PSYOPS means psychological operations conducted 24/7/365 by fbi against Targets.


When I describe fbi & operatives as human monsters, I mean it.


Re: Psyops

 Thanks for share with me this information geometry dash



The so-called diary of anne frank is a forgery. It consists of 3 basic elements : 1. plagiarism of der trotzkopf ; 2.plagiarism of jakob von gunten : ein tagebuch ; 3. misrepresented real events from the franks´ family life 1942 - 1944.
We are looking at patchwork here. Collage .
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. fisher verlag 1988, 2. auflage, printed in germany 1993. Hereafter, FRANK. The first edition of the diary of anne frank came out in holland in 1947.
For der trotzkopf, der trotzkopf: eine pensionsgeschichte für erwachsene mädchen, by emmy von rhoden, 39. auflage, stuttgart, verlag von gustav weise. The year is not available, anyway this is a reprint of the original edition that came out in 1885. I shall reference the online text here :
Hereafter, TROTZ.
For gunten : jakob von gunten: ein tagebuch by robert walser, bruno cassirer berlin
1909, online here :
Hereafter, GUNTEN
Let´s get off into this whole dirty affair.


Now picture yourself hiding from the nazis who are out to get you and send you to the gas chambers or slave work et similia : would you write a diary, featuring all of the real names of your jewish friends, christian helpers, plus your antinazi and pro-allies stance ? Would you really do that, in view of the very real possibility you might get discovered and arrested ? Would you not only aggravate your own position in nazi eyes, but also endanger dozens of your friends and helpers ? Maybe you would do that, as a 13-year-old girl, not so smart and all alone but - would 5 adults all around you, hiding with you, aware you are keeping a diary as the diary explicitly states, allow you to keep it ?
That would be criminal, irresponsible and suicidal at the very least ! No, I guess you really wouldn´t do that would you ? So why do you blindly believe that anne frank actually did do that crazy thing ?


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

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

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

We also notice from this photographic reproduction of the diary´s alleged manuscript´s first 2 pages, AFH 218, that this looks like an album - a photo album, not a proper diary at all.
Look at the photo at the start of this article : it is a reproduction of AFH 218, itself a photographic repro 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 casings, into which the pic is inserted, and a blank right page for writing captions to the photos on the left. And, indeed, we do read anne´s original caption on the right side : it is written in what appears to be a red pencil, and it goes : < Annelies Marie Frank 1941/1942 (Winter) > : the photo has clearly been taken at school, in the classroom, at her desk, during the schoolyear 1941/42, when she was attending the jüdisches lyzeum in amsterdam, and the deportation of local jews had not begun yet.


Now what strikes us as very odd here on this reproduction above is, that there clearly appear to be 4 different hands at work : 1. the hand that wrote the caption in red, plausibly anne frank´s own hand,
a childish, feminine handwriting befitting a 13-year-old ; 2. the hand that wrote the last line on the right-hand page, similar to but not quite identical with the red hand, female but somewhat more mature and organized and regular, using a different ink, brown in color, from a pen not a pencil : it could be anne, or it could be someone imitating anne´s red hand ; 3. a totally different adult 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 even a 5th hand at work on these 2 pages : 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 ? How could anne frank possibly have gone, on the same day, june 12, 1942, from the childish print hand of the caption, to the adult cursive of the 1st main entry ? Why would she want to add the line numbering ? Clearly here, hands other than anne´s have tampered with her photo album, adding diary entries she never wrote.
And signing each of them like an accountant would sign a check, to make believe that this was really anne frank writing. Most likely, the diary´s forgers used a real photo album that had belonged to anne frank, and interpolated into it those 2 entries in the cursive adult hand we see in this picture above. Someone else added the line numbering too later still, for editorial purposes of sorts. Probably the original draft of this forgery wasn´t even written by hand, but by typewriter instead, and then added to the diary much later, when judges, as we shall see, ordered anne´s father otto to come up with the manuscript in order to ascertain authenticity, which had been challenged by some and prompted a legal challenge in court.

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

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


If we know grab for a moment the popular edition of anne frank´s diary, the current version that everyone reads when they buy it today, we may notice that manuscript words are changed into something entirely different : take for instance the current standard german translation, ANNE FRANK TAGEBUCH, edited by otto h. frank and mirjam pressler, translated by mirjam pressler, fischer taschenbuch, 19th print, january 2013 ( henceforth POP ), page 11 : the sept. 28, 1942 entry in the photo above, reads in POP:
< I have found so far great support in you. Also in Kitty, to whom I know regularly write >.
Wheras the alleged manuscript entry in the photo above reads :
< I have found so far great support in you, and also in our dear Club to which I now regularly write >.
Thus you can see how the so-called diary of anne frank is really a work-in-progress, in which several persons other than anne have felt free over the decades to change whatever they pleased.


As I said in the introduction above, the alleged diary is a collage of 3 elements basically, the first 2 having to do with literary plagiarism from TROTZ and GUNTEN. It is a very subtle sort of plagiarism, very expert and smart, absolutely not creditable to an average 13-year-old such as anne frank. TROTZ is a novel about a 15-year-old girl, ilse, a contrarian and wild child, just like anne.
The first leit-motif in TROTZ is the strong rapport ilse has with her father, as opposed to the hostility she harbors for her stepmother. Just like anne in the diary, who relates mostly positively to her dad otto, and negatively to her mother. On page 11 of TROTZ, we are on the second day of the novel, a june 12 : < Wir haben heute den 12. Juni >, says ilse´s father. And the diary of anne frank starts on a june 12. Just before that, ilse´s father has announced to his wife his decision to send ilse to a boarding school - she is to leave on july 1. Now, in the diary, the frank family moves to the hiding place on a july 6. And the hiding place will soon become a boarding school of sorts for anne, her sister margot and their teenage co-hider peter van pels. I am not hereby implying 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 TROTZ, and imitated the plot and the spirit and the ideology of TROTZ throughout the forgery that is the diary of anne frank.
We shall soon factor in dozens more striking similarities, but for now let us sum up the ones we have encountered so far :
about a rebellious teenage girl and her education ;about a rebellious teen and her education
ilse is a contrarian, temperamental ; anne is a contrarian, temperamental
ilse has a strong rapport with her father ; anne has a strong rapport with her father
ilse is hostile to her stepmother ; anne is hostile to her mother
the second day in the plot is a june 12 ; the first day is a june 12
ilse moves to a boarding school on a july ; anne moves to her hiding place, which will become her own boarding school, on a july 6 .

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

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

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

Both the manuscripts as printed in FRANK, and TROTZ, begin with a lively exclamation by ilse () and anne (), punctuated by exclamation marks. There follows in TROTZ a short brushstroke about ilse´s physique : < a young, slim girl < : just like anne frank. And the third and fourth dated entries in anne´s diary are about her physical details.
There follows in TROTZ a description of the scene, with 5 people beside ilse : her parents, a friend pair with their adult son, and the local priest. In anne´s hiding place at prinsengracht 263 we shall encounter beside anne and her sister margot, following 5 characters : a friend pair with their 16-year-old son, and a single man, a dentist.
Again I am not thereby implying that the van pelses or fritz pfeffer did not exist - actually I think they did. I am just trying to point out that random coincidences in the lives of anne and ilse were carefully exploited by the diary´s forgers in order to literarize the diary by molding it on TROTZ´s famous pattern.

Next up in TROTZ, ilse enthuses over her dog diana and her puppies - this is matched in anne´s diary by her frequent references to her cat moortje, which she has to leave behind at merwedeplein, and which she will often sorely miss in the hiding place.
There follows in TROTZ a description of 2 leit-motive common again to both books : first, how ilse is the apple of her father´s eye, just like anne is to otto ; second, how ilse´s clothing is stained and torn - anne will often describe the inadequacy of her clothes and shoes during the war.

The next scene in TROTZ features ilse´s stepmother scolding the kid over her unseemly behavior and clothing style 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. By now you will have grasped that 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.

As you see, virtually all, each and every single one of the leitmotifs around which TROTZ revolves, are picked up anew in the diary, and adapted to anne´s real-life persona. We shall encounter and list many more of these coincidences below. But it is not just about themes. It is about extraordinarily similar or near-identical details in the 2 erziehungsromane as well.


FRANK 215 : anne lists female beauty marks that she either possesses or doesn´t : among them, cheek and chin dimples : on page 26 of TROTZ, ilse´s room mate at the boarding house, nellie, gets .
TROTZ 26 : Once at the boarding house, ilse sees that < the windows were open and an imposing apple tree´s branches almost reached inside the window >. Once at the hiding place, anne will see through the windows, an imposing chestnut tree.
Once more : this is not to say that anne frank did not have dimples in her cheeks or that the chestnut tree in her garden is fiction - quite the contrary, I think both were real. What I am trying to make clear is, that whoever cooked up the diary of anne frank, knew TROTZ perfectly well, and used it as a blueprint for his choice of materials - leitmotifs and details - to employ in the diary, whether or not such materials coincided with real-life events and details and attitudes of anne ´s. The inventio, the subject matter from the older novel seems to flow directly into the second, mutatis mutandis.

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

TROTZ , pages 86f., tells how ilse has made such progress at school, that an essay she has written is rated the best of her class, so she is praised by her teacher who reads ilse´s essay aloud to the whole class, a special honouring . In the diary, anne is assigned an essay as punishment for her chatting during class, she writes it in poetic form, and her teacher likes it so much that he reads and comments it aloud to the whole class and to his other classes.
Ilse´s teacher interrupts his reading with laughter, and ilse and her classmates laugh along. Anne´s teacher causes Anne´s class to laugh loudly, alongside anne, upon hearing the funny title of anne´s third punishment-essay extra assignment .
This amiable humor is employed by ilse´s teacher as a pedagogical means of correcting mistakes, more effective than angry words. Anne´s teacher too, changes tack and instead of assigning more extra work to anne when she chats, cracks little jokes.

If all this is not plagiarism to you, if you don´t smell a rat yet, then this article is not for you. The plagiarism here is subtle in that TROTZ´s words are not copied wholesale - which would have been a dead giveaway given TROTZ´s enormous popularity in germany. What does get plagiarized here is the point-for-point narrative material, but light variations are introduced which serve the purpose of concealing the source. Read the relevant passages from the 2 books synoptically now with me :
TROTZ pages 86f. : < Her last essay had been the best of her class [...] She was praised for it, and doctor althoff read her essay aloud to the whole class, always a sign of special honouring >.
FRANK, 239 : < Keesing [...] read the poem and commented on it to the whole class and in several other classes to boot. >

TROTZ, 87 : < With amiable humour, in which he often coated a serious mistake, he achieved by far more, than certain others, who in their anger burst into indignant words >.
FRANK 239 : < Since then [...] I never again was assigned extra work, instead, keesing now always cracks little jokes >.

Let us call this modus operandi, varied plagiarism, shall we ?
Again for the umpteenth time : in this context, it is irrelevant for me whether or not this episode of the extra work for chatting in class really happened in anne´s life - what instead I have been pointing out here, is how TROTZ´s narrative material is matched point-for-point in the diary, so much so that, even if the thing with the extra work really happened, its literarization in the diary is entirely derived from the TROTZ blueprint.
And crediting a 13-year-old with such professional literary skills is to be ruled out with the proverbial < probability degree bordering on certainty >...


We shall now have to add GUNTEN to our discussion. And start juggling the 3 oranges , TROTZ FRANK and GUNTEN, at once, to fully grasp the collage work that is the diary of anne frank.
To simplify my scribal labor, I shall henceforth call TROTZ , T ; GUNTEN , G ; and FRANK, F.

T: ilse macket is a 15-year-old backfisch, a contrarian, from a well-to-do family.
G: jakob von gunten is a young contrarian from a well-to-do family.
F: anne frank from start to end of her diary, is a 13- to 15-year-old backfisch and contrarian,
from a well-to-do family.

T: ilse loves her softie dad, who has spoiled her rotten, but misbehaves with her (step)mother.
G: jakob has a contradictory, tormented, love-hate relationship with his family
F: anne loves her softie dad otto heinrich frank, who has spoiled her rotten, but cannot stand her
mother, edith-holländer frank.

T: 2 dates stand out in the beginning : a june 12 and a july 1.
F : 2 dates stand out in the beginning : a june 12 and a july 6.

T: on a june 12, ilse´s father, richard macket, decides that enough is enough and ilse is to move to a boarding school on july 1, where she is to be disciplined and properly educated and brought up.
G: jakob registers as a pupil with a boarding school, the institut benjamenta.
F: on june 12, 1942, anne receives from her dad as a 13th-birthday present, a diary into which she starts writing right away. On the subsequent july 6, 1942, anne moves out of her amsterdam home at merwedeplein 37 and into the < secret annex > at prinsengracht 263, which will soon become < a boarding school of sorts > to her.

T: when ilse arrives at the school on july 2, her roommate nellie helps her unpack her chest and finds a brand new diary in it, a surprise present from ilse´s mother.
G: the whole novel is in diaristic form.
F: upon unwrapping her birthday presents on june 12, anne receives her brand new diary, a present from her father.

T: nellie, upon seeing ilse´s diary, exclaims : < Beautiful book ! >.
F: anne´s comment on her new diary : > one of my most beautiful presents > ( june 14 entry ).

T: another schoolgirl, flora hopfstange, keeps a diary and also writes novels, poetry, plays.
F: anne writes her diary ; tales ; fairy tales ; plans a novel about the annex ; includes other people´s poetry in her diary.

T: in a note accompanying ilse´s diary, her mother has written : < May this book be your faithful friend. >
F: 20.6.1942 entry : < I want to turn this diary into my very she-friend >.

T: page 40 : flora hopfstange is wary of intruders peeking at her solitary writing.
F: so is anne, several times.

As you can plainly see, the very diary motif, the very idea for this forgery in diary form that is the diary of anne frank, is filched from T and G. The very way in which anne relates to her diary as it were the she-friend she lacks. The kinds of things anne writes. The ruse of the diary as a present.
Again : one need no literary models to make believe that a teenage girl wrote a diary - but the narrative elaboration of the diary motif in F is entirely patterned around the blueprint of T and G.
Even the lie that anne frank used, for her diary manuscripts, in part bound books and in part loose sheets, is stolen from T : on page 107, flora the writer and diary-keeper pulls out from her pocket > several loose sheets < !!


FRANK 220, 20.6.1942 entry : > I have a ton of admirers [...] who, by means of a broken handbag mirror, try to catch a glimpse of me in class >.
This too has illustrious literary precedents in the history of german literature : the first that comes to mind is e.t.a. hoffman, der sandmann, insel verlag 1986, page 42 : > nathanael got hold of a small [...] spyglass [...] and peeped through the window, inside spallanzani´s room ; olimpia sat, as usual, at the small table >.
But the handbag-mirror motif is also to be traced back, as usual, to our 2 main models here :
T, 141 : > melanie coquetted with a dinky handbag mirror >.
G, 23 : > [schilinski ] admires himself with pleasure into a cheap handbag mirror. All of us pupils by the way, possess handbag mirrors >.

Again you can plainly see here what I mean by varied plagiarism : the handbag-mirror thing is a topos in german literature ; the using of it to catch glimpses of girls is from hoffman ; the putting of it in the hands of school pupils is from both T and G. 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.


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

G 83 mentions jakob´s ideals of self-education or upbringing : < dreams of a self-achieved career, [...] these self-education plans burning in my breast. That is to say indeed : to bring myself up, or to train for a future self-education. >
The Sept. 28, 1942 entry of F entails a letter from otto to anne of may 11, 1939 : < I have often told you, that you must bring yourself up >.
The same concept is repeated in the march 7, 1944 entry (b) , this time by anne herself directly : < I wanted to mold myself according to my own will >.
And again in the july 15, 1944 entry (a), again by anne : > I see more and more how true was father´s word : " every child must bring himself up " [...] the ultimate building of someone´s character lies in his own hands >.
Anne, that is the forgers, appear to be obsessed with self-ed, so much so as to regale us with a 4th variation on that theme in the STORIES AND EVENTS FROM THE ANNEXE, henceforth S, tale "why" : > children must better themselves < .
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 : < to educate myself, wholly as I am now, such was since my youth, darkly, my wish and my plan > says wilhelm in a letter to his brother-in-law werner.

We know that otto frank, the real main author of the diary he fraudulently credited to his dead daughter , was truly obsessed with this pedagogy of self-upbringing, because he had sent anne to a montessori school in amsterdam before nazi racial segregation would compel her to transfer to the jewish lyceum.
And we know he was an avid reader of classic german literature. So clearly here his starting point was goethe, and the pestalozzi-montessori pedagogical tradition.
Otto writes a letter to anne in which he extols self-ed, because wilhelm meister had written a letter to werner in which he extolled self-ed. The letter might just be authentic - otto´s work, just like the rest of the so-called diary of anne frank.


In a famous F entry, jan.6, 1944 (a), anne writes : < once, as I stayed overnight at jacque´s home, nothing more could stop me, curious as I was about her body, that she had always kept hidden from me, and I have never seen. I asked jacque, as a token of our friendship, if we could handle each other ´s breasts. Jacque refused. It then happened also, that I badly felt the need to kiss jacque and so I did .> .

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

< We, I and he [schacht], often lie together in my bedroom, on the bed [...] Then I asked him to show me his sick thing [=his penis : schacht had a venereal disease] , yet at that he got a little angry [...] Once I dared to gently take his hand to me, but he took it out of mine : " what´s this stupid thing you are doing ? Leave it. >

T too, has its homo moments : on page 201, ilse < kisses nellie heartily on the mouth > ; on page 214, as ilse is leaving the school, her mentor miss güssow < sealed her mouth with a tender kiss.>.


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:
< I really could slap her in the face >. G 36 had used the exact same words : < I dreamt one night, I had slapped mama, the dear and faraway one, in the face >.
And if you happen to know any other examples of literary slapping one´s mother in the face, tell me so and be my guest !!! It is true that " I could really slap someone in the face " is a common expression of anger in german - but please just find me any other instance when this expression is applied to one´s own mother in any literature.


The single most blatant instance of plagiarism of G by F, occurs in a diary passage not included in the popular edition that everyone reads: F 334, a, beifügung 93b, to oct.18, 1942 entry : in a note attached to her diary, anne recounts a sort of reverie of hers about being in switzerland with her cousin bernd, who was an ice dancer :
< Bernd teaches me ice dancing intensively and I become his partner [...], anne turning around [...], 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 :

< and we found ourselves on a smooth, open narrow ice rink or glass rink. We swept in there as on magical figure skates, and at the same time we danced [...]. It was charming. [...]in a strangely pale-blue, and yet dark sky >.

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

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

Another common detail is the reaction, of the public in anne´s dream, of jakob in his own :
F 334 : < we make up a fascinating pair and everyone is enthralled >.
G 125 : < it was charming. [...] I shouted, out of sheer joy : " How wonderful.". >

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 new both anne´s life and G well, had noticed the coincidence between the fact that anne had an ice-dancing cousin, and the rink dream in G, and had decided to knock off G but adapting the scene to fit the cousin in. The very framework in which the 2 parallel scenes are encased in F and G, is the same or similar : reverie, daydream, magic.

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

F 597, march 8, 1944 entry (a) : < I dream a whole lot of peter. The day before yesterday, at night, I was in our living room here, on the rink with the little boy from the apollohal rink, who happened to be there with his little sister in her eternal blue outfit and spindlelegs.[...] Tonite we also kissed, but peter´s cheeks were very disappointing, they were not as soft as they seem[...]. >

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

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

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

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


I could go on forever showing you more plagiarized parts - and I will, at the end of this study, with an appendix featuring a complete listing of all plagiarized passages and their sources.
For now suffice to sum it all up : the so-called diary of anne frank cannot possibly be the work of a 13- to 15-year-old, firstly because there are several different hands in the manuscripts ; secondly because the diary is a collage or patchwork of passages filched from T, G, hoffman and goethe, only varied just abut enough to cover the traces - showing professional forgery skills that cannot be credited to someone in her early teens.
Thirdly, because the whole story of what happened to the frank family from 1942 to 1944 has been falsified and misrepresented in the alleged diary.
Time to move on to exposing the real story here.

The first to seriously cast scientific doubts on the authenticity of anne frank´s diary was the great french scholar Robert Faurisson ( 1929 born, still alive at the time of this writing, february 3, 2018 ). He 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 fucking hitler said the sky is blue, the sky won´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, and a communist in economics.

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 they were hiding, where spies might have denounced them to the gestapo for money.

And yet : mrs van daan (van pels) , one of the 7 jews hiding with anne, hoovers her carpet, and anne writes that one hears the hoover´s " stomping " in the annex every day at 12:30 pm ( aug.5, 1943 entry ). Now : the pro-zionazi F editors responded to this on page 111, accusing Faurisson of purposeful omission of half the context here : that is , that before mentioning the stomping of the hoover, anne says that van maaren and de kok ( 2 warehouse hands in otto´s firm ) have gone home ( for their lunch break, one would assume ). Therefore, according to F´s biased editors, there is no more danger of being heard by potential spies in the annex and mrs van daan/van pels can use the hoover without qualms. But this is falsely 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 ) ; 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, without indication of when this van erp started work at prinsen 263 ) ; and if it wasn´t van erp, they must have had another accountant as of aug. 5, 1943 .

Then there was a sales rep called daatselaar, an NSB ( dutch nazi party ) member ( lee 84, 176 , with no indication of when he started work at prinsen ; but he was surely working there as of aug. 5, 1943, because the oct.20, 1942 entry of the diary (a) mentions him as arriving at prinsen, right afer the cleaning lady had left ; and lee 176 states he was still working for otto in august 1944 ; therefore when mrs van daan/van pels used the hoover every day at 12:30 pm, she took the enormous risk of letting a nazi hear her and discover the hiders ! It is true that lee 85 also states that daatselaar, his nazi card notwithstanding, enjoyed otto´s trust - and otto was aware of his membership ! But the oct. 20, 1942 entry of the diary clearly implies that the hiders did in fact NOT trust daatselaar at all - whenever he or the cleaning lady or levinsohn were around in the building, the hiders refrained from going to the toilet ! ( F, 336 ). 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, but liable to pop in any time !! ).

The truth of the matter is, otto frank had no qualms at all about employing nazis or collaborating with them - quite the contrary, he needed them for his war-profiteering with the wehrmacht, and sought them out and was on perfectly good terms with them !

Another witness to this fact is miep gies herself, the famous opekta secretary and alleged helper of the alleged hiders. In her book MEINE ZEIT MIT ANNE FRANK, [henceforth MG] written in partnership with one alison leslie gold,fischer taschenbuch, copyright 1987, second edition 2011, page 186f., miep retells how, on saturday, aug. 5, 1944 - the day after the alleged arrest of the franks etc. - she went to work for business as usual : < On that day there came back from their travels several sales reps > : 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 in december 1941.
The building where this firm was headquartered was the very same as opekta : prinsengracht 263.
Daatselaar and brouwer were even arrested in march 1944 for running a ring of false food coupons smugglers and shortly thereafter released, according to new research by the anne frank house itself in amsterdam :

The arrest of brouwer is referenced in the diary, friday march 10, 1944 entry (a), F599 :
< a gentleman, whom I shall not name, and whose name makes no difference either, was detained by the police. Not only is it very bad for the aforementioned person, but also for us, for we are eagerly awaiting potatoes, butter and marmalade. We are going to call him mr M.. he has 5 children under the age of 13 and another one on his way . >

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

The arrest of daatselaar is reported by the diary 2 days later, march 12, 1944 entry (a) , F602 :
< after reports of arrests ( now van D. too ) >.
Again the diary mentions these arrests in the march 14, 1944 entry (both a and b versions) , F605:
< Since B. and D. have been arrested, we have no foodstamps ( except for our 5 ration cards ) and no fat. > . Version b goes so far as to term B(rouwer) and D(aatselaar) < our foodstamps deliverers > who .

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

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

And otto must have had really good connections to the police too, because the diary mentions, jubilantly, the release of < our stampsmen > from jail in the march 23, 1944 entry (b), F613.
Daatselaar and brouwer had free access to the alleged hiders because the hiders weren´t hiding at all.

There is here a telltale addition in the b version of the diary, written by anne, allegedly, between may and august 1, 1944 , and intended for publication after the war : in the march 14, 1944 entry above, in the passage relative to B.´s and D. ´s arrest , the a version tells the truth :

< since B. and D. have been detained, we have no stamps ( but for our 5 food ration cards ) > :

clearly the reference here is to the 5 legal ration cards that the 5 frank family members had a legal right to, since they were exempt from deportation.
But the b version changes this into :

< since our stamps deliverers have been arrested we have, but for our 5 BLACK ration cards, no stamps and no fat. > [my caps].

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

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

You can clearly understand now, that when the prozionazi F editors responded to 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 work day.

We might add for instance anna sophie broks aka " ans ". She worked for opekta as a demonstration lady at first, to later become pro-forma president of gies&co. in may 1944 ( müller 340f. ). Her husband johan marie joseph broks also worked for otto frank, as a sales rep, like daatselaar.
Again, the comments about the brokses in the diary are dated to may 1944, but by then, they had been working for otto for quite a while, though müller infuriatingly does not say since when.
In her may 9, 1944 F entry (a), anne clearly implies the hiders feared anna sophie broks. In the may 19, 1944 entry ( a ) , F741, anne speaks of " the ans broks danger ". Actually, in the diary itself, in its sept. 27, 1942 entry ( a ), F306, anne had already mentioned " the broks family ", by whom otto frank had rented a room for storing part of his stuff when he moved from merwedeplein to prinsen in july 1942. Obviously at this, one would suspect that the brokses were in on the hiding, but müller 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 müller 340, johan broks hadn´t bought the cover-up story from otto.
Anne in her sept. 27, 1942 entry above states they were paying rent for that room to the brokses : how was otto paying that rent ? He had reportedly told the brokses he was in belgium or switzerland, so how was he paying that room´s rent every month ? A money tranfer is to be ruled out, for it would have shown that otto was in fact still in amsterdam. The funny thing here, we shall discover later, is, by sept.27, 1942 otto was paying 3 rents : yes, 3 : he kept on paying his merwedeplein rent through march 1, 1943 ( source for this below ) ; he was paying his firm´s rent at prinsengracht 263 ; and he was paying the brokses´ room´s rent !!! Sure as hell, the man didn´t lack money during the terrible times of WW2 in famine-afflicted amsterdam !!! We know that, as far as merwedeplein is concerned, otto had given power of attorney to a friendly lawyer, anton düsselman, as the diary itself attests to. But for the brokses´room and the rent at prinsen, we do not know who or how was paying that rent in otto´s name. This is all very strange, but it will become untangled in due course of time.

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

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

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

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

Clearly there are only 2 logical explanations here : either such noisy activities were fabricated, and the diary is a forgery ; or such noisy activities happened for real - in which case, the diary is lying , because the hiders could not possibly be hiding and making such giveaway noises at the same time.
In either case, whoever wrote the so-called diary of anne frank, was a liar and a fraudster - albeit not a very smart one at that.

Thus before we go on reviewing Faurisson´s all-important arguments against the authenticity of the diary, let us posit in summation here, what will become our main point in this whole study : although anne frank never wrote the diary credited to her, the forger(s) 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 4, 1944 , during WW2 and the german occupation of amsterdam : but the true story was completely falsified : the franks did live there, but they were not repeat NOT hiding : and they were not hiding because they did not need to : and they did not need to hide from the nazis because they collaborated with them : otto heinrich frank was a collaborator, who did business with the nazis throughout that time span and richly profited from it.

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

He goes on listing in his essay all of the implausibilities one finds in the diary : the franks fitting curtains to the windows in order to hide their presence in the annex : hear now Faurisson´s brilliant remark here : < Now, fitting curtains to windows that hadn´t had any up to that point , wasn´t that the best way to announce their arrival ? > ; the hiders burning waste in the stove , thus signaling their presence through chimney smoke from a building that was considered uninhabited ! Skipping a few more good points, I´ll relate how Faurisson pointed out the absurdity, on otto´s part, to choose his own office as a hiding place - just the very first place that is, where the nazis would have gone looking for him not finding him at home.

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

One might rightly ask at this point, why did the franks move out of merwedeplein and into prinsen on july 6, 1942, if indeed they were exempt from deportation : the reason is, merwedeplein was a very jewish area of amsterdam, and by july 1942, the persecution of jews by the nazis had gotten tough - merwedeplein was a potential raid area, and the franks did not wish to get caught in possible fighting or other violence.

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


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


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

Well, I tend to think that anne frank did not write a single line of her diary - but for the photo captions in what was originally intended as a photo 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. Then there is the thing with the different hands at work in the diary´s manuscripts, whereof no complete facsimile has been published so far by the zionazis who own them. No wonder...They sure got something to hide. And then there are the skilled literary robberies from T, G and other classical german literature - professional knockoff, not the thing of a scatter-brained, shallow and spoiled 13-year-old.


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

F features a c section with the german translation by anneliese schütz, who was responsible for the 1950 german edition but : it is the june 1988 fischer edition : is it identical to the 1950 lambert schneider edition ? F itself answers no on p.85 : < In 1955 there came out the german pocket book edition with publisher fischer. This edition was a gigantic success. IT ENTAILS SOME DIFFERENCES COMPARED WITH THE LAMBERT SCHNEIDER EDITION [my caps] > : 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 . I do not possess as yet all of these historical editions, but clearly, by zionazi admission, they are not one and the same book.


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

The reason given in the lying diary for the moving of the frank family out of merwedeplein and into prinsen is, that margot, anne´s 16-year-old sister, had received on sunday, july 5, 1942 a summons from the germans for compulsory work in germany ( F 248 and 250 ) : but the historical summonses sent out by the germans to amsterdam jews starting on july 4, 1942 , ONLY TARGETED THE 18 - 40 AGE GROUP !
Source :
Here is the relevant passage :
<<<<< Die großen Bedenken des Jüdischen Rats gegen eine solche Mitarbeit wurden durch Konzessionen Aus der Füntens gemildert: Die Aufrufe sollten nur Menschen zwischen 18 und 40 Jahren treffen, Familien sollten nicht auseinander gerissen werden und bestimmte Berufsgruppen sowie Mitarbeiter des Jüdischen Rats sollten vom Abtransport ausgenommen werden. >>>>> :

So much for the historicity of the so-called diary of anne frank. Not only did margot frank, only 16 on july 5, 1942, never receive that summons the diary lies about ; but the franks would not be deported at all or receive any summons for deportation or be harassed in any way by other antijewish measures through june 30, 1944 : because otto frank was exempt from deportation due to his WW1- veteran decoration, the iron cross ; and because he worked for a certified war-relevant company, opekta, whose jews were exempt from deportation because opekta made business with the wehrmacht - in other words, otto frank was a collaborator and war-profiteer. Somehow the procedure for aryanization of opekta amsterdam was not completed until july 1, 1944.
It was only after that date, that the franks were indeed finally summoned for deportation - july 1944, not july 1942. In the summer of 1944, the germans started deporting iron crosses too.


Actually, there do exist 2 (yes, only 2 !!! ) facsimiles of everything anne frank allegedly wrote :
But they are only made available to court historians :

<<<<<<<< Owing also to the unique character of Anne Franks diary, the facsimiles have been produced in a limited edition of two. The first has been entrusted to the Anne Frank-Fonds in Basel and the second remains in the possession of the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam. The original diaries exhibited at the Anne Frank House will remain on display. The facsimiles can be made available for activities such as legitimate research studies.>>>>>>.

Interesting details can be gleaned from the description of the work process that led to these 2 facsimiles in the link above :
<<<<<<<<<< Anne Franks initial diary, the famous autograph album with its red and white cloth binding and the broken lock , was the first to be replicated. A distinctive element of this diary is the collection of nineteen photographs, glued inside this small book by Anne herself >>>>>>>>>>>> :

didn´t I tell you that this first diary manuscript, the famous checkered diary, the one she received for her 13th birthday on june 12, 1942, was in fact a photo album and not a diary proper ?
This additional quote from the zio link above confirms the diary´s original nature as a photo album :

<<<<<<<<< In addition to photographs, other elements are also part of the first diary: diverse picture cards pasted inside the album, an assortment of large and small pieces of paper fastened with brown-paper packing tape, letters of varying lengths in envelopes with stamps and postmarks, a cloth binding with a small lock, photo corners, etc >>>>>>>>>> :

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


I should like to begin now with a one-by-one examination of the characters in the anne frank saga, starting with one of the so-called helpers, a fellow victor kugler . Some basic (dis)information about him can be found at the following zionazi link :
The photo there shows kugler with a hitler moustache, and must date from the time of the nazi

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

Henceforth, K.

The reason why otto tried , and succeeded during his lifetime, to prevent this book being published, is simply that it is 90% sincere and truthful, blowing up in one fell swoop the entire hiding myth. And along with it, the entire anne frank myth.

On august 4, 1944, reportedly, the nazis raided the annex and proceeded to arrest anne frank, otto, margot, edith, auguste van pels, hermann van pels, peter van pels, fritz pfeffer, johannes kleiman and victor kugler.
But - what a strange arrest it was : german bureaucratic efficiency and prissiness notwithstanding, there is no written record of this alleged arrest whatsoever, neither in amsterdam nor in berlin nor anywhere else where such documents are kept today.
There is no record whatsoever of the alleged police informer who allegedly betrayed the 8 jews and their 2 christian helpers.
There is no plausible explanation as to why additional helpers such as secretary miep gies, her husband jan and secretary bep voskuijl were not arrested alongside the others.
As for victor kugler specifically, there is no record whatsoever of his alleged detention at :
- euterpestr. (gestapo)
- amstelveenseweg (jailhouse)
- weteringschans (jailhouse ).

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

That is because in reality, these so-called helpers were a bunch of fucking collaborators, just like their boss otto frank, who did business with the wehrmacht thoughout the war and even employed NSB members in his firms !! These tasks kugler went on to perform starting august (or more likely july, see below) 1944, had nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged arrest that never happened at all. They were the consequence of an aufruf or summons of the sort that 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 front and their losses, plus civilian losses due to increasing allied air raids.

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

In mid-june 1944, kugler received a second summons, which this time around, he likely had to comply with, probably starting in july as these summonses always gave the addressees 7 to 10 days´ early notice. Kugler from this point on, vanishes from anne´s diary´s radar screen, never to be heard of again. The fake arrest story of august 4, 1944 was just a cover-up for kugler having to comply with his second summons of mid-june, 1944. He probably left in early july. This was not a punishment or an arrest. It was compulsory work service, but kugler remained a free man. Civil conscription if you will, like a civil soldier. But no arrest as a jew helper at all. Kugler hadn´t helped jews to hide because his jews had never hidden at all.

The source for kugler having trained and worked as a machine fitter is müller 330 : in the early 20ies, kugler, an austrian, had had a first stint in holland as machine fitter for german firm deutschen maschinenfabrik ag (demag). He would then marry a dutch woman and stay in holland. K58f. states that after his alleged arrest, on sept. 4, 1944 he was put to dismantling machines for shipment to germany.
But that only lasted 3 days !!
Now : allegedly, kugler had been arrested on aug.4 : what happened to him in the first 4 weeks of alleged detention ?

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

Thereafter, on the same day of the arrest, kugler was allegedly transferred to a prison on the amstelveensweg. There it got a little tougher, he says in K 55, as they crowded 6 prisoners into cells meant for 1. A few weeks later, he passed a second silberbauer interrogation, again a short one.
After which he was moved to another prison where he < was put into a private cell WHERE THE LUXURY ASTONISHED ME [my caps]> : clean sheets, blankets, electric light, pillow. Allegedly it was a death row cell. The name of this jailhouse is not mentioned. A guard told him he had been put in there by mistake, and out he was again into a crowded cell.
No record whatsoever of any of this has survived. But we do get the overall impression that kugler didn´t fare bad at all for a jew helper.


Here is a difficult german word for you to learn, it means jew-helping : a crime in nazi germany, whose punishment was way heavier than kugler ever had to go through : let us take a look at a few known examples : from wiki :
< Ella und Kurt Lingens wurden am 13. Oktober 1942 verhaftet [...] . Kurt Lingens wurde einer Strafkompanie in Russland zugewiesen.
Ella Lingens wurde zunächst vier Monate im Gestapo-Gefängnis in Wien eingesperrt und wiederholt verhört. Im Februar 1943 wurde sie, wie auch Karl Motesiczky, der mit dem Paar an der Rettung von Wiener Juden beteiligt gewesen war, in das KZ Auschwitz deportiert.[...] Doch auch für Lingens war Auschwitz die „Hölle“. Im April 1943 erkrankte sie an Flecktyphus und überlebte nur knapp. Motesiczky starb dort am 25. Juni 1943. > :
< ella and kurt lingens were arrested on oct.13, 1942 [...] . Kurt lingens was assigned to a punishment battalion in russia. Ella lingens was initially locked up 4 months in the gestapo prison in wien and repeatedly interrogated. In february 1943 she was deported to concentration camp auschwitz just like karl motesiczky, who had participated with the married couple in saving wien jews. [...] ] Yet for lingens too, auschwitz was "hell". In april 1942 she caught epidemic typhus and just barely survived . Motesiczky died there june 25, 1943. >
Now, if kugler´s treatment even vaguely resembles any of this hell to you, be my guest ! All that alleged jew-helper kugler had to endure during the first 4 weeks of his alleged detention, was 2 cozy encounters with fellow countryman silberbauer, plus 3 days of high-skill labor in an amsterdam factory !! 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 < fit quite well >. 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 in his backgound a training as weaver :
< Victor Kugler goes to school in Germany, and in 1916 he graduates from a vocational school for weaving > :

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 , < LIFE WAS HEAVEN COMPARED TO LIFE AT AMERSFOORT [my caps ]> !!! [ K68 ].
This is where he was put to digging tank traps, but also assembling bycicles !!! < AT ZWOLLE WE WERE DELUGED WITH FOOD BY THE TOWNSPEOPLE >!!! < THEY BROUGHT US BREAD, SLICES OF CHEESE, FRUIT, AND JUGS OF MILK .> !!! 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 - < quite warm >, in his own words !!! [K69].
Now this was the hunger winter 44/45, when most urban dutch were starving !!!

At the end of december, 1944, kugler was tranferred again, this time to yet another forced labor camp in holland, wageningen. Where things got even better : he was < particularly lucky > [K71] !!! 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 K72 that kugler makes the most extraordinary of revelations : that for his alleged forced labor at zwolle, 3 and a half months, he and his fellow alleged prisoners had gotten paid !!! And he specifies how much : 5 dutch guilders a day, 7,5 on sundays : which in 2015 money, would be some 30 euros a day, 45 on sundays, for a grand total of almost 1000 euros a month, most likely after-tax !!! A figure most greeks, italians, spanish and portuguese can only dream of as of this writing 74 years later ( february 2018 ) !!!! This is what you got from nazi germany for helping jews - wonder how come everybody in occupied europe was doing anything else than helping jews to get caught and sent to fit bykes or braid straw or snuff paperwork for 1000 a month !!!

Reason being - kugler is lying : he never was arrested for helping jews or any other crime : he complied with his mid-june summons for compulsory work for the reich - paid work, well-paid work for free men that millions in occupied and nonoccupied europe applied for voluntarily, or were summoned to perform, during WW2 - one notable example being eric marco from spain.

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 or 45 euros a day as a punishment for the grave crime of judenbegünstigung !!! Oh fuck off.
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 weekes !!! A big cigar and a shag with your wife, not bad a punishment for helping jews right ?!!!!! [K79].


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

< Here there used to live Gisela Juliusburger, born 1923, arrested february 1943, in the course of the fabrikaktion [a late february/early march 1943 nazi raid to catch the last jews in berlin], forced labor, gestapo jail, for hiding a jewess, jewish hospital, died sept. 1 , 1944 > :

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

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

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

Franz Kaufmann, jurist, from wiki :
< Kaufmann baute als Mitglied der Bekennenden Kirche zusammen mit Helene Jacobs ein Netzwerk auf, das verfolgten Juden Unterkunft gewährte, sie mit Nahrungsmitteln unterstützte und ihnen mit von dem Grafiker Cioma Schönhaus gefälschten Pässen zur Flucht verhalf. Nach einer Denunziation 1943 wurde er mit vielen anderen verhaftet und schließlich im KZ Sachsenhausen ermordet. > :

< Kaufman built a network, as a member of the Confessing Church, together with Helene Jacobs, in order to provide persecuted jews with housing, food and false passports to escape, produced by the graphic designer Cioma Schönhaus . After being denounced in 1943, he was arrested with many others and eventually murdered in concentration camp sachsenhausen >.

Fuck you victor kugler, you liar and cheat.


Over the decades, as many took their turns in questioning the diary´s authenticity and the truthfulness of its content, and of the entire anne frank story, otto and his gang of zionazis, and their heirs since 1980, have come up with alleged evidence for the official version of events.
The only document ever produced for kugler´s alleged forced labor stints, is reproduced on AFH 193, pic 5 : it is, purportedly, kugler´s amersfoort registration card.
The first oddity we encounter on it, is the spelling of kugler´s birthplace : Hohe Elbe instead of the correct Hohenelbe. Thing is, both towns exist ! They are today in the czech republic, near the austrian border. So where the hell was kugler born : in Hohe Elbe (today Labe) as written on his amersfoort card ; or in Hohenelbe ? ( today Vrchlabí ) , as spelt for instance here :
K 25, reportedly based on interviews with kugler himself, also has Vrchlabí, formerly Hohenelbe.
So why did the amersfoort clerk write Hohe Elbe instead of Hohenelbe ? The 2 towns are different and far apart. Is this a clerical mistake, or is this a forger´s mistake ? The amersfoort clerk must have copied the birthplace spelling from kugler´s ID. The forger instead, may have acted from memory...

The second oddity on this purported amersfoort registration card for mr kugler is, his religion : the card bears : " Kath.". But on K61, kugler is quoted as stating : >I AM A RELIGIOUS MAN, LUTHERAN, AND DURING THE DARK DAYS I SPENT IN VARIOUS PRISONS, CONCENTRATION AND WORK CAMPS, I WAS GREATLY SUSTAINED BY MY FAITH. > !!!!!!
Clearly the card´s forger here, knowing that kugler was of austrian origin, just assumed he was a catholic like most austrians, and wrote down so in the fake card. And while the previous blunder hohe elbe for hohenelbe might be attributable to clerical oversight, writing catholic for a lutheran just simply can´t.



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 :

<<<<<<<<<<<< Bestrafung von Helfern
Es gab zwar keine gesetzliche Bestimmung, die eine Hilfeleistung für Juden ausdrücklich verbot. Kurz nach der Einführung des Judensterns erging jedoch am 24. Oktober 1941 ein Runderlass des Reichssicherheitshauptamtes (RSHA), der denjenigen „deutschblütigen Bürgern“ eine „Schutzhaft“ von drei Monaten androhte, die „in der Öffentlichkeit freundschaftliche Beziehungen zu Juden“ erkennen ließen. [...] Jeder Unterstützer, der mit Lebensmitteln half, musste mit der Einlieferung ins Konzentrationslager rechnen. Wer Unterschlupf gewährt hatte, wurde wegen „verbotswidrigen Umgangs mit Juden“ festgenommen und von der Gestapo verhört. Oftmals wurde der Vorgang wegen weiterer Delikte wie Urkundenfälschung, Rundfunkverbrechen, Verstöße gegen die Kriegswirtschaftsverordnung oder wegen Devisenvergehen an die Staatsanwaltschaft übergeben. Haftstrafen von mehr als 24 Monaten wurden selten ausgesprochen, wenn nicht zusätzlich Anklagepunkte nach der Volksschädlingsverordnung oder wegen Hochverrats hinzukamen.
Im Gegensatz zu Polen mussten „Judenretter“ im Deutschen Reich nicht mit einer Todesstrafe rechnen. Aber schon die Haft in einem Konzentrationslager war mit unabsehbaren Folgen für Gesundheit und Leben verbunden. Die darüber hinaus zu erwartende Strafe blieb unberechenbar, dadurch wurde das „subjektive Gefühl der Angst in einer Atmosphäre totaler Rechtsunsicherheit“ vermittelt, das eine abschreckende Wirkung besaß. >>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

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

now , this is not at all what happened to kugler. First of all, according to his amersfoort registration card, kugler was no german citizen at all at the time : the card says his nationality was dutch.
Second, even though he did have german blood as a sudeten german, 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.

<<<<<<<<<< Every helper, who helped with food, faced delivery in concentration camps >>>>>>>>>> :
now if I am not mistaken, nowhere in the diary does it say that kugler helped the 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 ; 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.

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

<<<<<<<<<< Whoever sheltered jews, was arrested over " forbidden relations with jews " and interrogated by the gestapo. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> : 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 ?

K45 states, in the vaguest of manners, that kugler had been appointed owner of otto frank´s business. But this is not true at all.

According to M435, 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 M200 itself gives another date : july 1, 1944. In either case, kugler had not 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. F17 states that NIOD 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 otto´s business at all during most of the alleged hiding (1942-1944).
And if the new owner starting july 1, 1944 was pomosin werke frankfurt, then how could kugler possibly be held responsible for hiding jews inside a corporation that did not belong to him ?
The building itself belonged to jewish entrepreneur wessels as we saw above - who never was arrested over sheltering jews.
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 [F15] but promptly transmogrified into gies&co., a smokescreen company officially created as early as may 8, 1941 [F13] whose straw-owners for otto frank were his christian colleagues and friends jan gies, johannes kleiman and antonius dunselman [M196f. + F14f.].
Thus kugler , by august 4, 1944, day of his alleged arrest, had to my knowledge, no directing or ownership role in either opekta or gies&co. - why on earth then, would he be arrested for sheltering jews ?? IF that is, the 8 jews really had been hiding in the annex, at least after the final aryanization of opekta on july 1, 1944.
Always bear in mind that opekta was a german company based in köln that had been certified by the nazis as kriegswichtig or war-relevant in february 1943 - and that war-relevant status exempted jews from deportation. That is why the franks eventually became liable to deportation on july 1, 1944, when the aryanization of opekta amsterdam was completed and otto frank lost his job that had sheltered him legally from deportation until then. There was no arrest on aug. 4 at all- on that day, the franks most likely only complied with a deportation order they had received after july 1, and had to report at westerbork concentration camp.

Summing it all up : IF kugler really was arrested on aug. 4, 1944, and didn´t instead just comply with a summons for compulsory work for the reich he had received in mid-june, as the diary itself attests to, then kugler was NOT reapeat NOT arrested for sheltering jews because prinsengracht 263 with its annex were not his home and he had no leading role in there at all.
M341 states, that anna ans broks became pro-forma director of gies&co. in may 1944 : again another proof, that kugler never played any leading role in either of otto´s firms in there.


We might speculate, that after otto´s firing on july 1, 1944, pomosin appointed kugler opekta director on its behalf - but there is not the slightest evidence as to such a possibility. Actually, we have evidence to the contrary, enabling us to rule out a directing role in opekta for kugler even after july 1, 1944 : as I said, opekta was only officially aryanized on july 1, 1944 : this meant that on that day, the german agency responsible for such things, approved of an application made by otto himself in december 1941, to self-aryanize opekta amsterdam: otto would step down as director, and johannes kleiman, a christian dutch employee of otto´s, would be appointed as director in his stead. And this is just what the wirtschaftsprüfstelle certified on july 1, 1944 : the 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 anything at all in that building as of august 4, 1944 - the day of the alleged arrest of the 8 allegedly hiding jews.


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

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

<<<<<<<<< Often such cases were entrusted to the public prosecutor´s office because of additional crimes such as forging documents, listening to illegal radio stations, violations of war-economy regulations or breach of exchange control rules. >>>>>>>>>>>>> : it is indeed possible that kugler was arrested for forging documents, something he admits to in K 47 :

<<<<<<<<<< According to the evelyn wolfe tape, victor kugler legally changed his name to victor kraler in order to conceal his austrian-german ancestry, because there was increasing anti-german sentiment in the dutch population as the war and the brutal german occupation dragged on. In addition to the kraler name, victor kugler told evelyn wolfe he had other names as well.>>>>>>>>>

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

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


Admittedly, the role kugler played as otto´s strawman for pectacon is not to be gleaned with absolute certainty from F11ff., the only detailed narration of otto´s economic vicissitudes during WW2. The nazis wanted to de-judaize the economy. On october 22, 1940 they issued an order for dutch firms to report with the occupiers if their capital was more than 25% jewish. The next day, otto went to a notary in hilversum, the town near amsterdam where kugler lived, and founded a new firm, la synthese ag : kugler became its director, jan gies its board member, and both became the sole (fictitious) shareholders [F11 and 13]. This way, the company was 100% aryan because both kugler and gies were christians. Obviously they were just strawmen for otto frank. All of this happened fast, october 23, 1940. On may 8, 1941 la synthese changed its name to gies&co.
This company for the time being existed only on paper, ready to be revitalized in case opekta and pectacon would have to cease to exist. In march 1941 the nazis ordered jewish-owned companies to report any changes made in the meantime to their ownership structure. In other words, it was time to aryanize. On april 4, 1941, pectacon was schein-aryanized : otto frank resigned as its director and owner : he sold his majority shares to kleiman and dunselman, his christian friends and right arms. Kleiman was appointed director of pectacon, dunselman board member.
The nazis smelled a rat and on july 22, 1941, ordered for pectacon to be liquidated. As liquidator of these fake-aryanized jewish firms including pectacon, a fellow wolters, a dutch nazi lawyer, was appointed by the germans : surprisingly, he acted more in favor of the jewish owners than against them: he gave otto 10 days to prepare for the liquidation of pectacon. Otto wasted no time and sold all the merchandise and the machines owned by pectacon, to gies&co., for a ludicrous, symbolic minimum price of course. On may 7, 1943 pecatcon was officially closed out - only to continue business as usual under the name gies&co.

Therefore it is possible that, by august 4, 1944, kugler was still straw director/coowner of gies&co. alongside jan gies - and since gies&co.´s address was prinsengracht 263, then kugler was liable to be held co-responsible for hiding the 8 jews in the annex there, and ay have been arrested over it, alongside kleiman as director of opekta. But if so, then why wasn´t jan gies, the other straw-director/co-owner of gies&co., arrested as well ??



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

Summing it all up, kugler never had to go too far from home during his happy months of alleged forced labor payed today´s equivalent of 900 euros a month :
from august 4, 1944, for the first 4 weeks or so he remained in amsterdam ;
in september, he was transferred to amersfoort - only 27 km from hilversum where he lived ;
from the end of september through december 30 : zwolle, only 86 km from hilversum ;
until late march, 1945, wageningen, only 60 km from hilversum...

On K 78, descibing the end of his alleged ordeal, kugler states he was happy to see his wife again after so many months of detention - when in fact, on the next page of the book, it is reported that on evelyn wolfe´s tape, he said his wife had been allowed to visit him every two weeks !!! [ Evelyn wolfe was a prominent toronto canada jewess who knew kugler ; the latter had emigrated to canada after WW2 , K7 ]. No other jew helper that I know of fared better than victor kugler - when his fate is compared to that of the average arrested jew helper in the third reich, victor kugler had a ball !!!

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

Kugler´s cover-up fairy tale sounds very different in the version according to miep gies on MG 213f. : if on K77, 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, K78 states instead he found his wife so ill she could not be left alone !!!
Who on earth would escape from the nazis only to seek shelter in his own house - the first address the nazis would have come looking for him at ???? Same absurdity as otto frank hiding in his own firm - first place the nazis would have turned inside out to find him !!!
If K77 tells us his column was attacked by british spitfires, on MG 214 they transmogrify 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 K77 tells us kugler escaped in the confusion with a friend, on MG 214 he escapes alone !!!
If K63 states kugler was given civilian working clothes at amersfoort, MG214 has it that kugler wore prison clothes !!!
If kugler on K77 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, MG214 has it that he had no bike whatsoever up to the plane attack, but got him one in a bike shop after the attack !!!
If kugler escapes a few days after the middle of march 1945, that is at the start of spring on K 77, on MG214 he happily rides his new bike home where his wife hides him throughout the hunger winter 44/45 !!!!!

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



Again in brief : the alleged arrest of anne frank, her father otto, her mother edith holländer- frank, her sister margot, hermann van pels, auguste van pels, peter van pels, fritz pfeffer ( the 8 allegedly hiding jews in the annex ) and their christian helpers johannes kleiman and victor kugler on august 4, 1944 never happemed at all : it is a completely fabricated event.
Kugler and kleiman in the summer of 44 complied with summonses from the nazis to compulsory work for the reich - summonses attested to in anne frank´s diary for kugler twice, the second time in mid-june 1944 - after which kugler drops off the diary´s radar screen for good.

The 8 jews lost their exemption from deportation on july 1, 1944, when their main company opekta was officially aryanized and its jews officially fired. Opekta was a war-relevant company, a status sheltering its jews from deportation up to that point.
Otto had a second exemption as a WW1 iron-cross-bearing vet : but in the summer of 1944, jewish iron crosses started being deported as well, albeit to VIP camp theresienstadt and not to auschwitz - more on this other conundrum later.
One could object, that maybe the 8 jews hid at least from july 1 to aug.4 - but no, it would have made no sense for them : they had been a bunch of dirty collaborators AND WAR PROFITEERS up to that point. After overlord ( the allied landing in normandy, june 1944 ) the liberation of holland was delusionally perceived in amsterdam as being a matter of weeks if not days. And if the jews had remained in their collaborating company´s annex, they would have risked lynching at liberation, at the hands of dutch partisans or allied avengers, or execution by restored dutch national authorities. The best option for the jews was to comply with the german summonses that certainly followed aryanization on july 1, 1944 : the order to report at westerbork, tha main concentration and transit camp for dutch jews awaiting deportation. They were much safer there, and if the liberators had found them there, they could have passed themselves off as victims rather then the perpetrators they had been throughout the war.


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.


On the other hand, for argument´s sake, had otto and his jews decided to go underground after july 1, 1944, they most certainly, again, would not have chosen otto´s firms´ premises as their hiding place - because it was the first place the nazis would have turned inside out looking for them. Therefore we may be reasonably certain that the 8 alleged hiders never hid - until july 1, 1944, because they were exempt from deportation. Thereafter, because it would have made no sense for them to go into hiding at that point anyway. And if they had indeed decided to go underground, they would have chosen a much safer place, since they had such good helpers : miep´s house, kugler´s house, kleiman´s , dunselman´s , etc.
Jews who did go under for real during WW2, never hid together, they always separated, 2 in one place at the most, in order not to be too visible and not to get caught together if discovered.


The first author to my knowledge who discovered that otto frank was a collaborator and a war profiteer, was carol ann lee, in her book THE HIDDEN LIFE OF OTTO FRANK, henceforth CAL, harper perennial, copyright 2002 and 2003, published 2003.
In her book, lee asserts she found evidence and witness to the fact that otto frank payed lifelong hush money to a dutch nazi, tonny ahlers, so the latter would keep quiet about otto´s wartime business with the german occupiers. I shall now quote the relevant passage in CAL 77ff. :

<<<<<<<<<<< In a 1966 letter, alhers writes that otto was " selling pectin products to the wehrmacht...He had no problems in getting his raw materials. In my opinion frank got his raw materials straight from berlin...HE FELT COMPLETELY SURE AND SAFE IN THE SITUATION [my caps : CAL interprets this as referring to the raw materials delivery, but she errs : it refers to his exemption from antijewish persecution ]. THE ONLY WAY HE COULD FEEL SAFE, SURELY, IS BECAUSE HE WAS DELIVERING TO THE WEHRMACHT [my caps]. " >>>>>>>>>>>>>
What CAL did not know was, that opekta köln, the factory/company whose amsterdam franchise otto ran, had been officially certified as kriegswichtig or war-relevant in february 1943 - a status that exempted its jews, or at least its key jews such as otto, from deportation, and most likely from all other antijewish measures - and assured them privileged treatment even in case of firing and deportation, as we shall plentifully prove below.

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

Ahlers was right about everything except for the provenance of otto´s pectin deliveries : they came from the 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.:

<<<<<<<<<<<<< One such order for the german army in the pectacon delivery book reads : "5 june 1940. Sold to the sunda company, the hague, by order of the armee oberkommando, berlin.Various goods. " >>>>>>>>>>>>>

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


<<<<<<<<<<< The deliveries to the wehrmacht ( via brokers ) ensured the survival of otto´s business. [...] In an unpublished interview with the netherlands institute for war documentation (niod) , miep gies admitted that during the war they had sold to the wehrmacht and that a "trusted wehrmacht cook " came into the business with kleiman.[...]
In another unpublished interview with the dutch authorities in 1964, otto acknowledged that his company had done business with the german occupying forces.[...]. A 1948 letter written by a former warehouseman at 263 prinsengracht during the war divulges : " the company supplied a lot of goods to the wehrmacht during the occupation, by way of brokers. " One of these was " Mr. van keulen from haarlem, a supplier of canned goods and buyer of goods for the german...A lot of people visited the business, among others van keulen ". [...] In his 1966 letter, ahlers continues : " This pectin was a conserve product which was used in the german war industry.[...]". Pectin was a preservative that could be put to many uses, depending on the type of pectin it was. All pectin was useful for food production, but certain kinds could be applied as a balm for wounds and as a thickener for raising blood volume in blood transfusions. Other types of pectin were used in the steel industries as a hardener and in the oil industry as an emulsifier. Therefore, it is possible that the wehrmacht used the pectin they bought from otto frank´s company for the war industry [...] . In an interview with the author, martha [ahlers, tonny´s wife] confirmed that her husband and otto frank " did business together. My husband had his own company during the war and otto frank made deliveries to him ". Other family members confirm this. [...] At the offices on the prinsengracht, "a marked business revival " took place after the occupation. Otto frank had made a pact with the devil[...]. Throughout the war years, otto was to all intents and purposes leading a double life. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
(CAL 78-81).

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



Again for the umpteenth time : nobody was arrested on august 4, 1944 at prinsengracht 263 . Certainly not the 8 jews. There is not a single piece of evidence for this alleged arrest.
Whenever a jew was arrested, or even simply deported without an arrest, but only through a summons, by the nazis, such an event left behind a huge paper trail in the scrupulous german bureaucracy. We know this for certain, from local memorial books that have come out, such us the following, most interesting one :

(henceforth FEHRB )

I am a fortunate possessor of this book - local history, local memories teach us often way more true details than mainstream, corrupt and biased zionazi historiography.

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

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

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

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

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

Infuriatingly enough, author inge franken does not reveal to us where exactly she found these documents - there must be an archive somewhare holding them. And surely, local nazis arresting and deporting jews in amsterdam would have been required to send a copy of these vermögenserklärungen to some central berlin office : where are these papers for the 8 jews ?

Before their alleged arrest on august 4, 1944, the franks had spent a quiet 2 years in the annex : no nazi search of their merwedeplein apartment, looking for summons-dodger margot frank, is on record, whether in the diary or anywhere else - that is because as we proved above, margor frank never received that summons on july 5, 1942 as she was only 16 at the time and the summonses only targeted the 18-40 age group.

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


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

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

Next up : after certifying the legalized robbery of all a jew had, the nazis would send a movers´ firm to empty the jew´s domicile. And again, german bureaucratic meticulousness would require a specific paper for this part of the deportation procedure too : a document called inventar und bewertung, inventory and cost assessment, featuring all the objects found in the apartment and taken away, their estimated cash value, and the moving costs.
Here is the inventar und bewertung for ida bamberger´s apartment, from FEHRB 224 :

So now again and again : where is the inventar und bewertung for the prinsengracht 263 annex ? This is the 14th missing piece of evidence for this alleged arrest cum deportation .
74 years later, noobody to my knowledge has come up with this document.

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



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

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

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

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

12. AUFLAGE 2011
henceforth : WILL

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

At the end of the book, WILL credits this pic to the miep gies collection. How did miep gies ever come into possession of such an original document ? If that is, it is original ?
This is supposed to be the same list, as on AFH 196. Is it really ?
AFH 264 sources its own photographic repro of the list to the dutch red cross, informatiebureau nederlandse rode kruis, coll. oorlogsarchief. A request I made to the dutch red cross for copies of the pages containing the franks, van pelses and pfeffer has so far gone unanswered.
Anyway : a synoptic comparison of the 2 photos of the transport list page featuring the franks in AFH and WILL reveals striking differences : here are the 2 pics side by side :

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Therefore let us proceed differently now : let us compare this transport list or alleged list, both versions of it, to other similar tranport lists of deported jews in nazi germany :
FEHRB 232 - 236 is a good starting point : here are the photos :

You will surely have noticed a first striking difference between the FEHRB lists and the WILL/AFH specimen : all the israels and saras added to the jews´ first names in FEHRB, and totally missing in WILL/AFH !!!

See, the nazis, in order to better identify who was jewish, had ordered to add to their names, on personal papers, official documents, etc., israel for men and sara for women. Thus if you were esther, you became esther sara, and if you were jakob, you became jakob israel. So how come otto here is otto and not otto israel ? and anneliese frank isn´t anneliese sara ?

I shall object to myself that, unlike the FEHRB specimens, WILL/AFH says judentranport on the top line, thus rendering the israel/sara thing moot. But then again - was there a standard procedure here, or did every nazi clerk do as he pleased ? As you can see on the FEHRB lists, it says transportliste, and not judentransport as on WILL/AFH, and this makes a lot more sense, because actually, not everybody on those trains was jewish ! AFH 197, picture 4, sourced to niod, shows a gypsy girl, settela steinbach, a sinti - she shared the jews´fate on that same train. Thus the absence of israel/sara on the annex jews´ list really is at odds with common sense and what appears to be nazi standard practice.

Further : the FEHRB lists add a column with the birth place for each deportee - missing in AFH/WILL. Then there is an age column, also missing in WILL/AFH.Then there is an address column, also missing on WILL/AFH. Then there is a column with personal transport registration numbers - as usual, missing in AFH/WILL.

On FEHRB 236, additional columns are filled in, that had not been filled in on the prevoius specimina : marital status, fitness for work, ID number : all of them missing on WILL/AFH !!!

Draw your own conclusions...

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


Yet another oddity on the WILL/AFH list is, the word haeflinge 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 2 ways the germans deported jews - and everyone else for that matter : either they arrested them or anyway took them by force by raiding their homes etc., 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. Therefore that word prisoners on the WILL/AFH list stinks of forgery to high heaven. As evidence that not all deported jews were prisoners or had been detained by force, I might reference FEHRB 120, where holocaust survivor sylvia wagenberg recounts how she in 1942, aged 13, was forced by the nazis in berlin to deliver deportation letters to jewish families. Whose homes she reached by tram or subway - a privilege for jews then. George soros the jewish financier did the same thing in budapest in 1944, when he too was 13 :

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

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

My conclusion is : I incline to think that the AFH/WILL photo reproduction of the alleged transport list westerbork-auschwitz for the franks etc., is a forgery. 100% sure I am not.

I shall not imply for now 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.


The next proof or alleged proof that the zionazi anne frank stichting presented us with in 1999 is on
AFH 195, picture 5 :

These are supposed to be the 7 entries in westerbork´s municipality´s population register for 7 of the 8 annex jews - pfeffer´s card has been lost, reportedly. Now these cards look a lot more authentic to my eye : anne frank´s full first name is correctly spelt as annelies, and all other relevant data are plausibly filled in. There is no absurd prisoner status. The handwritten death notices stating she died at bergen-belsen in march 1945 are reportedly from the red cross. Pity that these cards are arranged in such a way for the photo, that only anne´s is fully readable.

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

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

<<<<<<<<<< Remarkably, the girls [ anne and margot ] looked sporty, in tracksuits and backpacks, as if they were leaving for their winter holidays. >>>>>>>>>>>

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

was sent to one heinrich schussein, 32 at the time, fitting the age group targeted, unlike margot.
He is summoned to central station - where janny met the franks, because the franks in july 1944 had been similarly summoned as well. The summons specifies what items could be taken with one :

<<<<<<<<<< 1 suitcase or backpack [ that is why anne and margot had backpacks ] ;
[...] 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 ] >>>>>>> :

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 such as soros or wagenberg above ; and the franks complied with the summons , taking their time, and arriving at the ordered appointment at centraal station fresh and rested as if for a winter holiday. That is the truth of the matter. Again , summing it all up :

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

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

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



And yet - that transport list above stinks. If it is a forgery, then what happened to the 8 annex jews ?
Are we certain we may talk about 8 annex jews ?
Otto frank held an iron cross - a WW1 decoration which, on hitler´s personal orders reportedly, entitled jewish holders to either immunity from deportation, or deportation to VIP camp theresienstadt in czechoslovakia, where there was no hard labor and survival rates were way higher. Did otto really board that train to auschwitz on sept. 3 , 1944 ?

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

<<<<<<<<<<< I know, that otto frank was going left and right and harbored the illusion, he would be able to go to theresienstadt >>>>>>>>>>>>> :

how janny knew this , she does not say, but again, it strikes me as highly plausible. And certainly otto was waving his iron cross to this and that nazi office or jewish council office in westerbork.
So why wasn´t he given his due - theresienstadt ? He had a legal right to theresienstadt. It could be in theory, that by hiding, he had run afoul of the law and lost his theresien privilege - but we proved above beyond doubt that otto had never hidden and never got arrested.

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

Otto was the only survivor of the 8 : much more plausibly justifiable, if he went to safer theresien as opposed to the hell of auschwitz 44/45.

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

R. meulenhoff stated to F´s interviewers that he or his publishing house h.meulenhoff turned down the diary of anne frank < just before the railway strike of september 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´s registration card - again proving he was indeed at westerbork, which again I consider plausible and have no problem with. Red pencil notes, reportedly by a red cross staff after liberation, state he returned from auschwitz in ´45 : ok that is the official story but - are these notes genuine ?

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

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

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


« February 2018 »

Upcoming events

  • No upcoming events available



Syndicate content Features

Syndicate content Newswire

Global IMC Network