On the night of 11 to 12 January 1943, unknown persons broke the cellar lock and made off with 24 cases of wine. Six hundred bottles in all, which, according to the owner, represented a total value of nine thousand guilders. Hotelier Friedrich Schiller reported the theft to the Marnixstraat police station on the afternoon of 12 January 1943. The 'atelier' was also notified, meaning that the criminal investigation department started looking for fingerprints and other traces at the scene.[1] It is not known to what extent the criminal investigation extended to the surrounding area.
\r\n\r\nIn de nacht van 11 op 12 januari 1943 braken onbekenden het kelderslot open en verdwenen met 24 kisten wijn. Bij elkaar ging het om zeshonderd flessen, die volgens de eigenaar een totale waarde van negenduizend gulden vertegenwoordigden. Hotelier Friedrich Schiller deed er in de middag van 12 januari op bureau Marnixstraat aangifte van. Ook werd het 'atelier' ingelicht, wat betekent dat de recherche er naar vingerafdrukken en andere sporen ging zoeken.[1] In hoeverre het rechercheonderzoek zich tot de omgeving uitstrekte is niet bekend.
\r\n\r\nOn the night of 11 to 12 January 1943, unknown persons broke the cellar lock and made off with 24 cases of wine. Six hundred bottles in all, which, according to the owner, represented a total value of nine thousand guilders. Hotelier Friedrich Schiller reported the theft to the Marnixstraat police station on the afternoon of 12 January 1943. The 'atelier' was also notified, meaning that the criminal investigation department started looking for fingerprints and other traces at the scene.[1] It is not known to what extent the criminal investigation extended to the surrounding area.
\r\n\r\nOne of the neighboring buildings next to the Secret Annex was home to the upholsterer's store Elhoek. In November 1941, money had already been stolen from the electric meter at Elhoek. In the night of 7-8 April 1943, money and a typewriter were stolen from the business.
","content_nl":"In de een van de buurpanden naast het Achterhuis was stoffeerderzaak Elhoek gevestigd. In november 1941 was er bij Elhoek al eens geld uit de elektrameter gestolen. In de nacht van 7 op 8 april 1943 werd er geld en een schrijfmachine uit het bedrijf gestolen.
","content_en":"One of the neighboring buildings next to the Secret Annex was home to the upholsterer's store Elhoek. In November 1941, money had already been stolen from the electric meter at Elhoek. In the night of 7-8 April 1943, money and a typewriter were stolen from the business.
","date":null,"date_start":"1943-04-07","date_end":"1943-04-08","summary":"Burglars stole six hundred guilders and a typewriter from the business.","summary_nl":"Insluipers ontvreemdden zeshonderd gulden en een schrijfmachine uit het bedrijf.","summary_en":"Burglars stole six hundred guilders and a typewriter from the business.","same_as":null,"files":[]}],"subjects":[{"id":196,"image":null,"url":"https://research.annefrank.org/en/onderwerpen/29abb87c-1833-4c97-9fc9-33c21427ac82/","published":true,"uuid":"29abb87c-1833-4c97-9fc9-33c21427ac82","name":"Threats: outsiders, burglars, fire, embezzlement and threats from the air","name_nl":"Bedreigingen: buitenstaanders, inbrekers, brand, verduistering en luchtgevaar","name_en":"Threats: outsiders, burglars, fire, embezzlement and threats from the air","description":"Staying unnoticed in the Secret Annex was threatened in several ways. Besides the chance that unwitting visitors or neighbours of the building might notice something, there was the possibility of burglars, fire in or near the building, light escaping and airborne threats. The people in hiding and the helpers were very alert to risky situations and did a lot to avoid risks.
\r\n\r\nEspecially in the early days, Anne repeatedly expressed her fear of outsiders in the building. In some cases these were strangers, but certainly not always. The sales representatives, pharmacist Arthur Lewinsohn, the accountant and some warehouse men were more or less acquaintances. The plumber, the cleaner, the carpenter and the other warehouse men were strangers to the people in hiding - as far as we know. The acquaintances also posed a threat in Anne's eyes. There was unease when Ans Broks said that she wanted to come to the office for coffee every day at two o'clock.[1] From time to time, Anne's diary provides clues showing that the people in hiding also took into account the possibility that people living or working in neighbouring premises would discover their presence.
\r\n\r\nOne morning, when Peter van Pels had forgotten to open the bolt on the inside of the street door, Victor Kugler and the warehousemen could not get in. Kugler had to go through the premises of wholesaler Keg on Prinsengracht 265 and only just managed to prevent one of the neighbours from climbing in via a ladder.[2]
\r\n\r\nSeveral break-ins and attempted break-ins are referred to in Anne's diaries and narratives. Brother and sister Wijnberg, who lived at Prinsengracht 251 during the period in hiding, said in an interview that they had been in the building as children on 24 March 1943 and had stolen muscatel nuts there.[3] Anne writes a day later about her first encounter with the phenomenon of burglars.[4] The break-in of 9 April 1944 is also confirmed by a police report, when the passing night watchman Martonus Slegers noticed the kicked-in door.[5] The B-version mentions a burglary on the night of 15-16 July 1943. According to the same passage, there had also been an unsuccessful attempt six weeks earlier.[6] In the A-version, Anne writes about a thief who may have entered with a false key, or at least nothing could be seen on the outside door.[7]
\r\n\r\nThe wider area, of course, also had to deal with crime. At Keg at Prinsengracht 265, police reports do not reveal any burglaries during the hiding period, but according to the 1963 official report of the National Criminal Investigation Department, there were burglaries. According to the State Investigation Department, by necessity, staff were even regularly present at night.[8] The daughter of branch manager Jacob Boon knew that her father spent the night in his office more than once during the war years.[9] In the night of 7-8 April 1943, burglars broke into Elhoek furniture factory at number 261 and stole six hundred guilders and a typewriter.[10] In November 1941, a coin meter of the Municipal Energy Company (GEB) had also been emptied there.[11] A few years earlier, the contents of a coin meter in the later Opekta premises had also been stolen by burglars.[12] Given GEB's policy in the 'small business' market, it was highly plausible that that meter had stayed behind after Opekta's arrival in the late 1940s.[13] Theft from coin meters was a very common phenomenon. So the presence of such meters certainly posed an additional risk.
\r\n\r\nJohannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler reported no burglaries or thefts on their premises during the period in hiding, as far as can be verified. Then, in January 1945, Johan Broks - Kugler was still in prison at the time - reported the theft of seventy kilos of sugar from Gies & Co.[14]
\r\n\r\nBuilding plans for Elhoek's premises at Prinsengracht 261, made in June 1940, show that people there were working with flammable materials and techniques, as they included extensive recommendations on self-closing doors, escape routes and a fire-extinguishing riser.[15] In the Opekta premises, fire hazards were also taken into account. A few months before going into hiding, there was a small fire when packaging material lying too close to a stove caught fire.[16] There were 'Minimax' appliances in several places. One was mounted on the landing in front of the bookcase. That location was 'peripheral' from a company point of view, and might have been chosen with the people in hiding in mind: outside the bookcase, allowing periodic maintenance to take place without problems - at least in theory. In the B-version of the diary, Anne writes, with the date 20 October 1942, that they 'got' these devices in the house, which she later changes to 'have'. It is therefore possible that they were fitted in the autumn of 1942, but there is no clarity on this.
\r\n\r\nDue to war conditions, strict blackout measures applied. Users of residential and other buildings were obliged to take measures to prevent light escaping between sunset and sunrise. In winter, curtains had to remain closed for up to 14 hours a day.[17] Police and Air Protection were quick to take action against violators. In the evening of 4 March 1941, officers kicked in the entrance door of the Opekta premises because a light was on in the hall.[18] Of course, when the period of hiding began, the people in hiding and helpers had not yet forgotten this. Anne's writings often refer to the closing and opening of the blackout curtains.[19] During the 1958 restoration, many window frames were replaced. However, some original frames from the Van Pels room are still in the museum collection, and the added constructions for blackout curtains are still attached.[20]
\r\n\r\nAnne's frequent comments on shots, sirens and alarms have been compared, where possible, with the air hazard reports preserved in the Amsterdam police archives. A few significant instances of 'air hazard' are shown here.
\r\n\r\nIn the event of an air siren, everyone was obliged to go to the nearest shelter or otherwise take cover. "If the air siren sounds [...] get off the streets!", Nieuws van den Dag, 13 September 1940. On the morning of 6 July 1942, there was no air siren, which would have meant a serious complication for the Franks on their way to Prinsengracht.
\r\n\r\nStarting on 10 July 1943, Rauter introduced an 'pre-alarm', which indicated that Allied aircraft were entering Dutch airspace without any immediate bomb attacks being expected. The alert was designated an 'air hazard warning'.[21] A week or two later, Anne mentions the use of this pre-alarm in the B-version when she writes about the air attacks on the Fokker factory in Amsterdam-Noord.[22] The repeated alarms she lists in her retrospectively written B note that day correspond to the alarms noted by the police in their register.[23] This makes it plausible that she used her original - and vanished - notes from July 1943 for this B note.
\r\n\r\nIn March 1944, a bomber crashed into a school in Spaarndammerstraat, less than one and a half kilometres from the Secret Annex.[24] During the air battle Anne witnessed on 3 May 1944, a plane crashed in Van Bossestraat.[25] This was also a short distance from the Secret Annex. Planes also crashed in Tuindorp Oostzaan and Grote IJpolder that day.[26] Finally, a plane also crashed into the Carlton Hotel at the end of April.[25]
\r\n\r\nRelated to the dangers from the air and from anti-aircraft guns was the threat of acts of war and evacuations in the west of the Netherlands. Anne writes at length in early 1944 about the discussions between the people in hiding and the helpers when this danger threatened to take concrete forms.[27]
\r\n\r\nThe people in hiding were very concerned with their safety. They had all kinds of agreements and arrangements to avoid drawing attention to themselves. Although compliance slackened from time to time, they kept them reasonably well. Neither they nor the people helping them had any control over some dangers: there was obviously nothing they could have done about falling bombs or crashing aircraft. There are no reasons to suspect that laxity or underestimation of security measures contributed to their eventual arrest.
\r\n\r\nHet onopgemerkte verblijf in het Achterhuis werd op verschillende manieren bedreigd. Naast de kans dat onwetende bezoekers of omwonenden van het pand iets merkten, was er nog de kans op inbrekers, brand in of bij het gebouw, lichtuitstraling en luchtgevaar. Onderduikers en helpers waren zeer alert op riskante situaties en deden er veel aan om risico’s te vermijden.
\r\n\r\nVooral in de beginperiode kwam Annes angst voor buitenstaanders in het gebouw herhaaldelijk tot uitdrukking. In sommige gevallen waren dit vreemden, maar zeker niet altijd. De vertegenwoordigers, apotheker Arthus Lewinsohn, de accountant en sommige pakhuismannen waren min of meer bekenden. De loodgieter, de werkster, de timmerman en de andere pakhuismannen waren voor de onderduikers – voor zover we weten – onbekenden. Ook de bekenden vormden in Annes ogen een bedreiging. Er ontstond onrust toen Ans Broks te kennen gaf dat ze elke dag om twee uur op kantoor koffie wilde komen drinken.[1] Annes dagboek geeft af en toe aanwijzingen waaruit blijkt dat de onderduikers eveneens rekening hielden met de mogelijkheid dat mensen die in de buurpanden woonden of werkten hun aanwezigheid zouden ontdekken.
\r\n\r\nToen op een ochtend Peter van Pels was vergeten de grendel aan de binnenkant van de straatdeur te halen, konden Victor Kugler en de magazijnmannen niet naar binnen. Kugler moest via het pand van groothandel Keg op de Prinsengracht 265 en kon maar op het nippertje voorkomen dat een van de buren langs een ladder naar binnen klom.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn Annes dagboeken en verhaaltjes komen verschillende inbraken en pogingen daartoe voor. Broer en zus Wijnberg, die tijdens de onderduikperiode op Prinsengracht 251 woonden, vertelden in een interview dat ze op 24 maart 1943 als kind in het pand geweest waren en dat ze daar muskaatnoten hadden weggenomen.[3] Anne schrijft een dag later over haar eerste kennismaking met het fenomeen inbrekers.[4] De inbraak van 9 april 1944 wordt ook door een politierapport bevestigd, en wel doordat de passerende nachtwaker Martinus Slegers de ingetrapte deur opmerkte.[5] De B-versie vermeldt in de nacht van 15 op 16 juli 1943 een inbraak. Volgens diezelfde notitie was er zes weken eerder ook al een mislukte poging geweest.[6] In de A-versie schrijft Anne over een dief die mogelijk met een valse sleutel binnenkwam, althans er was aan de buitendeur niets te zien.[7]
\r\n\r\nDe wijdere omgeving kreeg uiteraard eveneens met criminaliteit te maken. Bij Keg op de Prinsengracht 265 zijn uit de politierapporten geen inbraken tijdens de onderduikperiode bekend, maar volgens het proces-verbaal van de Rijksrecherche uit 1963 zijn die er wel geweest. Volgens de Rijksrecherche was het personeel noodgedwongen zelfs geregeld ’s nachts aanwezig.[8] De dochter van filiaalchef Jacob Boon wist dat haar vader in de oorlogsjaren meer dan eens in zijn kantoor overnachtte.[9] In de nacht van 7 op 8 april 1943 drongen insluipers bij meubelfabriek Elhoek op nummer 261 binnen en stalen daar zeshonderd gulden en een schrijfmachine.[10] In november 1941 was daar ook al eens een muntmeter van het Gemeentelijk Energiebedrijf (GEB) leeggehaald.[11] Enkele jaren eerder was ook in het latere Opekta-pand de inhoud van een muntmeter door inbrekers gestolen.[12] Gezien het beleid van het GEB in de ‘klein-zakelijke’ markt was het zeer aannemelijk dat die meter na de komst van Opekta eind 1940 was blijven hangen.[13] Diefstal uit muntmeters was een zeer veel voorkomend verschijnsel. De aanwezigheid van zulke meters leverde dus zeker een extra risico op.
\r\n\r\nJohannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler maakten tijdens de onderduikperiode, voor zover na te gaan, geen melding van inbraken en diefstallen in hun pand. Daarna, in januari 1945, gaf Johan Broks - Kugler zat dan nog gevangen - namens Gies & Co. de diefstal van zeventig kilo suiker aan.[14]
\r\n\r\nBouwplannen voor het pand van Elhoek op Prinsengracht 261, gemaakt in juni 1940, tonen dat men daar met brandgevaarlijke materialen en technieken werkte, daar er uitgebreide adviezen omtrent zelfsluitende deuren, vluchtwegen en een brandblusleiding in waren opgenomen.[15] In het Opekta-pand werd ook rekening gehouden met brandgevaar. Een paar maanden voor de onderduik was er een klein brandje, toen verpakkingsmateriaal dat te dicht bij een kachel lag vlam vatte.[16] Er bevonden zich op verschillende plaatsen zogenaamde Minimax-toestellen. Een ervan hing op het overloopje voor de boekenkast. Die locatie was vanuit bedrijfsoogpunt ‘perifeer’, en zou met het oog op de onderduikers kunnen zijn gekozen: buiten de boekenkast, waardoor periodiek onderhoud – althans in theorie – probleemloos kon gebeuren. In de B-versie van het dagboek schrijft Anne, met de datum 20 oktober 1942, dat ze deze toestellen in huis ‘krijgen’, wat ze later wijzigt in ‘hebben’. Mogelijk zijn deze dus in de herfst van 1942 aangebracht, maar duidelijkheid is daar niet over.
\r\n\r\nVanwege de oorlogsomstandigheden golden er strikte verduisteringsmaatregelen. Gebruikers van woonhuizen en andere gebouwen waren verplicht maatregelen te treffen die tussen zonsondergang en zonsopgang lichtuitstraling moesten voorkomen. In de winter moesten de gordijnen tot veertien uur per etmaal gesloten blijven.[17] Optreden van politie en Luchtbescherming tegen overtreders was aan de orde van de dag. In de avond van 4 maart 1941 trapten agenten de toegangsdeur van het Opekta-pand in omdat in de hal een lamp brandde.[18] Toen de onderduik begon, ware onderduikers en helpers dat uiteraard nog niet vergeten. Het ver- en ontduisteren is in Annes geschriften herhaaldelijk aanwezig.[19] Tijdens de restauratie van 1958 zijn veel raamkozijnen vervangen. Van de Van Pels-kamer zijn enkele originelen echter nog in de museale collectie aanwezig en de hulpconstructies voor de verduistering zitten er nog aan.[20]
\r\n\r\nDe regelmatig terugkerende opmerkingen van Anne over schieten, sirenes en alarmeringen zijn waar mogelijk vergeleken met de luchtgevaarmeldingen die in het Amsterdamse politiearchief zijn bewaard. Een aantal in het oog lopende gevallen van ‘luchtgevaar’ is hier weergegeven.
\r\n\r\nIn geval van luchtalarm is een ieder verplicht naar de dichtstbijzijnde schuilkelder te gaan of op andere wijze dekking te zoeken.“Bij luchtalarm [...] van de straat!”, Nieuws van den Dag, 13 september 1940. In de ochtend van 6 juli 1942 is er geen luchtalarm, wat voor de Franks op weg naar de Prinsengracht een ernstige complicatie zou hebben betekend.
\r\n\r\nMet ingang van 10 juli 1943 introduceerde Rauter een ‘vooralarm’, dat aangaf dat geallieerde vliegtuigen het Nederlandse luchtruim binnenkwamen zonder dat direct bomaanvallen waren te verwachten. Het signaal droeg de benaming “waarschuwing luchtgevaar”.[21] Een week of twee later noemt Anne in de B-versie het gebruik van dit vooralarm als ze schrijft over de luchtaanvallen op de Fokker-fabriek in Amsterdam-Noord.[22] De herhaaldelijke alarmeringen die ze die dag in haar in retrospectief geschreven B-notitie opsomt, stemmen overeen met de alarmeringen die de politie in haar register noteert.[23] Dat maakt aannemelijk dat ze voor deze B-notitie haar originele - en verdwenen - notities uit juli ’43 gebruikte.
\r\n\r\nIn maart 1944 kwam een bommenwerper neer op een school in de Spaarndammerstraat, op nog geen anderhalve kilometer van het Achterhuis.[24] Tijdens het luchtgevecht waar Anne op 3 mei 1944 getuige van was, stortte een vliegtuig in de Van Bossestraat neer.[25] Dit was ook op korte afstand van het Achterhuis. Ook in Tuindorp Oostzaan en de Grote IJpolder kwamen die dag vliegtuigen neer.[26] Ten slotte stortte er eind april ook nog een vliegtuig neer op het Carlton Hotel.[25]
\r\n\r\nVerwant aan de gevaren vanuit de lucht en van afweergeschut was de dreiging van oorlogshandelingen en evacuaties in het westen van Nederland. Anne schrijft begin ‘44 uitvoerig over de discussies tussen onderduikers en helpers als dit gevaar concrete vormen dreigt aan te nemen.[27]
\r\n\r\nDe onderduikers waeen erg bezig met hun veiligheid. Ze hadden allerlei afspraken en regelingen om te voorkomen dat ze de aandacht op zich zouden vestigen. Hoewel het handhaven af en toe verslapte, hielden ze zich daar redelijk aan. Op sommige gevaren hadden zij noch de helpers enige invloed: tegen vallende bommen of neerstortende vliegtuigen was uiteraard geen kruid gewassen. Er zijn geen redenen om te vermoeden dat laksheid of onderschatting van de veiligheidsmaatregelen aan de uiteindelijke arrestatie hebben bijgedragen.
\r\n\r\nStaying unnoticed in the Secret Annex was threatened in several ways. Besides the chance that unwitting visitors or neighbours of the building might notice something, there was the possibility of burglars, fire in or near the building, light escaping and airborne threats. The people in hiding and the helpers were very alert to risky situations and did a lot to avoid risks.
\r\n\r\nEspecially in the early days, Anne repeatedly expressed her fear of outsiders in the building. In some cases these were strangers, but certainly not always. The sales representatives, pharmacist Arthur Lewinsohn, the accountant and some warehouse men were more or less acquaintances. The plumber, the cleaner, the carpenter and the other warehouse men were strangers to the people in hiding - as far as we know. The acquaintances also posed a threat in Anne's eyes. There was unease when Ans Broks said that she wanted to come to the office for coffee every day at two o'clock.[1] From time to time, Anne's diary provides clues showing that the people in hiding also took into account the possibility that people living or working in neighbouring premises would discover their presence.
\r\n\r\nOne morning, when Peter van Pels had forgotten to open the bolt on the inside of the street door, Victor Kugler and the warehousemen could not get in. Kugler had to go through the premises of wholesaler Keg on Prinsengracht 265 and only just managed to prevent one of the neighbours from climbing in via a ladder.[2]
\r\n\r\nSeveral break-ins and attempted break-ins are referred to in Anne's diaries and narratives. Brother and sister Wijnberg, who lived at Prinsengracht 251 during the period in hiding, said in an interview that they had been in the building as children on 24 March 1943 and had stolen muscatel nuts there.[3] Anne writes a day later about her first encounter with the phenomenon of burglars.[4] The break-in of 9 April 1944 is also confirmed by a police report, when the passing night watchman Martonus Slegers noticed the kicked-in door.[5] The B-version mentions a burglary on the night of 15-16 July 1943. According to the same passage, there had also been an unsuccessful attempt six weeks earlier.[6] In the A-version, Anne writes about a thief who may have entered with a false key, or at least nothing could be seen on the outside door.[7]
\r\n\r\nThe wider area, of course, also had to deal with crime. At Keg at Prinsengracht 265, police reports do not reveal any burglaries during the hiding period, but according to the 1963 official report of the National Criminal Investigation Department, there were burglaries. According to the State Investigation Department, by necessity, staff were even regularly present at night.[8] The daughter of branch manager Jacob Boon knew that her father spent the night in his office more than once during the war years.[9] In the night of 7-8 April 1943, burglars broke into Elhoek furniture factory at number 261 and stole six hundred guilders and a typewriter.[10] In November 1941, a coin meter of the Municipal Energy Company (GEB) had also been emptied there.[11] A few years earlier, the contents of a coin meter in the later Opekta premises had also been stolen by burglars.[12] Given GEB's policy in the 'small business' market, it was highly plausible that that meter had stayed behind after Opekta's arrival in the late 1940s.[13] Theft from coin meters was a very common phenomenon. So the presence of such meters certainly posed an additional risk.
\r\n\r\nJohannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler reported no burglaries or thefts on their premises during the period in hiding, as far as can be verified. Then, in January 1945, Johan Broks - Kugler was still in prison at the time - reported the theft of seventy kilos of sugar from Gies & Co.[14]
\r\n\r\nBuilding plans for Elhoek's premises at Prinsengracht 261, made in June 1940, show that people there were working with flammable materials and techniques, as they included extensive recommendations on self-closing doors, escape routes and a fire-extinguishing riser.[15] In the Opekta premises, fire hazards were also taken into account. A few months before going into hiding, there was a small fire when packaging material lying too close to a stove caught fire.[16] There were 'Minimax' appliances in several places. One was mounted on the landing in front of the bookcase. That location was 'peripheral' from a company point of view, and might have been chosen with the people in hiding in mind: outside the bookcase, allowing periodic maintenance to take place without problems - at least in theory. In the B-version of the diary, Anne writes, with the date 20 October 1942, that they 'got' these devices in the house, which she later changes to 'have'. It is therefore possible that they were fitted in the autumn of 1942, but there is no clarity on this.
\r\n\r\nDue to war conditions, strict blackout measures applied. Users of residential and other buildings were obliged to take measures to prevent light escaping between sunset and sunrise. In winter, curtains had to remain closed for up to 14 hours a day.[17] Police and Air Protection were quick to take action against violators. In the evening of 4 March 1941, officers kicked in the entrance door of the Opekta premises because a light was on in the hall.[18] Of course, when the period of hiding began, the people in hiding and helpers had not yet forgotten this. Anne's writings often refer to the closing and opening of the blackout curtains.[19] During the 1958 restoration, many window frames were replaced. However, some original frames from the Van Pels room are still in the museum collection, and the added constructions for blackout curtains are still attached.[20]
\r\n\r\nAnne's frequent comments on shots, sirens and alarms have been compared, where possible, with the air hazard reports preserved in the Amsterdam police archives. A few significant instances of 'air hazard' are shown here.
\r\n\r\nIn the event of an air siren, everyone was obliged to go to the nearest shelter or otherwise take cover. "If the air siren sounds [...] get off the streets!", Nieuws van den Dag, 13 September 1940. On the morning of 6 July 1942, there was no air siren, which would have meant a serious complication for the Franks on their way to Prinsengracht.
\r\n\r\nStarting on 10 July 1943, Rauter introduced an 'pre-alarm', which indicated that Allied aircraft were entering Dutch airspace without any immediate bomb attacks being expected. The alert was designated an 'air hazard warning'.[21] A week or two later, Anne mentions the use of this pre-alarm in the B-version when she writes about the air attacks on the Fokker factory in Amsterdam-Noord.[22] The repeated alarms she lists in her retrospectively written B note that day correspond to the alarms noted by the police in their register.[23] This makes it plausible that she used her original - and vanished - notes from July 1943 for this B note.
\r\n\r\nIn March 1944, a bomber crashed into a school in Spaarndammerstraat, less than one and a half kilometres from the Secret Annex.[24] During the air battle Anne witnessed on 3 May 1944, a plane crashed in Van Bossestraat.[25] This was also a short distance from the Secret Annex. Planes also crashed in Tuindorp Oostzaan and Grote IJpolder that day.[26] Finally, a plane also crashed into the Carlton Hotel at the end of April.[25]
\r\n\r\nRelated to the dangers from the air and from anti-aircraft guns was the threat of acts of war and evacuations in the west of the Netherlands. Anne writes at length in early 1944 about the discussions between the people in hiding and the helpers when this danger threatened to take concrete forms.[27]
\r\n\r\nThe people in hiding were very concerned with their safety. They had all kinds of agreements and arrangements to avoid drawing attention to themselves. Although compliance slackened from time to time, they kept them reasonably well. Neither they nor the people helping them had any control over some dangers: there was obviously nothing they could have done about falling bombs or crashing aircraft. There are no reasons to suspect that laxity or underestimation of security measures contributed to their eventual arrest.
\r\n\r\nThe objective of businesses is to sell products and/or services to customers, thereby generating revenue.
","description_nl":"Bedrijven hebben tot doel producten en/of diensten te verkopen aan klanten, waardoor omzet kan worden gedraaid.
","description_en":"The objective of businesses is to sell products and/or services to customers, thereby generating revenue.
","summary":"Businesses aim to sell products and/or services to customers, thereby generating revenue.","summary_nl":"Bedrijven hebben tot doel producten en/of diensten te verkopen aan klanten, waardoor omzet kan worden gedraaid.","summary_en":"Businesses aim to sell products and/or services to customers, thereby generating revenue.","same_as":["https://data.niod.nl/WO2_Thesaurus/2210"],"parent":null,"files":[]}],"related_locations":["https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/a699d98a-eab0-4e27-a4a1-f2c76df56892","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/04bc398b-9132-421d-be07-26d89aecf727","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/e81eeb71-37e6-4299-9a32-d4d419af2117","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/84898f4e-5c32-47d1-bff4-d377c343c5b2","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/5e6e4c0b-e255-4b81-9abc-a8b22fd9d87c","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/17e62508-f7db-41ee-bf60-e7f87d4dd63c","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/2aaa7b1a-46b7-49f3-9908-dd3a35052bd6","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/fca17b8f-5066-4200-a73e-76bccc6ef720","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/1a319571-a93e-4566-9396-a4d6e61833ed","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/41740528-a1d2-4a88-8b7c-c78e01a8ee6d","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/aedb3425-3b2c-4479-9d12-9ff63918c0b7","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/ea19e0cf-5fd7-4bb6-9dd9-63c328018639","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/4caabcc8-204b-438d-915c-1e6ea54630bb","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/83d54925-63d3-43a3-9f96-a9535224eb3d","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/0f90d12e-14ef-4acb-b44f-c3692319565a","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/6e7854d3-c834-44c4-9129-c742ff899d22","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/0cfff667-b7b7-42e2-b01b-848d60758275","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/18a78a8e-12a1-4e8c-b38f-20ab70ff1da5","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/f2e450aa-840f-4dd8-84cf-548ce515e6d0","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/efee09b0-5605-4f5b-894c-91a96938e30d","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/2ce70ffc-474f-4743-a9a8-dd4ed4e59c77","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/56d301cf-e04e-47fd-884b-6685a83f00b9","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/fa46b11f-7c2b-4fbc-ac9b-82fb58e805a6","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/22e16ce9-e2a5-476f-b517-7e48026e719e","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/f9bad9c3-50bb-41b5-b528-74c36e40d028","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/6b0dbaa0-4815-4f3e-ab1c-e0ee6196188e","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/c885285f-6d92-48fc-817f-543f6f20f9bf","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/5c893854-c6f4-4ec1-8bc7-3f53d91174cc","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/19fd3ff2-9edf-450d-8b63-bba458913e9f","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/45c5caab-86df-4b28-91ba-f2d9fd02d20e","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/ce8468a7-c299-43c3-a730-4b3009a56059","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/a4257fc0-726f-49b3-9912-80a4aacbacbb","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/a7bc55a0-7741-4259-a387-42959e20d899","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/caa75771-165a-46ed-a848-c3a9df9eb52c","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/ceacea5d-5d1a-4618-9cdc-de7c26765040","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/f0eef6aa-3307-4bab-899c-0d69504e3eb0","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/6e696049-a72e-459b-beba-e66fc4cbf66f"],"url":"https://research.annefrank.org/en/locaties/6ef7b88e-bdae-4edb-8265-23201452f19b/","published":true,"name":"Elhoek","name_nl":"Elhoek, Firma","name_en":"Elhoek","uuid":"6ef7b88e-bdae-4edb-8265-23201452f19b","content":"Address: Prinsengracht 261, Amsterdam.[1]
\r\n\r\nThe company was located in the neighbouring building at Prinsengracht 263. Elhoek was also a leather goods manufacturer.[2] The name was a combination of the names of business partners Van Elburg and Hoekstra. The workshops were on the second and third floors. When the weather was nice, the staff sometimes ate on the roof at lunchtime. They sometimes heard voices and therefore knew that there were people in the Secret Annex. However, they did not realize that these were people in hiding and they thought that the part of the building belonged to the Keg Tea and Coffee company.[3]
\r\n\r\nHendrik Johan van Elburg, one of the business partners, reported that intruders had stolen an amount of six hundred guilders and a typewriter from the company during the night of 7-8 April 1943.[4]
\r\n\r\nAdres: Prinsengracht 261, Amsterdam.[1]
\r\n\r\nDe firma was gevestid in het buurpand van Prinsengracht 263. Elhoek was ook lederwarenfabrikant.[2] De naam was een samentrekking van de namen Van Elburg en Hoekstra. De werkplaatsen waren op de tweede en derde verdieping. Het personeel at bij mooi weer tussen de middag wel eens in de dakgoot. Ze hoorden soms stemmen en wisten daardoor dat er mensen in het Achterhuis waren. Ze realiseerden zich echter niet dat het hier om onderduikers ging en ze dachten dat het deel van het pand van de firma Keg Thee en Koffie was.[3]
\r\n\r\nFirmant Hendrik Johan van Elburg meldde dat insluipers in de nacht van 7 op 8 april 1943 een bedrag van zeshonderd gulden en een schrijfmachine uit het bedrijf hadden gestolen.[4]
\r\n\r\nAddress: Prinsengracht 261, Amsterdam.[1]
\r\n\r\nThe company was located in the neighbouring building at Prinsengracht 263. Elhoek was also a leather goods manufacturer.[2] The name was a combination of the names of business partners Van Elburg and Hoekstra. The workshops were on the second and third floors. When the weather was nice, the staff sometimes ate on the roof at lunchtime. They sometimes heard voices and therefore knew that there were people in the Secret Annex. However, they did not realize that these were people in hiding and they thought that the part of the building belonged to the Keg Tea and Coffee company.[3]
\r\n\r\nHendrik Johan van Elburg, one of the business partners, reported that intruders had stolen an amount of six hundred guilders and a typewriter from the company during the night of 7-8 April 1943.[4]
\r\n\r\nOn 26 March 1934 Edith Frank wrote to Gertrud Naumann, a girl who used to live next door to them: "Anne möchte so gern in der Kindergarten, der aber noch überfült ist."[1] Two months later she was able to report that Anne was "Mit Freude in den Kindergarten".[2]
\r\n\r\nAnne went to kindergarten from 9 April 1934 to 13 July 1935.[3] This school 'No. 51 voor V.O.' was located in Dintelstraat and moved on 23 May 1934 to the address Niersstraat 43.[4] Anne was there when the school moved. From 3 September 1934 on, Hanneli Goslar was also in this kindergarten.[5]
\r\n
\r\nIn an album belonging to Anne Frank, there is a group photo with the caption "The Montessori Fröbelschool 1934 with Miss Baldal". There is also a photo with the caption "1935 with Miss Baldal."[6] The 1935 photo shows the following students:
Werner Basz, Irene Ceurvorst, Mary Distelbrink, Willy Engel, Anne Frank, Hannah (Hanneli) Goslar, Rita Goudeket, Alfred (Freddie) Hes, Max Houtkruijer, Elly van Kasteel, Sally Kimel, Gerard Kolder, Frederika (Freetje) de Leeuw, Jaap de Leeuw, Willy Meijer, Guus Mittelmeijer, Maurits Mossel, Wim Mudde, Klara (Klaartje) Musikant, Abraham (Ab/Appie) Reiner, Rebecca (Rela) Salomon, Simon Tak, Dolf Vecht, Renée Weber, Jan Wiegel, David Witjas, Hedwig Zander and three unknown students.[7]
\r\n\r\nTwelve children are numbered by Anne. These numbers correspond to the text on the back in Anne's handwriting: '1.) Claartje 2.) Rela Salomon 3.) Hannelie Goslar 4.) Willy Engel 5.) Irene Coster 6.) Appie Reyner 7.) Sally Kimmel 8.) Renée Weber 9.) Freetje de Leeuw 10.) Werner Bas 11.) Jaap de Leeuw 12.) Rita Goudeket.'[6]
\r\n\r\nIn 1955, the school was renamed De Blauwe Zeedistel.[8]
\r\n\r\nEdith Frank schreef op 26 maart 1934 aan het vroegere buurmeisje Gertrud Naumann: 'Anne möchte so gern in der Kindergarten, der aber noch überfült ist.[1] Twee maanden later kon ze melden dat Anne 'Mit Freude in den Kindergarten' ging.[2]
\r\n\r\nAnne ging naar de kleuterschool van 9 april 1934 tot 13 juli 1935.[3] Deze school "No. 51 voor V.O." was in de Dintelstraat gevestigd en verhuisde per 23 mei 1934 naar het adres Niersstraat 43.[4] Anne maakte die verhuizing mee. Vanaf 3 september 1934 zat Hanneli Goslar ook op deze kleuterschool.[5]
\r\n\r\nIn een album van Anne Frank zit een groepsfoto met het bijschrift De Montessori-fröbelschool 1934 bij juffrouw Baldal. Ook is er een foto met het bijschrift 1935 bij juffrouw Baldal.[6] Op de foto uit 1935 staan de volgende leerlingen:
\r\n\r\nWerner Basz, Irene Ceurvorst, Mary Distelbrink, Willy Engel, Anne Frank, Hannah (Hanneli) Goslar, Rita Goudeket, Alfred (Freddie) Hes, Max Houtkruijer, Elly van Kasteel, Sally Kimel, Gerard Kolder, Frederika (Freetje) de Leeuw, Jaap de Leeuw, Willy Meijer, Guus Mittelmeijer, Maurits Mossel, Wim Mudde, Klara (Klaartje) Musikant, Abraham (Ab/Appie) Reiner, Rebecca (Rela) Salomon, Simon Tak, Adolf (Dolf) Vecht, Renée Weber, Jan Wiegel, David Witjas, Hedwig Zander en drie onbekende leerlingen.[7]
\r\n\r\nTwaalf kinderen zijn op deze foto door Anne genummerd. Deze nummers corresponderen met de tekst op de achterkant in het handschrift van Anne: '1.) Claartje 2.) Rela Salomon 3.) Hannelie Goslar 4.) Willy Engel 5.) Irene Coster 6.) Appie Reyner 7.) Sally Kimmel 8.) Renée Weber 9.) Freetje de Leeuw 10.) Werner Bas 11.) Jaap de Leeuw 12.) Rita Goudeket.'[6]
\r\n\r\nIn 1955 kreeg de school de naam De Blauwe Zeedistel.[8]
\r\n\r\nOn 26 March 1934 Edith Frank wrote to Gertrud Naumann, a girl who used to live next door to them: "Anne möchte so gern in der Kindergarten, der aber noch überfült ist."[1] Two months later she was able to report that Anne was "Mit Freude in den Kindergarten".[2]
\r\n\r\nAnne went to kindergarten from 9 April 1934 to 13 July 1935.[3] This school 'No. 51 voor V.O.' was located in Dintelstraat and moved on 23 May 1934 to the address Niersstraat 43.[4] Anne was there when the school moved. From 3 September 1934 on, Hanneli Goslar was also in this kindergarten.[5]
\r\n
\r\nIn an album belonging to Anne Frank, there is a group photo with the caption "The Montessori Fröbelschool 1934 with Miss Baldal". There is also a photo with the caption "1935 with Miss Baldal."[6] The 1935 photo shows the following students:
Werner Basz, Irene Ceurvorst, Mary Distelbrink, Willy Engel, Anne Frank, Hannah (Hanneli) Goslar, Rita Goudeket, Alfred (Freddie) Hes, Max Houtkruijer, Elly van Kasteel, Sally Kimel, Gerard Kolder, Frederika (Freetje) de Leeuw, Jaap de Leeuw, Willy Meijer, Guus Mittelmeijer, Maurits Mossel, Wim Mudde, Klara (Klaartje) Musikant, Abraham (Ab/Appie) Reiner, Rebecca (Rela) Salomon, Simon Tak, Dolf Vecht, Renée Weber, Jan Wiegel, David Witjas, Hedwig Zander and three unknown students.[7]
\r\n\r\nTwelve children are numbered by Anne. These numbers correspond to the text on the back in Anne's handwriting: '1.) Claartje 2.) Rela Salomon 3.) Hannelie Goslar 4.) Willy Engel 5.) Irene Coster 6.) Appie Reyner 7.) Sally Kimmel 8.) Renée Weber 9.) Freetje de Leeuw 10.) Werner Bas 11.) Jaap de Leeuw 12.) Rita Goudeket.'[6]
\r\n\r\nIn 1955, the school was renamed De Blauwe Zeedistel.[8]
\r\n\r\nThe Rivierenbuurt is a neighbourhood located in the east of Amsterdam's Zuid district, bounded by the Amstel River to the east, the Boerenwetering to the west, the Amstel Canal to the north, and the Zuidelijke Wandelweg to the south. It is part of Plan Zuid, an urban development plan for Amsterdam South designed by architect H.P Berlage in the early 20th century.[1]
\r\n\r\nPlan Zuid consisted of three parts: the Apollobuurt and Stadionbuurt, aimed at the well-to-do, middle and working classes, and the Rivierenbuurt, aimed at the middle classes. A large part of the Nieuwe Pijp neighbourhood was also part of Plan Zuid. The urban plan envisaged that three main streets (the Amstellanen) would cut through the neighbourhood in a Y-shape, converging on Daniël Willinkplein, named after the Dutch writer Daniël Willink (1676-1722).[2] These were Amstellaan (after the war this became Stalinlaan and in 1956, after the Russian invasion of Hungary, changed to Vrijheidslaan), Noorder Amstellaan (now Churchilllaan) and Zuider Amstellaan (now Rooseveltlaan).[3] The other street names in the neighbourhood were named after Dutch rivers.[4]
\r\n\r\nThe houses in the Rivierenbuurt exerted great attraction on middle-class Jewish Amsterdammers from the early 1930s. In terms of size and amenities, they contrasted particularly favourably with the small, poor houses in the overcrowded Jewish quarter around Waterlooplein. Nevertheless, there was a lot of vacancy in the 1930s, and as a result, many German Jews who fled to the Netherlands from Nazi Germany also settled here, including the Frank and Van Pels families and some of their friends and acquaintances. The immigrants felt at home in this neighbourhood with its many fellow Jews. Eventually, by 1940, around 40 per cent of the Jews living in Amsterdam lived in this part of the city.[4]
\r\n\r\nDe Rivierenbuurt is een in het oosten van het Amsterdamse stadsdeel Zuid gelegen buurt, die wordt begrensd door de Amstelrivier in het oosten, de Boerenwetering in het westen, het Amstelkanaal in het noorden, en de Zuidelijke Wandelweg in het zuiden. Het maakt deel uit van Plan Zuid, een stedenbouwkundig plan voor Amsterdam-Zuid, dat in het begin van de 20e eeuw werd ontworpen door de architect H.P Berlage.[1]
\r\n\r\nPlan Zuid bestond uit drie delen: de Apollobuurt en de Stadionbuurt, gericht op welgestelden, middenklasse en arbeidersklasse, en de Rivierenbuurt, gericht op de middenklasse. Ook een groot deel van de buurt Nieuwe Pijp behoort tot het Plan Zuid. In het stedenbouwkundig plan was bedacht dat drie hoofdstraten (de Amstellanen) de buurt in een Y-vorm zouden doorsnijden, en samen zouden komen op het Daniël Willinkplein, een vernoeming naar de Nederlandse schrijver Daniël Willink (1676-1722).[2] Dit waren de Amstellaan (na de oorlog werd dit de Stalinlaan en in 1956, na de Russische inval in Hongarije, gewijzigd in Vrijheidslaan), Noorder Amstellaan (nu Churchill-laan) en Zuider Amstellaan (nu Rooseveltlaan).[3] De overige straatnamen in de buurt werden vernoemd naar Nederlandse rivieren.[4]
\r\n\r\nDe woningen in de Rivierenbuurt oefenden vanaf het begin van de jaren dertig grote aantrekkingskracht uit op Joodse Amsterdammers uit de middenklasse. Qua grootte en voorzieningen staken zij bijzonder gunstig af tegen de kleine, slechte woningen in de overbevolkte Jodenbuurt rond het Waterlooplein. Toch was er in de jaren dertig veel leegstand, en daardoor streken ook veel Duitse Joden die vanuit nazi-Duitsland naar Nederland vluchtten, hier neer, waaronder ook de families Frank en Van Pels en een aantal van hun vrienden en kennissen. De immigranten voelden zich thuis in deze buurt met de vele geloofsgenoten. Uiteindelijk woonde in 1940 zo'n 40% van de in Amsterdam wonende Joden in dit deel van de stad.[4]
\r\n\r\nThe Rivierenbuurt is a neighbourhood located in the east of Amsterdam's Zuid district, bounded by the Amstel River to the east, the Boerenwetering to the west, the Amstel Canal to the north, and the Zuidelijke Wandelweg to the south. It is part of Plan Zuid, an urban development plan for Amsterdam South designed by architect H.P Berlage in the early 20th century.[1]
\r\n\r\nPlan Zuid consisted of three parts: the Apollobuurt and Stadionbuurt, aimed at the well-to-do, middle and working classes, and the Rivierenbuurt, aimed at the middle classes. A large part of the Nieuwe Pijp neighbourhood was also part of Plan Zuid. The urban plan envisaged that three main streets (the Amstellanen) would cut through the neighbourhood in a Y-shape, converging on Daniël Willinkplein, named after the Dutch writer Daniël Willink (1676-1722).[2] These were Amstellaan (after the war this became Stalinlaan and in 1956, after the Russian invasion of Hungary, changed to Vrijheidslaan), Noorder Amstellaan (now Churchilllaan) and Zuider Amstellaan (now Rooseveltlaan).[3] The other street names in the neighbourhood were named after Dutch rivers.[4]
\r\n\r\nThe houses in the Rivierenbuurt exerted great attraction on middle-class Jewish Amsterdammers from the early 1930s. In terms of size and amenities, they contrasted particularly favourably with the small, poor houses in the overcrowded Jewish quarter around Waterlooplein. Nevertheless, there was a lot of vacancy in the 1930s, and as a result, many German Jews who fled to the Netherlands from Nazi Germany also settled here, including the Frank and Van Pels families and some of their friends and acquaintances. The immigrants felt at home in this neighbourhood with its many fellow Jews. Eventually, by 1940, around 40 per cent of the Jews living in Amsterdam lived in this part of the city.[4]
\r\n\r\n"I witnessed a terrific air battle between German and British planes", Anne wrote in het diary.[1] She was not the only one who mistook the New Zealanders for British. That misunderstanding made no difference for what happened next.
\r\n\r\nIn the late afternoon, the squadron of the 487th Squadron of the Royal New Zealand Air Force flew in from England. By an unfortunate coincidence, the Luftwaffe was able to attack them as early as the coast, knocking fighters and bombers out of formation.[2] Shot down by German fighters, planes crashed in the Grote IJpolder, the Kometensingel and in the Van Bossestraat, barely a kilometer from the Secret Annexe.[3] Several others exploded in mid-flight and wing sections, exploded and unexploded shells, cockpit turrets and other debris landed in various parts of the city.[4] Outside Amsterdam, planes crashed in Haarlem, Bennebroek, Vijfhuizen and in the North Sea.[3] There were many victims among the New Zealanders, twelve were buried in Amsterdam. Some Amsterdam citizens were also killed.
\r\n\r\nVarious police stations and post offices reported the crash, explosions, casualties and debris in various ways.[4] But the policeman in the post office at Central Station was the first to use the same word as Anne: an air battle.[5]
\r\n\r\n'Ik ben toeschouwster geweest van een hevig luchtgevecht tussen Duitse en Engelse vliegers', schreef Anne in haar dagboek.[1] Zij was niet de enige die de Nieuw-Zeelanders aanzag voor Britten. Voor het vervolg maakte dat misverstand ook geen verschil.
\r\n\r\nAan het einde van de middag kwam het eskader van het 487th Squadron van de Royal New Zealand Air Force vanuit Engeland aanvliegen. Door een ongelukkige samenloop van omstandigheden was de Luftwaffe in staat ze al bij de kust aan te vallen, waardoor gevechtsvliegtuigen en bommenwerpers uit formatie raakten.[2] Neergeschoten door Duitse jagers stortten er vliegtuigen neer in de Grote IJpolder, de Kometensingel en in de Van Bossestraat, nauwelijks een kilometer van het Achterhuis.[3] Enkele anderen explodeerden in volle vlucht en vleugeldelen, wel of niet ontplofte granaten, cockpitkoepels en andere brokstukken kwamen in verschillende delen van de stad terecht.[4] Buiten Amsterdam stortten nog vliegtuigen neer in Haarlem, Bennebroek, Vijfhuizen en in de Noordzee.[3] Onder de Nieuw-Zeelanders vielen veel slachtoffers, twaalf werden er in Amsterdam begraven. Ook onder de Amsterdamse burgerij vielen doden.
\r\n\r\nDiverse politiebureaus en posthuizen maakten op uiteenlopende wijze melding van het neerstorten, de explosies, de slachtoffers en de brokstukken.[4] Maar de politieman in het posthuis op het Centraal Station gebruikte als eerste hetzelfde woord als Anne: een luchtgevecht.[5]
\r\n\r\n"I witnessed a terrific air battle between German and British planes", Anne wrote in het diary.[1] She was not the only one who mistook the New Zealanders for British. That misunderstanding made no difference for what happened next.
\r\n\r\nIn the late afternoon, the squadron of the 487th Squadron of the Royal New Zealand Air Force flew in from England. By an unfortunate coincidence, the Luftwaffe was able to attack them as early as the coast, knocking fighters and bombers out of formation.[2] Shot down by German fighters, planes crashed in the Grote IJpolder, the Kometensingel and in the Van Bossestraat, barely a kilometer from the Secret Annexe.[3] Several others exploded in mid-flight and wing sections, exploded and unexploded shells, cockpit turrets and other debris landed in various parts of the city.[4] Outside Amsterdam, planes crashed in Haarlem, Bennebroek, Vijfhuizen and in the North Sea.[3] There were many victims among the New Zealanders, twelve were buried in Amsterdam. Some Amsterdam citizens were also killed.
\r\n\r\nVarious police stations and post offices reported the crash, explosions, casualties and debris in various ways.[4] But the policeman in the post office at Central Station was the first to use the same word as Anne: an air battle.[5]
\r\n\r\nThe bombs missed their target completely and landed on a residential neighbourhood. More than 150 civilians lost their lives. Many victims later succumbed to their injuries.[1]
\r\n\r\nAnne Frank writes in her diary:
\r\n\r\n"North Amsterdam was very heavily bombed on Sunday. The devastation seems to be terrible, whole streets lie in ruins (…). You hear of chldren lost in the smouldering ruins, looking for their parents. I shudder when I recall the dull, droning rumble in the distance (…)." [2]\r\n\r\n
De bommen misten hun doel volledig en kwamen terecht op een woonwijk. Meer dan 150 burgers verloren hun leven. Veel slachtoffers bezweken later aan hun verwondingen.[1]
\r\n\r\nAnne Frank schrijft in haar dagboek:
\r\n\r\n‘Zondag is Amsterdam‑Noord heel zwaar gebombardeerd. De verwoesting moet ontzettend zijn, hele straten liggen in puin (…). Je hoort van kinderen die verloren in de smeulende ruïnes naar hun dode ouders zoeken. Rillingen krijg ik als ik nog aan het doffe, dreunende gerommel in de verte denk (…).' [2]\r\n\r\n
The bombs missed their target completely and landed on a residential neighbourhood. More than 150 civilians lost their lives. Many victims later succumbed to their injuries.[1]
\r\n\r\nAnne Frank writes in her diary:
\r\n\r\n"North Amsterdam was very heavily bombed on Sunday. The devastation seems to be terrible, whole streets lie in ruins (…). You hear of chldren lost in the smouldering ruins, looking for their parents. I shudder when I recall the dull, droning rumble in the distance (…)." [2]\r\n\r\n
The objective of businesses is to sell products and/or services to customers, thereby generating revenue.
","description_nl":"Bedrijven hebben tot doel producten en/of diensten te verkopen aan klanten, waardoor omzet kan worden gedraaid.
","description_en":"The objective of businesses is to sell products and/or services to customers, thereby generating revenue.
","summary":"Businesses aim to sell products and/or services to customers, thereby generating revenue.","summary_nl":"Bedrijven hebben tot doel producten en/of diensten te verkopen aan klanten, waardoor omzet kan worden gedraaid.","summary_en":"Businesses aim to sell products and/or services to customers, thereby generating revenue.","same_as":["https://data.niod.nl/WO2_Thesaurus/2210"],"parent":null,"files":[]},{"id":194,"image":{"id":970,"uuid":"08ca1ef9-c15a-4001-a1fb-26ce9e07998a","name":"Landkaart van Normandië met de voortgang van de Geallieerde troepen na de invasie van 6 juni 1944","title":"Landkaart van Normandië met de voortgang van de Geallieerde troepen na de invasie van 6 juni 1944","alt":"Collectie: Anne Frank Stichting","url":"https://images.memorix.nl/anf/thumb/1920x1080/82d3da0f-6fa3-05a7-74e5-bb5576ebdd91.jpg","path":null,"filetype":"image","description":"Dit kaartje stond op 7 en 8 juni 1944 op de voorpagina van de Telegraaf. Gezien de vouw, links van Deauville, is het waarschijnlijk het kaartje uit de Telegraaf van 8 juni. Op 6 juni 1944, ofwel D-Day, landden de geallieerden in Normandië in Frankrijk. Otto Frank knipte het landkaartje uit de Telegraaf en hing het naast de groeistreepjes op de muur van de woon- slaapkamer. Met knopspelden hield hij de vorderingen van de geallieerden bij. Op de wand geprikt in de kamer van Otto , Edith en Margot Frank in het achterhuis op de tweede verdieping van Prinsengracht 263.\r\nDit object maakt deel uit van een reeks onderdelen van het interieur van het achterhuis. Het Achterhuis bestond uit zes verdiepingen. Op de begane grond en de eerste verdieping bevond zich het achtermagazijn kantoorruimte en opslagruimte. De onderduikers leefden op de tweede en derde verdieping. Op de vierde en de vijfde verdieping bevonden zich de zolder en de vliering.","author":"De collectie kan worden ingezet voor publiek","copyright":"Publiek domein"},"url":"https://research.annefrank.org/en/onderwerpen/3c23b216-9276-456b-b53d-370173d568f8/","published":true,"uuid":"3c23b216-9276-456b-b53d-370173d568f8","name":"The war in the Secret Annex","name_nl":"De oorlog in het Achterhuis","name_en":"The war in the Secret Annex","description":"There was a lot of talk about 'politics' in the Secret Annex. In concrete terms, this mainly concerned military operations and their course. And of course the very specific anti-Jewish measures, as part of the war conditions in general, that made going into hiding necessary. These measures are discussed in the topic Anti-Jewish measures. Here we are concerned with the perception of the more general wartime developments in the Netherlands and abroad. Since the Allied victory was obviously vital for the people in hiding, they followed the progress closely. Their information came from the radio, was related by the helpers or came from the mainstream or underground newspapers and magazines they brought with them.
\r\n\r\nAnne occasionally wrote in her diary, which she started in June 1942, about the invasion of the Netherlands in May 1940. She did not include any concrete memories of those battles, despite the fact that there had been a lot of air activity over Amsterdam-Zuid because of its proximity to Schiphol Airport. Three days before her thirteenth birthday, on 9 June 1942, a transmitting device from an English plane came down on the roof of Merwedeplein 8,[1] but Anne did not talk about this. A few days after her birthday, she remembered that she couldn't celebrate her birthday in 1940 because of the invasion that had just taken place.[2] In July 1942, Anne wrote retrospectively about the war in Europe, the invasion of the Netherlands and the increasingly far-reaching measures against the Jews.[3]
\r\n\r\nThe diary does contain several references to resistance activities and German reactions to them. For example, in October 1942, newspapers carried the news that 15 hostages had been shot, which Anne recorded in her diary.[4] She also mentions arson at the Labour Exchange and the Register of Population. She places these events, when she writes the note in 1944, "a few days" apart.[5] In reality, the incidents took place on 10 February[6] and 27 March 1943.[7] The discrepancies between the A and B versions of Anne's diary play a confusing role in this respect.
\r\n\r\nDue to the frequent air activity, the air raid alarm often went off in Amsterdam. This frightened Anne, especially when anti-aircraft guns were in action. 'Shooting' is a theme that often recurs.[8] Anne mentions in her diary the heavy attacks on the Fokker factories in Noord and on the port of IJmuiden.[9] Her notes on Fokker, in which she mentions the many alerts from the Air Protection Service, correspond well with the 'air hazard' reports recorded by the police.[10] This seems to indicate that she based this note in the B-version, in which 1943 is only discussed retrospectively, on her earlier notes - which have been lost.
\r\n\r\nIn addition to a plane crashing into the Carlton Hotel in late April 1943,[11] two more planes crashed close to the Secret Annex. On 22 March 1944, an American bomber crashed into a school on Spaarndammerstraat.[12] In an air battle on 3 May, several Allied aircraft exploded in the sky over Amsterdam, and others crashed in and around the city.[13] One plane came down in Van Bossestraat.[11] All three of these locations were less than a kilometre and a half away. Anne also notes these incidents.[14]
\r\n\r\nIn early 1944, fears grew that the Netherlands could become a warzone. German authorities warned of the far-reaching consequences of this, such as the inundation of parts of the country. The Haagsche Post published a map showing what consequences inundation of the western Netherlands would have.[15] Seyss-Inquart refuted the rumours about evacuation of the cities in the west, and had proclamations posted urging the population to continue their daily lives.[16] In the Secret Annex, these proclamations and notices led to fear. Anne refers to the inundation map, and describes making plans to stockpile water in basket bottles. The possible consequences of an evacuation were discussed with Jan Gies, among others.[17]
\r\n\r\nIn June 1944, it came to Anne's attention that Anton Mussert announced he would serve in the German army in the event of an Allied invasion of the Netherlands. That announcement, made at a meeting in the Concertgebouw, made its way into the daily newspapers on Anne's birthday.[18] Some two weeks later, she put it in her diary.[19]
\r\n\r\nIn late 1942, Anne wrote that Stalingrad had still not been captured by the Germans.[20] She kept pretty good track of subsequent developments on the Eastern Front. She notes when Soviet troops are at the Gouvernement-Generale, near Romania, in front of Odessa and around Ternopil.[21] Further notes follow in June and July 1944, including on the fall of Zhlobin and Orsja.[22] Her notes match the information available through legal and illegal channels at the time.[23]
\r\n\r\nThe British offensive in North Africa in autumn 1942 fuelled hopes that Germany would soon be defeated. Anne, however, showed a fear of "new blunders".[24] By the latter, she was most likely referring to Operation Jubilee, the so-called 'trial landing' at Dieppe that was widely seen as a fiasco.[25] Anne continued to report in her diary on the course of the battle in North Africa.[26] By the end of 1942, 'the gentlemen' were upbeat about the course of the battle.[27]
\r\n\r\nAfter the Allies landed in Italy, their progress was discussed. Or the lack of it, when the offensive at Monte Cassino stalled.[28] However, days before D-Day, she noted the Fifth Army's capture of Rome.[29]
\r\n\r\nIn March '43, Turkey's position in the international arena shifted. Confusing reports of this emerge in the Secret Annex and in Anne's diary.[30]
\r\n\r\nLike countless others in the Netherlands and worldwide, the people in the Secret Annex were eagerly awaiting the opening of the 'third front' in Western Europe. In early 1944, everyone seemed to think that it was almost there. Churchill predicted that within weeks the world was about to witness the biggest military operation in history.[31] This increased the 'invasion mood' in the Secret Annex.[32] In the following months, this kept the people in hiding busy. In early May, Anne wrote that the Allies could not just leave everything to the Soviets after all.[33] She lost a bet with Mrs Van Pels about it.[34] When the invasion did start on 6 June 1944, the people in hiding still thought at breakfast that it was another 'trial landing'.[35] Anne described the course of the battle after D-Day, also mentioning the capture of five German generals and the deployment of the German 'miracle weapons'.[36] They kept track of Allied progress on a map cut from De Telegraaf .[37] Optimism among them was high again. Otto Frank and Hermann van Pels claimed they would be free by 10 October at the latest.[38] Following the failed assassination attempt on Hitler, Anne last noted anything to do with the war developments on 21 July 1944.[39]
\r\n\r\nThe outcome is well known: on 4 August 1944, the Sicherheitsdienst arrested the people in the Secret Annex, as well as the helpers Kugler and Kleiman. All cherished hopes of timely liberation were thus dashed.
\r\n\r\nEr wordt in het Achterhuis zeer veel over ‘de politiek’ gesproken. De facto gaat het dan vooral om militaire operaties en hun verloop. Verder zijn het uiteraard de zeer specifieke anti-Joodse maatregelen, als onderdeel van de oorlogsomstandigheden in het algemeen, die het onderduiken noodzakelijk maken. Deze maatregelen komen in het onderwerp Anti-Joodse maatregelen aan bod. Hier gaat het om de beleving van de algemenere oorlogsontwikkelingen in Nederland en daarbuiten. Omdat de geallieerde overwinning voor de onderduikers natuurlijk van levensbelang is, volgen ze de voortgang op de voet. Hun informatie komt van de radio, wordt verteld door de helpers of is afkomstig uit de (boven- of ondergrondse) bladen die deze meebrengen.
\r\n\r\nAnne schrijft in haar in juni 1942 begonnen dagboek af en toe over de oorlogsdagen van mei ‘40 in Nederland. Concrete herinneringen aan de strijd in de meidagen zijn daar niet bij, terwijl boven Amsterdam-Zuid vanwege de nabijheid van Schiphol veel luchtactiviteit is geweest. Drie dagen voor haar dertiende verjaardag, op 9 juni 1942, kwam een zendapparaat uit een Engels vliegtuig neer op het dak van Merwedeplein 8,[1] maar Anne heeft het hier niet over. Een paar dagen na haar verjaardag bedenkt ze dat haar verjaardag er in 1940 bij inschoot vanwege de oorlog die toen net was uitgevochten.[2] In juli ’42 schrijft Anne in retrospectieve zin over de oorlog in Europa, de inval in Nederland en de steeds verdergaande maatregelen tegen de Joden.[3]
\r\n\r\nEr staan in het dagboek wel meerdere verwijzingen naar verzetsactiviteiten en de Duitse reacties daarop. Zo brachten de kranten in oktober ’42 het nieuws dat er vijftien gijzelaars waren doodgeschoten, wat Anne in haar dagboek opnam.[4] Ze maakt ook melding van brandstichtingen bij de Arbeidsbeurs en het Bevolkingsregister. Deze gebeurtenissen plaatst ze, als ze in 1944 de notitie schrijft, 'een paar dagen' na elkaar.[5] In werkelijkheid vonden de incidenten plaats op respectievelijk 10 februari[6] en 27 maart 1943.[7] Hier spelen de discrepanties tussen A- en B- versies van Annes dagboek een verwarrende rol.
\r\n\r\nDoor de vele luchtactiviteit ging in Amsterdam vaak het luchtalarm af. Dit joeg Anne angst aan, vooral als daarbij de luchtafweer in actie kwam. Het ‘schieten’ is een thema dat vaak terugkomt.[8] De zware aanvallen op de Fokkerfabrieken in Noord en op de haven van IJmuiden vinden een plaats in Annes dagboek.[9] Haar notities over Fokker, waarin ze de vele alarmeringen van de Luchtbescherming noemt, stemmen goed overeen met de ‘luchtgevaar’-meldingen die de politie optekende.[10] Dat lijkt er op te wijzen dat ze deze notitie in de B-versie, waarin 1943 alleen in retrospectief aan bod komt, baseerde op haar eerdere aantekeningen - die verloren zijn gegaan.
\r\n\r\nNaast een vliegtuig dat eind april ‘43 op het Carlton Hotel neerkwam,[11] stortten er nog twee keer vliegtuigen dichtbij het Achterhuis neer. Op 22 maart 1944 kwam een Amerikaanse bommenwerper terecht op een school in de Spaarndammerstraat.[12] Bij een luchtgevecht op 3 mei ontploften boven Amsterdam enkele geallieerde toestellen in de lucht; andere stortten in en om de stad neer.[13] Een toestel kwam neer in de Van Bossestraat.[11] Deze locaties waren alle drie op minder dan anderhalve kilometer afstand. Anne noteert ook deze incidenten.[14]
\r\n\r\nBegin ’44 nam de vrees toe dat Nederland strijdtoneel kan worden. Duitse autoriteiten waarschuwden voor de verstrekkende gevolgen, zoals het inunderen van delen van het land. De Haagsche Post publiceerde een landkaartje waarop is aangegeven welke gevolgen inundatie van West-Nederland zou hebben.[15] Seyss-Inquart weersprak de geruchten over evacuatie van de steden in het westen, en liet proclamaties aanplakken die de bevolking aanmaandn het dagelijks leven voort te zetten.[16] In het Achterhuis leidden die proclamaties en berichten tot angst. Anne refereert aan het inundatiekaartje, en beschrijft het maken van plannen om een watervoorraad in mandflessen aan te leggen. De mogelijke gevolgen van een evacuatie werden met onder andere Jan Gies besproken.[17]
\r\n\r\nIn juni ’44 kwam het Anne ter ore dat Anton Mussert aankondigde bij een geallieerde inval in Nederland dienst in het Duitse leger te zullen nemen. Die aankondiging, gedaan op een bijeenkomst in het Concertgebouw, kwam op Annes verjaardag in de dagbladen terecht.[18] Zo’n twee weken later zet ze het in haar dagboek.[19]
\r\n\r\nEind ’42 schrijft Anne dat Stalingrad nog altijd niet door de Duitsers veroverd was.[20] De latere ontwikkelingen aan het Oostfront hield ze vrij goed bij. Ze noteert wanneer de Sovjettroepen bij het Gouvernement-Generaal, vlakbij Roemenië, voor Odessa en rondom Ternopil staan.[21] In juni en juli ’44 volgen er nog notities over onder meer over de val van Zhlobin en Orsja.[22] Haar notities stemmen overeen met de destijds via legale en illegale kanalen beschikbare informatie.[23]
\r\n\r\nHet Engelse offensief in Noord-Afrika voedde in de herfst van 1942 de hoop dat Duitsland snel zou zijn verslagen. Anne toont zich echter wel bevreesd voor ‘nieuwe blunders’.[24] Met dit laatste doelde ze zeer waarschijnlijk op Operation Jubilee, de zogenaamde ‘proeflanding’ bij Dieppe die algemeen als een fiasco wordt gezien.[25] Anne blijft in haar dagboek verslag doen van het verloop van de strijd in Noord-Afrika.[26] Tegen het einde van 1942 waren ‘de heren’ vrolijk over het verloop van de strijd.[27]
\r\n\r\nNadat de geallieerden de sprong naar Italië maakten, komen hun vorderingen aan de orde. Of het gebrek er aan, toen het offensief bij Monte Cassino vastliep.[28] Daags voor D-Day kan ze echter de verovering van Rome door het Vijfde Leger noteren.[29]
\r\n\r\nIn maart ’43 verschoof de positie van Turkije in het internationale krachtenveld. De verwarrende berichten hierover komen in het Achterhuis en in Annes dagboek terecht.[30]
\r\n\r\nNet als talloze anderen in Nederland en wereldwijd wachtten de onderduikers met smart op de opening van het ‘derde front’ in West-Europa. Begin ’44 leejt iedereen te denken dat het bijna zo ver was. Churchill voorspelde dat de wereld binnen enkele weken de grootste militaire operatie uit de geschiedenis ging meemaken.[31] De ‘invasie-stemming’ in het Achterhuis nam hierdoor toe.[32] In de volgende maanden hield dit de onderduikers bezig. Begin mei schrijft Anne dat de geallieerden toch niet alles maar aan de Sovjettroepen over kunnen laten.[33] Ze verliest er een weddenschap over met mevrouw Van Pels.[34] Als op 6 juni 1944 de invasie toch komt, denken de onderduikers aan het ontbijt nog dat het opnieuw een ‘proeflanding’ is.[35] Anne beschrijft het verloop van de strijd na D-Day, en vermeldt daarbij ook het gevangennemen van vijf Duitse generaals en de inzet van de Duitse ‘wonderwapens’.[36] De onderduikers hielden de geallieerde vorderingen op een uit De Telegraaf geknipt kaartje bij.[37] Het optimisme onder hen was opnieuw groot. Otto Frank en Hermann van Pels beweerdn dat ze uiterlijk 10 oktober vrij zouden zijn.[38] Naar aanleiding van de mislukte aanslag op Hitler noteert Anne op 21 juli 1944 voor het laatst iets dat met de oorlogsontwikkelingen heeft te maken.[39]
\r\n\r\nDe afloop is bekend: op 4 augustus 1944 arresteerde de Sicherheitsdienst de onderduikers in het Achterhuis, en ook de helpers Kugler en Kleiman. Alle gekoesterde hoop op tijdige bevrijding werd hiermee gelogenstraft.
\r\n\r\nThere was a lot of talk about 'politics' in the Secret Annex. In concrete terms, this mainly concerned military operations and their course. And of course the very specific anti-Jewish measures, as part of the war conditions in general, that made going into hiding necessary. These measures are discussed in the topic Anti-Jewish measures. Here we are concerned with the perception of the more general wartime developments in the Netherlands and abroad. Since the Allied victory was obviously vital for the people in hiding, they followed the progress closely. Their information came from the radio, was related by the helpers or came from the mainstream or underground newspapers and magazines they brought with them.
\r\n\r\nAnne occasionally wrote in her diary, which she started in June 1942, about the invasion of the Netherlands in May 1940. She did not include any concrete memories of those battles, despite the fact that there had been a lot of air activity over Amsterdam-Zuid because of its proximity to Schiphol Airport. Three days before her thirteenth birthday, on 9 June 1942, a transmitting device from an English plane came down on the roof of Merwedeplein 8,[1] but Anne did not talk about this. A few days after her birthday, she remembered that she couldn't celebrate her birthday in 1940 because of the invasion that had just taken place.[2] In July 1942, Anne wrote retrospectively about the war in Europe, the invasion of the Netherlands and the increasingly far-reaching measures against the Jews.[3]
\r\n\r\nThe diary does contain several references to resistance activities and German reactions to them. For example, in October 1942, newspapers carried the news that 15 hostages had been shot, which Anne recorded in her diary.[4] She also mentions arson at the Labour Exchange and the Register of Population. She places these events, when she writes the note in 1944, "a few days" apart.[5] In reality, the incidents took place on 10 February[6] and 27 March 1943.[7] The discrepancies between the A and B versions of Anne's diary play a confusing role in this respect.
\r\n\r\nDue to the frequent air activity, the air raid alarm often went off in Amsterdam. This frightened Anne, especially when anti-aircraft guns were in action. 'Shooting' is a theme that often recurs.[8] Anne mentions in her diary the heavy attacks on the Fokker factories in Noord and on the port of IJmuiden.[9] Her notes on Fokker, in which she mentions the many alerts from the Air Protection Service, correspond well with the 'air hazard' reports recorded by the police.[10] This seems to indicate that she based this note in the B-version, in which 1943 is only discussed retrospectively, on her earlier notes - which have been lost.
\r\n\r\nIn addition to a plane crashing into the Carlton Hotel in late April 1943,[11] two more planes crashed close to the Secret Annex. On 22 March 1944, an American bomber crashed into a school on Spaarndammerstraat.[12] In an air battle on 3 May, several Allied aircraft exploded in the sky over Amsterdam, and others crashed in and around the city.[13] One plane came down in Van Bossestraat.[11] All three of these locations were less than a kilometre and a half away. Anne also notes these incidents.[14]
\r\n\r\nIn early 1944, fears grew that the Netherlands could become a warzone. German authorities warned of the far-reaching consequences of this, such as the inundation of parts of the country. The Haagsche Post published a map showing what consequences inundation of the western Netherlands would have.[15] Seyss-Inquart refuted the rumours about evacuation of the cities in the west, and had proclamations posted urging the population to continue their daily lives.[16] In the Secret Annex, these proclamations and notices led to fear. Anne refers to the inundation map, and describes making plans to stockpile water in basket bottles. The possible consequences of an evacuation were discussed with Jan Gies, among others.[17]
\r\n\r\nIn June 1944, it came to Anne's attention that Anton Mussert announced he would serve in the German army in the event of an Allied invasion of the Netherlands. That announcement, made at a meeting in the Concertgebouw, made its way into the daily newspapers on Anne's birthday.[18] Some two weeks later, she put it in her diary.[19]
\r\n\r\nIn late 1942, Anne wrote that Stalingrad had still not been captured by the Germans.[20] She kept pretty good track of subsequent developments on the Eastern Front. She notes when Soviet troops are at the Gouvernement-Generale, near Romania, in front of Odessa and around Ternopil.[21] Further notes follow in June and July 1944, including on the fall of Zhlobin and Orsja.[22] Her notes match the information available through legal and illegal channels at the time.[23]
\r\n\r\nThe British offensive in North Africa in autumn 1942 fuelled hopes that Germany would soon be defeated. Anne, however, showed a fear of "new blunders".[24] By the latter, she was most likely referring to Operation Jubilee, the so-called 'trial landing' at Dieppe that was widely seen as a fiasco.[25] Anne continued to report in her diary on the course of the battle in North Africa.[26] By the end of 1942, 'the gentlemen' were upbeat about the course of the battle.[27]
\r\n\r\nAfter the Allies landed in Italy, their progress was discussed. Or the lack of it, when the offensive at Monte Cassino stalled.[28] However, days before D-Day, she noted the Fifth Army's capture of Rome.[29]
\r\n\r\nIn March '43, Turkey's position in the international arena shifted. Confusing reports of this emerge in the Secret Annex and in Anne's diary.[30]
\r\n\r\nLike countless others in the Netherlands and worldwide, the people in the Secret Annex were eagerly awaiting the opening of the 'third front' in Western Europe. In early 1944, everyone seemed to think that it was almost there. Churchill predicted that within weeks the world was about to witness the biggest military operation in history.[31] This increased the 'invasion mood' in the Secret Annex.[32] In the following months, this kept the people in hiding busy. In early May, Anne wrote that the Allies could not just leave everything to the Soviets after all.[33] She lost a bet with Mrs Van Pels about it.[34] When the invasion did start on 6 June 1944, the people in hiding still thought at breakfast that it was another 'trial landing'.[35] Anne described the course of the battle after D-Day, also mentioning the capture of five German generals and the deployment of the German 'miracle weapons'.[36] They kept track of Allied progress on a map cut from De Telegraaf .[37] Optimism among them was high again. Otto Frank and Hermann van Pels claimed they would be free by 10 October at the latest.[38] Following the failed assassination attempt on Hitler, Anne last noted anything to do with the war developments on 21 July 1944.[39]
\r\n\r\nThe outcome is well known: on 4 August 1944, the Sicherheitsdienst arrested the people in the Secret Annex, as well as the helpers Kugler and Kleiman. All cherished hopes of timely liberation were thus dashed.
\r\n\r\nAddress: Papaverweg 31-33.[1]
\r\n\r\nDutch aviation pioneer AnthonyFokker received major orders from the German army leadership after the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. This allowed him to realize his plans for an aircraft factory. In 1918 he came to the Netherlands with supplies and inventory and established his company in Amsterdam-North.[2]
\r\n\r\nDuring the Second World War, the factory was confiscated and used for the German war effort.[3] Air raids in July 1943 caused extensive damage to the factory, but especially to the surrounding residential areas. There were many casualties among the civilian population.[4] Anne Frank writes about this in her diary.[5]
\r\n\r\nAdres: Papaverweg 31-33.[1]
\r\n\r\nDe Nederlandse luchtvaartpionier Anthony Fokker kreeg na het uitbreken van de Eerste Wereldoorlog in 1914 grote opdrachten van de Duitse legerleiding. Hierdoor kon hij zijn plannen voor een vliegtuigfabriek verwezenlijken. In 1918 kwam hij met voorraden en inboedel naar Nederland en vestigde zijn bedrijf in Amsterdam-Noord.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn de Tweede Wereldoorlog werd de fabriek in beslag genomen en voor Duitse oorlogsdoelen ingezet.[3] Luchtaanvallen in juli ’43 veroorzaakte grote schade aan de fabriek, maar vooral ook in de omliggende woonwijken. Er vielen veel doden onder de burgerbevolking.[4] Anne Frank schrijft daarover in haar dagboek.[5]
\r\n\r\nAddress: Papaverweg 31-33.[1]
\r\n\r\nDutch aviation pioneer AnthonyFokker received major orders from the German army leadership after the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. This allowed him to realize his plans for an aircraft factory. In 1918 he came to the Netherlands with supplies and inventory and established his company in Amsterdam-North.[2]
\r\n\r\nDuring the Second World War, the factory was confiscated and used for the German war effort.[3] Air raids in July 1943 caused extensive damage to the factory, but especially to the surrounding residential areas. There were many casualties among the civilian population.[4] Anne Frank writes about this in her diary.[5]
\r\n\r\nAfter dropping bombs over Berlin, the plane was on its way back to home base in England when it was hit by German anti-aircraft fire.[1] Near Bremen, pilot Edward Stull ordered five crew members to jump while he and co-pilot Samuel Showalter flew on. Above Schellingswoude, the plane was shot at again, after which both pilots jumped out of the plane. The plane came down on a school in Westzaanstraat and partially in front of the rectory of the Catholic church in Spaarndammerstraat.
\r\n\r\nAnne Frank writes about these events in het diary.[2]
\r\n\r\nNa bommen te hebben afgegooid boven Berlijn was het vliegtuig weer op weg naar de thuisbasis in Engeland toen het werd geraakt door Duits luchtafweergeschut.[1] In de omgeving van Bremen gaf piloot Edward Stull de opdracht aan vijf bemanningsleden om te springen, terwijl hij en co-piloot Samuel Showalter doorvlogen. Boven Schellingswoude werd het vliegtuig opnieuw beschoten, waarna beide piloten uit het vliegtuig sprongen. Het vliegtuig kwam neer op een school in de Westzaanstraat en gedeeltelijk voor de pastorie van de katholieke kerk in de Spaarndammerstraat.
\r\n\r\nAnne Frank schrijft over deze gebeurtenis in in haar dagboek.[2]
\r\n\r\nAfter dropping bombs over Berlin, the plane was on its way back to home base in England when it was hit by German anti-aircraft fire.[1] Near Bremen, pilot Edward Stull ordered five crew members to jump while he and co-pilot Samuel Showalter flew on. Above Schellingswoude, the plane was shot at again, after which both pilots jumped out of the plane. The plane came down on a school in Westzaanstraat and partially in front of the rectory of the Catholic church in Spaarndammerstraat.
\r\n\r\nAnne Frank writes about these events in het diary.[2]
\r\n\r\nStaying unnoticed in the Secret Annex was threatened in several ways. Besides the chance that unwitting visitors or neighbours of the building might notice something, there was the possibility of burglars, fire in or near the building, light escaping and airborne threats. The people in hiding and the helpers were very alert to risky situations and did a lot to avoid risks.
\r\n\r\nEspecially in the early days, Anne repeatedly expressed her fear of outsiders in the building. In some cases these were strangers, but certainly not always. The sales representatives, pharmacist Arthur Lewinsohn, the accountant and some warehouse men were more or less acquaintances. The plumber, the cleaner, the carpenter and the other warehouse men were strangers to the people in hiding - as far as we know. The acquaintances also posed a threat in Anne's eyes. There was unease when Ans Broks said that she wanted to come to the office for coffee every day at two o'clock.[1] From time to time, Anne's diary provides clues showing that the people in hiding also took into account the possibility that people living or working in neighbouring premises would discover their presence.
\r\n\r\nOne morning, when Peter van Pels had forgotten to open the bolt on the inside of the street door, Victor Kugler and the warehousemen could not get in. Kugler had to go through the premises of wholesaler Keg on Prinsengracht 265 and only just managed to prevent one of the neighbours from climbing in via a ladder.[2]
\r\n\r\nSeveral break-ins and attempted break-ins are referred to in Anne's diaries and narratives. Brother and sister Wijnberg, who lived at Prinsengracht 251 during the period in hiding, said in an interview that they had been in the building as children on 24 March 1943 and had stolen muscatel nuts there.[3] Anne writes a day later about her first encounter with the phenomenon of burglars.[4] The break-in of 9 April 1944 is also confirmed by a police report, when the passing night watchman Martonus Slegers noticed the kicked-in door.[5] The B-version mentions a burglary on the night of 15-16 July 1943. According to the same passage, there had also been an unsuccessful attempt six weeks earlier.[6] In the A-version, Anne writes about a thief who may have entered with a false key, or at least nothing could be seen on the outside door.[7]
\r\n\r\nThe wider area, of course, also had to deal with crime. At Keg at Prinsengracht 265, police reports do not reveal any burglaries during the hiding period, but according to the 1963 official report of the National Criminal Investigation Department, there were burglaries. According to the State Investigation Department, by necessity, staff were even regularly present at night.[8] The daughter of branch manager Jacob Boon knew that her father spent the night in his office more than once during the war years.[9] In the night of 7-8 April 1943, burglars broke into Elhoek furniture factory at number 261 and stole six hundred guilders and a typewriter.[10] In November 1941, a coin meter of the Municipal Energy Company (GEB) had also been emptied there.[11] A few years earlier, the contents of a coin meter in the later Opekta premises had also been stolen by burglars.[12] Given GEB's policy in the 'small business' market, it was highly plausible that that meter had stayed behind after Opekta's arrival in the late 1940s.[13] Theft from coin meters was a very common phenomenon. So the presence of such meters certainly posed an additional risk.
\r\n\r\nJohannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler reported no burglaries or thefts on their premises during the period in hiding, as far as can be verified. Then, in January 1945, Johan Broks - Kugler was still in prison at the time - reported the theft of seventy kilos of sugar from Gies & Co.[14]
\r\n\r\nBuilding plans for Elhoek's premises at Prinsengracht 261, made in June 1940, show that people there were working with flammable materials and techniques, as they included extensive recommendations on self-closing doors, escape routes and a fire-extinguishing riser.[15] In the Opekta premises, fire hazards were also taken into account. A few months before going into hiding, there was a small fire when packaging material lying too close to a stove caught fire.[16] There were 'Minimax' appliances in several places. One was mounted on the landing in front of the bookcase. That location was 'peripheral' from a company point of view, and might have been chosen with the people in hiding in mind: outside the bookcase, allowing periodic maintenance to take place without problems - at least in theory. In the B-version of the diary, Anne writes, with the date 20 October 1942, that they 'got' these devices in the house, which she later changes to 'have'. It is therefore possible that they were fitted in the autumn of 1942, but there is no clarity on this.
\r\n\r\nDue to war conditions, strict blackout measures applied. Users of residential and other buildings were obliged to take measures to prevent light escaping between sunset and sunrise. In winter, curtains had to remain closed for up to 14 hours a day.[17] Police and Air Protection were quick to take action against violators. In the evening of 4 March 1941, officers kicked in the entrance door of the Opekta premises because a light was on in the hall.[18] Of course, when the period of hiding began, the people in hiding and helpers had not yet forgotten this. Anne's writings often refer to the closing and opening of the blackout curtains.[19] During the 1958 restoration, many window frames were replaced. However, some original frames from the Van Pels room are still in the museum collection, and the added constructions for blackout curtains are still attached.[20]
\r\n\r\nAnne's frequent comments on shots, sirens and alarms have been compared, where possible, with the air hazard reports preserved in the Amsterdam police archives. A few significant instances of 'air hazard' are shown here.
\r\n\r\nIn the event of an air siren, everyone was obliged to go to the nearest shelter or otherwise take cover. "If the air siren sounds [...] get off the streets!", Nieuws van den Dag, 13 September 1940. On the morning of 6 July 1942, there was no air siren, which would have meant a serious complication for the Franks on their way to Prinsengracht.
\r\n\r\nStarting on 10 July 1943, Rauter introduced an 'pre-alarm', which indicated that Allied aircraft were entering Dutch airspace without any immediate bomb attacks being expected. The alert was designated an 'air hazard warning'.[21] A week or two later, Anne mentions the use of this pre-alarm in the B-version when she writes about the air attacks on the Fokker factory in Amsterdam-Noord.[22] The repeated alarms she lists in her retrospectively written B note that day correspond to the alarms noted by the police in their register.[23] This makes it plausible that she used her original - and vanished - notes from July 1943 for this B note.
\r\n\r\nIn March 1944, a bomber crashed into a school in Spaarndammerstraat, less than one and a half kilometres from the Secret Annex.[24] During the air battle Anne witnessed on 3 May 1944, a plane crashed in Van Bossestraat.[25] This was also a short distance from the Secret Annex. Planes also crashed in Tuindorp Oostzaan and Grote IJpolder that day.[26] Finally, a plane also crashed into the Carlton Hotel at the end of April.[25]
\r\n\r\nRelated to the dangers from the air and from anti-aircraft guns was the threat of acts of war and evacuations in the west of the Netherlands. Anne writes at length in early 1944 about the discussions between the people in hiding and the helpers when this danger threatened to take concrete forms.[27]
\r\n\r\nThe people in hiding were very concerned with their safety. They had all kinds of agreements and arrangements to avoid drawing attention to themselves. Although compliance slackened from time to time, they kept them reasonably well. Neither they nor the people helping them had any control over some dangers: there was obviously nothing they could have done about falling bombs or crashing aircraft. There are no reasons to suspect that laxity or underestimation of security measures contributed to their eventual arrest.
\r\n\r\nHet onopgemerkte verblijf in het Achterhuis werd op verschillende manieren bedreigd. Naast de kans dat onwetende bezoekers of omwonenden van het pand iets merkten, was er nog de kans op inbrekers, brand in of bij het gebouw, lichtuitstraling en luchtgevaar. Onderduikers en helpers waren zeer alert op riskante situaties en deden er veel aan om risico’s te vermijden.
\r\n\r\nVooral in de beginperiode kwam Annes angst voor buitenstaanders in het gebouw herhaaldelijk tot uitdrukking. In sommige gevallen waren dit vreemden, maar zeker niet altijd. De vertegenwoordigers, apotheker Arthus Lewinsohn, de accountant en sommige pakhuismannen waren min of meer bekenden. De loodgieter, de werkster, de timmerman en de andere pakhuismannen waren voor de onderduikers – voor zover we weten – onbekenden. Ook de bekenden vormden in Annes ogen een bedreiging. Er ontstond onrust toen Ans Broks te kennen gaf dat ze elke dag om twee uur op kantoor koffie wilde komen drinken.[1] Annes dagboek geeft af en toe aanwijzingen waaruit blijkt dat de onderduikers eveneens rekening hielden met de mogelijkheid dat mensen die in de buurpanden woonden of werkten hun aanwezigheid zouden ontdekken.
\r\n\r\nToen op een ochtend Peter van Pels was vergeten de grendel aan de binnenkant van de straatdeur te halen, konden Victor Kugler en de magazijnmannen niet naar binnen. Kugler moest via het pand van groothandel Keg op de Prinsengracht 265 en kon maar op het nippertje voorkomen dat een van de buren langs een ladder naar binnen klom.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn Annes dagboeken en verhaaltjes komen verschillende inbraken en pogingen daartoe voor. Broer en zus Wijnberg, die tijdens de onderduikperiode op Prinsengracht 251 woonden, vertelden in een interview dat ze op 24 maart 1943 als kind in het pand geweest waren en dat ze daar muskaatnoten hadden weggenomen.[3] Anne schrijft een dag later over haar eerste kennismaking met het fenomeen inbrekers.[4] De inbraak van 9 april 1944 wordt ook door een politierapport bevestigd, en wel doordat de passerende nachtwaker Martinus Slegers de ingetrapte deur opmerkte.[5] De B-versie vermeldt in de nacht van 15 op 16 juli 1943 een inbraak. Volgens diezelfde notitie was er zes weken eerder ook al een mislukte poging geweest.[6] In de A-versie schrijft Anne over een dief die mogelijk met een valse sleutel binnenkwam, althans er was aan de buitendeur niets te zien.[7]
\r\n\r\nDe wijdere omgeving kreeg uiteraard eveneens met criminaliteit te maken. Bij Keg op de Prinsengracht 265 zijn uit de politierapporten geen inbraken tijdens de onderduikperiode bekend, maar volgens het proces-verbaal van de Rijksrecherche uit 1963 zijn die er wel geweest. Volgens de Rijksrecherche was het personeel noodgedwongen zelfs geregeld ’s nachts aanwezig.[8] De dochter van filiaalchef Jacob Boon wist dat haar vader in de oorlogsjaren meer dan eens in zijn kantoor overnachtte.[9] In de nacht van 7 op 8 april 1943 drongen insluipers bij meubelfabriek Elhoek op nummer 261 binnen en stalen daar zeshonderd gulden en een schrijfmachine.[10] In november 1941 was daar ook al eens een muntmeter van het Gemeentelijk Energiebedrijf (GEB) leeggehaald.[11] Enkele jaren eerder was ook in het latere Opekta-pand de inhoud van een muntmeter door inbrekers gestolen.[12] Gezien het beleid van het GEB in de ‘klein-zakelijke’ markt was het zeer aannemelijk dat die meter na de komst van Opekta eind 1940 was blijven hangen.[13] Diefstal uit muntmeters was een zeer veel voorkomend verschijnsel. De aanwezigheid van zulke meters leverde dus zeker een extra risico op.
\r\n\r\nJohannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler maakten tijdens de onderduikperiode, voor zover na te gaan, geen melding van inbraken en diefstallen in hun pand. Daarna, in januari 1945, gaf Johan Broks - Kugler zat dan nog gevangen - namens Gies & Co. de diefstal van zeventig kilo suiker aan.[14]
\r\n\r\nBouwplannen voor het pand van Elhoek op Prinsengracht 261, gemaakt in juni 1940, tonen dat men daar met brandgevaarlijke materialen en technieken werkte, daar er uitgebreide adviezen omtrent zelfsluitende deuren, vluchtwegen en een brandblusleiding in waren opgenomen.[15] In het Opekta-pand werd ook rekening gehouden met brandgevaar. Een paar maanden voor de onderduik was er een klein brandje, toen verpakkingsmateriaal dat te dicht bij een kachel lag vlam vatte.[16] Er bevonden zich op verschillende plaatsen zogenaamde Minimax-toestellen. Een ervan hing op het overloopje voor de boekenkast. Die locatie was vanuit bedrijfsoogpunt ‘perifeer’, en zou met het oog op de onderduikers kunnen zijn gekozen: buiten de boekenkast, waardoor periodiek onderhoud – althans in theorie – probleemloos kon gebeuren. In de B-versie van het dagboek schrijft Anne, met de datum 20 oktober 1942, dat ze deze toestellen in huis ‘krijgen’, wat ze later wijzigt in ‘hebben’. Mogelijk zijn deze dus in de herfst van 1942 aangebracht, maar duidelijkheid is daar niet over.
\r\n\r\nVanwege de oorlogsomstandigheden golden er strikte verduisteringsmaatregelen. Gebruikers van woonhuizen en andere gebouwen waren verplicht maatregelen te treffen die tussen zonsondergang en zonsopgang lichtuitstraling moesten voorkomen. In de winter moesten de gordijnen tot veertien uur per etmaal gesloten blijven.[17] Optreden van politie en Luchtbescherming tegen overtreders was aan de orde van de dag. In de avond van 4 maart 1941 trapten agenten de toegangsdeur van het Opekta-pand in omdat in de hal een lamp brandde.[18] Toen de onderduik begon, ware onderduikers en helpers dat uiteraard nog niet vergeten. Het ver- en ontduisteren is in Annes geschriften herhaaldelijk aanwezig.[19] Tijdens de restauratie van 1958 zijn veel raamkozijnen vervangen. Van de Van Pels-kamer zijn enkele originelen echter nog in de museale collectie aanwezig en de hulpconstructies voor de verduistering zitten er nog aan.[20]
\r\n\r\nDe regelmatig terugkerende opmerkingen van Anne over schieten, sirenes en alarmeringen zijn waar mogelijk vergeleken met de luchtgevaarmeldingen die in het Amsterdamse politiearchief zijn bewaard. Een aantal in het oog lopende gevallen van ‘luchtgevaar’ is hier weergegeven.
\r\n\r\nIn geval van luchtalarm is een ieder verplicht naar de dichtstbijzijnde schuilkelder te gaan of op andere wijze dekking te zoeken.“Bij luchtalarm [...] van de straat!”, Nieuws van den Dag, 13 september 1940. In de ochtend van 6 juli 1942 is er geen luchtalarm, wat voor de Franks op weg naar de Prinsengracht een ernstige complicatie zou hebben betekend.
\r\n\r\nMet ingang van 10 juli 1943 introduceerde Rauter een ‘vooralarm’, dat aangaf dat geallieerde vliegtuigen het Nederlandse luchtruim binnenkwamen zonder dat direct bomaanvallen waren te verwachten. Het signaal droeg de benaming “waarschuwing luchtgevaar”.[21] Een week of twee later noemt Anne in de B-versie het gebruik van dit vooralarm als ze schrijft over de luchtaanvallen op de Fokker-fabriek in Amsterdam-Noord.[22] De herhaaldelijke alarmeringen die ze die dag in haar in retrospectief geschreven B-notitie opsomt, stemmen overeen met de alarmeringen die de politie in haar register noteert.[23] Dat maakt aannemelijk dat ze voor deze B-notitie haar originele - en verdwenen - notities uit juli ’43 gebruikte.
\r\n\r\nIn maart 1944 kwam een bommenwerper neer op een school in de Spaarndammerstraat, op nog geen anderhalve kilometer van het Achterhuis.[24] Tijdens het luchtgevecht waar Anne op 3 mei 1944 getuige van was, stortte een vliegtuig in de Van Bossestraat neer.[25] Dit was ook op korte afstand van het Achterhuis. Ook in Tuindorp Oostzaan en de Grote IJpolder kwamen die dag vliegtuigen neer.[26] Ten slotte stortte er eind april ook nog een vliegtuig neer op het Carlton Hotel.[25]
\r\n\r\nVerwant aan de gevaren vanuit de lucht en van afweergeschut was de dreiging van oorlogshandelingen en evacuaties in het westen van Nederland. Anne schrijft begin ‘44 uitvoerig over de discussies tussen onderduikers en helpers als dit gevaar concrete vormen dreigt aan te nemen.[27]
\r\n\r\nDe onderduikers waeen erg bezig met hun veiligheid. Ze hadden allerlei afspraken en regelingen om te voorkomen dat ze de aandacht op zich zouden vestigen. Hoewel het handhaven af en toe verslapte, hielden ze zich daar redelijk aan. Op sommige gevaren hadden zij noch de helpers enige invloed: tegen vallende bommen of neerstortende vliegtuigen was uiteraard geen kruid gewassen. Er zijn geen redenen om te vermoeden dat laksheid of onderschatting van de veiligheidsmaatregelen aan de uiteindelijke arrestatie hebben bijgedragen.
\r\n\r\nStaying unnoticed in the Secret Annex was threatened in several ways. Besides the chance that unwitting visitors or neighbours of the building might notice something, there was the possibility of burglars, fire in or near the building, light escaping and airborne threats. The people in hiding and the helpers were very alert to risky situations and did a lot to avoid risks.
\r\n\r\nEspecially in the early days, Anne repeatedly expressed her fear of outsiders in the building. In some cases these were strangers, but certainly not always. The sales representatives, pharmacist Arthur Lewinsohn, the accountant and some warehouse men were more or less acquaintances. The plumber, the cleaner, the carpenter and the other warehouse men were strangers to the people in hiding - as far as we know. The acquaintances also posed a threat in Anne's eyes. There was unease when Ans Broks said that she wanted to come to the office for coffee every day at two o'clock.[1] From time to time, Anne's diary provides clues showing that the people in hiding also took into account the possibility that people living or working in neighbouring premises would discover their presence.
\r\n\r\nOne morning, when Peter van Pels had forgotten to open the bolt on the inside of the street door, Victor Kugler and the warehousemen could not get in. Kugler had to go through the premises of wholesaler Keg on Prinsengracht 265 and only just managed to prevent one of the neighbours from climbing in via a ladder.[2]
\r\n\r\nSeveral break-ins and attempted break-ins are referred to in Anne's diaries and narratives. Brother and sister Wijnberg, who lived at Prinsengracht 251 during the period in hiding, said in an interview that they had been in the building as children on 24 March 1943 and had stolen muscatel nuts there.[3] Anne writes a day later about her first encounter with the phenomenon of burglars.[4] The break-in of 9 April 1944 is also confirmed by a police report, when the passing night watchman Martonus Slegers noticed the kicked-in door.[5] The B-version mentions a burglary on the night of 15-16 July 1943. According to the same passage, there had also been an unsuccessful attempt six weeks earlier.[6] In the A-version, Anne writes about a thief who may have entered with a false key, or at least nothing could be seen on the outside door.[7]
\r\n\r\nThe wider area, of course, also had to deal with crime. At Keg at Prinsengracht 265, police reports do not reveal any burglaries during the hiding period, but according to the 1963 official report of the National Criminal Investigation Department, there were burglaries. According to the State Investigation Department, by necessity, staff were even regularly present at night.[8] The daughter of branch manager Jacob Boon knew that her father spent the night in his office more than once during the war years.[9] In the night of 7-8 April 1943, burglars broke into Elhoek furniture factory at number 261 and stole six hundred guilders and a typewriter.[10] In November 1941, a coin meter of the Municipal Energy Company (GEB) had also been emptied there.[11] A few years earlier, the contents of a coin meter in the later Opekta premises had also been stolen by burglars.[12] Given GEB's policy in the 'small business' market, it was highly plausible that that meter had stayed behind after Opekta's arrival in the late 1940s.[13] Theft from coin meters was a very common phenomenon. So the presence of such meters certainly posed an additional risk.
\r\n\r\nJohannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler reported no burglaries or thefts on their premises during the period in hiding, as far as can be verified. Then, in January 1945, Johan Broks - Kugler was still in prison at the time - reported the theft of seventy kilos of sugar from Gies & Co.[14]
\r\n\r\nBuilding plans for Elhoek's premises at Prinsengracht 261, made in June 1940, show that people there were working with flammable materials and techniques, as they included extensive recommendations on self-closing doors, escape routes and a fire-extinguishing riser.[15] In the Opekta premises, fire hazards were also taken into account. A few months before going into hiding, there was a small fire when packaging material lying too close to a stove caught fire.[16] There were 'Minimax' appliances in several places. One was mounted on the landing in front of the bookcase. That location was 'peripheral' from a company point of view, and might have been chosen with the people in hiding in mind: outside the bookcase, allowing periodic maintenance to take place without problems - at least in theory. In the B-version of the diary, Anne writes, with the date 20 October 1942, that they 'got' these devices in the house, which she later changes to 'have'. It is therefore possible that they were fitted in the autumn of 1942, but there is no clarity on this.
\r\n\r\nDue to war conditions, strict blackout measures applied. Users of residential and other buildings were obliged to take measures to prevent light escaping between sunset and sunrise. In winter, curtains had to remain closed for up to 14 hours a day.[17] Police and Air Protection were quick to take action against violators. In the evening of 4 March 1941, officers kicked in the entrance door of the Opekta premises because a light was on in the hall.[18] Of course, when the period of hiding began, the people in hiding and helpers had not yet forgotten this. Anne's writings often refer to the closing and opening of the blackout curtains.[19] During the 1958 restoration, many window frames were replaced. However, some original frames from the Van Pels room are still in the museum collection, and the added constructions for blackout curtains are still attached.[20]
\r\n\r\nAnne's frequent comments on shots, sirens and alarms have been compared, where possible, with the air hazard reports preserved in the Amsterdam police archives. A few significant instances of 'air hazard' are shown here.
\r\n\r\nIn the event of an air siren, everyone was obliged to go to the nearest shelter or otherwise take cover. "If the air siren sounds [...] get off the streets!", Nieuws van den Dag, 13 September 1940. On the morning of 6 July 1942, there was no air siren, which would have meant a serious complication for the Franks on their way to Prinsengracht.
\r\n\r\nStarting on 10 July 1943, Rauter introduced an 'pre-alarm', which indicated that Allied aircraft were entering Dutch airspace without any immediate bomb attacks being expected. The alert was designated an 'air hazard warning'.[21] A week or two later, Anne mentions the use of this pre-alarm in the B-version when she writes about the air attacks on the Fokker factory in Amsterdam-Noord.[22] The repeated alarms she lists in her retrospectively written B note that day correspond to the alarms noted by the police in their register.[23] This makes it plausible that she used her original - and vanished - notes from July 1943 for this B note.
\r\n\r\nIn March 1944, a bomber crashed into a school in Spaarndammerstraat, less than one and a half kilometres from the Secret Annex.[24] During the air battle Anne witnessed on 3 May 1944, a plane crashed in Van Bossestraat.[25] This was also a short distance from the Secret Annex. Planes also crashed in Tuindorp Oostzaan and Grote IJpolder that day.[26] Finally, a plane also crashed into the Carlton Hotel at the end of April.[25]
\r\n\r\nRelated to the dangers from the air and from anti-aircraft guns was the threat of acts of war and evacuations in the west of the Netherlands. Anne writes at length in early 1944 about the discussions between the people in hiding and the helpers when this danger threatened to take concrete forms.[27]
\r\n\r\nThe people in hiding were very concerned with their safety. They had all kinds of agreements and arrangements to avoid drawing attention to themselves. Although compliance slackened from time to time, they kept them reasonably well. Neither they nor the people helping them had any control over some dangers: there was obviously nothing they could have done about falling bombs or crashing aircraft. There are no reasons to suspect that laxity or underestimation of security measures contributed to their eventual arrest.
\r\n\r\nWarehouse cat Moffie (Boche) was suddenly very quiet and drooling one Saturday. Miep wrapped her in a cloth and took her to the clinic. That method of transportation was common in those days, as shown in a photo from the clinic's waiting room.
\r\n\r\nAnne later writes about this in het diary: "Miep quickly picked him up, wrapped him in a cloth, put him in her shopping bag and took him to the dog-and-cat clinic." It turned out to be not too serious. There was something wrong with Moffie's intestines and he was given a drink by the vet. Peter administered it to her a few times.[1]
\r\n\r\nPakhuiskat Moffie was op een zaterdag plotseling erg stil en kwijlde. Miep wikkelde haar in een doek en ging met haar naar de kliniek. Die wijze van vervoer was in die tijd gebruikelijk, zoals op een foto uit de wachtkamer van de kliniek te zien is.
\r\n\r\nAnne schreef hierover later in haar dagboek: 'Fluks pakte Miep haar op, rolde haar in een doek, stopte haar in de boodschappentas en bracht haar naar de honden- en kattenkliniek'. Het bleek nogal mee te vallen. Moffie had iets aan haar ingewanden en kreeg een drankje van de dierenarts. Peter diende haar dat een paar keer toe.[1]
\r\n\r\nWarehouse cat Moffie (Boche) was suddenly very quiet and drooling one Saturday. Miep wrapped her in a cloth and took her to the clinic. That method of transportation was common in those days, as shown in a photo from the clinic's waiting room.
\r\n\r\nAnne later writes about this in het diary: "Miep quickly picked him up, wrapped him in a cloth, put him in her shopping bag and took him to the dog-and-cat clinic." It turned out to be not too serious. There was something wrong with Moffie's intestines and he was given a drink by the vet. Peter administered it to her a few times.[1]
\r\n\r\nLittle is known about the experiences of the eight people in hiding in the Detention Centre.[1] In the description of Jacob Swart, another prisoner who ended up in the Detention Centre on Weteringschans after his arrest on 26 May 1944, this holding cell was: "a large bare room with three rough wooden tables and a few benches in the middle, on the left side ten beds and on top of a balustrade another ten beds (iron cots with straw sack); on the wall regulations and a mirror, and peepholes in all the walls, known as 'eyes', through which we were stared at from time to time."[2]
\r\n\r\nOnce the cells were full - totalling about 40 men and 40 women - a transport to Westerbork followed. Jacob Swart describes, for example, that seven to eight new prisoners - mostly rounded up Jewish people in hiding - were added daily in the initially almost empty holding cell. In the end, there were so many that there were no longer enough beds and the new arrivals had to sleep on straw sacks on the ground. Once a day, the prisoners (men and women separately) were allowed to exercise in the courtyard for 15 minutes. The prisoners were given slices of bread in the morning and evening, coffee substitute and a 'hot snack' at lunchtime. Some witnesses report that there was contact between the men's and women's holding cells through the wall.[3]
\r\n\r\nOn Tuesday 8 August 1944, the eight people in hiding were taken to Westerbork along with about eighty other 'criminal cases'.
\r\n\r\nOver de ervaringen van de acht onderduikers in het Huis van Bewaring is weinig bekend.[1] In de beschrijving van Jacob Swart, een andere gevangene die na zijn arrestatie op 26 mei 1944 in het Huis van Bewaring aan de Weteringschans terechtkwam, was deze gevangenenzaal: ‘een grote kale ruimte met in het midden drie ruwhouten tafels en een paar banken, aan de linkerkant tien bedden en boven op een balustrade nog tien bedden (ijzeren kribben met strozak); aan de muur voorschriften en een spiegel, voorts in alle muren kijkgaten, z.g.“ogen”, waardoor je zo nu en dan beloerd wordt’.[2]
\r\n\r\nZodra de cellen vol zaten – bij elkaar zijn dat circa veertig mannen en veertig vrouwen – volgde een transport naar Westerbork. Jacob Swart beschrijft bijvoorbeeld dat er in de aanvankelijk nog vrijwel lege gevangenenzaal dagelijks zeven tot acht nieuwe gevangenen bij komen – meestal opgepakte Joodse onderduikers. Op het laatst zijn het er zo veel dat er niet meer genoeg bedden zijn en de nieuwkomers op een strozak op de grond moesten slapen. Een keer per dag werden de gevangenen (mannen en vrouwen apart) een kwartier op de binnenplaats gelucht. De gevangenen krijgen ’s morgens en ’s avonds boterhammen zonder boter of beleg, koffiesurrogaat en tussen de middag een ‘warme hap’. Sommige getuigen vertellen dat er via de muur contact was tussen de mannen- en vrouwenzaal.[3]
\r\n\r\nOp dinsdag 8 augustus 1944 werden de acht onderduikers samen met circa tachtig andere ‘strafgevallen’ naar Westerbork gebracht. De Zentralstelle liet een tram met bijwagen voorrijden om de gevangenen naar het Centraal Station te brengen.[4]
\r\n\r\nLittle is known about the experiences of the eight people in hiding in the Detention Centre.[1] In the description of Jacob Swart, another prisoner who ended up in the Detention Centre on Weteringschans after his arrest on 26 May 1944, this holding cell was: "a large bare room with three rough wooden tables and a few benches in the middle, on the left side ten beds and on top of a balustrade another ten beds (iron cots with straw sack); on the wall regulations and a mirror, and peepholes in all the walls, known as 'eyes', through which we were stared at from time to time."[2]
\r\n\r\nOnce the cells were full - totalling about 40 men and 40 women - a transport to Westerbork followed. Jacob Swart describes, for example, that seven to eight new prisoners - mostly rounded up Jewish people in hiding - were added daily in the initially almost empty holding cell. In the end, there were so many that there were no longer enough beds and the new arrivals had to sleep on straw sacks on the ground. Once a day, the prisoners (men and women separately) were allowed to exercise in the courtyard for 15 minutes. The prisoners were given slices of bread in the morning and evening, coffee substitute and a 'hot snack' at lunchtime. Some witnesses report that there was contact between the men's and women's holding cells through the wall.[3]
\r\n\r\nOn Tuesday 8 August 1944, the eight people in hiding were taken to Westerbork along with about eighty other 'criminal cases'.
\r\n\r\nAfter interrogation, the two helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, who, like the eight people in hiding, had been arrested on 4 August 1944, were locked up in Detention Center II on Amstelveenseweg (Havenstraat 6). They stayed there for almost six weeks until they were transferred to the Detention Center I on Weteringschans (Kleine-Gartmanplantsoen) on September 7.[1] A month earlier, the eight people in hiding had also been locked up there before they were transported to Westerbork.
\r\n\r\nAs one of his cell mates, Johannes Kleiman mentioned the name of J. Mans, who lived on Haarlemmerweg.[2] Kleiman noted this down at the end of 1945 on a questionnaire from the Red Cross. It concerns Jan Mans (1901-1945). Given the date of his deportation, 8 September 1944, he must have been a cellmate at Weteringschans.
\r\n\r\nKleiman and Kugler were transferred from Detention Center I to camp Amersfoort, where they arrived on 11 September 1944.[3]
\r\n\r\nDe twee helpers Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler, die net als de acht onderduikers op 4 augustus 1944 waren opgepakt, werden na verhoor opgesloten in het Huis van Bewaring II op de Amstelveenseweg (Havenstraat 6). Daar verbleven ze bijna zes weken totdat ze op 7 september werden overgebracht naar het Huis van Bewaring I op de Weteringschans (Kleine-Gartmanplantsoen).[1] Daar zaten een maand eerder ook de acht onderduikers opgesloten voordat zij naar Westerbork op transport moesten.
\r\n\r\nAls een van zijn celgenoten noemde Johannes Kleiman de naam J. Mans, wonend aan de Haarlemmerweg.[2] Kleiman noteerde dit eind 1945 op een vragenformulier van het Rode Kruis. Het gaat om Jan Mans (1901-1945). Gezien de datum van diens wegvoering, 8 september 1944, moet dat een celgenoot op de Weteringschans zijn geweest.
\r\n\r\nVanuit het Huis van Bewaring I werden Kleiman en Kugler naar kamp Amersfoort overgebracht, waar ze op 11 september 1944 aankwamen.[3]
\r\n\r\nAfter interrogation, the two helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, who, like the eight people in hiding, had been arrested on 4 August 1944, were locked up in Detention Center II on Amstelveenseweg (Havenstraat 6). They stayed there for almost six weeks until they were transferred to the Detention Center I on Weteringschans (Kleine-Gartmanplantsoen) on September 7.[1] A month earlier, the eight people in hiding had also been locked up there before they were transported to Westerbork.
\r\n\r\nAs one of his cell mates, Johannes Kleiman mentioned the name of J. Mans, who lived on Haarlemmerweg.[2] Kleiman noted this down at the end of 1945 on a questionnaire from the Red Cross. It concerns Jan Mans (1901-1945). Given the date of his deportation, 8 September 1944, he must have been a cellmate at Weteringschans.
\r\n\r\nKleiman and Kugler were transferred from Detention Center I to camp Amersfoort, where they arrived on 11 September 1944.[3]
\r\n\r\nOne of the most frequently asked questions about the history of Anne Frank and the inhabitants of the Secret Annex is: Who actually betrayed them? This question continues to intrigue people. The Anne Frank House (AFH) still regularly receives suggestions, usually singling out specific individuals. These suggestions are always taken seriously but so far have not provided useful leads. And, of course, here at the Anne Frank House this question is always present in the background. In recent years, the AFH has made more of a commitment to focus on conducting its own research, so this matter is now part of the Knowledge Centre’s research program.
\r\n\r\nThis investigative report is based on the premise that only one thing can be agreed on with certainty: on 4 August 1944, members of the Sicherheitsdienst or SD (German Security Service) raided the building at 263 Prinsengracht and arrested ten people. It is an assumption – granted a sound one – that this was not a chance occurrence. Obviously, the building had been selected for a reason. Yet, on what information that raid was based and how the SD got that information is still completely unclear. Whether this was a matter of betrayal, committed deliberately or not, is also an assumption. It remains to be seen if an analysis of the available data convincingly supports this decade-old theory. Shortly after the liberation, Otto Frank and the helpers took steps to identify those who might have been responsible for the betrayal. The question of whether betrayal had taken place was not under discussion at that moment. In 1963, after the Austrian “Nazi-hunter” Simon Wiesenthal tracked down the former SS Officer Karl Joseph Silberbauer, the man who had led the raid on the Secret Annex, the assumption of betrayal seemed to be confirmed. Consequently, until now the literature on this subject has always focused on the question of who? It has long been assumed that a betrayer was out there who needed to be found. However, the sobering reality is that to date this avenue of thinking has yielded nothing conclusive.
\r\n\r\nConsidering the above, there is sufficient reason to be receptive to new perspectives and not to exclude other theories. Given what was just presented in the last paragraph, the proposed research question is: Based on what information did the SD raid 263 Prinsengracht on 4 August 1944, and how did it acquire this information? Both existing and previously unknown sources have been consulted to address this question. Earlier studies generally relied on source material from the files of the Centraal Archief van de Bijzondere Rechtspleging or CABR (Central Archives for Special Criminal Jurisdiction). Despite extensive research, no definitive leads have ever been found there, but information in these files can still be very helpful. Therefore, during this study, a lot of data was scrutinized again and compared with previously unknown or untapped sources. This material included police reports from Amsterdam, Zwolle, and Haarlem, as well as records from the judicial authorities in the latter two cities. In addition, the increasing digitization of data from municipal population registers has made it easier to access information and identify how people might be connected. The ongoing historical research done by the Anne Frank House in recent years has provided more understanding as well. These insights have also been applied while re-examining earlier ideas and theories. Of course, in the analysis of all the related data, existing publications were also consulted. Over the years, several books have been released about the betrayal of people in hiding during the wartime occupation and how they were hunted down.[1] Biographies about both Anne and Otto Frank also present different theories about the events leading up to the raid on 4 August 1944.[2] Nonetheless, as the 2003 evaluation conducted by researchers David Barnouw and Gerrold van der Stroom of the NIOD (Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, previously the Dutch Institute for War Documentation) concludes, these theories do not stand up to scrutiny.[3] An overview of the source material used for this investigation – published as well as unpublished – is included at the end of this report.
\r\n\r\nAfter a well-orchestrated media campaign subject to strict embargo rules, a controversial book was launched in January 2022: The betrayal of Anne Frank: a Cold Case Investigation.[4] The Cold Case Team went public with the news that it could identify - with a very high probability the traitor responsible for the raid on the Secret Annex. The name of Jewish civil-law notary Arnold van den Bergh went around the world as the most likely betrayer of Anne Frank and the other occupants the Secret Annex, but there has been so much criticism of this research that it prompted publisher AmboAnthos to withdraw the Dutch version of book from sale.[5]
\r\n\r\nEen van de meest gestelde vragen over de geschiedenis van Anne Frank en het Achterhuis is wel: 'Wie heeft ze nu eigenlijk verraden?' Die kwestie houdt zeer veel mensen bezig. Er komen bij de Anne Frank Stichting (AFS) met zekere regelmaat nog suggesties binnen, doorgaans duidelijk gericht naar individuen. Die suggesties worden altijd serieus bekeken maar leverden tot dusverre geen bruikbare gezichtspunten op. Ook binnen de AFS is het vraagstuk uiteraard altijd sterk aanwezig. Nu de AFS zich de laatste jaren sterker dan voorheen op eigen onderzoek is gaan richten, is deze kwestie in het onderzoeksprogramma opgenomen.
\r\n\r\nHet onderzoek is opgezet vanuit de gedachte dat er maar één ding vaststaat: er is op 4 augustus 1944 een inval van leden van de Sicherheitsdienst (SD) in het pand Prinsengracht 263 geweest, en daarbij zijn tien personen gearresteerd. Het is een aanname – hoewel een veilige – dat dit geen toevalstreffer was. Men had het wel degelijk op dit pand gemunt. Op grond van welke kennis de inval gebeurde, en hoe de SD daaraan kwam is echter volstrekt onduidelijk. Dat het een kwestie was van verraad, al dan niet welbewust en doelgericht gepleegd, is eveneens een aanname. Het zal moeten blijken in hoeverre analyse van de beschikbare gegevens deze overtuigend steunt. Kort na de bevrijding zetten Otto Frank en de helpers stappen om de opsporing te bevorderen van degene die voor het verraad verantwoordelijk zou zijn. De vraag of er wel werkelijk verraad plaatsvond stond niet merkbaar ter discussie. Nadat ‘nazi-jager’ Simon Wiesenthal in 1963 de ex-SS’er Karl Joseph Silberbauer opspoorde, de man die de inval in het Achterhuis leidde, leek de aanname van verraad bevestigd. In de literatuur over het onderwerp tot nu toe was de vraagstelling dan ook steeds gericht op ‘wie?’ Dat er gezocht moest worden naar een daadwerkelijke verrader stond daarbij op voorhand vast. De ontnuchterende conclusie is dat die aanpak tot op heden geen betrouwbare resultaten opleverde.
\r\n\r\nHet voorgaande geeft voldoende aanleiding om het blikveld te verruimen en andere mogelijkheden niet bij voorbaat uit te sluiten. Uitgaande van wat in de vorige paragraaf naar voren is gebracht luidt daarom de vraagstelling: op grond van welke informatie viel de SD het pand Prinsengracht 263 op 4 augustus 1944 binnen, en hoe kwamen ze daaraan? Om deze vraag te beantwoorden is gebruik gemaakt van bekend en tot dusver onbekend materiaal. Oudere onderzoeken baseerden zich doorgaans op bronnen die zich bevinden in de dossiers van het Centraal Archief van de Bijzondere Rechtspleging (CABR). Ondanks zeer uitvoerig onderzoek zijn hier nooit duidelijke aanwijzingen aangetroffen. Desondanks zijn gegevens uit deze dossiers uiteraard van groot belang. In dit onderzoek zijn veel gegevens daarom opnieuw bekeken en vergeleken met voorheen onbekende of onbenutte bronnen. Hiertoe behoren rapporten van de politiekorpsen van Amsterdam, Zwolle en Haarlem, en stukken van justitiële autoriteiten in de laatste twee steden. Met behulp van steeds vaker gedigitaliseerde gegevens uit de bevolkingsadministratie konden bovendien netwerken beter in kaart worden gebracht. Het lopend historisch onderzoek van de Anne Frank Stichting leverde de afgelopen jaren scherpere inzichten op. Deze zijn gebruikt om oudere denkbeelden en theorieën tegen het licht te houden. Bij het analyseren van alle gegevens is vanzelfsprekend ook gebruik gemaakt van de bestaande literatuur. Over verraad van onderduikers en andere vormen van mensenjacht verschenen in de loop van de tijd verschillende boeken.[1] In biografieën over zowel Anne als Otto Frank zijn eveneens verschillende theorieën ontvouwd over het voortraject van de inval van 4 augustus.[2] Deze bleven evenwel onbewezen, zoals een evaluatie van de onderzoekers David Barnouw en Gerrold van der Stroom van het NIOD (destijds Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie) uit 2003 aantoont.[3] Een overzicht van al het gebruikte materiaal, gepubliceerd en ongepubliceerd, is aan dit verslag toegevoegd.
\r\n\r\nIn januari 2022 werd met een strak geregiseerde mediacampagne een geruchtmakend boek gelanceerd: Het verraad van Anne Frank: het baanbrekende onderzoek van een internationaal Cold Case|Team in Nederland.[4] Het zogenaame Cold Case Team kwam naar buiten met het nieuws dat het met een zeer grote waarschijnlijkheid de verrader kon aanwijzen die verantwoordelijk was voor de inval in het Achterhuis. De naam van de Joodse notaris Arnold van den Bergh ging de hele wereld over als de meest waarschijnlijke verrader van Anne Frank en de andere bewoners van het Achterhuis, maar er kwam zo veel kritiek op dit onderzoek dat de uitgever AmboAnthos besloot de Nederlandse versie van het boek uit de handel te nemen.[5]
\r\n\r\nOne of the most frequently asked questions about the history of Anne Frank and the inhabitants of the Secret Annex is: Who actually betrayed them? This question continues to intrigue people. The Anne Frank House (AFH) still regularly receives suggestions, usually singling out specific individuals. These suggestions are always taken seriously but so far have not provided useful leads. And, of course, here at the Anne Frank House this question is always present in the background. In recent years, the AFH has made more of a commitment to focus on conducting its own research, so this matter is now part of the Knowledge Centre’s research program.
\r\n\r\nThis investigative report is based on the premise that only one thing can be agreed on with certainty: on 4 August 1944, members of the Sicherheitsdienst or SD (German Security Service) raided the building at 263 Prinsengracht and arrested ten people. It is an assumption – granted a sound one – that this was not a chance occurrence. Obviously, the building had been selected for a reason. Yet, on what information that raid was based and how the SD got that information is still completely unclear. Whether this was a matter of betrayal, committed deliberately or not, is also an assumption. It remains to be seen if an analysis of the available data convincingly supports this decade-old theory. Shortly after the liberation, Otto Frank and the helpers took steps to identify those who might have been responsible for the betrayal. The question of whether betrayal had taken place was not under discussion at that moment. In 1963, after the Austrian “Nazi-hunter” Simon Wiesenthal tracked down the former SS Officer Karl Joseph Silberbauer, the man who had led the raid on the Secret Annex, the assumption of betrayal seemed to be confirmed. Consequently, until now the literature on this subject has always focused on the question of who? It has long been assumed that a betrayer was out there who needed to be found. However, the sobering reality is that to date this avenue of thinking has yielded nothing conclusive.
\r\n\r\nConsidering the above, there is sufficient reason to be receptive to new perspectives and not to exclude other theories. Given what was just presented in the last paragraph, the proposed research question is: Based on what information did the SD raid 263 Prinsengracht on 4 August 1944, and how did it acquire this information? Both existing and previously unknown sources have been consulted to address this question. Earlier studies generally relied on source material from the files of the Centraal Archief van de Bijzondere Rechtspleging or CABR (Central Archives for Special Criminal Jurisdiction). Despite extensive research, no definitive leads have ever been found there, but information in these files can still be very helpful. Therefore, during this study, a lot of data was scrutinized again and compared with previously unknown or untapped sources. This material included police reports from Amsterdam, Zwolle, and Haarlem, as well as records from the judicial authorities in the latter two cities. In addition, the increasing digitization of data from municipal population registers has made it easier to access information and identify how people might be connected. The ongoing historical research done by the Anne Frank House in recent years has provided more understanding as well. These insights have also been applied while re-examining earlier ideas and theories. Of course, in the analysis of all the related data, existing publications were also consulted. Over the years, several books have been released about the betrayal of people in hiding during the wartime occupation and how they were hunted down.[1] Biographies about both Anne and Otto Frank also present different theories about the events leading up to the raid on 4 August 1944.[2] Nonetheless, as the 2003 evaluation conducted by researchers David Barnouw and Gerrold van der Stroom of the NIOD (Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, previously the Dutch Institute for War Documentation) concludes, these theories do not stand up to scrutiny.[3] An overview of the source material used for this investigation – published as well as unpublished – is included at the end of this report.
\r\n\r\nAfter a well-orchestrated media campaign subject to strict embargo rules, a controversial book was launched in January 2022: The betrayal of Anne Frank: a Cold Case Investigation.[4] The Cold Case Team went public with the news that it could identify - with a very high probability the traitor responsible for the raid on the Secret Annex. The name of Jewish civil-law notary Arnold van den Bergh went around the world as the most likely betrayer of Anne Frank and the other occupants the Secret Annex, but there has been so much criticism of this research that it prompted publisher AmboAnthos to withdraw the Dutch version of book from sale.[5]
\r\n\r\nHuis van Bewaring (Detention Centre) I was located at Kleine-Gartmanplantsoen 14 (between Weteringschans and Leidseplein).[1] During World War II, the Sipo-SD used part of the building as a Polizeigefängnis, to temporarily hold detainees - Jews, resistance fighters, but also black-marketeers - for interrogation. From there, detainees were usually sent on to other holding facilities and camps, such as the Oranjehotel in Scheveningen or concentration and transit camps like Westerbork, Amersfoort and Vught.[2] The prison was closed in 1979 and its inmates transferred to the Bijlmerbajes. The building on Weteringschans was given a new purpose.
\r\n\r\nHet Huis van Bewaring I lag aan het het Kleine-Gartmanplantsoen 14 (tussen de Weteringschans en het Leidseplein).[1] Tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog gebruikt de Sipo-SD een deel van het gebouw als Polizeigefängnis, om arrestanten – Joden, verzetsmensen, maar ook zwarthandelaren – tijdelijk vast te houden voor verhoor. Vandaaruit werden de arrestanten doorgaans doorgestuurd naar andere bewaarplaatsen en kampen, zoals het Oranjehotel in Scheveningen of concentratie- en doorvoerkampen als Westerbork, Amersfoort en Vught.[2] De gevangenis werd in 1979 gesloten en overgeplaatst naar de Bijlmerbajes. Het gebouw aan de Weteringschans kreeg een nieuwe bestemming.
\r\n\r\nHuis van Bewaring (Detention Centre) I was located at Kleine-Gartmanplantsoen 14 (between Weteringschans and Leidseplein).[1] During World War II, the Sipo-SD used part of the building as a Polizeigefängnis, to temporarily hold detainees - Jews, resistance fighters, but also black-marketeers - for interrogation. From there, detainees were usually sent on to other holding facilities and camps, such as the Oranjehotel in Scheveningen or concentration and transit camps like Westerbork, Amersfoort and Vught.[2] The prison was closed in 1979 and its inmates transferred to the Bijlmerbajes. The building on Weteringschans was given a new purpose.
\r\n\r\nShe made the trip accompanied by Dutch film producer Hans Boekman, brother of the Amsterdam alderman.[1] The film was a Dutch parallel production to the French version L'homme sans coeur. The main roles were played by Lily Bouwmeester, Ank van der Moer and Elias van Praag, among others.[2] Several newspapers paid attention to the departure on their photo pages.
\r\n\r\nZe maakte de reis onder begeleiding van de Nederlandse filmproducent Hans Boekman, broer van de Amsterdamse wethouder.[1] De film was een Nederlandse parallelproductie bij het maken van de Franse versie L'homme sans coeur. De belangrijkere rollen werden onder meer vertolkt door Lily Bouwmeester, Ank van der Moer en Elias van Praag.[2] Verschillende kranten besteedden aandacht aan het vertrek op hun fotopagina.
\r\n\r\nShe made the trip accompanied by Dutch film producer Hans Boekman, brother of the Amsterdam alderman.[1] The film was a Dutch parallel production to the French version L'homme sans coeur. The main roles were played by Lily Bouwmeester, Ank van der Moer and Elias van Praag, among others.[2] Several newspapers paid attention to the departure on their photo pages.
\r\n\r\nOn Tuesday 8 August 1944 , Anne Frank, along with her parents, sister and the other people in hiding, were put on a transport from the Detention Centre on Weteringschans in Amsterdam to the Westerbork transit camp. The prisoners left under police guard by tram to Central Station.[1]
\r\n\r\nAnne Frank was number seventeen on the 'S' list -Transport aus Amsterdam vom 8.8.1944 nach lager Westerbork.[2] This was a criminal transport - as arrested Jews who had been in hiding, the eight people from the Secret Annex were punishment ('S') cases.
\r\n\r\nThey went to Westerbork in a normal train. On either side were compartments that were locked, and there was surveillance.[3] Otto Frank wrote that during the train ride he was mainly worried about Victor Kugler and Johannes Kleiman, who had also been arrested. Other than that, the mood was relatively good.[4] Even the weather was nice that day. The sun was shining and a breeze was blowing from the northwest; it was about 19°C.[5] Otto wrote:
\r\n\r\n"We were together again and had got some food for the journey. We knew where we were going, but still it was like we were travelling together one more time, and actually we were excited [...], at least if I compare this trip to our next one."[4]\r\n\r\n
The journey from Amsterdam to Westerbork took five to six hours.[6] The route ran from Amsterdam Centraal via Hilversum, Amersfoort, Zwolle and Meppel to Hooghalen, from where the train entered Camp Westerbork via a branch line.[7]
\r\n\r\nOp dinsdag 8 augustus 1944 ging Anne Frank samen met haar ouders, zus en de andere onderduikers vanuit het Huis van Bewaring aan de Weteringschans in Amsterdam op transport naar het doorgangskamp Westerbork. De gevangenen vertrokken onder politiebewaking met de tram naar het Centraal Station.[1]
\r\n\r\nAnne Frank was nummer zeventien op de lijst "S"-Transport aus Amsterdam vom 8.8.1944 nach lager Westerbork.[2] Het ging hier om een zogeheten straftransport. Als opgepakte ondergedoken Joden waren de acht onderduikers namelijk zogenaamde strafgevallen ('S').
\r\n\r\nDe onderduikers gingen in een normale trein naar Westerbork. Aan weerszijden waren coupés die werden afgesloten, en er was bewaking aanwezig.[3] Otto Frank schreef dat hij zich tijdens de treinrit vooral zorgen maakte over Victor Kugler en Johannes Kleiman, die immers ook waren opgepakt. Verder was de stemming relatief goed.[4] Het weer was zelfs mooi die dag. De zon scheen en een zwakke wind waaide vanuit het noordwesten, het was ongeveer negentien graden.[5] Otto schreef:
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n‘We waren weer samen en hadden wat eten voor onderweg gekregen. We wisten waar we heengingen, maar toch was het alsof we nog eenmaal samen op reis waren, en eigenlijk waren we opgewekt […], tenminste als ik deze reis vergelijk met onze volgende.’[4]
\r\n
De reis van Amsterdam naar Westerbork duurde vijf tot zes uur.[6] Het traject liep van Amsterdam Centraal via Hilversum, Amersfoort, Zwolle en Meppel naar Hooghalen, vanwaar de trein via een aftakking kamp Westerbork binnenreed.[7]
\r\n\r\nOn Tuesday 8 August 1944 , Anne Frank, along with her parents, sister and the other people in hiding, were put on a transport from the Detention Centre on Weteringschans in Amsterdam to the Westerbork transit camp. The prisoners left under police guard by tram to Central Station.[1]
\r\n\r\nAnne Frank was number seventeen on the 'S' list -Transport aus Amsterdam vom 8.8.1944 nach lager Westerbork.[2] This was a criminal transport - as arrested Jews who had been in hiding, the eight people from the Secret Annex were punishment ('S') cases.
\r\n\r\nThey went to Westerbork in a normal train. On either side were compartments that were locked, and there was surveillance.[3] Otto Frank wrote that during the train ride he was mainly worried about Victor Kugler and Johannes Kleiman, who had also been arrested. Other than that, the mood was relatively good.[4] Even the weather was nice that day. The sun was shining and a breeze was blowing from the northwest; it was about 19°C.[5] Otto wrote:
\r\n\r\n"We were together again and had got some food for the journey. We knew where we were going, but still it was like we were travelling together one more time, and actually we were excited [...], at least if I compare this trip to our next one."[4]\r\n\r\n
The journey from Amsterdam to Westerbork took five to six hours.[6] The route ran from Amsterdam Centraal via Hilversum, Amersfoort, Zwolle and Meppel to Hooghalen, from where the train entered Camp Westerbork via a branch line.[7]
\r\n\r\nWorld War II took the lives of approximately 110,000 Amsterdam residents. Of the sizeable Jewish community, the majority, about 75,000 Jews, did not survive the German occupation. Anne Frank went into hiding in the city and wrote her world-famous diary there. The Hunger Winter also took a heavy toll on the city, as it did throughout the Western Netherlands.
","description_nl":"De Tweede Wereldoorlog kostte aan ongeveer 110.000 Amsterdammers het leven. Van de omvangrijke Joodse gemeenschap overleefde het merendeel, ongeveer 75.000 Joden, de Duitse bezetting niet. Anne Frank dook in de stad onder en schreef er haar wereldberoemde dagboek. Ook de Hongerwinter eiste, zoals in heel West-Nederland, een hoge tol in de stad.
","description_en":"World War II took the lives of approximately 110,000 Amsterdam residents. Of the sizeable Jewish community, the majority, about 75,000 Jews, did not survive the German occupation. Anne Frank went into hiding in the city and wrote her world-famous diary there. The Hunger Winter also took a heavy toll on the city, as it did throughout the Western Netherlands.
","summary":"Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands.","summary_nl":"Amsterdam is de hoofdstad van Nederland.","summary_en":"Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands.","same_as":["https://data.niod.nl/WO2_Thesaurus/locations/9577"],"parent":396124554,"files":[]}],"related_locations":["https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/4265a185-f892-4973-98e7-b47650f75901","https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/locations/fa71d2a7-0c30-4015-b90a-a791f0cb4049"],"url":"https://research.annefrank.org/en/locaties/63dce380-73c4-4db6-b629-d9e9b21c8dd0/","published":true,"name":"Amsterdam Central Station","name_nl":"Station Amsterdam Centraal","name_en":"Amsterdam Central Station","uuid":"63dce380-73c4-4db6-b629-d9e9b21c8dd0","content":"After liberation, most survivors returned via Amsterdam Central Station. There was a special repatriation centre for registration, medical control and political control at the station.[1]
\r\n\r\nNa de bevrijding keerden de meeste overlevers terug via Station Amsterdam Centraal. Hier was een speciaal repatriëringscentrum voor registratie, medische controle en politieke controle.[1]
\r\n\r\nAfter liberation, most survivors returned via Amsterdam Central Station. There was a special repatriation centre for registration, medical control and political control at the station.[1]
\r\n\r\nDoris Goldschmidt had gone into hiding with her parents. An SD officer of the Zentralstelle für Judische Auswanderung apprehended her around two o'clock in the afternoon of 13 August 1943 as a "Jew in hiding" and brought her to the police station on Stadionweg. The next morning at a quarter past nine, the same SD officer picked her up again.[1]
\r\nOn 26 August 1943 she was put in prison barrack 67 in Westerbork. Five days later she was deported to Auschwitz with more than a thousand others.[2] According to the date of death, she was one of those who were killed immediately upon arrival.[3]
Doris Goldschmidt was met haar ouders ondergedoken. Een SD-beambte van de Zentralstelle für Judische Auswanderung hield haar in de middag van 13 augustus 1943 rond twee uur als ‘ondergedoken jodin’ aan en bracht haar naar de politiepost aan de Stadionweg. De volgende ochtend om kwart over negen haalde dezelfde SD’er haar weer op[1].
\r\nOp 26 augustus 1943 kwam ze in Westerbork in strafbarak 67. Vijf dagen later ging zij met ruim duizend anderen op transport naar Auschwitz [2]. Blijkens de overlijdensdatum behoorde zij tot degenen die bij aankomst meteen zijn vermoord.[3]
Doris Goldschmidt had gone into hiding with her parents. An SD officer of the Zentralstelle für Judische Auswanderung apprehended her around two o'clock in the afternoon of 13 August 1943 as a "Jew in hiding" and brought her to the police station on Stadionweg. The next morning at a quarter past nine, the same SD officer picked her up again.[1]
\r\nOn 26 August 1943 she was put in prison barrack 67 in Westerbork. Five days later she was deported to Auschwitz with more than a thousand others.[2] According to the date of death, she was one of those who were killed immediately upon arrival.[3]
After the arrest, the eight people in hiding and helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler were taken to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung at Adema van Scheltemaplein 1.[1] They were locked together in a large room, to be interrogated one by one later.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank was interrogated once by Silberbauer. The interrogation proceeded calmly. Silberbauer used no violence and only asked a few questions. After he was convinced that Otto knew nothing about other cases in hiding, he left him alone.[2]
\r\n\r\nNa de arrestatie werden de acht onderduikers en de helpers Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler naar de Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung aan het Adema van Scheltemaplein 1 gebracht.[1] Ze werden samen in een grote ruimte opgesloten, om later een voor een te worden verhoord.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank werd één keer verhoord door Silberbauer. Het verhoor verliep rustig. Silberbauer gebruikte geen geweld en stelde slechts een aantal vragen. Nadat hij ervan overtuigd was dat Otto niets over andere onderduikgevallen wist te vertellen liet hij hem verder met rust.[2]
\r\n\r\nAfter the arrest, the eight people in hiding and helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler were taken to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung at Adema van Scheltemaplein 1.[1] They were locked together in a large room, to be interrogated one by one later.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank was interrogated once by Silberbauer. The interrogation proceeded calmly. Silberbauer used no violence and only asked a few questions. After he was convinced that Otto knew nothing about other cases in hiding, he left him alone.[2]
\r\n\r\nOn 4 August 1944, an arrest team of the Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) raided Prinsengracht 263 and the Secret Annex. The team was led by SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer and included the detectives Willem Grootendorst and Gezinus Gringhuis. All eight people in hiding and two helpers, Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, were arrested and taken to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung building at Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 in Amsterdam. It has never been fully clarified how the SD tracked down the people in hiding. [1]
\r\n\r\nNothing concrete is known about Auguste van Pels' experience of the 4 August 1944 raid on the building at Prinsengracht 263. The course of events on the third floor of the annex during the arrest is known only through statements by Otto Frank and Karl Silberbauer.
\r\n\r\nDuring the raid, Auguste van Pels was in the kitchen cum living room. Together with Hermann and Peter van Pels, Otto Frank and Fritz Pfeffer, she was directed to the floor below.[2] They were all gathered together there.
\r\n\r\nTogether with helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, Auguste van Pels and the other people in hiding were taken to the SD building on Euterpestraat. The people in hiding were taken the next day to the Detention Centre on Weteringschans, and later on to Westerbork.[3]
\r\n\r\nOp 4 augustus 1944 deed een arrestatieteam van Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) een inval op Prinsengracht 263 en het Achterhuis. Het team stond onder leiding van SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer en bestond daarnaast in elk geval uit de rechercheurs Willem Grootendorst en Gezinus Gringhuis. Alle acht onderduikers en twee helpers, Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler, werden gearresteerd en afgevoerd naar het gebouw van de Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung aan het Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 te Amsterdam. Het is nooit geheel opgehelderd hoe de SD de onderduikers op het spoor is gekomen.[1]
\r\n\r\nOver Auguste van Pels' beleving van de inval van 4 augustus 1944 in het pand Prinsengracht 263 is niets concreet bekend. De gang van zaken op de derde verdieping van het achterhuis tijdens de arrestatie is alleen bekend door verklaringen van Otto Frank en Karl Silberbauer.
\r\n\r\nTijdens de inval bevond Auguste van Pels zich in de keuken annex woonkamer. Zij werd samen met Hermann en Peter van Pels, Otto Frank en Fritz Pfeffer naar de onderliggende verdieping gedirigeerd.[2] Daar werden allen verzameld.
\r\n\r\nSamen met de helpers Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler werden Auguste van Pels en de andere onderduikers naar de ‘Euterpestraat’ overgebracht. De onderduikers werden de volgende dag naar het Huis van Bewaring aan de Weteringschans en nog later naar Westerbork gebracht.[3]
\r\n\r\nOn 4 August 1944, an arrest team of the Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) raided Prinsengracht 263 and the Secret Annex. The team was led by SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer and included the detectives Willem Grootendorst and Gezinus Gringhuis. All eight people in hiding and two helpers, Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, were arrested and taken to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung building at Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 in Amsterdam. It has never been fully clarified how the SD tracked down the people in hiding. [1]
\r\n\r\nNothing concrete is known about Auguste van Pels' experience of the 4 August 1944 raid on the building at Prinsengracht 263. The course of events on the third floor of the annex during the arrest is known only through statements by Otto Frank and Karl Silberbauer.
\r\n\r\nDuring the raid, Auguste van Pels was in the kitchen cum living room. Together with Hermann and Peter van Pels, Otto Frank and Fritz Pfeffer, she was directed to the floor below.[2] They were all gathered together there.
\r\n\r\nTogether with helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, Auguste van Pels and the other people in hiding were taken to the SD building on Euterpestraat. The people in hiding were taken the next day to the Detention Centre on Weteringschans, and later on to Westerbork.[3]
\r\n\r\nOn 4 August 1944, an arrest team of the Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) raided Prinsengracht 263 and the Secret Annex. The team was led by SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer and included the detectives Willem Grootendorst and Gezinus Gringhuis. All eight people in hiding and two helpers, Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, were arrested and taken to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung building at Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 in Amsterdam. It has never been fully clarified how the SD tracked down the people in hiding.[1]
\r\n\r\nFew details are known about Peter van Pels' experiences during the 4 August 1944 raid on the Prinsengracht 263 building. The course of events on the third floor of the annex during the arrest is known only through statements by Otto Frank and Karl Silberbauer.
\r\n\r\nDuring the raid, Peter was in his own room. Otto Frank was helping him learn English and just pointing out a mistake in his dictation, when he suddenly heard someone running up the stairs: "Suddenly someone came running up the stairs and then the door opened and a man was standing right in front of us with a gun in his hand. Downstairs they were all gathered".[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1963, he added:
\r\n\r\n"He made us raise our hands and then searched us for weapons. (...) Then he ordered us to go downstairs. He came after us with a gun drawn. We first entered the room of the Pels family, where I saw Mr and Mrs Pels, as well as Mr Pfeffer [also] standing with their hands raised. Here too stood a man dressed in civilian clothes, unknown to me, who had also drawn his pistol. Then we all had to go down another floor, where I lived with my family. There I saw my wife and both daughters standing, also with their hands raised. (...) I also saw a man in a green uniform, unknown to me, who had already drawn his gun. I found out later that this man was called Silberbauer."[3]\r\n\r\n
Together with helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, Peter and the other people in hiding were taken to the SD building on Euterpestraat. The people in hiding were taken the next day to the Detention Centre on Weteringschans, and later on to Westerbork.[4]
\r\n\r\nOp 4 augustus 1944 deed een arrestatieteam van Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) een inval op Prinsengracht 263 en het Achterhuis. Het team stond onder leiding van SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer en bestond daarnaast in elk geval uit de rechercheurs Willem Grootendorst en Gezinus Gringhuis. Alle acht onderduikers en twee helpers, Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler, werden gearresteerd en afgevoerd naar het gebouw van de Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung aan het Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 te Amsterdam. Het is nooit geheel opgehelderd hoe de SD de onderduikers op het spoor is gekomen.[1]
\r\n\r\nOver de ervaringen van Peter van Pels tijdens de inval van 4 augustus 1944 in het pand Prinsengracht 263 is weinig concreet bekend. De gang van zaken op de derde verdieping van het achterhuis tijdens de arrestatie is alleen bekend door verklaringen van Otto Frank en Karl Silberbauer.
\r\n\r\nTijdens de inval bevond Peter zich op zijn eigen kamer. Otto Frank hielp hem daar met Engels leren en wees hem net op een fout in zijn dictee toen hij plotseling iemand de trap op hoorde rennen: ‘Plotseling kwam iemand de trap op rennen en toen ging de deur open en een man stond vlak voor ons met een pistool in zijn hand. Beneden waren ze allemaal verzameld’.[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1963 voegde hij daar aan toe:
\r\n\r\n'Hij liet ons de handen omhoog steken en fouilleerde ons daarna op wapens. (…) Vervolgens gelastte hij ons naar beneden te gaan. Hij kwam achter ons aan met een getrokken pistool. Wij kwamen eerst in de kamer van de familie Pels, alwaar ik de heer en mevrouw Pels, alsook de heer Pfeffer [ook] met omhoog geheven handen zag staan. Ook hier stond een in burger geklede, mij onbekende man, die eveneens zijn pistool getrokken had. Daarna moesten wij allen weer een verdieping lager, waar ik met mijn gezin woonde. Daar zag ik mijn vrouw en beide dochters staan, eveneens met de handen in de hoogte. (…) Tevens zag ik daar een in groen uniform geklede, mij onbekende man staan, die ook al zijn pistool getrokken had. Deze man bleek mij nadien Silberbauer te heten.’[3]\r\n\r\n
Samen met de helpers Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler werden Peter en de andere onderduikers naar de ‘Euterpestraat’ overgebracht. De onderduikers werden de volgende dag naar het Huis van Bewaring aan de Weteringschans en nog later naar Westerbork gebracht.[4]
\r\n\r\nOn 4 August 1944, an arrest team of the Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) raided Prinsengracht 263 and the Secret Annex. The team was led by SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer and included the detectives Willem Grootendorst and Gezinus Gringhuis. All eight people in hiding and two helpers, Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, were arrested and taken to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung building at Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 in Amsterdam. It has never been fully clarified how the SD tracked down the people in hiding.[1]
\r\n\r\nFew details are known about Peter van Pels' experiences during the 4 August 1944 raid on the Prinsengracht 263 building. The course of events on the third floor of the annex during the arrest is known only through statements by Otto Frank and Karl Silberbauer.
\r\n\r\nDuring the raid, Peter was in his own room. Otto Frank was helping him learn English and just pointing out a mistake in his dictation, when he suddenly heard someone running up the stairs: "Suddenly someone came running up the stairs and then the door opened and a man was standing right in front of us with a gun in his hand. Downstairs they were all gathered".[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1963, he added:
\r\n\r\n"He made us raise our hands and then searched us for weapons. (...) Then he ordered us to go downstairs. He came after us with a gun drawn. We first entered the room of the Pels family, where I saw Mr and Mrs Pels, as well as Mr Pfeffer [also] standing with their hands raised. Here too stood a man dressed in civilian clothes, unknown to me, who had also drawn his pistol. Then we all had to go down another floor, where I lived with my family. There I saw my wife and both daughters standing, also with their hands raised. (...) I also saw a man in a green uniform, unknown to me, who had already drawn his gun. I found out later that this man was called Silberbauer."[3]\r\n\r\n
Together with helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, Peter and the other people in hiding were taken to the SD building on Euterpestraat. The people in hiding were taken the next day to the Detention Centre on Weteringschans, and later on to Westerbork.[4]
\r\n\r\nOn 4 August 1944 , an arrest team of the Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) raided Prinsengracht 263 and the Secret Annex. The team was led by SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer and included the detectives Willem Grootendorst and Gezinus Gringhuis. All eight people in hiding and two helpers, Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, were arrested and taken to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung building at Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 in Amsterdam. It has never been fully clarified how the SD tracked down the people in hiding.[1]
\r\n\r\nNo details are known about Hermann van Pels' experience of the 4 August 1944 raid on the Prinsengracht 263 building. The course of events on the third floor of the annex during the arrest is known only through statements by Otto Frank and Karl Silberbauer.
\r\n\r\nHermann van Pels and the other people in hiding were gathered by Silberbauer and conducted to the second floor.[2] Initially, only Kugler went with them into the Secret Annex, but later Kleiman was also taken there.[3]
\r\n\r\nTogether with Kleiman, Kugler and the other people in hiding, Hermann was taken to the SD building on Euterpestraat for interrogation. The next day, he and the others were transferred to the Detention Centre on Weteringschans and later transported to Westerbork.[2]
\r\n\r\nOp 4 augustus 1944 deed een arrestatieteam van Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) een inval op Prinsengracht 263 en het Achterhuis. Het team stond onder leiding van SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer en bestond daarnaast in elk geval uit de rechercheurs Willem Grootendorst en Gezinus Gringhuis. Alle acht onderduikers en twee helpers, Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler, werden gearresteerd en afgevoerd naar het gebouw van de Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung aan het Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 te Amsterdam. Het is nooit geheel opgehelderd hoe de SD de onderduikers op het spoor is gekomen.[1]
\r\n\r\nOver Hermann van Pels' beleving van de inval van 4 augustus 1944 in het pand Prinsengracht 263 is niets concreet bekend. De gang van zaken op de derde verdieping van het achterhuis tijdens de arrestatie is alleen bekend door verklaringen van Otto Frank en Karl Silberbauer.
\r\n\r\nHermann van Pels en de andere onderduikers werden door Silberbauer verzameld en naar de tweede verdieping gedirigeerd.[2] Aanvankelijk gaat alleen Kugler mee het Achterhuis in, maar later wordt ook Kleiman daar naartoe gebracht.[3]
\r\n\r\nSamen met Kleiman, Kugler en de andere onderduikers wordt Hermann voor verhoor naar de SD in de Euterpestraat overgebracht. De volgende dag wordt hij samen met de anderen overgebracht naar het Huis van Bewaring aan de Weteringschans en daarna wordt hij getransporteerd naar Westerbork.[2]
\r\n\r\nOn 4 August 1944 , an arrest team of the Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) raided Prinsengracht 263 and the Secret Annex. The team was led by SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer and included the detectives Willem Grootendorst and Gezinus Gringhuis. All eight people in hiding and two helpers, Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, were arrested and taken to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung building at Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 in Amsterdam. It has never been fully clarified how the SD tracked down the people in hiding.[1]
\r\n\r\nNo details are known about Hermann van Pels' experience of the 4 August 1944 raid on the Prinsengracht 263 building. The course of events on the third floor of the annex during the arrest is known only through statements by Otto Frank and Karl Silberbauer.
\r\n\r\nHermann van Pels and the other people in hiding were gathered by Silberbauer and conducted to the second floor.[2] Initially, only Kugler went with them into the Secret Annex, but later Kleiman was also taken there.[3]
\r\n\r\nTogether with Kleiman, Kugler and the other people in hiding, Hermann was taken to the SD building on Euterpestraat for interrogation. The next day, he and the others were transferred to the Detention Centre on Weteringschans and later transported to Westerbork.[2]
\r\n\r\nOn 4 August 1944, an arrest team of the Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) raided Prinsengracht 263 and the Secret Annex. The team was led by SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer and included the detectives Willem Grootendorst and Gezinus Gringhuis. All eight people in hiding and two helpers, Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, were arrested and taken to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung building at Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 in Amsterdam. It has never been fully clarified how the SD tracked down the people in hiding.[1]
\r\n\r\nAccording to statements by Victor Kugler, Edith Frank-Holländer was the first person he saw when he, followed by the SDs, entered the Secret Annex. Kugler said: 'Ich konnte nur mit vieler Mühe sagen: die Gestapo ist da.'[2]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank stated in 1963 that Edith, Anne, Margot were on the Frank floor with Silberbauer during the arrest: "There I saw my wife and both daughters standing, also with their hands raised."[3]
\r\n\r\nTogether with helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, Edith and the other people in hiding were taken to the SD building on Euterpestraat. The people in hiding were taken the next day to the Detention Centre on Weteringschans, and later to Westerbork.[3]
\r\n\r\nOp 4 augustus 1944 deed een arrestatieteam van Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) een inval op Prinsengracht 263 en het Achterhuis. Het team stond onder leiding van SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer en bestond daarnaast in elk geval uit de rechercheurs Willem Grootendorst en Gezinus Gringhuis. Alle acht onderduikers en twee helpers, Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler, werden gearresteerd en afgevoerd naar het gebouw van de Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung aan het Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 te Amsterdam. Het is nooit geheel opgehelderd hoe de SD de onderduikers op het spoor is gekomen.[1]
\r\n\r\nVolgens verklaringen van Victor Kugler was Edith Frank-Holländer de eerste die hij zag toen hij, gevolgd door de SD'ers, het Achterhuis binnenging. Kugler zei hierover: 'Ich konnte nur mit vieler Mühe sagen: die Gestapo ist da.'[2]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank verklaarde in 1963 dat Edith, Anne en Margot zich met Silberbauer op de Frank-etage bevonden tijdens de arrestatie: 'Daar zag ik mijn vrouw en beide dochters staan, eveneens met de handen in de hoogte.'[3]
\r\n\r\nSamen met de helpers Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler werden Edith en de andere onderduikers naar de ‘Euterpestraat’ overgebracht. De onderduikers werden de volgende dag naar het Huis van Bewaring aan de Weteringschans en nog later naar Westerbork gebracht.[3]
\r\n\r\nOn 4 August 1944, an arrest team of the Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) raided Prinsengracht 263 and the Secret Annex. The team was led by SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer and included the detectives Willem Grootendorst and Gezinus Gringhuis. All eight people in hiding and two helpers, Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, were arrested and taken to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung building at Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 in Amsterdam. It has never been fully clarified how the SD tracked down the people in hiding.[1]
\r\n\r\nAccording to statements by Victor Kugler, Edith Frank-Holländer was the first person he saw when he, followed by the SDs, entered the Secret Annex. Kugler said: 'Ich konnte nur mit vieler Mühe sagen: die Gestapo ist da.'[2]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank stated in 1963 that Edith, Anne, Margot were on the Frank floor with Silberbauer during the arrest: "There I saw my wife and both daughters standing, also with their hands raised."[3]
\r\n\r\nTogether with helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, Edith and the other people in hiding were taken to the SD building on Euterpestraat. The people in hiding were taken the next day to the Detention Centre on Weteringschans, and later to Westerbork.[3]
\r\n\r\nOn 4 August 1944, an arrest team of Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) raided Prinsengracht 263 and the Secret Annex. The team was led by SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer and included the detectives Willem Grootendorst and Gezinus Gringhuis. All eight people in hiding and two helpers, Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, were arrested and taken to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung building at Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 in Amsterdam. It has never been fully clarified how the SD tracked down the people in hiding.[1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank later recalled being in the upper part of the Secret Annex at the time of the arrest, helping Peter with his schoolwork in his room and at that moment pointing out an error in his dictation when he suddenly heard someone running up the stairs: "Suddenly someone came running up the stairs and then the door opened and a man was standing right in front of us with a gun in his hand. Downstairs they were all gathered."[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1963, he added:
\r\n\r\n"He made us raise our hands and then searched us for weapons. (...) Then he ordered us to go downstairs. He came after us with a gun drawn. We first entered the room of the Pels family, where I saw Mr and Mrs Pels, as well as Mr Pfeffer [also] standing with their hands raised. Here too stood a man dressed in civilian clothes, unknown to me, who had also drawn his pistol. Then we all had to go down another floor, where I lived with my family. There I saw my wife and both daughters standing, also with their hands raised. (...) I also saw a man in a green uniform, unknown to me, who had already drawn his pistol. I found out afterwards that this man was called Silberbauer."[3]\r\n\r\n
Silberbauer also asked the detainees about jewellery and money. He emptied the briefcase in which Anne kept her diary entries and put money and jewellery in it. The detainees were given five minutes to get ready for departure.[2]
\r\n\r\n"While waiting for all this, Silberbauer walked through our room and he saw a chest next to my wife's bed. It was a grey chest with iron fittings, on which was written my name and my rank in the German army. I then told him that I had been a reserve lieutenant in the German army in the First World War. At once Silberbauer's tone and attitude changed. (...) Thereupon he said to me, why didn't I report back then, I would have been sent to the 'Theresienstadt' labour camp back then."[2]\r\n\r\n
Silberbauer allowed the arrestees to take a few minutes to pack their belongings and then the eight hiders and the helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler were taken to the SD building on Adama van Scheltemaplein 1.Otto Frank himself repeatedly stated that after his arrest they were taken by the SD to the Aussenstelle - the regional office - of the Sicherheitsdienst on Euterpestraat. [4]
\r\n\r\nIn the SD building, they were locked together in a large room, to be interrogated later one by one. Otto Frank was interrogated once, briefly, here by Silberbauer. The interrogation proceeded calmly. Silberbauer used no violence and only asked a few questions. After being convinced that Otto knew nothing about other cases of people in hiding, he left him alone.[3]
\r\n\r\nOp 4 augustus 1944 deed een arrestatieteam van Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) een inval op Prinsengracht 263 en het Achterhuis. Het team stond onder leiding van SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer en bestond daarnaast in elk geval uit de rechercheurs Willem Grootendorst en Gezinus Gringhuis. Alle acht onderduikers en twee helpers, Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler, werden gearresteerd en afgevoerd naar het gebouw van de Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung aan het Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 te Amsterdam. Het is nooit geheel opgehelderd hoe de SD de onderduikers op het spoor is gekomen.[1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank herinnerde zich later dat hij op het moment van de arrestatie in het bovenste deel van het Achterhuis was, waar hij Peter op diens kamer met schoolwerk hielp en hem net op een fout in zijn dictee wees toen hij plotseling iemand de trap op hoorde rennen: ‘Plotseling kwam iemand de trap op rennen en toen ging de deur open en een man stond vlak voor ons met een pistool in zijn hand. Beneden waren ze allemaal verzameld.’[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1963 voegde hij daar aan toe:
\r\n\r\n‘Hij liet ons de handen omhoog steken en fouilleerde ons daarna op wapens. (…) Vervolgens gelastte hij ons naar beneden te gaan. Hij kwam achter ons aan met een getrokken pistool. Wij kwamen eerst in de kamer van de familie Pels, alwaar ik de heer en mevrouw Pels, alsook de heer Pfeffer [ook] met omhoog geheven handen zag staan. Ook hier stond een in burger geklede, mij onbekende man, die eveneens zijn pistool getrokken had. Daarna moesten wij allen weer een verdieping lager, waar ik met mijn gezin woonde. Daar zag ik mijn vrouw en beide dochters staan, eveneens met de handen in de hoogte. (…) Tevens zag ik daar een in groen uniform geklede, mij onbekende man staan, die ook al zijn pistool getrokken had. Deze man bleek mij nadien Silberbauer te heten’.[3]\r\n\r\n
Silberbauer vroeg de onderduikers ook naar sieraden en geld. Hij schudde de aktetas waarin Anne haar dagboekaantekeningen bewaarde leeg en stopte er geld en sieraden in. De arrestanten kregen vijf minuten om zich voor vertrek klaar te maken.[2]
\r\n\r\n‘In afwachting van dit alles liep Silberbauer door onze kamer heen en hij zag naast het bed van mijn vrouw een kist staan. Het was een grijze kist met ijzerbeslag, waarop mijn naam vermeld stond en mijn rang in het Duitse leger. Ik vertelde hem daarop dat ik in de Eerste Wereldoorlog reserve-luitenant van het Duitse leger was geweest. Op slag veranderde toon en houding van Silberbauer. (…) Daarop zei hij tegen mij, waarom ik mij destijds dan niet gemeld had, dan zou ik destijds naar het werkkamp “Theresienstadt” zijn gestuurd.’[2]\r\n\r\n
De arrestanten mochten van Silberbauer een paar minuten de tijd nemen om hun spullen te pakken en vervolgens werden de acht onderduikers en de helpers Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler naar het gebouw van de SD aan het Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 gebracht. Otto Frank zelf verklaarde herhaaldelijk dat zij na zijn arrestatiedoor de SD naar de Aussenstelle – het regionale kantoor – van de Sicherheitsdienst aan de Euterpestraat zijn gebracht. [4]
\r\n\r\nIn het gebouw van de SD werden zij samen in een grote ruimte opgesloten, om later een voor een te worden verhoord. Otto Frank werd hier één keer kort verhoord door Silberbauer. Het verhoor verliep rustig. Silberbauer gebruikte geen geweld en stelde slechts een aantal vragen. Nadat hij ervan overtuigd was dat Otto niets over andere onderduikgevallen wist te vertellen liet hij hem verder met rust.[3]
\r\n\r\nOn 4 August 1944, an arrest team of Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) raided Prinsengracht 263 and the Secret Annex. The team was led by SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer and included the detectives Willem Grootendorst and Gezinus Gringhuis. All eight people in hiding and two helpers, Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, were arrested and taken to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung building at Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 in Amsterdam. It has never been fully clarified how the SD tracked down the people in hiding.[1]
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank later recalled being in the upper part of the Secret Annex at the time of the arrest, helping Peter with his schoolwork in his room and at that moment pointing out an error in his dictation when he suddenly heard someone running up the stairs: "Suddenly someone came running up the stairs and then the door opened and a man was standing right in front of us with a gun in his hand. Downstairs they were all gathered."[2]
\r\n\r\nIn 1963, he added:
\r\n\r\n"He made us raise our hands and then searched us for weapons. (...) Then he ordered us to go downstairs. He came after us with a gun drawn. We first entered the room of the Pels family, where I saw Mr and Mrs Pels, as well as Mr Pfeffer [also] standing with their hands raised. Here too stood a man dressed in civilian clothes, unknown to me, who had also drawn his pistol. Then we all had to go down another floor, where I lived with my family. There I saw my wife and both daughters standing, also with their hands raised. (...) I also saw a man in a green uniform, unknown to me, who had already drawn his pistol. I found out afterwards that this man was called Silberbauer."[3]\r\n\r\n
Silberbauer also asked the detainees about jewellery and money. He emptied the briefcase in which Anne kept her diary entries and put money and jewellery in it. The detainees were given five minutes to get ready for departure.[2]
\r\n\r\n"While waiting for all this, Silberbauer walked through our room and he saw a chest next to my wife's bed. It was a grey chest with iron fittings, on which was written my name and my rank in the German army. I then told him that I had been a reserve lieutenant in the German army in the First World War. At once Silberbauer's tone and attitude changed. (...) Thereupon he said to me, why didn't I report back then, I would have been sent to the 'Theresienstadt' labour camp back then."[2]\r\n\r\n
Silberbauer allowed the arrestees to take a few minutes to pack their belongings and then the eight hiders and the helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler were taken to the SD building on Adama van Scheltemaplein 1.Otto Frank himself repeatedly stated that after his arrest they were taken by the SD to the Aussenstelle - the regional office - of the Sicherheitsdienst on Euterpestraat. [4]
\r\n\r\nIn the SD building, they were locked together in a large room, to be interrogated later one by one. Otto Frank was interrogated once, briefly, here by Silberbauer. The interrogation proceeded calmly. Silberbauer used no violence and only asked a few questions. After being convinced that Otto knew nothing about other cases of people in hiding, he left him alone.[3]
\r\n\r\nNothing concrete is known about circumstances leading to the 4 August 1944 raid on the Prinsengracht 263 building. The course of events on the third floor of the annex during the arrest is known only through statements by Otto Frank and Karl Silberbauer.
\r\n\r\nAround 10.30 am, an arrest team raided the premises on Prinsengracht.[1] The team was led by SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer and also included detectives Willem Grootendorst and Gezinus Gringhuis. The first two were working for the Sipo-SD, the latter had transferred from that service to the National Department of Criminal Investigation.[2] The policemen drove a car ahead, got out, after which one of the Dutch detectives asked the warehouse staff something, who directed him to the office floor upstairs. There they found the office staff working.
\r\n\r\nSitting there at the time were Johannes Kleiman, Bep Voskuijl and Miep Gies, who all knew about the people in hiding. The detectives walked on to the office of Victor Kugler.
\r\n\r\nThe policemen questioned him and took him along on a search of the building. During this inspection, they entered the room with the revolving bookcase, which blocked the entrance to the Secret Annex. They discovered the secret entrance and surprised the hiders in their hiding place.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank recalled: "Suddenly someone came running up the stairs and then the door opened and a man stood right in front of us with a gun in his hand. Downstairs they were all gathered."[3] In 1963, he added: "He made us raise our hands and then searched us for weapons. (...) Then he ordered us to go downstairs. He came after us with a gun drawn. We first entered the room of the Pels family, where I saw Mr and Mrs Pels, as well as Mr Pfeffer [also] standing with their hands raised." [4]
\r\n\r\nTogether with Kleiman, Kugler and the other people in hiding, Fritz Pfeffer was taken to the SD on Euterpestraat for interrogation. The next day he and the others were transferred to the Detention Centre on Weteringschans, and from there transported to Westerbork.[4]
\r\n\r\nOver omstandigheden die tot de inval van 4 augustus 1944 in het pand Prinsengracht 263 hebben geleid is niets concreet bekend. De gang van zaken op de derde verdieping van het achterhuis tijdens de arrestatie is alleen bekend door verklaringen van Otto Frank en Karl Silberbauer.
\r\n\r\nRond half elf in de ochtend viel een arrestatieteam het pand aan de Prinsengracht binnen.[1] Het team stond onder leiding van SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer en bestond daarnaast in elk geval uit de rechercheurs Willem Grootendorst en Gezinus Gringhuis. De eerste twee waren werkzaam voor de Sipo-SD, de laatste was van die dienst overgestapt naar de Nederlandse Rijksrecherchecentrale.[2] De politiemannen reden met een auto voor, stapten uit, waarna een van de Nederlandse rechercheurs iets aan het pakhuispersoneel vroeg, dat hem naar de bovengelegen kantoorverdieping verwees. Daar troffen zij het kantoorpersoneel dat aan het werk was.
\r\n\r\nOp dat moment zaten daar Johannes Kleiman, Bep Voskuijl en Miep Gies, die allen op de hoogte waren van de onderduikers. De rechercheurs liepen door naar het kantoor van Victor Kugler.
\r\n\r\nDe politiemannen ondervroegen hem en namen hem mee om het gebouw te doorzoeken. Tijdens deze inspectie kwamen ze in de ruimte met de draaibare boekenkast, die de toegang tot het Achterhuis blokkeerde. Ze ontdekten de geheime toegang en verrasten de onderduikers in hun schuilplaats.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank herinnerde zich: ‘Plotseling kwam iemand de trap op rennen en toen ging de deur open en een man stond vlak voor ons met een pistool in zijn hand. Beneden waren ze allemaal verzameld.’[3] In 1963 voegde hij daaraan toe: ‘Hij liet ons de handen omhoog steken en fouilleerde ons daarna op wapens. (…) Vervolgens gelastte hij ons naar beneden te gaan. Hij kwam achter ons aan met een getrokken pistool. Wij kwamen eerst in de kamer van de familie Pels, alwaar ik de heer en mevrouw Pels, alsook de heer Pfeffer [ook] met omhoog geheven handen zag staan.' [4]
\r\n\r\nSamen met Kleiman, Kugler en de andere onderduikers werd Fritz Pfeffer voor verhoor naar de SD in de Euterpestraat overgebracht. De volgende dag werd hij met de anderen overgebracht naar het Huis van Bewaring aan de Weteringschans en van daaruit getransporteerd naar Westerbork.[4]
\r\n\r\nNothing concrete is known about circumstances leading to the 4 August 1944 raid on the Prinsengracht 263 building. The course of events on the third floor of the annex during the arrest is known only through statements by Otto Frank and Karl Silberbauer.
\r\n\r\nAround 10.30 am, an arrest team raided the premises on Prinsengracht.[1] The team was led by SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Silberbauer and also included detectives Willem Grootendorst and Gezinus Gringhuis. The first two were working for the Sipo-SD, the latter had transferred from that service to the National Department of Criminal Investigation.[2] The policemen drove a car ahead, got out, after which one of the Dutch detectives asked the warehouse staff something, who directed him to the office floor upstairs. There they found the office staff working.
\r\n\r\nSitting there at the time were Johannes Kleiman, Bep Voskuijl and Miep Gies, who all knew about the people in hiding. The detectives walked on to the office of Victor Kugler.
\r\n\r\nThe policemen questioned him and took him along on a search of the building. During this inspection, they entered the room with the revolving bookcase, which blocked the entrance to the Secret Annex. They discovered the secret entrance and surprised the hiders in their hiding place.
\r\n\r\nOtto Frank recalled: "Suddenly someone came running up the stairs and then the door opened and a man stood right in front of us with a gun in his hand. Downstairs they were all gathered."[3] In 1963, he added: "He made us raise our hands and then searched us for weapons. (...) Then he ordered us to go downstairs. He came after us with a gun drawn. We first entered the room of the Pels family, where I saw Mr and Mrs Pels, as well as Mr Pfeffer [also] standing with their hands raised." [4]
\r\n\r\nTogether with Kleiman, Kugler and the other people in hiding, Fritz Pfeffer was taken to the SD on Euterpestraat for interrogation. The next day he and the others were transferred to the Detention Centre on Weteringschans, and from there transported to Westerbork.[4]
\r\n\r\nOn 4 August 1944, an arrest team of Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) raided Prinsengracht 263 and the Secret Annex. All eight people in hiding and two helpers, Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, were arrested and taken to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung building at Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 in Amsterdam. It has never been fully clarified how the SD tracked down the people in hiding.[1]
\r\n\r\nAccording to Otto Frank's statement during the 1963 investigation by the National Department of Criminal Investigation, he saw Margot, Anne and Edith in the Frank family's bedroom cum living room on the second floor when he came down from Peter's room.[2]
\r\n\r\nTogether with helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, Margot and the other people in hiding were taken to the SD building on Euterpestraat. The people in hiding were taken the next day to the Detention Centre on Weteringschans, and later on to Westerbork.[2]
\r\n\r\nOp 4 augustus 1944 deed een arrestatieteam van Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) een inval op Prinsengracht 263 en het Achterhuis. Alle acht onderduikers en twee helpers, Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler, werden gearresteerd en afgevoerd naar het gebouw van de Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung aan het Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 te Amsterdam. Het is nooit geheel opgehelderd hoe de SD de onderduikers op het spoor is gekomen.[1]
\r\n\r\nVolgens de verklaring van Otto Frank tijdens het Rijksrechercheonderzoek uit 1963 zag hij Margot, Anne en Edith in de slaapkamer annex woonkamer van de familie Frank op de tweede verdieping toen hij vanuit Peters kamer naar beneden kwam.[2]
\r\n\r\nSamen met de helpers Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler werden Margot en de andere onderduikers naar de ‘Euterpestraat’ overgebracht. De onderduikers werden de volgende dag naar het Huis van Bewaring aan de Weteringschans en nog later naar Westerbork gebracht.[2]
\r\n\r\nOn 4 August 1944, an arrest team of Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) raided Prinsengracht 263 and the Secret Annex. All eight people in hiding and two helpers, Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, were arrested and taken to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung building at Adama van Scheltemaplein 1 in Amsterdam. It has never been fully clarified how the SD tracked down the people in hiding.[1]
\r\n\r\nAccording to Otto Frank's statement during the 1963 investigation by the National Department of Criminal Investigation, he saw Margot, Anne and Edith in the Frank family's bedroom cum living room on the second floor when he came down from Peter's room.[2]
\r\n\r\nTogether with helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, Margot and the other people in hiding were taken to the SD building on Euterpestraat. The people in hiding were taken the next day to the Detention Centre on Weteringschans, and later on to Westerbork.[2]
\r\n\r\nOn 4 August 1944, an arrest team of Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) raided Prinsengracht 263 and the Secret Annex. All eight people in hiding and two helpers, Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, were arrested. It has never been fully clarified how the SD tracked down the hiders.[1]
\r\n\r\nWe know little about Anne Frank's experiences during the raid and arrest. According to Otto Frank's 1963 statement, he saw Anne, Margot and Edith in his bedroom when he came downstairs from Peter's room.[2] This statement also reveals that Anne and the others, after questioning at the SD station on Adama van Scheltemaplein, were taken to the Detention Centre on Weteringschans.[2]
\r\n\r\nWe know little about Anne Frank during the raid and arrest, but through the diary we do know a little more about Anne's fear of arrest. She describes that fear from the start.
\r\n\r\nOp 4 augustus 1944 deed een arrestatieteam van Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) een inval op Prinsengracht 263 en het Achterhuis. Alle acht onderduikers en twee helpers, Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler, werden gearresteerd. Het is nooit geheel opgehelderd hoe de SD de onderduikers op het spoor is gekomen.[1]
\r\n\r\nWe weten weinig over Anne Franks ervaringen tijdens de inval en de arrestatie. Volgens de verklaring van Otto Frank uit 1963 zag hij Anne, Margot en Edith in zijn slaapkamer toen hij vanuit Peters kamer naar beneden kwam.[2] Ook komt uit deze verklaring naar voren dat Anne en de anderen, na verhoor bij de SD aan het Adama van Scheltemaplein naar het Huis van Bewaring aan de Weteringschans werden gebracht.[2]
\r\n\r\nWe weten weinig over Anne Frank tijdens de inval en de arrestatie, maar door het dagboek weten we wel iets meer over Annes angst voor arrestatie. Die angst beschrijft ze vanaf het begin.
\r\n\r\nOn 4 August 1944, an arrest team of Sicherheitspolizei und Sicherheitsdienst, (Sipo-SD) raided Prinsengracht 263 and the Secret Annex. All eight people in hiding and two helpers, Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler, were arrested. It has never been fully clarified how the SD tracked down the hiders.[1]
\r\n\r\nWe know little about Anne Frank's experiences during the raid and arrest. According to Otto Frank's 1963 statement, he saw Anne, Margot and Edith in his bedroom when he came downstairs from Peter's room.[2] This statement also reveals that Anne and the others, after questioning at the SD station on Adama van Scheltemaplein, were taken to the Detention Centre on Weteringschans.[2]
\r\n\r\nWe know little about Anne Frank during the raid and arrest, but through the diary we do know a little more about Anne's fear of arrest. She describes that fear from the start.
\r\n\r\nOne of the most frequently asked questions about the history of Anne Frank and the inhabitants of the Secret Annex is: Who actually betrayed them? This question continues to intrigue people. The Anne Frank House (AFH) still regularly receives suggestions, usually singling out specific individuals. These suggestions are always taken seriously but so far have not provided useful leads. And, of course, here at the Anne Frank House this question is always present in the background. In recent years, the AFH has made more of a commitment to focus on conducting its own research, so this matter is now part of the Knowledge Centre’s research program.
\r\n\r\nThis investigative report is based on the premise that only one thing can be agreed on with certainty: on 4 August 1944, members of the Sicherheitsdienst or SD (German Security Service) raided the building at 263 Prinsengracht and arrested ten people. It is an assumption – granted a sound one – that this was not a chance occurrence. Obviously, the building had been selected for a reason. Yet, on what information that raid was based and how the SD got that information is still completely unclear. Whether this was a matter of betrayal, committed deliberately or not, is also an assumption. It remains to be seen if an analysis of the available data convincingly supports this decade-old theory. Shortly after the liberation, Otto Frank and the helpers took steps to identify those who might have been responsible for the betrayal. The question of whether betrayal had taken place was not under discussion at that moment. In 1963, after the Austrian “Nazi-hunter” Simon Wiesenthal tracked down the former SS Officer Karl Joseph Silberbauer, the man who had led the raid on the Secret Annex, the assumption of betrayal seemed to be confirmed. Consequently, until now the literature on this subject has always focused on the question of who? It has long been assumed that a betrayer was out there who needed to be found. However, the sobering reality is that to date this avenue of thinking has yielded nothing conclusive.
\r\n\r\nConsidering the above, there is sufficient reason to be receptive to new perspectives and not to exclude other theories. Given what was just presented in the last paragraph, the proposed research question is: Based on what information did the SD raid 263 Prinsengracht on 4 August 1944, and how did it acquire this information? Both existing and previously unknown sources have been consulted to address this question. Earlier studies generally relied on source material from the files of the Centraal Archief van de Bijzondere Rechtspleging or CABR (Central Archives for Special Criminal Jurisdiction). Despite extensive research, no definitive leads have ever been found there, but information in these files can still be very helpful. Therefore, during this study, a lot of data was scrutinized again and compared with previously unknown or untapped sources. This material included police reports from Amsterdam, Zwolle, and Haarlem, as well as records from the judicial authorities in the latter two cities. In addition, the increasing digitization of data from municipal population registers has made it easier to access information and identify how people might be connected. The ongoing historical research done by the Anne Frank House in recent years has provided more understanding as well. These insights have also been applied while re-examining earlier ideas and theories. Of course, in the analysis of all the related data, existing publications were also consulted. Over the years, several books have been released about the betrayal of people in hiding during the wartime occupation and how they were hunted down.[1] Biographies about both Anne and Otto Frank also present different theories about the events leading up to the raid on 4 August 1944.[2] Nonetheless, as the 2003 evaluation conducted by researchers David Barnouw and Gerrold van der Stroom of the NIOD (Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, previously the Dutch Institute for War Documentation) concludes, these theories do not stand up to scrutiny.[3] An overview of the source material used for this investigation – published as well as unpublished – is included at the end of this report.
\r\n\r\nAfter a well-orchestrated media campaign subject to strict embargo rules, a controversial book was launched in January 2022: The betrayal of Anne Frank: a Cold Case Investigation.[4] The Cold Case Team went public with the news that it could identify - with a very high probability the traitor responsible for the raid on the Secret Annex. The name of Jewish civil-law notary Arnold van den Bergh went around the world as the most likely betrayer of Anne Frank and the other occupants the Secret Annex, but there has been so much criticism of this research that it prompted publisher AmboAnthos to withdraw the Dutch version of book from sale.[5]
\r\n\r\nEen van de meest gestelde vragen over de geschiedenis van Anne Frank en het Achterhuis is wel: 'Wie heeft ze nu eigenlijk verraden?' Die kwestie houdt zeer veel mensen bezig. Er komen bij de Anne Frank Stichting (AFS) met zekere regelmaat nog suggesties binnen, doorgaans duidelijk gericht naar individuen. Die suggesties worden altijd serieus bekeken maar leverden tot dusverre geen bruikbare gezichtspunten op. Ook binnen de AFS is het vraagstuk uiteraard altijd sterk aanwezig. Nu de AFS zich de laatste jaren sterker dan voorheen op eigen onderzoek is gaan richten, is deze kwestie in het onderzoeksprogramma opgenomen.
\r\n\r\nHet onderzoek is opgezet vanuit de gedachte dat er maar één ding vaststaat: er is op 4 augustus 1944 een inval van leden van de Sicherheitsdienst (SD) in het pand Prinsengracht 263 geweest, en daarbij zijn tien personen gearresteerd. Het is een aanname – hoewel een veilige – dat dit geen toevalstreffer was. Men had het wel degelijk op dit pand gemunt. Op grond van welke kennis de inval gebeurde, en hoe de SD daaraan kwam is echter volstrekt onduidelijk. Dat het een kwestie was van verraad, al dan niet welbewust en doelgericht gepleegd, is eveneens een aanname. Het zal moeten blijken in hoeverre analyse van de beschikbare gegevens deze overtuigend steunt. Kort na de bevrijding zetten Otto Frank en de helpers stappen om de opsporing te bevorderen van degene die voor het verraad verantwoordelijk zou zijn. De vraag of er wel werkelijk verraad plaatsvond stond niet merkbaar ter discussie. Nadat ‘nazi-jager’ Simon Wiesenthal in 1963 de ex-SS’er Karl Joseph Silberbauer opspoorde, de man die de inval in het Achterhuis leidde, leek de aanname van verraad bevestigd. In de literatuur over het onderwerp tot nu toe was de vraagstelling dan ook steeds gericht op ‘wie?’ Dat er gezocht moest worden naar een daadwerkelijke verrader stond daarbij op voorhand vast. De ontnuchterende conclusie is dat die aanpak tot op heden geen betrouwbare resultaten opleverde.
\r\n\r\nHet voorgaande geeft voldoende aanleiding om het blikveld te verruimen en andere mogelijkheden niet bij voorbaat uit te sluiten. Uitgaande van wat in de vorige paragraaf naar voren is gebracht luidt daarom de vraagstelling: op grond van welke informatie viel de SD het pand Prinsengracht 263 op 4 augustus 1944 binnen, en hoe kwamen ze daaraan? Om deze vraag te beantwoorden is gebruik gemaakt van bekend en tot dusver onbekend materiaal. Oudere onderzoeken baseerden zich doorgaans op bronnen die zich bevinden in de dossiers van het Centraal Archief van de Bijzondere Rechtspleging (CABR). Ondanks zeer uitvoerig onderzoek zijn hier nooit duidelijke aanwijzingen aangetroffen. Desondanks zijn gegevens uit deze dossiers uiteraard van groot belang. In dit onderzoek zijn veel gegevens daarom opnieuw bekeken en vergeleken met voorheen onbekende of onbenutte bronnen. Hiertoe behoren rapporten van de politiekorpsen van Amsterdam, Zwolle en Haarlem, en stukken van justitiële autoriteiten in de laatste twee steden. Met behulp van steeds vaker gedigitaliseerde gegevens uit de bevolkingsadministratie konden bovendien netwerken beter in kaart worden gebracht. Het lopend historisch onderzoek van de Anne Frank Stichting leverde de afgelopen jaren scherpere inzichten op. Deze zijn gebruikt om oudere denkbeelden en theorieën tegen het licht te houden. Bij het analyseren van alle gegevens is vanzelfsprekend ook gebruik gemaakt van de bestaande literatuur. Over verraad van onderduikers en andere vormen van mensenjacht verschenen in de loop van de tijd verschillende boeken.[1] In biografieën over zowel Anne als Otto Frank zijn eveneens verschillende theorieën ontvouwd over het voortraject van de inval van 4 augustus.[2] Deze bleven evenwel onbewezen, zoals een evaluatie van de onderzoekers David Barnouw en Gerrold van der Stroom van het NIOD (destijds Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie) uit 2003 aantoont.[3] Een overzicht van al het gebruikte materiaal, gepubliceerd en ongepubliceerd, is aan dit verslag toegevoegd.
\r\n\r\nIn januari 2022 werd met een strak geregiseerde mediacampagne een geruchtmakend boek gelanceerd: Het verraad van Anne Frank: het baanbrekende onderzoek van een internationaal Cold Case|Team in Nederland.[4] Het zogenaame Cold Case Team kwam naar buiten met het nieuws dat het met een zeer grote waarschijnlijkheid de verrader kon aanwijzen die verantwoordelijk was voor de inval in het Achterhuis. De naam van de Joodse notaris Arnold van den Bergh ging de hele wereld over als de meest waarschijnlijke verrader van Anne Frank en de andere bewoners van het Achterhuis, maar er kwam zo veel kritiek op dit onderzoek dat de uitgever AmboAnthos besloot de Nederlandse versie van het boek uit de handel te nemen.[5]
\r\n\r\nOne of the most frequently asked questions about the history of Anne Frank and the inhabitants of the Secret Annex is: Who actually betrayed them? This question continues to intrigue people. The Anne Frank House (AFH) still regularly receives suggestions, usually singling out specific individuals. These suggestions are always taken seriously but so far have not provided useful leads. And, of course, here at the Anne Frank House this question is always present in the background. In recent years, the AFH has made more of a commitment to focus on conducting its own research, so this matter is now part of the Knowledge Centre’s research program.
\r\n\r\nThis investigative report is based on the premise that only one thing can be agreed on with certainty: on 4 August 1944, members of the Sicherheitsdienst or SD (German Security Service) raided the building at 263 Prinsengracht and arrested ten people. It is an assumption – granted a sound one – that this was not a chance occurrence. Obviously, the building had been selected for a reason. Yet, on what information that raid was based and how the SD got that information is still completely unclear. Whether this was a matter of betrayal, committed deliberately or not, is also an assumption. It remains to be seen if an analysis of the available data convincingly supports this decade-old theory. Shortly after the liberation, Otto Frank and the helpers took steps to identify those who might have been responsible for the betrayal. The question of whether betrayal had taken place was not under discussion at that moment. In 1963, after the Austrian “Nazi-hunter” Simon Wiesenthal tracked down the former SS Officer Karl Joseph Silberbauer, the man who had led the raid on the Secret Annex, the assumption of betrayal seemed to be confirmed. Consequently, until now the literature on this subject has always focused on the question of who? It has long been assumed that a betrayer was out there who needed to be found. However, the sobering reality is that to date this avenue of thinking has yielded nothing conclusive.
\r\n\r\nConsidering the above, there is sufficient reason to be receptive to new perspectives and not to exclude other theories. Given what was just presented in the last paragraph, the proposed research question is: Based on what information did the SD raid 263 Prinsengracht on 4 August 1944, and how did it acquire this information? Both existing and previously unknown sources have been consulted to address this question. Earlier studies generally relied on source material from the files of the Centraal Archief van de Bijzondere Rechtspleging or CABR (Central Archives for Special Criminal Jurisdiction). Despite extensive research, no definitive leads have ever been found there, but information in these files can still be very helpful. Therefore, during this study, a lot of data was scrutinized again and compared with previously unknown or untapped sources. This material included police reports from Amsterdam, Zwolle, and Haarlem, as well as records from the judicial authorities in the latter two cities. In addition, the increasing digitization of data from municipal population registers has made it easier to access information and identify how people might be connected. The ongoing historical research done by the Anne Frank House in recent years has provided more understanding as well. These insights have also been applied while re-examining earlier ideas and theories. Of course, in the analysis of all the related data, existing publications were also consulted. Over the years, several books have been released about the betrayal of people in hiding during the wartime occupation and how they were hunted down.[1] Biographies about both Anne and Otto Frank also present different theories about the events leading up to the raid on 4 August 1944.[2] Nonetheless, as the 2003 evaluation conducted by researchers David Barnouw and Gerrold van der Stroom of the NIOD (Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, previously the Dutch Institute for War Documentation) concludes, these theories do not stand up to scrutiny.[3] An overview of the source material used for this investigation – published as well as unpublished – is included at the end of this report.
\r\n\r\nAfter a well-orchestrated media campaign subject to strict embargo rules, a controversial book was launched in January 2022: The betrayal of Anne Frank: a Cold Case Investigation.[4] The Cold Case Team went public with the news that it could identify - with a very high probability the traitor responsible for the raid on the Secret Annex. The name of Jewish civil-law notary Arnold van den Bergh went around the world as the most likely betrayer of Anne Frank and the other occupants the Secret Annex, but there has been so much criticism of this research that it prompted publisher AmboAnthos to withdraw the Dutch version of book from sale.[5]
\r\n\r\nMost of the killings took place in death camps in gas chambers and in mass executions by Einsatzgruppen.[1] As a result, between 5.1 and 6 million Jews were killed, including 102.000 to 104.000 Dutch Jews.[2] In Eastern Europe, Jews were largely murdered in mass executions, while Western European Jews were largely transported via transit camps to extermination camps in Eastern Europe to be gassed.
\r\n\r\nDe moorden vonden grotendeels plaats in vernietigingskampen in gaskamers en bij massa-executies door Einsatzgruppen.[1] Hierdoor kwamen tussen de 5,1 en 6 miljoen Joden om het leven, waarvan 102.000 tot 104.000 Nederlandse Joden.[2] In Oost-Europa werden de Joden grotendeels vermoord tijdens massa-executies, terwijl de West-Europese Joden grotendeels via doorgangskampen werden getransporteerd naar vernietigingskampen in Oost-Europa om daar te worden vergast.
\r\n\r\nMost of the killings took place in death camps in gas chambers and in mass executions by Einsatzgruppen.[1] As a result, between 5.1 and 6 million Jews were killed, including 102.000 to 104.000 Dutch Jews.[2] In Eastern Europe, Jews were largely murdered in mass executions, while Western European Jews were largely transported via transit camps to extermination camps in Eastern Europe to be gassed.
\r\n\r\nThe Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung (Central Agency for Jewish Emigration) was located at Adema van Scheltemaplein 1 in Amsterdam.[1] The building was requisitioned from the Christian Hogere Burgerschool (H.B.S; Higher Civic School).[2]
\r\n\r\nThe Zentralstelle was an important body for the German occupier in the organization of the deportations from the spring of 1941 to the fall of 1943..[3] There were similar agencies in Vienna, Prague and Berlin, which were responsible for the deportation of Jews.[4] Ferdinand Hugo aus der Funten and Willy Lages were in charge of this agency in the Netherlands.[5] It organized the relocation of Jews to Amsterdam, sent out calls for Jews to report, picked them up from their homes, conducted raids, tracked down people in hiding, interrogated and abused them. The Zentralstelle was financed by the LiRo bank, the bank that seized money and valuables from all Jews.
\r\n\r\nAt the end of 1941, the order came for all non-Dutch Jews to register with the Zentralstelle for emigration.[6] In the Otto Frank Archive there are documents showing that Otto Frank also registered his family for this mandatory emigration.[7]
\r\n\r\nAfter the arrest on 4 August 1944, the eight people in hiding from the Secret Annex and two of their helpers, Victor Kugler and Johannes Kleiman, were interrogated here by the Sipo-SD. They had to stay overnight and were transferred to the Detention Center the next day.
\r\n\r\nThe building was bombed on 26 November 1944, together with the headquarters of the Security Police and SD, in the requisitioned school building opposite on Euterpestraat.
\r\n\r\nDe Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung (Centraal bureau voor Joodse emigratie) was gevestigd op het Adema van Scheltemaplein 1 te Amsterdam.[1] Het gebouw was gevorderd van de ‘Christelijke H.B.S.’[2]
\r\n\r\nDe Zentralstelle was voor de Duitse bezetter een belangrijk orgaan in de organisatie van de deportaties van het voorjaar van 1941 tot het najaar van 1943.[3] In Wenen, Praag en Berlijn bestonden gelijknamige instellingen, die verantwoordelijk waren voor de deportatie van Joden.[4] Ferdinand Hugo aus der Funten en Willy Lages hadden er in Nederland de leiding over.[5] Ze organiseerde de verhuizingen van Joden naar Amsterdam, verstuurde de oproepen aan Joden om zich te melden, haalde ze op uit hun woningen, hield razzia’s, spoorde onderduikers op, verhoorde en mishandelde ze. De Zentralstelle werd betaald door de LiRo-bank, de bank die het geld van alle Joden afpakte.
\r\n\r\nEind 1941 kwam het bevel aan alle niet-Nederlandse Joden zich bij de Zentralstelle voor emigratie aan te melden.[6] In het Otto Frank Archief bevinden zich documenten waaruit blijkt dat ook Otto Frank zijn gezin heeft aangemeld voor deze verplichte emigratie.[7]
\r\n\r\nNa de arrestatie op 4 augustus 1944 werden de acht onderduikers uit het Achterhuis en twee van hun helpers, Victor Kugler en Johannes Kleiman, hier verhoord door de Sipo-SD. Ze moesten een nacht blijven en werden de volgende dag overgebracht naar het Huis van Bewaring.
\r\n\r\nHet gebouw is op 26 november 1944 gebombardeerd, samen met het hoofdkwartier van de Sicherheitspolizei en SD, in het gevorderde schoolgebouw ertegenover aan de Euterpestraat.
\r\n\r\nThe Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung (Central Agency for Jewish Emigration) was located at Adema van Scheltemaplein 1 in Amsterdam.[1] The building was requisitioned from the Christian Hogere Burgerschool (H.B.S; Higher Civic School).[2]
\r\n\r\nThe Zentralstelle was an important body for the German occupier in the organization of the deportations from the spring of 1941 to the fall of 1943..[3] There were similar agencies in Vienna, Prague and Berlin, which were responsible for the deportation of Jews.[4] Ferdinand Hugo aus der Funten and Willy Lages were in charge of this agency in the Netherlands.[5] It organized the relocation of Jews to Amsterdam, sent out calls for Jews to report, picked them up from their homes, conducted raids, tracked down people in hiding, interrogated and abused them. The Zentralstelle was financed by the LiRo bank, the bank that seized money and valuables from all Jews.
\r\n\r\nAt the end of 1941, the order came for all non-Dutch Jews to register with the Zentralstelle for emigration.[6] In the Otto Frank Archive there are documents showing that Otto Frank also registered his family for this mandatory emigration.[7]
\r\n\r\nAfter the arrest on 4 August 1944, the eight people in hiding from the Secret Annex and two of their helpers, Victor Kugler and Johannes Kleiman, were interrogated here by the Sipo-SD. They had to stay overnight and were transferred to the Detention Center the next day.
\r\n\r\nThe building was bombed on 26 November 1944, together with the headquarters of the Security Police and SD, in the requisitioned school building opposite on Euterpestraat.
\r\n\r\n