Anne Frank Hoax: Finally, an Admission

otto_frank2by David Sims

THE COPYRIGHT to the book The Diary of Anne Frank is owned by the Anne Frank Fund of Basel, Switzerland. Because Anne Frank died of typhus in 1945, any book written by her would have entered the public domain in 2015. To prevent that (so they can keep profiting from sales), the Fund has admitted that much of the text was interpolated after the end of World War 2 by Otto Frank, who was Anne Frank’s father. (ILLUSTRATION: Otto Frank, collage artist and salesman extraordinaire.)

Of course, this has been known in certain circles for quite some time. Parts of the text, although attributed to Anne Frank, show a distinctly different handwriting. Also, parts of the text were originally written with ink from a ballpoint pen, and those first came into popular use in 1951. There has long been a number of tell-tale clues that The Diary of Anne Frank isn’t what it purports to be, but rather is largely fictional and written by someone other than Anne Frank.

But the Jews in charge of that book have never before admitted this obvious fact — until now. And the reason they’re doing it now is money. From now on, you’ll be hearing how Otto Frank, being very well-informed about his daughter’s experiences, was merely acting as her ghost-writer, putting in nothing other than what actually happened. The Jews won’t give up any more than they have to, in order to keep this financial resource productive for themselves.

The Wikipedia entry on the matter relates “In 2015 the Anne Frank Foundation made an announcement, as reported in the New York Times, that the diary was co-authored by Otto Frank. According to Yves Kugelmann, a member of the board of the foundation, their expert advice was that Otto had created a new work by editing, merging, and trimming entries from the diary and notebooks and reshaping them into a ‘kind of collage,’ which had created a new copyright. Agnès Tricoire, a lawyer specializing in intellectual property rights, responded by warning the foundation to ‘think very carefully about the consequences.’ She added ‘If you follow their arguments, it means that they have lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank'”

I wonder what all those judges in Germany are thinking now. For many years, they’d been deciding civil and criminal defamation cases involving The Diary of Anne Frank in favor of Otto Frank, who claimed that the book was the work of his daughter alone — and who wailed he was being defamed and harmed by revisionist historians who said that she wasn’t. And now it turns out that the revisionists were right all along. All the time. And Otto Frank, who won every case, should have lost every case. The German courts did the wrong thing over and over again for almost half a century.

* * *

Source: Author

For Further Reading

Previous post

The Oriental Infection

Next post

White Leftists Are in Full Agreement with White Racialist Premises


  1. Uri
    March 3, 2016 at 8:51 am — Reply

    Hello David,

    I think you might be confusing the book called “The Diary of a Young girl by Anne Frank” and in some editions “The Diary of Anne Frank” with the original Anne Frank diary.

    The original has no interpolation and only some annotations by some other hand in the famous ballpoint pen.

    Its an easy mistake to make.



  2. Uri
    March 3, 2016 at 11:34 am — Reply

    Hi David

    Further to my last post which seems to have vanished I think there’s a couple of other small errors in what you are saying:

    You say “Parts of the text, although attributed to Anne Frank, show a distinctly different handwriting.”

    Not according to the BKA, all the text in the original diaries are written in the same grey/blue or thin red or green ink and are all in exactly the same hand.

    You also say “Also, parts of the text were originally written with ink from a ballpoint pen, and those first came into popular use in 1951.”

    You are correct in that ballpoints came into use in 1951 however none of the original Anne Frank text was written in ballpoint. I’m not sure how you have come to make this error unless you haven’t actually read the original diaries or seen the BKA reports. Its very good you might like to dig a copy out sometime.

    All the best


  3. Uri
    March 4, 2016 at 10:08 am — Reply

    Hello again David

    Has any one actually said ” Otto Frank, being very well-informed about his daughter’s experiences, was merely acting as her ghost-writer, putting in nothing other than what actually happened.” apart from you that is?

    So this is really speculation on your part and not at all accurate anyway.

    I’ll bet those judges in Germany are actually thinking “Phew, thank goodness we didn’t listen to those revisionists and actually did get it right. Over and over again.

    Finally, as your whole text starts to fall to pieces you might want to consider what use the Anne Frank Fond in Switzerland and pretty much the whole of the legacy of Anne Frank’s diaries have been put to. The “profits”, as you describe them, are donated to the likes of UNICEF, childrens charities and of course various Jewish support projects.

    I know these are not particularly worthwhile causes and promoting visionaries such as Dr William L Pierce in his various quests for er . . . . whatever it is today, is far more socially useful but just for a second I did think, actually, I am glad the Diary of Anne Frank is in the hands of the Dutch state and the Anne Frank Fund in Switzerland and not people such as you.

    All the best


    • Jon
      January 31, 2017 at 8:21 pm — Reply

      “The “profits”, as you describe them, are donated to the likes of UNICEF, childrens charities and of course various Jewish support projects.”

      Oops, you revealed your hand you kike snake. Of course the profits are given to Jews. That’s the entire point. You think you’ve disproved something when you’ve only admitted your type’s parasitism.

      • Uri
        July 3, 2017 at 10:38 am — Reply

        Is “Kike Snake” classed as crude language, or incivility?

  4. Vox populi vox dei
    August 29, 2016 at 2:26 pm — Reply

    no businesss like Shoa-sh**.
    Why did the Nazi – yes the Nazi (!) – Otto Frank have to pay a New York Ghostwriter by court-order?
    An original script was never published! Never ever!
    So what are you talking about?
    The Bundeskriminalamt could never define when the script was written. It did define the meddling with ballpoint pens. Putting the puzzle together, it shows that it was written by several adults. And the poor Anne Frank did move on in show business and turned out as Audrey Hepburn.
    Jews lie.
    Cheating is part of their socialisation.
    So, go and read your diary and get out of Switzerland, go to the original jewish homelands: hell – the home of your father Satan; your home.

    • Uri
      July 3, 2017 at 12:05 pm — Reply

      “Why did (removed as contentious) Otto Frank have to pay a New York Ghostwriter by court order?”

      I’m guessing you are referring to Meyer Levin who was engaged to represent the interests of Frank and the “Diary” in the US and also to MEYER LEVIN v. OTTO FRANK ET AL. (03/12/57)? Yes, Otto Frank did receive a court order to pay $50,000 to Meyer Levin. Firstly, Levin wasn’t a ghostwriter but wished to (amongst other things) create a play which Frank didn’t like as it appeared to sanitize the diary and make the story a fair bit more palatable to the Broadway audience at whom it was aimed.

      The court, as far as I can see from the case notes as published –

      decided in support of Levin and ordered the payment made for breach of contract. I haven’t downloaded the entire docket as its not worth the 8 bucks. Let me know if you do and what your interpretation is of the decision?

      You are of course quite right, the original text was never published. And as that is the case how can David above state that parts were written in ballpoint pen?



      PS – Dear moderator – could you kindly investigate the use of the terms “jewish homelands: hell” and “the home of your father Satan; your home” Could this be more examples of crude language or incivility?

  5. Uri
    July 3, 2017 at 10:03 am — Reply

    Hi Fellas.

    Sorry , I hadn’t signed into my old email so I didn’t see your thoughtful replies.

    Actually I’m not Jewish, no relation at all, just a seeker of truth and an identifier of inconsistencies.

    I seem to have touched a bit of a nerve though. My apologies if my indications of errors appear to be any sort of an attack on your religion.

    Just for the record – David mentions “Also, parts of the text were originally written with ink from a ballpoint pen, . . . . ” which parts of the text are these?



  6. Uri
    August 8, 2017 at 11:55 am — Reply

    Still no answer as to which parts of the text were writtenin ballpoint pen . . . ?

  7. Uri
    October 2, 2017 at 9:48 am — Reply

    And still no replies on which parts were written in ballpoint pen . . ?

  8. Joanna
    July 2, 2018 at 6:09 pm — Reply

    Hey there,

    it is years after your dispute. I’ve just read the Anne Frank’s Diary (the full 2013 year edition) and i was really, for several days, thrilled. Especially after checking her photos in the web. That very special sadness, existential, unrepeatable lonelyness and wisdom in her eyes. What a person. There is nothing like that in faces of Edith, Otto or even Margot (nor anyone of Anne’s friends). And she was 15 y.o. Who she could be if survived?

    Story about ballpoint pen is stupid because of quite a different reason, than you, Uri, evoke. It is because the book was published for the first time in 1947, while ball pen were sold since 1951. If there are any traces of ball pen (what an idiot made them), they should have appeared later.

    Of course, and that should copyright holders state very firmly and clearly – original text of the Diary is now in public domain and anyone who would write it down from the ogiginal, can public it freely. Why those owners do not do it – is a rather strange, odd secret.

    Have you, Uri, read the original pages of the Diary? There are some 10 pages in good enough resolution in the web. It is not necessary to be an BKA expert, to see (just simply see) that the thing was written by two types of handwriting – one fast and trained italics and other simple, rather childisch (approximately by 13-14 y.o. young – just as mine own at that age), with almost every letter written separately. Not only that – the more serious matter is the construction of letters. Letters like “b”, “p”, “d”, “y” (etc) are in both type of text constructed very differently. That is, what make me upset and frustrated. What does that factor mean? Who has written such differently both threads of text? Was it possible that such a rich person as Anne, in the reaction to the horrible, deprivating circumstances, created inside herself a second, different sub-personality? May be named “Kitty”? As we know, Anne in time of “annex” has changed in such a significant way, that her parrents have tried to cure her with some simple medicines. I do not know, nor suggest anything. It is only a hypothesis.

    I do not pass any judgement, I just try to understand. I try to believe, but not against my best knowledge and my skills. Plato amicus, sed magis amica veritas.


    (Excuse my poor English…)

  9. cc
    July 2, 2018 at 8:55 pm — Reply

    Who cares what the criminal German law enforcement says about the Anne Frank production? Germany has been under occupation from 1945 forward. So why do people pretend that Germans control their country. Children say: Let’s playlike. The media does it every day.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.