line on the right-hand-side page ? Doesn´t the cursive hand look way more like that of an adult, of a much older person, of a boring accountant or something ? Why would anne frank, had she really written those 2 entries herself, want to sign them with her name ? Twice, after each short entry ? This is supposed to be her own private diary, why sign each entry at all ? It sounds artificial - an excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta of sorts...Something like : Hey, you guys don´t buy the authenticity of this ? Well then, here´s a double signature, what more do you want ?... How could anne frank possibly have gone, on the same day, june 12, 1942, from the childish print hand of the caption, to the adult cursive of the 1st main entry ? Why would she want to add the line numbering ? Clearly here, hands other than anne´s have tampered with her photo album, adding diary entries she never wrote.

And signing each of them like an accountant would sign a check, to make believe that this was really anne frank´s writing. Most likely, the diary´s interpolators used a real photo album that had belonged to anne frank, and inserted into it those 2 entries in the cursive adult hand we see in the picture above. Someone else added the line numbering too later still, for editorial purposes of sorts. Probably the original draft of this partial forgery that is the so-called diary of anne frank wasn´t even written by hand, but by typewriter instead, and then added to the diary much later, when judges, as we shall see, ordered anne´s father otto to come up with the manuscript in order to ascertain authenticity, which had been challenged by some , prompting otto frank to start a legal challenge in court.

There is another oddity here worth noticing : on these first 2 pages of this alleged diary, the 2 main entries are dated and signed like they were a financial transaction or something ; the other 3 separate lines ( the words on the left page, the photo caption, the last line ) are undated and unsigned. The second dated and signed entry bears the date sept. 28, 1942 - one would assume, anne returned to this page 3 and a half months after receiving the diary. This entry is written around the red caption, therefore the undated red caption was written before sept. 28, 1942. Or anyway before the entry that dodges it. The last line says - one would assume, she´s happy she took the diary to her hiding place when she moved to prinsengracht 263 from where she had been living ( merwedeplein 37/II ), when she went into hiding with her family on july 6, 1942. Therefore that last line cannot have been written before july 6, 1942. In summation, anne frank is supposed to have written into these 2 first pages of her alleged diary on at least 3 separate days and using from a minimum of 3 different handwritings (childish print, adult cursive, line numbering hand) to a maximum of 5 ! There is only one plausible conclusion to be drawn from all this : none at all of the writings on the first 2 pages of anne frank´s alleged diary is authentic, except for the photo caption in red ink : this was again, a photo album and not a diary. The rest was interpolated at some later stage by forgers pretending to be anne frank. The dates and the signatures are false too.

Do not be fooled by the conclusions in FRANK, by one engineer hardy - what does an engineer know about graphology ? - featured in this zionazi-friendly publication, and meant to prove that all those radically different handwritings are all from anne frank at the same time. This engineer/graphologist only states that most of the writing in the alleged manuscripts of anne frank´s alleged diary is from her : that is to say, no absolute certainty here that those manuscript writings are by anne frank´s hand . And he does admit to the presence, albeit marginal in his view, of other hands in the manuscripts, notably for the line numbering and other details.


If we know turn for a moment to the popular edition of anne frank´s diary, the current version that everyone reads when they buy it today, we may notice that manuscript words are changed into something entirely different : take for instance the current standard german translation, ANNE FRANK TAGEBUCH, edited by otto h. frank and mirjam pressler, translated by mirjam pressler, fischer taschenbuch, 19th print, january 2013 ( henceforth POP ), page 11 : the sept. 28, 1942 entry in the photo above, reads in POP:


Wheras the alleged manuscript entry in the photo above reads :


Thus you can see how the so-called diary of anne frank is really a work-in-progress, in which several persons other than anne have felt free over the decades to change whatever they pleased.


As I said in the introduction above, the alleged diary is a collage of 3 elements basically, the first 2 having to do with literary plagiarism from TROTZ and GUNTEN. It is a very subtle sort of plagiarism, very professional , absolutely not creditable to an average 13-year-old such as anne frank. TROTZ is a novel about a 15-year-old girl, ilse, a contrarian and wild child, just like anne.

The first leit-motif in TROTZ is the strong rapport ilse has with her father, as opposed to the hostility she harbors for her stepmother. Just like anne in the diary, who relates mostly positively to her dad otto, and negatively to her mother. On page 11 of TROTZ, we are on the second day of the novel, a june 12 : , says ilse´s father. And the diary of anne frank starts on a june 12. Just before that, ilse´s father has announced to his wife his decision to send ilse to a boarding school - she is to leave on july 1. Now, in the diary, the frank family moves to the hiding place on a july 6. And the hiding place will soon become a boarding school of sorts for anne, her sister margot and their teenage co-hider peter van pels. I am not somehow suggesting that anne frank wasn´t born on a june 12, or that the franks didn´t move on a july 6. I am saying that whoever partially rewrote and partially forged the diary of anne frank, was well aware of the coincidences with TROTZ, and imitated the plot and the spirit and the ideology of TROTZ throughout the rewrite/forgery that is the diary of anne frank.

We shall soon factor in dozens more striking similarities, but for now let us sum up the ones we have encountered so far :


about a rebellious teenage girl and her education ; about a rebellious teen and her education

ilse is a contrarian, temperamental ; anne is a contrarian, temperamental

ilse has a strong rapport with her father ; anne has a strong rapport with her father

ilse is hostile to her stepmother ; anne is hostile to her mother

the second day in the plot is a june 12 ; the first day is a june 12

ilse moves to a boarding school on a july 1 ; anne moves to her hiding place, which will become her own boarding school, on a july 6 .

Before we carry on with our synoptic reading of TROTZ versus FRANK, let me just say that, since the first edition of the diary in 1947, for 71 long years ( as of this writing, january 31, 2018 ), the owners of these alleged manuscripts ( a whole series of bound notebooks and albums, plus a great number of loose sheets ) have refused to publish them in their entirety - thus nobody, except for what the anne frank fonds in basel , the anne frank stichting and the NIOD institute in amsterdam call legitimate researchers ( = prozionazi true believers in the authenticity) can verify whether or not these alleged manuscripts really feature all the materials published over the decades as the diary of anne frank ; and nobody can analyze the writings and all other details such as pics etc.

The diary appears, on a first level of approach, to have been carefully planned out on the literary pattern of TROTZ, which belongs to a genre in XVIII- to XIX-century french and german literature called erziehungsroman, educational novel, or backfischroman, young-girls´ novel, or bildungsroman, educational novel : a genre especially targeting a readership of teenage girls, which became immensely popular and still is in those countries. The teenage rebel in such novels goes from wild child to polite and refined young lady. So does ilse, so does anne.

Therefore, even though TROTZ is not a diary, still it is the story of the initiation of a backfisch into womanhood.

Both the manuscripts as printed in FRANK, and TROTZ, begin with a lively exclamation by ilse () and anne (), punctuated by exclamation marks. There follows in TROTZ a short brushstroke about ilse´s physique :
There follows in TROTZ a scene featuring 5 people beside ilse : her parents, a friend pair with their adult son, and the local priest. In anne´s hiding place at prinsengracht 263 we shall encounter beside anne and her sister margot, following 4 characters : a friend pair with their 16-year-old son, and a single man, a dentist.

Again I am not thereby implying that the van pelses or fritz pfeffer did not exist - actually I think they did. I am just trying to point out that random coincidences in the lives of anne and ilse were carefully exploited by the diary´s rewriters/forgers in order to literarize the diary by molding it on TROTZ´s famous pattern.

Next up in TROTZ, ilse enthuses over her dog diana and her puppies - this is matched in anne´s diary by her frequent references to her cat moortje, which she has to leave behind at merwedeplein, and which she will often sorely miss in the hiding place. Ilse too shall have to bid a a sad goodbye to her dog upon entering the boarding school.

There follows in TROTZ a description of 2 leit-motive common again to both books : first, how ilse is the apple of her father´s eye, just like anne is to otto ; second, how ilse´s clothing is stained and torn - anne will often describe the inadequacy of her clothes and shoes during the war.

The next scene in TROTZ features ilse´s stepmother scolding the kid over her unseemly behavior and shabby clothing in the presence of guests. And thereby, the leit-motif of ilse´s stubbornness and rebellious, hostile attitude unto her stepmother comes to the fore. In the diary too, as usual, one of the most frequent leitmotive is anne´s bitter hostility unto her mother.

Ilse despises, initially, the friend pair´s son, but will end up falling in love with him. Anne initially has a low opinion of peter van pels, but will end up falling in love.

Ilse expresses regret at his father´s choice to take another woman after his first wife´s, ilse´s mother´s, death ; anne will hint in the diary at his father´s unrequited love for another woman before marrying anne´s mother. When I say " anne " I thereby mean the diary´s rewriters/forgers - in primis, her father otto heinrich frank.

After being scolded by her stepmother over her poor dressing style and lack of manners, ilse says to herself she will never be a lady - and so does anne often in the diary.

As you see, virtually all, each and every single one of the leitmotifs around which TROTZ revolves, are picked up anew in the diary, and adapted to anne´s real-life persona. We shall encounter and list many more of these coincidences below. But it is not just about themes. It is about extraordinarily similar or near-identical details in the 3 erziehungsromane as well.


FRANK 215 : anne lists female beauty marks that she either possesses or doesn´t : among them, cheek and chin dimples : on page 26 of TROTZ, ilse´s room mate at the boarding house, nellie, gets >>>>>>>>>>>.

TROTZ 26 : Once at the boarding house, ilse sees that . Once at the hiding place, anne will see through the windows, an imposing chestnut tree.

Once more : this is not to say that anne frank did not have dimples in her cheeks or that the chestnut tree in her garden is fiction - quite the contrary, I think both were real. What I am trying to make clear is, that whoever cooked up the diary of anne frank, knew TROTZ perfectly well, and used it as a blueprint for his choice of materials - leitmotifs and details - to employ in the diary, whether or not such materials coincided with real-life events and details and attitudes of anne ´s. The inventio, the subject matter from the older novel seems to flow directly into the second, mutatis mutandis.

The dispositio too, the order in which narrative materials appear in the 2 novels, sometimes coincides : for instance, after ilse´s arrival at the boarding house, her first assignment is to arrange her stuff . Anne´s first assignment after arrival at the hiding place, is to arrange her family´s stuff . Both girls have a helper in this task : for ilse, her roommate nellie, for anne her father otto.

TROTZ , pages 86f., tells how ilse has made such progress at school, that an essay she has written is rated the best of her class, so she is praised by her teacher who reads ilse´s essay aloud to the whole class, a special honouring . In the diary, anne is assigned an essay as punishment for her chatting during class, she writes it in poetic form, and her teacher likes it so much that he reads and comments it aloud to the whole class and to his other classes.

Ilse´s teacher interrupts his reading with laughter, and ilse and her classmates laugh along. Anne´s teacher causes Anne´s class to laugh loudly, alongside anne, upon hearing the funny title of anne´s third punishment-essay extra assignment .

This amiable humor is employed by ilse´s teacher as a pedagogical means of correcting mistakes, more effective than angry words. Anne´s teacher too, changes tack and instead of assigning more extra work to anne when she chats, cracks little jokes.

The plagiarism here is subtle in that TROTZ´s words are not copied wholesale - which would have been a dead giveaway given TROTZ´s enormous popularity in germany. What does get plagiarized here is the point-for-point narrative material, but light variations are introduced which serve the purpose of concealing the source. Read the relevant passages from the 2 books synoptically now with me :

TROTZ pages 86f. : .

FRANK, 239 :

TROTZ, 87 : .

FRANK 239 : .

Let us call this modus operandi, varied plagiarism, shall we ?

Again for the umpteenth time : in this context, it is irrelevant to me whether or not this episode of the extra work for chatting in class really happened in anne´s life - what instead I have been pointing out here, is how TROTZ´s narrative material is matched point-for-point in the diary, so much so that, even if the thing with the extra work really happened, its literarization in the diary is entirely derived from the TROTZ blueprint.

And crediting a 13-year-old with such professional literary skills is to be ruled out with the proverbial ...


We shall now have to add GUNTEN to our discussion. And start juggling the 3 oranges , TROTZ FRANK and GUNTEN, at once, to fully grasp the collage work that is the diary of anne frank.

To simplify my scribal labor, I shall henceforth call TROTZ , T ; GUNTEN , G ; and FRANK, F.

T: ilse macket is a 15-year-old backfisch, a contrarian, from a well-to-do family.

G: jakob von gunten is a young contrarian from a well-to-do family.

F: anne frank from start to end of her diary, is a 13- to 15-year-old backfisch and contrarian,

from a well-to-do family.

T: ilse loves her softie dad, who has spoiled her rotten, but misbehaves with her (step)mother.

G: jakob has a contradictory, tormented, love-hate relationship with his family

F: anne loves her softie dad otto heinrich frank, who has spoiled her rotten, but cannot stand her

mother, edith-holländer frank.

T: 2 dates stand out in the beginning : a june 12 and a july 1.

F : 2 dates stand out in the beginning : a june 12 and a july 6.

T: on a june 12, ilse´s father, richard macket, decides that enough is enough and ilse is to move to a boarding school on july 1, where she is to be disciplined and properly educated and brought up.

G: jakob registers as a pupil with a boarding school, the institut benjamenta.

F: on june 12, 1942, anne receives from her dad as a 13th-birthday present, a diary into which she starts writing right away. On the subsequent july 6, 1942, anne moves out of her amsterdam home at merwedeplein 37/II and into the at prinsengracht 263, which will soon become to her.

T: when ilse arrives at the school on july 2, her roommate nellie helps her unpack her chest and finds a brand new diary in it, a surprise present from ilse´s mother.

G: the whole novel is in diaristic form.

F: upon unwrapping her birthday presents on june 12, anne receives her brand new diary, a present from her father.

T: nellie, upon seeing ilse´s diary, exclaims : .

F: anne´s comment on her new diary : > one of my most beautiful presents > ( june 14 entry ).

T: another schoolgirl, flora hopfstange, keeps a diary and also writes novels, poetry, plays.

F: anne writes her diary ; tales ; fairy tales ; plans a novel about the annex ; includes other people´s poetry in her diary.

T: in a note accompanying ilse´s diary, her mother has written :

F: 20.6.1942 entry : .

T: page 40 : flora hopfstange is wary of intruders peeking at her solitary writing.

F: so is anne, several times.

As you can plainly see, the very diary motif, the very idea for this rewrite/forgery in diary form that is the diary of anne frank, is filched from T and G. The very way in which anne relates to her diary as it were the she-friend she lacks. The kinds of things anne writes. The ruse of the diary as a present.

Again : one need no literary models to make believe that a teenage girl wrote a diary - but the narrative elaboration of the diary motif in F is entirely patterned around the blueprint of T and G.

Even the lie that anne frank used, for her diary manuscripts, in part bound books and in part loose sheets, is stolen from T : on page 107, flora the writer and diary-keeper pulls out from her pocket !!


FRANK 220, 20.6.1942 (b) entry : > I have a ton of admirers [...] who, by means of a broken handbag mirror, try to catch a glimpse of me in class >.

This too has illustrious literary precedents in the history of german literature : the first that comes to mind is e.t.a. hoffman, der sandmann, insel verlag 1986, page 42 : .

But even more precisely, the diary forgers filched the handbag mirror as such, from hoffman as well : in his tale Das öde haus, The abandoned house, published in 1817, hoffman describes how theodor buys a handbag mirror from a huckster, so as to be able to peep at a lady in the house, while sitting unseen by her, his back to the house, on a street bench.

Another Hoffman tale coming into play here as a literary model, is Des vetters Eckfenster, The cousin´s corner window, from 1822 : a sick, home-confined writer spends his time watching the crowds in the square below from his window. We may notice in passing, that hoffman in his own turn here, had taken his cue from karl friedrich kretschmann´s 1799 tale Scarron am fenster.

The sick man passes his cousin his spyglass so the latter may catch the details...

The handbag-mirror motif above in the diary is also to be traced back, as usual, to our 2 main models here :

T, 141 : .

G, 23 : .

From those 2, otto & his gang of forgers filched the idea of adapting hoffman´s handbag mirror detail to school pupils.

Again you can plainly see here what I mean by varied plagiarism : the handbag-mirror thing is a famous detail in german literature ; the using of it to catch glimpses of girls is from hoffman ; the putting of it in the hands of school pupils is from both T and G. The spyglass is likewise from hoffman. What the forgers are doing here is, variation on a theme by way of cento, or collage . The 3 sources are reshuffled and combined into one narrative cell , so as to cover the traces of the subtle literary theft and artifice here.

And otto frank did know his german classics, and insisted with his daughters that they read them too, as the diary attests to. In the 30ies, otto had paid anneliese schütz, a jewish-german journalist and teacher, to privately tutor his daughters in the german classics.

Therefore passages such as the handbag mirror in the diary, displaying professional plagiarism-dissimulated--by-way-of-collage skills, may absolutely not be credited to a 13-year-old : such passages were interpolated into the diary by otto frank and anneliese schütz. Again : likely anne had indeed read hoffman or T as a child - but the way the voyeur diary passages are written up, the subtle literary plagiarism by way of collage - no 13-year-old would ever have been able to pull THAT off.

The hoffman ideas and passages above are also plagiarized again elsewhere in the diary :

saturday nov.28, 1942 entry, (b) :


I would really like to know since when this passage has appeared in the popular editions of the diary, which are a work in progress as we shall see - because the hoffman archetypes were popularized by hitchcock´s 1954 rear window, in turn based on cornell woolrich´s 1942 short story It had to be murder... Which in its turn, had been based on h.g.well´s short story Through a window...And I think that whoever concocted this diary passage with anne as voyeuse, whether otto himself ( an avid reader of german as well as english classics) or anneliese schütz or otto´s english-language translators and collaborators in the early fifties, knew both well´s and woolrich´s short stories : compare for proof the following :

diary : >>>>>

wells : >>>>>>>> .

Even more startling is the plagiarism from woolrich´s short story, because It had to be murder was published in 1942 and it is improbable that by nov.28, 1942, anne frank would have read it in amsterdam...

diary : >>

woolrich :
ward off boredom, so I hadn’t that to turn to. >>>

diary : >>

woolrich :
bedroom had in the warm weather. It was unscreened, so I had to sit with the light out or I would have had every insect in the vicinity in on me >>>

diary : >>>>>>>

woolrich : >>

diary : >>

woolrich : >>.

See what I mean by varied plagiarism ? Variations on a theme...And collage : reshuffling this bit from hoffman, that from wells, this from woolrich, etc...

Another extraordinary instance of plagiarism-by-collage not only of basic narrative ideas, but also of single details and phraseology, on the part of the otto/schütz/etc. forgers´ team, occurs with the dec.12, 1942 diary entry ( F 380f. ) (b) : it is obvously again, as above, the b version, a literarized remake/expansion entirely the forgers´work, not featuring a single word by anne frank:

eckfenster : >>

F 381 : >>

eckfenster : >>

F 380 : >>

eck : >>

F 380 : >>

woolrich : >>

F 380 : >>

wells : >>

F381 : >>

woolrich : >>

F 380 : >>

I just hope I can rest my case here : none of this ever happened to real-life anne frank. It is nothing but literary artifice and collagewise plagiarism or cento or patchwork. Professionally sewn together by forger pros - not the stuff of a 13-year-old .

Most likely, the diary scenes featuring anne being peeped at through mirrors or prying into neighbors´ homes with a spyglass, never happened at all - thay were interpolated into the diary to enhance its literary, entertainment and commercial value : hoffman sells, so let´s hoffmanize !

But even in the unlikely case that said factoids did happen to anne for real, their literarization in the diary is entirely molded after hoffman, G, T, woolrich and wells.


In the first part of all 3 books under scrutiny , F, T and G, we encounter a description of single class mates. In F, it occurs in the june 15, 1942 entry : anne´s attitude unto her mates is judgemental and mostly negative. In G, 5 there begins a description of single classmates, with the same judgemental and substantially negative attitude, in the guise of a forced, artificial appreciation. In T, pages 39-41, single boarding school girls are described.

G 83 mentions jakob´s ideals of self-education or upbringing :

The Sept. 28, 1942 entry in F features a letter from otto to anne of may 11, 1939 : .

The same concept is repeated in the march 7, 1944 entry (b) , this time by anne herself directly : .

And again in the july 15, 1944 entry (a), again by anne : > I see more and more how true was father´s word : " every child must bring himself up " [...] the ultimate building of someone´s character lies in his own hands >.

Anne, that is the forgers, appear to be obsessed with self-ed, so much so as to regale us with a 4th variation on that theme in the STORIES AND EVENTS FROM THE ANNEX, henceforth S, tale "why" : .

Here, both G and F are dependent on a common source : goethe, wilhelm meister´s apprenticeship, 3, again an educational novel just like T and G and F : says wilhelm in a letter to his brother-in-law werner.

We know that otto frank, the real main author of the diary he fraudulently credited to his dead daughter , was truly obsessed with this pedagogy of self-upbringing, because he had sent anne to a montessori school in amsterdam before nazi racial segregation would compel her to transfer to the jewish lyceum.

And we know he was an avid reader of classic german literature. So clearly here his starting point was goethe, and the pestalozzi-montessori pedagogical tradition.

Otto writes a letter to anne in which he extols self-ed, because wilhelm meister had written a letter to werner in which he extolled self-ed. The letter might just be authentic : otto´s work, just like the rest of the so-called diary of anne frank.

Diary entries such as july 15, 1944, a, read like a montessorian treaty on self-upbringing. All of the key words/concepts in maria montessori´s pedagogy are repeatedly, obsessively plagiarized here :

self-awareness ; self-consciousness ; self-appraisal ; self-upbringing ; self-therapy ; anne-for-herself;

self-confidence-building. Here is a good introduction to montessori´s lingo and pedagogy :

1990, p. 25).>>>

(Montessori, 1972, p.67-68). >>>


Source :


pp. 68f., 71

Here is again a sample of key montessorian lingo versus the diary´s varied plagiarism of same :

F 781 : Selbsterkenntnis/Selbstgefühl/Selbst-verurteilen/Selbst-erziehen :

MM : /Selbstdisziplin /Selbsterziehung

F 782 : die Bildung von jemandes charakter liegt in seiner eigenen hand

MM : Selbstbildung/Selbstschöpfung / aus eigener kraft

F782 : Selbst habe ich mich geheilt, durch mir selbst das verkehrte meines tuns vorzuhalten

MM : Selbstbeherrschung / Selbstdisziplin/ Selbsteroberung/ Meister seiner selbst

And though anne frank had indeed attended a montessori school until age 12, to credit her with such a level of theoretical pedagogical achievement and self-introspection, as to give us a lesson on montessorian philosophy at age 15, is being naive to say the least.

On F 782, anne submits her father´s upbringing of her to a perfect montessorian critique,

lifted almost bodily from maria montessori´s book Dall´infanzia all´adolescenza - which interestingly, came out first in french in 1948 - one year AFTER the first dutch edition of the diary...I would really like to know whether or not the first dutch edition included the july 15, 1944 entry in the exact same text as on F 781ff...


F 782 :>>

MM : >>

F 784: >>

MM : >>

Source for the cited presentation of montessori´s pedagogy for adolescents :


See for reference :

Maria Montessori, Dall'infanzia all'adolescenza, Milano, Garzanti, 1949 (I edizione originale francese con il titolo De l'enfant à l'adolescent, 1948).


In a famous F entry, jan.6, 1944 (a), anne writes : .

This is nothing but the transposition in the feminine of a famous scene in G 9-11 :

T has its lesbian moments too : on page 201, ilse ; on page 214, as ilse is leaving the school, her mentor miss güssow .


As we saw above, another common thread in all 3 books, T, G and F, is hostility unto one´s mother.

In the oct. 3, 1942 entry (a) , anne expresses her anger at her mother in the most violent terms:

. G 36 had used the exact same words : .

Do you happen to know any other examples of literary slapping one´s mother in the face ? It is true that " I could really slap someone in the face " is a common expression of anger in german - but please just find me any other instance when this expression is applied to one´s own mother in any literature - my point being : the callida iunctura I could slap him/her in the face + one´s own mother as object , is so remarkably original as to constitute plagiarism by F of G ...


The single most blatant instance of plagiarism of G by F, occurs in a diary passage not included in the popular edition that everyone reads: F 334, a, beifügung 93b, to oct.18, 1942 entry : in a note attached to her diary, anne recounts a sort of reverie of hers about being in switzerland with her cousin bernd, who was an ice dancer :


Again, this is nothing but varied plagiarism of G 125, a dream-like, magical scene starring jakob and his teacher :


Now again for the umpteenth time : this cousin bernd aka buddy elias who lived in switzerland was a real person, and he really was an accomplished ice dancer. Therefore one might object here, it´s only natural that anne would dream of becoming his partner on the rink - no need to think the scene is filched from G. But : first of all, again, this scene in the diary is not in the main narrative flow - it occurs in a note attached to the diary, as if someone had thought it up extra for insertion in the diary. It´s an afterthought, an addition, it is not in the main body of text. It has completely nothing to do with what precedes or follows it in the main text. And though anne is alleged to have rewritten her diary in view of post-war publishing (version b), this scene with bernd is not to be found in version b. It is a solitary, separate note, a draft of a new scene, that someone slipped in at this point in the diary for possible future use. There is nothing spontaneous about it.

Second : even if anne herself had dreamt up such a scene because she had an ice-skating cousin , and had wanted to recount it in her diary, what about the telltale detail with the color blue ? In F, it becomes the color of her partner´s outfit ; in G, it is the color of the sky.

Another common detail is the reaction, of the public in anne´s dream, of jakob in his own :

F 334 : .

G 125 :

My point is, that even supposing for a moment that anne herself had decided to add her dream of ice-dancing with bernd to the diary, the way that the passage is literarized, written up, structured, owes a lot to G. Again as if someone who knew both anne´s life and G well, had noticed the coincidence between the fact that anne had an ice-dancing cousin, and the rink dream in G, and had decided to knock off G but adapting the scene to fit the cousin in. The very framework in which the 2 parallel scenes are encased in F and G, is the same or similar : reverie, daydream, magic.

I think that all this will become clearer to you soon: because the diary of anne frank features a second rink scene :

F 597, march 8, 1944 entry (a) :

So again here the color blue, transposed from G´s sky to the sister´s outfit, as above to bernd´s . And again, G´s dreamy framework. In F, anne dreams of kissing and feeling peter´s cheeks. In G, jakob is brought back to school by magic, and his teacher, miss benjamenta, is standing behind him, stroking his cheeks !! And just like anne is put off by the coarseness of peter´s cheeks, similarly jakob feels that miss benjamenta is stroking him not as if to comfort him, but as if to comfort herself. And just like the ice scene in G is followed by dinner, analogously the second ice scene in F is followed by lunch.

Thus you see my point now : F´s forgers used G as their blueprint for rewriting/faking anne´s diary, and adapted G to anne´s life´s real details, which they knew as intimately, because the forger-in-chief was anne´s father otto.

T plays a role here as well : on pages 135f., for xmas ilse receives splendid pink fabric that makes nellie exclaim it will become a beautiful dancing costume, and nellie receives the same in pale-blue:

again, F´s and G´s ice scene colors.

I hope it is clear now how details from anne frank´s real life were literarized and woven into a coherent narrative : by guntenizing and trotzizing them.

Many other mosaic tesserae were drawn from richardson´s pamela and van marxveldt´s joop ter heul, but since even mainstream authors couldn´t help but notice them, albeit from a justificationist persepective, I´ll refer you to :

simone schroth

das tagebuch

waxmann verlag 2006

especially chapter 2.3

partially online at :


I would just like to remark here that the joop ter heul elements in the diary cannot entirely be considered plagiarism, as it is the only literary source explicitly cited by the diary´s authors.


I could go on forever showing you more plagiarized parts - and I will, at the end of this study, with an appendix featuring a complete listing of all plagiarized passages and their sources.

For now suffice to sum it all up : the so-called diary of anne frank cannot possibly be the work of a 13- to 15-year-old, firstly because there are several different hands in the manuscripts ; secondly because the diary is a collage or patchwork of passages filched from T, G, hoffman and goethe, only varied just abut enough to cover the traces - showing professional forgery/plagiarism skills that cannot be credited to someone in her early teens.

Thirdly, because the whole story of what happened to the frank family from 1942 to 1944 has been falsified and misrepresented in the alleged diary.

Time to move on to exposing the real story here.

The first to seriously cast scientific doubts on the authenticity of anne frank´s diary was the great french scholar Robert Faurisson ( 1929 born, still alive at the time of this writing, february 3, 2018 ).

Or - was he? I must now note in passing, that swedish revisionist Dietlib Felderer ( 1942 born ) actually published his own anne frank diary essay in 1978 - 2 years before the first editon of Faurisson´s . Felderer´s essay reads like a carbon copy of Faurisson´s - or is it the other way round ? Or did the 2 reach identical conclusions independently of each other ? Read Felderer´s essay here :


and Faurisson´s here :


Anyway, I tend to think it was Felderer who knocked off Faurisson, because while the former cites the latter at the end of the above-linked essay, the latter ignores the former - but if Felderer was first published in 1978, and Faurisson in 1980, then how was Felderer able to quote Faurisson in 1978 ? Maybe the link above features a later edition/translation of Felderer´s essay, so I shall leave the issue of which plagiarized which in abeyance here.

Faurisson began holding seminars about the diary at the university of lyon in the mid-70ies. In 1978 he wrote up his conclusions in a splendid essay, Le journal d´anne frank, est-il authentique ?.

It would be published, after having been used as expertise in a german trial, in 1980 and is available on the internet in several languages. What were Faurisson´s main points ? Oh by the way, don´t start telling me the guy´s a nazi, for he never stated so. And anyway, even if he were on the far right, we must listen to everyone without prejudice, because if even a hitler said the sky is blue, the sky wouldn´t turn green just because a hitler said it was blue. There are people who reach the right conclusions for the wrong reasons. We must accept that and not throw out the baby with the bathwater . I personally am a democrat and an antifascist in politics, a communist in economics. And I despise all kinds of racism utterly.

The first famous Faurisson argument is the noises : the hiders in theory were not supposed to make the least noise, in order not to be discovered by the nazis, or arouse suspicion in the neighborhood, or among the workers in otto´s firm next to which and above which they were hiding : possible spies might have denounced them to the gestapo for money.

And yet : mrs van daan (van pels) , one of the 7 jews hiding with anne, hoovers her carpet, and anne writes that one hears the hoover´s " stomping " in the annex every day at 12:30 pm

( aug.5, 1943 entry ). Now : the pro-zionazi F editors responded to this on page 111, accusing Faurisson of purposeful omission of half the context here : that is , that before mentioning the stomping of the hoover, anne says that van maaren and de kok ( 2 warehouse hands in otto´s firm ) have gone home ( for their lunch break, one would assume ). Therefore, according to F´s biased editors, there is no more danger of being heard by potential spies in the annex and mrs van daan/van pels can use the hoover without qualms. But this amounts to grossly misrepresenting the situation of the annex and its immediate surroundings.

First of all , as of aug.5, 1943, van maaren and de kok were by no means the only workers in the building : there probably already was a lena van bladeren-hartog, a cleaning lady (source : melissa müller, das mädchen anne frank, fischer taschenbuch 2013, p. 344 : henceforth M ) ; and if she hadn´t begun to work there yet, then they must have had another cleaning lady, as the diary itself attests to .

Then there probably was an accountant called van erp in the office ( source : carol ann lee, the hidden life of otto frank , harper perennial 2003, p. 120, henceforth CAL, without indication of when this van erp started work at prinsen 263 ) ; and if it wasn´t van erp, they must have had another accountant as of aug. 5, 1943 .

Then there was a sales rep called daatselaar, an NSB ( dutch nazi party ) member ( lee 84, 176 , with no indication of when he started work at prinsen ; but he was surely working there as of aug. 5, 1943, because the oct.20, 1942 entry of the diary (a) mentions him as arriving at prinsen, right afer the cleaning lady had left ; and lee 176 states he was still working for otto in august 1944 ) ; therefore when mrs van daan/van pels used the hoover every day at 12:30 pm, she took the enormous risk of letting a nazi hear her and discover the hiders ! It is true that lee 85 also states that daatselaar, his nazi card notwithstanding, enjoyed otto´s trust - and otto was aware of his membership ! But the oct. 20, 1942 entry of the diary clearly implies that the hiders did in fact NOT trust daatselaar at all - whenever he or the cleaning lady or levinsohn ( a jewish pharmacist who had used to work in the annex ) were around in the building, the hiders refrained from going to the toilet ! ( F, 336 : which implies, they hardly trusted jews either, or at least certain jews, or just simply did not wish to be associated with other jews under nazi occupation ) ). Therefore daatselaar was feared, the hiders were aware of his nazi party membership, and he was not privy to the annex´s secret. And yet mrs van pels ran the hoover without a thought ! He was a sales rep, often away on the road, but liable to pop in any time !!

The truth of the matter is, otto frank had no qualms at all about employing nazis or collaborating with them - quite the contrary, he needed them for his war-profiteering with the wehrmacht, and sought them out and was on perfectly good terms with them ! He went so far as to fire a jewish employee of his, clerk esther - thus depriving her of the immunity his war-relevant companies had afforded her and delivering her straight into the hands of the nazis, who deported her to her death in the Holocaust...It wouldn´t be the first jewish victim of otto´s self-cleansing of his companies and his merwedeplein undertenants - more on his merciless cynicism later.

Another witness to this fact is miep gies herself, the famous opekta secretary and alleged helper of the alleged hiders. In her book MEINE ZEIT MIT ANNE FRANK, [henceforth MG] written in partnership with one alison leslie gold, fischer taschenbuch, copyright 1987, second edition 2011, page 186f., miep retells how, on saturday, aug. 5, 1944 - the day after the alleged arrest of the franks etc. - she went to work for business as usual : : so as you see, in miep gies´s own words, there were several sales reps at opekta and gies&co., not just daatselaar and martin brouwer and the brokses (see below). And they were liable to return at any time from their tours of the country, individually or together - which makes a mockery of the niod´s rebuttal of Faurisson´s hoover argument based on the absence of merely van maaren and de kok, as if noone else worked in that building !!!

Miep confirms that one of these sales reps, unnamed by her but likely daatselaar, was an NSB member - and yet he was quite saddened by the news of otto frank´s (alleged) arrest - which was likely only his deportation to westerbork after his exemption had expired with the completion of opekta´s aryanization process on july 1, 1944.

And this nazi sales rep did his utmost to free otto frank from detention ! And otto considered him trustworthy !!!

Next, there was another sales rep, one martin brouwer, who worked for gies&co., a shadow company otto had set up to schein-comply with aryanization of his firm pectacon on may 8, 1941.

The building where this firm was headquartered was the same as opekta ´s : prinsengracht 263.

Daatselaar and brouwer were even arrested in march 1944 for running a ring of false food coupons smugglers and shortly thereafter released, according to new research by the anne frank house itself in amsterdam :



The arrest of brouwer is referenced in the diary, friday march 10, 1944 entry (a), F599 :

Thus if this gentleman was indeed martin brouwer, and if he really traded in false food coupons, and was responsible for providing the alleged hiders with potatoes butter and marmalade, or with the false food coupons to get them, he must have known about the hiders !!! Which would imply that the hiders were not hiding at all, since this man was a colleague of nazi daatselaar and was liable to let him in on the secret of the annex...

The arrest of daatselaar is reported by the diary 2 days later, march 12, 1944 entry (a) , F602 :


Again the diary mentions these arrests in the march 14, 1944 entry (both a and b versions) , F605:

. Version b goes so far as to term B(rouwer) and D(aatselaar) who .

So if those two were responsible for providing the alleged 8 hiders with false extra foodstamps and coupons allowing the purchase of extra fat, butter, margarine, potatoes and marmalade, how could they possibly be unaware of whom their enormous supplies were intended for ? Clearly, both brouwer and daatselaar knew about the 8 jews in the annex, and aided them all the same because the 8 jews weren´t hiding in that they were all exempt from deportation.

And they had plenty of cash to pay the illegal extra stamps, thus making the risk worth running.

And otto must have had really good connections to the police too, because the diary mentions, jubilantly, the release of from jail in the march 23, 1944 entry (b), F613.

Daatselaar and brouwer had free access to the alleged hiders because the hiders weren´t hiding at all.

There is here a telltale addition in the b version of the diary ( the b version was written by anne, allegedly, between may and august 1, 1944 , and intended for publication after the war) : the a version had told the truth :


clearly the reference here is to the 5 legal ration cards that the 5 adult jewish hiders (otto frank, his wife edith, hermann van pels, his wife auguste and doctor fritz pfeffer ) had a legal right to, since they were all exempt from deportation and living a perfectly legal and normal life.

But the b version changes this into :

[my caps].

Clearly, whoever wrote the b version (certainly not anne, unless she was in on the fraud ) felt like adding black, otherwise the readers of a would have understood that the franks, the van pelses and pfeffer were not hiding at all because they were exempt from deportation, and therefore had a right to their 5 ration cards just like every other free adult in amsterdam - except, that is, for REAL hiders !!!

Then there was an office clerk called pine, a girl appearing in an infuriatingly undated photo in CAL, photo 14 after page 172. I am not in a position now to know whether or not pine was working in otto´s office as of aug.5, 1943 - but then again, even if she wasn´t , some other employee had to have taken her place. Furthermore, when anne, in her aug. 5 , 1943 entry above, states that mrs van pels hoovers her carpet every day at 12:30 pm, she is relating a constant habit of mrs van daan´s : the regular daily schedule in the secret annex from july 1942 through aug. 5 , 1943 - and for the foreseeable future !!

You clearly understand now, that when the prozionazi F editors countered Faurisson´s noise argument by alleging he had omitted to quote the passage about van maaren and de kok being absent and thus there being no potential spies all around, the F editors were lying by totally concealing the real situation of the opekta building at prinsengracht 263 : a building where dozens of people, including the firm´s customers, suppliers and staff, went in and out constantly at all times every workday. And a building that was surrounded by scores of neighboring inhabitants and firms´ staff !

We might add for instance anna sophie broks aka " ans ". She worked for opekta as a demonstration lady at first, to later become pro-forma president of gies&co. in may 1944 ( müller 340f. ). Her husband johan marie joseph broks also worked for otto frank, as a sales rep, like daatselaar.

Again, the comments about the brokses in the diary are dated to may 1944, but by then, they had been working for otto for quite a while, though M infuriatingly does not say since when.

In her may 9, 1944 F entry (a), anne clearly implies the hiders feared anna sophie broks. In the may 19, 1944 entry ( a ) , F741, anne speaks of " the ans broks danger ". Actually, in the diary itself, in its sept. 27, 1942 entry ( a ), F306, anne had already mentioned " the broks family ", from whom otto frank had rented a room for storing part of his stuff when he moved from merwedeplein to prinsen in july 1942. Obviously at this, one would suspect that the brokses were in on the hiding, but M 340 explains this away without sources, stating that otto had told the brokses that he and his family were moving to switzerland via belgium. And again, ans is called a danger later in the diary. According to M 340, johan broks hadn´t bought the cover-up story from otto.

Anne in her sept. 27, 1942 entry above states they were paying rent for that room to the brokses : how was otto paying that rent ? He had reportedly told the brokses he was in belgium or switzerland, so how was he paying that room´s rent every month ? A money tranfer is to be ruled out, for it would have shown that otto was in fact still in amsterdam. IF indeed they were in amsterdam - which I deem likely but not 100% certain - and didn´t instead emigrate to switzerland for real : as early as january 1942, otto had applied for emigration to switzerland with the collaborator-jewish and german authorities - we have the application, but strangely enough, not the reply ( F19). The funny thing here is, by sept.27, 1942 otto was paying 3 rents : yes, 3 : he kept on paying his merwedeplein rent until as late as july 1, 1943 :


He was paying his firm´s rent at prinsengracht 263 ; and he was paying the brokses´ room´s rent !!! Sure as hell, the man didn´t lack money during the terrible times of WW2 in famine-afflicted amsterdam !!! We know that, as far as merwedeplein is concerned, otto had given power of attorney to a friendly christian lawyer, anton dunselman, as the diary itself attests to. But for the brokses´room and the rent at prinsen, we do not know who was paying that rent in otto´s name or how. This is all very strange, but it will become untangled in due course of time.

Let us sum it all up : Faurisson was absolutely right to remark in 1978, that for mrs van daan aka van pels to hoover her annex carpet every day at 12:30 pm, was implausible for real hiders. Not just the stomping of the vacuum cleaner mentioned by anne, but the sheer motor noise itself would have caused an earthquake through the whole neighbourhood - hoovers are noisy even today, 75 years later - imagine how noisy they must have been in 1943 !!! One might object here, that maybe mrs van pels was using a carpet sweeper instead - a quiet, mechanic device which actually stomps as anne hears in the diary, but makes no motor noise. But anne uses the word staubsauger in pressler´s german translation - which is a hoover and not a teppichkehrmachine or carpet sweeper. In the original dutch anne says " stofzuiger " - vac, not carpet sweeper. The dutch words for carpet sweeper are rolveger or tapijtroller. By the way, you may read the dutch diary here :


One last remark about the hoover : vacs were the absolute luxury in 1943 europe - only the rich could afford them - read for this the history of vacuum cleaners in wiki, any language : again it goes to show how otto and his jews in there, were happily and abundantly profiting from their economic collaboration with the wehrmacht during WW2.

So again : Faurisson was doubledamn right in stating that for mrs van daan to vac the carpet every day at 12:30 pm was absurd in a hiding situation . His inference was - the diary of anne frank is a forgery - and a slipshod one at that. But what if, instead, we posited another explanation : that the diary is indeed a rewrite/forgery, and a slipshod one at that, but that mrs van pels really did do the hoovering every day at half past noon in the annex, for the simple reason that the alleged hiders were not hiding at all - because they were all exempt from deportation. More on this truth, the real truth of the matter here, later. One way or the other, Faurisson was indeed right in pointing out that the diary here with the hoover thing, does shoot itself in the foot : jews hiding for dear life from nazi hunters do not use vacuum cleaners.

It wasn´t just about alerting potential spies such as lena hartog the cleaning lady or lammert hartog the warehouse worker or accountant van erp or sales rep daatselaar or office clerk pine or demonstration lady anna sophie broks or sales rep johan broks and godknows who else worked in that building ; it was also, and all the more, about not wanting to alert the neighbors : the prinsen surroundings are and were densely inhabited and full of neighboring firms such as the keg firm, on which more below : scores of potential spies were within hearing distance - forget about vacs in a situation like that - had the franks and their alleged co-hiders been hiding for real, that is - which they were not.


Faurisson rightly insisted a lot on a whole array of diary loud noises, inconceivable in a real hiding situation : using an alarm clock ; carpentry work, even with the window open ; radio ; doors being slammed ; outbursts of endless laughter ; loud arguments ; whistling ; foot stomping .

Clearly there are only 2 logical explanations here : either such noisy activities were fabricated, and the diary is a forgery ; or such noisy activities happened for real - in which case, the diary is lying , because the hiders could not possibly be hiding and making such giveaway noises at the same time.

In either case, whoever wrote the so-called diary of anne frank, was a liar and a fraudster - albeit not a very smart one at that.

Thus before we go on reviewing Faurisson´s all-important arguments against the authenticity of the diary, let us posit in summation here, what will become our main point in this whole study : although anne frank never wrote most the diary credited to her, the forger(s)/rewriters who did, in primis her father otto, did encase the diary into a historical framework : the daily life of the franks at prinsengracht 263 bewteen july 6, 1942 and august 1, 1944 , during WW2 and the german occupation of amsterdam : but the true story was completely falsified : the franks did live there, but they were not repeat NOT hiding : and they were not hiding because they did not need to : and they did not need to hide from the nazis because they collaborated with them : otto heinrich frank was a collaborator, who did business with the nazis throughout that time span and richly profited from it. Which, alongside his WW1 decoration, exempted him from deportation.

That is why the very slipshod diary mentions hoovering and laughing and woodwork and all sort of implausibilities in a real hiding situation : because the franks and their alleged co-hiders were not hiding at all. And they never got arrested on august 4, 1944 . What really happened in brief : otto heinrich frank, a german-jewish businessman and ex-banker, with a family record of banking fraud in germany in the early 30ies, escaped deportation until august 44 because he was exempted from it legally, being a decorated WW1 veteran ; and because he worked for a german firm whose jewish employees were exempted from deportation. More on all this below. Now back to Faurisson.

He goes on listing in his essay all of the implausibilities one finds in the diary : the franks fitting curtains to the windows in order to hide their presence in the annex : hear Faurisson´s brilliant remark here : ; the hiders burning waste in the stove , thus signaling their presence through chimney smoke from a building that was considered uninhabited !

Skipping a few more good points, I´ll relate how Faurisson pointed out the absurdity, on otto´s part, to choose his own office as a hiding place - just the very first place that is, where the nazis would have gone looking for him after not finding him at home.

The whole diary, its hiding framework, is a lie . But it wasn´t made up out of whole cloth : the basic story might as well be true - except that they really did all those apparently absurd things because they were not hiding !!

One might rightly ask at this point, why did the franks move out of merwedeplein and into prinsen on july 6, 1942, if indeed they were exempt from deportation : the reason is, merwedeplein was a very jewish area of amsterdam, and by july 1942, the persecution of jews by the nazis had gotten tough - merwedeplein was a potential raid area, and the franks did not wish to get caught in possible fighting or other violence - antijewish raids had occurred in amsterdam in february and june 1942 already - and would resume in mid-july, a few days after otto´s prescient move out of the heavily jewish river quarter.

When Faurisson confronted otto frank himself, at the latter´s swiss home, with all the diary´s absurdities in march 1977, the latter stayed silent on the main sticking points , and eventually he admitted to having duped the diary´s readers and the visitors to the anne frank museum by stating :

For a change, mr frank told the truth here : most people are easily dupable, they are in good faith, so why not deceive them ? They do not ask questions, they are not philosophers, they are believers so why not make up a good story for them ? Especially if it makes us a hell of a lot of money , and attracts worldwide sympathy to our rotten criminal zionazi cause.


Well, at this point one might object here, if what the diary says happened for real, except for the hiding part, than maybe anne did indeed write it herself, without fear as she and her family were exempt from deportation thanks to her dad´s WW1 iron cross and to his firm´s status as war-relevant, and maybe all otto did after the war was interpolate the fake hiding framework into the diary, and give it some literary polish by plagiarizing T and G - with a little help from his literati friends anneliese schütz and ab cauvern.

Well, I tend to think that anne frank did not write much of her diary - but for the photo captions in what was originally intended as a photo album, and a few of the silliest and more childish entries in the block hand - which were rewritten as well by otto and his gang of thugs. Reasons why : anne frank according to all available testimony known to me, was not introverted or shy - she was not the type of kid who usually writes a diary. She was impatient, mediocre as a pupil, very extroverted - not your average diary-writing type. Then there is the thing with the different hands at work in the diary´s manuscripts, whereof no complete facsimile has been published so far by the zionazis who own them. They did make 2 - but did not publish them and do grant access to them only to what they term legitimate researchers - i.e. prozionazi mainstream historians and writers. No wonder...They sure got something to hide. And then there are the skilled literary robberies from T, G and other classical german literature - professional knockoff, not the thing of a scatter-brained, shallow and spoiled 13-year-old.


Faurisson shows in his essay how the various editions of the diary in various languages differ remarkably, to the point of being different edits, and it would be very interesting to compare all of these editions , starting with the first dutch edition of 1947, which I haven´t tracked down so far, and the first german edition of 1950, and the first english-language edition of 1952.

F features a c section with the german translation by anneliese schütz, who was responsible for the 1950 german edition but : it is the june 1988 fischer edition : is it identical to the 1950 lambert schneider edition ? F itself answers no on p.85 : : as you see, the so-called diary of anne frank really is a work in progress, constantly being tampered with and adapted to different tastes, peoples and cultures and times . I do not possess as yet all of these historical editions, but clearly, by zionazi admission, they are not one and the same book.


Otto Frank was a crook, a fraudster, a collaborator.

The reason given in the lying diary for the moving of the frank family out of merwedeplein and into prinsen is, that margot, anne´s 16-year-old sister, had received on sunday, july 5, 1942 a summons from the germans for compulsory work in germany ( F 248 and 250 ) : but the historical summonses sent out by the germans to amsterdam jews starting on july 4, 1942 , only targeted the 18-40 age group - according to Dr. Katja Happe of münster university, here :


Here is the relevant passage :

>>>> :


So much for the truthfulness of the so-called diary of anne frank ? Only IF the author of the article above, Katja Happe , is right . She does not source her statement. I tried to contact her at her münster uni email address, but I got a failed delivery notice.Another author, dutch jew j. presser, ondergang: de vervolging en verdelging van het nederlandse jodendom 1940-1945 (1965), p. 247, states it was the age group 16-40 instead: but presser too fails to provide primary documentary sources for his statement.

What does appear to be well attested to by primary documentary evidence, is that many from among the jews who had been summoned by the aufrufe/oproepingen of early july, 1942, did not show up at centraal station on july 15 or 14, the given summons date. Expecting this, the germans had already raided jewish neighborhoods in amsterdam and arrested hostages, in order to force the summons shirkers to show up. When finally deportations to westerbork and then on to auschwitz got underway on july 15, a transport list reproduced in raymund schütz´s masterscriptie ( see below ) from july 25, 1942 does include youth under 18 and at least one 16-year-old girl:


click on download, then go to p.38.

But there is no telling from this list, whether these teenage girls had complied with the same summons margot allegedly received july 5, or had been arrested in one of the german raids meant to fulfill their quota of 4000 deported jews to begin with.

However this thing may be, whether or not margot betti frank did receive one of those first of 4000 oproepingen on july 5, 1942, certainly the situation for jews in holland had become very scary and dangerous by then , and many did plausibly go under in that july of 1942 in amsterdam. Aufruf or not, deportation wind had been blowing hard since late june, and that was more than reason enough to go into hiding by the time the franks allegedly did.

German raids for jews to deport had hit the merwedeplein neighborhood hard by mid-july - reason enough for the franks to preemptively move to prinsen and go into hiding july 6 as the diary states, as otto must have sensed the danger of upcoming deportations weeks in advance, for antijewish measures in holland had taken a turn for the worse in may/june 1942 already. And nazi raids for jews had already taken place in february and june.

But still - the alleged hiding takes place under the oddest of circumstances.

And then again : margot´s oproeping has not survived or has not been published, therefore I cannot be mathematically sure that she did receive that oproeping on july 5, 1942 as the diary states.

I must leave this point in abeyance for now, as I have no conclusive, primary documents showing that the oproepingen delivered by july 5, 1942 in amsterdam also targeted 16-year-old female jews.

IF happe is right and not presser, not only did margot frank, only 16 on july 5, 1942, never receive that summons the diary may be lying about ; but the franks would not be deported at all or receive any summons for deportation or be harassed in any way by other antijewish measures through june 30, 1944 : because otto frank was exempt from deportation due to his WW1- veteran decoration, the iron cross first class ( this category of jews ended up being deported too in the last years of WW2, but to VIP camp theresienstadt ; in the first years of the war, the nazis left iron crosses in peace , this being a well documented practice) ; and because he worked for a certified war-relevant company, opekta, whose jews were exempt from deportation because opekta made business with the wehrmacht - in other words, otto frank was a collaborator and war-profiteer. Somehow the procedure for aryanization of opekta amsterdam was not completed until july 1, 1944.

It was only after that date, that the franks were indeed finally summoned for deportation - july 1944, not july 1942. In the summer of 1944, the germans started deporting jewish iron crosses too.

And then - again, the absurd details of the alleged moving from merwedeplein to prinsen, as Faurisson had already pointed out in 1978 :

in the sept.28, 1942 entry (a) (F267) of the diary, we read : >>>>>>>>>>> : such measures are known to have been valid since may/ june/early july, 1942 : and yet when on july 6, margot moves from merwedeplein to prinsengracht, she does so on her bike !!! ( july 8, 1942 diary entry, a, F 251 ). MG confirms the confiscation of jewish bikes in june 1942 on p. 84. And that margot moved by her bike on p.87.

Not only, but margot wasn´t even wearing the compulsory yellow star !!! (ibid.).

Now imagine this : you are a jew, going into hiding, dodging a summons to work in germany, the city is full of german soldiers and cops, but you take the triple risk at once of dodging your aufruf, riding a forbidden bike and not wearing your yellow star !!!

MG states it was pouring rain, so no police was around...A ludicrous pseudoexplanation.

Furthermore, on july 6 margot wasn´t dodging a damn thing yet, as the appointment given by the summons was for the 15th (see oproeping reproduced on AFH 38) : so why risk breaking the law by riding a bike and doing without the jewish star ? This would have been suicidal, as there was no real hurry to move at all on july 6 !!!


Actually, there do exist 2 (yes, only 2 !!! ) facsimiles of everything anne frank allegedly wrote :


But they are only made available to court historians :


Interesting details can be gleaned from the description of the work process that led to these 2 facsimiles in the link above :

>>>>>>>>>>> :

didn´t I tell you that this first diary manuscript, the famous checkered diary, the one she received for her 13th birthday on june 12, 1942, was in fact a photo album and not a diary proper ? Furthermore, as you can see in the photo repro above of this first 2 diary pages, the photo is not glued - it is inserted in 4 photo corners, encased just like in a photo album !

This additional quote from the zio link above confirms the diary´s original nature as a photo album :

>>>>>>>>> :

where else would you find photo corners ? where else would you enclose the kinds of memorabilia here above ?


I should like to begin now with a one-by-one examination of the characters in the anne frank saga, starting with one of the so-called helpers, a fellow victor kugler . Some basic (dis)information about him can be found at the following zionazi link :


The photo there shows kugler with a hitler moustache, and must date from the time of the nazi occupation...mm...

I am the fortunate possessor of a rare book, a book whose publishing otto frank did his damnest to delay and suppress, et pour cause :







Henceforth, K.

The reason why otto tried , and succeeded during his lifetime, to prevent this book being published, is simply that it is 49% sincere and truthful, blowing up in one fell swoop the entire hiding myth. And along with it, the entire anne frank myth.

On august 4, 1944, reportedly, the nazis raided the annex and proceeded to arrest anne frank, otto, margot, edith, auguste van pels, hermann van pels, peter van pels, fritz pfeffer, johannes kleiman and victor kugler.

But - what a strange arrest it was : german bureaucratic efficiency and prissiness notwithstanding, there is no written record of this alleged arrest whatsoever, neither in amsterdam nor in berlin nor anywhere else where such documents are kept today.

There is no record whatsoever of the alleged police informer who allegedly betrayed the 8 jews and their 2 christian helpers.

There is no plausible explanation as to why additional helpers such as secretary miep gies, her husband jan and secretary bep voskuijl were not arrested alongside the others.

As for victor kugler specifically, there is no record whatsoever of his alleged detention at :

- euterpestr. (gestapo)

- amstelveenseweg (jailhouse)

- weteringschans (jailhouse )

- zwolle (work camp)

- wageningen (work camp)

To my utter astonishment, I haven´t found a single record for the very existence of german work camps or forced labor camps or any kind of camps at either zwolle or wageningen !!!

In the book, based on a series of interviews with kugler conducted by eda shapiro in canada between 1969 and 1973, compiled and edited by irving naftolin and rick kardonne, kugler naively gives a mostly positive account of his alleged detention and alleged forced labor following his alleged arrest on aug.4, 1944. He was 44 at the time, and the nazis assigned him, for the most part, to exactly the kinds of jobs he had professional training and experience for : machine fitting ; office management. Nothing that would kill you. And none of the hardship that was usually meted out by the nazis to real jew helpers, whose fate was really dire.

That is because in reality, these so-called helpers were a bunch of dirty collaborators, just like their boss otto frank, who did business with the wehrmacht thoughout the war and even employed NSB members in his firms !! These tasks kugler went on to perform starting august (or more likely july, see below) 1944, had nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged arrest that never happened at all. They were the consequence of an aufruf or summons of the sort nazis had been sending out to both jews and christians in the netherlands and the rest of occupied europe since at least 1942, as germany got increasingly desperate for manpower to replace the soldiers at the fronts and their losses, plus civilian losses due to increasing allied air raids.

M 330 states that kugler received a first summons to work service by the nazis in march 1944, which he was able to put on hold by submitting a medical certificate. This first summons is mentioned in the diary too, march 16, 1944 entry, (b) , described as kugler being summoned to dig for 6 days : another one of the jobs kugler relates he had to perform at zwolle in late 1944, but in very mild conditions. This digging most likely had to do with tank traps or defense lines against the advancing allied forces in holland.

In mid-june 1944, kugler received a second summons, which this time around, he likely had to comply with, probably starting in july as these summonses always gave the addressees circa 10 days´ early notice. Kugler from this point on, vanishes from anne´s diary´s radar screen, never to be heard of again. The fake arrest story of august 4, 1944 was just a cover-up for kugler having to comply with his second summons of mid-june, 1944. He probably left in early july. This was not a punishment or an arrest. It was compulsory work service, but kugler remained a free man. Civil conscription if you will, like a civil soldier. But no arrest as a jew helper at all. Kugler hadn´t helped jews to hide because his jews had never hidden at all. And : the germans paid for the arbeitseinsatz ! And paid top money - more on this later. Even Primo Levi attests to being entitled to pay at auschwitz - though he never could collect his wages as time ran short.

The source for kugler having trained and worked as a machine fitter is M 330 : in the early 20ies, kugler, an austrian, had had a first stint in holland as machine fitter for german firm deutschen maschinenfabrik ag (demag). He would then marry a dutch woman and stay in holland. K 58f. states that 1 month after his alleged arrest, on sept. 4, 1944 he was put to dismantling machines for shipment to germany.

But that only lasted 3 days !!

Now : allegedly, kugler had been arrested on aug.4 : what happened to him in the first 4 weeks of alleged detention ?

K 54f. states he was first brought to euterpestr., gestapo headquarters, where he was interrogated by his arrester silberbauer, who, upon learning kugler was a fellow austrian and had served in the austrian navy in WW1, cut the interrogation short. No torture. No harshness. A pleasant get-together with a countryman.

Thereafter, on the same day of the arrest, kugler was allegedly transferred to a prison on the amstelveensweg. There it got a little tougher, he says in K 55, as they crowded 6 prisoners into cells meant for 1. A few weeks later, he passed a second silberbauer interrogation, again a short one.

After which he was moved to another prison where he : clean sheets, blankets, electric light, pillow. Allegedly it was a death row cell. The name of this jailhouse is not mentioned. A guard told him he had been put in there by mistake, and out he was again into a crowded cell.

No record whatsoever of any of this has survived. But we do get the overall impression that kugler didn´t fare bad at all for a jew helper.


Here is a difficult german word for you to learn, it means jew-helping : a crime in nazi germany, though not precisely as a general category,whose punishment was way heavier than anything kugler ever had to go through : let us take a look at a few known examples : from wiki :

Ella Lingens wurde zunächst vier Monate im Gestapo-Gefängnis in Wien eingesperrt und wiederholt verhört. Im Februar 1943 wurde sie, wie auch Karl Motesiczky, der mit dem Paar an der Rettung von Wiener Juden beteiligt gewesen war, in das KZ Auschwitz deportiert.[...] Doch auch für Lingens war Auschwitz die „Hölle“. Im April 1943 erkrankte sie an Flecktyphus und überlebte nur knapp. Motesiczky starb dort am 25. Juni 1943. > :

Now, if kugler´s treatment even vaguely resembles any of this hell to you... All that alleged jew-helper kugler had to endure during the first 4 weeks of his alleged detention, was 2 cozy encounters with fellow countryman silberbauer, plus 3 days of high-skill labor in an amsterdam factory !! And noone deported him to either germany or worse, poland. But it would get much better for mr kugler, in his own words.

After work at the plant, he was brought to concentration camp amersfoort, holland, where the worst thing that happened to him was having to stand at attention a few hours. The clothing the nazis gave him . He was put to work in the straw braider´s shop !!! Now, if THAT is hard work or forced labor to you...And by the way, kugler had a background as a trained weaver too :

: http://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/all-people/victor-kugler/

Therefore again, as in the previous machine-fitting assignment, kugler was put to just the kind of skilled, not-so-heavy labor he had trained for and acquired experience at in his teens and youth. Something he mastered, and most of all, something he could endure without problems. No auschwitz, no typhus epidemics, no hard labor.

Some time in late september 1944, he was transferred to another, alleged dutch camp, zwolle, where , in his own words , !!! [ K68 ]. Again : I haven´t been able to find so far any record for the existence of a nazi camp at zwolle. Kugler himself states on K 68 that, upon arrival at zwolle, they were taken to a former movie theater wich was to be their quarters. This was no camp proper at all.

This is where he was put to digging tank traps, but also assembling bycicles !!! !!! !!! And this was supposed to be nazi forced labor for a jew helper !!! Even the red cross made sure the workers slept on fresh straw, a clean and disinfected floor, and gave them warm cotton covers - , in his own words !!! [K69].

Now this was the infamous " hunger winter " 44/45, when most urban dutch were starving !!!

At the end of december, 1944, kugler was tranferred again, this time to yet another alleged forced labor camp in holland, wageningen, of whose very existence again, I have found not a trace so far. Where things got even better : he was [K 71] !!! This man won the lottery 3 or 4 times !!! He became the errand boy for the german commander, and also worked at the office. He was given a bycicle, cigarettes. He took over charge of the office.

But it is on K 72 that kugler makes the most extraordinary of revelations : that for his alleged forced labor at zwolle, 3 and a half months, he and his fellow alleged prisoners had gotten paid !!! And he specifies how much : 5 dutch guilders a day, 7,5 on sundays : which in 2015 money, would be some 30 euros a day, 45 on sundays, for a grand total of almost 1000 euros a month, most likely after-tax !!! A figure most greeks, italians, spanish and portuguese can only dream of as of this writing 74 years later ( february 2018 ) !!!! This is supposed to be what you got from nazi germany for helping jews - wonder how come everybody in occupied europe was doing anything else than help jews, so they could get caught and sent to fit bykes or braid straw or snuff paperwork for 1000 a month !!!

Kugler is lying : he never was arrested for helping jews or any other crime : he complied with his mid-june summons for compulsory work for the reich - paid work, well-paid work for free men that millions in occupied and nonoccupied europe applied for voluntarily, or were summoned to perform, during WW2 - one notable example being eric marco from spain. Arbeitseinsatz. Raymund shütz cited above, states there were 3 groups of deportees : normaltransport ( those who had received an aufruf via mail and complied with it ) ; häftlinge ( prisoners : those who had dodged the summons and gone under or committed any other crime and been arrested ) ; and freiwillige - volunteers !!! And this applied to both jews and nonjews.

No forced labor, no enslavement at all !!! Illegal migrants in italy´s tomato fields of 2018 are paid 24 euros a day for 12-hour workdays !!! No facilities, no papers, nothing !!!

And kugler would have us believe he was being treated like royalty and paid 30 to 45 euros a day as a punishment for the grave crime of judenbegünstigung !!! Get out of here.

And since he was at it, he happily took part in the plundering of abandoned dutch homes in wageningen, which was a tobacco-growing district, so that he ended up living large in his office while puffing on big cigars !!! And throughout this alleged ordeal for having helped jews, kugler was allowed to see his wife visiting him every 2 weeks !!! A big cigar and a shag with your wife, not bad a punishment for helping jews right ?!!!!! [K79].


Take a good look at this memorial plaque on the curb in front of schönhauser allee 31, berlin :



this is what nazis did to you for hiding a jew : lethal gestapo jail, lethal forced labor, 1 and a half years of hell later she was dead. Dead. At age 21. This is what really happened to you for hiding jews in the third reich, if you got arrested for real - unlike victor kugler. The jewish hospital in berlin wedding by the way, starting in late 1942 had been turned by the nazis, for the most part, into a hellish concentration camp for jews awating deportation, and for political prisoners such as poor Gisela.

Such were the real helpers, who deserve to be honored - not that fake of a victor kugler. Nor his boss, nazi jew otto frank.

Here is one last example of real jew helper and his real dire fate :

Franz Kaufmann, jurist, from wiki :



Fuck you victor kugler, you liar and cheat.


Over the decades, as many took their turns in questioning the diary´s authenticity and the truthfulness of its content, and of the entire anne frank story, otto and his gang of zionazis, and their heirs since 1980 when otto died, have come up with alleged evidence for the official version of events.

The only document ever produced for kugler´s alleged forced labor stints, is reproduced on AFH 193, pic 5 : it is, purportedly, kugler´s amersfoort registration card.

The first oddity we encounter on it, is the spelling of kugler´s birthplace : Hohe Elbe instead of the correct Hohenelbe. Thing is, both towns exist ! They are today in the czech republic, near the austrian border. So where the hell was kugler born : in Hohe Elbe (today Labe) as written on his amersfoort card ; or in Hohenelbe ? ( today Vrchlabí ) , as spelt for instance here :


K 25, reportedly based on interviews with kugler himself, also has Vrchlabí, formerly Hohenelbe.

So why did the amersfoort clerk write Hohe Elbe instead of Hohenelbe ? The 2 towns are different and far apart. Is this a clerical mistake, or is this a forger´s mistake ? The amersfoort clerk must have copied the birthplace spelling from kugler´s ID. The forger instead, may have acted from memory...

The second oddity on this purported amersfoort registration card for mr kugler is, his religion : the card bears : " Kath.". But on K 61, kugler is quoted as stating : >I AM A RELIGIOUS MAN, LUTHERAN, AND DURING THE DARK DAYS I SPENT IN VARIOUS PRISONS, CONCENTRATION AND WORK CAMPS, I WAS GREATLY SUSTAINED BY MY FAITH. > !!!!!!

Clearly the card´s forger here, knowing that kugler was of austrian origin, just assumed he was a catholic like most austrians, and wrote down so in the fake card. And while the previous blunder hohe elbe for hohenelbe might be attributable to clerical oversight, writing catholic for a lutheran just simply can´t.

CAL 41 states that kugler was a baptized catholic and attended a catholic school. But she gives no sourcing for her allegation. Nor does she show awareness of K 61.


We must now examine what nazi law did to jew helpers, and compare it with what happened or is alleged to have happened to victor kugler. Let us begin by this source :


Es gab zwar keine gesetzliche Bestimmung, die eine Hilfeleistung für Juden ausdrücklich verbot. Kurz nach der Einführung des Judensterns erging jedoch am 24. Oktober 1941 ein Runderlass des Reichssicherheitshauptamtes (RSHA), der denjenigen „deutschblütigen Bürgern“ eine „Schutzhaft“ von drei Monaten androhte, die „in der Öffentlichkeit freundschaftliche Beziehungen zu Juden“ erkennen ließen. [...] Jeder Unterstützer, der mit Lebensmitteln half, musste mit der Einlieferung ins Konzentrationslager rechnen. Wer Unterschlupf gewährt hatte, wurde wegen „verbotswidrigen Umgangs mit Juden“ festgenommen und von der Gestapo verhört. Oftmals wurde der Vorgang wegen weiterer Delikte wie Urkundenfälschung, Rundfunkverbrechen, Verstöße gegen die Kriegswirtschaftsverordnung oder wegen Devisenvergehen an die Staatsanwaltschaft übergeben. Haftstrafen von mehr als 24 Monaten wurden selten ausgesprochen, wenn nicht zusätzlich Anklagepunkte nach der Volksschädlingsverordnung oder wegen Hochverrats hinzukamen.

Im Gegensatz zu Polen mussten „Judenretter“ im Deutschen Reich nicht mit einer Todesstrafe rechnen. Aber schon die Haft in einem Konzentrationslager war mit unabsehbaren Folgen für Gesundheit und Leben verbunden. Die darüber hinaus zu erwartende Strafe blieb unberechenbar, dadurch wurde das „subjektive Gefühl der Angst in einer Atmosphäre totaler Rechtsunsicherheit“ vermittelt, das eine abschreckende Wirkung besaß. >>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Punishment of helpers

There was, to be sure, no legal determination, that expressedly forbade helping jews. This notwithstanding, shortly after the introduction od the jewish star, a circular note was emanated by the Reich Main Security Office (Reichssichereitshauptamt, short RSHA ), that threatened those " citizens of german blood " who " displayed friendly relations with jews in public " with 3 months of preventive detention >>>>>>>>>>>> :

now , this is not at all what happened to kugler. First of all, according to his amersfoort registration card, kugler was no german citizen at all at the time : the card says his nationality was dutch.

Second, even though he did have german blood as a sudeten german in the ethnic sense, noone could have accused him on aug. 4, 1944 of displaying friendly relations with jews in public - if that is, the franks and the van pelses really never went out of the opekta building.

Thirdly, the sentence he received was not 3 months : according to K and to the official story, he was detained in several concentration and work camps from august 4, 1944 to march 1945, when he managed to escape by sheer luck : that makes a whopping 8 months of internment.

>>>>>>>>> :

now if I am not mistaken, nowhere in the diary does it say that kugler helped the annex jews with food : it was others who dealt with the food supplies : sales reps daatselaar, martin brouwer took care of the extra foodstamps and food coupons on the black market ; miep and bep went shopping ; a certain greengrocer and a certain baker also delivered their goods to prinsen 263.

Therefore kugler could not have been arrested over food help. His only direct instance of feeding the jews in the annex that I remember, was presenting edith frank with some extra sugar and a cake once for her birthday ! ( F , jan. 19, 1944 entry, a, F527 ; jan. 15, 1944 entry, a, F 525 ).

Why on earth was kugler arrested then, IF indeed he was arrested at all ?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> : now this is the official reason why kugler was allegedly arrested alongside his jews, on that august 4, 1944. But : opekta was not kugler´s home. He never sheltered jews in his house. So in what precise way could he be accused of sheltering jews in the annex ?

K 45 states, in the vaguest of manners, that kugler had been appointed owner of otto frank´s business. Kugler himself confirms this on K 40. Not quite true .

According to M 435, opekta, one of 2 otto frank firms in amsterdam, was aryanized on april 1, 1944, or officially certified as aryanized, as a branch of the aryanized pomosin-werke in frankfurt. But this april 1 date must be a mistake, as M 200 itself gives another date : july 1, 1944. In either case, kugler had never owned opekta at all, or been in any way legally responsible for it, because until the nazis completed the aryanization process for opekta amsterdam, otto frank had remained in charge. Therefore, at least until july 1, 1944, nobody could have accused kugler of sheltering jews in a corporate building that did not belong to him and of which he was not even the general manager or director. F 17 states that NIOD ( the infamous dutch institute for WW2 documentation) possesses a document , a copy of a letter from the german wirtschaftsprüfstelle ( agency for the control of the economy, the nazi office in charge of aryanizations ) to opekta amsterdam of july 1, 1944 communicating the approval for the stepping down of jewish director otto frank dating from december 1941 : in other words, whatever the mysterious reason, it took the nazis 2 and a half whole years to aryanize opekta amsterdam - a period in which otto remained in charge. Therefore kugler had not owned this particular otto business, opekta amsterdam, at all during the alleged hiding (1942-1944).

And if the new owner starting july 1, 1944 was pomosin werke frankfurt, then how could kugler possibly be held responsible for hiding jews inside a corporation that did not belong to him ?

The building itself belonged to jewish entrepreneur wessels as we saw above - who never was arrested over sheltering jews. We might speculate, that after otto´s firing on july 1, 1944, pomosin appointed kugler opekta director on its behalf - but there is not the slightest evidence as to such a possibility. Actually, we have evidence to the contrary, enabling us to rule out a directing role in opekta for kugler even after july 1, 1944 : as I said, opekta was only officially aryanized on july 1, 1944 : this meant that on that day, the german agency responsible for such things, approved of an application made by otto himself in december 1941, to self-aryanize opekta amsterdam: otto would step down as director, and johannes kleiman, a christian dutch employee of otto´s, would be appointed as director in his stead [source: F 16]. And this is just what the wirtschaftsprüfstelle certified on july 1, 1944 : the self-firing of otto frank from opekta and the appointment of johannes kleiman in his place. Starting july 1, 1944, opekta´s director was kleiman, not kugler : grounds for arresting kleiman on august 4, had the jews really been hiding in there - but no grounds for arresting kugler who was not responsible or in charge of opekta in that building as of august 4, 1944 - the day of the alleged arrest of the 8 allegedly hiding jews.

Otto had another firm , originally called pectacon, also headquartered at prinsengracht 263, and which had been aryanized or schein-aryanized much earlier, actually liquidated on may 7, 1943 [F 15] but promptly transmogrified into gies&co., a smokescreen company officially created as early as may 8, 1941 [F 13] whose straw-owners for otto frank were his christian colleagues and friends jan gies, johannes kleiman and antonius dunselman [M 196f. + F 14f.].

Admittedly, the role kugler played as otto´s strawman for pectacon is not to be gleaned with absolute certainty from F 11ff., the only detailed narration of otto´s economic vicissitudes during WW2. The nazis wanted to de-judaize the economy. On october 22, 1940 they issued an order for dutch firms to report with the occupiers if their capital was more than 25% jewish. The next day, otto went to a notary in hilversum, the town near amsterdam where kugler lived, and founded a new firm, la synthese ag : kugler became its director, jan gies its board member, and both of them became the sole (fictitious) shareholders [F 11 and 13]. This way, the company was 100% aryan because both kugler and gies were christians. Obviously they were just strawmen for otto frank. All of this happened fast, october 23, 1940. On may 8, 1941 la synthese changed its name to gies&co.

This company for the time being existed only on paper, ready to be revitalized in case opekta and pectacon would have to cease to exist. In march 1941 the nazis ordered jewish-owned companies to report any changes made in the meantime to their ownership structure. In other words, it was time to aryanize. On april 4, 1941, pectacon was schein-aryanized : otto frank resigned as its director and owner : he sold his majority shares to kleiman and dunselman, his christian friends and right arms. Kleiman was appointed director of pectacon, dunselman board member.

The nazis smelled a rat and on july 22, 1941, ordered for pectacon to be liquidated. As liquidator of these fake-aryanized jewish firms including pectacon, a fellow wolters, a dutch nazi lawyer, was appointed by the germans : surprisingly, he acted more in favor of the jewish owners than against them: he gave otto 10 days to prepare for the liquidation of pectacon. Otto wasted no time and sold all the merchandise and the machines owned by pectacon, to gies&co., for a ludicrous, symbolic minimum price of course. On may 7, 1943 pecatcon was officially closed out - only to continue business as usual under the name gies&co.

Therefore it is possible that, by august 4, 1944, kugler was still straw director/coowner of gies&co. alongside jan gies - and since gies&co.´s address was prinsengracht 263, then kugler was liable to be held co-responsible for hiding the 8 jews in the annex there, and may have been arrested over it, alongside kleiman as director of opekta. But if so, then why wasn´t jan gies, the other straw-director/co-owner of gies&co., arrested as well ?? The answer to this conundrum provided by jan gies´s wife and otto´s secretary miep gies is ludicrous and worthy of the romance novel that most of the anne frank myth really is : because franks arrester silberbauer was from wien, miep, herself from wien, socialized with him in their native dialect and he let her and her husband off the hook because she was so nice !!!

Always bear in mind that opekta was a german company based in köln that had been certified by the nazis as kriegswichtig or war-relevant in february 1943 - and that war-relevant status exempted jews from deportation. That is why the franks eventually became liable to deportation on july 1, 1944, when the aryanization of opekta amsterdam was completed and otto frank lost his job that had sheltered him legally from deportation until then. There was no arrest on aug. 4 at all- on that day, the franks most likely only complied with a deportation order they had received after july 1, and had to report at westerbork concentration camp.

Summing it all up : IF kugler really was arrested on aug. 4, 1944, and didn´t instead just comply with a summons for compulsory work for the reich he had received in mid-june, as the diary itself attests to, then kugler was NOT reapeat NOT arrested for sheltering jews because prinsengracht 263 with its annex were not his home and he had no leading role in there at all, except for a possible co-directorship/ownership of gies&co. alongside jan gies - who was not arrested at all on august 4, 1944 !!

M 341 states, that anna ans broks became pro-forma director of gies&co. in may 1944 : again another proof, that kugler never played any leading role in either of otto´s firms in there.

There is no paper trail whatsoever for such a massive raid leading to the arrest of 8 hiding jews and 2 of their christian helpers : 10 people arrested and no paper trail at all - more on this later.

IF kugler was indeed arrested on that day, then it was for reasons other than jüdenbegünstigung - such as dodging his summons for compulsory work for the reich possibly. Or whatever. Or something like the crimes listed in the nazi circular cited above :

>>>>>>>>>>>> : it is indeed possible that kugler was arrested for forging documents, something he admits to in K 47 :


Another one of these fake names kugler assumed was johannes kuinders , reportedly after march 1945 when he escaped from german detention [ AFH 193 ]. Yet another was harry kraler, the pseudonym anne had allegedly chosen for him in her diary.

But I rather think that kugler assumed false names after, not before liberation - in order to conceal his collaboration with the occupiers, and his german roots, from the dutch and the allies thirstying for revenge and hunting down collaborators after war´s end.

Let us return for a moment to kugler´s purported amersfoort registration card on AFH 193, pic.5 : under the heading grund - reason (for the arrest and transfer to amersfoort we are to assume ) we read :


Now the funny thing here is, this part was a self-certification of sorts : K 63, kugler´s own words :

>>>>>>>>>>> :

now riddle me this : you are arrested for helping jews; you are taken to a police camp ; but the uniformed girls who register you have no idea what you are doing there !!! You might as well have answered : " I am here by mistake, please proceed to release me immediately " !!! Is it possible that the cops or SS or whoever brought you there, didn´t have any papers to pass on to the local offices, with each prisoner´s data and crime written on them ?? What kind of a self-service gestapo camp was this ?

Another very odd aspect of this alleged registration card here, is the heading " Detention ordered on...by...(when and by what authority ) :

it is completely left blank !!!

Again : judenbegünstigung as such, was no crime in the nazi code of law. None.

>>>>>>>>>>>> :

if sheltering hidden jews really had been kugler´s crime as we saw above, then the amersfoort clerk would have written : Grund : forbidden contact with jews .

There was no such thing as a crime or charge legally called judenbegünstigung.

Kugler was indeed sincere at least for this half of the truth : he had made up the judenbegünstigung charge himself, from a script given him by otto frank and his zionazi thugs, hell-bent like kugler himself, on whitewashing their nazi past during WW2.

Victor kugler´s amersfoort registration card has either been tampered with after the war - or is an outright forgery.


The last chapter of kugler´s fantastic retelling of his alleged forced labor months, as per K, has it that he escaped by luck, after british spitfires attacked the german column escorting him among other prisoners to forced labor in germany [K 77f.]. Nice escape, he even had a bike so he didn´t have to walk !! It was only about 70 km as the crow flies from zevenaar, the last village his column had reached, to his home in hilversum... if any of the things he stated in K is true.

Summing it all up, kugler never had to go too far from home during his happy months of alleged forced labor payed today´s equivalent of 1000 euros a month :

from august 4, 1944, for the first 4 weeks or so he remained in amsterdam ;

in september, he was transferred to amersfoort - only 27 km from hilversum where he lived ;

from the end of september through december 30 : zwolle, only 86 km from hilversum ;

until late march, 1945, wageningen, only 60 km from hilversum...

On K 78, descibing the end of his alleged ordeal, kugler states he was happy to see his wife again after so many months of detention - when in fact, on the next page of the book, it is reported that on evelyn wolfe´s tape, he said his wife had been allowed to visit him every two weeks !!! [ Evelyn wolfe was a prominent toronto canada jewess who knew kugler ; the latter had emigrated to canada after WW2 , K 7 ]. No other jew helper that I know of fared better than victor kugler - when his fate is compared to that of the average arrested jew helper in the third reich, victor kugler had a ball !!!

And that is most likely not because he was so "lucky" as he stated, but instead, because he never was arrested at all but only complied with his mid-june summons for compulsory work for the reich - well-paid work for a free man !!!

Kugler´s cover-up fairy tale sounds very different in the version according to miep gies on MG 213f. : if on K 77, kugler dates his miraculous escape to late march, 1945 (early spring ), MG 213 states instead, he had spent the whole winter 44/45 in his own home, supported by his wife !!!

If MG 213 states he was supported by his wife after his return home, K 78 states instead he found his wife so ill she could not be left alone !!!

Who on earth would escape from the nazis only to seek shelter in his own house - the first address the nazis would have come looking for him at ???? Same absurdity as otto frank hiding in his own firm - first place the nazis would have turned inside out to find him !!!

If K 77 tells us his column was attacked by british spitfires, on MG 214 these are transmogrified into american fighter jets !!! - Probably just because K was originally intended for publication in canada, a commonweath nation, whereas MG was more US-market- oriented...

If K 77 tells us kugler escaped in the confusion with a friend, on MG 214 he escapes alone !!!

If K 63 states kugler was given civilian working clothes at amersfoort, MG 214 has it that kugler wore prison clothes !!!

If kugler on K 77 already has with him a bike when he leaves wageningen for the forced march to germany, and holds on to his bike in the confusion after the spitfire attack, MG 214 has it that he had no bike whatsoever up to the plane attack, but got him one in a bike shop after the attack !!!

If kugler escapes a few days after the middle of march 1945, that is at the start of spring on K 77, on MG 214 he happily rides his new bike home where his wife hides him throughout the hunger winter 44/45 !!!!!

Clearly this miraculous escape tale in 2 contradictory versions is nothing but disinformation, mythmaking, to conceal the truth that kugler never was arrested at all but only complied with the standard german order for compulsory work for the reich, desperate for manpower in the final stages of the losing war. The miraculous escape under spitfire attack never happened at all.


Again in brief : the alleged arrest of anne frank, her father otto, her mother edith frank - holländer, her sister margot, hermann van pels, auguste van pels-roettgen, peter van pels, fritz pfeffer ( the 8 allegedly hiding jews in the annex ) and their christian helpers johannes kleiman and victor kugler on august 4, 1944 never happened at all : it is a completely fabricated event.

Kugler and kleiman in the summer of 44 complied with summonses from the nazis to compulsory work for the reich - summonses attested to in anne frank´s diary for kugler twice, the second time for mid-june 1944 - after which kugler drops off the diary´s radar screen for good.

The 8 jews lost their exemption from deportation on july 1, 1944, when their main company opekta was officially aryanized and its jews officially fired. Opekta was a war-relevant company, a status sheltering its jews from deportation up to that point.

Otto had a second exemption as a WW1 iron-cross-holding vet : but in the summer of 1944, jewish iron crosses started being deported as well, albeit to VIP camp theresienstadt and not to auschwitz - more on this other conundrum later.

One might object, that maybe the 8 jews hid at least from july 1 to aug.4 - but no, it would have made no sense for them : they had been a bunch of dirty collaborators AND WAR PROFITEERS up to that point. After overlord ( the allied landing in normandy, june 1944 ) the liberation of holland was delusionally perceived in amsterdam as being a matter of weeks if not days. And if the jews had remained in their collaborating company´s annex, they would have risked lynching at liberation, at the hands of dutch partisans or allied avengers, or execution by restored dutch national authorities. The best option for the jews was to comply with the german summonses that certainly followed aryanization on july 1, 1944 : the order to report at centraal station for the transfer to westerbork, the main concentration and transit camp for dutch jews awaiting deportation. They were much safer there, and if the liberators had found them there, they could have passed themselves off as victims rather then the perpetrators they had been throughout the war. Ditto for kleiman and kugler in their own german work camps.

On the other hand, for argument´s sake, had otto and his jews decided to go underground after july 1, 1944, they most certainly, again, would not have chosen otto´s firms´ premises as their hiding place - because it was the first place the nazis would have turned inside out looking for them. Therefore we may be reasonably certain that the 8 alleged hiders never hid - until july 1, 1944, because they were exempt from deportation. Thereafter, because it would have made no sense for them to go into hiding at that point anyway. And if they had indeed decided to go underground, they would have chosen a much safer place, since they had such good helpers : miep´s house, kugler´s house, kleiman´s , dunselman´s , etc.

Jews who did go under for real during WW2, never hid together, they always separated, 2 in one place at the most, in order not to be too visible and not to get caught together if discovered.

The first author to my knowledge who discovered that otto frank was a collaborator and a war profiteer, was carol ann lee, in her book THE HIDDEN LIFE OF OTTO FRANK, henceforth CAL, harper perennial, copyright 2002 and 2003, published 2003.

In her book, lee asserts she found evidence and witness to the fact that otto frank payed lifelong hush money to a dutch nazi, tonny ahlers, so the latter would keep quiet about otto´s wartime business with the german occupiers. I shall now quote the relevant passage in CAL 77ff. :


CAL 352; note 16 states she possesses a photocopy of ahler´s letter. Pity she did not publish a photo reproduction of it.

What CAL did not know was, that opekta köln, the factory/company whose amsterdam franchise otto ran, had officially been certified as kriegswichtig or war-relevant in february 1943 - a status that exempted its jews, or at least its key jews such as otto, from deportation, and most likely from all other antijewish measures - and assured them privileged treatment even in case of firing and deportation, as we shall plentifully prove below.

Additionally, otto frank was a WW1 vet , holder of the iron cross decoration, which exempted german jews like him from deportation, and most likely all other antijewish measures, until the summer of 1944. And even then, when jewish iron crosses started being deported , they were granted the privileged destination of camp theresienstadt - a heaven compared to auschwitz. More on all this below.

Ahlers was right about everything except for the provenance of otto´s pectin deliveries : they came from the opekta köln headquarters, conveniently situated not far from holland.

Here you have the original nazi document certifying opekta as war-relevant :


Let us continue quoting CAL 77ff.:


CAL 352, note 17, sources this to the pectacon sales ledger, 1940 (AFS) : what AFS is supposed to be, she infuriatingly doesn´t say, but it´s likely the anne frank stichting amsterdam - the zionazi watchdog institution presiding over the anne frank house at prinsen 263 etc. Again, why this ledger entry or the whole pectacon and opekta wartime ledger has not been published, is a naive question if you know what I mean...

In another unpublished interview with the dutch authorities in 1964, otto acknowledged that his company had done business with the german occupying forces.[...]. A 1948 letter written by a former warehouseman at 263 prinsengracht during the war divulges : " the company supplied a lot of goods to the wehrmacht during the occupation, by way of brokers. " One of these was " Mr. van keulen from haarlem, a supplier of canned goods and buyer of goods for the german...A lot of people visited the business, among others van keulen ". [...] In his 1966 letter, ahlers continues : " This pectin was a conserve product which was used in the german war industry.[...]". Pectin was a preservative that could be put to many uses, depending on the type of pectin it was. All pectin was useful for food production, but certain kinds could be applied as a balm for wounds and as a thickener for raising blood volume in blood transfusions. Other types of pectin were used in the steel industries as a hardener and in the oil industry as an emulsifier. Therefore, it is possible that the wehrmacht used the pectin they bought from otto frank´s company for the war industry [...] . In an interview with the author, martha [ahlers, tonny´s wife] confirmed that her husband and otto frank " did business together. My husband had his own company during the war and otto frank made deliveries to him ". Other family members confirm this. [...] At the offices on the prinsengracht, "a marked business revival " took place after the occupation. Otto frank had made a pact with the devil [...]. Throughout the war years, otto was to all intents and purposes leading a double life. >>>>>>>>>>>>>

(CAL 78-81).

Lee was only wrong about the preservative thing : pectin is not a preservative :

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pectin (from Ancient Greek: πηκτικός pēktikós, "congealed, curdled") is a structural heteropolysaccharide contained in the primary cell walls of terrestrial plants. It was first isolated and described in 1825 by Henri Braconnot. It is produced commercially as a white to light brown powder, mainly extracted from citrus fruits, and is used in food as a gelling agent, particularly in jams and jellies. It is also used in dessert fillings, medicines, sweets, as a stabilizer in fruit juices and milk drinks, and as a source of dietary fiber.>>>>>>>>>>>>> (from wiki ).

I think we can rest our case here : otto frank was a war criminal, a collaborator, a liar and fraudster who passed himself off as a Holocaust victim after the war when in fact he had been a perpetrator throughout it.

This is the point : such a family does not deserve victim status, does not deserve to symbolize the real suffering of hundreds of thousand of jews during WW2.

This is not about moralistic judgement - maybe he did what he did just to support his family. But he lied about his life during the war, concealed his collaboration from the world : he committed moral fraud. And he forged or heavily tampered with his daughter´s diary.

Again, for a nice profit.

Both pro-zionazi CAL 78 and miep as quoted by CAL 78 explained away otto´s collaboration by stating that 80% of dutch firms delivered to the wehrmacht during the war, and that refusal to do so would have resulted in disaster for otto frank, that there was no choice, that the company would have been closed down.

Well : if so, why were 20% of dutch firms able to choose NOT to do business with the wehrmacht ?...


Again for the umpteenth time : nobody was arrested on august 4, 1944 at prinsengracht 263 . Certainly not the 8 jews. There is not a single piece of evidence for this alleged arrest.

Whenever a jew was arrested, or even simply deported without an arrest, but only through a summons, by the nazis, such an event left behind a huge paper trail in the scrupulous german bureaucracy. Obviously the lack of any primary documentary evidence casts doubt, in nad for itself, on both the arrest theory and my summons theory. But we must, for honesty´s sake, undertand what´s missing here.

I am a fortunate possessor of this book :








(henceforth FEHRB )

Local history, local memories teach us often way more true details than mainstream, corrupt and biased zionazi historiography.

The book is about this jewish children´s boarding house, closed down by the nazis as late as 1942, with the deportation of many of the children and children´s parents.

The first thing that the nazis would force a jew, slated to be deported, to do, was to deliver a vermögenserkärung , a written declaration of assets possessed. For the nazis wanted not only to get rid of their jews, but also to rob them. Legalized robbery.

Here is for instance, from FEHRB 223, a photographic reproduction of the last children´s home´s director ida bamberger´s vermögenserklärung :

Here are the same documents for erika and meta haitner, (FEHRB 227 and 228 ) : they are half-empty because these 2 poor girls were minors and didn´t have anything in their name :

So my first Q here is : where are the vermögenserklärungen for allegedly arrested and deported jews otto frank, edith frank-holländer, annelies marie frank, margot frank, hermann van pels, auguste van pels, peter van pels and fritz pfeffer ? Why are the original vermögenserklärungen for complete unknowns such as ida bamberger , erika and meta haitner still extant, while we have nothing whatsoever for the 8 most famous alleged Holocaust victims of all ? Why are unkown , but real Holocaust victims such as bamberger and the 2 haitner sisters, all 3 of which disappeared in the Holocaust, so well documented, while there is little if any authentic paper trail for the 8 world-famous symbols of the shoah ? On erika haitner´s vermögenserkärung we can clearly read how the nazis requested a separate form for every single jew, including minors : so where are the 8 vermögenserklärungen for the 8 alleged prinsen annex hiders?

Author inge franken does reveal to us where exactly she found these documents on p.138 : in the brandenburgischen landeshauptarchiv in potsdam. That is where they are kept today. But originally, they were the files of the jewish community of berlin, that collaborated with the nazis in tracking down jews and deporting them. That is where inge franken found all these vermögenserklärungen and deportationslisten etc. The jewish councils and communities in germany and german-occupied europe were co-responsible for the Holocaust. They collaborated in order to save their skin, because work at a jewish council exempted from spoliation and deportation.

And surely, local nazis arresting and deporting jews in amsterdam would have been required to send a copy of these vermögenserklärungen to some central berlin office : where are these papers for the 8 jews ?

Before their alleged arrest on august 4, 1944, the franks had spent a quiet 2 years in the annex : no nazi search of their merwedeplein apartment, looking for summons-dodger margot frank, is on record, whether in the diary or anywhere else - sources say that the nazis wasted no time in going after individual dodgers - they took hostages in their place through raids. But we cannot rule out that margot frank never received that summons on july 5, 1942 as she was only 16 at the time and the summonses only targeted the 18-40 age group according to dr. happe of münster. Or maybe she wasn´t included because she was exempted like her dad.

So why are we supposed to believe now, that the 8 jews were arrested and deported in august 1944, when none of the 8 expected vermögenserklrungen they would have had to fill in in such a case has ever been produced in 74 years as of this writing ( february 20, 2018 ) ?

The next step in the nazi bureaucratic machinery, after forcing the jews to fill in these vermögenserklärungen, was to officially certify, on the part of the gestapo, the seizure of the jew´s assets by the german state : this new paper was called einziehungsverfügung , injunction of confiscation. Here is the einziehungsverfügung for ida bamberger, from FEHRB 226 :

Now again : where are the 8 einziehungsverfügungen for the 8 annex jews ? They haven´t popped up in 74 years !!! Thus, we already are missing 16, yes 16 pieces of evidence here for the alleged arrest and deportation of the 8 annex jews : their 8 vermögenserklärungen plus their 8 einziehungsverfügungen . And even positing , that the einziehungsverfügung, unlike the vermögenserklärung, was emanated only for adult jews who had anything for the gestapo to confiscate, we would still be missing 13 pieces of evidence. That´s one helluva lot of papers - especially considering we do have such evidence for complete unknowns such as bamberger and the haitner sisters.

Next up : after certifying the legalized robbery of all a jew had, the nazis would send a movers´ firm to empty the jew´s domicile. And again, german bureaucratic meticulousness would require a specific paper for this part of the deportation procedure too : a document called inventar und bewertung, inventory and cost assessment, featuring all the objects found in the apartment and taken away, their estimated cash value, and the moving costs.

Here is the inventar und bewertung for ida bamberger´s apartment, from FEHRB 224 :

So now again and again : where is the inventar und bewertung for the prinsengracht 263 annex ? This is the 14th missing piece of evidence for this alleged arrest cum deportation .

74 years later, noobody to my knowledge has come up with this document.

MG 190 states, that the movers arrived at prinsen on wednesday, august 9, 1944 - 5 days after the alleged arrest of the jews. The amsterdam company who dealt with such legalized plunder was the infamous puls firm. Pity that no single trace has ever been produced of this event - no inventar und bewertung, no puls archive paper, nothing whatsoever !!! So why on earth should we believe that this alleged event - the removal of the franks´ furniture from the annex - really occurred ?

Faurisson in his classic essay le journal d´anne frank, est-il autentique ? chapter 60, recounts interviewing miep gies in amsterdam in 1977 :

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :

for once, miep and jan told a half-truth here : the arrest of the annex jews never happened at all.

For if it had happened for real , and if the franks had been betrayed as the official story went for some 72 years, then we would expect to have a document like the following one : payment by the nazis of a betrayer of jews on the official record:

( From the hollandsche schouwburg display collection in amsterdam )

There was no betrayer because there was no arrest.

And maybe, otto´s WW1 iron-cross-first-class status granted him, even after aryanization of opekta on july 1, 1944 and the subsequent summonses to deportation , exemption from things like vermögenserklärung, einziehungsverfügung and pulsing of the annex.

Because, such paperwork was required by the nazis not only from arrested jews, but also from jews who had simply complied with their summonses to work/deportation, such as was likely the case for the fehrbelliner jews above, who appear never to have hid or been arrested.


We have already seen above how the amersfoort registration card, purporting to prove kugler´s detention there, smells of forgery sky-high.

Let us now look at the few items of evidence that have been published over the decades, purporting to prove that the 8 jews were actually deported and that 7 of them died in german hands. Allegedly, they left concentration and transit camp westerbork in holland on september 3 , 1944, on a train bound for auschwitz [ F 56 f. ]. The original dutch edition of F came out in 1986, and didn´t offer any evidence whatsoever that the 8 jews were indeed on that last train to auschwitz, transport number 83.

13 years later, AFH did publish the missing piece of evidence : the alleged judentransport list of the deported [ AFH 196, picture 1]. Here it is :

And the 8 jews from the annex are all on it. But : how can we be mathematically certain that said document is authentic ? Actually, the transport list had already surfaced as early as 1988, in a book we must now pour into our discussion :







12. AUFLAGE 2011

henceforth : WILL

I am not sure whether or not the original dutch edition featured this photo already, anyway here it is from the german edition above, page 8 :

At the end of the book, WILL credits this pic to the miep gies collection. How did miep gies ever come into possession of such an original document ? If that is, it is original ?

This is supposed to be the same list, as on AFH 196. Is it really ?

AFH 264 sources its own photographic repro of the list to the dutch red cross, informatiebureau nederlandse rode kruis, coll. oorlogsarchief. To a request I made to the dutch red cross for copies of the pages containing the franks, van pelses and pfeffer, they replied the archives are in the hague now, awaiting digitalization, so check back with them in autumn 2018.... I´ll be waiting. In the meantime: a synoptic comparison of the 2 photos of the transport list page featuring the franks in AFH and WILL reveals striking differences : here are the 2 pics side by side :

As you will have noticed immediately, WILL´s is utterly clean of handwritten additions, wheras AFH´s is full of them. The handwritten notes appear to indicate who among the deportees was known to have died, who instead, to have returned. How did miep gies come into possession of a completely clean copy of this list ? On the left side of margot´s name, on the AFH list, we see a cross, meaning her death one would assume, and then birk for birkenau apparently - but margot died at bergen belsen according to the official story, whereas edith frank was the one who reportedly died at birkenau.

Another odd difference is, while in AFH the words 3. september begin with the number 3 under the letter n of the word above, den, in WILL that number 3 is under the letter d of den ! The whole of 3.september is shifted in WILL, 2 spaces to the left compared to AFH !

I am talking about line 2 of the text.

On this same line 2, the words Blatt 7 begin in AFH under the W of Westerbork ; whereas in WILL, blatt 7 begins under the r of lager !!!

On line 3, in AFH, there is ample space between the words am and häftlinge ; whereas in WILL, there is no space at all !!!

In both lists, anne frank´s first name is spelt anneliese, when in fact it was annelies.

Could it be that these 2 repros above, are nothing but 2 versions of the same forged document ?

I shall now have to self-criticize a bit : none of my above arguments is decisive to prove this transport list a fake. Because the differences in spacing might just be due to faulty carbon copying , anneliese might be an easy clerical mistake for such is the common german form not annelies, and miep might have procured that early, pre-handwritten- notes copy of the list from her husband jan who worked for the social services in amsterdam and is reported to have been assigned to tracking down and assisting repatriated deportees after liberation.

The WILL/AFH photo repro of the alleged transport list of the annex jews is no conclusive evidence at all that they were deported, for I must suspend judgement on its authenticity.

Yet another oddity on the WILL/AFH list is, the word haeftlinge on top, prisoners : why write that ? Not all of these deportees were prisoners as I showed above : setting aside now for a moment the issue of whether the franks etc. were arrested or not, had been hiding or been exempted etc., I can say that in general, there were 3 ways the germans deported jews - and everyone else for that matter : either they arrested them for hiding/dodging their summonses or for other crimes- the häftlinge or prisoners ; or they just simply sent them summonses via mail and told them to show up at this or that collection center whence they transferred them to the camps chosen for them: this was the normaltransport. The third way was voluntary application for work in germany, of which plentiful examples later - die freiwillige.

Therefore that word prisoners on the WILL/AFH list stinks of forgery to high heaven. As evidence that not all deported jews were prisoners or had been detained by force, I might reference FEHRB 120, where holocaust survivor sylvia wagenberg recounts how she in 1942, aged 13, was forced by the nazis in berlin to deliver deportation letters to jewish families. Whose homes she reached by tram or subway - a privilege for jews then. George soros the jewish financier did the same thing in budapest in 1944, when he too was 13 :

"The Jewish Council asked the little kids to hand out the deportation notices. I was told to go to the Jewish Council. And there I was given these small slips of paper....".

Therefore that word häftlinge on the AFH/WILL alleged transport list for the franks, is highly suspect, and unsurprisingly, it is missing from the FEHRB transport list specimina.

My conclusion is : I incline to think that the AFH/WILL alleged transport list westerbork-auschwitz for the franks etc., is a partial or total forgery: it has been tampered with at the very least.

I shall not imply that the franks faked their deportations or that anne faked her death.

All I am saying for now is, that list photo cannot possibly constitute certain proof that they were indeed deported on that september 3, 1944.

Here you can see another transport list wbk- ? , this time from july 24, 1942 :


click on download and scroll down to page 65 of the book. It is a master´s degree dissertation :

Masterscriptie Archiefwetenschappen Raymund Schutz

Universiteit Leiden Instituut Geschiedenis S8356289

Prof. Dr. C. Jeurgens

November 2010

This is a list for july 24, 1942, from wbk to godknowswhere.

Notice the absence of the word häftlinge. The dissertation´s author states, there were 3 categories of deportees on this list : normaltransport, freiwillige, häftlinge : but the prisoners´ group mostly came from police camp amersfoort, not from wbk.

Schütz also states pp.22f. that jewish häftlinge in wbk, got an H top left of their wbk zentralkartei (the german offices) registration cards : where are these cards for the 8 annex jews ? According to Schütz, only the zentralkartei cards for wbk survivors found in the camp

at liberation are extant : why ? Where did all other zentralkartei cards go ?

The cards shown on AFH 200 ff., are the wbk jewish council cards - not the same set of cards. The zentralkartei was the german office.

So maybe the list, or at least the AFH list, is indeed authentic : but the häftlinge is a forgery. This would also account for the fact, that on AFH 196, the haeftlinge is comfortably spaced to the right of the word am - wheras on the miep version on WILL 8, the haeftlinge is attached to am without any spacing at all !!

Furthermore, the words am 194 are supposed to be filled in with the date, not with deportee categories.

And : on blatt 7, the franks´ page, the spelling is haeftlinge - as if from a non-german typewriter lacking the ä letter ; whereas on blatt 12, the van pelses´ and pfeffer´s , the spelling is häftlinge, with the german ä, from a german typewriter - and the fonts are quite different than the franks´ page´s.

In other words : the word häftlinge/haeftlinge was interpolated into the list after the war, in order to prove that the franks etc. had indeed been arrested for hiding for 2 years - as the diary states...

The interpolations were typewritten onto the list pages, in the franks´case by using a dutch typewriter of the same kind as the one used for the list ; at a different time, the word häftlinge was added to the van pelses page using a german typewriter with totally different fonts than on the rest of the page.

And I think I am in a position now ( 2.27.2018) to offer you conclusive proof that the word haeftlinge/häftlinge on the franks´page of the transport list is an interpolation, a later addition meant to make believe they were prisoners/had been arrested/because they had hidden, when in fact they were not, had not been, did not : they had been summoned via mail, per german standard practice, when their exemption expired after aryanization of opekta on july 1, 1944 :


Did you see ? It is a third version of the transport list - but unlike the miep version on WILL 8, or the AFH 196 list...THIS VERSION LACKS THE WORD HÄFTLINGE ALTOGETHER !!!!!





It remains to be seen, since I have proven now that the transport list has been tampered with in order to fabricate a false proof of the arrest and thus of the hiding that allegedly caused it, whether or not otto really was on that train : his addition might just be another interpolation or forgery, for iron crosses were slated for VIP camp theresienstadt as per the wannsee protocols of january 1942.

The franks never were häftlinge because they never hid and never got arrested - they were normaltransport as per standard aufruf to work and deportation after they lost their war-relevant status / exemption on july 1, 1944. Quod erat demonstrandum...

And then there´s the fact that of the 46 names on the list beside the franks´, a crosscheck I made with the yad vashem holocaust victims database only resulted in 3 or 4 perfect matches - the rest of the names were either homonyms with different birth dates or other data, or they didn´t turn up at all in the database.

The next proof or alleged proof that the zionazi anne frank stichting presented us with in 1999 is on

AFH 195, picture 5 :

These are supposed to be the 7 entries in westerbork´s municipality´s population register for 7 of the 8 annex jews - pfeffer´s card has been lost, reportedly. Now these cards look a lot more authentic to my eye : anne frank´s full first name is correctly spelt as annelies, and all other relevant data are plausibly filled in. There is no absurd prisoner status.

Anyway again : I do consider it plausible that the franks etc., after aryanization of opekta was completed on july 1, 1944, having lost their exemption from deportation, were summoned by the germans to go to westerbork. I have no problem accepting that. But for whatever happened to them after westerbork, I have no convincing evidence.

WILL 76f. relates the witness of one janny brandes-brilleslijper, an amsterdam jewess who states she was arrested for hiding and transferred to westerbork on the same day as the franks ( according to AFH 194, it was august 8, 1944 ). Janny states she saw the frank family on amsterdam´s railway station´s platform. She, as a real prisoner, had been brought to the station from jail under armed guard ; but she does not report that the franks and their group were escorted by guards. And she gives an all-important, plausible, vivid detail of this encounter :


Now : AFH 38 bears the photo repro of an original aufruf zum arbeitseinsatz or summons to compulsory work for the reich - one of those that margot purportedly received too, on july 5, 1942 as we saw above - which maybe she did not, as she was only 16 at the time, and this first batch of nazi summonses were sent to jews aged 18-40 alone according to dr happe above. This one here :

was sent to one heinrich schussein, 32 at the time, fitting the age group targeted, unlike margot.

He is summoned to central station - where janny met the franks, because the franks in july 1944 had been similarly summoned as well. The summons specifies what items could be taken with one :

[...] 1 overalls [ that is why anne and margot were wearing tracksuits, which are akin to overalls, the nazis wanted work clothing, resistant clothing, to put the jews to work ; or maybe they just wanted to lure jews into showing up by misrepresenting the aufruf as a short work stint not too far away ] >>>>>>> :

that is precisely why janny saw anne and margot in overalls and backpack : because they had not been arrested like herself, dragged from home into a prison, beaten up and transferred to the station under gestapo surveillance : no, anne and margot and their parents had never been arrested at all, they had received the standard summons for compulsory work for the reich, or for deportation of jews, probably delivered to them some 10 days prior to departure at their home, likely from a 13-year-old jewish collaborator like soros or wagenberg above ; and the franks complied with the summons , taking their time, and arriving at the ordered appointment at centraal station fresh and rested as if for a winter holiday. That is the truth of the matter. Again , summing it all up :

july 1, 1944 : opekta, a war-relevant german company, is officially aryanized ; otto frank loses his job as its director, and thereby his exemption from deportation as a jew, which covered his family as well - or likely, he had given his family members fictitious employment with opekta, as the diary attests to ( see below ) ; from this point on, anne frank becomes liable to be deported alongside her fellow 7 annex jews ;

c. july 30 , 1944 : the franks, as per standard nazi practice, receive a summons to compulsory work for the reich or deportation as jews, which will later be transmogrified in the fake diary as the fake summons margot receives on july 5, 1942 ; they are given the standard 10 days´prior notice to get ready for the appointment at centraal station ;

august 8, 1944 : the franks appear at centraal station, as per summons, in backpack and overalls ; they are not prisoners - they are law-abiding jews in nazi-occupied territory ; they are registered by the municipality of westerbork and by the jewish council at wbk upon arrival.


And yet - that transport list above stinks. If it is a forgery, then what happened to the 8 annex jews ?

Are we certain we may talk about 8 annex jews ?

Otto frank held an iron cross - a WW1 decoration which, on hitler´s personal orders reportedly, entitled jewish holders to either immunity from deportation, or deportation to VIP camp theresienstadt in czechoslovakia, where there was no hard labor and survival rates were way higher. Did otto really board that train to auschwitz on sept. 3 , 1944 ?

Janny brilleslijper again, the jewess above who met the franks at the station and at westerbork, has this to say on WILL 79 :

>>>>>>>>>>>> :

how janny knew this , she does not say, but again, it strikes me as highly plausible. And certainly otto was waving his iron cross to this and that nazi office or jewish council office in westerbork.

So why wasn´t he given his due - theresienstadt ? He had a legal right to theresienstadt. It could be in theory, that by hiding, he had run afoul of the law and lost his theresien privilege - but we proved above beyond doubt that otto had never hidden and never got arrested.

Was otto frank in auschwitz for real ? Or did he lie about it ? There is not the slightest water-tight documentary evidence he ever was in auschwitz, except for that tranport list above , highly suspect of being forged. There is the witness of friends who met him in auschwitz allegedly : how can we know they told the truth or lied on his behalf ?

Otto was the only survivor of the 8 : much more plausibly justifiable for a then 55-year-old, if he went to safer theresien as opposed to the hell of auschwitz 44/45.

F has a striking note 35 on p.87 : one r.meulenhoff, one of the amsterdam publishers otto submitted his diary of anne frank to, states that otto was in amsterdam, a free man, peddling his diary with him, before sept. 18, 1944 ( date of the so-called railway strike ) !!! The zionazis editors of F obviously dismiss this statement as faulty memory - what if instead, memory had served r.meulenhoff well ?...

R. meulenhoff stated to F´s interviewers that he or his publishing house h.meulenhoff turned down the diary of anne frank : this strike occurred sept 18, 1944 [MG 194]. Was otto frank peddling his diary, free as a bird, on september 17, 1944 in amsterdam ?

WILL 88 features janny witnessing she saw the frank sisters at auschwitz - but not otto.

AFH 214, pic.1, has a photo repro of otto frank´s westerbork´s jewish council´s registration card - again proving he was indeed at westerbork, which again I consider plausible and have no problem with. Red pencil notes, reportedly by a red cross staff after liberation, state he returned from auschwitz in ´45 : ok that is the official story but - are these notes genuine ?

AFH 215 pic. 6 features this carte de rapatrié otto was given upon landing in marseille on a returnee boat from russia in may 1945 : this alleged document too confirms he arrived at auschwitz on sept. 5, 1944 : but I am not in a position to say for sure whether or not this document is authentic. It is sourced by AFH to the miep gies collection - the same suspect source for the tranport list/clean copy we examined above and deemed highly suspect.

These 2 papers are the only items of alleged documentary evidence otto ever was in auschwitz. Not much , not enough. Handwritten notes any fraudster might have added to the westerbork card ; and a carte de rapatrié of dubious provenance.

Of the other WILL jewesses who met the franks at westerbork, rachel van amerongen-frankfoorder

states on p.122, that after seeing otto for a short time at wbk, she never saw him again. Bloeme evers-emden saw the franks in wbk, but as for auschwitz , she is silent on them. Lenie de jong-van naarden on pp.182f. states, she was in the same train car as the franks - and yet while she remembers vivid details for edith and the girls, she has nothing specific to say about otto during the trip. Ditto for her time in auschwitz. The last of WILL ´s jewesses, to state she saw the franks at wbk, adds she wasn´t in the same car as them on the way to auschwitz. And in auschwitz, she saw the girls and edith, but not otto.

Again, on the other hand, there are 2 or 3 witnesses to otto in auschwitz, so the issue will have to be left in abeyance for now. Really odd - the guy has an iron cross, which entitled him to theresien, and yet ends up in auschwitz- or did he ?

On september 4, 1944, the day after the alleged departure of otto frank for auschwitz, another train of deportees left westerbork : but this time it was bound for theresienstadt :


they [the kann couple and their nurse ] were deported to Theresienstadt on transport

number XXIV/7, a journey of two days. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :

could it be that otto really was on this train instead ? That otto was a WW1 vet, with a right to theresienstadt is retold by himself on AFH 185 :


- I said : It is my chest. Why ? I used to be an officer. At this, the guy became incredibly disconcerted. He gaped at me and said : Why didn´t you register then ? I bit my lips. But, you would have been spared, damn it ! You would have landed in theresienstadt ! I remained silent. I just looked at him: Then he said : Take your time... >>>>>>>>>>>>

From wiki (passim) : >>>>>>>

Otto is lying here as usual. According to AFH 262, this quote of his comes from a book from the 50ies, Anne frank, spur eines kindes by ernst schnabel, fischer taschenbuch verlag, frankfurt am main, 1958, pages 103ff. This schnabel was a german playwright and novelist - just the kind of professionals otto sought out all his life, first to help him concoct the diary of anne frank ( ab cauvern, anneliese schütz ) , and then in the course of his life, to give compelling literary form to his rotten lies.

The lying technique otto employs here is typical of liars both private and public : tell half-truths, lies based on true stories skewed and misrepresented and with important details omitted, in order to generate belief in one´s lie.

Otto here, in this 1957 interview with his asskisser schnabel, does not directly reveal he had an iron cross, exempting him from deportation until 1944 as per well-documented nazi standard practice ; and even thereafter, entitling him to VIP camp theresienstadt : he just states he had been a soldier. But not all jewish vets were spared : only those with an iron cross, according to the wannsee´s conference´s decrees, and maybe those with WW1 scars or war-related disabilities. The arrest, as we saw above , never happened. And it is impossible that otto, in his position as a very well connected german -jewish businessman and socialite, would not have registered as an iron cross-holder - this being one of 2 reasons he was left undisturbed by the nazis for most of WW2 - the other being his directorship in the war-relevant opekta company.

That is why I suspect very much, that otto wasn´t on that auschwitz-bound train on sept.3, 1944, with the rest of his family. But instead, either on the next day´s theresienstadt transport, or roaming free through amsterdam as early as sept. 17, 1944 as we saw above per r. meulenhoff´s testimony.

I haven´t been able so far to find a full transport list for transport XXIV/7 wbk - theresienstadt of sept. 4, 1944 - there must be several copies of it left somewhere - if you can access one, tell me so. I would like to check whether or not otto frank was on it. These lists were typically made in several copies, one for the staff on the train and others for the various nazi offices dealing with the jewish question, both at camp wbk, in amsterdam and in berlin, so where the hell are these original lists ?

One is at niod - our usual zionazi suspects who won´t grant me access to their archives.

Other official sources for otto holding the iron cross :




Er war Träger des Eisernen Kreuzes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Also the following book by the ubiquitous mirjam pressler :





henceforth GK

on p. 199 confirms the iron cross for otto :


This next source is particularly interesting, in that it tells us - without sources unfortunately - that otto had the higher of 2 types of iron cross : first and second class. He had the first-class iron cross :



This is all-important, because first-class iron-cross jews were even more privileged and exempted from antijewish measures than second-class iron crosses.

Here is the most famous nazi source for the Holocaust, the wannsee konferenz protocols from january 1942 :


And here is the relevant passage from it :

This all-important decree states, that jews over 65 and jews with heavy war disabilities and jews with war decorations ( IRON CROSS FIRST CLASS ) were to be placed in a seniors ghetto - the planned one was theresienstadt.

So there you have it : otto frank had a legal right to theresienstadt as bearer of the iron cross first class. And a witness - janny brilleslijper above - remembers he moved heaven and earth in westerbork, to be slated for terezin not auschwitz.

And it is impossible he wouldn´t have registered as an iron cross holder because this had been his basis for exemption from deportation, alongside his collaboration with germany´s war effort as director of a war-relevant company´s branch. And we proved above, with the great Robert Faurisson, that the 8 annex jews led a perfectly care-free life for most of their alleged hiding period 1942/44 : they hoovered and yelled at each other and listened to the radio and performed woodwork etc. - because they were not hiding at all as the fake diary of anne frank falsely says, they were all exempt from deportation as employees of a nazi company and, in otto´s case, also as iron cross first class , a category of jews that would be deported to VIP camp theresienstadt/terezin only in 1944.

Otto had known perfectly well about hitler´s soft spot for WW1 jewish vets, in that a brother-in-law of his had been released from custody after crystal night because of his WW1 wounds. Source : M 121 : otto´s wife´s edith´s brother julius holländer had been rounded up in the aftermath of crystal night but subsequently released and not sent to a concentration camp because he was a WW1 vet with a permanent war-related disability in one arm : shot through the elbow , his arm had remained permanently stiff. His brother walter instead, who had never been a soldier, ended up in sachsenhausen.

And even though the wannsee protocols may have been kept secret, certainly jews all over europe starting in 1942 must have noticed, and the rumor must have spread all over the place, that iron crosses of the first class were either not being deported at all, or brought to VIP camp theresienstadt !!

Again : I do not know whether or not otto´s iron cross first class covered his family too, in the sense that they would also be entitled to terezin : probably not.

The reason why the frank family had wholly been exempted from deportation 1942-1944, during most of the fake hiding period, was, that otto had found for them fictitious or real official employment for his war-relevant company opekta : the diary attests to anne and margot performing clerical work for the company several times. Hermann van pels obviously was working for opekta as well, and so was his son peter, again as attested to several times in the diary : most likely, pfeffer and hermann´s wife auguste had also been given fictitious official roles with opekta.

And although opekta was certified as kriegswichtig and lebenswichtig only as late as february 1943 , up to that point third reich jews working for companies that supplied the wehrmacht, whether certified or not, had been exempt from deportation.

The so-called fabrikaktion of end february-early march 1943 ended tihis privilege in berlin, but not in amsterdam as we shall prove below through several historical examples.

And anyway the enormous and likely deliberate bureaucratic delay in the aryanization of opekta amsterdam, which took from december 1941 to july 1, 1944, meant nobody could touch its jews all that time.

So again, when the franks allegedly went into hiding on july 6, 1942, they had no reason to hide at all : margot was only 16 and thus may never have received those first summonses for compulsory work for the reich that were only sent to dutch jews in the 18-40 age group if dr happe is right.

And they were all working, whether really or just officially , for war-relevant firm opekta or maybe for pectacon, both of which were delivering to the wehrmacht, a work which spared its jews deportation until march 1943 in germany proper, and until much later in the occupied territories.

For instance, FEHRB 86 retells the plight of a berlin jewish couple, alice and adolf löwenthal, who had been exempted from deportation until february 1943 because they had been working for war-relevant companies. In mid-february 1943, the reichssichereitshauptamt decided to deport these war-relevant jews as well - but only in germany proper. This was the fabrikaktion in berlin, late february/early march 1943 : 7000 berlin jews were rounded up and deported, who had up to that point worked for the wehrmacht. Therefore when the franks moved to prinsen on july 6, 1942 - IF indeed they ever left merwedeplein - they did so in all safety because all of them and their future alleged cohiders the van pelses and pfeffer, had war-relevant jobs with either opekta or pectacon - both collaborating companies.

And again, otto could count on his iron cross first class for further privilege and delay of deportation, and for privileged treatment for himself and his family and companies as well in general.

Therefore IF the franks ever really moved from merwedeplein 37/II, to prinsengracht 263 on that day, they did so to avoid possible violence and turmoil in their heavily jewish river neighborhood - a prime target of nazi raids and their ensuing chaos and violence. Their fellow jewish neighbors at merwedeplein too, might have gotten hip to otto´s collaboration and tried to either assassinate him or anyway do him arm somehow.


Again, I consider it plausible that anne frank really died at bergen belsen (where she had been transferred from auschwitz in late 1944) in february or march 1945, of typhus, as the official story goes. Except that I have no proof of this . All we have here, is the witness again of the brilleslijper sisters, who stated they saw the dead margot and anne and even threw them into a mass grave. How can I be certain they told the truth ? I must suspend judgement - no other logical/mathematical option available. The mass graves for jews at bergen belsen were never opened to my knowledge, anne frank´s body or remains have never been exhumed and identified : so how can we be 100% certain she really died. Other witnesses in WILL state they saw her sick with scabies at auschwitz, or with typhus and exhaustion at bergen : ditto. I have no way as of this writing ( 2.22.2018) to prove or disprove such witness testimony, I may only again suspend judgement.

See the thing is, I have found death notices, apparently official death notices or certifications from the bergen camp administration or from the german state, for other dead at belsen in february and march 1945, both jewish and nonjewish : so how come there is no such official original contemporary document attesting to anne frank´s death, from that same time span ? Let me give you 2 examples.

Werner goldschmidt, the franks´ jewish undertenant at merwedeplein, was deported from westerbork to theresienstadt on sept.4, 1944. Thence he was transferred to bergen belsen, where he was prisoner nr 7043 and where he died on february 5, 1945. All of which according to M 407, who sources it to entschädigungsakte werner goldschmidt, reg. 355 793, entschädigungsbehörde berlin : that is to say, after WW2 someone related to goldschmidt, likely his wife eva schwartzschild, applied for reparation from the german state for the loss of werner, and so either the german state or the wife were somehow able to find confirming data about werner´s death : his belsen prisoner nr, the exact date of his death : whence the german state got this data, I do not know. Sure as fire there was an archive somewhere of belsen´s camp ´s admin papers. So how come we know nothing of sorts for anne frank and her sister margot ? Neither their belsen prisoner numbers, nor the exact dates of their deaths ? And yet, both died shortly after werner, the official story goes, solely based on the brilleslijper sisters´ testimony.

The second comparative case is that of one nonjewish belgian victim :


Fernand Demoustier died at bergen belsen march 16, 1945 - more or less when anne frank is also alleged to have died there. And yet, only Demoustier´s death is documented, not anne´s. Look at the original death certificate from the camp´s administration closely :

this is where it comes from and where it is kept today :

>>>>>>>> :

Thus : belsen camp kept an official record , here called second death book, of deaths there ; this official record was kept, as a minimum, through march 16, 1945, roughly the same time that anne frank died, if not thereafter : why on earth then , is demoustier´s death recorded in the death book, while anne and margot isn´t ?? Demoustier´s death notice is now kept at ITS, international tracing service, in bad arolsen germany.

A reply of sorts to these questions comes from the site where I discovered Demoustier´s death certificate :


>>>>>>>>> In the special registry office of concentration camp bergen-belsen, some 1300 deaths were certified in 1945. The SS did not make any effort to register all deaths, given the enormous number of these. The cause of death was not established in general, but replaced with a standard notice. The so-called first death book was destroyed by the SS and the camp´s administration shortly before the arrival of the british army. Extant is only the second death book, which was located, as a backup copy, in the registry office of the nearby city fallingbostel. Hence comes the document shown. >>>>>>>>>

Why has a full list of those 1300 registered dead never been published ? How do we know the SS didn´t care for entering all deaths because there were too many ? How do we know that the total 1945 deaths far exceeded 1300 + x ( deaths total in missing first death book ) ? How can we possibly know how many jews died at belsen, if their mass graves have never been opened ?

One interesting detail on demoustier´s death certificate is, his entry in the second death book was based on the oral report of one Mathias Stettner : so why didn´t the brilleslijper sisters, after margot and anne´s deaths which they say they witnessed, report their deaths to the special registry office, like Stettner did for Demoustier ? The cause of death for Demoustier is lung tuberculosis - is that a " standard notice " ?

And for the sake of argument, let´s say anne´s and margot´s death certificates had been in the first, lost death book, or had gone unreported by anyone to the registry : how about their prisoner numbers ? How come werner goldschmidt´s is known, and anne´s isn´t ?

How about lists of belsen prisoners ? Where are they ? Sure the camp´s admins must have kept lists of who came in and who went out. How about the transport list for anne´s auschwitz-belsen train ?

Didn´t greedy otto apply for reparation too from the german state, for the loss of his daughters and edith ? Where are his entschädigungsakten ? What do they say ?

Is it possible that the train trip anne and margot endured, their presence at belsen, their deaths there, that none of this has left any paper trail whatsoever ? Not to mention their presence at auschwitz ?

Complete unknowns like Demoustier and goldschmidt are so well documented for february/march 1945, and the most famous Holocaust victim of all, anne frank, isn´t at all ?

Another nonjewish belsen inmate, August Sapandowski, arrested for repeated hiding of jews, died march 10, 1945 there - again, we know his exact date of death. And his daughter Vera received the news of his death in april ! Source :


Maybe this notifying of certain deaths as opposed to others was the privilege of prominents such as Demoustier or Schlombach, or of german citizens such as Sapandowski - and yet, for complete unknown jew werner goldscmidt again, we have exact death date and belsen number.

For anne frank - the most famous Holocaust victim in the world - no primary documentary evidence for her death, nor for her very presence at belsen or auschwitz.

On the other hand, if anne had faked her death, it would have been much more convenient both for zionazi propaganda purposes and to sensationalize the diary hype even more for commercial ends, to fabricate an auschwitz gas-chamber death for her. Most diary readers anyway, know nothing at all about anne´s manner of death, and probably think she was gassed anyway.

I have been studying all things diary for some 15 years, and not once in the literature I am aware of did I find, that otto after the war ever visited belsen to pay hommage to his dead daughters.

The russians have dug up all their dead in the mass graves for russian POWs at belsen, and identified each of them and given them worthy tombs. And yet, zionazi jewry opposes based on religious pretexts, the opening of the mass graves in the jewish sections of belsen : nor otto is on record for ever pleading for such an elementary act of decency unto his daughters. I think that zionazis are afraid that the body count would turn out to be way inferior to their absurd and unfounded allegations of 50.000 dead or something.

Therefore, we have no conclusive proof that anne frank died ; that she died of typhus at belsen in february or march 1945 ; that she even ever was in belsen to begin with. I can only suspend judgement here, I cannot prove or disprove anne´s death.

But one thing I am indeed in a position to say with certainty : that one or both of the brilleslijper sisters, the 2 sole witnesses to anne frank´s alleged death, lied and made false statements about it. Here is why.


Let us first examine janny brilleslijper´s witness as to the death of margot and anne frank in belsen. She tells the story herself in WILL, 101 ff. : janny was working as a nurse in the camp :

First margot fell from her bed onto the stone floor. She wasn´t able to stand up any more. Anne died one day later. We had lost sense of time. It is possible, it happened two days later. [...] It was shortly before liberation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now if janny is telling the truth here, then anne died even after demoustier, after mid-march, maybe in early april, when the camp was in such disarray and its inmates and staff so afraid of catching typhus themselves, so desperate and crazed , that it would be no wonder if neither janny nor her sister lientje ( both of whom reportedly had typhus themselves but somehow survived because they had access to drugs from the pharmacy, being nurses ) wasted the precious little energy they had left, to go to the registry clerks and report anne´s death. This would explain the lack of documentation for anne´s and margot´s deaths.

GK 231ff. has a different account of the story, this time by lien, janny´s sister. Apparently, lien after liberation and her return to amsterdam, had met otto and told him the following :


You will have noticed how these 2 accounts of anne´s death are hopelessly contradictory : as per janny, lien was sick and did not see the dead anne and margot at all ; as per lien , she not only saw the dead anne and margot, but she also took their corpses to a mass grave ! As per janny, the frank sisters were in a normal barrack and not in the sickbay ; as per lien, they were in the sickbay ! As per janny, she found anne and margot dead inside of their barrack ; as per lien, the corpses were found behind the barrack!

Clearly, one of the brilleslijper sisters was lying - or maybe, both of them.

Additionally, we must factor in here, that while lien´s version is alleged to have been told to otto in july 1945 ( GK 231 ) , janny´s was given to willy lindwer between 1986 and 1988 - over 40 years after the events, which could obviously account for faulty memory (WILL 9 ) .

Interesting in the 2 accounts is, the differing function of the blanket detail : for janny, this was a blanket that anne had wrapped herself up in while still alive, after throwing off all her lice-infested clothes ; as per lien instead, this was a blanket she and janny wrapped up the dead anne and margot in, to carry them to a mass grave !

Now reportedly, otto frank between 1945 and 1946 sought out the brilleslijpers, either janny or lien or both according to the different gospels, after learning from the red cross in amsterdam that it had been them to report anne and margot dead.

Thus WILL 8 displays a photo repro of janny´s written death declaration for anne and margot frank - a piece of paper otto badly needed if he was to extract reparations from the german state. Here is this document :

Its date is january 13, 1946. Wheras lien´s report to otto was made in july 1945. Did otto need 2 declarations ? Thinkable. But the source of this photo is the infamous miep gies collection - always to be suspected of fraud, as miep was by otto´s side all her life, supporting the hiding lie.

The second declaration is to be seen in a photo repro in miep´s book, MG photo page before page 129 : here it is :

Now , who wrote this ? The signature appears to read " CR REBLING BRILLESLIJPER " : wasn´t the sister´s name Lientje ? Or is that first C, really an L ? And what does R stand for ? rebling was her husband´s last name, just like brandes above was janny´s .

Anyway again, the 2 declarations differ markedly : as per lien, anne and margot died in barrack 19 .

As per janny above, this was barrack 21 instead !

Lien´s declaration is dated november 11, 1945. In its version on MG 129, it is 8 lines long.

In its version on GK 232f., it suddenly grows into a humongous 2 whole printed pages !! And book author pressler dates it to july 1945 !!

On WILL 113, janny states it was her who put the death cross on anne frank´s name at the red cross in amsterdam after liberation and her return . And it was her whom otto frank sought out to have the death of his daughters confirmed, after the red cross had told him janny was the witness. Janny also states otto sought out lientje too, in that summer 1945.

So there you have it : otto got himself all the confirmations he could, and both declarations. And though they differed in certain details, the basic fact was confirmed : anne and margot frank had died at bergen belsen at some point in february or march 1945 (lien) or shortly before april 15, 1945 (janny ). Or - had they ?

The thing with the mass grave is also suspect : for argument´s sake, let us say anne and margot really died of typhus at belsen in february or march 1945. What would typically happen to dead bodies at belsen over that period ? The documented answer is : cremation. No mass grave burial at all. Look at this original document :


This heroic construction entrepreneur, Karl Schlombach, arrested by the nazis for cursing them and eventually brought to belsen where he died february 25, 1945, was cremated ! There was a crematorium at belsen, and it was orderly functioning as late as february 1945, when anne and margot are alleged to have died there. Therefore we are to assume that they too were cremated.

Also notice that a regular death certificate for Schlombach was issued by camp authorities, this time around directly, not based on some witness testimony, on march 8, 1945 ! And the victim´s wife in berlin was sent a copy of said certificate. The certificate is signed by the Kriminalbeamte und SS-Untersturmführer Wilhelm Frerichs . Obviously it could well be that these late belsen certificates were not issued for unknowns such as anne and margot, but only for prominents such as this construction magnate Schlombach or lawyer Demoustier. But again : for completely unknown jew werner goldschmidt too, a humble technician, we have prisoner number and exact date of death for february 1945 : why then do we have nothing of sorts for anne and margot ?

To bury the typhus dead in a mass grave inside of an overcrowded camp is to call for epidemics !

There was indeed a crematorium at belsen, in good working order at least until late february 1945 ! Do you see my point ? Lien´s declaration, that she and janny threw anne and margot into a mass grave in february or march 1945 at belsen, makes no sense at all. Especially since she states this happened a few days after their deaths, in early spring, when the snow had already melted ( GK 233 ) !!! Did they really handle 2 putrefying , typhus-infected bodies - and survive ? This would have been absurd. And they were nurses, not corpse unit /Leichenkommando. They had no business disposing of bodies.

Even when , in march/april 1945, the death rate in belsen skyrocketed due to hunger, typhus, polluted water because the brits had bombed the electric water pump, lack of supplies again due to allied bombing of civilian infrastructure, there was no burial in mass graves whatsoever : the crematorium wasn´t enough any longer for all the dead, so this is what they began doing :


„So sägten wir Holz und zerhackten Klötze und trugen alles über die Straße zu den Leichenstapeln und überließen es dem Leichenkommando. Die Leute dort schichteten enorme Scheiterhaufen auf, legten abwechselnd je eine Lage Leichen und eine Lage Holz und be¬nutzten die Stämme für Luftkanäle, damit der Haufen ordentlich Zug hatte. Sinnreiche Bau¬werke waren das, über die man schließlich Dieselöl goss, um sie dann anzuzünden. (…)

Es brannte tagelang.

Der das schrieb, der Norweger Arne Moi, war nach jahrelanger Odyssee durch verschiedene Kriegsgefangenenlager, Zuchthäuser und Konzentrationslager schließlich Anfang Februar 1945 in das KZ Bergen-Belsen gebracht worden. Er überlebte. Seine Erinnerungen an Bergen-Belsen veröffentlichte er erstmals 1977 in Norwegen unter dem Titel „Leiren“.


Arne Moi, Das Lager. Ein Norweger in Bergen-Belsen, Göttingen 2002

Stiftelsen Arkivets http://www.stiftelsen-arkivet.no/krigsseiler-arne-moi >>>>>>>>>>

" So we sawed wood and chopped blocks and took everything across the street to the body mounds and left it with the corpse units. The people there built enormous pyres in layers, alternating a level with bodies and one with wood, and arranged the trunks so as to leave air canals, so that the pyre got enough draft. Clever works they were, and eventually, one would pour diesel oil over them, and light the fire (...) They burned for days on end."

The writer of these words was norwegian arne moi, who had been brought to belsen in early february 1945 after a years-long odysee across POW camps, prisons and concentration camps.

He survived. >>>>>>

He wrote books about his ordeal, you have them above.

According to interrogation records of belsen commander joseph kramer in british custody, during the last six weeks of the camp (early march-mid-april, 1945) he did not have sufficient staff to bury all the dead - but he made no mentions of absurd mass graves . What he implied most likely, is that many dead were left lying around and had to wait days for their turn on the pyre or in the crematorium ; and although he uses the word bury, this word does not necessarily imply mass graves , and might be a mistranslation from the german.

>>>>>>>>>>> :


Here are the sources for kramer´s statement weber quotes in note 19, both mainstream and revisionist :

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :

if anne frank died at belsen, she was killed not only by nazi policy, but also by barbaric allied bombing of civilian infrastructure.

Thus : lien brilleslijper lied about the mass grave for february or march 1945 at belsen. IF anne and margot really died there, which I deem plausible but not conclusively proven, their corpses were burned either in the crematorium or on one of those pyres. Or were left lying around if they died shortly before liberation as janny stated. You don´t dig mass graves in a typhus- infested, overcrowded camp unless you want to commit collective suicide. Lien lied after watching british propaganda films shot after april 15, 1945, showing british soldiers carrying corpses in blankets to mass graves freshly dug by them :


Look at 0´51´´ ff. : there you have the corpse-in-blanket scene and mass grave scene that lien plagiarized and credited to herself and her sister for a time - february/march 1945 - when there were no mass graves in belsen at all . Watch in the film, how the brits who dispose of the dead in the mass graves are wearing special gloves and coveralls, so as not to touch the typhus-infected corpses and avoid contagion. Nobody would have touched those corpses with bare hands as lien lies - and she and janny were nurses and knew the risk. Watch the sign on the mass grave at 6´23´´ : it reads april 1945, in english.

For a partially different, but sourceless and unscientific reconstruction, read this :


The famous mass graves one sees in post-liberation british propaganda films, were dug by german POWs forced by the brits to do so, in order to show the world a few cadavers passed off as murdered by the germans and stir antigerman sentiment in the western masses. Mass deaths had continued at belsen after liberation, and it was the brits who had those mass graves dug to deal with all the bodies. At the same time, the camp´s evacuation and setting the barracks ablaze had begun.

Again : the mass graves at belsen post-date, do not pre-date april 15, 1945 and anne´s death. IF anne died there in february or march, 1945, she was cremated for reasons of hygiene. And maybe otto knew about this and maybe that is why he never visited belsen to pay hommage to his daughters : for they were not there any more. They had long since turned into ash dispersed by the winds.


But if lien lied about the mass-grave burial, or about her actually witnessing anne´s death etc. - how can we rule out that both sisters lied about the whole affair ? How can we rule out anne wasn´t even ever there to begin with - or that she may be still alive ?

I must leave this Q in abeyance. I do incline to think that anne really met her sorry end in belsen at age 15. But I am in no position to either prove or disprove it.

It would make no sense to unbury those dead in the mass graves - except of course to identify them and give them a worthy tomb and count them. Annelies marie frank lies not in the mass graves of bergen belsen.


Again : we have not a single official record attesting to anne frank´s presence and death at belsen between early november 1944 and february or march 1945. Nothing for her, nothing for margot, nothing for auguste van pels who was transferred from auschwitz to belsen nov.26, 1944, and then from belsen to raguhn on february 6, 1945 (AFH 210) : all of which reportedly, based only on hearsay from alleged witnesses so prone to lying as we proved above. The only written record is for auguste van pels, written by hand on the back of her registration card with the westerbork registry office (AFH 211, picture 2):

According to AFH 210, it was a red cross staff who wrote by hand on the back of this card after the war, in which camps auguste had been : Q is : how did he know ? Or who told him ? Anyway, according to what he wrote here, she was transferred from auschwitz to belsen nov. 26, 1944, and once there, she was given prisoner number 7306. Again : how come this red cross staff knew exactly auguste´s belsen number, while nobody so far, for nearly 74 years, has been able to come up with either anne´s or margot´s ? Again and again : we know, from his entschädigungsakte, werner goldschmidt´s belsen prisoner number : 7043 (M 407). We know aguste´s : 7306. How did the red cross track down these prisoner numbers of dead or missing people ? Why were they unable to trace anne´s and margot ´s ?

Sure enough, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence : but - it isn´t evidence of presence either ! I am only trying my hardest to be scientific here : while I deem anne´s typhus death at belsen most likely, I am unable to prove or disprove it in the absence of any independent confirmation whatsoever . The oral witness of a number of jewish women , which I have partly proven to be a lie, is not enough to gain definitive and absolute certainty. The fact that other belsen deaths such as goldschmidt´s or Demoustier´s

or Schlombach´s, or others´ belsen presence such as auguste van pels´s, are so well documented, or at least reported to be so, while anne´s isn´t in the least, cannot help but leave room for doubt: did anne frank fake her death ?

Here you will find a summation of all the available oral evidence for anne at belsen : it is not quite correct, it´s a zionazi presentation, and always bear in mind that all of the written evidence being referred to, does not repeat not pertain directly to anne :


The red cross staff in holland, who wrote up by hand auguste´s via crucis on the back of her wbk registration card, appears to know everything in detail, without giving us the slightest source for this info : auguste was transferred febr.6, 1945 from belsen to raguhn, where she was assigned prisoner number 67357 ; from this point on, her fate is uncertain : maybe she was transferred again to theresienstadt, maybe she died somewhere in germany in april or may 1945.

Now if we go back to auschwitz for a moment, and try to document anne´s presence there (reportedly, from sept. 5 or 6 , 1944, through november 2, 1944 ) , we fare even worse.

There is not a shred of independent document attesting to the presence in auschwitz of either anne or margot or their mother edith, or otto frank or hermann van pels or peter van pels, or to edith´s alleged death there on jan. 6 , 1945, or to hermann´s in september or october 1944. And yet, according to this site :


we do possess >>>>>>>> : a tiny fraction of the total, to be sure, but where are they ? Why haven´t they been published online for all to see ? Are edith´s and hermann´s among them ?

And according to:


we do possess >>>>> :

so that makes 634+76= 710 auschwitz death certificates - a very small fraction indeed but : where are they ? Are edith´s and hermann´s among them ?

And according to this :


we do possess :

The Book of...

The Book of...

Description of the document

The Book of Deceased Prisoners of KL Auschwitz III-Monowitz, kept in archives, pertains to male prisoners, who died in the KL Auschwitz camp.

The Book of Deceased Prisoners of KL Auschwitz III-Monowitz embraces the period between 16.11.1924 and 15.01.1945. It includes 1858 records, referring to male prisoners of various nationalities, deported to KL Auschwitz between 3.02.1940 and 3.12.1944. >>>>>>>>:

is hermann´s among those 1858 ?

We have 710 + 1858 = 2568 death records for auschwitz that I am aware of - where are they ? Why haven´t they been published online for all humanity to see, for free ? Are edith´s and hermann´s among them ?

Again, for the death of hermann van pels and edith frank-holländer at auschwitz - nay, for their very presence there, we have no document no evidence except for questionable and uncertain and scant oral testimony. Therefore how can we possibly be sure that they were even there to begin with ? Or died there, and how ?

Now you go here :


It´s a search motor for auschwitz inmates. Let us try entering hermann van pels : this is the reply we get :

The base of lists of names are partially preserved materials created by the SS camp administration. Germans destroyed most of the files created by them, therefore, there is no complete list of the victims of Auschwitz. The documents are also possible with inaccuracies or errors.

There is a chance that the information about the person you look for will be found with the help of archivists from the Bureau for Former Prisoners. >>>>>>>>>

Alright alright. No. Unacceptable. Where are the inmate lists, the hospital records, the transport list copies. What do the russians have today, that they carted away in 1945 from the auschwitz offices ?

Didin´t the russians make lists of all the auschwitz survivors they found upon liberating the camp on jan.27, 1945 ? Where are these records ? Is otto on them ?

Enter annelies marie frank in the search database : same reply.

Auguste roettgen van pels : ditto.

Margot betti frank : see above.

Otto heinrich frank : same story.

Peter van pels : nothing.

Edith frank-holländer : unknown.

Fritz pfeffer : nought.

I tried enlisting the help of archivists as suggested - never got a reply.

So how can we possibly be certain the 8 annex jews really ended up in auschwitz, and that hermann and edith died there ?

There are tons of auschwitz files in the moscow archives. Part of them was perused by both mainstream and revisionist scholars, among the latter carlo mattogno and jürgen graf, who reportedly found, among other things :



Was edith frank included in this roster ?

The same source states :

>>>>>> :

what exactly are these 10 or 12 other archives in europe ? Where are they ? Do they feature any record whatsoever of the annex jews´ presence or death at auschwitz ?

As for moscow : >>>>


As for the auschwitz museum itself, they have for instance :

lists of the names of prisoners newly arrived in Auschwitz

prisoner personal files

prisoner death certificates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :

anything in there proving the 8 annex jews were there at all ?

Other material of interest to us at the auschwitz museum :

lists of bonuses for prisoners assigned to specific labor details

lists of labor assignments for male and female prisoners >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And they have : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :

yet try asking them by email as I did, for copies of any of all that, and what you get is no reply.

Is it possible that 8 jews deported to auschwitz left absolutely no recorded trace in any of these 12 or more archives scattered across europe ?


Again : the evidence we have for the alleged arrest of the 8 annex jews and 2 of their alleged christian helpers is zilch.

Of the 2 helpers, victor kugler was treated like royalty for most of his work stint for the nazis - not quite your typical jew-helper treatment in the third reich.

The other helper johannes kleiman fared even better : he was released from amersfoort on sept. 18, 1944 on grounds of poor health - just the opposite of what nazis did to real jew helpers such as gisela juliusburger above.

Again as for kugler´s , kleiman´s was only a brief stint in the arbeitseinsatz to which he had been summoned - no arrest at all, no hiding jews who had never hidden.

And incidentally : while AFH 193 displays a purported amersfoort inmate card for kleiman with prisoner nr 7001, K 63 quotes kugler as stating kleiman´s nr was 7005...

Hermann van pels was allegedly gassed at auschwitz a few weeks after his arrival there on sept. 5 or 6 , 1944. Evidence for this : zero. AFH 200 displays hermann´s wbk jewish council´s registration card, with the usual red cross staff post-liberation pencil note that he was transferred on sept.3, 1944 - to which destination, it does not say . We have already discussed at length above how the transport list on AFH 196 appears to be a forgery.

The only witness to hermann´s alleged gassing is otto frank - if you want to blindly believe such a man, be my guest.

NOTHING at all is documented for hermann´s fate after westerbork.

On the other hand, fritz pfeffer´s fate is attested to for a change. He died at neuengamme dec. 20, 1944, of enterocolitis. We have a death book for neuengamme, registering pfeffer´s death : he had prisoner nr 64971 and died at 9 am. Reportedly, pfeffer had applied in auschwitz to be transferred to neuengamme with 60 other doctors, in october 1944.

Peter van pels´s record is the oddest of all .

Look at AFH 212´s pic. 1 : its caption says it is peter van pels´s registration card with the jewish council at westerbork. It is kept today in the informatiebureau nederlandse rode kruis, coll. oorlogsarchief, which is in the process of being transferred to the hague and digitalized as of this writing ( 3.4.2018).

The first startling detail on this card is the purple date stamp : 17 JULI 1942 !!!

Didn´t peter arrive at wbk august 8, 1944 instead, with the other 7 annex jews ?

No explanation is given by AFH for such an astonishing stamp.

The second bewildering detail on said card is, the handwritten blue-pencil note near the bottom :

Unter 16 Jahre - Under 16 years : just the age peter van pels was on july 17, 1942, having been born nov.8, 1926 , as the card itself confirms. Whereas on aug. 8, 1944, when as per official story he checked into wbk, he would have been 17 !!!

Peter van pels´s wbk jewish council registration card looks genuine to me - had it been a recycled card used for lack of paper , the clerk would at the very least, have crossed out that 17 juli 1942 stamp, and that unter 16 jahre handwritten blue pencil note !

What is instead an interpolation here, is the 8.8.44 date top right.

Peter van pels never lived in the annex at all. He had been deported to wbk july 17, 1942.

He was only added to the diary´s roster after the war, because the boring diary needed a love story to sell.

Could it be that peter never hid in the annex at all, because he had been arrested and deported in july 1942, in the course of some nazi raid for hostages to be deported in case jews who had been summoned wouldn´t show up ? Again we know, from the transport list specimen published by schutz above, that for instance on july 25, 1942 jews under 16 were indeed deported to wbk : could peter have been among them on an earlier transport from mid-july ?

But it gets worse : AFH 212f. pic.4, kept in the same archive as the picture above, is said by the caption to be the registration of peter by the mauthausen clerks - he was allegedly transferred from auschwitz to mauthausen jan.25, 1945. But the printed form is from 1943 !!! And it is not at all a registration form for a new arrival - it is a death certificate form !!! Left blank - the explanation AFH gives in the caption being, the mauthausen clerk recycled un unused old form - godknowswhy, we assume for lack of paper in the last desperate months of the war.

And yet - the 1943 form chimes in perfectly with the 1942 date for peter´s arrival at wbk...

The 1945 stamps and handwritten notes on the form might just as well be forgeries.

Just like the handwritten 8.8.44 on his wbk card.

I have no conclusive evidence as for what happened to this peter van pels - or as to whether he really existed at all to begin with. But these 2 cards do indeed give one pause .

Was peter van pels ever really in the annex with the others ? Was any of the 8 jews in the annex ever, to begin with ? Was peter just a stolen identity, just another character they needed to fill in their boring diary with a selling love-story between him and anne ? Did they use a seized blank death notice form from mauthausen and wave it around as proof for peter´s 1945 presence there ?

Are these cards another case of forged documents, just like the häftlinge interpolated into the sept.3, 1944 wbk-auschwitz list above ?

I shall have to leave these issues in abeyance for now, pending discovery of new and decisive evidence.


As I said, the franks were certainly exempted through july 1, 1944. Thereafter they received their summonses for deportation and work for the reich, to westerbork first. Otto had his iron cross first class, and he certainly flashed it around all admin offices at wbk. But for what happened to them starting sept.3, 1944, again I have no conclusive evidence, no independent confirmation .



You can read a 1942 document detailing which groups of jews in holland were to be temporarily exempted from deportation :

it is a letter dated aug.20, 1942 - shortly after the franks had allegedly gone into hiding on july 6.

Here it is :

The title is :


The expositur was a department of the jewish council in amsterdam, the collaborator agency run by jews, set up by the nazis in the occupied territories to help track down deportable jews.

The expositur dealt with exemptions from deportation and other antijewish measures. It was run by jews, both dutch and of german origin. Let´s see what these traitors to their people established on that aug. 20, 1942.

Up on top after the title you can read the names of these jewish war criminals who were coresponsible for the Holocaust : not one of them was executed after the war - or even jailed. They all got away with murdering their fellow jews.

And of course they had been the first ones to be rewarded by their german masters with exemption, and when they too were finally deported, they were put in the VIP sections of the best camps.

More on these bastards later. Now let´s focus on the letter.

Mr hanauer, responsible for the expositur office at westerbork, details which groups of jews were entitled to receive exemptions from deportations outside of holland ( obviously he was implementing german general directives, valid for all occupied territories, and also special directives and concessions obtained by dutch jews) :

1. half- aryans ( half-jews with one christian parent), as far as not married to jews

2. baptized jews, provided they are not roman catholic

3. mixed married couples, provided they have children

4. FRONT-LINE SOLDIERS, PROVIDED THEY HAVE THE IRON CROSS FIRST CLASS OR A DECORATION FOR HAVING BEEN WOUNDED [my caps : this is exactly what otto frank had : the iron cross first class ; therefore as of aug. 20, 1942, he was exempt from deportation and other antijewish measures )

5. special cases category :

a. the so-called hollandia-kattenburg list (367 jewish staff of the amsterdam clothing factory hollandia kattenburg )

b. the portuguese list ( dutch jews of portuguese descent )

c. ARMAMENTS CASES ( jews supplying the wehrmacht - my caps - this was otto´s second immunity layer after his iron cross )

d. ordinary war combatants

e. so-called exceptional cases

f. jewish-council staff.

Thus by august 1942, otto frank as I posited above and hereby prove , was covered by a double exemption during his time in alleged hiding and therefore was not hiding at all and therefore the so-called diary of anne frank is a lie. And though hanauer here may have been covering only jews already brought to westerbork since the german occupation in may 1940, clearly as we saw above based on the wannsee protocols and historical examples, iron-cross jews and wehrmacht-supplying jews were being left in peace in the whole third reich and occupied territories as of summer 1942 - just when otto allegedly went into hiding.

Of course the diary makes no mention of these exemptions, and justifies the hiding with an alleged aufruf or summons to work in germany or poland received by margot on july 5, 1942. But we saw above how münster historian katja happe states that this first batch of 4000 summonses sent out by the germans july 4, 1942 really only targeted the 18-40 age group - and margot was 16 at the time.

Thing is, happe does not source her statement and an email I sent to her to this respect, came back with a delivery failure notice.

But clearly otto´s exemptions covered his family too, as we shall prove from historical examples below. And anyway the diary attests to both anne and margot performing clerical work for otto´s companies - in other words, they were being officially employed by a wehrmacht supplier and thus themselves exempted from deportation in their own right.

Otto´s double exemption ceased to have its effect starting july 1, 1944, when opekta got aryanized ; by the summer of 1944, iron crosses were being deported too, albeit to VIP camp theresienstadt.

We might posit that the franks hid only starting july 1, 1944, hoping the allies would liberate them any day since overlord was in full swing by then. But we have seen how their alleged arrest aug.4, 1944 is totally undocumented and how the häftlinge on the wbk-auschw transport list of sept.3,1944, franks page and van pelses/pfeffer page, is a proven forgery/interpolation.

Otto himself was sent to auschwitz and not terezin - or was he ?

But the diary of anne frank, most of it, from july 6, 1942 through jul.1, 1944 is a lie - for those 2 years, they were not repeat NOT hiding.

By the way, the exemption categories we saw documented above, were by no means all : we shall add diamond workers and businessmen, jewish hospital staff such as goldschmidt, zionists bound for palestine, and several others - it has been estimated that out of 120.000 jews in holland under the occupation, 35.000 received these temporary exemptions, which sometimes were renewed until liberation come. Many or most of those 35.000 jews ended up deported to germany and beyond, east, anyway - but their fates and treatment were very different as we shall see, depending on their wealth, status, prestige, or usefulness for the reich.


Van tijn was a jewess, a staff of the american jewish joint rescue committee from new york, or of the war refugee board - it is unclear which from this link :


Or maybe she was a staff of The Committee for Jewish Refugees (Dutch: Comité voor Joodsche Vluchtelingen) , a Dutch charitable organization. It operated from 1933–1941. ( wiki, gertrude van tijn ). Apparently her full name was gertrude van tijn - cohn.

According to the english wiki committee for jewish refugees, netherlands entry :


>>>>>>>>>>>> .

This must have been before may 1940. This is what happened to her after occupation :

>>>>>>>>>>>>> :

The CBJB was the Comité voor Bijzondere Joodsche Belangen (CBJB) , another one of the scores of jewish support orgs during the nazi era.

So here :


van tijn wrote a top-secret report concerning the jews of holland from may 1940 through june 1944. She sent it to some jewish personalities in 1944, after having been liberated from the VIP section of bergen-belsen march 15, 1944 and sent to palestine. She signs her report from palestine, and dates it to october 2, 1944.

I recommend you read it - it is a first-hand report on criminal jewish collaboration with the nazis - and thus, jewish coresponsibility for the Holocaust.


In this last chapter of my study, I shall produce rapid-fire miscellaneous final remarks. Thank you for reading me - I hope you wised up to the scam that is the so-called diary of anne frank - and to all other scams, by the same token.

Here´s a Q for you guys out there in the academia and official institutions : if, as CAL 332 states, the jewish council in holland was wound up sept. 29, 1943, how come that AFH displays the 8.8.44 wbk jewish council registration cards for the 8 annex jews ?

Mind you : even after the dissolution of the jewish council, there were legally remaining jews in the netherlands [ CAL 332 ]. The franks among them, one might add...

The puls moving company that had the monopoly in the emptying of jewish deportee homes, was working for the german office called hausratserfassungsstelle, responsible for inventories [ van tijn 67 ] : where are the inventories for the annex ? Or for merwedeplein ?

The expositur office, responsible for jewish exemptions from deportation, kept on working even after the liquidation of the jewish council on sept. 29, 1943 : where are the full lists of amsterdam jews exempted from deportation between 1942 and 1944 ?

May 3, 1942 : introduction of the yellow star in holland [ CAL 330 ] : and yet margot frank on july 6 moves from merwedeplein to prinsen without it, according to MG 87...in spite of the risk of getting caught and being liable to imprisonment of up to 6 months and a fine of up to 1000 florins or both...

June 30, 1942 : jews no longer allowed ro ride bikes [ CAL 331 ]; shortly thereafter, jews ordered to hand in their bikes [van tijn 23 ] : and yet, according to miep and the diary, margot rides her bike to prinsen on july 6...And peter van pels does the same on july 13...Could it be that they were both exempt from antijewish measures because otto had hired them to work for wehrmacht-supplying opekta or gies&co. ? The diary often attests to both anne and margot performing clerical work for the companies, and peter manual work.

Moreover, van tijn 23 also states that the wehrmacht/rüstungsinspektion procured travel permits of all descriptions for people working for them - such as otto frank and the rest of the annex jews, one might add...And tijn adds that said travel permits were given fairly easily in the beginning...

To put it simply : otto and his family on that july 6, 1942 might as well have taken a tram to prinsen - and probably did. Not to mention the possibility of hailing a cab or riding in friends´cars...

According to MG 88, otto edith and anne arrive at prinsen in order to go underground in the annex, late on a monday morning - didn´t any of the companies´warehouse hands, secretaries, reps, customers see them ? Sure said staff was used to seeing their boss every day, and his family members too who paid frequent visits to the premises - but seeing them arrive with all of those layers of clothes on and bike and everything ? Not to mention all the furniture and chests and suitcases they had had moved into the annex over the previous 12 months or so ? How about the staff at the neighboring keg company, with direct view on the annex ?

The van pelses arrive on july 13 [ F 261 ] at 9:30 AM - on a monday !! Peter has bike and cat [ MG 100 ] in tow...Would you BTW, take with you your round-the-clock meowing-prone cat into a hideout where you are supposed to keep as still as a corpse ?

All of which would obviously make perfect sense instead, if you and your alleged cohiders had been exempted from antijewish measures as collaborators...

April 15, 1941 : jews to hand in their wireless sets.

May 1, 1941 : jews no longer allowed to own wireless sets [CAL 329 ] : and yet during their alleged hiding between july 6, 1942 and 1944, the annex jews listen to the radio every day...thus not only violating nazi decrees, but also making quite a bit of extra noise - would a hider for dear life do any of this ?

Receiving one of those aufrufe/oproepingen for compulsory work in germany in early july 1942 in amsterdam, did not necessarily imply a stark choice between complying or going under, as the diary would falsely have you believe : tijn 44 gives first-hand testimony, as she was by then working for the jewish council, that the jews who had received an aufruf first of all went to the jewish council or the expositur to discuss their chances of staying behind ( = being temporarily exempted from the summonses ). Tijn did some ad-hoc consulting herself, as a higher-up in the jewish council. Exemptions were given to :

- jewish council staff

- the sick in possession of a medical certificate ( see above in the diary F 615, march 15, 1944 entry, a, how kugler avoided his first summons by procuring a fake medical certificate from a friendly doc )

- diamond industry jews

- junk-dealer jews

- jewish shops staff catering for jews

Raymund schütz 37 adds further exemption categories effective as of early july 1942 :

- calmeyer lists jews ( christianized jews and jews of portuguese ascent )

20,000 Rüstungsarbeiter, working for the German war industry. According to Rauter

they had to be let stay behind in the same way as the mixed-married. >>> : thus we can be certain that otto and margot and the rest of the annex jews were either not summoned at all, or were able to get margot´s summons scrapped at the jewish council or expositur offices.

- let us also remember always that otto was an iron cross first class, which entitled him, and maybe his family as well, to special regard in nazi eyes as of 1942.

Again : if otto etc. really moved to prinsen in july 1942, it wasn´t to escape deportation, from which they were exempt , but instead, to escape nazi raids and potential riots/violence in south amsterdam where they had been residing up to that point.

Tijn 50 confirms the wehrmacht-related exemptions first-hand again, stating that even if you did get caught in the net of a nazi raid, and taken to the schouwburg collection center, it was possible to get released if one could prove to be working either for the wehrmacht or for the diamond- or metal-trade or for the jewish council itself.

Therefore again, if the franks really moved to the annex on july 6, 1942, it would have been to escape tension and violence in amsterdam south - or even being lynched by jewish or nonjewish partisans, for collaborating with the occupiers. The franks had nothing to fear from the nazis at all.

Tijn 52 relates how exemption continued in september 1942 : stamps were issued, and the series starting with nr 60.000 and ending at 79.999 covered people working for the wehrmacht.

According to jewish historian l.de jong, exemptions for armaments jews or rüstungsjuden and other categories of exempted jews covered thier wives and children too, according to a nazi decision of june 1942 :

vrouwen en kinderen zouden ‘bis auf weiteres’ in Nederland mogen blijven. >>> : louis de jong,

Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog (The Kingdom of the Netherlands During World War II), p.295, here :


The lists of these exempted workers were held by the zentralstelle für jüdische auswanderung :

where are these lists now ? This would imply that wehrmacht-supplier otto frank and his entire family had been exempted from deportation as early as june 1942, and that therefore the diary is lying when it states, margot received a summons to deportation on july 5 - quod erat demonstrandum...And on july 6, they did not go into hiding because they had nothing and noone to hide from. The diary is a lie.

Otto heinrich frank was a collaborator and a war profiteer, who tried after the war to whitewash his nazi past by concocting the diary of anne frank with its false victim status and hiding framework.

It was him who, after the war or maybe starting already around the time of overlord, came up with the idea of reworking his daughter´s photo album into a fake diary. After liberation, otto and professional writer anneliese schütz cooked up version 1 of the diary, in german, as both did not possess sufficient command of dutch. Then they enlisted their friends ab cauvern, a dutch-jewish collaborator who had worked during the war for radio hilversum, which broadcast nazi propaganda, and his wife isa, who came up with the first dutch version of the diary. After finishing its typing, isa cauvern, who had been otto´s secretary at opekta for a time, reportedly committed suicide by jumping out the window in june 1946. Rumor has it, she did it out of unrequited love for otto.

In this was, a key witness to the diary fraud was taken out .

Report this post as:

© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy