DIARY OF A CON MAN
january 30, 2019 edition
The so-called diary of anne frank is a forgery by persons other than anne : her father otto and several collaborators of his, in primis anneliese schütz , ab cauvern, kurt baschwitz. 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 :
- 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;
- maria montessori ´s pedagogical concepts and books ;
- assorted other mostly german- and english-language classic writers and philosophers.
And while several similar literary genres come into play here - epistolary novel, bildungsroman, backfischroman, tagebuchroman - the real genre the so-called diary of anne frank belongs to is a classical late-latin one called cento in latin and english - collage in its modern reincarnation.
Which is in its essence, a form of plagiarism - not in latin literary history, where the cento was an openly declared and acknowledged technique ; but in the diary, where it is concealed by means of subtle variations on given themes and phrasings which I termed varied plagiarism - a very professional forgery technique absolutely not creditable to a 13- to 15-year-old human being.
If you want to have commercial success, you´d better try and be " all things to all men "...
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, F.
The first edition of the diary of anne frank came out in holland in june 1947:
Hereafter, HA ( = Het Achterhuis, the annex, original title of the first dutch edition )
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 :
For gunten : jakob von gunten: ein tagebuch by robert walser, bruno cassirer berlin
1909, online here :
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24176/24176-h/24176-h.htm Hereafter, G
CHAPTER I : CRAZY IDEA
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 real possibility you might get discovered and arrested ? Would you not only risk aggravating your own position in nazi eyes, but also jeopardizing the security of 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 itself explicitly states, allow you to keep it ?
That would be criminal, irresponsible and suicidal ! 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 ?
Would you have written the following passages, giving away illegal organizations and single people, knowing your diary might just fall into nazi hands any time in case you were discovered and arrested ? : F 541 f., jan. 28, 1944, a+b :
Thousands upon thousands of IDs and food ration cards are provided, sometimes for free and sometimes for money. How many fake IDs are out there ! Acquaintances are walking around with normal christian names [...] Bep´s boyfriend, who should actually be in berlin, daily meets companions and they often know of one another who´s hiding where . Three sons of our milkman´s are in the countryside etc. etc. >>>
b : >>
F 325, oct.10, 1942, a :
F 332, oct. 16, 1942, a :
F 351, nov.13, 1942, a :
if this passage had been true, and anne had been discovered and arrested that very day, and the diary had been read by the nazis, it would have led to the immediate arrest of :
1. pfeffer ; 2. van der hoeden ; 3. miep ; 4. jan ; 5. kleiman !!!
Could anyone , even at age 13, be so terminally stupid as to confide such dead giveaways to her diary ? Could any adult around her have allowed her to keep a diary in a real hiding situation, even not knowing its contents precisely, since the diary itself attests to their perfect awareness of the potential danger that anne´s diary represented for them all ? F 677, april 11, 1944, a :
[the police are at the revolving bookcase after a burglary, the annex jews are panicking and expecting the cops to discover them any moment now ]
too ", father chimed in ! " Burn it then, " the most fearful of us all suggested. >>> :
the 5 diary passages quoted above alone, are more than enough to discredit the authenticity of the so-called diary of anne frank.
They were written after liberation, to kiss dutch ass , by former nazi collaborator and war profiteer otto frank and his gang of thugs who were trying to pass themselves off as victims .
And if very few heroes have had the courage and the intelligence to express such doubts about the diary so far, it is simply because, unfortunately, most people are brainwashed and do not question myths - and when they do, they refrain from going public , lest they be deprived of their positions or physically attacked by the zionazi terrorists who rule the media world.
CHAPTER 2 : A MISSING PHOTOGRAPH
The diary in F begins on p. 214 , with a full-page photo of anne frank. Where does this pic come from ? In the allegedly original manuscript diary, it is missing, as F informs us on page 797, editors´ note 1. And missing it is indeed in this video by the anne frank stichting , amsterdam , itself :
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 , the alleged pulsing of the annex, and the holocaust ? How can a scientific edition, as F 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 F : . Thus the scientific edition dupes the reader into believing the actual manuscript featured that photo - which it doesn´t. Therefore anne or whoever wrote her so-called diary, 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 : 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 F - 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 F 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. Who the hell is this allard bovenberg, and what does he have to do with this pic ? Hadn´t otto frank willed the diary manuscripts to the dutch state ? If instead this photo belongs to a private person such as allard bovenberg, it cannot be part of the original manuscripts otto bequeathed to the dutch state upon his death in 1980.
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 F 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/friendship 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 corners , 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 the alleged 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 systematic deportation of local jews had not begun yet.
CHAPTER 3 : 4-HANDED MONSTER
Now what strikes us as very odd here on this reproduction above is, there clearly appear to be several different hands at work :
1. the hand that wrote the first line of the caption in red (annelies marie frank), plausibly anne frank´s own hand, a childish, feminine handwriting one could expect of a 12- to 13-year-old ;
the second red line´s hand, 1941/1942 (winter), looks more cursive/adult than the first red line´s .
Let me notice in passing, that if the pic was really taken in the winter, then the jewish lyceum must have had a superpowerful heating system, for anne is wearing a summer shirt with short sleeves !
2 . The hand that wrote the last line on the right-hand page, similar to but not quite identical with the red hand, feminine 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 (line 1) ;
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 ? Or vice versa ? Why would she want to add the line numbering ? Clearly here, hands other than anne´s have tampered with her photo album/friendship 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. Maybe, the diary´s interpolators used a real photo album/friendship 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 the forgery that is the so-called diary of anne frank wasn´t even written by hand, but by typewriter instead, and then added by hand to the diary much later, in the late 50ies/early 60ies, when a judge 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, but for the vague " 1941/1942 (winter) ", which might as well refer to the book and not to any photo. 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 ( IF that is, these dates for the diary entries have any connection with reality at all, which is highly unlikely as we shall see below) 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 allegedly went into hiding with her family on july 6, 1942. Therefore that last line cannot have been written before july 6, 1942 - again, IF anything about these dates and factoids is true at all to begin with. 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 maybe for the photo caption in red ink, or at least the first line thereof : this was again, a photo album/friendship 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 F, by one engineer hardy featured in this zionazi-friendly publication, and meant to prove that these radically different handwritings are all from anne frank at the same time. Hardy 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. Not to mention the famous ballpoint-pen corrections discovered by the german police in 1980. More on all this in chapter 58 below, page 116. For now, start reading this :
CHAPTER 4 : ALTERATIONS IN PROGRESS
If we know turn for a moment to the popular edition of anne frank´s diary, the current version that everyone reads 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 ( copyright 1991 ) ( henceforth POP ), page 11 : the sept. 28, 1942 entry on the photo above, reads in POP:
Wheras the alleged manuscript entry on 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.
It is not inappropriate to ask ourselves at this point, why would anne, IF she really ever wrote that diary, want to write it in dutch as opposed to german : anne frank was a german girl, her mother tongue was german, her parents were german and spoke german at home, anne´s best friends in amsterdam, aside from a jacqueline van maarsen, were german : hanneli goslar and sanne ledermann. The van pelses, while dutch nationals, had grown up in germany and spoke german. Miep gies was from wien and spoke german. Kugler was austrian and spoke german. Doctor pfeffer was german. His fiancee charlotte kaletta was german. Ilse wagner was german. Peter schiff was german. Helmut hello silberberg was german. Laureen nußbaum was german.
Anne frank in amsterdam, where she had arrived aged 4, spent most of her time beside school and a couple of dutch girlfriends, in a german-speaking environment. Why would she write in dutch ?
On the other hand, IF anne frank really had written her so-called diary, in dutch, one would have expected her dutch to be correct, as by age 13 when she allegedly started writing it, she had been living in amsterdam for 8 and a half years, schooled in dutch - instead, her manuscripts reportedly, were so full of germanisms and orthographic mistakes, that otto had to submit the first draft of the book to his dutch friend ab cauvern, who in his own words, changed a whole lot of the first part, and then performed many linguistic corrections in the rest :
Such massive editing would only be expected if it was instead non-bilingual otto who had written the first draft of the diary, in a language he did not master : dutch. Or rather : if otto, after writing the first draft of the diary in german, attempted an ill-fated dutch translation that ab and his wife isa cauvern would later have to massively correct and alter.
CHAPTER 5 : LITERARY PLAGIARISM
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 T and G. It is a very subtle sort of plagiarism, very professional , absolutely not creditable to an average 13-year-old such as anne frank. T is a novel about a 15-year-old girl, ilse, a contrarian and wild child, just like anne. The first leit-motif in T 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 T, 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, and she will get to the school on july 2. 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.
F 215 : the second diary manuscript entry dates from sept . 28, 1942
T 250 : a letter to ilse informs her of an event from sept . 28 .
I am not 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 forged the diary of anne frank, was well aware of the coincidences with T, and imitated plot, spirit, ideology, style and many details of T throughout the the so-called diary of anne frank.
We shall soon factor in dozens more striking similarities, now let us sum up the ones we have encountered so far :
T VERSUS DIARY:
about a rebellious teenage girl and her upbringing/education ; about a rebellious teen and her upbringing/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, getting there on july 2 ; anne moves to her hiding place, which will become her own boarding school of sorts, on a july 6
a letter to ilse informs her of an event from sept . 28 ; the second diary manuscript entry dates from sept . 28.
It does look as if T, a very popular book in germany and beyond since 1885, was subtly plundered by the diary´s forgers in order to generate subliminal referents in the public´s minds to something they knew and liked. An undeclared sampling technique of sorts. Or using the bass line from a popular song to build another song on it.
Before we carry on with our synoptic reading of T versus F, let me just say that, since the first edition of the diary in 1947, for 71 long years ( as of this writing, march 29, 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. on the complete allegedly original manuscripts directly.
The diary appears, on a first level of approach, to have been carefully planned out on the literary pattern of T, 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 T is not a diary, still it is the story of the initiation of a backfisch into womanhood.
Both the manuscripts as printed in F, and T, begin with a lively exclamation by ilse () and anne (), punctuated by exclamation marks. There follows in T a short brushstroke about ilse´s physique : : just like anne frank. And the third and fourth dated entries in anne´s diary are about her physical features .
I am trying to point out that random coincidences in the lives of anne and ilse were carefully exploited by the diary´s forgers in order to literarize the diary by molding it on T´s famous pattern.
Next up in T, 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 she will often sorely miss in the hiding place ( see for instance F 267, july 12 , 1942 , a ). Ilse too shall have to bid a a sad goodbye to her dog upon entering the boarding school.
There follows in T 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 T 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 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.
Virtually all , each and every single one of the leitmotifs around which T 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 - F,T,G .
CHAPTER 6 : PLAGIARISM DOWN TO THE SMALL DETAILS
F 215, sept. 28 , 1942 , a : anne lists female beauty marks that she either possesses or doesn´t : among the former, cheek and chin dimples : on page 26 of T, ilse´s room mate at the boarding
school, nellie, gets >>. On F 644, march 24, 1944, a, peter asks anne to laugh because she then gets dimples in her cheeks !!!
Let us also notice that the pic above page 4 shows anne broadly smiling - without the slightest sign
of dimples in the cheeks !!! These are dimples in the cheeks :
Look again at the same pic here and tell me if you see the slightest dimples in smiling anne frank´s cheeks :
Here´s another pic of laughing anne with no dimples whatsoever :
Anne frank never had dimples in her cheeks. The so-called diary is lying, just plagiarizing T. Peter never asked anne to laugh so he could see her dimples.
F 692 , april 16, 1944 , a : anne writes about her first kiss from peter the day before, and underscores that she finished writing shortly before 11 a.m.
T 250 f. : nellie gets her first kiss from doktor althoff at 11 a.m.
T 26 : Once at the boarding school , ilse sees that . Once at the hiding place, anne will see through the windows, an imposing chestnut tree.
This is not to say that the chestnut tree in her garden is fiction . What I am trying to make clear is, that whoever cooked up the diary of anne frank , knew T 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 school , 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.
T , pages 86f. , tells how ilse has made such progress at school, that an essay she has written is rated best , 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, through 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 T´s words are not copied wholesale - which would have been a dead giveaway given T´s enormous popularity in germany and beyond. 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 :
T pages 86f. : .
F, 239, june 21, 1942 , b :
T 87 : .
F 239, ibidem : .
Let us call this modus operandi, varied plagiarism, shall we ?
Again : 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 - T´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 to anne, its literarization in the diary is entirely derived from the T blueprint.
And crediting a 13-year-old with such professional literary skills is to be ruled out with the proverbial ...
CHAPTER 7 : JUGGLING 3 ORANGES
We shall now have to add G to our discussion. And start juggling the 3 oranges , T, F and G, at once, to fully grasp the collage work that is the so-called diary of anne frank .
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 following july 6, 1942, anne moves out of her amsterdam home at merwedeplein 37/II and into the at prinsengracht 263, which will soon become a boarding school of sorts for her.
F 215 : the second diary manuscript entry bears the date sept . 28, 1942
T 250 : a letter to ilse informs her of an event from sept . 28 .
F : anne arrives at her own " boarding house of sorts " on a july 6
T : ilse arrives at her boarding school on a july 2 .
T 33 : 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.
F 351 , dec. 5 , 1942 , a : anne receives, among other hanukkah/saint nicholas presents, a lock for her diary.
T 33 : when ilse sees her brand new diary, a present from her stepmother, it is locked, and she has to turn the little key in the lock to open it.
T: nellie, upon seeing ilse´s diary, exclaims : .
F: anne´s comment on her new diary : ( june 14 , 1942 entry, a , F 216).
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 34 : in a note accompanying ilse´s diary, her mother has written :
F 221, 20.6.1942 entry,b : .
T 243 :
F 215, june 12 , 1942 , a :
T 40 : flora hopfstange is wary of intruders peeking at her solitary writing.
F : so is anne, several times.
G: so is jakob, who once even scolds his classmate kraus for peeking at him writing in his diary.
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 about. 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 !!
CHAPTER 8 : ON HANDBAG MIRRORS
F 220, 20.6.1942 , b entry : >>.
This too has illustrious literary precedents in the history of german literature : the first that comes to mind is e.t.a. hoffmann, der sandmann, insel verlag 1986, page 42 :
Even more precisely, the diary´s forgers filched the handbag mirror as such, from hoffmann´s tale Das öde haus, The abandoned house, published in 1817 : 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 hoffmann 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 hoffmann in his own turn here, declaredly takes his cue from karl friedrich kretschmann´s 1799 tale Scarron am fenster. In hoffmann, 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 traceable , as usual, to our 2 main models
T, 141 : .
G, 23 : .
From these 2 , otto & his gang of forgers filched the idea of adapting hoffmann´s handbag mirror detail to school pupils.
This is what I mean by varied plagiarism and cento or collage forging technique : the handbag-mirror thing is a famous motif in german literature ; the using of it to catch glimpses of girls is from hoffmann ; the putting of it in the hands of school pupils is from both T and G . The spyglass is likewise from hoffmann. 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.
There are two unwitting hints in the diary at otto´s working method in forging it : F 671 , april 6, 1944 , a : >>...
And : a collection of favorite quotes from the books she read is also attributed to anne frank :
This collection is likely what the diary is referring to at one point : otto and his team of forgers worked around collections of quotes they had made, such as the one attributed to anne on F 697, april 18 , 1944 , a : >>.
Otto frank did know his german classics - and so did journalist/writer/literature tutor anneliese schütz . 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, like the rest of the diary´s first draft, are by otto frank , anneliese schütz and ab cauvern . Again : likely anne had indeed read hoffman or T as a child, or otto had read them to her - 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 hoffmann ideas and passages above are plagiarized again elsewhere in the diary :
saturday nov. 28, 1942 entry, (b), F 372 :
The hoffmann 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 1894 short story Through a window. And whoever concocted this diary passage with peeping anne , whether otto himself ( an avid reader of german as well as english classics) or anneliese schütz or ab cauvern , knew and used both well´s and woolrich´s short stories. The passage above was indeed present in the 1947 first dutch ed , if this is it :
But it wasn´t written by anne, who was hardly proficient in english, in 1942 or rewritten by her in 1944, that´s for sure . Compare for proof the following diary passages versus wells first, and woolrich below :
diary : >>
wells : >>
diary : >>
wells : >> .
Even more startling is the plagiarism from woolrich´s short story, because cornell woolrich's
" It had to be murder " first appeared in Dime detective magazine in february 1942 and then , in book form , in the 1944 collection After-dinner story, in new york : it is improbable/implausible that by nov. 28 , 1942 , or even by may-july 1944 when she allegedly wrote version b, anne frank would have found it, translated or not, in amsterdam...:
diary : >>
woolrich : >>
diary : >>
woolrich : >>
diary : >>
woolrich : >>
diary : >>
woolrich : >>
Varied plagiarism . Variations on a theme . Collage : reshuffling this bit from hoffmann , 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 & co. forgers´ team, occurs in the dec. 12 , 1942 diary entry ( F 380f. ) (b) : it is 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 : >>
F 381 : >>
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 .
The die-hard-fan´s , justificationist approach would indignantly object here that it´s not poor anne frank´s fault if she lived along a canal where houseboats were moored - this was amsterdam after all , what´s so strange about canals and houseboats, one need not h.g.wells to see a houseboat from an a´dam window ! Anyone stuck inside a house for months and years would exercise or get bored or wanna peep from the window !
Really ? Scores and hundreds of parallel passages - all natural-born coincidences ? Endless textual similarities or identities - random ? Callida-iunctura galore, such as books+boredom+window, or
hurry+fall, or exercise+night+window, or ship+amusement+window+houseboat-right-opposite :
all random coincidence, or reads reminiscence at best ? mm...be my guest, blind believer...
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 meant to enhance the diary´s literary, entertainment and commercial appeal : hoffmann sells, so let´s hoffmannize !
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.
Recommended reads :
The 1942 woolrich story It had to be murder, retitled Rear window for the 1944 book edition , is a real terminus post quem for the composition of the so-called diary of anne frank, or at least for the passages above that plagiarize woolrich : such passages , if not the whole diary, cannot have been written before liberation. They most likely date from 1945-1947.
And it doesn´t end here...the hoffmannian anne-looks-out-the-window scene pattern reoccurs again in the june 13 , 1944 entry (a), F 767 - only this time, the sauce is à la jean paul for a change.
Johann paul friedrich richter (aka jean paul) (1763-1825) was a german writer. His novel Hesperus oder 45 hundposttage came out in 1795. Here is how the otto/schütz & co. forgers´ team plunders , as usual per varied plagiarism, one of its passages :
F 767, june 13, 1944 , a : >>
Hesp : >>
Each and every literary element in the diary´s entry is filched from jean paul and reshuffled with variations intended to conceal the source :
Hesp : Orion...lonely
F : I went all alone
Hesp : a dark rotunda
F : the dark evening
Hesp : the thunderstorms of life
F : the storm
Hesp : the light of the moon, moonlight
F : the moon
Hesp : its drifting clouds
F : the drifting clouds
Hesp : the strings calmed down his craving
F : contemplating...makes me calm
Hesp : the longing spirit
F : my longing
Hesp : the starry sky
F : the sky... and the stars
Hesp : an enormous fear
F : greater than my fear
Reshuffle is the name of the game - a con game called the diary of anne frank.
Unless again, you think that a 15-year-old human being is capable of such supersubtle, highly professional burglaries...
Jean paul´s text here :
CHAPTER 9 : CLASSMATES, SELF-ED
In the first part of all 3 books under scrutiny , F, T and G , we encounter a description of single classmates. 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 ( confusingly featured within the june 19, 1942 ) entry on F 233, a ( page 31 of checkered-diary manuscript ) features a letter from otto to anne of may 11 or 12 , 1939 : .
The same concept is repeated in the march 7, 1944 entry (b) , F 593, this time by anne herself directly : .
And again in the july 15, 1944 entry (a), F 781 : .
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 and english 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 :
" creator of his own capabilities ", who must [...] build everything from himself "
(Montessori, 1972, p.67-68). >>>
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
F 781 : Self-knowledge/Self-perception/Self-judgement/Self-upbringing
MM : Self-discipline /Self-upbringing
F782 : the building of one´s character lies in one´s own hands
MM : Self-building/Self-creation/ by one´s own strength
F 782 : I have healed myself, by accusing myself of what was wrong in my actions
MM : Self-control/Self-discipline/Self-conquest/One´s own master
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.
Here is a synopsis of F passages against maria montessori´s pedagogical insights :
F 782 :>>
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 this case alone the first dutch edition of the diary actually precedes montessori´s book by one year. But then again, maria montessori had by then been repeating her key pedagogical insights for decades ad nauseam. Her book Self-upbringing , for one , dates from the 1910s.
CHAPTER 10 : HOMO SEX
In a famous F 509 entry, jan . 6, 1944 (a), anne writes : >>
This is nothing but the transposition in the feminine of a famous scene in G 9-11 :
No wonder nobody ever asked real-life jacqueline van maarsen whether or not this episode happened for real. I tried contacting van maarsen in 2018 at her publisher´s - no reply.
T has its lesbian moments too, though way softer : on page 201, ilse ; on page 214, as ilse is leaving the school , her mentor miss güssow .
Another G-style bed lie-in in the diary : F 306 , sept. 27, 1942, a .
CHAPTER 11 : SLAPPING MAMA IN THE FACE
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 of this expression 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 ...
And of course, anne´s mother after the umpteenth clash with her daughter described in the same entry, begins to cry a lot - jakob´s mother at G 37, cries after the violent clash with her son that jakob has seen in his dreams.
CHAPTER 12 : ICE DANCING
Yet another 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 :
[...] , anne dancing a waltz with bernd [...]. Anne on figure skates [...] while her partner enters from the other side in a blue ice-dancing outfit >.
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 - possibly in a film adaptation. 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 of 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 both F and G is the same : reverie, dream , magic.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.
F´s forgers used G as their blueprint for the diary, and adapted G to anne´s life´s real or imagined details , which they knew as intimately, or were easily able to simulate, because the forger-in-chief was anne´s father otto . And the thugs that cooked up the swindle with him ( schütz , cauvern , baschwitz ) had known anne very well too .
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-dancing scene colors.
Real or simulated details from anne frank´s life were literarized and woven into a coherent narrative by guntenizing and trotzizing them.
Many other diary features and mosaic tesserae were drawn from van marxveldt´s joop ter heul, but since even mainstream authors couldn´t help but notice them , albeit from a justificationist perspective, I´ll refer you to :
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 be considered plagiarism , but imitation instead , as joop is the only literary source explicitly cited by the diary´s authors as a model .
So much is certain : even IF anne frank authored her diary for real , she didn´t possess a scrap of originality as a writer at all .
CHAPTER 13 : PLAGIARIZING ANCESTORS
Among otto frank´s relatives, there had been a math professor called moritz (moses) stern (1807-1894) [GK 422] [GK=pressler´s book grüße un küsse an alle, see full ref below]. Now this guy had a penchant for diary writing. GK 59 quotes an excerpt from his diary, to which otto would apply his usual varied plagiarism :
moritz : >>
F 781, july 15,1944 , a : >>
F 776, july 6, 1944 , a : >>
Otto/anne also copies from moritz phrasings such as " the right way", " to mend one´s ways".
This whole self-upbringing-related idea of duplicating oneself in order to criticize/mend oneself
" objectively " occurs twice in the manuscripts :
F 781, july 15, 1944 , a :
F 522, jan .12 , 1944 , a+b : >>
Aside from moritz´s blueprint here , we also may hear an echo of goethe´s doppelgänger, from Dichtung und wahrheit , part 3 , book 11 : >>.
And behind it all, there lies Plautus´ famous Amphitruo scene in which Sosia meets Mercurius in Sosia´s guise...
CHAPTER 14 : ANNE THE PROPHETESS
The most famous and celebrated passage in the diary of anne frank occurs at the end of the july 15, 1944 entry (a), F 786 :
I congratulate otto frank, anneliese schütz and their editors/collaborators on this stunning piece of literary collage. This is where the forgers´ cento skills display their apex in virtuosity and complexity. Let´s take the rhetoric apart once again : always remember : if you wanna sell whatever product to the masses, you gotta try and be all things to all men , as that famous sales rep of religion put it...all things to all men :
diary : >>
Tacitus, agricola 30 : >>
diary : >>
Jean paul, hesperus 86 : >>
diary : >>
Schopenhauer, welt als wille, 4:54 : >>
diary : >>
Fichte, bestimmung, sämtliche werke,p.200 : >>
diary : >>
Kant, frieden, fußnote 8 :>>
Tacitus here :
Jean paul here :
Schopenhauer here :
Fichte here :
Kant here :
The diary passage above reads like a compendium of classic german idealistic philosophy in a nutshell : empathy with others´pain is at the core of schopenhauer´s buddhist-influenced mitleid philosophy, as presented among other treatises, precisely in part 4 of die welt als wille und vorstellung ; therefore the textual coincidence of the millions-of-humans iunctura is matched by the conceptual plagiarism here by the diary´s forgers ; likewise, the filching of the sehe-höre-fühle-denke tetrad from fichte´s 1800 Die bestimmung des menschen, is not merely verbal : conceptually, the thinking , the self-awareness, for fichte is superior and more real than the senses´ perceptions as such, which are disparaged as mere representations, projections of individual/human and divine subjectivity : " anne " here overcomes the tragedy that her senses perceive all around her, by a self-conscious act of spiritual/subjective thinking - quintessential fichte. Just like the diary´s weltordnung is nothing but fichte´s idea of the universe as ordo ordinatus.
Kant´s marvellous if utopian optimism that seals his Zum ewigen frieden wraps up the collage here by providing the forgers with the reconciling figura of the sky or the heavens heralding the return of peace after war´s end.
And if you still think that a 15-year-old human being would have been capable of all this - beside possessing the fraudulent intent of passing it off as original - well then again : be my guest.
I cannot attribute such a passage to otto frank either - his liberal culture was old and stiff, merely literary, novelistic, unphilosophical and unprofessional . Anneliese schütz too was more of a literature teacher than a philosopher. I think that in the case of this particular passage, and more of similar philosophical content and higher cultural/literary quality, other diary editors have to be factored in as possible authors : I would point you out here to kurt baschwitz, a friend of otto´s in amsterdam, a german jew to whom otto submitted typescript 2 of the diary in 1946 [ F 73 ]. Baschwitz had a background in sociology and psychology that surely included a strong philosophical education. He was an academic, with focus on...propaganda and mass psychology...From wiki/english : >>. About baschwitz and other possible suspects for the forgery, here :
Repetita iuvant : there are two unwitting hints in the diary at otto´s working method in forging
it : F 671 , april 6, 1944 , a : >>.
And : a collection of favorite quotes from the books she read is also attributed to anne frank :
This collection is likely what the diary is referring to at one point : otto and his team of forgers worked around collections of quotes they had made, such as the one attributed to anne on F 697, april 18, 1944 , a : >>.
CHAPTER 15 : FALSIFYING HISTORY
The so-called diary of anne frank cannot possibly be the work of a 13- to 15-year-old , first because there are several different hands in the manuscripts ; second , because several corrections and other writings in the manuscripts are written using a ballpoint pen , which became commercially available in europe only starting 1951 (see below chapter 58, page 116) ; third , because the diary is a collage or patchwork of passages filched from T, G, hoffmann, goethe and assorted others, only varied just about enough to cover the traces - showing professional forgery/plagiarism skills that cannot be credited to someone in her early teens. Fourth , because the whole story of what happened to the frank family from 1942 to 1944 was falsified and misrepresented in the alleged diary.
The first to 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, march 29, 2018 ).
Or - was he? Austrian/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 :
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 allegedly 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,b, F 441 ). 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 ( CAL 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 his arrival at prinsen, right afer the cleaning lady had left ; and CAL 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 CAL 85 also states that daatselaar, his nazi card notwithstanding , had 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 used to work in the annex ) were around in the building , the hiders refrained from going to the toilet ! 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 as go-betweens 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 jewish employees of his , such as 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. In this photo :
you can see another secretary ( as of 1940 ) of otto´s with a jewish name, hetti levi : she is not mentioned in the diary...god knows how she fared when the mass deportations of jews started in holland in july 1942 : not even the yad vashem Holocaust victims database has any record of her. By that time, otto had cleansed both his merwedeplein apartment and his companies´ staff of all jews who weren´t exempt from deportation - his own nazi-style selektion...
Before july 1942 , he had had as his merwedeplein undertenant one paul wronker, a jew who would eventually be deported to sobibor where he died on july 16, 1943, with his wife rosel. Otto had kicked wronker out and replaced him with exempted jew werner golschmidt , exempt from deportation because he worked for the jewish hospital [ M 406f. ] .
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, pp. 186f., 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), F 599 :
. 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 extra coupons for extra potatoes butter and marmalade, 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) , F 602 :
. The diary mentions these arrests again in the march 14 , 1944 entry (both a and b versions) , F 605: . 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 illegal 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 for the illegal extra stamps and their smugglers , thus making the risk worth running .
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), F 613. In brouwer´s case, he was released because his wife was about to give birth , says the entry.
Daatselaar and brouwer had free access to the alleged hiders because the hiders weren´t hiding at all.
The a version had told the truth :
clearly the reference here is to the legal ration cards, that the hiders had a legal right to, since they were all exempt from deportation and living a perfectly legal and normal life. Until early 1944, these ration cards were those issued by the dutch govermnent in 1939 (see below, chapter 38). In early 1944, the germans introduced a second ration card, which rendered the first useless : so the 5 ration cards the diary mentions here were either the new ones at this point, since the franks were leading a perfectly legal life, exempt from antijewish measures due to otto´s status as ww1 decorated vet and his company opekta´s as wehrmacht supplier (see below); or if the cards were the old ones, they had become invalid in early 1944 so why bother mention them here at all ?
At any rate : why only 5 food ration cards cited , when there were 8 hiders ? Who was lacking one and why ? This is very suspect, and leads us to hypothesize, that the 3 van pelses never really lived in that annex because they had been deported as early as 1942 ( see below ).
The diary somewhere else states they only had 5 cards (actually 4 , see here below) because the cards being illegal and expensive, they couldn´t afford to buy 8 on the black market !!! That is preposterous, because again, until early 1944, the dutch government ration cards issued in 1939 were perfectly valid , and there was no reason why all 8 shouldn´t have had 1 each since 1939. In early 1944, the first ration cards were rendered invalid by the germans as we saw, and a second ration card issued by dutch authorities under german pressure - but again , there was no reason why the franks, who as we saw weren´t hiding at all, shouldn´t have been able to pick up their new ration cards as well. Of course in order to do so, one had to go to the distribution agency and show them one´s ID - F 541, jan. 28, 1944 , states the annex jews had no IDs - another ludicrous lie.
According to CAL 330, starting on jan. 23, 1942 , jews in holland had to carry IDs with the letter J on them , to mark them out as jews - why wouldn´t the franks etc. have complied with this regulation ? Even assuming that they had by then been stripped of their german citizenship, and had their passports confiscated, weren´t they forced to carry these new dutch IDs with the J ? Furthermore, even assuming for argument´s sake the franks etc. did not have such dutch IDs , CAL 328 states that starting jan. 10, 1941, all persons wholly or largely of jewish blood in holland had to registrate with authorities - how could the franks possibly have functioned in holland from that point on, without such registrations ? They must have received some kind of ID paper when they registered !! All of which happened way before the alleged going underground on july 6, 1942 !!!
Van tijn ( a collaborator zionazi jewess in amsterdam during ww2) in her report , p. 121 here :
states that in nov. 1941, every person in holland above 14 years of age (which would have included all franks but for anne then ) received an identification card - those for jews were marked with a large black J . And that after jan. 1, 1942 , every person was forced to always carry this new ID card.
Van tijn on p.120 also confirms that jews in holland had to register as such by aug. 15, 1941 - or face labor camps. Why would the franks not have complied, and taken such a grave risk ?
Thus when the diary states on jan. 28, 1944 that the annex jews had no IDs , it´s lying again for a change. They did have their IDs, including anne who had long since turned 14 by then, and they collected their new ration cards in early 1944 themselves because they were exempt from antijewish measures such as deportation. All they needed from thugs they employed such as nazi daatselaar and brouwer, was illegal extra foodstamps to be able to buy more fish, meat, veggies etc. than allotted them - the diary deliberately plays on the confusion between ration card and foodstamps - the card was a sort of ID allowing one to receive foodstamps :
The foodstamps were stamps of different colors for every sort of rationed food :
The latter were what daatselaar and brouwer illegally traded to the franks - because the allotted food rations did not suffice to ward off hunger and malnourishment.
There is 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 :
The b version adds the word BLACK to the march 14 ,1944 entry above, F 605 :
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 ration cards just like everybody else in holland - except , that is, for REAL hiders !!! Also see page 99 below for all this and more.
The diary had already lied about the whole situation with the food supplies and ration cards on F 353, nov.9, 1942 , b : >> ; and on F 382 , dec. 22 , 1942 , b : >> : this cannot be true, as again, everybody in holland by that point had had their personal food ration card since 1939. The franks had them and so, why risk purchasing illegal ones ? To use a false identity ? But they are saying they did not go shopping themselves !!! They are lying , as usual : they did go shopping themselves, using their perfectly legal 1939 food ration cards, which remained valid until early 1944, and they had no fear of arrest because they were not hiding because they were exempt from antijewish measures because they were armaments jews and otto held an iron cross first class.
Also notice how the allegedly illegal cards are 4 here - to later transmogrify into 5. At any rate, never 8, except starting april 15, 1944 ( see below). Otto´ s war profiteering with the wehrmacht was flourishing during ww2 - and he couldn´t afford another 3 illegal cards for the van pelses ? Who by the way, still had money by this point in time, and could have bought them themselves...Had they needed to do so, which by late 1942 none of them did , as they had their perfectly legal and valid 1939 dutch government cards which would only be replaced by authorities in early 1944.
Even assuming for a moment for the sake of argument , that the annex jews really had been
hiding , and that in early 1944 their 1939 food ration cards expired , had they at that point wanted the new ration cards, they would have had to purchase not only black cards, and black stamps, but also black IDs - because the new card holder had to have a mark on his/her ID that matched another on the new ration card . Furthermore, since they didn´t go shopping themselves, again , in whose name were all these new papers supposed to have been ? Fake names ? How could bep or miep have passed themselves off for someone else in case of controls ? And if the baker and the greengrocer were friends and helpers, and delivered their groceries to the hiders without requesting foodstamps as the diary sometimes states, then why all the hassle to get illegal stamps and cards ? Because of butter, marmalade, fat, margarine ( march 14, 1944, a+b, F 605 )? Not to mention meat and fish that never seemed to lack in the annex through 1944 ? Ok if so then again : fake IDs+fake ration cards+illegal stamps for at least 5 would have been needed starting in early 1944 - implying that the money supply the hiders could count on was virtually limitless - which it probably was anyway, since otto´s wehrmacht biz was blossoming. Precisely what exempted him from deportation alongside his ww1 iron cross first class, so why risk with fake IDs and ration cards ?
Only plausible thing here is the smuggling of extra foodcoupons for the franks´ insatiable bellies.
Judging from this specimen of a food ration card :
such cards were issued to minors too ( the card holder I linked to cannot have been older than 3, as rationing in holland was lifted in 1952 ; obviously, it cannot mean he crawled out shopping on his own on all fours - his parents must needs have been able to make purchases with his card ). If so, then why does anne or whoever wrote the diary, speak of only 4 or 5 ration cards they had ? The same figure 5 also occurs on F 494, dec. 22, 1943 entry, a : why 5 and not 8 ? Again, this first issue of ration cards dates back to 1939, so each of the 8 annex jews must have had one, perfectly legally - why 5 ? Could it be that not only peter van pels ( see below pages 74 - 76, chapter 33), but his parents too, never lived in that annex at all ? Was it just the 5 of them - the 4 franks + pfeffer ? The diary states that pfeffer moved into the annex nov. 17, 1942 , but we´ve already seen several times, by comparing a and b, that the diary´s entry dates are...quite flexible. An intriguing , if disguised , clue that the van pelses were deported much earlier than the official story would have us believe, is provided by the diary, F 342, oct.29, 1942 , b :
version a on F 344 confirms this, but the entry date is nov. 2...Version c ( reportedly, anneliese schütz´s first german translation of the diary which came out in 1950 ) adds " by the germans ". Now the germans only proceeded to have jews´apartments emptied after their dwellers had been summoned for deportation or arrested, and had been made to sign a whole series of papers enabling the german state to seize all they had .
But at the end of october, 1942 , the van pelses were in hiding in theory : though for what reason , nobody knows, as the diary doesn´t mention any german summonses for them , or any other imminent danger they were facing. Therefore it´s either the diary´s oct. 29 entry is another lie ; or the van pelses´s apartment really was emptied by the germans or their dutch henchmen, the puls company, on oct. 28, 1942 or so - because the van pelses had been deported a few days earlier !!!
In which case of course, the diary´s featuring the van pelses in the annex for 2 years is a lie.
The ration cards for the annex jews do eventually grow to 8 on april 15, 1944 , F 690 - but the diary misrepresents these cards as being valid only for the month - which is a lie : the second ration cards, issued in early 1944 under german pressure as we saw above, remained valid until the early 50ies - when food rationing was finally lifted in holland !!! Again the diary here deliberately says cards when it means stamps. The probable truth is, since the annex jews were exempt from deportation at that point, and leading a perfectly legal life, that they received their second ration cards, one each, just like everyone else in holland. If instead they had bought the 8 cards illegally on the black market through martin brouwer as this entry states, then that would flatly contradict the dec. 22 , 1942 entry above : >> !!!
Let us now pick up where we left off : the opekta/pectacon (=gies&co.)´s staff : 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 as yet 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 !!
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 other firms´ staff !
The diary is lying when it states that the only staff at prinsengracht 263 were kugler, kleiman , miep, bep voskuyl, her father mr voskuyl and two laborers !!! [ F 254, july 9, 1942 ,b ]
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 : müller or henceforth , M = melissa müller, das mädchen anne frank , fischer taschenbuch, 2013 ]
The comments on the brokses in the diary are dated to may 1944, but by then , they had been working for otto 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 ) , F 741, anne speaks of " the ans broks danger ". In the sept. 27, 1942 entry ( a ), F 306, 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. Or maybe since earlier still , because otto reportedly had been preparing the moving for a year or so prior to july 6, 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( or rather, whoever wrote it) 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 late 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 ( F 19). 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 !!! The man didn´t lack money during the terrible times of ww2 in famine-afflicted amsterdam !!! Yet another proof that his collaborator biz with the wehrmacht was paying huge dividends. 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 as to the brokses´ room and the prinsen rent , we do not know who was paying that rent in otto´s name or how.
The long list of those who worked for opekta/pectacon goes on and on :
- sales rep sientje blitz-roos :
- warehouse hand petrus josephus genot (ibid.)
- warehouse hand lammert hartog (ibid.)
- cleaning lady lena van bladeren hartog (ibid.), working at prinsen starting in 1943
- night watchman martinus slegers (ibid.), watching prinsen 263 from after april 9, 1944
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 , would have been absurd in a real hiding situation . 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 !!! And such a noise would have stood out in the neighborhood, because vacs were the absolute luxury in the 1940ies - only the rich could afford them , and the prinsen neighborhood was dirt poor as the diary itself attests to. One might object here , that maybe mrs van pels was using a carpet sweeper instead - a quiet , mechanic device which actually might stomp 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.
One last remark about the hoover : again, 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 handsomely profiting from their economic collaboration with the wehrmacht during ww2 .
So again : Faurisson was right in stating that for mrs van daan to vac the carpet every day at 12 : 30 pm would have been absurd in a hiding situation . His inference was - the diary of anne frank is a forgery - and a slipshod one at that.
What if , instead , we posited another explanation : that the diary is indeed a forgery, and a slipshod one at that, but that mrs van pels or whoever 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 ; or the dozens of customers and delivery workers who streamed daily in and out of prinsen 263 ; 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, literally a few metres away - 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.
CHAPTER 16 : MORE ABSURDITIES
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 .
Only 2 logical explanations here : either such noisy activities were fabricated , and the diary is a
lie ; or such noisy activities happened for real - in which case too , 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.
Let us posit in summation here, what will become our main point in this study : although anne frank never wrote the diary credited to her, the forgers 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 maybe , 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 sorts 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 most of the inconsistencies 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 margot after not finding her 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 in 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 nazi raids had occurred in amsterdam and holland , though not yet systematically, since 1941 already - and would resume in mid-july 1942 , a few days after otto´s prescient move out of the heavily jewish river quarter in south amsterdam where merwedeplein was situated . Once you got caught in a nazi raid , it was up to you to prove you were exempt , so why risk the hassle ? Another reason prompting the franks to move into the companies´premises might have been , in order to deter burglars by constant on-site presence. More on this below. All of which that is , IF the franks etc. ever really lived in that annex at all to begin with.
When Faurisson confronted otto frank himself , at the latter´s swiss home, with all the diary´s absurdities in march 1977, frank 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
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.
CHAPTER 17 : PAUSING TO THINK
Well , at this point one might object here, if what the diary says happened for real , except for the hiding part , then 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 war-relevant status, 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 , ab cauvern , kurt baschwitz and others .
Well , I tend to think that anne frank did not write her diary - but for some of the photo captions maybe , in what was originally intended as a photo/friendship album . 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. She suffered from poor eyesight , as attested to by both the diary itself and MG . To top it all off , she had a heart condition according to kurt baschwitz :
Then there are the different hands at work in the diary´s manuscripts , whereof no complete facsimile or photo reproduction has been published so far by the zionazis who own them. They did make 2 facsimiles - 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 scatterbrained , shallow and spoiled 13-year-old .
CHAPTER 18 : MANY DIFFERENT VERSIONS
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, 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 text.
CHAPTER 19 : THE TRUE STORY
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 ( july 8, 1942 entry, a , 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 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 summons´ prescribed date. Expecting this , the germans raided jewish neighborhoods in amsterdam and arrested hostages at random , 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 call-up notice margot allegedly received july 5, or had been arrested in one of the german raids meant to fulfill their initially assigned 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 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 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 since may/june 1942 already. And scattered nazi raids for jews had already taken place in holland since 1941.
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, margot frank , only 16 on july 5, 1942 , never received the call-up notice the diary may be lying about . At any rate, the franks would not be searched for or deported at all or receive any summons for deportation or be harassed in any way by other antijewish measures between july 6, 1942 and 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 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 appears as if it was deliberately delayed.
Otto frank had friends in high places, such as dutch detective with the aliens police gerard oeverhaus [ CAL 81f. ]. And nsb member k.o.m. wolters, who was in charge of liquidating pectacon in 1941 and 1942 , and did so - much in otto frank ´s favor. The nazis had decreed in 1941 and 1942, that all jewish capital was to be transferred to a nazi-controlled bank called lippman, rosenthal & co. [Pectacon was one of 2 companies otto frank had originally set up in holland, the other being opekta amsterdam. Both traded in food surrogates .] But somehow, accidentally-on-purpose, pectacon´s capital ended up at the dutch nederlandse bank instead !!! [ F 14f. ]. Otto had many friends among the nazis, and was clearly able to pull all the strings he wanted with them , until at least 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, that Faurisson had already spotted in 1978 : in the sept. 28, 1942 entry (a) (F 267) 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 that - 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 thing yet , as the appointment given by the summons was for the 15th : see oproeping reproduced on AFH 38 and here :
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 !!!
CHAPTER 20 : DIGGING DEEPER
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 allegedly 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 the 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 such memorabilia ?
CHAPTER 21 : 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 :
THE MAN WHO HID ANNE FRANK
BY EDA SHAPIRO AND RICK KARDONNE
GEFEN PUBLISHING HOUSE
COPYRIGHT 2004 AND 2008
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 scant written record of this alleged arrest. 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 . IF, that is , the crime had been helping jews .
As for victor kugler specifically, there is no record whatsoever of his alleged detention at :
- euterpestr. (gestapo)
- 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, and on the so-called evelyn wolfe tapes ( see below), 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 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 nazis to real jew helpers, whose fate was really dire.
That is because in reality, these so-called helpers were a bunch of collaborators, just like their boss otto frank, who did business with the wehrmacht thoughout the war and even employed nsb members in his firms !! Nsb was the dutch national socialist party.These tasks kugler went on to perform starting august or september 1944 , had nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged helping of jews that likely never happened at all - at least as far as the annex jews were concerned , see below. IF kugler and kleiman were indeed arrested on that day, which I deem certain , they were for evading their labor recruitment, see below, or some other crime of commercial fraud , see below. They likely 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 caused by increasing allied air raids .
M 330 states that kugler received a first call-up notice 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 : 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 call-up notice, 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. This second call-up notice is mentioned in the diary, F 770, june 16, 1944 , a .
It is an interesting mention , in that it attests to the fact that one could at least try dodging such work summonses by producing , again , a medical certificate, or an opekta-letter : because opekta , being a certified war-relevant company since february 1943, and anyway as a matter of general , well-documented nazi practice also before that , exempted not only its jews from antijewish measures, but as per this very true diary passage, its christians from work service too.
This time around though, by mid-june 1944, after overlord had got under way ( june 6, 1944 ), neither dodge must have helped kugler - the germans were desperate for manpower more than ever. The last mention of kugler in the diary is in the july 8, 1944 entry, F 778, a : starting july 9 and through the last entry of august 1, kugler vanishes from the diary´s radar . Which probably means he either left as early as july for his work service,or, believing as many did at that time in holland , that liberation was around the corner, simply ignored his call-up notice - and got duly arrested for it on august 4, 1944 . Amersfoort camp indeed where he reportedly ended up in september, was destined for arbeitseinsatz violators , among other groups :
recruitment >>> :
I incline to think that both kleiman and kugler, 2 of the alleged christian helpers of the alleged annex jews, were indeed arrested that aug. 4 , 1944 - only NOT for helping jews who had never
hid, but instead , for evading their call-up notices for labor recruitment.
The final proof that kleiman and kugler were indeed arrested for the minor offense of work-shirking , is unwittingly provided by the following zionazi web page :
Scroll down the page, and you will get to johannes kleiman´s amersfoort registration card , which looks authentic, unlike kugler´s we shall discuss below. Anyway here is the document :
The reason given on the card for kleiman´s detention is : EVADING WORK
(Arbeitsverweigerung), and NOT jüdenbegünstigung or jew-helping :
WE HAVE THUS CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT WHILE KUGLER AND KLEIMAN WERE INDEED ARRESTED ON AUGUST 4 , 1944 , THEY WERE FOR HAVING EVADED THEIR CALL-UP NOTICES FOR COMPULSORY WORK FOR THE REICH AND NOT REPEAT NOT FOR HELPING JEWS THEY HAD NEVER HELPED BECAUSE THOSE JEWS BEING EXEMPT FROM DEPORTATION UNTIL JULY 1, 1944 HAD NEVER EVER HIDDEN.
The fake arrest story of august 4 , 1944 was likely just a cover-up for kugler and kleiman getting arrested for shirking their second call-up notice mentioned by the diary for kugler mid-june, 1944 . This was probably no harsh punishment . 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.
The source for kugler having trained and worked as a machine fitter is M 330 : in the early 20ies, kugler, an austrian, had spent a first stint in holland as machine fitter for german firm deutschen maschinenfabrik ag (demag). He would then go on to marry a dutch woman , stay in holland and become a naturalized dutch citizen.
K 58f. states that 1 month after his 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 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 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. This second prison appears attested to by one of the documents displayed here, which might just be authentic :
This document only goes to show once more that treatment was not in the least harsh, as kugler was able to communicate with the outside world ( presumably his wife) and request the sending of clean laundry, shaving soap and brush.
A few weeks later, he passed a second silberbauer interrogation , again a short and harmless 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 .
Scant record 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.
CHAPTER 22 : JUDENBEGÜNSTIGUNG
Here is a difficult german word for you to learn, it means jew-helping : a crime in nazi germany, though not precisely as such , 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 /german :
Now, if kugler´s treatment even vaguely resembles any of this hell to you... All that alleged jew-helper kugler allegedly had to endure during the first 4 weeks of his detention , was 2 cozy encounters with fellow countryman silberbauer, plus 3 days of high-skilled 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 . Actually, the amersfoort website quoted above states, that starting sept. 5, 1944 , that is to say, before kugler reportedly got there, all the prisoners were given back their civilian clothes...:
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 :
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 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 freezing and 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 one 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 ( march 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 other than helping 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 : he was arrested for evading his mid-june- 1944 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 for the former being fraudster eric marco from spain. Arbeitseinsatz. Obviously though , kugler would have preferred to keep working as a manager at prinsen . If he really was arrested on aug. 4 , 1944 , again he was for dodging his second call-up notice to compulsory work for the reich. Just like kleiman.
Raymund schütz cited below, 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, I can safely add.
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].
Summing it all up : kugler and kleiman were the only 2 people arrested at prinsengracht 263 on august 4, 1944 - NOT for helping jews, but for evading their call-up notices for compulsory but well-paid civil work for the reich. Kugler and kleiman spent less than 4 weeks of tolerable detention in jailhouses in amsterdam . In early september, they started the civil work stint for the reich they had evaded back in june.
CHAPTER 23 : WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO REAL JEW-HELPERS
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 most part of the jewish hospital in berlin wedding by the way, starting in late 1942 had been turned by the nazis 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 another wiki example of real jew helper and his real dire fate :
CHAPTER 24 : EVIDENCE, TRUE OR FALSE ?
Over the decades, as many took turns 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. One of only 2 documents 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 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 was supposed to 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 : !!!
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 on the fake card. And while the previous blunder hohe elbe for hohenelbe might be attributed to clerical oversight , writing catholic for 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 .
Unlike kleiman´s authentic amersfoort card above, kugler´s gives as reason for his arrest " to work service ( jew-helping) " : as we saw above, the real reason was evading work service !!! Kugler´s card is a forgery. Or at the very least , IF indeed the town´s misspelling was just clerical oversight , and IF he really was a catholic but had changed that later in his life due to his suffering from alzheimer´s or because he had converted to lutheranism or whatever , then his amersfoort card is also genuine as kleiman´s - except that someone interpolated the word judenbegünstigung in it .
And the capital Z bottom right might just be another interpolation if it stands for Zwangsarbeit as mainstream lore would have you believe - or that Z is indeed genuine and it stood for Zurückstellung - being held back from transfer to germany or poland , as a special privilege for his being austrian maybe, or his having faithfully served the III reich in war-relevant companies opekta and gies&co. for so long .
CHAPTER 25 : WHAT DID THIRD REICH LAW DO TO JEW HELPERS ?
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 :
There was, to be sure, no legal determination , that expressedly forbade helping jews . This notwithstanding , shortly after the introduction of 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 ( IF that is, at least this part of the card is authentic ), kugler was no german citizen 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 . Of which as we saw above, he really spent only 1 month in
jail , and the rest , performing his regular arbeitseinsatz .
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 on her birthday ( F , jan. 19, 1944 entry, a, F 527 ; jan. 15, 1944 entry, a, F 525 ), and anne herself with 3 slices of full-fat cheese once on hers ( F 762, june 13, 1944 entry, a ) !!!
Why on earth was kugler arrested then ? As we proved above , for evading his call-up notice to compulsory work for the reich.
>> : 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 elsewhere gives another date : july 1, 1944 . F 17 confirms the july 1 date . 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 - who never was arrested for sheltering jews . 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 . But since as we proved above, kleiman was NOT arrested for helping jews, but instead for evading his labor recruitment - this implies that the jews in there never hid - either they had led a perfectly legal life , exempted from deportation ; or they had never even lived there at all to begin with . Why on earth would the nazis arrest kugler alone for judenbegünstigung , and not kleiman , miep , bep or jan gies ?
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 had been his christian colleagues and friends jan gies, johannes kleiman and antonius dunselman [M 196f. + F 14f.].
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 pectacon 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 for 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 ?? And why does kleiman´s amersfoor detention card say arbeitsverweigerung and not judenbegünstigung or related offenses ? 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 - certainly not of the annex jews, who had never hid at all . On that day, or on august 8 rather, the franks most likely only complied with a deportation call-up they had received after july 1, and had to report at centraal station in amsterdam to be deported to westerbork concentration camp.
Summing it all up : on aug. 4 , 1944 , kugler was NOT repeat 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 on august 4, 1944 !! Kugler was arrested for the same reason kleiman was : arbeitsverweigerung .
M 341 states, that anna "ans" broks became pro-forma director of gies&co. in may 1944 : again another proof , that kugler never really played any leading role in either of otto´s firms in there.
There is hardly any paper trail for such a massive raid leading to the arrest of 8 hiding jews and 2 of their christian helpers : 10 people arrested and scant paper trail - more on this later.
Kugler was indeed arrested on that day, for reasons other than judenbegünstigung - such as dodging his summons for compulsory work for the reich , like kleiman .
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 ?
And 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/relations with jews .
There was no such thing as a crime or charge legally called judenbegünstigung/jew-helping.
Kugler was indeed sincere at least on 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 - possibly made as late as after his death on dec. 16, 1981 . His authentic original amersfoort card must have said arbeitsverweigerung like for kleiman above .
CHAPTER 26 : A LIAR ´ S CONTRADICTIONS
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...
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, describing 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 for the grave crime (in nazi eyes of course) of helping jews, but only for shirking his mid-june-1944 summons for compulsory work for the reich.
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 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 himself 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 , a red herring to conceal the truth that kugler was arrested for evading 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 .
One might object, that if kugler and kleiman had been evading their arbeitseinsatzaufrufe at the time, they would have been hiding somewhere and would not have reported regularly for work at prinsen 263 on that august 4, 1944 . But again, in the summer 1944 in amsterdam , liberation after overlord was perceived and rumored to be around the corner, a matter of days or hours , so likely kugler and kleiman thought they might just get away with evading their summonses because the germans were on the run and about to leave holland for good.
This much is certain here : kugler and kleiman were NOT arrested for helping jews . And the annex jews were NOT arrested at all on that aug. 4 , 1944 - see below for this.
CHAPTER 27 : WAR PROFITEERS
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 ) on august 4 , 1944 never happened at all : it is a completely fabricated event .
Kugler and kleiman in the summer of 44 likely chose not to comply 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 - not long after which , kugler drops off the diary´s radar screen for good . They were indeed arrested on august 4, 1944 - but for evading their labor recruitment , NOT for helping jews.
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-first-class-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.
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 in such a location 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, typically wouldn´t hide together, they 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.
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 first class decoration, which exempted german jews like him from deportation, and most likely all or most 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.:
goods. " >>>
CAL 352 note 17, sources this to the pectacon sales ledger, 1940 (AFS) : it´s 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 ledgers have not been published, is a naive question if you know what I mean...
Lee was only wrong about the preservative thing : pectin is not a preservative :
>> (from wiki ).
Miep again acknowledged business with the occupiers on MG 72 f. :
>> [my caps]
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.
Such a family does not deserve victim status , does not deserve to symbolize the innocent suffering of millions of jews and nonjews during ww2 - not to mention those who gave their lives fighting the nazis .
This is not moralistic judgement - maybe otto 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 his daughter´s diary.
Again, for a nice profit . He does not repeat NOT deserve hero status .
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 ?...It´s them who were heroes - not the goosesteppin´ 80%.
CHAPTER 28 : ALLEGED ARREST
Again for the umpteenth time : no jew was arrested on august 4 , 1944 at prinsengracht 263 . There is not a single piece of evidence for this alleged arrest . Faurisson in his classic essay le journal d´anne frank, est-il autentique ? chapter 60, recounts interviewing miep gies in amsterdam in1977 : >> : 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 see 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 . Only kugler and kleiman were arrested - no jew. And they were NOT arrested for helping jews .
CHAPTER 29 : WHAT WE HAVE : AUTHENTIC OR FORGED ?
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 ( the 2 pages with the franks, van pelses, pfeffer ) :
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 :
DIE LETZETEN SIEBEN MONATE
COPYRIGHT WILLY LINDWER 1988
FISCHER TASCHENBUCH VERLAG
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 indeed 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 stem from red cross staff after liberation , marking 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. The handwritten notes on the AFH specimen again have allegedly been made by red cross staff assigned to track down deportees´ fates after liberation.
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 ?
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.
And 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 - die freiwillige. These 3 categories applied to both jews and nonjews alike.
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 [inge franken , gegen das vergessen , erinnerungen an das jüdische kinderheim fehrbelliner straße 92 berlin - prenzlauer berg , berlin text verlag 2010] where holocaust survivor jewess 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 am not thereby necessarily implying 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
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 version thereof , is indeed authentic : but the häftlinge is an interpolation. 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.
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 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 :
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 IS THE VERY SAME LIST - ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING , IT LACKS THE HÄFTLINGE - A WORD WHICH MAY ONLY HAVE BEEN INTERPOLATED LATER , FOR THE 1999 PROZIONAZI AFH PROPAGANDA BOOK AND THE 1988 PROZIONAZI WILL
BOOK !!!!! THE VERSION OF THE LIST HERE ABOVE IS EITHER THE ORIGINAL UNTAMPERED DOCUMENT OR THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE FORGERY.
WE HAVE THUS PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY AND DEFINITIVELY THAT THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE FRANK´S PAGE ON THEIR TRANSPORT LIST WESTERBORK-AUSCHWITZ OF SEPT. 3, 1944 DID NOT REPEAT NOT FEATURE THE WORD HÄFTLINGE ,
BECAUSE THE FRANKS WERE NO PRISONERS AT ALL , THEY HAD NEVER BEEN ARRESTED, THEY HAD NEVER HID, THEY HAD BEEN EXEMPTED FROM DEPORTATION THROUGH JULY 1, 1944 AS ARMAMENTS JEWS OR WAR-RELEVANT JEWS AND THANKS TO OTTO´ S WARTIME IRON CROSS FIRST CLASS .
AFTER ARYANIZATION OF OPEKTA ON JULY 1, 1944 THEY RECEIVED THE DREADED AUFRUF ZUM ARBEITSEINSATZ, COMPLIED WITH IT AND WERE DEPORTED FIRST TO WESTERBORK ON AUGUST 8 AND THEN TO AUSCHWITZ ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1944 .
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... That is why neither miep nor jan gies saw any jews being arrested on aug. 4 , 1944 - because none were . You can see here how there was a group of normaltransport jews too, on that sept. 3, 1944 wbk-auschwitz train :
minutes 1´ 11´´ - 1´ 19´´
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.
Another very odd piece of data is to be found in the following 2 documents from the amsterdam civil registry ( IF authentic) stating that otto and his family were deported to germany not on sept . 3, 1944 as per official story, but on oct. 27 instead !!! :
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 , at least as far as the franks are concerned : 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.
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 . This one here :
was sent to one heinrich schussein, 32 at the time, fitting the age group targeted, unlike margot
( IF katja happe is right ) :
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
[...] 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. Such is the truth of the matter. Again , summing it all up :
july 1, 1944 : opekta amsterdam , 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 alleged 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 .
CHAPTER 30 : WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO OTTO ?
And yet - that sept. 3, 1944 westerbork-auschwitz transport list above smells . If it is a forgery, all of it not just the häftlinge , then what happened to the alleged 8 annex jews ? Are we certain we may talk about 8 annex jews ?
Otto frank held an iron cross first class - 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 than at any other nazi camp. 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 interpolated or forged tranport list above . There is the witness of a couple of his friends of his who met him in auschwitz allegedly : how can we know whether they told the truth or lied on his behalf ? When so many lied all their lives on otto frank´s ( and their own) behalf ? Miep, bep, kugler, kleiman, anneliese schütz, ab cauvern , kurt baschwitz ...
Otto was the only survivor of the alleged 8 annex jews : 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, just before sept. 18 , 1944 ( date of the so-called railway strike ) !!! The F zionazis editors 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
1944 > : 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 registration card - again proving he was indeed at westerbork , which again I consider plausible and have no problem withb. 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 ? On what evidence are they based ?
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 appears to confirm 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 proved a fake, or a partial fake at the very least .
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, ronnie goldstein-van cleef , 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 other 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 :
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 :
[ during the alleged arrest on august 4 , 1944 ]
- 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 , kurt baschwitz , werner cahn ) , 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 by referring to at least partly real and known or plausible events or facts . Screening the lie behind a half-truth .
Otto here , in this 1956 or 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 , especially if first-class like otto´s and pfeffer´s , see below, in accordance with the wannsee´s conference´s decrees , and those with permanent war-related disabilities . The alleged arrest of the alleged annex jews, 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 or even known about his privilege - 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. Otto had known all this perfectly well , at the latest since soon after crystal night back in 1938 , see below.
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. Which does chime in with the amsterdam civil registry document we saw above, stating otto was deported not on sept . 3, 1944 as per official story , but instead on oct. 27 .
I have been able to find a reported full transport list for transport XXIV/7 wbk - theresienstadt of sept. 4 , 1944 - it isn´t the original list , or one of the original copies thereof ; it is , reportedly, a transcript of the names . Otto frank isn´t on it , though intriguingly, one margot frank , albeit with a different birth date, is :
click on advanced search ; then enter XXIV/7 and mark it ; click on send .
Another oddity is the total number of records : 2074 . Whereas here the deportees are stated to have been 2081 :
XXIV/7 Bericht und Liste
Deportation: Polizeiliches Judendurchgangslager Westerbork
Abfahrt: 04. September 1944 Ziel: Ghetto Theresienstadt (Terezín)
Ankunft: 06. September 1944 Anzahl der Deportierten
I shall have to leave this issue in abeyance for now. But as the great David Hillbert said,
These lists would be made in several copies, I assume, 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 are these original lists ? The jewish council in wbk would likely also have a copy. One is at niod - our usual zionazi suspects who won´t grant me access to their archives .
Sources for otto holding the iron cross :
Also the following book by the ubiquitous mirjam pressler :
" GRÜSSE UND KÜSSE AN ALLE
DIE GESCHICHTE DER FAMILIE VON ANNE FRANK
FISCHER TASCENBUCH 2011
on p. 199 confirms the iron cross for otto :
The next sources are particularly interesting , in that they tells us - without sourcing unfortunately - that otto had the higher of 2 types of iron cross : first and second class . He had the first-class iron cross :
Official frank-family court historian M ( pages 46 and 239) explicitly confims otto had received the iron cross first class .
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 a 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 alleged 8 annex jews ( IF indeed any of them ever lived in that annex at all ) led a perfectly carefree 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 or anyway late in the war .
Otto had known perfectly well for years about hitler´s soft spot for ww1 jewish vets, in that a brother-in-law of otto´s had been released from custody after crystal night (nov. 9, 1938) because of his ww1 disability. 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 !!
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 .
One reason why the whole frank family had 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 . Pfeffer though, would have needed that dodge less , as he was himself an iron-cross-first-class holder, see below . Again : IF indeed any of those individuals ever really lived in that annex at all to begin with .
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 this privilege in berlin , but not in amsterdam .
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 katja happe is right .
And they were all working , whether for real or just officially, for war-relevant firm opekta or maybe for pectacon aka gies&co., 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 and wehrmacht-supplying companies .
And again , otto and pfeffer could count on their iron crosses first class for further privilege and delay of deportation, and for privileged treatment for themselves and likely otto´s family and companies as well in general . And likely for preference in being allotted wehrmacht biz contracts .
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 the 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.
There may well have been a different reason for moving : sleeping on the premises to deter burglars - more on this below.
CHAPTER 31 : UNDOCUMENTED DEATH OR PRESENCE
Again, I consider 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 ( 3.30.2018) 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 inmates 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 subtenant at merwedeplein , was deported from westerbork to theresienstadt on sept. 4 , 1944, reportedly - except for the fact that his name is absent from the transcript of the list for transport XXIV/7 I linked to above ! 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 this sort 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 : >>
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/notice 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 " ?
For the sake of argument , let´s say anne´s and margot´s death notices 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 below, or of german citizens such as Sapandowski - and yet , for complete unknown jew werner goldschmidt 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 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 there is one thing I am indeed in a position to state 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.
CHAPTER 32 : DEATH AND BURIAL AT BERGEN-BELSEN
Let us first examine janny brilleslijper´s witness 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 carried 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 ? Maybe that C was another first name from birth, I do not know for sure. R stands for rebekka, her given birth name ( wiki ) . Lientje or lien or lin was her nickname. 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 25 , 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 this sort 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 ! 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 ? 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 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 odyssee 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 :
Watch 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 . Wheras if both lien and janny were really sick with typhus themselves , as janny witnessed , they would have been too weak to carry out such a task . And again, they were nurses not leichenkommando, disposing of bodies was none of their business .
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 in the wind .
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 mathematically 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 mathematically prove nor disprove it .
It would make no sense to unbury those dead in the mass graves in search for anne´s remains - except of course to identify all other victims and give them a worthy tomb and count them . Annelies marie frank lies not in the mass graves of bergen belsen .
CHAPTER 33 : BACK TO AUSCHWITZ
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 reportedly transferred from auschwitz to belsen nov. 26, 1944 , and then from belsen to raguhn on february 6, 1945 (AFH 210) or on february 7 according
This last link states as its source : transport list , bergen-belsen to raguhn , international tracing service , bad arolsen , germany. But I am denied access to this list - or any other bad arolsen document for that matter.
The rest of our reports about the fate of anne , margot and auguste is based solely on hearsay from alleged witnesses so prone to lying wholly or in part as we proved above. There is indeed another written record 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 auguste´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 their 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 ? Didn´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 alleged 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 alleged 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 ?
CHAPTER 34 : FRITZ PFEFFER , HERMANN AND PETER VAN PELS AND OTHER GHOSTS
Again : the evidence we have for the alleged arrest of the alleged 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.
Best of all did fare " helpers " miep gies, jan gies and bep voskuijl : they weren´t even arrested !!!
Again as for kugler´s , kleiman´s was only, most likely, a brief stint in the arbeitseinsatz to which he had been summoned - after 4 weeks in custody for evading it - : 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...This page confirms the correct nr was 7001 :
And as we saw above, the real grounds for arrest for both kleiman and kugler was evading labor recruitment - in german , Arbeitsverweigerung .
Hermann van pels was allegedly gassed at auschwitz a few weeks after his alleged 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 .
Futhermore, according to yad vashem´s Holocaust victims database, here :
hermann van pels died on march 15, 1945 !!! And his birth date is april 5, 1898 - instead of march 31 one finds in all other sources . Whence does yad vashem´s database, the most stupid , slipshod , unscientific and lying site in the world , have that data ? Hence:
amsterdam) >>> : I do not have this book : what is the data in this book based on ? Yad vashem cares zilch for factchecking - or rather, factoidchecking . If one goes to the website for the book :
one finds NO sourcing at all for that march 15, 1945 - actually it says that nothing is officially known about his death ! And the birth date is given once as april 5, 1898 and below as march 31 !!!
Yet another instance of unfounded allegation by zionazi or prozionazi institutions when it comes to the Holocaust .
If he died march 15, 1945, then he cannot possibly have been gassed - the soviets liberated auschwitz jan. 27, 1945 . Loads of sick inmates continued to die of disease hunger and exhaustion in the aftermath .
I have no particular reason to doubt the very existence of the van pels family. But there is a whole series of oddities in their official story, for instance peter´s westerbork registration card with the july 17, 1942 date stamped on it and the under-16 handwritten note below it - just the age peter was on that date - see below for this .
Now, this hermann van pels, according to here :
had 5 siblings : 1 brother, max ; and 4 sisters, henny, ida, klara and meta. What was the fate of these people during the holocaust and ww2 in general ? According to this :
his sister klara neumann-van pels died in sobibor on april 30, 1943.
According to this :
his sister henny marx-van pels died in auschwitz on sept. 17, 1943.
Now, henny must have been deported from amsterdam, where she too had been living since 1935 : >> :
And yet : according to this website :
one hennie van pels is on record as having either disembarked or embarked in new york between 1914 and 1966. In order to access more details, one must subscribe and I cannot afford it - but if you can , please do and publish your findings !
And : here she is called henny :
Klara too was deported from amsterdam , according to this :
She had been living in a´dam since 1938 with her daughter from her first marriage trude leeser, who survived the Holocaust. Sister ida too had moved to a´dam with klara. But according to this instead :
sister ida moved to bendfeld,germany in 1939.
Now - the diary makes no mention whatsoever of hermann´s siblings, except for citing relatives of his once, not by name, as having been ruled out as candidates for 8th annex hider - a position assigned to pfeffer instead . Is it plausible that hermann van pels, IF he really ever lived in that annex, would never ever raise the topic of his siblings ? Is it plausible, even conceding for a moment for argument´s sake that he really was in hiding , that he wouldn´t ask miep or jan or bep or kleiman or kugler to gather news of his siblings ? Apparently all hermann did in there for 2 years, based on the diary, was crack silly jokes , argue with his wife and son , talk nonsense on politics, make a few sausages and chain-smoke. Anne falls in love with peter - but never asks him about his 5 aunts and uncle in danger ?
And isn´t it strange that after the war, and the sensational worldwide success of the diary, this trude leeser, hermann´s niece, wouldn´t try to ascertain what really had happened to his uncle hermann , and wouldn´t be indignant at the disparaging portrait of him and his wife in the diary ? Is it possible nobody ever interviewed her, to crosscheck the truthfulness of hermann´s story in the diary ? Where is this trude leeser now, is she still alive ? She would be 93 this year (2018), having been born may 27, 1925 of klara and her first husband :
According to this instead :
she was born dec. 27.
Apparently, sister ida too managed to survive the Holocaust , and emigrate to brazil in 1958 :
She then must have found her way to the us too, like her brother max :
She is on record as having disembarked in miami by 1963.
She must be dead now, having been born in 1896 but - did she leave children or grandchildren behind , who might have heard from her something about the real fate of her brother hermann ?
Brother max david survived the Holocaust too, having migrated to the us as early as 1940 or earlier, where he died 1969 :
Did he leave children or grandchildren behind ?
Reportedly, otto was afraid , at the time of the us edition of the diary or later, that this max , who was living in new york , would sue him over hermann´s and auguste´s denigration in the diary - which didn´t happen after all .
Max is on record as a new york resident starting in 1940 :
Therefore it is possible that , by 1942 and after the us entry into ww2 (dec.1941) max entirely lost contact with hermann in amsterdam . Still - we saw above how mail service kept working during ww2...
Max is also on record has having been drafted in the us army in 1942 !
I have found nothing so far about sister meta .
How come nobody ever thought of interviewing max or ida for so long after the diary had become a sensation ? Well , in the first editions , the name van pels didn´t even occur - the pseudonym van daan was used for hermann , auguste and peter. Maybe max and ida never even became aware of either the diary or their brother´s presence in it in their lifetimes . How did ida manage to survive the Holocaust ?
Let us now turn to hermann´s wife, auguste röttgen, aka petronella van daan in the first diary editions. She too had siblings :
- gertrude, who married a feuchtwanger, survived the Holocaust (how?) and died in miami aged 102 : according to :
Nobody cared all that time after ww2 to interview this woman and crosscheck with her what she knew about the real fate af auguste from 1942 on . Apparently, her husband berthold feuchtwanger died in lima in december 1944 , thus one would assume that he and gertrude had emigrated to peru at some point before that.
- margaretha, who married a max goldschmidt , and also survived the Holocaust (how?), and died in florida year unknown :
- a third and last sister was one lotte, who married one max gutmann . Lotte was the youngest sister, and died first , in 1941 in minsk , belarus where she had been deported by the nazis :
The diary makes no mention whatsoever of auguste´s relatives . Is it possible that auguste never brought up the issue of her sister lotte, or of her 2 other sisters, during the alleged hiding ? Is it possible that the 2 surviving sisters, gertrude and margaretha , never protested against the negative portrait of auguste in the diary ?
Auguste´s father, leo, died in sobibor march 26, 1943 :
And so did her mother rose, according to this :
Is it plausible that auguste herself never mentioned the dire fate of her youngest sister and her parents during the alleged hiding ? Did she really have nothing to talk about other than the hogwash related in the diary ?
The issue with these sites I have been quoting above is obviously, they do not source their statements . Some of them though, are managed by descendants, who are supposed to have a high degree of concern in the accuracy of their content .
I harbor strong doubts that the van pelses ever lived in that annex with the franks and pfeffer. Their apartment in the river quarter was reportedly emptied by the nazis in october 1942 , as both the diary and MG attest to - which might just be true for a change . The nazis only proceeded to empty jews´ houses after, not before they had been deported . And after they had made the jews sign a whole series of legalized extortions such as vermögenserklärung , inventory and appraisal , einziehungsverfügung. None of which is known for the van pelses, but still : the franks´ apartment at merwedeplein 37/II was NOT raided or emptied .
The van pelses´ reportedly was . And peter´s wbk registration card bears the stamp july 17, 1942 - under 16 years of age added below - the age peter would have been on that day.
The diary unrealistically features hermann van pels and auguste röttgen cracking jokes or arguing about drivel or talking BS - when all around them , their families were being annihilated by the nazis : hermann´s sisters henny and klara died in auschwitz and sobibor in 1943. Auguste´s sister lotte had died in minsk in 1941 - her parents leo and rose would follow at sobibor in 1943 - yet the diary ignores all these personal tragedies entirely, and almost never mentions van pels relatives, but for once briefly and not by name. Anne talks at length with peter about delicacies such as vaginal anatomy and sex ed in general - but never once asks about his aunts and uncle in danger.
All of which is suspicious to put it mildly. We cannot rule out that the van pelses were in fact deported in 1942, never lived in that annex , and were added to the diary´s roster after the war to whitewash otto frank , a nazi collaborator, into a heroic shelterer of fellow jews .
It would have been fairly easy to falsify the lives of dead people : because by the time the first diary edition was cooked up ( 1944 or 45/ 1947), all of hermann´s and auguste´s family members had either perished in the Holocaust ( henny, clara, lotte, leo, rose ) or migrated to the americas long before the end of ww2 ( ida, max, margaretha, gertrude ) and thereby, likely been cut off from hermann and auguste and lost contact with them entirely, so maybe the surviving members of the family didn´t even know what had happened to hermann and auguste between 1942 and 1945 . Furthermore, again , as a precautional measure to avoid being sued for libel , otto had , in the first editions of the diary, replaced the van pelses´ real names with pseudonyms : petronella , hermann and peter van daan . Therefore it is possible that hermann´s and auguste´s surviving siblings didn´t even become aware in their lifetimes that their brother and sister had become characters in a book .
And peter was needed because no novel sells without a love story and a bit of sex.
There is no independent confirmation whatsoever that the van pelses were deported to auschwitz in 1944 - we´ve seen above how the sept . 3, 1944 wbk-auschwitz transport list was heavily interpolated - if it isn´t a total forgery. There is no document attesting to hermann´s death in auschwitz in the fall of 1944 . More appears to be known about auguste´s fate - but no documentary sources are given for it anywhere. Peter appears attested to in mauthausen - but on a 1943 form .
This whole affair stinks to high heaven .
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 ( 3.30.2018). If you don´t have the book, look at it here :
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. Whereas the anne frank guide website linked here above, grasps at straws to explain it away by stating , absurdly :
>> !!!! One cannot possibly come up with anything more stupid and absurd than this !!!! IF peter had arrived at wbk on aug. 8, 1944 with the others, the registration clerk would , as a minimum , have crossed out that old date - what kind of a clerk is this, that registers someone with a date stamp from over 2 years earlier ????
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 , or registered as having arrived there , 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 . And in order to whitewash nazi collaborator otto frank into a heroic shelterer of fellow
Peter van pels 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, or per oproeping . Again we know, from the transport list specimen published by schütz 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 :
I have no conclusive evidence as to 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 ?
Here you may see another alleged mauthausen registration card for peter, different than the AFH ones :
First up, the birth date on it is nov. 6, 1926 - all other sources I have found so far bear nov. 8
Then they got the address wrong too : the correct one is zuider amstellaan 34 II .
Is this alleged document yet another slipshod forgery ?
The häftling in the heading is dubious as we saw above.
Another funny item is the personenbeschreibung to the right : what did they care that his nose was straight , his lips full or round , his ears straight ?? Wasn´t it easier to just take a pic of him for the admin ? If peter really had green eyes and a tattoo as this alleged form states, funny that his diary fan anne wouldn´t register those attractive details in her manuscripts . Even funnier that "anne", in her book of short stories, tale 28, My first interview, last paragraph, states that peter´s eyes are "grey-blue" !!! And the diary itself , F 511, jan. 6, 1944 , a+b, states peter´s eyes were dark-blue !!! And while the alleged mauthausen form terms peter´s hair color black , to tale 28 it is brown instead. True, anne or whoever wrote that tale, states thereupon that she is no good at facial descriptions - but she was indeed supposed to know the eye and hair color of a boy whose " warm glance " she fell in love with...Aside from the issue of the diary´s content´s historicity, peter had been a regular at the franks´ home gatherings since 1938 - and though eye-color perception might change for a number of reasons :
it is hard to mistake normally green eyes for blue after years of acquaintance. As for anne´s poor eyesight , it had only set in in the annex - and again , anne had been acquainted with peter since 1938. In summation : this alleged mauthausen file card for peter van pels smells of forgery heaven-high for a change . Here is yet another version of same, on AFH 212, pic. 4, left-hand side :
On the other hand , fritz pfeffer´s tragic fate appears to be well attested to . 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 .
CHAPTER 35 : SOME JEWS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
The franks were certainly exempted from labor recruitment/deportation 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 from 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 eventually deported , they were put in the vip sections of the best camps .
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 not be 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. Ditto for fritz pfeffer, see below]
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 ( his iron cross first class from the german army in ww1 , and his wehrmacht-supplying , war-relevant business opekta/pectacon) 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 next-to-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.
Likely otto´s exemptions covered his family too . 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 ?
The so-called diary of anne frank , or most of it at least , from july 6, 1942 through jul. 1, 1944 is a lie - for those 2 years, they were not repeat NOT hiding .
Fritz pfeffer, the dentist and 8th annex "hider", disparaged in the diary as albert dussel (dussel in german=idiot), also was a german ww1 veteran - and a decorated one at that - decorated with the iron cross first class !!! Just like otto frank :
There you have him, proudly wearing his iron cross - compare it with this reproduction :
Which clearly implies that otto frank wasn´t sheltering pfeffer in the annex at all , in that the dentist was exempt from deportation until 1944 just like otto himself , and for the same reason : he was entitled to exemption through his iron cross first class . His real position in the annex was that of an undertenant of otto´s - the dentist payed his rent either in cash , or with his dental care services for the franks, attested to for anne in the diary. It is also possible that pfeffer had opened his own , legal dental surgery in the annex, as the diary attests to him bringing much dentistry equipment into the annex . Legal jewish doctors such as pfeffer were free to remain in amsterdam and care for legally remaining jews alone - another entitlement to postponement of deportation then .
Pfeffer as a jew, had had to separate from his fiancee charlotte kaletta , a german catholic, because nazis had criminalized marriage and sex between jews and nonjews - another possible reason whay he had been looking for a new place to stay in 1942 , when the racist nuremberg laws were extended to holland .
When , in the summer of 1944, iron crosses started being deported too, pfeffer likely received his call-up notice like the franks - and complied with it . It remains to be seen , like for otto , whether or not he really ended up in auschwitz and then neuengamme - for as an iron cross first class, he had a right to vip camp theresienstadt . According to AFH 202 , pfeffer had himself applied, at auschwitz, to be transferred with other doctors . Why he chose, or was assigned, neuengamme, I do not know. Maybe he just didn´t want to be captured by the soviets, who would liberate both auschwitz and then terezin in 1945 . So he chose neuengamme, located near hamburg .
Or, the transport list pages we examined above for the franks and the other annex jews, were not just interpolated with the häftlinge - they are outright forgeries, and maybe both otto and pfeffer did end up in theresienstadt after all , and the neuengamme death book appearing to attest to pfeffer´s death is a forgery too .
I do consider the 1942-1944 presence of pfeffer in the annex, or wherever as otto´s subtenant , quite likely - unlike that of the van pelses . Otto frank had , by the summer of 1942 , when nazi persecution of jews in holland became systematic and harsh , gotten rid of all of his jewish employees and undertenants who were not covered by exemption from deportation : his employees esther and levy, his undertenant wronker - and maybe the van pelses too.
He had instead retained exempted jews : goldschmidt as an undertenant at merwedeplein 37/II ,
arthur lewinsohn as a chemist at prinsen 263 ( goldschmidt was exempt in 1942 because he worked for the jewish hospital ; lewinsohn because he was a ww1 decorated vet, and because his laboratory research was somehow war-relevant to the nazis and he too was protected by the jewish council [M 323f.] ). When in 1943, the exemptions of these 2 jews expired , they vanished from both merwedeplein and the annex - and the diary of anne frank . Otto frank practiced his own self-serving selektion of jews...
By the way, the exemption categories we saw documented above, were by no means exhaustive : 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 in some cases 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 .
CHAPTER 36 : GERTRUDE VAN TIJN
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 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 , another one of the scores of jewish support orgs during the nazi era.
Go here now :
Van tijn wrote a top-secret report concerning the jews of holland from may 1940 through june1944 . 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 - jewish coresponsibility for the Holocaust .
CHAPTER 37 : MISCELLANEA
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 alleged 8 annex jews ?
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...( also attested to by
K 55 ).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 . IF that is, peter ever lived in that annex and wasn´t instead deported as early as 1942 to begin with .
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 had 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 ? How was all the heavy furniture hoisted up to the annex ?
Sure nobody noticed the hoisting up of : 4 sofa beds [ diary, F 254 , july 8, 1942 , a ] ?? And assorted other pieces of furniture ?? [ F 364 , nov. 17, 1942 , b : pfeffer upon arrival recognizes the franks´ furniture immediately ] .
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...Or it is fiction , because the van pelses or at least peter was deported on that date instead .
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 ? More on radios below.
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, according to her report , 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 himself , though not jewish , avoided his first summons by procuring a fake medical certificate from a friendly doc ; also see MG 78 )
- 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 )
- >> : 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 . Or otto felt that sleeping on his companies´premises would deter burglars .
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 in july ´42 .
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 :
>>: 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 reportedly 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 .
Up to a point though . Because sometimes, the diary might just be telling half-truths . The whole framework, the hiding , in which things happen is a lie. But once we remove that framework, and replace it with the exemption context , then many of the implausibilities that Faurisson/Felderer exposed , become plausible indeed .
Possibly, otto had employed , half-fictitiously and half for real , both of his daughters and peter van pels - IF indeed peter lived in the annex too, and IF indeed any of the 8 jews lived in there to begin with - as opekta or gies&co. clerks or generic hands - with peter as a carpenter to boot . This would have guaranteed margot , anne and peter against deportation as rüstungsjuden themselves in their own right , not just because their fathers were. Erring on the side of caution...
1. F 260, july 11, 1942 , b, states :
Interestingly, the c version, that is anneliese schütz´s first german translation that came out in 1949 or 1950, edits this bit out - the diary´s edit for the masses was not supposed to feature such dead giveaways...No surprise therefore, that HA, the 1947, first dutch edition of the diary skips this passage too altogether !
I consider the event retold here in the diary, true for a change, whether or not anne herself penned it ( she did not : this is the b version in the adult handwriting ) .
Over half a century later, once the myth had sunk in with the masses and revisionism had been legally and violently and fascistically defeated and suppressed , the passage reappears in pressler´s new popular translation [POP 41 ].
2. Again , the diary provides us with lively testimony to anne and margot working for the office on a regular basis : F 270, august 14, 1942 , a :
And again , we notice how version c for this passage here, is completely missing !! And pressler 2001 also skips it...And so does 1947.
3. Another one : F 280, sept. 21, 1942 , a :
Needless to say, c skips this bit as well. Pressler 2001 follows suit... Like 1947 had done before both...
4. F 313, oct. 6, 1942 , a :
No c at all here . No 1947. No POP. As usual, nobody was keen on letting the general public know that anne and margot worked for wehrmacht-supplying opekta on a regular basis and were therefore exempted from deportation in their own right , as armaments jews .
5. F 327, oct. 14 , 1942 , a :
c obviously skips it . POP too . HA : ditto .
6. On and on : F 335, this is an added piece of paper, beifügung 94, we are between the oct.18, 1942 and the oct. 20, 1942 entries :
No c. POP 70 does feature this passage, but the date is changed to november 2 !!! 1947 has no october 18, 1942 entry to speak of .
7. F 336, oct. 20, 1942 , a :
No c whatsoever. No POP here either. Nor is this passage to be found in HA...
8. More: F 345, nov. 7, 1942 , a :
No c, as usual . No POP either. No 1947.
9. Another mention of work for otto´s war-relevant, wehrmacht-supplying companies : F 384, jan.13, 1943, b :
You will have noticed here, that anne & the others were getting paid for their work - they were cheaper, but not gratis .
C does feature the passage, but not our bit...POP 88 for a change, does include it . 1947, like c, has the entry without our bit...
10. Encore : F 421, july 11, 1943, b :
C for a change, does have this . And so does POP 113 . For the first time, 1947 has it too - but clearly, without the missing other mentions, it looks here like something new or unusual or anyway just help given out of goodwill or gratitude.
11. More and more work on a regular basis : F 430, july 26, 1943, b :
C graces us with this bit too. POP 120 as well . 1947 too, but again, since the dates for 10 and 11 are not far apart , it´s like continuing to state that anne and margot helped bep out of gratitude , goodwill and on a voluntary basis .
12. Last mention : F 462 , a short story, august 6, 1943 :
C obliges us, but changing the date to august 20 !!! POP 133 has this too, but with an august 10
date !!! 1947 had it under the august 20 date too .
Thus as you see, the popular editions of the diary cut out the mentions of work for the office, on the part of anne and margot, by 75 % !!! So as to make believe, that anne and margot were in fact not working on a regular and paid basis for otto´s wehrmacht-supplying companies . In 1947 and 1950 there were still too many people around who would have wised up to what had really been going on at prinsengracht 263 during the occupation , had they been able to read all 12 original mentions of the sisters´ daily work there...so otto, schütz and cauvern trimmed those passages down to 3.
I think for a change, that all 12 passages here, while not penned by anne herself, tell the truth .
Whereas F 367, nov. 17, 1942 , b, would have you believe that such regular, mostly clerical work on the part of anne and margot was voluntary, and in exchange for the helpers´ help :
( translation by susan massotty, here :
This is not the only diary misrepresentation here : we shall expose more in due course of time. The same entry, F 365, states that the annex jews don´t have to pay rent . Which is a lie, meant to make believe otto frank was a hero who sheltered fellow jews van pelses and pfeffer free of charge.
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 for an alibi 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 vara of hilversum , which broadcast nazi propaganda, and his ex-wife isa , both of whom came up with the first dutch version of the diary, correcting and improving on a possible dutch first draft by otto . The diary´s first drafts were also entrusted to professional writer and mass-psychology expert kurt baschwitz and to professional editor werner cahn , both otto´s friends, for additional editing. 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.
And thereby, a key witness to the diary fraud disappeared from the scene .
CHAPTER 38 : ADDITIONAL PASSAGES PLAGIARIZED BY THE DIARY´S AUTHORS AND OTHER STORIES
The first pages of the diary´s manuscripts as printed on F 215 - 228 are almost wholly devoted to a long and pedantic listing of all the birthday presents anne had received on june 12, 1942 .
This leimotiv, or rather filler, of presents, whether birthday or xmas or shopping list or what-have-you , will repeat itself ad nauseam several times in the diary, as a kind of cheap volume thickener.
The literary model here is of course T 117 - 143, where von rhoden, with marvellous grace and empathy, describes the boarding school´s girls´ preparations for xmas and all the presents they make and receive.
On F 216, june 14 , 1942 entry, a, anne lists flowers and a plant among the presents, eruditely calling them somewhat artificially and surprisingly for a 13-year-old , " flora´s children " . Faurisson had already noticed the oddity of such an old-fashioned phrasing here . GK 126+129 allows us to expose the real culprit here : in a would-be-funny account of his engagement trip to sanremo with edith in march 1925, otto frank had written :
The real author of the first draft of this forgery that is the so-called diary of anne frank was otto.
F 221, june 20, 1942 , b : >>
T 34 : >>
On F 221f. + 231, graces us with her curriculum vitae - and so does jakob, G 59f., albeit sarcastically.
Another trait d´union between F and G is the subsequent listing-cum-description of anne´s classmates : F 228 - 231, june 15, 1942 , a, and passim . G lists and describes his classmates at 2,4,5 and passim . And likewise T, 39ff. and passim .
F 232 , june 16, 1942 , a, features photos and their captions - somewhat longish captions, ekphraseis of sorts - G 55 does likewise. Another thing that strikes me is - why didn´t this photo-obsessed frank family, take any pics during the alleged hiding ?
F 237, june 21 , 1942 , b, + F 247, july 5, 1942 , b is about the faculty meeting at school , and the pupils´ expectations and comments . T 184 likewise.
F 240 , june 24, 1942 , b, features anne complaining she must go places on foot because trams have been forbidden jews by the germans . Except that this prohibition only came into force on june 30 !!! [ CAL 331 ; tijn 22f., with full text of nazi decree ] . And here forgets to mention that said decree exempted certain groups of jews, who were given special permits to use trams by the zentralstelle für jüdische auswanderung or by the security police on the recommendation of the netherlands armament inspection . Tjin comments on page 24 that the wehrmacht procured permits of all descriptions for the jews working for them - wouldn´t wehrmacht-supplier otto frank be entitled to such permits, for himself and his family ? And said travel permits, tijn continues, were in the beginning given fairly easily !
[page 22ff. of original text ]
Again : on june 24 , 1942 , even without special permits, anne frank wouldn´t have needed to walk in the heat at all , as the tram prohibition for jews would only come into force 6 days later !!! The june 24, 1942 diary entry is a lie .
F 246, july 5, 1942 , b tells another lie - this time about otto´ s professional circumstances :
>> : we saw above that by july 5, 1942 , otto frank was still in charge as opekta director, because his application for self-aryanization ( stepping down in favor of his christian right-hand kleiman ) had not been processed by the nazis yet - and would not be, until july 1, 1944 . Kugler was indeed gies&co. co-director by then , but only as a strawman for otto himself. Therefore we are to assume that by july 5, 1942 , otto was going to work in the morning for business as usual .
And very likely, by tram - with a wehrmacht travel permit .
The diary entry continuation would have you believe, that otto had already decided to go underground - why ? By july 5, 1942 , otto frank had no reason whatsoever to go into hiding : he was still opekta´s director, he was a wehrmacht-supplier and thus most likely exempted from antijewish measures with his whole family ; plus, he had an iron cross first class : such jews were left undisturbed in 1942 .
The diary is a post-liberation lie meant to whitewash otto´s wartime collaboration by passing him off as a victim .
Based on the available primary documentary evidence I have found so far, I can´t say whether or not that first batch of aufrufe delivered by july 5, 1942 in amsterdam did include 16-year old females . Tijn 44 vaguely appears to confirm the 16 lower age limit , but she says nothing of gender, and she appears to be imprecise about the first date of delivery, stating it was july 7, and that the summons was for july 14 when schusshein´s oproeping above has july 15. All we have is obviously the diary of anne frank stating that margot, 16 at the time, received one of those oproepingen at her merwedeplein 37/II address on sunday, july 5, 1942 . I tried to independently verify this on primary sources, but alas, there either appear to be none left , or I get barred from the archives with one or the other pretext .
The reason why I began doubting that margot ever got that oproeping is not merely cartesian - de omnibus dubitandum without clear evidence.
The whole narrative in the diary describing the franks´ move to prinsengracht doesn´t make any sense at all : let me just first in passing clarify, that I am no revisionist and no neonazi or antisemite - I am a democrat and an antifascist but as a philologist, amicus Plato sed magis amica Veritas .
F 248, july 8, 1942 , a , states it was a policeman who delivered the oproeping to margot sunday, july 5. But here, even the prozionazi F editors cannot help but deny it : note a : the aufrufe were delivered by the dutch post service [ de jong , koninkrijk, 6, 1975 ed., page 5 ; presser, ondergang, 251 ]. Here :
Therefore the cop detail is a fabrication , whereof the b version itself mercifully does without . It was only starting sunday, july 12 , that the aufrufe were delivered by the municipal police [ de jong cit., 7 ] .
Margot gets that oproeping in the diary on july 5 and the family hastily moves out the next day - to otto´s companies´ headquarters ! That is to say, precisely the first place where tha nazis would have gone looking for margot after not finding her at merwedeplein . This alone stretches belief to breaking point .
Further : margot moves by bike - after we are told, for instance by van tijn´s calendar, that jews had been compelled by decree to deliver their bikes .
And miep gies adds in her autobiography written with alison gould, that margot wasn´t even wearing the by-then compulsory yellow star.
What need was there for margot to take such a terrible double risk, on that july 6, 1942 ? The oproeping , as stated on schusshein´s , gave addressees 10´ days prior notice - the summons was for july 15 at centraal station . Therefore on july 6 , margot was still perfectly legal in amsterdam , so why ride a forbidden bike and do without the yellow star ? This would have been pointless and suicidal .
Moreover, otto frank was a decorated ww1 vet holder of an ek1 - iron cross first class - a category of jews that was not persecuted in 1942 .
And he was working for the wehrmacht , supplying pectin to the occupiers, as proven by carol ann lee - therefore we are to assume he had , or would soon get , a wehrmacht-sperre (legal suspension or temporary but renewable exemption from deportation and other antijewish measures). So why all the hurry ? Why the need to hide at all ? Why risk riding your bike and not wearing your yellow star ?
Let us also remark in passing how the franks as per diary, set out on foot from merwedeplein to prinsen early on a monday morning , totally calling for unwanted attention by wearing multiple layers of clothes, and thus we are to assume they arrived at prinsen bang in the middle of a normal workday (as prinsengracht 263 lies some 45´ on foot from merwedeplein) with all the staff there and customers etc. and neighbors watching , without a care . And on day 1 at the annex, anne with otto hammer away all day long !!! [ F 257, july 10, 1942, b ] What a way to hide !!! And all the cartons of stuff that they find there , which they had sent in the previous months, surely hadn´t been noticed by anyone !!! Not to mention the hoisting up of heavy furniture !!!
Clearly the franks, IF they really moved into prinsen 263 on july 6, 1942 , did so without any fear whatsoever of being arrested or discovered because they were not going underground at all because they had not one but 2 exemptions from deportation and possibly all other antijewish measures : their status as rüstungsjuden or armaments jews and otto´s iron cross first class .
CHAPTER 39 : REWRITING HISTORY
F 258, july 10, 1942 , b , introduces another one of the diary´s leitmotive : how the hiders ate . Here, bep and miep go shopping with the franks´ food ration cards. Let us first of all remark that as of july 10, 1942 the franks were still living a perfectly legal life in amsterdam : again, even IF margot really received that oproeping on july 5, the summons was for july 15, therefore on july 10, she might just as well have gone shopping herself and left miep and bep alone, since she was no dodger at all yet . And since the franks had arrived at prinsen , stuffed with many layers of
clothing , bang in the middle of a normal monday workday, with bike in tow, and proceeded to hammer away all day long , fearing not a bit that anyone at the company or in the street or from among the many neighbors there would see or hear them , why didn´t they just go shopping themselves on july 10 ? How could noone have noticed either them or miep and bep coming back loaded with shopping bags full of groceries for 4 people ? There was no way to hide their presence in a place like the annex - and they certainly made no apparent effort to conceal it anyway.
Now this thing of ration cards would be hinted at next on F 267, july 1942 , thursday, a :
to begin with, this is another lie : rationing was introduced first by the dutch government on october 11, 1939 ( sugar ), and extended to peas from january 1940 :
The first food rationing card was introduced by the dutch even earlier, just before the outbreak of ww2 . Certainly each of the 4 franks got one of those . So did the van pelses, so pfeffer .
Sharing/swapping this card with others was forbidden . Thus this being the only card anne may be referring to here , the franks made miep and bep do something risky and illegal , for no reason at all , for again , on july 10, 1942 margot was legal and there was no reason to either hide or take such risks and have miep and bep run them too. Look at this reportedly original ration card from 1939 :
It is personal , it bears personal data, so how could miep and bep pass themselves off as otto ?
Only in early 1944 , would the germans replace the first ration card with a second one, so as to cut off hiders with forged IDs and ration cards from food supplies :
Therefore here, by july 10, 1942 , what the diary refers to may only be the first dutch ration card , which the franks would have been able to use perfectly legally - so why share it with bep and miep, which was illegal ? Why take this senseless risk ? How could miep and bep obtain food rations in stores by showing otto frank´s card bearing his name and date of birth ?
Again : the franks had done nothing that violated any law by july 10, 1942 : they had been legally using their legal ration cards like everybody else in holland since october 1939, so why didn´t they just go shopping themselves ? Or...did they ? This entry is a lie.
The diary lies again about the whole situation with the food supplies and ration cards on F 353, nov. 9, 1942 , b : >> ; and on F 382 , dec.22 , 1942 , b : >> : this cannot be true, as again , everybody in holland by that point had
had their personal food ration card since 1939. The franks had them and so, why risk purchasing illegal ones ? To use a false identity ? But they are saying they did not go shopping themselves !!! They are lying , as usual : they did go shopping themselves, using their perfectly legal 1939 food ration cards, which remained valid until early 1944 , and they had no fear of arrest because they were not hiding because they were exempt from antijewish measures because they were armaments jews and otto held an iron cross first class .
We all know there reportedly were this greengrocer and that baker and butcher and others who were acquainted with either miep or kleiman or hermann van pels, and delivered food to the annex, but - they certainly didn´t do it for free - they too needed to see the foodstamps and book their sales - and if they had done so, they would have read the franks´ names on them , and wised up to the hiding - none of this makes any sense at all . Maybe one or the other of them would have consented , out of friendship or political conviction to sell goods to bep or miep without requesting the foodstamps : F 661, march 29, 1944 , a , states that
but this would certainly have been the exception, not the rule - IF indeed it is even true to begin with . Likewise for F 345, nov. 5, 1942 , a :
F 311, oct. 1 , 1942 , b + F 333, oct. 18, 1942 , a + F 335, oct. 20, 1942 , a : bep has bought new skirts for margot and anne ( on oct. 17 per a ; on oct. 1 per b !!! And this is supposed to be a diary !!! ). They are of poor quality and cost , respectively, 24 and 7,75 florins . Funny thing is, the original 1947 dutch diary edition has 7, 50 for the second price instead !!!
Now again , textiles in wartime had to be bought by showing special textile ration cards, which could not be shared - therefore bep would have been taking an enormous risk in purchasing skirts at the department store by using anne´s and margot´s , or their parents´ textile cards . Had she been controlled and caught doing this, it would have led directly to the hiders and gotten her into deep trouble !!! Because again , ration cards were personal and featured personal identification data. Moreover, textile cards came in different colors based on age group : anne´s would have been green for she was under 15 as of oct. 1 , 1942 - bep instead was 23 !!! She could not possibly have passed herself off as a green-card holder !!! And if there had been any way for bep of getting away with those illegal purchases, a real hider would never had noted bep´s unlawful activities and jew-helping in a diary liable to fall into nazi hands any time.
Most likely, IF anything at all in this diary is true, anne and margot went to the department store themselves or with their mother - since they were all exempt from antijewish measures as of oct. 1, 1942 .
We do possess very plausible testimony to the likelihood that the franks etc. DID in fact go out of the alleged hiding place at will : F 43 reports on a statement by opekta warehouse hand van maaren , given during an interrogation in the course of a dutch inquiry into who had betrayed the franks . On october 6, 1964 , this is what w.g. van maaren told the dutch police in amsterdam : the owner of a neighboring firm ( who or which, F doesn´t say ) had picked up a sack of salt from opekta´s warehouse, and had then started a conversation with van maaren , asking him if opekta was hiding anyone : to which van maaren replied, in his own words :
>> [my caps ]
This must be the real truth of the matter : the franks, van pelses and pfeffer (IF indeed any of them really lived in that annex ever) went out shopping on their own at will - because they were all exempt from deportation and possibly most or all other antijewish measures . MG 179 informs us that this leliegracht drugstore was owned by a friend of kleiman´s .
And since van maaren was hired by opekta in early 1943, we are talking 1943 or 1944 here - when opekta´s boss was still , quite officially, otto frank , as we saw above : opekta would be aryanized and otto fired only on july 1, 1944 .
Or maybe it was otto alone who stayed late in the office, then went to the drugstore on his way back home - for nobody really ever lived in that annex at all .
The diary returns time and again to the food rationing theme - for instance, on F 494 , dec. 22 , 1943 , a : >> :
this implies, first, that at least 5 of the annex jews still had their legal food cards from 1939 and were perfectly able to produce them to get their legally due rations of foodstuffs . The dutch govt. certainly didn´t deliver the extra xmas food door-to-door ! One must have had to go to a food distribution center and produce one´s personal food card !! Or picked up the relative extra foodstamps to be attached to one´s card !! Which again , no bep or miep or anyone else could have done for the franks, as said cards were personal , bore personal ID data on them , and it was illegal to share them .
But also again, this thing with having only 5 cards as opposed to 8, which will be confirmed elsewhere in the diary - it only strengthens my hypothesis, that the 3 van pelses never lived in that annex at all , because they were deported earlier, in 1942 - see below for this . Also see above chapter 14 , pages 22ff. .
CHAPTER 40 : FAURISSON WAS SO RIGHT
F 259, july 11, 1942 , b :
just imagine you are hiding for dear life from the nazis - and after hammering away all day long on day 1, you plan on turning to carpentry !!! Faurisson was so right : people are hypnotized to believe this crap : a few lines below, with reference to radio listening , "anne" herself states : >> !!! Oh yeah baby, you are afraid of too much noise from your radio - but not of hammering and sawing wood !!! This is just ridiculous - unless again , it were, as it is , all a lie - because the franks were just free to make as loud noises as they wished , for they were exempted from deportation - and possibly most or all other antijewish measures .
I do not want to repeat what Faurisson and Felderer brilliantly said about such inconsistencies 40 years ago - read them and enjoy.
The diary on F 261, august 14, 1942 , b, informs us that the 3 van pelses had moved into the annex on july 13. Peter had arrived at 9:30 am , his parents at 10 - all 3, bang in the middle of a normal monday morning´s working hours, without any fear of being seen or heard, again just like the franks had breezed into the annex 1 week before : is this anyone´s idea of going underground , of hiding for dear life from jew-hunting nazi thugs ?
F 264 , july 8, 1942 , a , states that the clandestines enjoyed the further privilege of a radio - a radio located in otto´s office, in the annex - they would listen to it constantly, in spite of the danger of being heard, and of the fact that, according to CAL 329, since may 1, 1941 jews had no longer been allowed to own wireless sets. And since april 1941 they had had to surrender any they owned , according to van tijn´s calendar, page 119 of original text , here :
What real hider would take so many risks at once ? IF the franks really lived in there at all , they sure as hell were NOT hiding and had nothing to fear from the nazis or the latter´s informers .
Why did the van pelses and the franks move into prinsen at all ? IF that is, they did so for
real ? On the one hand, even though they were most certainly exempt from deportation, and possibly other antijewish measures, they would have welcomed a chance to escape the heavily jewish river quarter in south a´dam where they had used to live, because starting july 1942 it did indeed become a target for nazi raids - and potential rioting and violence. The van pelses and franks were exempt, but they might have been caught in the net by mistake, and then go through the nuisance of having to prove that they were indeed exempt .
Another reason could have been, living on the company´s premises would enable them to watch over their valuable machinery and goods - a target for frequent burglary attempts, as the diary itself attests to.
The neighboring tea and coffee wholesale firm keg , at prinsen 265, itself a target for thieves, insisted at the time with their manager jakob boon that he go live on the business premises, but boon´s wife refused - they were only 10 minutes´ walk away anyway, and jakob would sometimes spend nights and weekends at the office:
According to jacob boon’s daughter, keg’s head office in zaandam insisted that the boon family move into the business premises on the prinsengracht , but mrs boon was against the idea >>>
Similar reasons might easily have prompted otto as well , to sleep on his companies´premises .
This is borne out by the diary itself, which beside describing several dramatized burglaries or burglary attempts at prinsen, has this to say on F 659, march 29, 1944 , a + b :
apartment , because in the five minutes you are away, your stuff is gone >>>
CHAPTER 41 : A MISSING PHOTO CAPTION
F 265 is supposed to be a reproduction of page 45 of the original first diary, the one anne got as a present for her 13th birthday on june 12, 1942 . It consists only of a photo of otto bearing a caption that says : . The caption is supposed to have been written using a red pencil :
Pity that , if we turn to AFH 122 , pic.2 , supposedly a photo reproduction of pages 44 and 45 of the first diary manuscript, we see no caption at all under the photo : no red pencil , no dad´s most beautiful photo, nothing !!! Where the hell did F, purportedly a critical , diplomatic edition , conjure up that caption from ???
CHAPTER 42 : DERIVATIVE FUSSPOTS
F 268f., august 1, 1942 , a , + F 295, sept. 27, 1942 , a + b, introduces another favorite diary filler - anne the fusspot over food :
Such passages are entirely filched from G 31f. : Jakob too is a fusspot with food :
CHAPTER 43 : A FAKE DISGUISE
F 270f., aug. 14, 1942 , a + aug. 21, 1942 , b introduce the famous bookcase disguise for the door of the allegedly secret annex .
This bookcase never existed at all during the alleged hiding . What one sees now visiting the anne frank house is postwar work . Faurisson had already pointed out how such a disguise would be totally useless to real hiders, as the annex was and is easily accessible from the garden veranda door on the ground floor and from a passageway connecting front- and backhouse on the third floor.
The bookcase disguise for the door on the second floor´s landing is a total fabrication - and a literary one at that , inserted in the forgery in order to dramatize it , novelize it , make it more thrilling , like a good detective story.
The bookcase is supposed to be on the second-floor landing of the staircase between front- and backbuilding. Just like in the 1917 crime novel Faulkner´s folly by carolyn wells :
chapter 20, On the staircase :
detective alan ford goes up the staircase to the second landing and discovers a secret opening in the panelled wall of the staircase. A panel of the wainscot slides open , and the assassin steps out .
The secret passage was such a cliché of crime stories :
>> (wiki :
Another, even more blatant literary precedent here is a passage from 1818´s novel Nightmare abbey by thomas love peacock , end of chapter 2 :
In the diary, scythrop is kugler and the dumb carpenter is mr voskuyl...[F 271, aug. 21, 1942 , b + aug.14, 1942 , a - notice again in passing the totally random dates].
Back to abbey, chapter 9 :
Scythrop hides young stella in his recondite apartments, because " she was shunning an atrocious persecution. "... >>
But eventually, chapter 13, scythrop´s father, mr glowry, finds out his son is hiding a young lady, in the following manner... :
and if you still believe now after this umpteenth proof of plagiarism , that a 13-year-old girl named anne frank really pulled off such a blatant swindle as the so-called diary that goes under her name, you are terminally brainwashed .
There never was that famous revolving bookcase in front of anne frank´s not-so-secret annex .
There is one now, which purports to be a reconstruction - it is only a confidence trick meant to make believe that the diary was real .
CHAPTER 44 : FORBIDDEN BOOKS
F 275-278, sept. 21, 1942 , a + sept. 2 , 1942 , b, + F 283, sept. 22 , 1942 , a + sept. 21, 1942 , b
( notice again how the same episodes are often retold under different dates !!! - Clearly randomly assigned dates that have nothing to do with reality ), introduce another derivative theme : books forbidden teenagers by adults .
Such a motif is again, as usual , filched from earlier authors : here T 73, where 16-year-old lucie hides away to read The sorrows of young werther, a read that her dad had forbidden her. Again on T 138, 16-year-old flora is disappointed by her xmas present : instead of jean paul´works, that her father hadn´t judged her mature enough to read , she gets a history book .
And : anne forbids anyone but margot to read her own book - her diary : F 284 , sept. 22 , 1942 , a , features anne writing something mean about mrs van pels , when the latter pops up and asks anne if she may read the diary or part thereof - meeting with anne´s adamant refusal .
On G 34-36, jakob is writing about kraus in his diary, and he mentions how the latter sometimes peeps over his shoulder as he writes, and how jakob once had to rebuke kraus over it .
CHAPTER 45 : ENDLESS STREAM OF VISITORS
It is truly amazing to read in the diary, the sheer number of people visiting the annex day in day out : for instance at F 308, sept. 30, 1942 , a , the tale is of mrs van pels´s birthday :
In the evening they have a laugh at anne having otto wear mrs dreher´s fur shawl around his head - which implies, one would assume, that mrs dreher was also there... Another occasional visitor, we learn from earlier entries, is kleiman´s wife. And all of this on top of the daily visits by the helpers - miep, bep, kugler, kleiman, jan gies !!!
Surely nobody else in the building and among the next-door neighbors ever noticed such continuous comings and goings...And 10 or 15 people having a laugh at night is just what real hiders are supposes to be doing in order not to attract unwanted attention right ?....
F 700, april 21 , 1944, friday, a, states :
well >>> - Apparently, on a friday morning workday , the appraiser was let into the annex without fear...
Another funny thing on F 308 is, that it is presented as page 80 of the original manuscript diary - the one anne received, or allegedly received , as a birthday gift on june 13, 1942 .
Now the problem here is, that the previous manuscript page number on F 306 is...77 !!!
Where for heaven´s sake are manuscript pages 78 and 79 ??? Were they left blank ? When for hell´s sake will the zionazi owners of these manuscripts be legally forced to publish them online , wholly and for free ???
CHAPTER 46 : CARTESIAN TO A FAULT
Let us stop for a moment . Let us take time out to ponder. I must say now, that on the mathematical plane, what I have offered you so far is I hope, a valid and plausible explanation accounting for how the franks would have been able to spend 25 months in that annex, making as much noise as they pleased , using the hoover daily, hosting birthday parties and so forth : because they were exempt from deportation and most if not all other antijewish measures until july 1, 1944.
It is one of 2 : either the diary story is fabricated out of whole cloth ; or it isn´t and they lived in there for real , just NOT hiding .
I cannot mathematically as yet , prove or disprove one or the other . I must leave open the possibility that they never lived in the annex . And IF they ever did , then probably not ALL 8 of them anyway. In either case, they all NEVER HID.
See the thing is - I haven´t found so far, a single piece of independent evidence positively confirming the presence of the franks and van pelses in amsterdam between july 6, 1942 and august 8, 1944 - IF indeed their westerbork registration cards are authentic, which as we saw above, is highly doubtful at the very least in peter van pels´s case. And we proved above beyond doubt that the franks´ and van pelses´/pfeffer´s pages on the wbk-auschwitz transport list for sept. 3, 1944 were tampered with by interpolating the word häftlinge in them.
Documents, or alleged documents, proving the franks´ presence in amsterdam during ww2, are on F 19 : they are dated jan. 20 and 27, 1942 . Otto frank applied for emigration for himself and his family, with the joodse raad and the zentralstelle für jüdische auswanderung.
The trouble with these documents, even in case they are indeed authentic, which they plausibly appear to be, is - we have the applications, but not the reply. So we do not know whether or not the nazis allowed the franks to emigrate - why wouldn´t they ? Didn´t they want to get rid of their jews ? Didn´t otto have close relatives in switzerland to escape to ? Was there a problem with the swiss ? Between july 6, 1942 and august 8, 1944 , the entire time period spanned by the diary, the presence of the franks in amsterdam is quite simply not independently verifiable - totally undocumented to my knowledge.
Another alleged document proving the presence of otto, edith and margot in amsterdam as of may 1942 here:
Again : while I do consider likely that the franks did live in that annex, albeit NOT hiding , I am in no position as yet , to mathematically rule out that they didn´t . And that for instance, they survived the war in switzerland and the whole story is one huge lie and anne is still alive and faked her death . And the van pelses were deported by late october 1942 . Or simply, the franks never moved out of merwedeplein 37/II - they had little reason to do so, as they were exempt from deportation until july 1, 1944 .
CHAPTER 47 : SHOPPING AND PRICES
Yet another one of the diary´s pet leitmotive is shopping , and the price of each item . The first occurrence of this theme is on F 311, oct. 1, 1942 , b : bep has bought new skirts for margot and anne. They are of poor quality and cost, respectively, 24 and 7,75 florins. The funny thing is, the original 1947 dutch diary edition has 7, 50 for the second price instead !!!
Aside from that, the diary´s recurring theme of shopping and prices is once more patterned on T, 118-122, where ilse and her roommate nellie write up their xmas shopping list and the relative prices . F 318-320, oct. 7, 1942 , a , features a sort of reverie, like the ice rink scene above, again set in switzerland : otto gives anne 150 florins plus 1 florin a week (what good florins would have been in switzerland, is left unexplained) , and anne lists all the shopping items she buys and their prices , as in bookkeeping :
3 sommer trousers, at 0,50 fl. a piece = fl. 1, 50
3 winter shirts, at fl. 0,75 a piece = fl. 2,25 >>> and so on for 2 pages . Now, T 118 :
2) a work bag for miss güssow makes 3 marks,
3) a nice present for dear nellie and all other young ladies - makes - very many marks . >>>
Etc.- that was nellie helping ilse to figure out the budget for the xmas presents... And just like it had been otto in the diary´s reverie to give anne the money for shopping , likewise it will be ilse´s father who´ ll come up with the money on T 121... And : some of the items on both the diary´s and T 118 + 136´s shopping lists are identical : bags ; aprons ; socks ; wool fabric.
CHAPTER 48 : AUDIT IN THE HOUSE
F 312 , sept. 30, 1942 , a , attests to the presence of an auditor checking company books . Now this auditor must have been an external one sent by the nazi wirtschaftsprüfstelle or auditing office, the german bureau of economic investigation in the netherlands [ CAL 341] . Now since the main aim of this office was to dejudaize the economy, it is possible that the auditor´s visit at prinsengracht 263 had to do with the ongoing process of aryanization for opekta amsterdam , which as we said above umpteen times, would strangely and likely deliberately be delayed until july 1, 1944 .
Anyway picture yourself as a real hider, choosing to hide in the backhouse to your company´s headquarters, fully aware of the high odds nazi economic inspectors might check in any time !
The next a entry, F 313, oct.6, 1942 , features anne dressing her doll - just like ilse and nellie had done on T 123... And anne´s comment when she´s finished is, the doll looks pretty now - just like on T 134f., where little lilli receives the dressed doll as a xmas present from ilse and nellie, and finds it so beautiful...
CHAPTER 49 : DIARY LIES ON WESTERBORK
F 321, oct. 9, 1942 , b + F 339, oct. 26, 1942 , a [ notice again the wondrous harmony of the dates for the same entry passage in the 2 versions...] feature a totally lying description of concentration camp westerbork :
Now, these are postwar propaganda lies . This instead was the real westerbork, according not to revisionist historians, but to zionazi jewish witnesses as per zionazi WILL :
WILL 42, hannah elisabeth pick-goslar : >>
So much for the mixed sleeping . Now it must be noted here, that the goslars were a privileged case, in that they were zionists and belonged to so-called palestine-list groups - jews slated to be exchanged for german POWs and allowed to migrate to palestine. Hannah goes on relating how she worked as a toilet cleaner in wbk - she speaks of toilets in the plural - so much for the 1 toilet for thousands !!! And at the orphanage she had teachers . She was 15 at the time .
The lying diary features a vision anne allegedly had of goslar : nov.27, 1943, b :
Actually, on nov. 27, 1943 hanneli goslar was still in westerbork, doing relatively fine as we saw in her own words above. She was transferred to bergen-belsen in february 1944 - a time when belsen was still, in her own words, one of the better camps . In normal passenger trains and not in cattle cars. Not alone but with her father and her little sister. They were privileged zionists . They landed in the vip section of belsen and she survived the war.
Now let us hear from janny brandes-brilleslijper, who was no privileged case, she had been arrested for hiding and even tortured for resisting a policeman : WILL 76ff. : she states she was brought to wbk with the franks [ august 8, 1944 ] , and she speaks of " trains with compartments " : so much for the lying diary´s cattle cars . Her wbk work assignment was dirty and hazardous - taking batteries apart - the dust would cause you to cough, it was boring - but it wasn´t lethal , backbreaking forced labor either ! And she states that the hospital was excellent : " we had the best surgeons and the best doctors " !!!
Let us now move on to rachel van amerongen-frankfoorder, brought to wbk in 1944 after being arrested for carrying a forged ID : WILL 118ff. : she states that the men´s heads were indeed shaved ( we shall give the lie to this below ) but she makes no mention of the same being done to women - wheras the diary claims that all or most wbk inmates have their heads shaven, including , often, women and children . Here is photographical proof that the women at wbk did in fact NOT get their heads shaven :
Let us now hear from bloeme evers-emden : on WILL 154, she retells how she washed in wbk, august 1944 ( she states she had been arrested for hiding ) : she speaks of several faucets - so much for the 1 sink for thousands... On the next page, she recalls a cabaret !!! And in general , she rates wbk as " more or less OK ".
It is now the turn of lenie de jong-van naarden, arrested for hiding in august 1944 : on WILL 178, she speaks of separated barracks for men and women !!! So much again, for the diary´s mixed and "immoral" accomodations !!! And on page 179, she states : " Water, we had enough " - so much for water only 1 hour a day and for people thirstying !!! Men, women and children did NOT sleep together, as the diary falsely claims, but they were indeed allowed to see each other during the day, because whole families, like the franks for instance, had been brought there together. Food was also enough ( ibidem).
Enter ronnie goldstein-van cleef, arrested in june 1944 over resistance work . On WILL 214f. she states she was brought to wbk by train - no mention of cattle cars whatsoever. And she paints wbk in the brightest colors : >> She does add next , wbk must have been terrible earlier, as it was way more crowded - but she does not know, it is just a supposition - she should have asked goslar, who did pretty fine there in 1943 !!! And she states they ate well and were allowed to receive packets !!! Yes indeed, there was a post office at the camp, and inmates were allowed to exchange mail with the outside world :
And they were paid for their work, albeit in a currency only valid within the camp, but at least there were shops where they could buy extra food !!!
In this pic from WILL 249, in the niod collection , you can see that women in wbk did NOT get their heads shaven - a clear sign that hygiene there was good enough and there was little danger of typhus epidemics :
You might rightly wonder at this point, whether maybe the dismal conditions described in the diary for 1942 would have applied to 1942 wbk - when the camp was maybe more crowded because more jews awaited deportation to the east than in 1944 . After all , aside from goslar who arrived at wbk in 1943, all other WILL jewesses got there in 1944 . Let us check that .
First of all , it is not necessarily true that the camp was overcrowded before 1944 , because every tuesday since 1942 , an eastbound deportee cargo train left it - a horrible way of emptying a camp admittedly, but still .
This quote is a translation from wiki/dutch, westerbork :
And this refers to the whole length of time of the occupation , not just 1944 . Look at these inmates celebrating hanukkah in december 1943 there : do they look undernourished or unhealthy to
you ? :
You will have noticed how not only the women, but the man on the right as well , has an unshaven head !!!
This is now the camp´s dental practice : doesn´t it look neat ? And all the staff is jewish :
Here comes a jewish classroom at the camp : nobody has a shaven head , men included !!! :
Cabaret show :
The diary of anne frank is a lie. A postwar propaganda lie.
I am an antifascist : I do not intend to rehabilitate nazism . I condemn deportations and forced labor and discrimination of all sorts based on race religion sex or whatever. But the Truth is the Truth : the truly horrible and tragic thing about westerbork, relatively speaking of course, was, that many or most of its inmates would at some point be transferred to camps in germany or poland - but even there, we must differentiate between the deadly conditions at say auschwitz or mauthausen, and the relatively good ones at say theresienstadt or early bergen belsen.
CHAPTER 50 : ANNE AS FANNY
As the late umberto eco remarked long ago, in his Postille al nome della rosa , no novel can hope to sell , without sex as one of its staples . Therefore, F 648, march 24, 1944 , a, gets vaginal enough to tickle mass fancy - though otto didn´t manage to get the following passage in HA and c , the late 40ies still being slightly too early for such delicacies... But POP made good on the loss, featuring the passage for the "sexually liberated" late XX - XXI centuries :
Such elegance is patterned on one of the first modern porn novels, Fanny hill or Memoirs of a woman of pleasure, by john cleland , first published in london in 1748, henceforth FH :
This is for instance, what fanny has to say about her own 15-year-old virgin vagina in Letter 1 ( by the way, notice the epistolary form too...) :
" having very curiously and attentively compared the size of that enormous machine [...] to that of the tender small part of me which was framed to receive it , I could not conceive its being possible to afford it entrance without dying , perhaps in the greatest pain , since she well knew that even a finger thrust in there hurt me beyond bearing >>>
A few paragraphs above, fanny had entertained readers with a lesbian scene - just like anne would do in the bed scene with jacque above . Here too, fanny stresses the narrowness of her still-virgin entrance...
Again the same narrowness theme, as fanny goes through her first... close encounter with a man :
And since the books anne was allowed to read were first vetted and chosen by her parents, it is not likely she ever read Fanny hill - the vaginal diary passages and other erotic ones were the work of her perverted father and his gang of forger thugs . Commercially exploiting a dead daughter...
IF indeed anne died that tragic belsen death , otto frank was one rotten pig .
CHAPTER 51 : ON ELECTRIC METERS AND GAS METERS
F 372 , nov. 28, 1942 , b, informs us that the 8 annex jews have been using too much electricity and thereby exceeded their ration, so the prospect of having electricity cut off looms ahead . Now one may wonder here, just where the annex electric and gas (and water, by the way) meters were located : because, in case they were inside the jews´ quarters, then the employees from the power, gas and water companies would long since have started meeting the annex jews once a month or so for the readings . Which makes a mockery of the hiding lie.
Whereas , if said meters were instead located say on the ground floor of the annex, a company warehouse, then the sudden rise in power and gas consumption since july 1942 could hardly have escaped the warehouse workers´ curiosity. And if said meters had been located say on the first floor of the annex, where a kitchen/laboratory was, often used by jewish pharmacist arthur siegfried lewinsohn (whom the diary says the annex jews feared) for his experiments : he might have just glanced at the meters every now and then , and become aware of the dwellers himself . The umpteenth oddity about the whole diary business is, this opekta building at 263
prinsengracht , whether front- or backhouse, appears to either have no basement , or noone is willing to tell us about it - very strange for a commercial building , or any kind of building for that matter !! Possibly noone´s willing to tell us about cellars there, lest readers may start wondering why the jews didn´t hide in the basement instead - a much more logical place to hide from sight than the upper floors of an annex literally surrounded by scores if not hundreds of people on a daily basis .
Anyway even positing for argument´s sake now, that the power, gas and water meters were in the fronthouse, or that warehouse workers and lewinsohn never cared to look at them because they weren´ t concerned - how about the building´s owner ?? As of this diary entry above, nov. 28,
1942 , the building´s owner was a fellow frederik johannes pieron [M 324] . Now it would be nice to know what kind of a lease otto frank had with him , and how could otto expect that pieron would never show up during the alleged hiding . 8 extra people living in that annex would have raised not only power and gas, but also water consumption sky-high - how come pieron was silent about it ? Or was he ? Usually a lease would include a certain amount of water use for instance - and if the lessee exceeds it , then the rent is raised . How could pieron possibly ignore for months, from july 1942 through early 1943 when he sold the building , that 8 people were living in his annex ? What kind of a landlord is this, that is unaware of 8 clandestines squatting in his house ??
This is all just so preposterous .
There was simply no way to hide in that annex . Look at this cross section of the annex from AFH 43 :
And also here, with hypothetical reconstruction of interiors :
On the third floor , the van pelses´s room also functioned as common kitchen [F 256, july 9, 1942 ,
b ] , with a stove for cooking - a gas stove, one would assume, fueled by a gas cylinder or attached to the gas piping ; or an electric stove. Both would have again, raised gas or power use in that annex sky-high in a matter of days . And if the stove was a gas one, like the one on the first floor
( F 255, same entry earlier ), and if the gas came from a cylinder, then again someone would have had to come in periodically to change the cylinder - thus again , giving the lie to the hiding joke.
Plus : the constant cooking for 8 persons in the van pelses´ bedroom/kitchen on the third floor would have been impossible to manage without opening the windows - day and night . Or they would have suffocated in a matter of days - especially factoring in, that mr van pels was a chain smoker according to the diary itself . Unless there was a fumehood - whereof the diary makes no mention . And had it been present , it would have made a hellish noise inconsistent with the hiding anyway.
No way to hide in that annex - if the 8 jews, or part thereof , really lived in there all that time, they most certainly were not repeat NOT hiding because it was physically impossible to hide under such conditions .
All the diary tells us in the entry under consideration here, is there was one cooking stove for 8 people ( they would become 8 in mid-november 1942). Now, the average family-size cooking stove has 4 burners, plus maybe an oven . If you have ever cooked for more then 1 person in your life, you will realize that doing the cooking for 8 and then some (miep, bep and jan are said in the diary to be regular lunch guests) on a daily basis on 4 burners and 1 oven at best , means having to cook all the time or most of the time. And with a chain smoker by your side, and other smokers around ( every annex jew smoked but for anne and margot as stated in the diary ), and a continuous flow of guests in that kitchen which functioned at once as " van pelses´ bedroom , common living
room , dining room and study ", you will easily realize that the windows had to be kept at least partially open on end . Which makes a mockery again , of the hiding lie .
CHAPTER 52 : FILM BUFFS AT WORK
So, ya really wanna sell this book right ? Well , we´ve had suspense, terror, sex both gay and straight : time now for a little comic relief... provided for you by THE DENTIST (paramount , 1932), directed by leslie pearce, starring the legendary comic wc fields . Watch it on youtube :
and then compare it to F 178f., where doctor pfeffer, on dec.10, 1942 ( or was it dec. 8, following the short stories calendar, as this passage also appears in the short stories collection attributed to anne frank under the title The dentist - a dead giveaway to its filmic model ) opens his annex dental office. Of course in the film, the dentist´s chair is in the middle of the room ( 9´17´´ ) - and so is pfeffer´s in the diary. Pfeffer treats mrs van pels, who utters incoherent cries when he but touches her teeth - in the film , the first lady patient , a middle-aged flirt like mrs van pels, utters incoherent cries even before fields touches her. Mrs van pels screams during treatment - just like the first lady in the film, starting at 10´33´´. The final comment by anne is, mrs van pels isn´t gonna have herself treated again any time soon - the final comment by the first lady patient in the
film : "oh doctor, I can´t let you do that again" ( 11´16´´ ) . And of course , while pfeffer is using his probe to scrape out a cavity in mrs van pels´s mouth , fields is using his mirror and probe to do the same on the first 2 ladies . Mrs van pels flails her arms and legs wildly until pfeffer´s probe gets stuck in her tooth after he has let go of it - in the film likewise, the second lady patient starts flailing her legs at 10´39´´ under fields´ drill in action . And the third patient , the bearded man, flails both his legs and arms even more wildly from 17´onwards . And just like pfeffer´s probe gets stuck in mrs van pels´s tooth, in the film fields´pliers (himself attached) get stuck around elise cavanna´s bad tooth the dentist is desperately trying to yank out (17´ onwards). Finally, both pfeffer´s probe and fields´ pliers will get unstuck .
More info on The dentist :
Otto frank was a film buff - he often put on private film evenings at his home with family and friends . Well , another diary scene that never happened - or IF it did , its literarization/dramatization in the diary owes entirely to w.c.fields´ script and film . In other words, in the unlikely case that this diary scene happened for real , it certainly did NOT happen THAT way.
I hope that by now, you have no more trouble understanding what varied plagiarism is all about - just replace stuck pliers with a stuck probe...
CHAPTER 53 : RADIO GIVEAWAY
F 419, june 15, 1943, b, is yet another deceptive, lying entry - and an interesting lie it is indeed :
small set hidden in his home that he's giving us to replace our beautiful cabinet radio .
It ' s a pity we have to turn in our big philips, but when you're in hiding , you can't
afford to bring the authorities down on your heads . Of course, we'll put the "baby"
radio upstairs . What's a clandestine radio when there are already clandestine jews and
clandestine money? All over the country people are trying to get hold of an old radio that they can hand over instead of their "morale booster." It's true: : as the reports from outside grow
worse and worse, the radio, with its wondrous voice, helps us not to lose heart and to
keep telling ourselves, "Cheer up, keep your spirits high, things are bound to get better ! "
Yours, anne >>> :
as translated by susan massotty here :
Now, pity here is, that according to gertrude van tijn´s report , pp. 13f., here :
jews in holland had to deliver all their radios...in april 1941 !!!
CAL confirms this on p. 328 . Therefore if , as the diary states, the big philips was the franks´, it follows that, by june 15, 1943, the franks had been keeping it and listening to it illegally. So why bother to deliver it now - and thus own up to having illegally had it for over 2 years ??
The diary here misrepresents events totally : according to F 419, note a, starting may 31, 1943, radios had to be delivered - but this certainly addressed the christian populace, not the jews, who again, had been ordered to deliver theirs as early as mid-april , 1941 !!!
If instead one is to assume here, that the philips had been passed off as belonging to kleiman or kugler - the jews would have endangered both every day for 2 years , because had they been discovered and arrested while listening to the radio, kleiman or kugler would have been responsible for sharing their radios with jews - a case of jew helping in and for itself .
Again the most likely explanation here is, the franks being exempt from all antijewish measures thanks to otto´s iron cross first class and to opekta´s status as a war-relevant wehrmacht supplier, they were able to keep their philips and listen to it legally for over 2 years - until the delivery order was generalized by the nazis to all of the dutch populace. Or alternatively - the radio listens of the annex jews throughout the diary are fabricated like much of the rest .
CHAPTER 54 : SHORTSIGHTED WRITER
F 420, july 11, 1943, b informs us that anne is very myopic :
that I have more time for my other subjects, and second , because of my eyes . That's
a sad story. I've become very nearsighted and should have had glasses ages ago.
(Ugh, won't I look like a dope !). But as you know, people in hiding can't. . .
Yesterday all anyone here could talk about was anne's eyes, because mother had
suggested I go to the ophthalmologist with mrs kleiman . Just hearing this made my
knees weak, since it's no small matter. Going outside! Just think of it , walking down
the street ! I can't imagine it . I was petrified at first , and then glad . But it's not as
simple as all that ; the various authorities who had to approve such a step were unable
to reach a quick decision . They first had to carefully weigh all the difficulties and
risks, though miep was ready to set off immediately with me in tow. [...]
I'm really curious to see what they decide, only I don't think they ' ll ever work out a
plan , because the british have landed in sicily and father's all set for a "quick finish ."
Bep's been giving margot and me a lot of office work to do. It makes us both feel
important , and it's a big help to her. Anyone can file letters and make entries in a
sales book, but we do it with remarkable accuracy. >>>
( translation susan massotty )
Now "anne" here won´t tell us what the adults decided , but MG 143 does : anne would not go out , would not get her eyewear.
Notice the immediate contradiction in the diary entry above, where anne mentions a lot of clerical work for her to do - nearsightedness notwithstanding !!!
And : from this entry to the end of the diary, F has another 371 pages - half are taken up with the c version , so let us divide 371 by 2 : anne is supposed to have written roughly 185,5 diary pages between july 11, 1943 and august 1, 1944 - pages that is, in the printed F edition , wheras in terms of manuscript pages filled , that would roughly amount to some 300 pages !!! On top of 2800 changes and corrections she allegedly made in her diaries and loose sheets [ pressler, ich sehne mich so, gulliver beltz&gelberg 1992, 1999, p.53] . On top of a collection of short stories she allegedly wrote . On top of her daily clerical work . On top of the scores of books she is pictured as reading in the diary. On top of her homework . Not bad for a very myopic 14-year-old , without eyewear, frequently suffering from headaches [MG 142 + diary, F 430, july 26, 1943, b] !!!
To believe in such nonsense, one must be dumber than dumb. It is again, one of 2 :
either anne frank could go out at will because she was exempt , and did get herself eyewear without a problem . Or she didn´t : in which case , her sheer writing output is simply inconceivable.
Anne frank cannot possibly be the author of those hundreds of pages of writings - unless she faked her death and survived the war.
CHAPTER 55 : AIR-RAID WARDENS
F 401, march 25, 1943, b , mentions the air-raid warden , who would often come by the building to check if air-raid countermeasures were being met . The annex jews feared he might discover them or call the police in case he found irregularities .
Now here :
you might want to read dutch/german laws concerning air-raid civilian defense during ww2 . It´s in dutch - use google translator if you don´t read dutch .
Among the compulsory measures to be taken by the populace in 1942 for instance, there was the clearing of the attics and upper floors of buildings - one would assume, in order to rid them of flammable materials in case a bomb or a firebomb hit the roof. And to facilitate access to first responders . According to the diary instead , the annex´ attic and upper floor beneath it were clogged up with boxes of stuff , laundry, food supplies and what-have-you . Again , one wonders how come no cellar is mentioned for this building - it would have made a lot more sense to stash away stuff in the basement .
A second important obligation was to keep a certain amount of sand in the house, in order to fight fire from an air attack. A bucket of sand had to be kept on each floor. And yet nowhere does the diary mention any of this . If the air-raid warden , who had police powers, had checked on the annex and found no sand , clogged-up upper floors/attic or other irregularities, he might have reported the jews to the police, even if he had not known or cared himself whether or not they were jews in hiding . Therefore the most sensible thing to do - also for the sake of personal protection in case a bomb hit the annex - would have been to comply with the clearing of the attic and the storing of sand . And yet , the diary is silent on the sand , and totally ignores the obligation to keep attic and the floor beneath it ( a sort of lower loft , not inhabited by the annex jews )- clear .
272.000 forms were issued to each household in holland in 1942 , featuring the names and addresses of the air-raid wardens for each housing block , so each family could join them in case of an emergency or be instructed by them . Sure enough, the opekta building got one of those forms in 1942 , as air defense measures covered corporate buildings too. And : the head of each household had to fill in that form , with the composition of the family ; the availability of air-raid sheltering ; who to notify in case you got killed . The filled-in form had to be posted on the inside of the front door.
You might wonder why the franks shoud have cared about all this since they were in hiding - again, there was no way to hide in that annex, and the air-raid warden certainly knew that the annex was inhabited - aside from all we´ve said so far, the diary itself attests to the franks complying with the blackout at night - another air-raid defense measure . It is impossible that local air-raid wardens wouldn´t have noticed the annex was inhabited from this alone, during their inspection rounds of the block . In 1943, blackout controls continued being carried out by the wardens. Which again, makes a mockery of the hiding lie, and of the diary´s statement that the annex jews feared the nazis on the street more than allied bombs .
And it is impossible that the old and new owners of prinsen 263 - pieron until early 1943, thereafter wessels - wouldn´t care to know what was going on in that annex and whether or not everything possible was being done there, among other things, to defend it from air raids.
F 430, july 26, 1943, b, monday, tells us what the annex jews did when bombs fell on amsterdam - again , enough in and for itself to discredit the whole hiding lie. At 2:30 pm , there sound the
sirens . The annex jews gather in the corridor/entryway - a small one on the second floor, leading to the franks´quarters, mentioned in the july 9, 1942, b entry ( F 256 ) . Below in the same entry, anne uses another word instead of hallway : she says they were in the entryway.
Beside the franks, we learn from the same entry of july 26, 1943 that 3 other annex jews were in the unlikeliest places during that air raid : peter was in the fronthouse´s loft !!! His father hermann was in the annex´ loft !!! Pfeffer was in the fronthouse´s office !!! On a monday, early afternoon !!! Where was everybody else ? Staff, customers, cleaning lady ? True, they might have been gone to the nearest air-raid shelter.
Or to the basement, in case the building had one.
But on their precipitous exiting the building , they might just have run into peter or
pfeffer !!! What if the air-raid wardens had come in for a check just at that very moment , when the sirens wailed ? If the whole house was quaking from bomb explosions as the diary states, how could the hiders assume it was better for them to be dismembered by a bomb than to run to the nearest shelter ? Who the hell would have noticed them there ? And even if they, in the worst-case scenario, had been arrested and deported , wasn´t it better to risk auschwitz than to die in firebomb flames ? What kind of enhanced safety could the entryway have offered the franks ? Just how stupid could peter be to stay in the fronthouse attic, and his father in the annex´ - the best places to die in case a bomb hit the roof ???
Once more, for the umpteenth time : none of this ever happened at all .
What DID happen during air-raids, IF the 8 jews or part thereof ever really lived in that annex, exempt from deportation etc., was they would run with the rest of the staff and customers present , to the nearest shelter or to the basement . Without a problem . NOBODY in his/her sane mind goes up to the attic during an air-raid .
CHAPTER 56 : ONE BOY FOR TWO SISTERS
F 629, march 20, 1944 , a , informs us that not only anne, but also her sister margot was in love with peter. This is another knockoff from T. Synoptically :
F : >>
T 108 : >>
Oh boy - this so-called diary is 3/4 plagiarized fiction , 1/4 lies .
CHAPTER 57 : THE COST OF HIDING
The so-called diary would have you believe that otto frank generously offered the van pelses and pfeffer free shelter in the annex : F 365 for instance, nov.17, 1942 , b , states that the hiders pay no rent . And yet F 472 , oct. 17, 1943 tells us a different story : the van pelses have run out of money. Mrs van pels maintains, that the company must bear their cost of living - a standpoint "anne" curtly dismisses as untrue. F 474, oct. 29, 1943, b informs us that mrs van pels was eventually forced to give in and sell her fur coat - for which she got the tidy sum of 325 guilders - the 2016 equivalent of 2068,56 euros, according to :
Mrs van pels would have liked to save the money for herself , but her husband made it abundantly clear to her that it was urgently needed for the annex´ budget instead .
Now aside from doubting that one could get over 2000 euros for a rabbit-skin coat in wartime - or that any of this is true to begin with , including the very presence of the van pelses in that annex as we saw above - : " hiding " with mr frank didn´t come cheap .
CHAPTER 58 : BALLPOINT STENO
Much, way too much has been made of ballpoint pen use in the diary manuscripts by demented neonazi revisionists in the past , ever since german police specialists found out in 1980 that a few minor parts were indeed in ballpoint :
A glance at any of the dozens of manuscripts pages published so far though , is enough to convince that fountain pens were instead used on most of the manuscripts . BUT, again :
ballpoint , which became commercially available in europe only after 1950, was indeed used on at least SOME diary manuscripts pages. Prozionazi F 195-202 itself confirms use of ballpoint pen , and/or handwriting by someone other than anne frank, in the manuscripts in the following cases :
Diary I ( the checkered book, july 6, 1942 - dec. 5, 1942 entries, also featuring entries with later dates) :
- writings, corrections, interpolations with a date later than dec. 5, 1942 with only 1 exception are NOT by anne´s hand [F 166]
- page numbering NOT by anne [F 150]
Diary II ( a black-cover book with entries from dec. 22, 1943 through april 17, 1944 plus the short story "Cady´s life") :
- page numbering by unknown hand [F 167]
- an undetermined number of additions, corrections, etc. are NOT by anne [F 189]
- a pencil text glued to page 191 [F 167+189] NOT by anne - that´s a whole page !!
Diary III ( a book featuring entries from april 17,1944 through august 1,1944):
- page numbering by unknown hand 
- a few corrections and additions are written using a black ballpoint pen - ballpoint pens only became commercially available in europe after 1950
Loose sheets (featuring version b of the diary) :
- 2 slips of paper added to the Loose sheets NOT by anne [F 195]
- the page numbering on the Loose sheets and on the third Diary were NOT examined , but hardy himself holds for probable, that it be otto´s not anne´s hand [F 195]
- 6 corrections and additions appear to be in black ballpoint on Loose sheets and Diary III
- 26 corrections on the Loose sheets, pages 104 - 311, are by a hand other than anne´s : according to hardy, these 26 corrections are by otto´s hand [F 198]
- the first date on the first entry on the Loose sheets, page 1 , is NOT by anne [F 198]
Not bad for allegedly "authentic" manuscripts...But it gets worse.
One could say, well, what relevance do page numbering or a few dozen corrections have, out of hundreds of pages of text ? But see the thing is - hardy lied. Because he was payed to lie. He got payed by the prozionazi dutch-govt-owned niod back in the 80ies to confirm authenticity, not to seriously verify it . Here comes final proof of this .
Page 117 of manuscript I , the famous checkered diary, is in shorthand - learning shorthand having been , according to the diary, one of anne´s pastimes while in hiding . Look at it well , from AFH 73, pic. 3 :
You may also find same here :
Enlarge it , observe it carefully : it is written in a red ballpoint pen . All of it . Unsurprisingly, hardy in his so-called scientific report never mentions this page, but for a fleeting reference on F 121 to manuscripts use of , among other ink types, " thin red ink ". Just the unmistakable ballpoint pen stroke. The heading on top of this steno page, " a page of steno", is in a hand entirely different from the main types of writing we find in the diaries : print and cursive.
This page was not written on may 2 , 1943, as fraudulently stated at its bottom . It was written after 1950 - when ballpoint pens became commercially available in europe. Therefore unless anne frank faked her death in 1945, this page is NOT by her hand . That is why it is missing in the first dutch edition from 1947, and the first german edition from 1950.
Taken as a whole, the so-called scientific expertise by j.j.hardy on F 119-202 , even when factoring in that it is an abstract and not the full thing [ask yourselves why they never published the full report...] , is rendered invalid from the start by the wrong assumption that if the materials used in the diaries´ manufacturing (paper, glue and the like) and in that of the comparative reference materials used ( postcards and the like, allegedly written by anne frank) and if the inks present in such materials, are mostly of types in use in the early 40ies , then such writings must be by anne frank . Forgers might instead have created such objects after 1944 , by simply utilizing vintage materials, and imitating anne´s handwriting(s).
On F 123, hardy´s listing of the reference materials used for comparison makes little if any sense :
how can we compare diary writings allegedly started on june 12 , 1942 by a 13-year-old , with an alleged letter of hers written july 30, 1941 , almost 1 year earlier, when she was 12 ? At that age, handwriting evolves dramatically from year to year ! Furthermore, anne allegedly kept on keeping her diary in 1943 and 1944 , at 14 and 15 : but, there are no comparable other writings from her for those years because she allegedly was in hiding and all we have is her diary : so even worse, how can we compare the diary´s manuscripts´ hand(s) for 1943 and 1944 with that or those from a letter allegedly written 2 or even 3 years earlier ? Such a procedure is absurd in the case of a still-developing human being in her early teens .
The same can be said for the second reference item listed by hardy, a new year´s card from late 1941. There are only 3 reference items listed by hardy as dating to 1942 with certainty [F123] : IF authentic, they would have been useful for comparing to them anne´s 1942 hand(s) : but NOT anne´s 1943 and 1944 hands !
The total absence of comparative written materials by anne for 1943 and 1944 is highly suspect in and for itself : because as the diary itself attests to, anne was constantly, during that time in the annex allegedly, exchanging gifts with accompanying notes, poems and the like, with the so-called helpers miep, jan, bep, kugler and kleiman : how come the diary survived and none of this other stuff did ?
Further, anne as we saw above, is attested to by the diary as working daily for her father´s companies, filling in books of accounts receivable and the like : where are the company ledgers with her handwriting for 1943 and 1944 ? And 1942 as well , for that matter ? CAL taught us that at least a part of the ww2 pectacon ledgers have survived - where are the books that anne allegedly worked on ?
Let us now take all of the 7 reference items listed by hardy on F123, one by one . But first let it be said , that from a statistical/mathematical angle, comparing hundreds of pages of diaries with only a meager handful of short writings such as letters, cards and short poems earlier than the diaries by months or years as is our case here , is utterly ridiculous and even offensive unto any intelligent reader . Hardy himself admits the uncertainty of his results on F166 and 167 - to his moral credit , for a change.
CHAPTER 59 : REFERENCE WRITINGS
Hardy on F 123 states that niod ( the governmental netherlands institute for ww2 documentation , to which otto frank bequeathed anne´s diary´s manuscripts when he died in 1980 ) put 24 comparative writings by anne frank at his disposal for reference. Very few, especially as most are quite short . Of 2 such alleged documents, niod only gave hardy xeroxes, and not the originals !! Hardy only shows us 7 of them anyway. He states that the 24 papers span the 1936 -1942 time frame - which again , makes most of them near-worthless to comparative analysis, as anne went from 7 to 13 years of age in that time, and as her body changed , so did her writing . Anyway, for discussion´s sake, let us assume that even pre-1942 specimina were of any use to us . Certain traits might indeed remain over time.
The first alleged document hardy shows us in a photographic reproduction [F124] is an alleged letter allegedly written by anne to her grandma in basel ( otto frank´s mother alice frank-stern) on july 30, 1941. Here it is :
Now this grandma was german . She didn´t speak dutch , as otto himself stated after the war - this being the first reason why otto summoned anneliese schütz to translate the diary into german - so that grandma in switzerland could read it . And yet we are confronted here with a letter anne allegedly wrote in dutch to alice in switzerland - in 1941 . As if alice had been able to perfectly read and understand the dutch language ! And , as we saw above : anne herself was a german mother tongue, born in frankfurt am main from german mother tongues . In amsterdam , where she had arrived at age 4 and a half, she kept on living in a germanophone environment not only at home, where her mother reportedly hardly knew any dutch, but also with most of her friends, who were german-jewish emigrés like herself : sanne ledermann , whom this alleged letter is about , hanneli goslar, peter schiff and so on, see above : why on earth wouldn´t anne write to her german grandma in german ? Are we to assume that anne, while certainly bilingual , had never been taught to write in german , even imperfectly, by her parents, who had gone as far in the 30ies reportedly, as to hire german-jewish emigrée anneliese schütz to involve anne in home theater performances certainly not held in dutch ? There can be no doubt that anne was bilingual , and stayed so throughout her stay in amsterdam - and she would write in dutch to a grandma who couldn´t understand the language at all ? The letter itself proves to us that whoever wrote it could write in german just as well : at the bottom, two dutch words in the text are translated into german - and they are correctly spelt , but for the lack of umlaut on the word gemütlich . Wheras if we are to assume that grandma was expected to understand that letter, given the proximity of german and dutch for instance : then why on earth would otto need to hire anneliese schütz after the war to enable alice to read the diary ? None of this makes the least sense at all . This site claims to be showing 2 letters by anne in german , one dating from 1936 (7) the other undated (6), but assigned by GK 145 to december 1938 . In the same letter, GK 146, she also writes to her cousin stephan in switzerland - in passable german again :
(images 6 and 7)
If they are authentic, which they appear to be, they prove that anne was perfectly able to write to her relatives in switzerland in german , bar a few orthographic mistakes and the odd dutchism , and logically did so too, since none of them spoke dutch !!! It logically follows that all alleged anne frank letters in dutch to her relatives in switzerland are fakes . And that our doubts above as to why on earth anne, a german mother tongue living abroad but in a mostly germanophone environment , would write her diary in dutch as opposed to her native german , were justified .
Another fake dutch letter to grandma, which we shall presently discuss, informs us that anne during the schoolyear 1941/42 at the jewish lyceum , also took german language classes . Which is very likely, under german occupation, whether or not the letter is forged . She fared poorly in all languages, including dutch, but she surely practiced her german both at school and at home with her parents at the very least .
That this alleged 1941 letter to grandma has been tampered with , is shown by line numbering on the right hand side, and by unreadable pencil scribblings top left and top center. Even assuming that before reaching switzerland, this letter went through one or more german censors, why would these have needed to number its lines ? And - who or what proves that this letter was actually sent and received ? Where the hell does this letter come from ? Niod had it from where exactly ?
When ? There is no document record here, no ownership history. Where is the envelope ? How do we know it was sent for real, without an envelope, stamp, postmark ? Common sense suggests that the handwriting here is from an orderly, mature, disciplined individual - the very opposite of all reports about anne frank , a spoiled , undisciplined , rebellious little pest of a girl .
There is no way, on the basis of the available material here, to certify the authenticity of this letter.
The second reference writing shown by hardy is a new year´s card allegedly sent to the kuglers at the end of 1941. Here you go :
This card is not to be found on the web somehow...Where the hell does this card come from ? K , unnumbered second pic page after page 24 , has a repro of the same card . The caption states : from the personal collection of victor kugler. Now kugler died in toronto in 1981 . Therefore this card must somehow have made its way from toronto to niod in amsterdam between 1982 and 1985 roughly - the time span when F was being prepared : how ? Where is it now ? How can a scientist , as hardy claims to be, take into serious consideration reference papers of undetermined provenance ? Another thing that strikes us here is the postmark : it bears no date. So whence does hardy claim to know the card was sent at the end of 1941 ?
Now take a good look at both versions, the one on F 126 and the one on K 24-II :
Go to the word Heeren on the right side : the 2 photos are supposed to be the same document .
Yet : The F Heeren has a wide, evident gap between Heer and en. The K Heeren has no discontinuity at all ! Now go to the next word : mevrouw : on F it is neatly and readably written, one can easily make out each letter. On K , it is one utter mess !! It looks as if it´s been partly overwritten . The v, the o, the u are illegible if not outright absent . Now go to the word door on the left hand side. On F, the first o is thin, and has a little gap on the top; on K , that first o is rounder, and has no gap on the top. On F, the r ends with a v-shaped angular stroke. On K , the r ends with an u-shaped , rounded tail . The initial E in Eemnesserweg is also different on F and K . Ditto for the number 5 in 56. The pen stroke on F as a whole looks thick and black - the one on K looks thin and lighter, as if from a ballpoint .
We shall also notice the impolite capitalizing of the initial in Heeren as opposed to the lowercase initial in mevrouw. Finally, isn´t it odd that 12-year-old anne would write to kugler, an employee of her father´s, her senior by 29 years, on her own ? I mean this is a new year´s card , a typical case of the whole family writing to family friends together. Yet anne frank is supposed to have written and signed this card to the kuglers alone. Does one write a new year´s card to someone living in the same city, whom one probably last met , and exchanged new year´s wishes with , a couple of days earlier ? Hilversum lies a mere 24 km SE of amsterdam - it is virtually a suburb thereof .
This card is a forgery. The F version and the K version are just 2 versions of the same forgery, like we saw above for the sept. 3, 1944 judentransportliste from westerbork . Niod is a veritable officine de faux.
F 123 lists the third shown piece of alleged evidence for anne´s reference handwriting : another alleged letter to the same grandma in switzerland , " supposedly written in the spring of 1942 ". This is a longish letter, 4 and a half pages, F 127-131 : I cannot find it on the web, anyway here it is as it appears on F 131 :
obviously, as above, we are struck by the absurdity of anne again writing in dutch to her german grandma . Then again we notice the line numbering and the pencil scribblings to the left and on top - certainly not by anne . Then , the absence of a date . The marking of each page number using erudite roman numerals . The boring , regular, adult cursive - in total contrast to anne´s age and known personality. The undeclared provenance/ownership history of the letter. No hugs or kisses at the end , only a " bye bye everybody ". Another fake. Always bear in mind that there exists a veritable anne frank industry - a Holocaust industry within the Holocaust industry. Every little boring piece of paper attributed to anne frank by some offical authority, fetches tidy sums on the private market - an obvious motive for fakers .
The 4th piece of alleged comparative evidence shown us by hardy is another letter, this time to cousin bernd elias in switzerland , for his birthday, of late may 1942 allegedly. The boring old adult cursive yet again. The dutch language to a german cousin who spoke no dutch . A birthday letter instead of a birthday card . Dull, ordinary paper for someone´s - a beloved cousin´s, anne´s pet cousin´s - birthday : read it here :
No kisses. No hugs. The humorous, but erudite dutch word epistel for letter, when common dutch is brief - sooo typical for a 12-year-old who had never and would never learn any latin or old
We do in this case see on F 133, the alleged envelope, front and back, for this letter ; the stamps, the postmark, nazi censorship rubber-stamps, all good enough but - why write the sender twice, once on the front and another on the back of the envelope ? Says who that the letter really originally belonged in that envelope ?
The 5th hardy photo repro is another letter (to whom?) from summer 1941 presumably, so states hardy, F 134 :
How can this be a summer letter when it´s about what she´s been doing in school as of late . Line numbering left . Childish print handwriting , drastically different than the adult cursive we´ve seen so far. Could be authentic, but for the line numbering . Why weren´t we shown the whole letter, this is just the last page. At any rate - the plausibility of this print hand as really being anne´s does not necessarily imply that the diary sections written in print hand be by anne - could be a forger imitating anne´s print hand .
The last 2 pieces of alleged evidence for anne´s writing shown by hardy are a short poem for anne´s friend jacqueline van maarsen, dated march 23, 1942 ; and an anne section on a family postcard with birthday wishes for otto´s sister in switzerland, leni elias : this card is rubber-stamped by the amsterdam post on july 6, 1942 - the day the franks allegedly went into hiding.
Both these pieces look authentic to my eye : both are in the childish print hand, but for anne´s cursive signature on the postcard. Here is part of the poem for jacqueline :
And here is the postcard :
Summing it all up : I think that as far as the diary handwritings go, the cursive adult types are NOT by anne . The childish print hand is mostly by fakers, except for a few photo captions which might be authentic . By the time she allegedly started keeping her diary in june 1942 , anne´s handwriting was the childish print we see on the postcard and the poem for jacque above . But this does not imply that the diary parts in the print hand all be authentic : in fact , they are not , because of all the historical and stylistic reasons I dwelled on above at length . That is why I maintain that also the diary sections in the print hand are almost all fake - except for a a few photo captions at best .
I doubt that the so-called anne frank diary manuscripts existed at all before 1959, when , in the course of a court trial over slander otto and his publishers had started against a german neonazi , stielau ,who had questioned the diary´s authenticity, the judge ordered otto to produce the manuscript so experts could be appointed for an expertise. Nobody, except for otto himself and miep gies and bep his faithful secretaries allegedly, had seen those manuscripts up to that
It was then most likely, that otto, urged by a court of law, scrambled to find the poesie/friendship album (Diary I) that may well have belonged to anne for real , and featured photos, captions, short poems and the like, and the other diaries and loose sheets ; then he likely got together women he could trust , for instance schütz , his second wife elfriede geiringer-markovits, her daughter eva geiringer-schloss (anne´s age peer), hanneli goslar, jacqueline van maarsen , to forge/imitate anne´s handwritings on the books and sheets . Obviously, it need not have been a woman - cursive gender is hard to tell . Might have been a payed forger . Without taking into account the slight but not-to-be-ruled-out possibility that anne frank faked her death and was around to write at least part of those manuscripts herself in 1959. It would be interesting to see handwriting samples for all those women from around 1959... More than one handwriting style for the diaries could be justified to the court and to the public by both the normal evolution of a teenager , and by imitation of two basic types of hand that anne had really used : a schoolgirl´s cursive such as this one from the 30ies we saw above :
and a child-like print such as for instance :
(top left of the postcard, image 8).
Nobody until 1959 saw, or claimed to have seen , the alleged original manuscripts, except of course for : arch-liars miep and bep who falsely claimed to have found them in the annex after anne´s arrest that never happened ; reportedly, isa cauvern , who committed suicide (IF it was suicide) in june 1946 ; and otto´s court historian ernst schnabel , who wrote the lying book Spur eines kindes in the 50ies - a pack of lies agreed with otto frank beforehand .
According to the 1959 Der spiegel article, based on miep´s testimony, otto frank spent the summer of 1945, through october, copying the diary manuscripts, in part alone, in part with the help of his former opekta secretary isa cauvern , a dutch jewess . This copy I suppose, was typewritten by isa . Isa could not confirm any of this in 1959, as she had killed herself ( IF indeed it was suicide) by jumping out her window on june 27, 1946 - noone ever bothered to investigate motive or verify circumstances or publish the police and forensic reports . It is clear however, that isa cauvern played a decisive role in the birth of the dutch version of the so-called diary of anne frank , in that isa was a dutch mother tongue and otto wasn´t - he only must have had a fair working knowledge of dutch , as he never had studied it , and had first gone to amsterdam aged 34 - way past the age when anyone can really acquire mastery of a second language. Thus we have gone here, by october 1945 reportedly, from the alleged manuscripts by anne, to a likely typewritten first copy.
I think instead , as a working hypothesis, that in that summer 1945 otto came up with a first draft of the diary, in german , on his own or with anneliese schütz´s help. Thereafter, he summoned isa for the dutch translation/adaptation, on which he worked with her help. The anne frank manuscripts did not exist at all in 1945. According to Der spiegel , from october 1945 through january 1946, otto and isa teamed up again , this time to typewrite a new version of the first copy, editing out several passages judged too personal . I think instead , that this second version was just a second draft of the dutch version . At this point , enter isa´s husband or ex-husband abraham ab albert cauvern, a professional radio editor, a dutch jew. Cauvern would be interviewd by Der spiegel in 1959, owning up to having radically altered the first part of the Diary, corrected punctuation, idiomatic and grammar mistakes in the rest , changed entry dates and regrouped several entries under the same date !!! Cauvern told Der spiegel he never saw anne´s
manuscripts . No wonder - they did not exist yet . If cauvern really had to intervene on that second dutch draft with such massive editing and linguistic corrections , it can only mean that the original author wasn´t anne, a bilingual girl who had been schooled in dutch since age 5 or 6 . All of a sudden though, in april 1959 in Der spiegel for the first time ever, there pops up out of the blue, unsourced mention of a whole series of alleged anne frank manuscripts :
- Diary 1 (the checkered friendship album)
- Diaries 2 and 3, written on company bookkeeping logbooks
- 312 loose sheets ( what will later come to be called version b of the Diary; F 617 numbers 316 pages of Loose sheets ; F 190 states, the numbering bottom left of each sheet gets to page 324 !!!)
- a book of Short stories
- a Book of nice quotes
Nobody had ever heard about such manuscripts before 1959. Spiegel adds that the 3 Diary volumes alone contain roughly double as much material as the Diary editions published up to that point . Cauvern must have performed his editing at the speed of light , because, Der spiegel continues, in early 1946 otto frank submitted the new text to 3 prominent experts . Clearly, otto was in one hell of a rush to see his forgery published . The 3 wise people were anna romein-verschoor, a christian writer and historian , who never saw the manuscripts ; kurt baschwitz , a german-jewish emigré who taught massmedia at the university, who never saw anne´s original manuscripts ( what he calls manuskript in german , in the article, is cauvern´s typewritten version) ; and finally, the decisive guy, professor jan romein, a christian-dutch marxist historian, who wrote a review of the unpublished diary in april 1946. Romein does not clearly state he saw anne´s handwritings . He says he read the diary, period . He likely never saw anne´s manuscripts either - as they were yet to be conjured up into existence . Thanx to that prominent review, otto got his publishing deal - but before the book came out , he had it censored by several dutch church ministers, such as protestant pastor buskes . To all of which , we must add the standard editing process on the part of the diary´s first publisher, contact in holland .
Summing it up : when you read the diary of anne frank today, you really are reading the diary of otto frank , anneliese schütz , isa cauvern , abraham cauvern , pastor buskes and mirjam pressler at the very least - add a pinch of baschwitz to be safe...
One last note on this whole handwritings galore : one good remark hardy made was, the lines on Diary I , which consists of unlined paper, are mostly very straight , almost perfectly horizontal - both the print and the cursive. Hardy attributes such striking alignment to possible use of a line guide sheet . He adds that deviations from the ground line in Diary I are few [F 151]. How spontaneous of a 13-year-old , committing to paper her " heart´s outpourings ", writing to the moment , to first place a line guide sheet under the page and focus so much on the horizontal , parallel alignment of her lines and on keeping interlinear space equidistant - as if this were not her secret diary, but a primary school exercise book !!!
CHAPTER 60 : ANNE - FRANK FAKES FACTORY
Just take a good look at this umpteenth archfake :
The anne-frank-fake-writings factory has never rested since 1959...Why would it ? It is such lucrative business . This is the most recent one to my knowledge (as of this writing, may 11, 2018).
What we see here is a combination of the famous childish print hand top right for the date ; and the adult cursive for the text body, just like on pages 1 and 2 , and much of the rest , of Diary I , the famous checkered friendship album/poesie album . It is a poem anne allegedly wrote for the sister of her best friend jacqueline van maarsen - it used to belong , allegedly, into this sister´s friendship album . So why does it look like a loose letter sheet , without tears ? Was it or wasn´t written into the friendship album ? What is the ownership history of this alleged document ? Go figure : 5 days earlier, on march 23, 1942 , anne reportedly had written a poem into jacqueline´s friendship
album : we encountered it above as one of the comparative reference writings used by hardy for his expertise : here is part of it :
Never mind the caption, it´s wrong : this is the poem , not the goodbye letter in the diary.
For jacque, anne chose the print hand . Throughout . For jacque´s sister 5 days later, march 28,
1942 , anne chooses a combination of childish print only for the date, adult cursive for the text !!! Bet you´ve never seen such graphological schizophrenia - and never will again . The poem for jacque sits in its natural seat : jacque´s album . The one for christine, the sister, has been torn off her own friendship album - yet shows no trace of tearing whatsoever- it looks like a loose sheet because it is a loose sheet - a fake . Here you can observe its unscathed margins much better :
It is likely though , that several fake versions are in circulation , because this other photo of same, does show the tears !!! :
This is an enlargement of same :
If this had been a poem written in christine "cri-cri" van maarsen´s album , why is it a loose sheet ? Why was it double-folded ? One can easily see the folding lines, the horizontal and the vertical ones . Signatures are the most stable part of one´s handwriting over the long term ; yet here we are supposed to buy that in just 5 days, anne frank drastically altered her signature : from the childish-print one on the poem for jacque, to the diary-style adult cursive, underscore and all , for cri-cri 5 days later !!! The convoluted g-letter loops are absent from all known samples of anne´s hand , whether authentic or fake : this element alone proves beyond doubt we have to do with a latter-day forger here .
Whoever payed 140.000 euros for such an obvious fake, is either a fool , or a smart businessman who knows that what counts in the auction scene is not the truth about authenticity, but the belief that any given item be authentic , supported by authentication by some mainstream so-called expert .
CHAPTER 61 : YET ANOTHER PRICEY FAKE
Now look at this umpteenth piece of crap passed off as authentic anne frank writing from 1940 :
It is supposed to be a letter anne frank wrote to her us pen pal juanita wagner in april 1940, plus a postcard included in the envelope, a photo, and a letter cum photo of margot to juanita´s elder sister betty. In 1988, this letter fetched 165,000 dollars at auction in the us . Which are equal to more than double, some 350.000 bucks, in 2018 :
350.000 dollars for a worthless fake : it shows a slight tilt to the left - when all other known pieces of anne frank writing , whether authentic or fake or dubious, are either slanted rightwards or straight . The handwriting is completely different than all other known samples of anne´s hand , whether authentic or fake or dubious . So is the signature . Margot´s alleged hand is also totally different than all other known samples of hers :
Nor have the inks and papers and other materials these alleged letters are made of , ever been scientifically analyzed .
One also wonders , since roughly 1500 manuscript pages allegedly by anne frank have survived ww2 , Holocaust , alleged house search , house-emptying etc. - how come the alleged replies by the us sisters to the frank ones have not ? Even after the occupation of holland and most of europe by germany, mail service between the us and europe continued - the nazis or wehrmacht may have censored/checked/opened the mail , but delivered it got in the end : look at this example here from much later than april 1940 :
No problem at all...yet so many anne frank letters or letters to anne frank have survived , but not these wagner ones... Because they never existed at all to begin with .
Niod = officine de faux .
CHAPTER 62 : SOME MORE GUNTEN
Another diary motif is missing nature, the outdoors : another theme directly filched from G .
Compare for instance F 766 , june 13 , 1944 , a to G 19-20 :
F : >>
G : >>
CHAPTER 63 : JOHN MANDEVILLE
Sometimes one hears zionazis say that the diary of anne frank cannot be a forgery because who would forge a work by a complete unkown ? Forgers forge works by famous authors whose name is guaranteed to sell . You might wanna forge a modigliani for good money - but who would forge a painting by an unknown painter ? We shall return to paintings forged under the name of unknown/non-existent painters . For the time being , let us stick with literature.
From wiki :
Now the point here is : not only had john mandeville been unknown before 1357. Just like anne frank before 1947 in holland , 1955/56 in the rest of the world . John mandeville most likely, never even existed at all to begin with ! Which proves that one can indeed forge not only works by famous people, but also works under complete unknowns´ names - or even non-existent people´s - and still make a fortune from the swindle !!!
There is another interesting feature The travels of sir john mandeville has in common with the so-called Diary of anne frank : both are collages , consisting of varied plagiarism of a whole series of passages and sections from famous books at the time :
sounds familiar ? ...
varied plagiarism... Not even as a forger was otto frank any original ...
And just like in the so-called Diary of anne frank one can also find personal or historical details which are partly true , only misrepresented and falsified , the same occurs with our mandeville :
Nihil novi sub sole ...
CHAPTER 64 : DIGITAL AUTHENTICATION
Can the following technology be applied to the different handwritings occurring in the diary notebooks and all other alleged writings by anne frank ?
Statistical analysis of digital images of paintings is a new method that has recently been used to detect forgeries . Using a technique called wavelet decomposition, a picture is broken down into a collection of more basic images called sub-bands . These sub-bands are analyzed to determine textures, assigning a frequency to each sub-band . The broad strokes of a surface such as a blue sky would show up as mostly low frequency sub-bands whereas the fine strokes in blades of grass would produce high-frequency sub-bands . A group of 13 drawings attributed to pieter brueghel the elder was tested using the wavelet decomposition method . Five of the drawings were known to be imitations . The analysis was able to correctly identify the five forged paintings . The method was also used on the painting Virgin and child with saints, created in the studios of pietro perugino . Historians have long suspected that perugino painted only a portion of the work . The wavelet decomposition method indicated that at least four different artists had worked on the painting >>> :
couldn´t this method be applied to anne frank´s alleged manuscripts , in order to verify whether or not the different handwriting styles are by the same hand ?
And...today´s fingeprint analysis can reach as far back as leonardo´s time :
So , since IF the diary is really by anne, every page of it should be full of her fingerprints, why not apply the same ultramodern techniques to the diary ?