New book alleges Anne Frank betrayed to Nazis by Jewish collaborator

Photo: AFP
Anne Frank
Photo: AFP -Ynet
New book alleges Anne Frank betrayed to Nazis by Jewish collaborator
Dutch-Jewish collaborator Ans van Dijk said to have given up location of Anne Frank, her family to Nazi authorities in occupied Netherlands after being arrested by Nazi intelligence herself; while claim is not new, book’s author provides testimony from his father, who knew the collaborator; Anne Frank House: van Dijk was taken into account as potential traitor, but no evidence was found in support of theory.

Anne Frank and her family were captured by Nazis after being betrayed by a Jewish woman, alleged a new book attempting to uncover the mystery of the Frank family being found in a secret annex of an Amsterdam building in 1944.


The Guardian newspaper reported Friday that according to the book—titled “The Backyard of the Secret Annex”—Dutch-Jewish collaborator Ans van Dijk reported their hiding place.

Van Dijk was executed after the Second World War for her collusion with the Nazis, after confessing to giving up 145 Jews, including her own brother and his family.

A new book alleges Anne Frank and her family were given up to the Nazis by a Jewish collaborator (Photo: AFP)

A new book alleges Anne Frank and her family were given up to the Nazis by a Jewish collaborator (Photo: AFP)


While it had been previously claimed she was also guilty of turning over the Frank family, the Anne Frank House museum in Amsterdam and its research center failed to reach any conclusion on the matter, despite studies and a police investigation into her actions.


In his new book, however, author Gerard Kremer, 70, claimed he has solved the mystery. Kremer’s father was a member of the anti-Nazi Dutch underground, and was an acquaintance of van Dijk in Amsterdam.

The author’s father, who died in 1978, was said to have been a caretaker in an office building in the Dutch capital, two floors of which were taken over by the German authorities and the Dutch Nazi organization—the NSB—during the Nazi occupation of The Netherlands.

Kremer’s father recounted van Dijk’s arrest by the Nazi intelligence service on the first day of Easter in 1943. After her arrest, she made frequent visits to the building, in costume, and used telephones in the appropriated offices.

The book further outlined that Kremer overheard talk in the Nazi offices in early August 1944 regarding the region where Frank and her family were hiding, and that van Dijk took part in those conversations.

Dutch-Jewish collaborator Ans van Dijk was later executed for treason

Dutch-Jewish collaborator Ans van Dijk was later executed for treason


Anne and her family members were arrested August 4, while van Dijk left Amsterdam for The Hague.

A spokeswoman for Anne Frank House told The Guardian that the museum contacted the book’s author, but he could provide no evidence proving van Dijk’s culpability.

“We consider Gerard Kremer’s book as a tribute to his parents,” she said, “based on what he remembers and has heard. In 2016, the Anne Frank House carried out research into the arrest of the Frank family and the other four people in hiding in the secret annex.”

“Ans van Dijk,” she continued, “was included as a potential traitor in this study. We have not been able to find evidence for this theory, nor for other betrayal theories.”

After the war and van Dijk’s move to The Hague, she was arrested at a friend’s house on June 20, 1945. She was later charged with 23 counts of treason and brought before a special tribunal in Amsterdam, where she confessed to all counts and was sentenced to death.

A spokeswoman for Anne Frank House said van Dijk had been included in a list of potential traitors, but that no conclusive evidence was found to show she was to blame (Photo: Massimo Catarinella, from Wikipedia)

A spokeswoman for Anne Frank House said van Dijk had been included in a list of potential traitors, but that no conclusive evidence was found to show she was to blame (Photo: Massimo Catarinella, from Wikipedia)


Her subsequent attempts to appeal the verdict and receive a royal pardon, with the claim she was merely acting out of self preservation, failed and she was executed by firing squad in January, 1948. The night before her execution she was baptized and joined the Roman Catholic Church.

Simone van Hoof, a spokesman for Lantaarn, the book’s publisher, said, “We can’t claim that this is 100 percent the answer but we really do think it is a part of the puzzle that may be able to complete the story.”

Anne Frank Hoax Exposed

Clever Jew Made Millions from Dead Daughter
by Dr. William L. Pierce (1980)

Tucked away on pages 119 and 122 of the October 6 issue of Der Spiegel, a weekly German news magazine comparable to Time or Newsweek, was a news item of considerable significance: A scientific analysis of the manuscript purported to be the original diary of Anne Frank, a Jewish girl who died in a German concentration camp during the Second World War, has revealed that the manuscript could not have been written before 1951, six years after the end of the war.

The significance of Der Spiegel’s revelation of this fraud is twofold. First, the printing of the story in a mass-circulation publication constitutes a major break with past treatments of similar news. The German news media, though not under the Jewish monopoly control which blights the media in this country, generally follow a pro-Jewish line, a heritage from the immediate postwar years when the Allied occupation forces gave publishing licenses only to those Germans who had proved their disloyalty to their country during the war. Consequently, most news tending to cast doubt on Jewish stories about gas chambers and the like from the World War II era has either been blacked out altogether or downplayed and given very unsympathetic treatment. The present article, though accompanied by copious apologies and held back for six months after it became news, would not have been printed at all a year or two ago.

Beyond this, the exposure of the Anne Frank forgery is important because of the sheer magnitude of the fraud and the key role it has played in underpinning the entire Jewish scenario of the war. What is known as a fact is that one Otto Frank, a Jewish merchant, formerly of Frankfurt, who had been arrested in the Netherlands and interned in the Auschwitz concentration camp during the war, began visiting publishers in 1946 with what he claimed was a diary written by his young daughter during the time the Frank family was hiding from the German police in occupied Holland. The girl later perished at Auschwitz, Frank said.

The diary, filled with touching adolescent reveries and homely little anecdotes, was exactly what the Jewish “Holocaust” propagandists were looking for: a highly effective piece of ammunition to generate a maudlin, emotion-laden sympathy for the poor, persecuted Jews — as typified by Anne Frank — and generate hatred against the wicked Germans, who had killed her and six million other Jews.

Otto Frank cashed in on the diary in a big way. Not only did he find a publisher, but he found people hot to buy stage and film rights as well. Shortly after its appearance in book form, the diary had been translated into a score of languages and printed in millions of copies, from all of which Frank received royalties. The English version alone, under the title Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl, has sold more than 4,000,000 copies to date. A television dramatization based on the diary was aired in this country last month, accompanied by the usual ballyhoo.

Almost from the beginning there were charges that the diary was a hoax. Some of these charges were based on the gross inconsistencies between various translations and editions of the diary in book form; it was clear that the text had been heavily edited to help it sell well in different markets. Other charges were based on internal inconsistencies and credulity-straining elements in the diary itself.

And then there was the matter of the script for the film version of the diary: Otto Frank was sued by a New York scriptwriter, Meyer Levin, who claimed that Frank had taken large portions of a script he, Levin, had written and had not paid Levin for his work. The court ordered Frank to pay Levin $50,000. One can easily understand why some observers began to wonder how much, if any, of the content of the various Anne Frank books, films, and plays in circulation was actually written by a little Jewish girl named Anne Frank.

Otto Frank, father of Anne, displays what he says is his daughter’s diary, written in 1942–1944 while hiding from the Gestapo. Recent scientific tests have proved the alleged diary could not have been written before 1951. Frank made millions from his forgery before his death this year.

In Germany, however, it was not wise to speculate about such matters publicly. The line laid down by the government and the media is that Anne Frank is gospel, and anyone who suggests otherwise leaves himself open to criminal charges (“defaming the victims of Nazi persecution”) as well as to civil suits. Otto Frank himself made a regular habit of hauling Anne Frank detractors into German courts, which invariably decided in his favor — until recently, that is.

When Hamburg pensioner Ernst Roemer, 76, began spreading the accusation that Otto Frank had himself written what he was passing off as his dead daughter’s diary, Frank sued him. As usual, the court upheld the authenticity of the diary. Handwriting experts testified that the entire diary, including loose notes and insertions, had been written by the same hand, and that hand was Anne Frank’s.

Roemer appealed the court’s decision against him, and more handwriting experts were called in. Their conclusion was the same: Everything in the diary was in the same handwriting; there was no forgery.

Roemer appealed again, and this time the court asked for the technical services of the Federal Criminal Office (Bundeskriminalamt, similar to our FBI), which carried out a careful analysis of the original manuscript of the diary with microscope and ultraviolet illumination in order to confirm its authenticity — in particular, to determine when it was written.

The report of the technical experts was given to the court in April of this year, and it contained a bombshell: large portions of the alleged “diary” were written in ballpoint pen ink — which was not manufactured prior to 1951!

Were it not for the previous testimony of the handwriting experts that the entire diary, including the portions written with ballpoint pen, is in the same hand, the father might have claimed that he only “edited” his daughter’s work, “clarifying” passages here and there. But the evidence was quite unambiguous.

For example, the testimony of Hamburg graphologist Minna Bekker in an earlier trial was: “The handwriting of the diary in the three bound volumes — including all notes and additions on the glued-in pages as well as the 338 pages of loose material — including all corrections and insertions is identical . . .”

Otto should have been more careful in his choice of writing instruments. It is now quite clear that he finished hoking up the “original” of the diary after he had found a publisher for what, in 1946, was nothing more than some rough notes and an idea in his head which seemed to have prospects for making him a lot of money with little effort. First a typescript for the publisher, and then, as sales of the book began to mount, a completed handwritten “original” to show to doubters.

Just after the report of the Federal Criminal Office was given to the court, Otto Frank conveniently died — before he could be asked a number of very interesting questions. Meanwhile, the worldwide Jewish propaganda apparatus has continued its promotion of the Anne Frank myth as if nothing had happened. Der Spiegel seems to be the only mass-circulation news periodical to have exposed the fraud to date.

From Attack! No. 79, 1980, transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.