HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"next": "https://research.annefrank.org/en/api/subjects?format=api&page=2",
"previous": null,
"count": 183,
"total": 1102,
"language": "en",
"results": [
{
"id": 396124553,
"image": null,
"url": "https://research.annefrank.org/en/onderwerpen/a9cf097d-661f-4ade-b784-9cf87af388e2/",
"published": true,
"uuid": "a9cf097d-661f-4ade-b784-9cf87af388e2",
"name": "Amsterdam",
"name_nl": "Amsterdam",
"name_en": "Amsterdam",
"description": "<p>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.</p>",
"description_nl": "<p>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.</p>",
"description_en": "<p>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.</p>",
"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": []
},
{
"id": 396124660,
"image": {
"id": 968,
"uuid": "a424f31d-1d1d-4776-9fc0-1d5ea7673381",
"name": "Voor Joden Verboden",
"title": "Houten bord met 'Voor Joden Verboden'",
"alt": "Collectie: Anne Frank Stichting",
"url": "https://images.memorix.nl/anf/thumb/1920x1080/1c1c3c60-3e2d-8227-14a4-301ad5554079.jpg",
"path": null,
"filetype": "image",
"description": "Houten bord met 'Voor Joden Verboden'.",
"author": "De collectie kan worden ingezet voor publiek",
"copyright": "Publiek domein"
},
"url": "https://research.annefrank.org/en/onderwerpen/9f136fe9-87fc-481d-b94b-b69a41654c68/",
"published": true,
"uuid": "9f136fe9-87fc-481d-b94b-b69a41654c68",
"name": "Anti-Jewish measures",
"name_nl": "Anti-Joodse maatregelen",
"name_en": "Anti-Jewish measures",
"description": "<p>The oppression of Jews in Germany began when Hitler came to power with the NSDAP in <strong>1933</strong>. Anti-Jewish laws made life impossible for them in Germany and many fled the country in desperation.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Exclusion</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>After coming to power on <strong>30 January 1933</strong>, the Nazis started reshaping society in line with their ideals. They saturated not only politics but also the cultural and social life in cities and villages with Nazi ideology. This process is called <em>Gleichschaltung</em>, and it included the exclusion of ‘enemies’. German Jews were the most actively targeted group. Discriminatory laws allowed the Nazis to progressively restrict their rights. There were more than half a million Jews in Germany at this time - about 0.75 per cent of the population.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>7 April 1933</strong> the regime passed the ‘Civil Service Restoration Act’, allowing the Nazis to create a loyal public administration. Political opponents and Jews were fired or forced to retire. University professors, who were classed as public servants in Germany, were included. The Nazis also purged the judiciary. Some Jewish lawyers were denied access to the courts. In a year, thousands of people lost their jobs. Yet a large percentage could continue their work more or less as usual, because First World War veterans were exempt.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Other professions also faced discrimination. Jewish doctors and dentists were excluded from the national health insurance system, which meant they lost a large proportion of their patients. Jewish actors and writers were not permitted to join the professional bodies set up by the Nazis. The Nazis also restricted access to education. Only 1.5 per cent of new pupils were allowed to be Jewish. Many students had to change courses or schools. Others could not graduate because of the restrictions. Associations and sports clubs often refused to accept Jewish members, so Jews started setting up their own clubs. But this reinforced segregation, and Germans and Jews were driven further and further apart.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Race laws</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Despite the anti-Jewish laws, there was in fact no clear definition of ‘Jewish’ in the early stages of the Third Reich. In <strong>September 1935</strong> this changed. At the annual party rally in the German city of Nuremberg the Nazis unveiled the so-called Nuremberg race laws, which defined who was a Jew and who was not. Anyone with four ‘Aryan’ grandparents was a German. Anyone with three or more Jewish grandparents was a Jew. People with or two Jewish grandparents were classed as <em>Mischling</em> or of mixed blood. The Nuremberg race laws turned Jews into second-class citizens. They had fewer rights because they were no longer Germans, according to the Nazis. Marriages and sexual relationships between Jews and ‘Aryans’ were now forbidden. It became vital for many Germans to be able to demonstrate their racial purity. A special document was created: the <em>Ahnenpass</em> or certificate of ancestry.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Some German Jews still hoped that things would get better. They hoped for legislation against the arbitrary treatment and harassment. They thought perhaps they could rebuild life as a minority group. Meanwhile, the Nazi regime did not launch any major anti-Jewish regulations during <strong>1936</strong>, to avoid negative attention during the Olympic Games and the occupation of the Rhineland. But the Jews’ hope was vain. The boycotts, exclusions and violent harassment continued.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>From <strong>1937</strong> on, pressure on Jess increased to leave the country. One of the measures was the ‘aryanisation’ of Jewish possessions. This involved basically forced sales, often for prices that were far too low. Jews lost their possessions and even had to pay an emigration tax, so there was no money left to maintain them in the countries to which they wanted to flee. These countries therefore refused to take many refugees. Many Jews also did not want to leave because they still felt German, they did not want to give up their way of life and they were frightened of the unknown. Even so, between <strong>1933</strong> and the <strong>end of 1937</strong>, some 130,000 Jews leave Germany.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>In <strong>1938</strong> the Nazi regime continued unchecked with its anti-Jewish moves. There was almost no opposition, because the important government roles were in the hands of loyal Nazis. Jews with non-recognisably ‘Jewish’ first names were forced to adopt the additional name of Israel or Sara. Their passports were also stamped with a ‘J’ to emphasise their Jewishness. More and more Jews lost their jobs or their businesses.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>After the Anschluss in <strong>March 1938</strong>, when Austria was incorporated into Germany, the 200,000 Austrian Jews also suffered from discrimination. In <strong>May 1938</strong>, the Nazis arrested 2,000 Jews in Vienna for transportation to Dachau. Jews were still being arrested in Germany too. In a crackdown on so-called ‘asocial elements’ more than 1,000 Jews were rounded up by the Nazis in Berlin. The regime resorted to deportation. East European Jews without German citizenship were put out of the country. In <strong>October 1938</strong> the Nazis deported 18,000 Polish Jews in two days.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Pogrom</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>7 November 1938</strong> a young Polish Jew shot dead a German diplomat in Paris in revenge for the deportation of his parents. It was a prime opportunity for the Nazis to launch large scale anti-Jewish action. The shooting was an excuse rather than the cause, because the plans had already been drawn up. In the night of <strong>9 to 10 November</strong>, synagogues across Germany were set ablaze. The Nazi smashed up Jewish-owned shops. This night is known as <em>Kristallnacht</em> (Night of Borken Glass), because of the broken glass in the streets.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>The misnomer <em>Kristallnacht</em> conceals the level of violence the Nazis used. Dozens of Jews are killed. That is why today the designation November pogrom is preferred. At least 25,000 were rounded up and sent to concentration camps, where the guards humiliated and abused them. Hundreds more died because of the conditions in the camps. Jews were now the majority group of prisoners. However, many were released quite quickly if they promised to leave the country. As a final humiliation, the Nazis declared the Jewish community responsible for the damage. They demanded a ‘compensation payment’ of one billion <em>Reichsmark</em>.</p>",
"description_nl": "<p>Toen Hitler met de NSDAP in <strong>1933</strong> aan de macht kwam, begon de onderdrukking van de Joden in Duitsland. Anti-Joodse wetgeving maakte het leven in Duitsland voor hen onmogelijk. Velen ontvluchtten wanhopig het land.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Uitsluiting</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Na de Machtsovername van <strong>30 januari 1933</strong> deden de nazi’s er alles aan de samenleving volgens hun idealen in te richten. Niet alleen de politiek, maar ook het culturele en sociale leven in steden en dorpen doordrenkten ze met de nazi-ideologie. Dit proces staat bekend als <em>Gleichschaltung</em> (gelijkschakeling). Hierbij hoorde ook het uitsluiten van vijanden. De Joden in Duitsland waren de actiefst bestreden groep. Met behulp van discriminerende wetgeving perkten de nationaalsocialisten hun rechten steeds verder in.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Op <strong>7 april 1933</strong> vaardigde het regime de ‘wet op het herstel van de ambtenarij’ uit. Hiermee wilden de nazi’s een loyaal overheidsapparaat creëren. Dit betekende ontslag of gedwongen pensionering voor politieke tegenstanders en Joden. Universiteitsprofessoren, die in Duitsland als ambtenaar golden, vielen ook onder deze wet. De nazi’s zuiverden ook het juridisch apparaat. Sommige Joodse juristen werd zelfs de toegang tot de rechtbank ontzegd. Duizenden mensen verloren binnen één jaar hun baan. Toch kon een groot deel hun werk min of meer voortzetten, omdat er uitzonderingen bestaan voor Eerste Wereldoorlogsveteranen.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Ook andere beroepsgroepen werden gediscrimineerd. Joodse dokters en tandartsen mochten niet langer meedraaien in het ziektekostenverzekeringssysteem. Hierdoor verloren ze een groot deel van hun klanten. Acteurs en schrijvers konden geen lid worden van de door de nazi’s ingestelde beroepsorganisaties. De nazi’s beperkten ook de toegang tot onderwijs. Slechts 1,5 procent van de nieuwe leerlingen mocht nog Joods zijn. Studenten moesten daarom van opleiding of school wisselen. Anderen konden niet afstuderen door de beperkende maatregelen. Verenigingen en sportclubs namen vaak geen Joodse leden meer aan. Daarom richtten Joden clubs voor zichzelf op. Dit werkte segregatie in de hand. Duitsers en Joden raaktn steeds verder van elkaar verwijderd.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Rassenwetten</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Ondanks de anti-Joodse wetten was er in de beginfase van het Derde Rijk nog geen duidelijke definitie van ‘Joods’. In <strong>september 1935</strong> veranderde dit. Op de partijdag in de Duitse stad Neurenberg maakten de nazi’s de zogeheten Rassenwetten van Neurenberg bekend. Hierin definieerde het regime wie Joods was en wie niet. Als Duitser gold iedereen met vier ‘Arische’ grootouders. Met drie of meer Joodse grootouders was je een Jood. Wie één of twee Joodse grootouders had, gold als <em>Mischling</em>.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>De Neurenberger Rassenwetten maakten tweederangsburgers van de Joden. Joden kregen minder rechten, want ze waren volgens de nazi’s geen Duitser meer. Huwelijken en seksuele relaties tussen Joden en ’Ariërs’ waren voortaan verboden. Hierdoor was het voor steeds meer Duitsers belangrijk hun raszuiverheid aan te tonen. Daar was een speciaal document voor beschikbaar: de <em>Ahnenpass</em>, een 'voorouderpaspoort'.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Sommige Joden in Duitsland hoopten nog steeds dat de situatie verbeterde. Ze hoopten dat wetgeving een einde maakte aan willekeur en pesterijen. Misschien konden ze als minderheid in Duitsland een bestaan opbouwen. Bovendien ondernam het regime in <strong>1936</strong> geen nieuwe grootschalige anti-Joodse maatregelen. Het naziregime wilde tijdens de Olympische Spelen en in de periode van de Rijnlandbezetting negatieve aandacht vermijden. Maar de hoop was tevergeefs. Joden bleven in deze periode slachtoffer van boycots, uitsluiting en gewelddadige pesterijen.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Vanaf <strong>1937</strong> nam de druk op de Joden toe om het land te verlaten. Eén van de methoden was het ‘ariseren’ van Joods bezit. Dit kwam neer op gedwongen verkoop, vaak tegen te lage prijzen. De Joden waren hun bestaansmiddelen kwijt en moesten zelfs een emigratiebelasting betalen. Daarom hadden ze geen geld meer om in hun eigen onderhoud te voorzien in de landen waar ze heen vluchtten. Deze landen namen daarom maar weinig vluchtelingen op. Veel Joden widlen bovendien het land nog steeds niet verlaten omdat ze zich nog altijd Duitser voelden, hun bestaan niet konden opgeven en bang warenn voor het onbekende. Toch verlieten tussen <strong>begin 1933</strong> en <strong>eind 1937</strong> zo’n 130.000 Joden het land. </p>\r\n\r\n<p>Het naziregime ging in <strong>1938</strong> onverminderd door met de anti-Joodse acties. Het kreeg daarbij nauwelijks tegenstand, omdat de belangrijkste overheidsfuncties in handen waren van trouwe nationaalsocialisten. Joden met niet als ‘Joods’ herkenbare voornamen werden gedwongen de extra naam Israel of Sara aan te nemen. Ook kregen ze een ‘J’ in hun paspoort gestempeld. Zo benadrukten de nazi’s hun Joods-zijn. Meer en meer Joden verloren hun baan of bedrijf.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Na de Anschluss, de inlijving van Oostenrijk bij Duitsland in <strong>maart 1938</strong>, kregen ook de 200.000 Oostenrijkse Joden met discriminatie te maken. In <strong>mei 1938</strong> arresteerden de nazi’s 2.000 Joden in Wenen om ze naar Dachau te deporteren. Ook in Duitsland arresteerden de nazi’s Joden. In het kader van acties tegen ‘asocialen’ pakten de nazi’s in Berlijn meer dan 1.000 Joden op. Het regime ging ook over tot verbanning. Oost-Europese Joden zonder Duits staatsburgerschap werden het land uitgezet. In <strong>oktober 1938</strong> deporteerden de nazi’s in twee dagen 18.000 Poolse Joden.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Pogrom</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Op <strong>7 november 1938</strong> schoot een jonge Poolse Jood in Parijs een Duitse diplomaat dood. Hij wilde zo de deportatie van zijn ouders wreken. Dit was een uitgelezen kans voor de nazi’s om een grootschalige anti-Joodse actie op touw te zetten. De aanslag was hierbij meer een excuus dan een oorzaak, want de plannen bestonden al. In de nacht van <strong>9 op 10 november</strong> brandden in heel Duitsland synagogen. De nazi’s sloegen winkels van Joodse eigenaren kort en klein. Deze gebeurtenis stond bekend als <em>Kristallnacht</em>, dat verwees naar de glasscherven op straat.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>De benaming <em>Kristallnacht</em> verhult de hoeveelheid geweld die de nazi’s tegen mensen gebruikten. Tientallen Joden vonden de dood. Daarom spreekt men tegenwoording liever van <em>Novemberpogrom</em>. Minstens 25.000 Joden werden opgepakt en opgesloten in concentratiekampen. De bewakers vernederden en mishandelden hen. In honderden gevallen leidden de omstandigheden in de kampen tot de dood. De Joden vormden nu een meerderheid onder de gevangenen. Niettemin kwamen veel van de opgepakte mensen snel weer vrij als ze beloofden het land te verlaten. Als laatste vernedering stelden de nazi’s de Joodse gemeenschap aansprakelijk voor de schade. Ze eisten een ‘compensatiebetaling’ van 1 miljard Reichsmark.</p>",
"description_en": "<p>The oppression of Jews in Germany began when Hitler came to power with the NSDAP in <strong>1933</strong>. Anti-Jewish laws made life impossible for them in Germany and many fled the country in desperation.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Exclusion</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>After coming to power on <strong>30 January 1933</strong>, the Nazis started reshaping society in line with their ideals. They saturated not only politics but also the cultural and social life in cities and villages with Nazi ideology. This process is called <em>Gleichschaltung</em>, and it included the exclusion of ‘enemies’. German Jews were the most actively targeted group. Discriminatory laws allowed the Nazis to progressively restrict their rights. There were more than half a million Jews in Germany at this time - about 0.75 per cent of the population.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>7 April 1933</strong> the regime passed the ‘Civil Service Restoration Act’, allowing the Nazis to create a loyal public administration. Political opponents and Jews were fired or forced to retire. University professors, who were classed as public servants in Germany, were included. The Nazis also purged the judiciary. Some Jewish lawyers were denied access to the courts. In a year, thousands of people lost their jobs. Yet a large percentage could continue their work more or less as usual, because First World War veterans were exempt.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Other professions also faced discrimination. Jewish doctors and dentists were excluded from the national health insurance system, which meant they lost a large proportion of their patients. Jewish actors and writers were not permitted to join the professional bodies set up by the Nazis. The Nazis also restricted access to education. Only 1.5 per cent of new pupils were allowed to be Jewish. Many students had to change courses or schools. Others could not graduate because of the restrictions. Associations and sports clubs often refused to accept Jewish members, so Jews started setting up their own clubs. But this reinforced segregation, and Germans and Jews were driven further and further apart.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Race laws</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Despite the anti-Jewish laws, there was in fact no clear definition of ‘Jewish’ in the early stages of the Third Reich. In <strong>September 1935</strong> this changed. At the annual party rally in the German city of Nuremberg the Nazis unveiled the so-called Nuremberg race laws, which defined who was a Jew and who was not. Anyone with four ‘Aryan’ grandparents was a German. Anyone with three or more Jewish grandparents was a Jew. People with or two Jewish grandparents were classed as <em>Mischling</em> or of mixed blood. The Nuremberg race laws turned Jews into second-class citizens. They had fewer rights because they were no longer Germans, according to the Nazis. Marriages and sexual relationships between Jews and ‘Aryans’ were now forbidden. It became vital for many Germans to be able to demonstrate their racial purity. A special document was created: the <em>Ahnenpass</em> or certificate of ancestry.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Some German Jews still hoped that things would get better. They hoped for legislation against the arbitrary treatment and harassment. They thought perhaps they could rebuild life as a minority group. Meanwhile, the Nazi regime did not launch any major anti-Jewish regulations during <strong>1936</strong>, to avoid negative attention during the Olympic Games and the occupation of the Rhineland. But the Jews’ hope was vain. The boycotts, exclusions and violent harassment continued.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>From <strong>1937</strong> on, pressure on Jess increased to leave the country. One of the measures was the ‘aryanisation’ of Jewish possessions. This involved basically forced sales, often for prices that were far too low. Jews lost their possessions and even had to pay an emigration tax, so there was no money left to maintain them in the countries to which they wanted to flee. These countries therefore refused to take many refugees. Many Jews also did not want to leave because they still felt German, they did not want to give up their way of life and they were frightened of the unknown. Even so, between <strong>1933</strong> and the <strong>end of 1937</strong>, some 130,000 Jews leave Germany.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>In <strong>1938</strong> the Nazi regime continued unchecked with its anti-Jewish moves. There was almost no opposition, because the important government roles were in the hands of loyal Nazis. Jews with non-recognisably ‘Jewish’ first names were forced to adopt the additional name of Israel or Sara. Their passports were also stamped with a ‘J’ to emphasise their Jewishness. More and more Jews lost their jobs or their businesses.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>After the Anschluss in <strong>March 1938</strong>, when Austria was incorporated into Germany, the 200,000 Austrian Jews also suffered from discrimination. In <strong>May 1938</strong>, the Nazis arrested 2,000 Jews in Vienna for transportation to Dachau. Jews were still being arrested in Germany too. In a crackdown on so-called ‘asocial elements’ more than 1,000 Jews were rounded up by the Nazis in Berlin. The regime resorted to deportation. East European Jews without German citizenship were put out of the country. In <strong>October 1938</strong> the Nazis deported 18,000 Polish Jews in two days.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1>Pogrom</h1>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>7 November 1938</strong> a young Polish Jew shot dead a German diplomat in Paris in revenge for the deportation of his parents. It was a prime opportunity for the Nazis to launch large scale anti-Jewish action. The shooting was an excuse rather than the cause, because the plans had already been drawn up. In the night of <strong>9 to 10 November</strong>, synagogues across Germany were set ablaze. The Nazi smashed up Jewish-owned shops. This night is known as <em>Kristallnacht</em> (Night of Borken Glass), because of the broken glass in the streets.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>The misnomer <em>Kristallnacht</em> conceals the level of violence the Nazis used. Dozens of Jews are killed. That is why today the designation November pogrom is preferred. At least 25,000 were rounded up and sent to concentration camps, where the guards humiliated and abused them. Hundreds more died because of the conditions in the camps. Jews were now the majority group of prisoners. However, many were released quite quickly if they promised to leave the country. As a final humiliation, the Nazis declared the Jewish community responsible for the damage. They demanded a ‘compensation payment’ of one billion <em>Reichsmark</em>.</p>",
"summary": "Anti-Jewish measures are measures imposed against Jews during the Nazi regime: including deprivation of citizenship; not being allowed to hold public office; exclusion of Jews from education and jobs; loss of the right to vote, ban on marriages and sexual contacts between Jews and non-Jews; confiscation of Jewish property, compulsory wearing of the Jewish star.",
"summary_nl": "Anti-Joodse maatregelen zijn maatregelen die tijdens het naziregime tegen de Joden werden ingesteld: o.a. ontneming staatsburgerschap; niet mogen bekleden van openbare ambten; uitsluiting van Joden voor onderwijs en banen; verlies van stemrecht, verbod op huwelijken en seksuele contacten tussen Joden en niet-Joden; inbeslagname Joodse bezittingen, verplichte dracht van de Jodenster.",
"summary_en": "Anti-Jewish measures are measures imposed against Jews during the Nazi regime: including deprivation of citizenship; not being allowed to hold public office; exclusion of Jews from education and jobs; loss of the right to vote, ban on marriages and sexual contacts between Jews and non-Jews; confiscation of Jewish property, compulsory wearing of the Jewish star.",
"same_as": [
"https://data.niod.nl/WO2_Thesaurus/2030"
],
"parent": 396124591,
"files": []
},
{
"id": 92,
"image": {
"id": 968,
"uuid": "a424f31d-1d1d-4776-9fc0-1d5ea7673381",
"name": "Voor Joden Verboden",
"title": "Houten bord met 'Voor Joden Verboden'",
"alt": "Collectie: Anne Frank Stichting",
"url": "https://images.memorix.nl/anf/thumb/1920x1080/1c1c3c60-3e2d-8227-14a4-301ad5554079.jpg",
"path": null,
"filetype": "image",
"description": "Houten bord met 'Voor Joden Verboden'.",
"author": "De collectie kan worden ingezet voor publiek",
"copyright": "Publiek domein"
},
"url": "https://research.annefrank.org/en/onderwerpen/15419b29-aadf-4c4d-af00-a6973b460f9a/",
"published": true,
"uuid": "15419b29-aadf-4c4d-af00-a6973b460f9a",
"name": "Anti-Jewish measures restrict the Frank family's life",
"name_nl": "Anti-Joodse maatregelen beperken het leven van de familie Frank",
"name_en": "Anti-Jewish measures restrict the Frank family's life",
"description": "<p>The set of provisions and rules introduced by the German authorities to identify, isolate, deport and eventually kill the Jewish population group forms the subject of the <em>anti-Jewish measures</em> in this article. The Frank family and their peers also faced these measures, of course, which eventually forced them to go into hiding. Anne Frank describes several of them in her diary.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Life in Germany and the Netherlands</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>In the Netherlands, the occupying power took measures stemming from the persecution of Jews in Germany. There, Jews had been targeted by National Socialist racial politics since Hitler's rise to power in <strong>1933</strong>. The nationwide boycott of <strong>April 1933</strong> had been waged strongly in the banking city of Frankfurt against Jews active in the banking sector. The Frank family's bank may have already gone under, but they were among the group targeted. Initially, many decrees in Germany were regional or local. The Frank family already emigrated to the Netherlands in the course of <strong>1933</strong>, even before a centralised approach was established. As to the reason for this departure, Otto Frank stated in 1946: '<em>Since I was a Jew, I went to the Netherlands after Hitler came to power in 1933</em>.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"9lv2i\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> In the <strong>summer of 1937</strong>, the Van Pels family came to Amsterdam and, after <em>Kristallnacht</em>, so did Fritz Pfeffer. Some 33,000 Jewish refugees fled to the Netherlands between <strong>1933</strong> and <strong>1939</strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"v49rk\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>In the first part of her diary, Anne lists a series of measures taken by the German authorities from the point they started to exercise power in the Netherlands.<sup data-footnote-id=\"44s30\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> She mistakenly mentions food distribution, as it had been instituted by the Dutch government eight months before the German invasion. Furthermore, she mainly mentions things that restricted her immediate freedom of movement: staying indoors from eight to six, not playing sports, not going to the cinema or theatre, going to a separate school. In the later diary entries, some of this comes up retrospectively. These notes sometimes distort the picture; the measures that barred her from public transport dated from <strong>30 June 1942</strong> - just one week before she went into hiding. School segregation, the sports ban and wearing a "yellow badge" were things she did have to deal with for a longer period of time.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Among the Jewish population in the Netherlands, the initial reaction to the German invasion was wide-ranging. Although there were attempts to flee to England and there were also a large number of suicides, the majority took a wait-and-see approach. Discriminatory measures were introduced very gradually. For German Jews (or rather Jews from Germany, like the Van Pels family who did have Dutch nationality), the situation was difficult. By their speech and mannerisms, they were recognisable, and less able to keep a low profile.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>The banning of Jews from air raid shelters on <strong>15 July 1940</strong> is considered the first anti-Jewish measure in the Netherlands. From 5 August there was a ban on ritual slaughter.<sup data-footnote-id=\"44s30\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-2\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Although it was not presented as an anti-Jewish measure, in practice it amounted to one. An important follow-up step was the Aryan declaration. All Dutch officials were summoned in <strong>October 1940</strong> to testify to their racial origin. In effect, Jewish officials were asked to identify themselves.<sup data-footnote-id=\"jo38t\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup> Dismissal soon followed. The measure did meanwhile require the German occupying forces to define 'the Jew'. On <strong>22 October</strong>, Ordinance VO 189/1940 was brought in for this purpose.<sup data-footnote-id=\"fa35e\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup> This regulation listed the following criteria for being a Jew:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li><em>A Jew is anyone who descends from at least three racially full-Jewish grandparents.</em></li>\r\n\t<li><em>Also classified as a Jew is anyone descended from two full-Jewish grandparents and:<br />\r\n\tEither belonged to the Jewish-church congregation on May 9, 1940, or was included in it after that date.<br />\r\n\tOr was married to a Jew on May 9, 1940, or married a Jew after that moment.</em></li>\r\n\t<li value=\"3\"><em>A grandparent is considered full-Jewish if he or she belonged to the Jewish-church congregation.</em></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n\r\n<p>This was followed by steps to exclude Jews and deprive them of their property. VO 189/1940 required Jewish businesses to register with the <em>Wirtschaftsprufstelle</em>. This institution decided on the further confiscation or liquidation of these enterprises. Otto Frank suffered the consequences of this with Opekta and Pectacon. From <strong>10 January 1941</strong>, pursuant to VO 6/1941, all persons of 'wholly or partly Jewish blood' had to register as such with the Population Register of their place of residence.<sup data-footnote-id=\"4ld7c\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup> The measure was barely evaded, including by the Frank family. This was later evidenced, among other things, by the fact that Margot Frank received a call up to report for labour.<sup data-footnote-id=\"q09m6\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup> In <strong>June 1941</strong>, a decision was taken that Jews would have a 'J' stamped on their identity cards as a mark.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ydz49\"><a href=\"#footnote-8\" id=\"footnote-marker-8-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[8]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Building on these registrations, a variety of regulations were issued in <strong>1941</strong>, which further isolated the Jewish population. With the establishment of the <em>Jewish Council for Amsterdam</em> in February, the occupying forces created a body to impose discriminatory provisions on the Jewish population.<sup data-footnote-id=\"vb3ky\"><a href=\"#footnote-9\" id=\"footnote-marker-9-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[9]</a></sup> In the summer of that year, Anne and Margot Frank were directly affected when they both had to attend Jewish education. There, they were taught exclusively by Jewish teachers. In Amsterdam, the municipality's Education Department implemented this segregation, and not the Jewish Council as often thought.<sup data-footnote-id=\"gj4jq\"><a href=\"#footnote-10\" id=\"footnote-marker-10-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[10]</a></sup> In <strong>September 1941</strong>, when Jews were excluded from many areas of social life, including sports, Margot also had to leave her rowing club.<sup data-footnote-id=\"rppbw\"><a href=\"#footnote-11\" id=\"footnote-marker-11-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[11]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>The ban on using public swimming pools was announced in <strong>June 1941</strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"50q4q\"><a href=\"#footnote-12\" id=\"footnote-marker-12-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[12]</a></sup> Anne writes to her grandmother <strong>in late June</strong>:<em> 'I don't have much chance to get a tan because we are not allowed in the pool (...).' </em><sup data-footnote-id=\"cr2nz\"><a href=\"#footnote-13\" id=\"footnote-marker-13-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[13]</a></sup><em> </em> On <strong>25 November 1941</strong>, all German Jews living outside Germany were stripped of their German nationality. This general measure thus affected the Franks and Pfeffer.<sup data-footnote-id=\"m27in\"><a href=\"#footnote-14\" id=\"footnote-marker-14-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[14]</a></sup> Unlike the Van Pels family, who remained Dutch, they continued to go through life stateless. Anne mentions this status:<em> 'Nice people, those Germans, and actually I am one of them too! But no, Hitler made us stateless a long time ago (...).'</em> <sup data-footnote-id=\"t86jr\"><a href=\"#footnote-15\" id=\"footnote-marker-15-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[15]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>The compulsory "yellow badge" followed on <strong>3 May 1942</strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"59g9f\"><a href=\"#footnote-16\" id=\"footnote-marker-16-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[16]</a></sup> On <strong>21 May 1942</strong>, the measure was brought in that Jews had to turn in all their property and assets above the value of two hundred and fifty guilders to Lippmann-Rosenthal bank by <strong>30 June</strong>. Other valuables also had to be handed in. Among other things, Otto Frank handed in a considerable amount of cash and silverware.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Anne mentions the mandatory handing in of bicycles:<em> 'Jews must hand in their bicycles.'</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"44s30\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-3\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> It is true that between <strong>20 and 22 July 1942,</strong> Amsterdam Jews had to hand in their bicycles. So the Frank family had not been affected by this since they were already in hiding by then. Anne no longer had a bicycle because it had been stolen<sup data-footnote-id=\"ew3xg\"><a href=\"#footnote-17\" id=\"footnote-marker-17-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[17]</a></sup> and Otto had placed his wife's with acquaintances.<sup data-footnote-id=\"6izhv\"><a href=\"#footnote-18\" id=\"footnote-marker-18-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[18]</a></sup> Margot was therefore still able to cycle to Prinsengracht on <strong>6 July</strong>, the day she went into hiding. In response to the accumulation of measures in <strong>June 1942</strong>, Anne quotes her friend Jacqueline van Maarsen, who said:<em> 'I don't dare do anything anymore because I'm afraid it's not allowed</em>.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"44s30\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-4\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Presser also pointed to the opacity of the set of measures. He wrote that there was sometimes more than a week between the imposition of a ban and its publication. Nevertheless, the German authority punished people who violated such bans, of which they were unaware.<sup data-footnote-id=\"816ad\"><a href=\"#footnote-19\" id=\"footnote-marker-19-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[19]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>The series of anti-Jewish measures in the period from <strong>January 1941</strong> to the <strong>summer of 1942</strong> resulted in the isolation of Dutch Jews. In <strong>June 1941</strong>, there was a raid in Amsterdam-Zuid, following a bombing of a Wehrmacht building. Among the more than 300 men rounded up were acquaintances of the Frank family: a son of the Lewkowitz family and a boarder of the Ledermann family.<sup data-footnote-id=\"0dkqx\"><a href=\"#footnote-20\" id=\"footnote-marker-20-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[20]</a></sup> They perished in Mauthausen, as did many of their peers.<sup data-footnote-id=\"7fgi1\"><a href=\"#footnote-21\" id=\"footnote-marker-21-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[21]</a></sup> Given the social contacts with these families, this brought the threat to the Frank family closer.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>The call for Margot Frank to report for work in Germany arrived on <strong>5 July 1942</strong>. Margot was thus among the first group of Jews to be called up for labour deployment. As in many cases, this personal danger was decisive in the decision to go into hiding immediately. For the first time, they evaded German measures, something that many other Jews were unable to do. This was unusual, as only one in seven Jews in the Netherlands even attempted to go into hiding.<sup data-footnote-id=\"9dygm\"><a href=\"#footnote-22\" id=\"footnote-marker-22-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[22]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>While in hiding </strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Particularly in the period in late <strong>September 1942</strong> and early <strong>October 1942</strong>, anti-Jewish politics clearly kept Anne busy, as she wrote about them regularly. In <strong>July and August 1942,</strong> several large raids took place in Amsterdam. She wondered if her friends Lies and Ilse were still there and wrote on <strong>14</strong> <strong>October 1942</strong> about her fear that Peter Schiff had already been killed. She heard from Bep Voskuijl that classmate Betty Bloemendal had been sent to Poland with her family. Van Pels, Pfeffer and Miep told them about the round-ups in her old neighborhood and the scenes that accompanied them. Pharmacist Arthur Lewinsohn, who was regularly in the building to carry out experiments with Kugler, telephoned under the name 'Müller', according to Anne, because he was not allowed to call 'Christian people'.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Fritz Pfeffer's arrival in November was surprising in itself. After all, to the outside world, he was lawfully married to Charlotte Kaletta. That this was not so in reality meant that he lacked the relative protection of a mixed marriage. This was due to the fact that the marriage could not take place in Germany because of the Nuremberg laws and in the Netherlands because of international treaties.<sup data-footnote-id=\"al4aa\"><a href=\"#footnote-23\" id=\"footnote-marker-23-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[23]</a></sup> Otto Frank later stated that he only heard about Pfeffer's situation from Miep Gies when he was in the Secret Annex.<sup data-footnote-id=\"2e1hb\"><a href=\"#footnote-24\" id=\"footnote-marker-24-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[24]</a></sup> In her A-version, Anne did not mention the background of Pfeffer's status at all. The B-version reads:<em> 'He lives with a much younger and nice Christian woman, whom he is probably not married to, but that is a side issue.'</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"dw8u2\"><a href=\"#footnote-25\" id=\"footnote-marker-25-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[25]</a></sup><em> </em>It is plausible that Anne, too, only gradually learned the true facts.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>During the first months of hiding, Anne writes several times about Westerbork and the Jewish Council. Both Westerbork and the Jewish Council were important in implementing anti-Jewish policies in the Netherlands. Westerbork had been established in <strong>1939</strong> to receive Jewish refugees from Germany, but on <strong>1 July 1942</strong> it was designated as a <em>Polizeiliches Judendurchgangslager</em>. In <strong>October 1942</strong>, Anne wrote that conditions in Westerbork were terrible.<sup data-footnote-id=\"7myjr\"><a href=\"#footnote-26\" id=\"footnote-marker-26-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[26]</a></sup> She could know this because the Wronker couple, acquaintances of the family, were allowed to return to Amsterdam at that time after staying in the camp.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ou8q9\"><a href=\"#footnote-27\" id=\"footnote-marker-27-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[27]</a></sup> Miep had visited them and she would have conveyed messages.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Extermination</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>It was known in the summer of <strong>1942</strong> that hardships awaited Jews after deportation. Anne was afraid and assumed the worst. She wrote:<em> 'If it is already so bad in Holland how will they live in the distant and barbaric regions where they will be sent. We assume that most of them will be murdered. The English radio talks about gassing: perhaps that is the quickest method of death.'</em> The date of this quote is <strong>9 October 1942</strong>, but since the note is from the B version, it is certain that Anne did not actually write it before <strong>May 1944</strong>. Nevertheless, it is true that Anglo-Saxon media were reporting mass killings in <strong>June</strong> <strong>1942</strong>,<sup data-footnote-id=\"smze2\"><a href=\"#footnote-28\" id=\"footnote-marker-28-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[28]</a></sup> including through gas<sup data-footnote-id=\"mwaok\"><a href=\"#footnote-29\" id=\"footnote-marker-29-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[29]</a></sup>, and this thus became widely known. From that month, remarks about gassing also appeared more than incidentally in diaries of Dutch people.<sup data-footnote-id=\"51q8m\"><a href=\"#footnote-30\" id=\"footnote-marker-30-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[30]</a></sup> In <strong>February 1944</strong>, Anne wrote again that in eastern Europe:<em> 'millions and more millions' </em>were gassed.<sup data-footnote-id=\"7el7b\"><a href=\"#footnote-31\" id=\"footnote-marker-31-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[31]</a></sup> Poland as a fearful deportation destination recurred several times in her notes from <strong>September 1942</strong> onwards.<sup data-footnote-id=\"pp678\"><a href=\"#footnote-32\" id=\"footnote-marker-32-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[32]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>The general liquidation of the last remnants of the Jewish Council followed on <strong>29 September 1943</strong>. The only ones left behind were some specific groups, such as the mixed married people.<sup data-footnote-id=\"1ww56\"><a href=\"#footnote-33\" id=\"footnote-marker-33-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[33]</a></sup> And the people in hiding, the exact number of which group has been subject to varying estimates. However, they were effectively hunted down and the number of those arrested ran into the thousands.<sup data-footnote-id=\"atvhc\"><a href=\"#footnote-34\" id=\"footnote-marker-34-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[34]</a></sup> The hiding attempt in the Secret Annex did not have a happy ending. How it ended is well enough known: the <em>Sicherheitdienst</em> got wind of the matter in a way as yet unknown, and on <strong>4 August 1944</strong> a raid and arrest followed. Seven of the eight people in hiding did not survive deportation.</p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9lv2i\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Nederlands Beheersinstituut (NBI): Beheersdossiers, nummer toegang 2.09.16, inv. nr. 134994: Otto Frank aan NBI, 31 januari 1946.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"v49rk\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Bob Moore, <em>Slachtoffers en overlevenden. De nazi-vervolging van de Joden in Nederland, </em>Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1998, p. 46.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"44s30\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">a</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-2\">b</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-3\">c</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-4\">d</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, undated Thursday (July 1942), in: <em>The Collected Works, </em>transl. from the Dutch by Susan Massotty, London [etc.]: Bloomsbury Continuum, 2019.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"jo38t\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Moore, <em>Slachtoffers en overlevenden</em>, p. 72.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"fa35e\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>Verordeningenblad voor het bezette Nederlandsche gebied </em>1940, p. 548.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"4ld7c\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>Verordeningenblad voor het bezette Nederlandsche gebied </em>1941, p. 19.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"q09m6\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 8 July 1942, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ydz49\" id=\"footnote-8\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-8-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>J. Presser, <em>Ondergang. De vervolging en verdelging van het Nederlandse Jodendom, 1940-1945</em>, 's-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij, 1965, deel <em> </em>I, p. 67.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vb3ky\" id=\"footnote-9\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-9-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>L. de Jong, <em>Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Deel 4: mei '40 - maart '41: tweede helft</em>, 's-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1972, p. 884.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"gj4jq\" id=\"footnote-10\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-10-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Dienke Hondius, <em>Absent. Herinneringen aan het Joods Lyceum Amsterdam 1941-1943, </em>Amsterdam: Vassallucci, 2001, p. 16.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"rppbw\" id=\"footnote-11\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-11-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Anne Frank Collectie (AFC), Otto Frank Archief (OFA), reg. code OFA_085: Bella Kohlwey aan Otto Frank, 22 juli 1967.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"50q4q\" id=\"footnote-12\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-12-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“De bekendmaking inzake badplaatsen enz.”, <em>Het Joodsche Weekblad</em>, 27 juni 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"cr2nz\" id=\"footnote-13\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-13-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Familiearchief Anne Frank-Fonds (AFF), Bazel, Alice Frank, AFF_AlF_corr_18: Anne Frank aan Alice Frank-Stern, eind juni 1941.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"m27in\" id=\"footnote-14\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-14-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Stadsarchief Amsterdam (SAA), Dienst Bevolkingsregister, Archiefkaarten (toegangsnummer 30238): Archiefkaarten leden familie Frank en Fritz Pfeffer.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"t86jr\" id=\"footnote-15\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-15-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version B, 9 October1942, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"59g9f\" id=\"footnote-16\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-16-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Bekendmaking”, <em>De Telegraaf</em>, 29 april 1942, avondeditie.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ew3xg\" id=\"footnote-17\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-17-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6650: Rapporten Pieter Aertszstraat, 14 april 1942, mut. 15.10 n.m.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"6izhv\" id=\"footnote-18\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-18-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version B, 24 June 1942, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"816ad\" id=\"footnote-19\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-19-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Presser, <em>Ondergang</em>, deel I, p. 111, 212.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"0dkqx\" id=\"footnote-20\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-20-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>NIOD Instituut voor Oorlogs-, Holocaust- en Genocidestudies, Joodsche Raad voor Amsterdam, inv. nr. 263: Lijst van op 11 juni 1941 gearresteerden.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"7fgi1\" id=\"footnote-21\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-21-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, DienstBevolkingsregister, Archiefkaarten (toegangsnummer 30238): Archiefkaarten Ernst Kaufmann (1911) en Karl Lewkowitz (1922).</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9dygm\" id=\"footnote-22\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-22-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Moore, <em>Slachtoffers en overlevenden</em>, p. 182.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"al4aa\" id=\"footnote-23\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-23-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Duitse Jodenwet stuit huwelijk in Nederland”, <em>De Telegraaf</em>, 17 september 1935, ochtendeditie.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"2e1hb\" id=\"footnote-24\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-24-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code A_OFrank_I_015. 'Erklärung' Otto Frank, 4 september 1951.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"dw8u2\" id=\"footnote-25\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-25-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version B, 10 November 1942, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"7myjr\" id=\"footnote-26\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-26-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 26 October 1942, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ou8q9\" id=\"footnote-27\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-27-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 22 October 1942, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"smze2\" id=\"footnote-28\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-28-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Massacre of jews”, <em>The Times</em>, 30 juni 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"mwaok\" id=\"footnote-29\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-29-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Greatest massacre in the world’s history”, <em>Queensland Times</em>, 26 juni 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"51q8m\" id=\"footnote-30\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-30-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Bart van der Boom, <em>“Wij weten niets van hun lot.” Gewone Nederlanders en de Holocaust, </em>Amsterdam: Boom, 2012, p. 488-515.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"7el7b\" id=\"footnote-31\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-31-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 3 February 1944, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"pp678\" id=\"footnote-32\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-32-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 21 September, 14 and 20 October 1942, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"1ww56\" id=\"footnote-33\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-33-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Presser, <em>Ondergang, </em>deel I, p. 385-386.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"atvhc\" id=\"footnote-34\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-34-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Sytze van der Zee, <em>Vogelvrij. De jacht op de Joodse onderduiker, </em>Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij, 2010, p. 118.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"description_nl": "<p>Het geheel van bepalingen en regels die de Duitse autoriteiten invoerden om de Joodse bevolkingsgroep te identificeren, te isoleren, te deporteren en uiteindelijk om te brengen vormt hier het onderwerp <em>anti-Joodse maatregelen</em>. De familie Frank en hun lotgenoten werden uiteraard ook geconfronteerd met deze maatregelen, die uiteindelijk dwongen tot onderduiken. Anne Frank beschrijft er verschillende in haar dagboek.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Leven in Duitsland en Nederland</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>In Nederland nam de bezettende macht maatregelen die voortvloeiden uit de Jodenvervolging in Duitsland. Daar waren de Joden sinds de machtsovername van Hitler in <strong>1933</strong> doelwit van de nationaal-socialistische rassenpolitiek. De landelijke boycot van <strong>april ’33</strong> was in de bankenstad Frankfurt tegen de in die sector actieve joden scherp gevoerd. De bank van de familie Frank was dan weliswaar al te gronde gegaan, maar zij behoorden tot de groep die op de korrel werd genomen. Aanvankelijk waren veel decreten in Duitsland regionaal of plaatselijk. Al in de loop van <strong>1933</strong> week de familie Frank naar Nederland uit, nog voor er centrale aanpak tot stand kwam. Over de reden van dit vertrek verklaarde Otto Frank in 1946: ' <em>Daar ik Jood was, ben ik na het aan bewind komen van Hitler in 1933 naar Nederland gegaan</em>.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"9lv2i\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> In de <strong>zomer van 1937</strong> kwam de familie Van Pels naar Amsterdam en na de <em>Kristallnacht</em> ook Fritz Pfeffer. Tussen <strong>1933</strong> en <strong>1939</strong> weken circa 33.000 Joodse vluchtelingen naar Nederland uit.<sup data-footnote-id=\"v49rk\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>In het eerste deel van haar dagboek somt Anne een reeks maatregelen op die de Duitse autoriteiten namen sinds zij in Nederland de macht uitoefenden.<sup data-footnote-id=\"44s30\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Ze noemt ten onrechte de voedseldistributie, die was namelijk acht maanden voor de Duitse inval door de Nederlandse regering ingesteld. Verder noemt ze vooral dingen die haar beperkten in de directe bewegingsvrijheid: van acht tot zes binnen blijven, niet sporten, niet naar de bioscoop of theater, naar een aparte school. In de latere dagboeknotities komt een en ander retrospectief nog aan de orde. Deze notities vertekenen soms het beeld; de maatregelen die haar uit het openbaar vervoer weerden, dateerden van <strong>30 juni 1942</strong> – slechts één week voor haar onderduik. De schoolsegregatie, het sportverbod en de Jodenster waren zaken waar ze wel langduriger mee te maken had.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Onder de Joodse bevolkingsgroep in Nederland was de aanvankelijke reactie op de Duitse inval divers. Hoewel er pogingen waren om naar Engeland te vluchten en er ook een groot aantal zelfmoorden waren, keek het merendeel de kat uit de boom. Discriminerende maatregelen werden zeer geleidelijk ingevoerd. Voor Duitse Joden (of beter: Joden uit Duitsland, zoals de familie Van Pels die wel de Nederlandse nationaliteit had) was de situatie lastig. Aan hun spraak en manier van doen waren ze herkenbaar, en minder in staat een <em>low profile</em> te houden.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>De wering van de Joden uit de luchtbescherming op <strong>15 juli 1940</strong> wordt als de eerste anti-Joodse maatregel in Nederland beschouwd. Per 5 augustus gold er een verbod op ritueel slachten.<sup data-footnote-id=\"44s30\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-2\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Hoewel het niet als een anti-Joodse maatregel werd gepresenteerd, kwam het er in de praktijk wel op neer. Een belangrijke vervolgstap was de Ariërverklaring. Alle Nederlandse ambtenaren werden in <strong>oktober 1940</strong> opgeroepen om getuigenis af te leggen van hun raciale afkomst. In feite werd Joodse ambtenaren gevraagd zichzelf te identificeren.<sup data-footnote-id=\"jo38t\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup> Spoedig volgde ontslag. De maatregel noodzaakte de Duitse bezetter inmiddels wel een definitie van ‘de Jood’ te geven. Op <strong>22 oktober</strong> werd daartoe de verordening VO 189/1940 afgekondigd.<sup data-footnote-id=\"fa35e\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup> Deze verordening noemde de volgende criteria voor het Jood-zijn:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li><em>Jood is een ieder, die uit ten minste drie naar ras voljoodse grootouders stamt.</em></li>\r\n\t<li><em>Als Jood wordt ook aangemerkt hij die uit twee voljoodse grootouders stamt en:<br />\r\n\tHetzij zelf op de negende mei 1940 tot de Jood-kerkelijke gemeente heeft behoord of na die datum daarin wordt opgenomen.<br />\r\n\tHetzij op de negende mei 1940 met een Jood is gehuwd of na dat ogenblik met een Jood in het huwelijk treedt.</em></li>\r\n\t<li value=\"3\"><em>Een grootouder wordt als voljoods aangemerkt, wanneer deze tot de Joods-kerkelijke gemeenschap heeft behoord.</em></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n\r\n<p>Hierop volgden stappen om de Joden uit te sluiten en ze hun bezit te ontnemen. VO 189/1940 verplichtte Joodse ondernemingen tot aanmelding bij de <em>Wirtschaftsprufstelle</em>. Deze instelling besliste over de verdere inbeslagname of liquidatie van deze ondernemingen. Otto Frank ondervond hier met Opekta en Pectacon de gevolgen van. Vanaf <strong>10 januari 1941</strong> moesten alle personen van ‘geheel of gedeeltelijk Joodschen bloede’ zich ingevolge VO 6/1941 bij het Bevolkingsregister van hun woonplaats als zodanig aanmelden.<sup data-footnote-id=\"4ld7c\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup> De maatregel werd nauwelijks ontdoken, ook niet door de familie Frank. Dit blijkt later onder meer uit het feit dat Margot Frank een oproep kreeg.<sup data-footnote-id=\"q09m6\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup> In <strong>juni ‘41</strong> viel het besluit dat Joden een ‘J’ als merkteken op hun persoonsbewijs gestempeld kregen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ydz49\"><a href=\"#footnote-8\" id=\"footnote-marker-8-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[8]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Voortbordurend op deze registraties werden er in <strong>1941</strong> allerlei verordeningen uitgevaardigd, die het Joodse bevolkingsdeel in een verder isolement brachten. Met de oprichting van de <em>Joodsche Raad voor Amsterdam</em> in februari creëerde de bezetter een lichaam dat de discriminerende bepalingen moest overbrengen naar de Joodse bevolking.<sup data-footnote-id=\"vb3ky\"><a href=\"#footnote-9\" id=\"footnote-marker-9-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[9]</a></sup> In de zomer van dat jaar werden Anne en Margot Frank direct getroffen toen ze allebei naar het Joods onderwijs moeten. Daar kregen ze uitsluitend les van Joodse leerkrachten. In Amsterdam voerde de afdeling Onderwijs van de gemeente deze segregatie uit, en niet zoals vaak gedacht de Joodsche Raad.<sup data-footnote-id=\"gj4jq\"><a href=\"#footnote-10\" id=\"footnote-marker-10-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[10]</a></sup> Toen Joden in <strong>september ’41</strong> worden uitgesloten van allerlei onderdelen van het maatschappelijk leven, waaronder sportbeoefening, moest Margot ook haar roeiclub verlaten.<sup data-footnote-id=\"rppbw\"><a href=\"#footnote-11\" id=\"footnote-marker-11-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[11]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Het verbod om gebruik te maken van openbare zwembaden werd in <strong>juni ’41</strong> bekend gemaakt.<sup data-footnote-id=\"50q4q\"><a href=\"#footnote-12\" id=\"footnote-marker-12-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[12]</a></sup> Anne schrijft <strong>eind juni</strong> aan haar oma: '<em>Om bruin te worden heb ik niet veel kans omdat wij niet in het zwembad mogen (…).' </em><sup data-footnote-id=\"cr2nz\"><a href=\"#footnote-13\" id=\"footnote-marker-13-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[13]</a></sup><em> </em> Op <strong>25 november 1941</strong> werd aan alle Duitse Joden die buiten Duitsland woonden de Duitse nationaliteit ontnomen. Deze generieke maatregel trof dus de Franks en Pfeffer.<sup data-footnote-id=\"m27in\"><a href=\"#footnote-14\" id=\"footnote-marker-14-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[14]</a></sup> In tegenstelling tot de familie Van Pels, die Nederlands bleet gingen zij verder stateloos door het leven. Anne maakt melding van deze status: '<em>Fraai volk die Duitsers en daar behoor ik eigenlijk ook nog toe! Maar nee, Hitler heeft ons allang statenloos gemaakt (...).'</em> <sup data-footnote-id=\"t86jr\"><a href=\"#footnote-15\" id=\"footnote-marker-15-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[15]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>De verplichte Jodenster volgde op <strong>3 mei 1942</strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"59g9f\"><a href=\"#footnote-16\" id=\"footnote-marker-16-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[16]</a></sup> Op <strong>21 mei 1942</strong> werd de maatregel afgekondigd dat Joden voor <strong>30 juni</strong> al hun bezit en vermogen boven de waarde van tweehonderdvijftig gulden moesten inleveren bij Lippmann-Rosenthal bank. Ook andere kostbaarheden dienden te worden ingeleverd. Otto Frank leverde onder meer een aanzienlijke hoeveelheid geld en zilverwerk in.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Anne noemt het verplicht inleveren van fietsen: '<em>Joden moeten hun fietsen afgeven.'</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"44s30\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-3\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Het klopt dat de Amsterdamse Joden tussen <strong>20 en 22 juli 1942</strong> hun fiets moesten inleveren. De familie Frank had hier dus geen hinder van gehad aangezien zij toen al ondergedoken waren. Anne had geen fiets meer omdat die was gestolen<sup data-footnote-id=\"ew3xg\"><a href=\"#footnote-17\" id=\"footnote-marker-17-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[17]</a></sup> en Otto had die van zijn vrouw bij kennissen ondergebracht.<sup data-footnote-id=\"6izhv\"><a href=\"#footnote-18\" id=\"footnote-marker-18-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[18]</a></sup> Margot kon op <strong>6 juli</strong>,de dag van de onderduik, dan ook nog gewoon naar de Prinsengracht fietsen. Naar aanleiding van de opeenstapeling van maatregelen in <strong>juni ‘42</strong> haalt Anne haar vriendinnetje Jacqueline van Maarsen aan, die zei: '<em>Ik durf niets meer te doen, want ik ben bang dat het niet mag</em>.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"44s30\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-4\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Ook Presser wees op de ondoorzichtigheid van het geheel aan maatregelen. Hij schreef dat tussen het instellen van een verbod en de bekendmaking daarvan soms meer dan een week zat. Desondanks strafte het Duitse gezag mensen die een dergelijk - hen niet bekend - verbod overtraden.<sup data-footnote-id=\"816ad\"><a href=\"#footnote-19\" id=\"footnote-marker-19-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[19]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>De reeks van anti-Joodse maatregelen in de periode van <strong>januari 1941</strong> tot de <strong>zomer van 1942</strong> resulteerde in een isolement van de Nederlandse Joden. In <strong>juni ’41</strong> was er een razzia in Amsterdam-Zuid, naar aanleiding van een bomaanslag op een Wehrmachtgebouw. Onder de ruim driehonderd mannen die werden opgepakt, waren bekenden van de familie Frank: een zoon van de familie Lewkowitz en een kostganger van de familie Ledermann.<sup data-footnote-id=\"0dkqx\"><a href=\"#footnote-20\" id=\"footnote-marker-20-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[20]</a></sup> Zij kwamen om in Mauthausen, net als veel van hun lotgenoten.<sup data-footnote-id=\"7fgi1\"><a href=\"#footnote-21\" id=\"footnote-marker-21-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[21]</a></sup> Gezien de sociale contacten met deze gezinnen bracht dit de dreiging voor de familie Frank dichterbij.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>De oproep voor Margot Frank om zich te melden voor werk in Duitsland kwam op <strong>5 juli 1942</strong> binnen. Margot behoorde daarmee tot de eerste groep Joden die opgeroepen werd voor arbeidsinzet. Zoals in veel gevallen was dit persoonlijke gevaar doorslaggevend bij het besluit om direct onder te duiken. Voor het eerst onttrokken zij zich aan de Duitse maatregelen, iets wat voor veel andere Joden niet weggelegd was. Dit is bijzonder daar in Nederland slechts een op de zeven Joden zelfs maar een poging deed om onder te duiken.<sup data-footnote-id=\"9dygm\"><a href=\"#footnote-22\" id=\"footnote-marker-22-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[22]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Tijdens de onderduik </strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Met name in de periode eind <strong>september 1942</strong> en begin <strong>oktober 1942 </strong>hield de anti-Joodse politiek Anne duidelijk bezig, aangezien ze er regelmatig over schrijft. In <strong>juli en augustus 1942</strong> vonden er enkele grote razzia’s plaats in Amsterdam. Ze vraagt zich af of haar vriendinnen Lies en Ilse er nog zijn en schrijft op <strong>14 oktober 1942</strong> over haar angst dat Peter Schiff al is omgekomen. Ze hoorde van Bep Voskuijl dat klasgenootje Betty Bloemendal met haar familie naar Polen was gestuurd. Van Pels, Pfeffer en Miep vertelden over de ophaalacties in haar oude woonomgeving en de taferelen die daar bij hoorden. Apotheker Arthur Lewinsohn, die regelmatig in het pand was om met Kugler experimenten uit te voeren, telefoneerde volgens Anne onder de naam ‘Müller’ omdat hij bij 'christenmensen' niet mag opbellen.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>De komst van Fritz Pfeffer in november was op zichzelf verrassend. Voor de buitenwereld was hij immers wettig met Charlotte Kaletta getrouwd. Dat dit in werkelijkheid niet zo was, wil zeggen dat hij de betrekkelijke bescherming van een gemengd huwelijk ontbeerde. Dit was een gevolg van het feit dat het huwelijk in Duitsland vanwege de Neurenberger wetten en in Nederland vanwege internationale verdragen niet kon worden voltrokken.<sup data-footnote-id=\"al4aa\"><a href=\"#footnote-23\" id=\"footnote-marker-23-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[23]</a></sup> Otto Frank verklaarde later dat hij pas toen hij in het Achterhuis zat van Miep Gies hoorde over Pfeffers situatie.<sup data-footnote-id=\"2e1hb\"><a href=\"#footnote-24\" id=\"footnote-marker-24-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[24]</a></sup> Anne repte in haar A-versie met geen woord over de achtergrond van Pfeffers status. In de B-versie heet het: '<em>Hij leeft samen met een veel jongere en leuke Christenvrouw, waar hij waarschijnlijk niet mee getrouwd is, maar dat is bijzaak.'</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"dw8u2\"><a href=\"#footnote-25\" id=\"footnote-marker-25-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[25]</a></sup><em> </em>Aannemelijk is dat ook Anne pas gaandeweg de ware toedracht leerde kennen.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Tijdens de eerste maanden van de onderduik schrijft Anne enkele keren over Westerbork en de Joodsche Raad. Zowel Westerbork en de Joodse Raad waren belangrijk bij de uitvoering van de anti-Joodse politiek in Nederland. Westerbork was in <strong>1939</strong> opgericht voor de opvang van Joodse vluchtelingen uit Duitsland, maar op <strong>1 juli 1942</strong> werd het aangewezen als <em>Polizeiliches Judendurchgangslager</em>. In <strong>oktober ‘42</strong> schrijft Anne dat de omstandigheden in Westerbork vreselijk waren.<sup data-footnote-id=\"7myjr\"><a href=\"#footnote-26\" id=\"footnote-marker-26-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[26]</a></sup> Dit kon ze weten doordat het echtpaar Wronker, kennissen van de familie, in die tijd na een verblijf in het kamp terug naar Amsterdam mochten.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ou8q9\"><a href=\"#footnote-27\" id=\"footnote-marker-27-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[27]</a></sup> Miep was bij hen langs geweest en ze zal berichten hebben overgebracht.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Uitroeiing</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Het was in de <strong>zomer van 1942</strong> bekend dat de Joden na deportatie ontberingen stonden te wachten. Anne was bang en ging van het ergste uit. Ze schrijft: '<em>Als ’t in Holland al zo erg is hoe zullen ze dan in de verre en barbaarse streken leven, waar ze heengezonden worden. Wij nemen aan dat de meesten vermoord worden. De Engelse radio spreekt van vergassing: misschien is dat wel de vlugste sterfmethode.'</em> De datum van dit citaat is <strong>9 oktober 1942</strong>, maar omdat de notitie uit de B-versie afkomstig is, is zeker dat Anne deze niet voor <strong>mei ’44</strong> werkelijk heeft geschreven. Toch staat vast dat Angelsaksische media in <strong>juni ’42</strong> berichten over massamoorden,<sup data-footnote-id=\"smze2\"><a href=\"#footnote-28\" id=\"footnote-marker-28-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[28]</a></sup> onder andere door middel van gas,<sup data-footnote-id=\"mwaok\"><a href=\"#footnote-29\" id=\"footnote-marker-29-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[29]</a></sup> wereldkundig makkten. Vanaf die maand verschenen ook meer dan incidenteel opmerkingen over vergassing in dagboeken van Nederlanders.<sup data-footnote-id=\"51q8m\"><a href=\"#footnote-30\" id=\"footnote-marker-30-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[30]</a></sup> In <strong>februari ’44</strong> schrijft Anne nog eens dat in het oosten van Europa: '<em>millioenen en nog eens millioenen' </em>zijn vergast.<sup data-footnote-id=\"7el7b\"><a href=\"#footnote-31\" id=\"footnote-marker-31-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[31]</a></sup> Polen als vreesaanjagende deportatiebestemming kwam vanaf <strong>september ‘42</strong> meerdere keren in haar notities terug.<sup data-footnote-id=\"pp678\"><a href=\"#footnote-32\" id=\"footnote-marker-32-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[32]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Op <strong>29 september 1943</strong> volgde de algehele liquidatie van de laatste resten van de Joodsche Raad. De enigen die achterbleven waren enkele specifieke groepen, zoals de gemengd gehuwden.<sup data-footnote-id=\"1ww56\"><a href=\"#footnote-33\" id=\"footnote-marker-33-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[33]</a></sup> En de onderduikers, een groep waarvan het precieze aantal verschillend werd ingeschat. Er werd echter effectief jacht op hen gemaakt en het aantal alsnog gearresteerden liep in de duizenden.<sup data-footnote-id=\"atvhc\"><a href=\"#footnote-34\" id=\"footnote-marker-34-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[34]</a></sup> De onderduikpoging in het Achterhuis was uiteindelijk geen succesverhaal. Hoe het afliep is genoegzaam bekend: de <em>Sicherheitdienst</em> kreeg op nog onbekende wijze lucht van de zaak en op <strong>4 augustus 1944</strong> volgen inval en arrestatie. Zeven van de acht onderduikers overleefen de deportatie niet.</p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9lv2i\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Nederlands Beheersinstituut (NBI): Beheersdossiers, nummer toegang 2.09.16, inv. nr. 134994: Otto Frank aan NBI, 31 januari 1946.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"v49rk\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Bob Moore, <em>Slachtoffers en overlevenden. De nazi-vervolging van de Joden in Nederland, </em>Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1998, p. 46.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"44s30\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">a</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-2\">b</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-3\">c</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-4\">d</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek A, ongedateerde donderdag (juli 1942), in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>, Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2013.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"jo38t\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Moore, <em>Slachtoffers en overlevenden</em>, p. 72.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"fa35e\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>Verordeningenblad voor het bezette Nederlandsche gebied </em>1940, p. 548.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"4ld7c\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>Verordeningenblad voor het bezette Nederlandsche gebied </em>1941, p. 19.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"q09m6\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek A, 8 juli 1942, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ydz49\" id=\"footnote-8\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-8-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>J. Presser, <em>Ondergang. De vervolging en verdelging van het Nederlandse Jodendom, 1940-1945</em>, 's-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij, 1965, deel <em> </em>I, p. 67.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vb3ky\" id=\"footnote-9\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-9-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>L. de Jong, <em>Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Deel 4: mei '40 - maart '41: tweede helft</em>, 's-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1972, p. 884.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"gj4jq\" id=\"footnote-10\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-10-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Dienke Hondius, <em>Absent. Herinneringen aan het Joods Lyceum Amsterdam 1941-1943, </em>Amsterdam: Vassallucci, 2001, p. 16.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"rppbw\" id=\"footnote-11\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-11-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Anne Frank Collectie (AFC), Otto Frank Archief (OFA), reg. code OFA_085: Bella Kohlwey aan Otto Frank, 22 juli 1967.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"50q4q\" id=\"footnote-12\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-12-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“De bekendmaking inzake badplaatsen enz.”, <em>Het Joodsche Weekblad</em>, 27 juni 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"cr2nz\" id=\"footnote-13\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-13-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Familiearchief Anne Frank-Fonds (AFF), Bazel, Alice Frank, AFF_AlF_corr_18: Anne Frank aan Alice Frank-Stern, eind juni 1941.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"m27in\" id=\"footnote-14\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-14-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Stadsarchief Amsterdam (SAA), Dienst Bevolkingsregister, Archiefkaarten (toegangsnummer 30238): Archiefkaarten leden familie Frank en Fritz Pfeffer.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"t86jr\" id=\"footnote-15\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-15-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek B, 9 oktober1942, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"59g9f\" id=\"footnote-16\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-16-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Bekendmaking”, <em>De Telegraaf</em>, 29 april 1942, avondeditie.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ew3xg\" id=\"footnote-17\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-17-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6650: Rapporten Pieter Aertszstraat, 14 april 1942, mut. 15.10 n.m.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"6izhv\" id=\"footnote-18\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-18-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek B, 24 juni 1942, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"816ad\" id=\"footnote-19\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-19-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Presser, <em>Ondergang</em>, deel I, p. 111, 212.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"0dkqx\" id=\"footnote-20\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-20-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>NIOD Instituut voor Oorlogs-, Holocaust- en Genocidestudies, Joodsche Raad voor Amsterdam, inv. nr. 263: Lijst van op 11 juni 1941 gearresteerden.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"7fgi1\" id=\"footnote-21\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-21-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, DienstBevolkingsregister, Archiefkaarten (toegangsnummer 30238): Archiefkaarten Ernst Kaufmann (1911) en Karl Lewkowitz (1922).</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9dygm\" id=\"footnote-22\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-22-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Moore, <em>Slachtoffers en overlevenden</em>, p. 182.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"al4aa\" id=\"footnote-23\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-23-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Duitse Jodenwet stuit huwelijk in Nederland”, <em>De Telegraaf</em>, 17 september 1935, ochtendeditie.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"2e1hb\" id=\"footnote-24\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-24-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code A_OFrank_I_015. 'Erklärung' Otto Frank, 4 september 1951.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"dw8u2\" id=\"footnote-25\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-25-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek B, 10 november 1942, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"7myjr\" id=\"footnote-26\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-26-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek A, 26 oktober 1942, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ou8q9\" id=\"footnote-27\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-27-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek A, 22 oktober 1942, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"smze2\" id=\"footnote-28\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-28-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Massacre of jews”, <em>The Times</em>, 30 juni 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"mwaok\" id=\"footnote-29\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-29-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Greatest massacre in the world’s history”, <em>Queensland Times</em>, 26 juni 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"51q8m\" id=\"footnote-30\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-30-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Bart van der Boom, <em>“Wij weten niets van hun lot.” Gewone Nederlanders en de Holocaust, </em>Amsterdam: Boom, 2012, p. 488-515.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"7el7b\" id=\"footnote-31\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-31-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek A, 3 februari 1944, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"pp678\" id=\"footnote-32\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-32-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek A, 21 september, 14 en 20 oktober 1942, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"1ww56\" id=\"footnote-33\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-33-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Presser, <em>Ondergang, </em>deel I, p. 385-386.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"atvhc\" id=\"footnote-34\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-34-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Sytze van der Zee, <em>Vogelvrij. De jacht op de Joodse onderduiker, </em>Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij, 2010, p. 118.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"description_en": "<p>The set of provisions and rules introduced by the German authorities to identify, isolate, deport and eventually kill the Jewish population group forms the subject of the <em>anti-Jewish measures</em> in this article. The Frank family and their peers also faced these measures, of course, which eventually forced them to go into hiding. Anne Frank describes several of them in her diary.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Life in Germany and the Netherlands</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>In the Netherlands, the occupying power took measures stemming from the persecution of Jews in Germany. There, Jews had been targeted by National Socialist racial politics since Hitler's rise to power in <strong>1933</strong>. The nationwide boycott of <strong>April 1933</strong> had been waged strongly in the banking city of Frankfurt against Jews active in the banking sector. The Frank family's bank may have already gone under, but they were among the group targeted. Initially, many decrees in Germany were regional or local. The Frank family already emigrated to the Netherlands in the course of <strong>1933</strong>, even before a centralised approach was established. As to the reason for this departure, Otto Frank stated in 1946: '<em>Since I was a Jew, I went to the Netherlands after Hitler came to power in 1933</em>.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"9lv2i\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> In the <strong>summer of 1937</strong>, the Van Pels family came to Amsterdam and, after <em>Kristallnacht</em>, so did Fritz Pfeffer. Some 33,000 Jewish refugees fled to the Netherlands between <strong>1933</strong> and <strong>1939</strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"v49rk\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>In the first part of her diary, Anne lists a series of measures taken by the German authorities from the point they started to exercise power in the Netherlands.<sup data-footnote-id=\"44s30\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> She mistakenly mentions food distribution, as it had been instituted by the Dutch government eight months before the German invasion. Furthermore, she mainly mentions things that restricted her immediate freedom of movement: staying indoors from eight to six, not playing sports, not going to the cinema or theatre, going to a separate school. In the later diary entries, some of this comes up retrospectively. These notes sometimes distort the picture; the measures that barred her from public transport dated from <strong>30 June 1942</strong> - just one week before she went into hiding. School segregation, the sports ban and wearing a "yellow badge" were things she did have to deal with for a longer period of time.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Among the Jewish population in the Netherlands, the initial reaction to the German invasion was wide-ranging. Although there were attempts to flee to England and there were also a large number of suicides, the majority took a wait-and-see approach. Discriminatory measures were introduced very gradually. For German Jews (or rather Jews from Germany, like the Van Pels family who did have Dutch nationality), the situation was difficult. By their speech and mannerisms, they were recognisable, and less able to keep a low profile.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>The banning of Jews from air raid shelters on <strong>15 July 1940</strong> is considered the first anti-Jewish measure in the Netherlands. From 5 August there was a ban on ritual slaughter.<sup data-footnote-id=\"44s30\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-2\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Although it was not presented as an anti-Jewish measure, in practice it amounted to one. An important follow-up step was the Aryan declaration. All Dutch officials were summoned in <strong>October 1940</strong> to testify to their racial origin. In effect, Jewish officials were asked to identify themselves.<sup data-footnote-id=\"jo38t\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup> Dismissal soon followed. The measure did meanwhile require the German occupying forces to define 'the Jew'. On <strong>22 October</strong>, Ordinance VO 189/1940 was brought in for this purpose.<sup data-footnote-id=\"fa35e\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup> This regulation listed the following criteria for being a Jew:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li><em>A Jew is anyone who descends from at least three racially full-Jewish grandparents.</em></li>\r\n\t<li><em>Also classified as a Jew is anyone descended from two full-Jewish grandparents and:<br />\r\n\tEither belonged to the Jewish-church congregation on May 9, 1940, or was included in it after that date.<br />\r\n\tOr was married to a Jew on May 9, 1940, or married a Jew after that moment.</em></li>\r\n\t<li value=\"3\"><em>A grandparent is considered full-Jewish if he or she belonged to the Jewish-church congregation.</em></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n\r\n<p>This was followed by steps to exclude Jews and deprive them of their property. VO 189/1940 required Jewish businesses to register with the <em>Wirtschaftsprufstelle</em>. This institution decided on the further confiscation or liquidation of these enterprises. Otto Frank suffered the consequences of this with Opekta and Pectacon. From <strong>10 January 1941</strong>, pursuant to VO 6/1941, all persons of 'wholly or partly Jewish blood' had to register as such with the Population Register of their place of residence.<sup data-footnote-id=\"4ld7c\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup> The measure was barely evaded, including by the Frank family. This was later evidenced, among other things, by the fact that Margot Frank received a call up to report for labour.<sup data-footnote-id=\"q09m6\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup> In <strong>June 1941</strong>, a decision was taken that Jews would have a 'J' stamped on their identity cards as a mark.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ydz49\"><a href=\"#footnote-8\" id=\"footnote-marker-8-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[8]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Building on these registrations, a variety of regulations were issued in <strong>1941</strong>, which further isolated the Jewish population. With the establishment of the <em>Jewish Council for Amsterdam</em> in February, the occupying forces created a body to impose discriminatory provisions on the Jewish population.<sup data-footnote-id=\"vb3ky\"><a href=\"#footnote-9\" id=\"footnote-marker-9-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[9]</a></sup> In the summer of that year, Anne and Margot Frank were directly affected when they both had to attend Jewish education. There, they were taught exclusively by Jewish teachers. In Amsterdam, the municipality's Education Department implemented this segregation, and not the Jewish Council as often thought.<sup data-footnote-id=\"gj4jq\"><a href=\"#footnote-10\" id=\"footnote-marker-10-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[10]</a></sup> In <strong>September 1941</strong>, when Jews were excluded from many areas of social life, including sports, Margot also had to leave her rowing club.<sup data-footnote-id=\"rppbw\"><a href=\"#footnote-11\" id=\"footnote-marker-11-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[11]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>The ban on using public swimming pools was announced in <strong>June 1941</strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"50q4q\"><a href=\"#footnote-12\" id=\"footnote-marker-12-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[12]</a></sup> Anne writes to her grandmother <strong>in late June</strong>:<em> 'I don't have much chance to get a tan because we are not allowed in the pool (...).' </em><sup data-footnote-id=\"cr2nz\"><a href=\"#footnote-13\" id=\"footnote-marker-13-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[13]</a></sup><em> </em> On <strong>25 November 1941</strong>, all German Jews living outside Germany were stripped of their German nationality. This general measure thus affected the Franks and Pfeffer.<sup data-footnote-id=\"m27in\"><a href=\"#footnote-14\" id=\"footnote-marker-14-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[14]</a></sup> Unlike the Van Pels family, who remained Dutch, they continued to go through life stateless. Anne mentions this status:<em> 'Nice people, those Germans, and actually I am one of them too! But no, Hitler made us stateless a long time ago (...).'</em> <sup data-footnote-id=\"t86jr\"><a href=\"#footnote-15\" id=\"footnote-marker-15-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[15]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>The compulsory "yellow badge" followed on <strong>3 May 1942</strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"59g9f\"><a href=\"#footnote-16\" id=\"footnote-marker-16-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[16]</a></sup> On <strong>21 May 1942</strong>, the measure was brought in that Jews had to turn in all their property and assets above the value of two hundred and fifty guilders to Lippmann-Rosenthal bank by <strong>30 June</strong>. Other valuables also had to be handed in. Among other things, Otto Frank handed in a considerable amount of cash and silverware.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Anne mentions the mandatory handing in of bicycles:<em> 'Jews must hand in their bicycles.'</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"44s30\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-3\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> It is true that between <strong>20 and 22 July 1942,</strong> Amsterdam Jews had to hand in their bicycles. So the Frank family had not been affected by this since they were already in hiding by then. Anne no longer had a bicycle because it had been stolen<sup data-footnote-id=\"ew3xg\"><a href=\"#footnote-17\" id=\"footnote-marker-17-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[17]</a></sup> and Otto had placed his wife's with acquaintances.<sup data-footnote-id=\"6izhv\"><a href=\"#footnote-18\" id=\"footnote-marker-18-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[18]</a></sup> Margot was therefore still able to cycle to Prinsengracht on <strong>6 July</strong>, the day she went into hiding. In response to the accumulation of measures in <strong>June 1942</strong>, Anne quotes her friend Jacqueline van Maarsen, who said:<em> 'I don't dare do anything anymore because I'm afraid it's not allowed</em>.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"44s30\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-4\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Presser also pointed to the opacity of the set of measures. He wrote that there was sometimes more than a week between the imposition of a ban and its publication. Nevertheless, the German authority punished people who violated such bans, of which they were unaware.<sup data-footnote-id=\"816ad\"><a href=\"#footnote-19\" id=\"footnote-marker-19-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[19]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>The series of anti-Jewish measures in the period from <strong>January 1941</strong> to the <strong>summer of 1942</strong> resulted in the isolation of Dutch Jews. In <strong>June 1941</strong>, there was a raid in Amsterdam-Zuid, following a bombing of a Wehrmacht building. Among the more than 300 men rounded up were acquaintances of the Frank family: a son of the Lewkowitz family and a boarder of the Ledermann family.<sup data-footnote-id=\"0dkqx\"><a href=\"#footnote-20\" id=\"footnote-marker-20-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[20]</a></sup> They perished in Mauthausen, as did many of their peers.<sup data-footnote-id=\"7fgi1\"><a href=\"#footnote-21\" id=\"footnote-marker-21-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[21]</a></sup> Given the social contacts with these families, this brought the threat to the Frank family closer.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>The call for Margot Frank to report for work in Germany arrived on <strong>5 July 1942</strong>. Margot was thus among the first group of Jews to be called up for labour deployment. As in many cases, this personal danger was decisive in the decision to go into hiding immediately. For the first time, they evaded German measures, something that many other Jews were unable to do. This was unusual, as only one in seven Jews in the Netherlands even attempted to go into hiding.<sup data-footnote-id=\"9dygm\"><a href=\"#footnote-22\" id=\"footnote-marker-22-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[22]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>While in hiding </strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Particularly in the period in late <strong>September 1942</strong> and early <strong>October 1942</strong>, anti-Jewish politics clearly kept Anne busy, as she wrote about them regularly. In <strong>July and August 1942,</strong> several large raids took place in Amsterdam. She wondered if her friends Lies and Ilse were still there and wrote on <strong>14</strong> <strong>October 1942</strong> about her fear that Peter Schiff had already been killed. She heard from Bep Voskuijl that classmate Betty Bloemendal had been sent to Poland with her family. Van Pels, Pfeffer and Miep told them about the round-ups in her old neighborhood and the scenes that accompanied them. Pharmacist Arthur Lewinsohn, who was regularly in the building to carry out experiments with Kugler, telephoned under the name 'Müller', according to Anne, because he was not allowed to call 'Christian people'.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Fritz Pfeffer's arrival in November was surprising in itself. After all, to the outside world, he was lawfully married to Charlotte Kaletta. That this was not so in reality meant that he lacked the relative protection of a mixed marriage. This was due to the fact that the marriage could not take place in Germany because of the Nuremberg laws and in the Netherlands because of international treaties.<sup data-footnote-id=\"al4aa\"><a href=\"#footnote-23\" id=\"footnote-marker-23-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[23]</a></sup> Otto Frank later stated that he only heard about Pfeffer's situation from Miep Gies when he was in the Secret Annex.<sup data-footnote-id=\"2e1hb\"><a href=\"#footnote-24\" id=\"footnote-marker-24-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[24]</a></sup> In her A-version, Anne did not mention the background of Pfeffer's status at all. The B-version reads:<em> 'He lives with a much younger and nice Christian woman, whom he is probably not married to, but that is a side issue.'</em><sup data-footnote-id=\"dw8u2\"><a href=\"#footnote-25\" id=\"footnote-marker-25-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[25]</a></sup><em> </em>It is plausible that Anne, too, only gradually learned the true facts.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>During the first months of hiding, Anne writes several times about Westerbork and the Jewish Council. Both Westerbork and the Jewish Council were important in implementing anti-Jewish policies in the Netherlands. Westerbork had been established in <strong>1939</strong> to receive Jewish refugees from Germany, but on <strong>1 July 1942</strong> it was designated as a <em>Polizeiliches Judendurchgangslager</em>. In <strong>October 1942</strong>, Anne wrote that conditions in Westerbork were terrible.<sup data-footnote-id=\"7myjr\"><a href=\"#footnote-26\" id=\"footnote-marker-26-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[26]</a></sup> She could know this because the Wronker couple, acquaintances of the family, were allowed to return to Amsterdam at that time after staying in the camp.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ou8q9\"><a href=\"#footnote-27\" id=\"footnote-marker-27-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[27]</a></sup> Miep had visited them and she would have conveyed messages.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Extermination</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>It was known in the summer of <strong>1942</strong> that hardships awaited Jews after deportation. Anne was afraid and assumed the worst. She wrote:<em> 'If it is already so bad in Holland how will they live in the distant and barbaric regions where they will be sent. We assume that most of them will be murdered. The English radio talks about gassing: perhaps that is the quickest method of death.'</em> The date of this quote is <strong>9 October 1942</strong>, but since the note is from the B version, it is certain that Anne did not actually write it before <strong>May 1944</strong>. Nevertheless, it is true that Anglo-Saxon media were reporting mass killings in <strong>June</strong> <strong>1942</strong>,<sup data-footnote-id=\"smze2\"><a href=\"#footnote-28\" id=\"footnote-marker-28-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[28]</a></sup> including through gas<sup data-footnote-id=\"mwaok\"><a href=\"#footnote-29\" id=\"footnote-marker-29-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[29]</a></sup>, and this thus became widely known. From that month, remarks about gassing also appeared more than incidentally in diaries of Dutch people.<sup data-footnote-id=\"51q8m\"><a href=\"#footnote-30\" id=\"footnote-marker-30-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[30]</a></sup> In <strong>February 1944</strong>, Anne wrote again that in eastern Europe:<em> 'millions and more millions' </em>were gassed.<sup data-footnote-id=\"7el7b\"><a href=\"#footnote-31\" id=\"footnote-marker-31-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[31]</a></sup> Poland as a fearful deportation destination recurred several times in her notes from <strong>September 1942</strong> onwards.<sup data-footnote-id=\"pp678\"><a href=\"#footnote-32\" id=\"footnote-marker-32-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[32]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>The general liquidation of the last remnants of the Jewish Council followed on <strong>29 September 1943</strong>. The only ones left behind were some specific groups, such as the mixed married people.<sup data-footnote-id=\"1ww56\"><a href=\"#footnote-33\" id=\"footnote-marker-33-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[33]</a></sup> And the people in hiding, the exact number of which group has been subject to varying estimates. However, they were effectively hunted down and the number of those arrested ran into the thousands.<sup data-footnote-id=\"atvhc\"><a href=\"#footnote-34\" id=\"footnote-marker-34-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[34]</a></sup> The hiding attempt in the Secret Annex did not have a happy ending. How it ended is well enough known: the <em>Sicherheitdienst</em> got wind of the matter in a way as yet unknown, and on <strong>4 August 1944</strong> a raid and arrest followed. Seven of the eight people in hiding did not survive deportation.</p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9lv2i\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Nederlands Beheersinstituut (NBI): Beheersdossiers, nummer toegang 2.09.16, inv. nr. 134994: Otto Frank aan NBI, 31 januari 1946.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"v49rk\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Bob Moore, <em>Slachtoffers en overlevenden. De nazi-vervolging van de Joden in Nederland, </em>Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1998, p. 46.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"44s30\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">a</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-2\">b</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-3\">c</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-4\">d</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, undated Thursday (July 1942), in: <em>The Collected Works, </em>transl. from the Dutch by Susan Massotty, London [etc.]: Bloomsbury Continuum, 2019.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"jo38t\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Moore, <em>Slachtoffers en overlevenden</em>, p. 72.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"fa35e\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>Verordeningenblad voor het bezette Nederlandsche gebied </em>1940, p. 548.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"4ld7c\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>Verordeningenblad voor het bezette Nederlandsche gebied </em>1941, p. 19.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"q09m6\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 8 July 1942, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ydz49\" id=\"footnote-8\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-8-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>J. Presser, <em>Ondergang. De vervolging en verdelging van het Nederlandse Jodendom, 1940-1945</em>, 's-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij, 1965, deel <em> </em>I, p. 67.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vb3ky\" id=\"footnote-9\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-9-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>L. de Jong, <em>Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Deel 4: mei '40 - maart '41: tweede helft</em>, 's-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1972, p. 884.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"gj4jq\" id=\"footnote-10\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-10-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Dienke Hondius, <em>Absent. Herinneringen aan het Joods Lyceum Amsterdam 1941-1943, </em>Amsterdam: Vassallucci, 2001, p. 16.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"rppbw\" id=\"footnote-11\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-11-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Anne Frank Collectie (AFC), Otto Frank Archief (OFA), reg. code OFA_085: Bella Kohlwey aan Otto Frank, 22 juli 1967.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"50q4q\" id=\"footnote-12\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-12-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“De bekendmaking inzake badplaatsen enz.”, <em>Het Joodsche Weekblad</em>, 27 juni 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"cr2nz\" id=\"footnote-13\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-13-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Familiearchief Anne Frank-Fonds (AFF), Bazel, Alice Frank, AFF_AlF_corr_18: Anne Frank aan Alice Frank-Stern, eind juni 1941.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"m27in\" id=\"footnote-14\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-14-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Stadsarchief Amsterdam (SAA), Dienst Bevolkingsregister, Archiefkaarten (toegangsnummer 30238): Archiefkaarten leden familie Frank en Fritz Pfeffer.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"t86jr\" id=\"footnote-15\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-15-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version B, 9 October1942, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"59g9f\" id=\"footnote-16\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-16-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Bekendmaking”, <em>De Telegraaf</em>, 29 april 1942, avondeditie.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ew3xg\" id=\"footnote-17\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-17-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6650: Rapporten Pieter Aertszstraat, 14 april 1942, mut. 15.10 n.m.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"6izhv\" id=\"footnote-18\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-18-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version B, 24 June 1942, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"816ad\" id=\"footnote-19\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-19-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Presser, <em>Ondergang</em>, deel I, p. 111, 212.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"0dkqx\" id=\"footnote-20\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-20-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>NIOD Instituut voor Oorlogs-, Holocaust- en Genocidestudies, Joodsche Raad voor Amsterdam, inv. nr. 263: Lijst van op 11 juni 1941 gearresteerden.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"7fgi1\" id=\"footnote-21\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-21-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, DienstBevolkingsregister, Archiefkaarten (toegangsnummer 30238): Archiefkaarten Ernst Kaufmann (1911) en Karl Lewkowitz (1922).</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9dygm\" id=\"footnote-22\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-22-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Moore, <em>Slachtoffers en overlevenden</em>, p. 182.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"al4aa\" id=\"footnote-23\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-23-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Duitse Jodenwet stuit huwelijk in Nederland”, <em>De Telegraaf</em>, 17 september 1935, ochtendeditie.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"2e1hb\" id=\"footnote-24\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-24-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, reg. code A_OFrank_I_015. 'Erklärung' Otto Frank, 4 september 1951.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"dw8u2\" id=\"footnote-25\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-25-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version B, 10 November 1942, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"7myjr\" id=\"footnote-26\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-26-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 26 October 1942, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ou8q9\" id=\"footnote-27\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-27-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 22 October 1942, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"smze2\" id=\"footnote-28\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-28-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Massacre of jews”, <em>The Times</em>, 30 juni 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"mwaok\" id=\"footnote-29\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-29-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Greatest massacre in the world’s history”, <em>Queensland Times</em>, 26 juni 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"51q8m\" id=\"footnote-30\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-30-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Bart van der Boom, <em>“Wij weten niets van hun lot.” Gewone Nederlanders en de Holocaust, </em>Amsterdam: Boom, 2012, p. 488-515.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"7el7b\" id=\"footnote-31\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-31-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 3 February 1944, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"pp678\" id=\"footnote-32\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-32-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 21 September, 14 and 20 October 1942, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"1ww56\" id=\"footnote-33\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-33-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Presser, <em>Ondergang, </em>deel I, p. 385-386.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"atvhc\" id=\"footnote-34\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-34-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Sytze van der Zee, <em>Vogelvrij. De jacht op de Joodse onderduiker, </em>Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij, 2010, p. 118.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"summary": "The Frank family and their peers faced numerous anti-Jewish measures during the German occupation that eventually forced them into hiding.",
"summary_nl": "De familie Frank en hun lotgenoten werden tijdens de Duitse bezetting geconfronteerd met tal van anti-Joodse maatregelen die hen uiteindelijk dwongen tot onderduiken.",
"summary_en": "The Frank family and their peers faced numerous anti-Jewish measures during the German occupation that eventually forced them into hiding.",
"same_as": [
"https://data.niod.nl/WO2_Thesaurus/18915"
],
"parent": 396124660,
"files": []
},
{
"id": 396124429,
"image": {
"id": 1069,
"uuid": "1c3f6eb3-7607-4c61-9c88-86991e5a6e41",
"name": "Applam Fruit Co.",
"title": "Applam Fruit Co., records of the External Assets Investigation OMGUS, 1946-'49, US National Archives, Washington DC.",
"alt": "OMGUS, US National Archives, Washington DC.",
"url": "",
"path": "https://research.annefrank.org/media/Applam_Fruit_National_Archives_London.png",
"filetype": "image",
"description": "",
"author": "Collectie kan worden ingezet voor publiek.",
"copyright": "Publiek domein."
},
"url": "https://research.annefrank.org/en/onderwerpen/c71c876d-c80e-4997-976c-d99d966a3e68/",
"published": true,
"uuid": "c71c876d-c80e-4997-976c-d99d966a3e68",
"name": "Applam Fruit Products Company Ltd.",
"name_nl": "Applam Fruit Products Company Ltd.",
"name_en": "Applam Fruit Products Company Ltd.",
"description": "<p>Applam Fruit Products Company was based in Norton Fitzwarren, Somerset, UK.<sup data-footnote-id=\"x5jw3\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> The company was part of the Pomosin group. The company was controlled by Otto Frank and the Nederlandsche Opekta Mij.<sup data-footnote-id=\"fsufp\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup> Applam's partners decided to dissolve it on <strong>17 March 1934 </strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"31mhr\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> A restart failed because the owner of the buildings and machinery wanted to conclude a lease for too long a period.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zpifn\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup> On <strong>4 November 1935</strong>, Thomas Kefford was appointed liquidator.<sup data-footnote-id=\"kivx8\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Otto Frank had many appointments with Kefford in <strong>1937</strong>. On <strong>2 December 1937</strong>, he travelled to Bristol and Taunton, where the Applam factory was located.<sup data-footnote-id=\"i2o3y\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup> On <strong>10 March 1954,</strong> there was a meeting to account for the liquidation. At the bottom of the announcement was Kefford's name.<sup data-footnote-id=\"v5nb2\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"x5jw3\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><a href=\"https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/11362877.anne-franks-norton-fitzwarren-connection/\" target=\"_blank\">Anne Frank's Norton Fitzwarren connection</a>, Somerset County Gazette, 26 juli 2014</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"fsufp\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>US National Archives, Washington DC, ‘Records of the External Assets Investigation Section of the Property Division, OMGUS, 1945-1949’, re. Pomosin: Bericht über die Pomosin-Werke […], p. 21.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"31mhr\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>London Gazette</em>, 4 mei 1934, issue 34047, p. 2891.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zpifn\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>US National Archives, External Assets Investigation: toelichting op ‘Bericht’, 25 februari 1948.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"kivx8\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>London Gazette</em>, 8 november 1935, issue 34217, p. 7093.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"i2o3y\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting, Anne Frank Collectie, reg. code OFA_001; Kefford: 20-22 en 27-29 september; Taunton: 2 december 1937.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"v5nb2\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>London Gazette</em>, 5 februari 1954, issue 40093, p. 812.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"description_nl": "<p>Applam Fruit Products Company was gevestigd in Norton Fitzwarren, Somerset, UK.<sup data-footnote-id=\"gar4v\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> De firma maakte deel uit van het Pomosin-concern. Het bedrijf stond onder controle van Otto Frank en de Nederlandsche Opekta Mij.<sup data-footnote-id=\"fsufp\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup> De firmanten van Applam besloten op <strong>17 maart 1934 </strong>tot opheffing.<sup data-footnote-id=\"31mhr\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Een doorstart mislukte omdat de eigenaar van de gebouwen en de machines een te lange pachttermijn wilde sluiten.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zpifn\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup> Op <strong>4 november 1935 </strong>werd Thomas Kefford aangewezen als liquidator.<sup data-footnote-id=\"kivx8\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Otto Frank had in <strong>1937 </strong>veel afspraken met Kefford. Op <strong>2 december 1937 </strong>reisde hij naar Bristol en Taunton, waar de fabriek van Applam gevestigd was.<sup data-footnote-id=\"i2o3y\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup> Op <strong>10 maart 1954</strong> was er een vergadering waarin verantwoording over de liquidatie werd gegeven. Onder de aankondiging stond Keffords naam.<sup data-footnote-id=\"v5nb2\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"gar4v\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><a href=\"https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/11362877.anne-franks-norton-fitzwarren-connection/\">Anne Frank's Norton Fitzwarren connection</a>, Somerset County Gazette, 26 juli 2014</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"fsufp\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>US National Archives, Washington DC, ‘Records of the External Assets Investigation Section of the Property Division, OMGUS, 1945-1949’, re. Pomosin: Bericht über die Pomosin-Werke […], p. 21.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"31mhr\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>London Gazette</em>, 4 mei 1934, issue 34047, p. 2891.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zpifn\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>US National Archives, External Assets Investigation: toelichting op ‘Bericht’, 25 februari 1948.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"kivx8\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>London Gazette</em>, 8 november 1935, issue 34217, p. 7093.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"i2o3y\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting, Anne Frank Collectie, reg. code OFA_001; Kefford: 20-22 en 27-29 september; Taunton: 2 december 1937.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"v5nb2\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>London Gazette</em>, 5 februari 1954, issue 40093, p. 812.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"description_en": "<p>Applam Fruit Products Company was based in Norton Fitzwarren, Somerset, UK.<sup data-footnote-id=\"x5jw3\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> The company was part of the Pomosin group. The company was controlled by Otto Frank and the Nederlandsche Opekta Mij.<sup data-footnote-id=\"fsufp\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup> Applam's partners decided to dissolve it on <strong>17 March 1934 </strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"31mhr\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> A restart failed because the owner of the buildings and machinery wanted to conclude a lease for too long a period.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zpifn\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup> On <strong>4 November 1935</strong>, Thomas Kefford was appointed liquidator.<sup data-footnote-id=\"kivx8\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Otto Frank had many appointments with Kefford in <strong>1937</strong>. On <strong>2 December 1937</strong>, he travelled to Bristol and Taunton, where the Applam factory was located.<sup data-footnote-id=\"i2o3y\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup> On <strong>10 March 1954,</strong> there was a meeting to account for the liquidation. At the bottom of the announcement was Kefford's name.<sup data-footnote-id=\"v5nb2\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"x5jw3\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><a href=\"https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/11362877.anne-franks-norton-fitzwarren-connection/\" target=\"_blank\">Anne Frank's Norton Fitzwarren connection</a>, Somerset County Gazette, 26 juli 2014</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"fsufp\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>US National Archives, Washington DC, ‘Records of the External Assets Investigation Section of the Property Division, OMGUS, 1945-1949’, re. Pomosin: Bericht über die Pomosin-Werke […], p. 21.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"31mhr\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>London Gazette</em>, 4 mei 1934, issue 34047, p. 2891.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zpifn\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>US National Archives, External Assets Investigation: toelichting op ‘Bericht’, 25 februari 1948.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"kivx8\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>London Gazette</em>, 8 november 1935, issue 34217, p. 7093.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"i2o3y\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting, Anne Frank Collectie, reg. code OFA_001; Kefford: 20-22 en 27-29 september; Taunton: 2 december 1937.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"v5nb2\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>London Gazette</em>, 5 februari 1954, issue 40093, p. 812.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"summary": "Applam Fruit Products Company Ltd. was an English pectin manufacturer, with which Otto Frank had business contacts.",
"summary_nl": "Applam Fruit Products Company Ltd. was een Engelse pectinefabrikant, waarmee Otto Frank zakelijke contacten had.",
"summary_en": "Applam Fruit Products Company Ltd. was an English pectin manufacturer, with which Otto Frank had business contacts.",
"same_as": null,
"parent": 396124419,
"files": []
},
{
"id": 396124654,
"image": null,
"url": "https://research.annefrank.org/en/onderwerpen/2abdc9fe-b0e6-493d-a6cd-a8fd85baabd7/",
"published": true,
"uuid": "2abdc9fe-b0e6-493d-a6cd-a8fd85baabd7",
"name": "Arrest and betrayal",
"name_nl": "Arrestatie en verraad",
"name_en": "Arrest and betrayal",
"description": "<p>One 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.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Premise and Background</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>This investigative report is based on the premise that only one thing can be agreed on with certainty: on <strong>4 August 1944</strong>, members of the <em>Sicherheitsdienst</em> 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 <strong>1963</strong>, 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.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Research Question and Sources</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Considering 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 <strong>4 August 1944</strong>, 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"sa59d\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> Biographies about both Anne and Otto Frank also present different theories about the events leading up to the raid on <strong>4 August 1944</strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"1qfz0\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"cz28w\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> An overview of the source material used for this investigation – published as well as unpublished – is included at the end of this report</p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"sa59d\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Sytze van der Zee, <em>Vogelvrij: de jacht op de Joodse onderduiker</em>, Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij, 2010; Koos Groen, <em>Een prooi wordt jager: de zaak van de Joodse verraadster Ans van Dijk</em>, herz. ed., Meppel: Just Publishers, 2016; Gerard Kremer, <em>Anne Frank betrayed: the mystery unravelled after 75 years</em>, Ede: De Lantaarn, 2020; Rosemary Sullivan, <em>The betrayal of Anne Frank: a cold case investigation</em>, New York, NY: Harper, 2022 (upd. ed. with a new afterword 2023); Joop van Wijk-Voskuijl & Jeroen De Bruyn, <em>The last secret of the Secret Annex : the untold story of Anne Frank, her silent protector, and a family betrayal</em>, London: Simon & Schuster, 2023.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"1qfz0\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Carol Ann Lee, <em>The hidden life of Otto Frank</em>, London: Viking, 2002; Melissa Müller, <em>Anne Frank: the biography, u</em>pd. and exp. ed., London: Bloomsbury, 2013.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"cz28w\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>David Barnouw & Gerrold van der Stroom, <a href=\"https://www.niod.nl/nl/publicaties/who-betrayed-anne-frank\"><em>Who betrayed Anne Frank?</em></a>, Amsterdam: NIOD, 2003. For an updated version, see: David Barnouw, <em>Anne Frank en het verraad: een overzicht</em>, Amsterdam: Boom, 2023.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"description_nl": "<p>Een 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.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Opzet en achtergrond</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Het onderzoek is opgezet vanuit de gedachte dat er maar één ding vaststaat: er is op <strong>4 augustus 1944</strong> een inval van leden van de <em>Sicherheitsdienst</em> (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 <strong>1963</strong> 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.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Vraagstelling en bronnen</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Het 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 <strong>4 augustus 1944</strong> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"1xj0u\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> In biografieën over zowel Anne als Otto Frank zijn eveneens verschillende theorieën ontvouwd over het voortraject van de inval van <strong>4 augustus</strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"9zinm\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ivelj\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Een overzicht van al het gebruikte materiaal, gepubliceerd en ongepubliceerd, is aan dit verslag toegevoegd.</p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"1xj0u\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Sytze van der Zee, <em>Vogelvrij: de jacht op de Joodse onderduiker</em>, Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij, 2010; Jeroen De Bruyn & Joop van Wijk, <em>Bep Voskuijl, het zwijgen voorbij: een biografie van de jongste helper van het Achterhuis</em>, Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2015; Koos Groen, <em>Een prooi wordt jager: de zaak van de joodse verraadster Ans van Dijk, </em>herz. ed., Meppel: Just Publishers, 2016; Gerard Kremer, <em>De achtertuin van het Achterhuis</em>, Ede: De Lantaarn, 2018, Rosemary Sullivan, <em>Het verraad van Anne Frank: het baanbrekende onderzoek van een internationaal coldcaseteam in Nederland</em>, Amsterdam: Ambo Anthos, 2022.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9zinm\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Melissa Müller, <em>Anne Frank: de biografie</em>, 5e, geheel herz. dr., Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2013; Carol Ann Lee, <em>Het verborgen leven van Otto Frank: de biografie</em>, Amsterdam: Balans, 2002.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ivelj\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>David Barnouw & Gerrold van der Stroom, <em>Wie verraadde Anne Frank?</em>, Amsterdam: Boom / NIOD, 2003. Voor een geactualiseerde versie, zie: David Barnouw, <em>Anne Frank en het verraad: een overzicht</em>, Amsterdam: Boom, 2023.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"description_en": "<p>One 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.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Premise and Background</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>This investigative report is based on the premise that only one thing can be agreed on with certainty: on <strong>4 August 1944</strong>, members of the <em>Sicherheitsdienst</em> 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 <strong>1963</strong>, 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.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Research Question and Sources</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Considering 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 <strong>4 August 1944</strong>, 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"sa59d\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> Biographies about both Anne and Otto Frank also present different theories about the events leading up to the raid on <strong>4 August 1944</strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"1qfz0\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"cz28w\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> An overview of the source material used for this investigation – published as well as unpublished – is included at the end of this report</p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"sa59d\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Sytze van der Zee, <em>Vogelvrij: de jacht op de Joodse onderduiker</em>, Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij, 2010; Koos Groen, <em>Een prooi wordt jager: de zaak van de Joodse verraadster Ans van Dijk</em>, herz. ed., Meppel: Just Publishers, 2016; Gerard Kremer, <em>Anne Frank betrayed: the mystery unravelled after 75 years</em>, Ede: De Lantaarn, 2020; Rosemary Sullivan, <em>The betrayal of Anne Frank: a cold case investigation</em>, New York, NY: Harper, 2022 (upd. ed. with a new afterword 2023); Joop van Wijk-Voskuijl & Jeroen De Bruyn, <em>The last secret of the Secret Annex : the untold story of Anne Frank, her silent protector, and a family betrayal</em>, London: Simon & Schuster, 2023.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"1qfz0\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Carol Ann Lee, <em>The hidden life of Otto Frank</em>, London: Viking, 2002; Melissa Müller, <em>Anne Frank: the biography, u</em>pd. and exp. ed., London: Bloomsbury, 2013.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"cz28w\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>David Barnouw & Gerrold van der Stroom, <a href=\"https://www.niod.nl/nl/publicaties/who-betrayed-anne-frank\"><em>Who betrayed Anne Frank?</em></a>, Amsterdam: NIOD, 2003. For an updated version, see: David Barnouw, <em>Anne Frank en het verraad: een overzicht</em>, Amsterdam: Boom, 2023.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"summary": "Extensive research into the arrest and possible betrayal of the people in hiding in the Secret Annex was carried out by the Anne Frank House in 2016. Read the introduction here and download the entire report ´Research report on betrayal and arrest of the people in hiding in the Secret Annex´ here.",
"summary_nl": "Naar de arrestatie en het mogelijke verraad van de onderduikers in het Achterhuis is in 2016 door de Anne Frank Stichting uitgebreid onderzoek gedaan. Lees hier de inleiding en download het gehele verslag ´Onderzoeksverslag inzake verraad en arrestatie van de onderduikers in het Achterhuis´",
"summary_en": "Extensive research into the arrest and possible betrayal of the people in hiding in the Secret Annex was carried out by the Anne Frank House in 2016. Read the introduction here and download the entire report ´Research report on betrayal and arrest of the people in hiding in the Secret Annex´ here.",
"same_as": null,
"parent": 396124388,
"files": [
916,
917
]
},
{
"id": 396124433,
"image": null,
"url": "https://research.annefrank.org/en/onderwerpen/0cec6378-1cef-4376-961f-bdcc3c411542/",
"published": true,
"uuid": "0cec6378-1cef-4376-961f-bdcc3c411542",
"name": "Aufbau",
"name_nl": "Aufbau",
"name_en": "Aufbau",
"description": "<p><em>Aufbau. Nachrichtenblatt des German-Jewish Club Inc, New York, N.Y.</em></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>Address</strong><br />\r\n210 West 91st Street, New York.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>German-language emigré magazine. The first issue appeared on <strong>1 December 1934</strong>, edited by Edward W. Jelenko.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zhthh\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>After Rosa Holländer-Stern's death, her children Walter, Julius and Edith, along with son-in-law Otto Frank, placed an advertisement in the magazine.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zemjf\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>In the <strong>late summer of 1945</strong>, the magazine featured a "Suchanzeige" for Anne and Margot Frank. This had been placed by Arthur May, an in-law relative of Otto Frank. On the same page was a similar advertisement for the Leyens family.<sup data-footnote-id=\"6oou7\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>16 April 1948</strong>, the magazine featured a review of <em>The Secret Annex </em>by Kurt Lubinski, who called for a German translation to be made quickly.<sup data-footnote-id=\"jf6vj\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>The magazine has been digitised and can be accessed at the <a href=\"http://archive.org/details/aufbau/\" target=\"_blank\">Internet Archive</a>.</p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zhthh\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Vol. I, nr. 1, <em>Aufbau</em>, 1 december 1934.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zemjf\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Vol. XI, nr. 14,<em> Aufbau</em>, 3 april 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"6oou7\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Vol. XI, nr. 36,<em> Aufbau</em>, 7 september 1945.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"jf6vj\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Vol. XIV, nr. 16, <em>A</em><em>ufbau</em>, 16 april 1948.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"description_nl": "<p><em>Aufbau. Nachrichtenblatt des German-Jewish Club Inc., New York, N.Y.</em></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>Adres</strong><br />\r\n210 West 91th Street, New York.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Duitstalig emigrantenblad. Het eerste nummer verscheen op <strong>1 december 1934</strong> onder redactie van Edward W. Jelenko.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zhthh\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Na het overlijden van Rosa Holländer-Stern plaatsten haar kinderen Walter, Julius en Edith met schoonzoon Otto Frank een advertentie in het blad.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zemjf\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>In de <strong>nazomer van 1945</strong> stond in het blad een “Suchanzeige” voor Anne en Margot Frank. Deze was geplaatst door Arthur May, een aangetrouwd familielid van Otto Frank. Op dezelfde bladzijde stond een soortgelijke advertentie voor de familie Leyens.<sup data-footnote-id=\"6oou7\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Op <strong>16 april 1948</strong> stond in het blad een bespreking van <em>Het Achterhuis </em>door Kurt Lubinski, die pleitte voor een spoedige Duitse vertaling.<sup data-footnote-id=\"jf6vj\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Het blad is gedigitaliseerd en toegankelijk via het <a href=\"http://archive.org/details/aufbau/\" target=\"_blank\">Internet Archive</a>.</p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zhthh\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Vol. I, nr. 1, <em>Aufbau</em>, 1 december 1934.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zemjf\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Vol. XI, nr. 14,<em> Aufbau</em>, 3 april 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"6oou7\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Vol. XI, nr. 36,<em> Aufbau</em>, 7 september 1945.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"jf6vj\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Vol. XIV, nr. 16, <em>A</em><em>ufbau</em>, 16 april 1948.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"description_en": "<p><em>Aufbau. Nachrichtenblatt des German-Jewish Club Inc, New York, N.Y.</em></p>\r\n\r\n<p><strong>Address</strong><br />\r\n210 West 91st Street, New York.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>German-language emigré magazine. The first issue appeared on <strong>1 December 1934</strong>, edited by Edward W. Jelenko.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zhthh\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>After Rosa Holländer-Stern's death, her children Walter, Julius and Edith, along with son-in-law Otto Frank, placed an advertisement in the magazine.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zemjf\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>In the <strong>late summer of 1945</strong>, the magazine featured a "Suchanzeige" for Anne and Margot Frank. This had been placed by Arthur May, an in-law relative of Otto Frank. On the same page was a similar advertisement for the Leyens family.<sup data-footnote-id=\"6oou7\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>On <strong>16 April 1948</strong>, the magazine featured a review of <em>The Secret Annex </em>by Kurt Lubinski, who called for a German translation to be made quickly.<sup data-footnote-id=\"jf6vj\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>The magazine has been digitised and can be accessed at the <a href=\"http://archive.org/details/aufbau/\" target=\"_blank\">Internet Archive</a>.</p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zhthh\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Vol. I, nr. 1, <em>Aufbau</em>, 1 december 1934.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zemjf\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Vol. XI, nr. 14,<em> Aufbau</em>, 3 april 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"6oou7\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Vol. XI, nr. 36,<em> Aufbau</em>, 7 september 1945.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"jf6vj\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Vol. XIV, nr. 16, <em>A</em><em>ufbau</em>, 16 april 1948.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"summary": "Aufbau was a German-language emigré magazine.",
"summary_nl": "Aufbau was een Duitstalig emigrantenblad.",
"summary_en": "Aufbau was a German-language emigré magazine.",
"same_as": null,
"parent": 396124407,
"files": []
},
{
"id": 396124423,
"image": null,
"url": "https://research.annefrank.org/en/onderwerpen/3684c3f2-ba86-43cb-a9ed-73e6ec6c6189/",
"published": true,
"uuid": "3684c3f2-ba86-43cb-a9ed-73e6ec6c6189",
"name": "Auschwitz-Birkenau: the women in the Durchgangslager",
"name_nl": "Auschwitz-Birkenau: de vrouwen in het Durchgangslager",
"name_en": "Auschwitz-Birkenau: the women in the Durchgangslager",
"description": "<p>Little is known about the time in Auschwitz of the women from the Secret Annex. The camp records are almost entirely lost. What we do know comes from various witnesses who stayed with Anne, Margot, Edith Frank and Auguste van Pels in Auschwitz-Birkenau.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Huts</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Bloeme Emden and Lenie de Jong-van Naarden formed a close-knit group in Auschwitz-Birkenau along with a dozen other Dutch women. They also had contact there with Anne, Margot and Edith. According to Bloeme, Anne, Margot and Edith formed an '<em>inseparable trinity</em>'.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ej5op\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> In hut 29, Anne, Margot and Edith were said to have shared a bed together.<sup data-footnote-id=\"eg46k\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup> Auguste van Pels also stayed in hut 29, but little is known about her stay there.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>How long the women were in the quarantine hut, we do not know. Indeed, according to witnesses, Anne and Margot ended up in the <em>Krätzeblock</em>: the hut for scabies sufferers and other sick people. Lenie de Jong-van Naarden remembered that it was actually Margot who had to be admitted, but that Anne wanted to stay with her sister and therefore went with her.<sup data-footnote-id=\"o762y\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Conditions in the scabies hut were appalling and many sick people were abandoned to their fate there. To help her daughters in the <em>Krätzeblock</em>, Edith Frank, together with Rebbeca Brommet-Ritmeester (the mother of Frieda Brommet, who was also in the scabies hut) and Lenie de Jong-van Naarden, dug a hole somewhere along the side of the hut to give food to the children.<sup data-footnote-id=\"aa35f\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>In addition, Rebbeca Brommet-Ritmeester and Edith Frank were said to have hidden in order to avoid being taken on a transport and thus continue to care for their children. Frieda Brommet recalled:</p>\r\n\r\n<blockquote>'They dug a hole together. (...) and one day my mother came and she could also speak through that hole, and she said, she would shout, 'Frieda! Frieda!' [...] And said: 'Mrs Frank and I are the only ones here in the camp now. We have been hiding because the group has gone on transport. But we hid because we wanted to stay with you. And we stole some bread and I am giving it to you now through the hole and you have to share it between the four of you.' And that four was with Margot and Anne.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"725df\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup></blockquote>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Selections</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>When Anne and Margot were discharged from the scabies hut is unclear. What we do know is that Anne, Margot and Auguste were selected for work in Bergen-Belsen on the evening of <strong>30 October 1944</strong>.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Rosa de Winter-Levy was also in hut 29 with the Frank women. She wrote about her friendship with Edith Frank and her daughters in her book <em>Escaped the Gas Chamber! </em>in August 1945. She later recounted the selection of Anne and Margot in an interview with Ernst Schnabel:</p>\r\n\r\n<blockquote>'Again Blocksperre, but this time we had to wait naked on the roll call court, and it took a very long time (...) And then it was the two girls' turn: Anne and Margot. And Anne stood with her face even still under the spotlight and nudged Margot. And Margot stood upright in the light and there they stood for a moment. Naked and bare. And Anne looked at us with her bright face as she stood upright, and then they went. What happened behind the spotlight could no longer be seen. And Mrs Frank screamed, "The children! Oh God..."'<sup data-footnote-id=\"9u98v\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup></blockquote>\r\n\r\n<p>The more than a thousand selected women were locked in a hut until the transport left on<strong> 1 November 1944</strong>. The women who had not been selected, such as Rosa de Winter-Levy and Edith Frank, were locked in a hut in the <em>B-Lager</em> and transferred two days later to the <em>A-Lager</em> - the part where the infirmary huts were located - obviously to be murdered soon. Several selections for transport followed, which Edith and Rosa did not pass, but with the help of the <em>Blockälteste</em> they managed to escape gassing.<sup data-footnote-id=\"bo3vk\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>However, it was not long until Edith Frank was so ill that she was admitted to the infirmary hut. Some time later, Rosa also became so ill that she was put in the <em>Durchfallblock</em> (for diarhoea sufferers). One day there, she saw Edith Frank being brought into her hut. 'One morning new patients came in. Suddenly I recognise Edith, she comes from another ward. She is just a ghost. A few days later she dies, totally exhausted.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"rilye\"><a href=\"#footnote-8\" id=\"footnote-marker-8-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[8]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<div>\r\n<div>\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ej5op\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Anne Frank Collectie (AFC), Getuigenarchief, interview Bloeme Evers-Emden, 11 maart 2010.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"eg46k\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>NIOD Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogs-, Holocaust- en Genocidestudies, 250d, Kampen en gevangenissen, inv.nr. 583, I. Salomon. Ook andere vertelden hierover: Bloeme Evers-Emden, Ronnie Goldstein-van Cleef, Lenie de Jong-van Naarden, Frieda Menco-Brommet, Anita Mayer-Roos.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"o762y\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, Getuigenarchief, interview Lenie de Jong-van Naarden, 22 maart 2010.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"aa35f\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Ook Frieda’s moeder Rebecca Brommet-Ritmeester overleefde de Holocaust. AFS, AFC, Getuigenarchief, interview Frieda Menco-Brommet, 12 februari 2010.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"725df\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, Getuigenarchief. De getuigenissen hierover van Frieda Menco-Brommet, Ronnie Goldstein-van Cleef en Lenie de Jong-van Naarden hebben allemaal dezelfde strekking en wijken slechts in enkele kleine details van elkaar af.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9u98v\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Origineel citaat: ‘Wieder Blocksperre, aber diesmal mussten wir nackt auf dem Apellplatz warten, und es dauerte sehr lange. (…) Und dann kamen die beiden Mädchen an die Reihe: Anne und Margot. Und An[1]ne hatte ihr Gesicht, sogar unter dem Scheinwerfer noch, und sie stieß Margot an, und Margot ging aufrecht ins Licht, und da standen sie einen Augenblick, nackt und kahl, und Anne sah zu uns herüber, mit ihrem ungetrübten Gesicht und gerade, und dann gingen sie. Was hinter dem Scheinwerfer war, war nicht mehr zu sehen. Und Frau Frank schrie: Die Kinder! O Gott...’ In: Ernst Schnabel, <em>Anne Frank, Spur eines Kindes. Ein Bericht</em>, Frankfurt/Main, 1958, p. 138-139.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"bo3vk\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Zie: Bas von Benda-Beckmann, <em>Na het Achterhuis. Anne Frank en de andere onderduikers in de kampen, </em>Amsterdam: Querido, 2020, p.211-214.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"rilye\" id=\"footnote-8\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-8-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Rosa de Winter-Levy, <em>Aan de gaskamer ontsnapt! Het satanswerk van de S.S.: relaas van het lijden in de bevrijding uit het concentratiekamp "Birkenau" bij Auschwitz</em>, Doetinchem: Misset, 1945, 29. Zelf zou Rosa de Winter-Levy Auschwitz ternauwernood overleven.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>\r\n</div>\r\n</div>",
"description_nl": "<p>Over het verblijf van de vrouwelijke onderduikers in Auschwitz is weinig bekend. De kampadministratie is bijna geheel verloren gegaan. Wat we wel weten is afkomstig van verschillende getuigen die samen met Anne, Margot, Edith Frank en Auguste van Pels in Auschwitz-Birkenau verbleven.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Barakken</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Bloeme Emden en Lenie de Jong-van Naarden vormden samen met een tiental andere Nederlandse vrouwen een hecht groepje in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Ook hadden ze daar contact met Anne, Margot en Edith. Volgens Bloeme vormden Anne, Margot en Edith een ‘<em>onafscheidelijke drie-eenheid</em>’.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ej5op\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> In barak 29 zouden Anne, Margot en Edith samen een bed hebben gedeeld.<sup data-footnote-id=\"eg46k\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup> Ook Auguste van Pels verbleef in barak 29, maar over haar verblijf daar is weinig bekend.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Hoe lang de vrouwen in de quarantainebarak zaten, weten we niet. Volgens getuigenissen kwamen Anne en Margot namelijk in het <em>Krätzeblock</em> terecht: de barak voor schurftlijders en andere zieken. Lenie de Jong-van Naarden herinnerde zich dat het eigenlijk Margot was die moest worden opgenomen, maar dat Anne bij haar zus wilde blijven en daarom met haar meeging.<sup data-footnote-id=\"o762y\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> De omstandigheden in de schurftbarak waren erbarmelijk en veel zieken werden aan hun lot overgelaten. Om haar dochters in het <em>Krätzeblock </em>te helpen groef Edith Frank samen met Rebbeca Brommet-Ritmeester (de moeder van Frieda Brommet, die ook in de schurftbarak lag) en Lenie de Jong-van Naarden, ergens aan de zijkant van de barak een gat om eten aan de kinderen te geven.<sup data-footnote-id=\"aa35f\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Bovendien zouden Rebbeca Brommet-Ritmeester en Edith Frank zich hebben verstopt om niet mee te hoeven op transport en zo voor hun kinderen te kunnen blijven zorgen. Frieda Brommet herinnerde zich:</p>\r\n\r\n<blockquote>\r\n<p>'Ze hebben samen een gat gegraven. (…) en op een dag kwam mijn moeder en die kon ook spreken door dat gat, en die zei, die riep dan: ‘Frieda! Frieda!’ […] En zei: ‘Mevrouw Frank en ik zijn de enigen die nu hier in het kamp zijn. We hebben ons verstopt want de groep is op transport gegaan. Maar wij hebben ons verstopt, want we wilden bij jullie blijven. En we hebben wat brood gestolen en dat geef ik nu aan door het gat en dat moeten jullie maar met z’n vieren delen.’ En met z’n vieren was met Margot en Anne.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"725df\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup></p>\r\n</blockquote>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Selecties</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Wanneer Anne en Margot weer uit de schurftbarak kwamen is onduidelijk. Wat we wel weten is dat Anne, Margot en Auguste op de avond van <strong>30 oktober 1944</strong> geselecteerd werden voor tewerkstelling in Bergen-Belsen.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Ook Rosa de Winter-Levy zat met de vrouwen Frank in barak 29. Ze schreef in augustus 1945 in haar boek <em>Aan de gaskamer ontsnapt! </em>over haar vriendschap met Edith Frank en haar dochters. Later vertelde ze in een interview met Ernst Schnabel over de selectie van Anne en Margot:</p>\r\n\r\n<blockquote>\r\n<p>'Opnieuw Blocksperre, maar ditmaal moesten we naakt op de appelplaats wachten, en het duurde heel lang. (…) En toen kwamen de beide meisjes aan de beurt: Anne en Margot. En Anne stond met haar gezicht zelfs nog onder de schijnwerper en stootte Margot aan. En Margot ging rechtop in het licht staan en daar stonden ze een ogenblik. Naakt en kaal. En Anne keek naar ons met haar heldere gezicht, terwijl ze rechtop stond, en toen gingen ze. Wat achter de schijnwerper gebeurde was niet meer te zien. En mevrouw Frank schreeuwde: "De kinderen! O God..."’<sup data-footnote-id=\"9u98v\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup></p>\r\n</blockquote>\r\n\r\n<p>De meer dan duizend geselecteerde vrouwen werden in een barak opgesloten totdat het transport op<strong> 1 november 1944</strong> vertrok. De niet-geselecteerde vrouwen, zoals Rosa de Winter-Levy en Edith Frank, werden opgesloten in een barak in het <em>B-Lager</em> en twee dagen later overgebracht naar het <em>A-Lager</em> – het deel waar de ziekenbarakken stonden – duidelijk om binnenkort te worden vermoord. Er volgenden verschillende selecties voor transport, waar Edith en Rosa niet doorheen kwamen, maar met behulp van de Blockälteste wisten ze aan vergassing te ontkomen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"bo3vk\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Het duurde echter niet lang tot Edith Frank zo ziek was dat ze in de ziekenbarak werd opgenomen. Enige tijd later werd ook Rosa zo ziek dat ze in het Durchfallblock (voor diareepatienten) terecht kwam. Op een dag zag zij daar hoe Edith Frank haar barak werd binnengebracht. ‘Op een morgen komen nieuwe patiënten binnen. Ineens herken ik Edith, zij komt uit een andere ziekenafdeling. Zij is nog maar een schim. Enkele dagen nadien sterft zij, totaal uitgeput.’<sup data-footnote-id=\"rilye\"><a href=\"#footnote-8\" id=\"footnote-marker-8-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[8]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<div>\r\n<div>\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ej5op\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Anne Frank Collectie (AFC), Getuigenarchief, interview Bloeme Evers-Emden, 11 maart 2010.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"eg46k\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>NIOD Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogs-, Holocaust- en Genocidestudies, 250d, Kampen en gevangenissen, inv.nr. 583, I. Salomon. Ook andere vertelden hierover: Bloeme Evers-Emden, Ronnie Goldstein-van Cleef, Lenie de Jong-van Naarden, Frieda Menco-Brommet, Anita Mayer-Roos.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"o762y\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, Getuigenarchief, interview Lenie de Jong-van Naarden, 22 maart 2010.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"aa35f\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Ook Frieda’s moeder Rebecca Brommet-Ritmeester overleefde de Holocaust. AFS, AFC, Getuigenarchief, interview Frieda Menco-Brommet, 12 februari 2010.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"725df\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, Getuigenarchief. De getuigenissen hierover van Frieda Menco-Brommet, Ronnie Goldstein-van Cleef en Lenie de Jong-van Naarden hebben allemaal dezelfde strekking en wijken slechts in enkele kleine details van elkaar af.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9u98v\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Origineel citaat: ‘Wieder Blocksperre, aber diesmal mussten wir nackt auf dem Apellplatz warten, und es dauerte sehr lange. (…) Und dann kamen die beiden Mädchen an die Reihe: Anne und Margot. Und An[1]ne hatte ihr Gesicht, sogar unter dem Scheinwerfer noch, und sie stieß Margot an, und Margot ging aufrecht ins Licht, und da standen sie einen Augenblick, nackt und kahl, und Anne sah zu uns herüber, mit ihrem ungetrübten Gesicht und gerade, und dann gingen sie. Was hinter dem Scheinwerfer war, war nicht mehr zu sehen. Und Frau Frank schrie: Die Kinder! O Gott...’ In: Ernst Schnabel, <em>Anne Frank, Spur eines Kindes. Ein Bericht</em>, Frankfurt/Main, 1958, p. 138-139.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"bo3vk\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Zie: Bas von Benda-Beckmann, <em>Na het Achterhuis. Anne Frank en de andere onderduikers in de kampen, </em>Amsterdam: Querido, 2020, p.211-214.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"rilye\" id=\"footnote-8\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-8-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Rosa de Winter-Levy, <em>Aan de gaskamer ontsnapt! Het satanswerk van de S.S.: relaas van het lijden in de bevrijding uit het concentratiekamp "Birkenau" bij Auschwitz</em>, Doetinchem: Misset, 1945, 29. Zelf zou Rosa de Winter-Levy Auschwitz ternauwernood overleven.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>\r\n</div>\r\n</div>",
"description_en": "<p>Little is known about the time in Auschwitz of the women from the Secret Annex. The camp records are almost entirely lost. What we do know comes from various witnesses who stayed with Anne, Margot, Edith Frank and Auguste van Pels in Auschwitz-Birkenau.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Huts</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Bloeme Emden and Lenie de Jong-van Naarden formed a close-knit group in Auschwitz-Birkenau along with a dozen other Dutch women. They also had contact there with Anne, Margot and Edith. According to Bloeme, Anne, Margot and Edith formed an '<em>inseparable trinity</em>'.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ej5op\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> In hut 29, Anne, Margot and Edith were said to have shared a bed together.<sup data-footnote-id=\"eg46k\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup> Auguste van Pels also stayed in hut 29, but little is known about her stay there.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>How long the women were in the quarantine hut, we do not know. Indeed, according to witnesses, Anne and Margot ended up in the <em>Krätzeblock</em>: the hut for scabies sufferers and other sick people. Lenie de Jong-van Naarden remembered that it was actually Margot who had to be admitted, but that Anne wanted to stay with her sister and therefore went with her.<sup data-footnote-id=\"o762y\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Conditions in the scabies hut were appalling and many sick people were abandoned to their fate there. To help her daughters in the <em>Krätzeblock</em>, Edith Frank, together with Rebbeca Brommet-Ritmeester (the mother of Frieda Brommet, who was also in the scabies hut) and Lenie de Jong-van Naarden, dug a hole somewhere along the side of the hut to give food to the children.<sup data-footnote-id=\"aa35f\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>In addition, Rebbeca Brommet-Ritmeester and Edith Frank were said to have hidden in order to avoid being taken on a transport and thus continue to care for their children. Frieda Brommet recalled:</p>\r\n\r\n<blockquote>'They dug a hole together. (...) and one day my mother came and she could also speak through that hole, and she said, she would shout, 'Frieda! Frieda!' [...] And said: 'Mrs Frank and I are the only ones here in the camp now. We have been hiding because the group has gone on transport. But we hid because we wanted to stay with you. And we stole some bread and I am giving it to you now through the hole and you have to share it between the four of you.' And that four was with Margot and Anne.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"725df\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup></blockquote>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Selections</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>When Anne and Margot were discharged from the scabies hut is unclear. What we do know is that Anne, Margot and Auguste were selected for work in Bergen-Belsen on the evening of <strong>30 October 1944</strong>.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Rosa de Winter-Levy was also in hut 29 with the Frank women. She wrote about her friendship with Edith Frank and her daughters in her book <em>Escaped the Gas Chamber! </em>in August 1945. She later recounted the selection of Anne and Margot in an interview with Ernst Schnabel:</p>\r\n\r\n<blockquote>'Again Blocksperre, but this time we had to wait naked on the roll call court, and it took a very long time (...) And then it was the two girls' turn: Anne and Margot. And Anne stood with her face even still under the spotlight and nudged Margot. And Margot stood upright in the light and there they stood for a moment. Naked and bare. And Anne looked at us with her bright face as she stood upright, and then they went. What happened behind the spotlight could no longer be seen. And Mrs Frank screamed, "The children! Oh God..."'<sup data-footnote-id=\"9u98v\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup></blockquote>\r\n\r\n<p>The more than a thousand selected women were locked in a hut until the transport left on<strong> 1 November 1944</strong>. The women who had not been selected, such as Rosa de Winter-Levy and Edith Frank, were locked in a hut in the <em>B-Lager</em> and transferred two days later to the <em>A-Lager</em> - the part where the infirmary huts were located - obviously to be murdered soon. Several selections for transport followed, which Edith and Rosa did not pass, but with the help of the <em>Blockälteste</em> they managed to escape gassing.<sup data-footnote-id=\"bo3vk\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>However, it was not long until Edith Frank was so ill that she was admitted to the infirmary hut. Some time later, Rosa also became so ill that she was put in the <em>Durchfallblock</em> (for diarhoea sufferers). One day there, she saw Edith Frank being brought into her hut. 'One morning new patients came in. Suddenly I recognise Edith, she comes from another ward. She is just a ghost. A few days later she dies, totally exhausted.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"rilye\"><a href=\"#footnote-8\" id=\"footnote-marker-8-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[8]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<div>\r\n<div>\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ej5op\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Anne Frank Collectie (AFC), Getuigenarchief, interview Bloeme Evers-Emden, 11 maart 2010.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"eg46k\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>NIOD Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogs-, Holocaust- en Genocidestudies, 250d, Kampen en gevangenissen, inv.nr. 583, I. Salomon. Ook andere vertelden hierover: Bloeme Evers-Emden, Ronnie Goldstein-van Cleef, Lenie de Jong-van Naarden, Frieda Menco-Brommet, Anita Mayer-Roos.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"o762y\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, Getuigenarchief, interview Lenie de Jong-van Naarden, 22 maart 2010.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"aa35f\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Ook Frieda’s moeder Rebecca Brommet-Ritmeester overleefde de Holocaust. AFS, AFC, Getuigenarchief, interview Frieda Menco-Brommet, 12 februari 2010.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"725df\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, Getuigenarchief. De getuigenissen hierover van Frieda Menco-Brommet, Ronnie Goldstein-van Cleef en Lenie de Jong-van Naarden hebben allemaal dezelfde strekking en wijken slechts in enkele kleine details van elkaar af.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9u98v\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Origineel citaat: ‘Wieder Blocksperre, aber diesmal mussten wir nackt auf dem Apellplatz warten, und es dauerte sehr lange. (…) Und dann kamen die beiden Mädchen an die Reihe: Anne und Margot. Und An[1]ne hatte ihr Gesicht, sogar unter dem Scheinwerfer noch, und sie stieß Margot an, und Margot ging aufrecht ins Licht, und da standen sie einen Augenblick, nackt und kahl, und Anne sah zu uns herüber, mit ihrem ungetrübten Gesicht und gerade, und dann gingen sie. Was hinter dem Scheinwerfer war, war nicht mehr zu sehen. Und Frau Frank schrie: Die Kinder! O Gott...’ In: Ernst Schnabel, <em>Anne Frank, Spur eines Kindes. Ein Bericht</em>, Frankfurt/Main, 1958, p. 138-139.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"bo3vk\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Zie: Bas von Benda-Beckmann, <em>Na het Achterhuis. Anne Frank en de andere onderduikers in de kampen, </em>Amsterdam: Querido, 2020, p.211-214.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"rilye\" id=\"footnote-8\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-8-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Rosa de Winter-Levy, <em>Aan de gaskamer ontsnapt! Het satanswerk van de S.S.: relaas van het lijden in de bevrijding uit het concentratiekamp "Birkenau" bij Auschwitz</em>, Doetinchem: Misset, 1945, 29. Zelf zou Rosa de Winter-Levy Auschwitz ternauwernood overleven.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>\r\n</div>\r\n</div>",
"summary": "Anne, Margot and Edith Frank and Auguste van Pels were imprisoned in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Anne, Margot and Auguste were transported back to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp after two months. Edith stayed behind and died two months later.",
"summary_nl": "Anne, Margot en Edith Frank en Auguste van Pels zaten gevangen in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Anne, Margot en Auguste gingen na twee maanden weer op transport naar concentratiekamp Bergen-Belsen. Edith bleef achter en stierf twee maanden later.",
"summary_en": "Anne, Margot and Edith Frank and Auguste van Pels were imprisoned in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Anne, Margot and Auguste were transported back to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp after two months. Edith stayed behind and died two months later.",
"same_as": null,
"parent": 396124393,
"files": []
},
{
"id": 396124422,
"image": null,
"url": "https://research.annefrank.org/en/onderwerpen/37440287-0235-427b-a964-6ba15ef3ae50/",
"published": true,
"uuid": "37440287-0235-427b-a964-6ba15ef3ae50",
"name": "Auschwitz I: the men in the Stammlager",
"name_nl": "Auschwitz I: de mannen in het Stammlager",
"name_en": "Auschwitz I: the men in the Stammlager",
"description": "<p>All the men from the <strong>3 September 1944</strong> transport who survived selection after arriving in Birkenau went on foot to Auschwitz I after the registration procedure.<sup data-footnote-id=\"35olj\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> There they ended up in quarantine block 8. The prisoners slept in bunk beds on three floors, often with two or more people to a bed. The quarantine block was overcrowded.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>During quarantine, all prisoners had to work. Most worked on <em>Strassenbau</em> - road construction - or in the <em>Kiesgrube</em> - the gravel pit - where they had to load gravel onto carts and take them away to pave roads. Many people suffered injuries during this work. Otto Frank stated after the war that he was assigned to a team that had to drag gravel.</p>\r\n\r\n<blockquote>'Being in a Kieskommando myself for a while, I know a lot about the hard labour that had to be done there and the beatings that were often associated with it.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"gvvke\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></blockquote>\r\n\r\n<p>The quarantine period of the men from the 3 September transport ended <strong>in early October 1944 </strong>with two selections, during which another group of male prisoners deemed no longer capable of hard labour was murdered in the gas chamber. The death of Hermann van Pels resulted from these selections.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>The men who did survive the selections remained in Auschwitz I after the quarantine period, where they were assigned to various labour teams. Where Fritz Pfeffer was assigned, we do not know. Nothing about Pfeffer's imprisonment in Auschwitz has been found in the testimonies of survivors. What we know is that he was registered in the same group as Hermann and Peter van Pels.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ijbw2\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Like the others, he stayed in quarantine until about <strong>1 October 1944</strong>. Around <strong>11 November 1944,</strong> he was probably selected for transport to Neuengamme camp, where he arrived <strong>between</strong> <strong>10 and 18 November</strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"jcadb\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>During the quarantine period, Otto Frank first worked in the <em>Kommando Kiesgrube</em>. He then joined the <em>Strassenbau</em>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"u3ywu\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup> Whether this happened immediately after the quarantine period is not clear. When work in the <em>Strassenbau </em>was stopped because of frost, Otto Frank said he got better work, in the <em>Kartoffelschälkommando</em>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"u3ywu\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-2\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Peter van Pels entered Block 2 after the quarantine period. Otto Frank said in an interview after the war:</p>\r\n\r\n<blockquote>'Peter was lucky enough to get a job at the camp's post office which was for SS and non-Jewish prisoners receiving mail and parcels.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"vrv4u\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup></blockquote>\r\n\r\n<p>The men working at the <em>Paketstelle</em> were tasked with opening the parcels for the deceased prisoners and selecting the contents. Without too much effort, they were able to purloin much of these. Otto Frank and Peter van Pels would have seen each other daily until Peter was transported to camp Mauthausen in mid-January.<sup data-footnote-id=\"4q28z\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Otto Frank was the only one of the people from the Secret Annex to survive the camps.</p>\r\n\r\n<div>\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"35olj\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Het Nederlandse Rode Kruis (NRK), Den Haag, 2050, verklaringen van Abraham Hakker (inv.nr. 1264), Philip Felix de Jong (inv.nr. 1268), Eliazer Kater (inv.nr. 1271), Elias Jacob Kleerekoper (inv.nr. 1272), Barend Konijn (inv.nr. 1274), Richard Felix Levee (inv.nr. 1276), Aron Leyden van Amstel (inv.nr. 1277).</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"gvvke\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Origineel citaat: ‘Da ich selbst einige Zeit in einem Kieskommando war, wusste ich über die dort verlangte schwere Arbeit gut Bescheid und die damit oft verbundenen Misshandlungen.’ afs, afc, ofa, inv.nr. 85, verklaring van Otto Frank voor lotgenoot Joseph Spronz, 29 juli 1962.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ijbw2\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>NRK, 3281, Comité International de la Croux-Rouge Häftlings-Nummerzuteilung; Landsberger e.a. (red.), <em>Auschwitz</em> 2, 26.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"jcadb\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>De gevangenen die op 10 november 1944 in Neuengamme werden ingeschreven, kregen kampnummers vanaf 64230; degenen die op 18 november 1944 aankwamen, kampnummers vanaf 65105. Voor de (incomplete) lijst met gevangenen en kampnummers zie mails van Alyn Beßmann, Archives Neuengamme Concentration Camp Memorial aan Erika Prins en Gertjan Broek, 5 mei 2017 tot 6 juni 2017.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"u3ywu\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">a</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-2\">b</a> </sup><cite>dla, collectie Schnabel, notities Schnabel, 150.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vrv4u\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Anne Frank Collectie (AFC), Otto Frank Archief (OFA), inv.nr. 211, interview Otto Frank door Arthur Unger, 6 februari 1978. Zie ook het citaat in: Lee, <em>Het verborgen leven</em>, 138.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"4q28z\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, OFA, inv.nr. 211, interview Otto Frank door Arthur Unger, 6 februari 1978. Zie ook: Lee, <em>Het verborgen leven</em>, 138.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>\r\n</div>",
"description_nl": "<p>Alle mannen van het transport van <strong>3 september 1944</strong> die de selectie na aankomst in Birkenau overleefd hadden, gingen na de registratieprocedure te voet naar Auschwitz I.<sup data-footnote-id=\"35olj\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> Daar kwamen ze terecht in quarantaineblok 8. De gevangenen sliepen in stapelbedden van driehoog, vaak met twee of meer personen in een bed. Het quarantaineblok was overbevolkt.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Tijdens de quarantaine moesten alle gevangenen werken. De meesten werkten aan de <em>Straßenbau</em> – stratenbouw – of in de <em>Kiesgrube</em> – de grindkuil –, waar zij grind op karren moesten laden en deze wegbrengen om straten te verharden. Veel mensen liepen bij dit werk blessures en verwondingen op. Otto Frank heeft na de oorlog verklaard dat hij bij een commando was ingedeeld dat grind moest slepen.</p>\r\n\r\n<blockquote>‘Omdat ik zelf een tijdje in een Kieskommando was, weet ik veel over de zware arbeid die daar moest worden verricht en de mishandelingen die daar vaak aan verbonden waren.’<sup data-footnote-id=\"gvvke\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></blockquote>\r\n\r\n<p>De quarantaineperiode van de mannen uit het transport van 3 september eindigde <strong>begin oktober 1944 </strong>met twee selecties, waarbij opnieuw een groep mannelijke gevangenen die niet meer tot zware arbeid in staat geacht werd, in de gaskamer werd vermoord. Deze selecties zouden ook de dood van Hermann van Pels inluiden.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>De mannen die de selectie wel overleefden, bleven na de quarantaineperiode in Auschwitz I, waar zij bij verschillende arbeidscommando’s werden ingedeeld. Waar Fritz Pfeffer werd ingedeeld, weten we niet. Over de gevangenschap van Pfeffer in Auschwitz is niets teruggevonden in de getuigenissen van overlevenden. Wat we weten is dat hij in dezelfde groep is geregistreerd als Hermann en Peter van Pels.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ijbw2\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Net als de anderen verbleef hij in quarantaine tot circa <strong>1 oktober 1944</strong>. Rond <strong>11 november 1944</strong> is hij waarschijnlijk geselecteerd voor transport naar kamp Neuengamme, waar hij <strong>tussen</strong> <strong>10 en 18 november</strong> is aangekomen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"jcadb\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Tijdens de quarantaineperiode werkte Otto Frank eerst in het <em>Kommando Kiesgrube</em>. Daarna kwam hij terecht in de <em>Straßenbau</em>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"u3ywu\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup> Of dit direct na de quarantaineperiode gebeurde, is niet duidelijk. Toen het werk in de Straßenbau vanwege de vorst werd gestaakt, kreeg Otto Frank naar eigen zeggen beter werk, en wel in het Kartoffelschälkommando.<sup data-footnote-id=\"u3ywu\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-2\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Peter van Pels kwam na de quarantaineperiode in blok 2 terecht. Otto Frank vertelde in een interview na de oorlog:</p>\r\n\r\n<blockquote>‘<em>Peter had het geluk een baan te krijgen op het postkantoor van het kamp dat bestemd was voor de SS’ers en de niet-Joodse gevangenen die post en pakketjes ontvingen</em>.’<sup data-footnote-id=\"vrv4u\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup></blockquote>\r\n\r\n<p>De mannen die bij de <em>Paketstelle</em> werkten, hadden als taak de pakketjes voor de overleden gevangenen te openen en de inhoud selecteren. Zonder al te veel moeite konden zij veel daarvan achteroverdrukken. Otto Frank en Peter van Pels zouden elkaar dagelijks gezien hebben totdat Peter midden januari op transport werd gesteld naar kamp Mauthausen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"4q28z\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Otto Frank was de enige van de onderduikers die de kampen overleefde.</p>\r\n\r\n<div>\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"35olj\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Het Nederlandse Rode Kruis (NRK), Den Haag, 2050, verklaringen van Abraham Hakker (inv.nr. 1264), Philip Felix de Jong (inv.nr. 1268), Eliazer Kater (inv.nr. 1271), Elias Jacob Kleerekoper (inv.nr. 1272), Barend Konijn (inv.nr. 1274), Richard Felix Levee (inv.nr. 1276), Aron Leyden van Amstel (inv.nr. 1277).</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"gvvke\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Origineel citaat: ‘Da ich selbst einige Zeit in einem Kieskommando war, wusste ich über die dort verlangte schwere Arbeit gut Bescheid und die damit oft verbundenen Misshandlungen.’ afs, afc, ofa, inv.nr. 85, verklaring van Otto Frank voor lotgenoot Joseph Spronz, 29 juli 1962.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ijbw2\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>NRK, 3281, Comité International de la Croux-Rouge Häftlings-Nummerzuteilung; Landsberger e.a. (red.), <em>Auschwitz</em> 2, 26.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"jcadb\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>De gevangenen die op 10 november 1944 in Neuengamme werden ingeschreven, kregen kampnummers vanaf 64230; degenen die op 18 november 1944 aankwamen, kampnummers vanaf 65105. Voor de (incomplete) lijst met gevangenen en kampnummers zie mails van Alyn Beßmann, Archives Neuengamme Concentration Camp Memorial aan Erika Prins en Gertjan Broek, 5 mei 2017 tot 6 juni 2017.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"u3ywu\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">a</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-2\">b</a> </sup><cite>dla, collectie Schnabel, notities Schnabel, 150.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vrv4u\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Anne Frank Collectie (AFC), Otto Frank Archief (OFA), inv.nr. 211, interview Otto Frank door Arthur Unger, 6 februari 1978. Zie ook het citaat in: Lee, <em>Het verborgen leven</em>, 138.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"4q28z\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, OFA, inv.nr. 211, interview Otto Frank door Arthur Unger, 6 februari 1978. Zie ook: Lee, <em>Het verborgen leven</em>, 138.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>\r\n</div>",
"description_en": "<p>All the men from the <strong>3 September 1944</strong> transport who survived selection after arriving in Birkenau went on foot to Auschwitz I after the registration procedure.<sup data-footnote-id=\"35olj\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> There they ended up in quarantine block 8. The prisoners slept in bunk beds on three floors, often with two or more people to a bed. The quarantine block was overcrowded.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>During quarantine, all prisoners had to work. Most worked on <em>Strassenbau</em> - road construction - or in the <em>Kiesgrube</em> - the gravel pit - where they had to load gravel onto carts and take them away to pave roads. Many people suffered injuries during this work. Otto Frank stated after the war that he was assigned to a team that had to drag gravel.</p>\r\n\r\n<blockquote>'Being in a Kieskommando myself for a while, I know a lot about the hard labour that had to be done there and the beatings that were often associated with it.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"gvvke\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></blockquote>\r\n\r\n<p>The quarantine period of the men from the 3 September transport ended <strong>in early October 1944 </strong>with two selections, during which another group of male prisoners deemed no longer capable of hard labour was murdered in the gas chamber. The death of Hermann van Pels resulted from these selections.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>The men who did survive the selections remained in Auschwitz I after the quarantine period, where they were assigned to various labour teams. Where Fritz Pfeffer was assigned, we do not know. Nothing about Pfeffer's imprisonment in Auschwitz has been found in the testimonies of survivors. What we know is that he was registered in the same group as Hermann and Peter van Pels.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ijbw2\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Like the others, he stayed in quarantine until about <strong>1 October 1944</strong>. Around <strong>11 November 1944,</strong> he was probably selected for transport to Neuengamme camp, where he arrived <strong>between</strong> <strong>10 and 18 November</strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"jcadb\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>During the quarantine period, Otto Frank first worked in the <em>Kommando Kiesgrube</em>. He then joined the <em>Strassenbau</em>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"u3ywu\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup> Whether this happened immediately after the quarantine period is not clear. When work in the <em>Strassenbau </em>was stopped because of frost, Otto Frank said he got better work, in the <em>Kartoffelschälkommando</em>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"u3ywu\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-2\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Peter van Pels entered Block 2 after the quarantine period. Otto Frank said in an interview after the war:</p>\r\n\r\n<blockquote>'Peter was lucky enough to get a job at the camp's post office which was for SS and non-Jewish prisoners receiving mail and parcels.'<sup data-footnote-id=\"vrv4u\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup></blockquote>\r\n\r\n<p>The men working at the <em>Paketstelle</em> were tasked with opening the parcels for the deceased prisoners and selecting the contents. Without too much effort, they were able to purloin much of these. Otto Frank and Peter van Pels would have seen each other daily until Peter was transported to camp Mauthausen in mid-January.<sup data-footnote-id=\"4q28z\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Otto Frank was the only one of the people from the Secret Annex to survive the camps.</p>\r\n\r\n<div>\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"35olj\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Het Nederlandse Rode Kruis (NRK), Den Haag, 2050, verklaringen van Abraham Hakker (inv.nr. 1264), Philip Felix de Jong (inv.nr. 1268), Eliazer Kater (inv.nr. 1271), Elias Jacob Kleerekoper (inv.nr. 1272), Barend Konijn (inv.nr. 1274), Richard Felix Levee (inv.nr. 1276), Aron Leyden van Amstel (inv.nr. 1277).</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"gvvke\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Origineel citaat: ‘Da ich selbst einige Zeit in einem Kieskommando war, wusste ich über die dort verlangte schwere Arbeit gut Bescheid und die damit oft verbundenen Misshandlungen.’ afs, afc, ofa, inv.nr. 85, verklaring van Otto Frank voor lotgenoot Joseph Spronz, 29 juli 1962.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ijbw2\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>NRK, 3281, Comité International de la Croux-Rouge Häftlings-Nummerzuteilung; Landsberger e.a. (red.), <em>Auschwitz</em> 2, 26.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"jcadb\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>De gevangenen die op 10 november 1944 in Neuengamme werden ingeschreven, kregen kampnummers vanaf 64230; degenen die op 18 november 1944 aankwamen, kampnummers vanaf 65105. Voor de (incomplete) lijst met gevangenen en kampnummers zie mails van Alyn Beßmann, Archives Neuengamme Concentration Camp Memorial aan Erika Prins en Gertjan Broek, 5 mei 2017 tot 6 juni 2017.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"u3ywu\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">a</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-2\">b</a> </sup><cite>dla, collectie Schnabel, notities Schnabel, 150.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vrv4u\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Anne Frank Collectie (AFC), Otto Frank Archief (OFA), inv.nr. 211, interview Otto Frank door Arthur Unger, 6 februari 1978. Zie ook het citaat in: Lee, <em>Het verborgen leven</em>, 138.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"4q28z\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, AFC, OFA, inv.nr. 211, interview Otto Frank door Arthur Unger, 6 februari 1978. Zie ook: Lee, <em>Het verborgen leven</em>, 138.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>\r\n</div>",
"summary": "The four males from the Secret Annex ended up in Auschwitz-Birkenau after arriving in Auschwitz I.",
"summary_nl": "De vier mannelijke onderduikers kwamen na hun aankomst in Auschwitz-Birkenau in Auschwitz I terecht.",
"summary_en": "The four males from the Secret Annex ended up in Auschwitz-Birkenau after arriving in Auschwitz I.",
"same_as": null,
"parent": 396124393,
"files": []
},
{
"id": 396124425,
"image": null,
"url": "https://research.annefrank.org/en/onderwerpen/dd623f29-000d-4cf8-b879-3dee8d7a9a6c/",
"published": true,
"uuid": "dd623f29-000d-4cf8-b879-3dee8d7a9a6c",
"name": "BBC",
"name_nl": "BBC",
"name_en": "BBC",
"description": "<p>BBC stands for the British Broadcasting Corporation.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>In <strong>1904</strong>, the British government stipulated that a licence was required for both broadcasting and receiving radio news. Broadcasting became the monopoly of the BBC in 1922, for a period of seventy-five years.<sup data-footnote-id=\"eaav2\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Under regulation 'VO 35/40' of <strong>4 July 1940</strong>, it was only permitted to listen to stations within the German-occupied Dutch territory and within the Greater German Reich.<sup data-footnote-id=\"4kcfe\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup> This prohibited listening to the BBC,<sup data-footnote-id=\"56ms0\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> but this station was not initially hampered by jammers.<sup data-footnote-id=\"l684v\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"eaav2\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Eric Smulders en Huub Wijfjes, “De ontwikkeling van de radio in de periode ±1850 - ±1950”, in: M.S.C. Bakker e.a., T<em>echniek als cultuurverschijnsel. Casusboek</em>, Heerlen: Open Universiteit, 1996, p. 139-238, aldaar p. 203.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"4kcfe\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>Verordeningenblad voor het bezette Nederlandsche gebied</em> 1940, p. 135-136.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"56ms0\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>The people hiding in the Secret Annex tuned their radio to the BBC more than once. Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 27 March, 21 April and 9 June 1944, in: <em>The Collected Works, </em>transl. from the Dutch by Susan Massotty, London [etc.]: Bloomsbury Continuum, 2019.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"l684v\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>L. de Jong, <em>Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Deel 4: mei '40 - maart '41 : eerste helft, </em>Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1972, p. 303.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"description_nl": "<p>BBC staat voor British Broadcasting Corporation.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>In <strong>1904 </strong>bepaalde de Britse overheid dat er een vergunning nodig was voor zowel het uitzenden als ontvangen van radionieuws. Uitzenden werd in 1922 het monopolie van de BBC, voor de periode van vijfenzeventig jaar.<sup data-footnote-id=\"eaav2\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Ingevolge verordening ‘VO 35/40’ van <strong>4 juli 1940</strong> was het slechts toegestaan te luisteren naar zenders binnen het door Duitsland bezette Nederlands gebied en binnen het Groot-Duitsche Rijk.<sup data-footnote-id=\"4kcfe\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup> Dit verbood het luisteren naar de BBC,<sup data-footnote-id=\"56ms0\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> maar deze zender werd aanvankelijk nog niet door stoorzenders gehinderd.<sup data-footnote-id=\"l684v\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"eaav2\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Eric Smulders en Huub Wijfjes, “De ontwikkeling van de radio in de periode ±1850 - ±1950”, in: M.S.C. Bakker e.a., T<em>echniek als cultuurverschijnsel. Casusboek</em>, Heerlen: Open Universiteit, 1996, p. 139-238, aldaar p. 203.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"4kcfe\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>Verordeningenblad voor het bezette Nederlandsche gebied</em> 1940, p. 135-136.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"56ms0\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>In het Achterhuis werd door de onderduikers meer dan eens op de BBC afgestemd. Anne Frank, Dagboek A, 27 maart, 21 april en 9 juni 1944, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>, Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2013.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"l684v\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>L. de Jong, <em>Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Deel 4: mei '40 - maart '41 : eerste helft, </em>Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1972, p. 303.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"description_en": "<p>BBC stands for the British Broadcasting Corporation.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>In <strong>1904</strong>, the British government stipulated that a licence was required for both broadcasting and receiving radio news. Broadcasting became the monopoly of the BBC in 1922, for a period of seventy-five years.<sup data-footnote-id=\"eaav2\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Under regulation 'VO 35/40' of <strong>4 July 1940</strong>, it was only permitted to listen to stations within the German-occupied Dutch territory and within the Greater German Reich.<sup data-footnote-id=\"4kcfe\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup> This prohibited listening to the BBC,<sup data-footnote-id=\"56ms0\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> but this station was not initially hampered by jammers.<sup data-footnote-id=\"l684v\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"eaav2\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Eric Smulders en Huub Wijfjes, “De ontwikkeling van de radio in de periode ±1850 - ±1950”, in: M.S.C. Bakker e.a., T<em>echniek als cultuurverschijnsel. Casusboek</em>, Heerlen: Open Universiteit, 1996, p. 139-238, aldaar p. 203.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"4kcfe\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite><em>Verordeningenblad voor het bezette Nederlandsche gebied</em> 1940, p. 135-136.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"56ms0\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>The people hiding in the Secret Annex tuned their radio to the BBC more than once. Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 27 March, 21 April and 9 June 1944, in: <em>The Collected Works, </em>transl. from the Dutch by Susan Massotty, London [etc.]: Bloomsbury Continuum, 2019.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"l684v\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>L. de Jong, <em>Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Deel 4: mei '40 - maart '41 : eerste helft, </em>Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1972, p. 303.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"summary": "British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).",
"summary_nl": "British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).",
"summary_en": "British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).",
"same_as": [
"https://data.niod.nl/WO2_Thesaurus/corporaties/4449"
],
"parent": 90,
"files": []
},
{
"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": "<p>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.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Outsiders</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Especially 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zl06s\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> 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.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>One 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ge0em\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Burglary</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Several 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 <strong>24 March 1943</strong> and had stolen muscatel nuts there.<sup data-footnote-id=\"9tvui\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Anne writes a day later about her first encounter with the phenomenon of burglars.<sup data-footnote-id=\"2wfou\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup> The break-in of <strong>9 April</strong> <strong>1944</strong> is also confirmed by a police report, when the passing night watchman Martonus Slegers noticed the kicked-in door.<sup data-footnote-id=\"a0o6f\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup> The B-version mentions a burglary on the night of <strong>15-16 July 1943</strong>. According to the same passage, there had also been an unsuccessful attempt six weeks earlier.<sup data-footnote-id=\"cq0nb\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"qdl1k\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>The 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"benwc\"><a href=\"#footnote-8\" id=\"footnote-marker-8-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[8]</a></sup> The daughter of branch manager Jacob Boon knew that her father spent the night in his office more than once during the war years.<sup data-footnote-id=\"vn2j9\"><a href=\"#footnote-9\" id=\"footnote-marker-9-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[9]</a></sup> In the night of <strong>7-8 April 1943,</strong> burglars broke into Elhoek furniture factory at number 261 and stole six hundred guilders and a typewriter.<sup data-footnote-id=\"w4dus\"><a href=\"#footnote-10\" id=\"footnote-marker-10-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[10]</a></sup> In <strong>November 1941</strong>, a coin meter of the Municipal Energy Company (GEB) had also been emptied there.<sup data-footnote-id=\"nx2b7\"><a href=\"#footnote-11\" id=\"footnote-marker-11-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[11]</a></sup> A few years earlier, the contents of a coin meter in the later Opekta premises had also been stolen by burglars.<sup data-footnote-id=\"qq6e5\"><a href=\"#footnote-12\" id=\"footnote-marker-12-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[12]</a></sup> Given GEB's policy in the 'small business' market, it was highly plausible that that meter had stayed behind after Opekta's arrival <strong>in the late 1940s</strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"q94p5\"><a href=\"#footnote-13\" id=\"footnote-marker-13-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[13]</a></sup> Theft from coin meters was a very common phenomenon. So the presence of such meters certainly posed an additional risk.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Johannes 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 <strong>January 1945</strong>, Johan Broks - Kugler was still in prison at the time - reported the theft of seventy kilos of sugar from Gies & Co.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ny8xy\"><a href=\"#footnote-14\" id=\"footnote-marker-14-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[14]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Fire</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Building plans for Elhoek's premises at Prinsengracht 261, made in <strong>June 1940</strong>, 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"19pu2\"><a href=\"#footnote-15\" id=\"footnote-marker-15-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[15]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"vo9r7\"><a href=\"#footnote-16\" id=\"footnote-marker-16-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[16]</a></sup> 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 <strong>20 October 1942</strong>, that they '<em>got</em>' these devices in the house, which she later changes to '<em>have</em>'. It is therefore possible that they were fitted in the <strong>autumn of 1942</strong>, but there is no clarity on this.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Blackout</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Due 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"igek3\"><a href=\"#footnote-17\" id=\"footnote-marker-17-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[17]</a></sup> Police and Air Protection were quick to take action against violators. In the evening of <strong>4 March 1941,</strong> officers kicked in the entrance door of the Opekta premises because a light was on in the hall.<sup data-footnote-id=\"wxpi4\"><a href=\"#footnote-18\" id=\"footnote-marker-18-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[18]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"75e0h\"><a href=\"#footnote-19\" id=\"footnote-marker-19-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[19]</a></sup> During the <strong>1958</strong> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"b3n1r\"><a href=\"#footnote-20\" id=\"footnote-marker-20-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[20]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Air hazard</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Anne'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.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>In 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!", <em>Nieuws van den Dag</em>, <strong>13 September 1940</strong>. On the morning of <strong>6 July 1942</strong>, there was no air siren, which would have meant a serious complication for the Franks on their way to Prinsengracht.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Starting on <strong>10 July 1943,</strong> 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'.<sup data-footnote-id=\"xfg9o\"><a href=\"#footnote-21\" id=\"footnote-marker-21-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[21]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"kxbg3\"><a href=\"#footnote-22\" id=\"footnote-marker-22-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[22]</a></sup> The repeated alarms she lists in her retrospectively written B note that day correspond to the alarms noted by the police in their register.<sup data-footnote-id=\"llz9o\"><a href=\"#footnote-23\" id=\"footnote-marker-23-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[23]</a></sup> This makes it plausible that she used her original - and vanished - notes from <strong>July 1943</strong> for this B note.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>In <strong>March 1944</strong>, a bomber crashed into a school in Spaarndammerstraat, less than one and a half kilometres from the Secret Annex.<sup data-footnote-id=\"6idhi\"><a href=\"#footnote-24\" id=\"footnote-marker-24-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[24]</a></sup> During the air battle Anne witnessed on<strong> 3 May 1944</strong>, a plane crashed in Van Bossestraat.<sup data-footnote-id=\"udiwt\"><a href=\"#footnote-25\" id=\"footnote-marker-25-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[25]</a></sup> This was also a short distance from the Secret Annex. Planes also crashed in Tuindorp Oostzaan and Grote IJpolder that day.<sup data-footnote-id=\"2g3wk\"><a href=\"#footnote-26\" id=\"footnote-marker-26-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[26]</a></sup> Finally, a plane also crashed into the Carlton Hotel at the end of April.<sup data-footnote-id=\"udiwt\"><a href=\"#footnote-25\" id=\"footnote-marker-25-2\" rel=\"footnote\">[25]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Related 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 <strong>in early 1944</strong> about the discussions between the people in hiding and the helpers when this danger threatened to take concrete forms.<sup data-footnote-id=\"xhz3o\"><a href=\"#footnote-27\" id=\"footnote-marker-27-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[27]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>The 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.</p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zl06s\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 9 May 1944, in: <em>The Collected Works, </em>transl. from the Dutch by Susan Massotty, London [etc.]: Bloomsbury Continuum, 2019.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ge0em\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 15 and 17 April 1944, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9tvui\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Dineke Stam, 'Ik was de inbreker'. Hans Wijnberg: 'Ik ontdekte dat daar onderduikers zaten', in: <em>Anne Frank Magazine </em>1999, p. 32-35.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"2wfou\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version B, 25 March 1943, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"a0o6f\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 9 April 1944, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>; Stadsarchief Amsterdam (SAA), Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 2036: Meldingsrapport Warmoesstraat, 9 april 1944, mut. 23.25.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"cq0nb\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version B, 16 July 1943, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"qdl1k\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 1 March 1944, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"benwc\" id=\"footnote-8\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-8-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Centraal Archief Bijzondere Rechtspleging, inv. nr. 23892: Proces-verbaal 86/1963 v.H.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vn2j9\" id=\"footnote-9\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-9-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Getuigenarchief, Boon: Telefoongesprek Gertjan Broek met Ank Boon, 2 oktober 2013.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"w4dus\" id=\"footnote-10\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-10-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 7013: Rapporten Warmoesstraat, 8 april 1943, mut. 17.18.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"nx2b7\" id=\"footnote-11\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-11-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6380: Rapporten Marnixstraat, 22 november 1941, mut. 16.55.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"qq6e5\" id=\"footnote-12\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-12-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Inbraken”, <em>Algemeen Handelsblad</em>, 15 februari 1938 (ochtendeditie).</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"q94p5\" id=\"footnote-13\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-13-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Mondelinge mededeling van Gerard Oudhaarlem, 3 september 2013.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ny8xy\" id=\"footnote-14\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-14-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 7014: Rapport Recherchedienst Amsterdam, 16 januari 1945, mut. 13.30.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"19pu2\" id=\"footnote-15\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-15-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, Pandenarchief (v.m. Bouw- & woningtoezicht), doss. 79837: Restauratie Prinsengracht 261, blad 2, 6 juni 1940.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vo9r7\" id=\"footnote-16\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-16-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6382: Rapporten Marnixstraat, 17 maart 1942, mut. 11.20 a.m.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"igek3\" id=\"footnote-17\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-17-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Verduister v. 16.28-8.50 u.”, <em>De Telegraaf</em>, 23 december 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"wxpi4\" id=\"footnote-18\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-18-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6439: Rapporten Marnixstraat, 4 maart 1941, mut. 10.00 n.m.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"75e0h\" id=\"footnote-19\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-19-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version B, 10 July 1942, 4 and 10 August 1943, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"b3n1r\" id=\"footnote-20\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-20-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, Anne Frank Collectie, reg. coee A_Achterhuis_II_078 en 079: Twee kozijnen.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"xfg9o\" id=\"footnote-21\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-21-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>‘Nieuw signaal bij luchtgevaar’, <em>De Tijd</em>, 9 juli 1943.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"kxbg3\" id=\"footnote-22\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-22-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version B, 26 July 1943, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"llz9o\" id=\"footnote-23\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-23-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 5428: Register luchtalarmering.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"6idhi\" id=\"footnote-24\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-24-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>J.F.M. den Boer & S. Duparc (samenst.), <em>Kroniek van Amsterdam over de jaren 1940 – 1945, </em>Amsterdam, De Bussy, 1948, p. 124.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"udiwt\" id=\"footnote-25\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-25-1\">a</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-25-2\">b</a> </sup><cite>den Boer & Duparc, <em>Kroniek van Amsterdam over de jaren 1940-1945</em>, p. 98.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"2g3wk\" id=\"footnote-26\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-26-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6489: Rapporten 3-4 mei 1943 Mosplein (Adelaarsweg), mut. 21.00; SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 5878: 3-4 mei 1943, Admiraal de Ruyterweg, mut. 20.00.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"xhz3o\" id=\"footnote-27\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-27-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 3 February 1944, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"description_nl": "<p>Het 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.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Buitenstaanders</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Vooral 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zl06s\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> 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.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Toen 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ge0em\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Inbraak</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>In 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 <strong>24 maart 1943</strong> als kind in het pand geweest waren en dat ze daar muskaatnoten hadden weggenomen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"9tvui\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Anne schrijft een dag later over haar eerste kennismaking met het fenomeen inbrekers.<sup data-footnote-id=\"2wfou\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup> De inbraak van <strong>9 april 1944</strong> wordt ook door een politierapport bevestigd, en wel doordat de passerende nachtwaker Martinus Slegers de ingetrapte deur opmerkte.<sup data-footnote-id=\"a0o6f\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup> De B-versie vermeldt in de nacht van <strong>15 op 16 juli 1943</strong> een inbraak. Volgens diezelfde notitie was er zes weken eerder ook al een mislukte poging geweest.<sup data-footnote-id=\"cq0nb\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"qdl1k\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>De 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"benwc\"><a href=\"#footnote-8\" id=\"footnote-marker-8-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[8]</a></sup> De dochter van filiaalchef Jacob Boon wist dat haar vader in de oorlogsjaren meer dan eens in zijn kantoor overnachtte.<sup data-footnote-id=\"vn2j9\"><a href=\"#footnote-9\" id=\"footnote-marker-9-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[9]</a></sup> In de nacht van <strong>7 op 8 april 1943</strong> drongen insluipers bij meubelfabriek Elhoek op nummer 261 binnen en stalen daar zeshonderd gulden en een schrijfmachine.<sup data-footnote-id=\"w4dus\"><a href=\"#footnote-10\" id=\"footnote-marker-10-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[10]</a></sup> In <strong>november 1941</strong> was daar ook al eens een muntmeter van het Gemeentelijk Energiebedrijf (GEB) leeggehaald.<sup data-footnote-id=\"nx2b7\"><a href=\"#footnote-11\" id=\"footnote-marker-11-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[11]</a></sup> Enkele jaren eerder was ook in het latere Opekta-pand de inhoud van een muntmeter door inbrekers gestolen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"qq6e5\"><a href=\"#footnote-12\" id=\"footnote-marker-12-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[12]</a></sup> Gezien het beleid van het GEB in de ‘klein-zakelijke’ markt was het zeer aannemelijk dat die meter na de komst van Opekta <strong>eind 1940</strong> was blijven hangen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"q94p5\"><a href=\"#footnote-13\" id=\"footnote-marker-13-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[13]</a></sup> Diefstal uit muntmeters was een zeer veel voorkomend verschijnsel. De aanwezigheid van zulke meters leverde dus zeker een extra risico op.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Johannes Kleiman en Victor Kugler maakten tijdens de onderduikperiode, voor zover na te gaan, geen melding van inbraken en diefstallen in hun pand. Daarna, in <strong>januari 1945</strong>, gaf Johan Broks - Kugler zat dan nog gevangen - namens Gies & Co. de diefstal van zeventig kilo suiker aan.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ny8xy\"><a href=\"#footnote-14\" id=\"footnote-marker-14-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[14]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Brand</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Bouwplannen voor het pand van Elhoek op Prinsengracht 261, gemaakt in <strong>juni 1940</strong>, tonen dat men daar met brandgevaarlijke materialen en technieken werkte, daar er uitgebreide adviezen omtrent zelfsluitende deuren, vluchtwegen en een brandblusleiding in waren opgenomen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"19pu2\"><a href=\"#footnote-15\" id=\"footnote-marker-15-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[15]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"vo9r7\"><a href=\"#footnote-16\" id=\"footnote-marker-16-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[16]</a></sup> 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 <strong>20 oktober 1942</strong>, dat ze deze toestellen in huis ‘<em>krijgen</em>’, wat ze later wijzigt in ‘<em>hebben</em>’. Mogelijk zijn deze dus in de <strong>herfst van 1942</strong> aangebracht, maar duidelijkheid is daar niet over.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Verduistering</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Vanwege 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"igek3\"><a href=\"#footnote-17\" id=\"footnote-marker-17-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[17]</a></sup> Optreden van politie en Luchtbescherming tegen overtreders was aan de orde van de dag. In de avond van <strong>4 maart 1941</strong> trapten agenten de toegangsdeur van het Opekta-pand in omdat in de hal een lamp brandde.<sup data-footnote-id=\"wxpi4\"><a href=\"#footnote-18\" id=\"footnote-marker-18-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[18]</a></sup> Toen de onderduik begon, ware onderduikers en helpers dat uiteraard nog niet vergeten. Het ver- en ontduisteren is in Annes geschriften herhaaldelijk aanwezig.<sup data-footnote-id=\"75e0h\"><a href=\"#footnote-19\" id=\"footnote-marker-19-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[19]</a></sup> Tijdens de restauratie van <strong>1958</strong> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"b3n1r\"><a href=\"#footnote-20\" id=\"footnote-marker-20-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[20]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Luchtgevaar</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>De 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.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>In 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!”, <em>Nieuws van den Dag</em>, <strong>13 september 1940</strong>. In de ochtend van <strong>6 juli 1942</strong> is er geen luchtalarm, wat voor de Franks op weg naar de Prinsengracht een ernstige complicatie zou hebben betekend.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Met ingang van <strong>10 juli 1943</strong> 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”.<sup data-footnote-id=\"xfg9o\"><a href=\"#footnote-21\" id=\"footnote-marker-21-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[21]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"kxbg3\"><a href=\"#footnote-22\" id=\"footnote-marker-22-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[22]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"llz9o\"><a href=\"#footnote-23\" id=\"footnote-marker-23-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[23]</a></sup> Dat maakt aannemelijk dat ze voor deze B-notitie haar originele - en verdwenen - notities uit <strong>juli ’43</strong> gebruikte.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>In <strong>maart 1944</strong> kwam een bommenwerper neer op een school in de Spaarndammerstraat, op nog geen anderhalve kilometer van het Achterhuis.<sup data-footnote-id=\"6idhi\"><a href=\"#footnote-24\" id=\"footnote-marker-24-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[24]</a></sup> Tijdens het luchtgevecht waar Anne op <strong>3 mei 1944</strong> getuige van was, stortte een vliegtuig in de Van Bossestraat neer.<sup data-footnote-id=\"udiwt\"><a href=\"#footnote-25\" id=\"footnote-marker-25-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[25]</a></sup> Dit was ook op korte afstand van het Achterhuis. Ook in Tuindorp Oostzaan en de Grote IJpolder kwamen die dag vliegtuigen neer.<sup data-footnote-id=\"2g3wk\"><a href=\"#footnote-26\" id=\"footnote-marker-26-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[26]</a></sup> Ten slotte stortte er eind april ook nog een vliegtuig neer op het Carlton Hotel.<sup data-footnote-id=\"udiwt\"><a href=\"#footnote-25\" id=\"footnote-marker-25-2\" rel=\"footnote\">[25]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Verwant aan de gevaren vanuit de lucht en van afweergeschut was de dreiging van oorlogshandelingen en evacuaties in het westen van Nederland. Anne schrijft <strong>begin ‘44</strong> uitvoerig over de discussies tussen onderduikers en helpers als dit gevaar concrete vormen dreigt aan te nemen.<sup data-footnote-id=\"xhz3o\"><a href=\"#footnote-27\" id=\"footnote-marker-27-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[27]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>De 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.</p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zl06s\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek A, 9 mei 1944, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>, Amsterdam, Prometheus, 2013.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ge0em\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek A, 15 en 17 april 1944, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9tvui\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Dineke Stam, 'Ik was de inbreker'. Hans Wijnberg: 'Ik ontdekte dat daar onderduikers zaten', in: <em>Anne Frank Magazine </em>1999, p. 32-35.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"2wfou\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek B, 25 maart 1943, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"a0o6f\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek A, 9 april 1944, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>; Stadsarchief Amsterdam (SAA), Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 2036: Meldingsrapport Warmoesstraat, 9 april 1944, mut. 23.25.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"cq0nb\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek B, 16 juli 1943, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"qdl1k\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek A, 1 maart 1944, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"benwc\" id=\"footnote-8\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-8-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Centraal Archief Bijzondere Rechtspleging, inv. nr. 23892: Proces-verbaal 86/1963 v.H.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vn2j9\" id=\"footnote-9\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-9-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Getuigenarchief, Boon: Telefoongesprek Gertjan Broek met Ank Boon, 2 oktober 2013.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"w4dus\" id=\"footnote-10\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-10-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 7013: Rapporten Warmoesstraat, 8 april 1943, mut. 17.18.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"nx2b7\" id=\"footnote-11\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-11-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6380: Rapporten Marnixstraat, 22 november 1941, mut. 16.55.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"qq6e5\" id=\"footnote-12\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-12-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Inbraken”, <em>Algemeen Handelsblad</em>, 15 februari 1938 (ochtendeditie).</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"q94p5\" id=\"footnote-13\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-13-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Mondelinge mededeling van Gerard Oudhaarlem, 3 september 2013.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ny8xy\" id=\"footnote-14\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-14-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 7014: Rapport Recherchedienst Amsterdam, 16 januari 1945, mut. 13.30.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"19pu2\" id=\"footnote-15\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-15-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, Pandenarchief (v.m. Bouw- & woningtoezicht), doss. 79837: Restauratie Prinsengracht 261, blad 2, 6 juni 1940.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vo9r7\" id=\"footnote-16\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-16-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6382: Rapporten Marnixstraat, 17 maart 1942, mut. 11.20 a.m.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"igek3\" id=\"footnote-17\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-17-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Verduister v. 16.28-8.50 u.”, <em>De Telegraaf</em>, 23 december 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"wxpi4\" id=\"footnote-18\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-18-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6439: Rapporten Marnixstraat, 4 maart 1941, mut. 10.00 n.m.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"75e0h\" id=\"footnote-19\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-19-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek B, 10 juli 1942, 4 en 10 augustus 1943, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"b3n1r\" id=\"footnote-20\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-20-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, Anne Frank Collectie, reg. coee A_Achterhuis_II_078 en 079: Twee kozijnen.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"xfg9o\" id=\"footnote-21\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-21-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>‘Nieuw signaal bij luchtgevaar’, <em>De Tijd</em>, 9 juli 1943.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"kxbg3\" id=\"footnote-22\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-22-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek B, 26 juli 1943, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"llz9o\" id=\"footnote-23\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-23-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 5428: Register luchtalarmering.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"6idhi\" id=\"footnote-24\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-24-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>J.F.M. den Boer & S. Duparc (samenst.), <em>Kroniek van Amsterdam over de jaren 1940 – 1945, </em>Amsterdam, De Bussy, 1948, p. 124.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"udiwt\" id=\"footnote-25\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-25-1\">a</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-25-2\">b</a> </sup><cite>den Boer & Duparc, <em>Kroniek van Amsterdam over de jaren 1940-1945</em>, p. 98.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"2g3wk\" id=\"footnote-26\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-26-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6489: Rapporten 3-4 mei 1943 Mosplein (Adelaarsweg), mut. 21.00; SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 5878: 3-4 mei 1943, Admiraal de Ruyterweg, mut. 20.00.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"xhz3o\" id=\"footnote-27\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-27-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Dagboek A, 3 februari 1944, in: <em>Verzameld werk</em>.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"description_en": "<p>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.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Outsiders</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Especially 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"zl06s\"><a href=\"#footnote-1\" id=\"footnote-marker-1-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[1]</a></sup> 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.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>One 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ge0em\"><a href=\"#footnote-2\" id=\"footnote-marker-2-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[2]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Burglary</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Several 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 <strong>24 March 1943</strong> and had stolen muscatel nuts there.<sup data-footnote-id=\"9tvui\"><a href=\"#footnote-3\" id=\"footnote-marker-3-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[3]</a></sup> Anne writes a day later about her first encounter with the phenomenon of burglars.<sup data-footnote-id=\"2wfou\"><a href=\"#footnote-4\" id=\"footnote-marker-4-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[4]</a></sup> The break-in of <strong>9 April</strong> <strong>1944</strong> is also confirmed by a police report, when the passing night watchman Martonus Slegers noticed the kicked-in door.<sup data-footnote-id=\"a0o6f\"><a href=\"#footnote-5\" id=\"footnote-marker-5-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[5]</a></sup> The B-version mentions a burglary on the night of <strong>15-16 July 1943</strong>. According to the same passage, there had also been an unsuccessful attempt six weeks earlier.<sup data-footnote-id=\"cq0nb\"><a href=\"#footnote-6\" id=\"footnote-marker-6-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[6]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"qdl1k\"><a href=\"#footnote-7\" id=\"footnote-marker-7-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[7]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>The 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"benwc\"><a href=\"#footnote-8\" id=\"footnote-marker-8-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[8]</a></sup> The daughter of branch manager Jacob Boon knew that her father spent the night in his office more than once during the war years.<sup data-footnote-id=\"vn2j9\"><a href=\"#footnote-9\" id=\"footnote-marker-9-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[9]</a></sup> In the night of <strong>7-8 April 1943,</strong> burglars broke into Elhoek furniture factory at number 261 and stole six hundred guilders and a typewriter.<sup data-footnote-id=\"w4dus\"><a href=\"#footnote-10\" id=\"footnote-marker-10-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[10]</a></sup> In <strong>November 1941</strong>, a coin meter of the Municipal Energy Company (GEB) had also been emptied there.<sup data-footnote-id=\"nx2b7\"><a href=\"#footnote-11\" id=\"footnote-marker-11-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[11]</a></sup> A few years earlier, the contents of a coin meter in the later Opekta premises had also been stolen by burglars.<sup data-footnote-id=\"qq6e5\"><a href=\"#footnote-12\" id=\"footnote-marker-12-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[12]</a></sup> Given GEB's policy in the 'small business' market, it was highly plausible that that meter had stayed behind after Opekta's arrival <strong>in the late 1940s</strong>.<sup data-footnote-id=\"q94p5\"><a href=\"#footnote-13\" id=\"footnote-marker-13-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[13]</a></sup> Theft from coin meters was a very common phenomenon. So the presence of such meters certainly posed an additional risk.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Johannes 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 <strong>January 1945</strong>, Johan Broks - Kugler was still in prison at the time - reported the theft of seventy kilos of sugar from Gies & Co.<sup data-footnote-id=\"ny8xy\"><a href=\"#footnote-14\" id=\"footnote-marker-14-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[14]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Fire</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Building plans for Elhoek's premises at Prinsengracht 261, made in <strong>June 1940</strong>, 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"19pu2\"><a href=\"#footnote-15\" id=\"footnote-marker-15-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[15]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"vo9r7\"><a href=\"#footnote-16\" id=\"footnote-marker-16-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[16]</a></sup> 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 <strong>20 October 1942</strong>, that they '<em>got</em>' these devices in the house, which she later changes to '<em>have</em>'. It is therefore possible that they were fitted in the <strong>autumn of 1942</strong>, but there is no clarity on this.</p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Blackout</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Due 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"igek3\"><a href=\"#footnote-17\" id=\"footnote-marker-17-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[17]</a></sup> Police and Air Protection were quick to take action against violators. In the evening of <strong>4 March 1941,</strong> officers kicked in the entrance door of the Opekta premises because a light was on in the hall.<sup data-footnote-id=\"wxpi4\"><a href=\"#footnote-18\" id=\"footnote-marker-18-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[18]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"75e0h\"><a href=\"#footnote-19\" id=\"footnote-marker-19-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[19]</a></sup> During the <strong>1958</strong> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"b3n1r\"><a href=\"#footnote-20\" id=\"footnote-marker-20-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[20]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<h1><strong>Air hazard</strong></h1>\r\n\r\n<p>Anne'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.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>In 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!", <em>Nieuws van den Dag</em>, <strong>13 September 1940</strong>. On the morning of <strong>6 July 1942</strong>, there was no air siren, which would have meant a serious complication for the Franks on their way to Prinsengracht.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Starting on <strong>10 July 1943,</strong> 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'.<sup data-footnote-id=\"xfg9o\"><a href=\"#footnote-21\" id=\"footnote-marker-21-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[21]</a></sup> 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.<sup data-footnote-id=\"kxbg3\"><a href=\"#footnote-22\" id=\"footnote-marker-22-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[22]</a></sup> The repeated alarms she lists in her retrospectively written B note that day correspond to the alarms noted by the police in their register.<sup data-footnote-id=\"llz9o\"><a href=\"#footnote-23\" id=\"footnote-marker-23-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[23]</a></sup> This makes it plausible that she used her original - and vanished - notes from <strong>July 1943</strong> for this B note.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>In <strong>March 1944</strong>, a bomber crashed into a school in Spaarndammerstraat, less than one and a half kilometres from the Secret Annex.<sup data-footnote-id=\"6idhi\"><a href=\"#footnote-24\" id=\"footnote-marker-24-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[24]</a></sup> During the air battle Anne witnessed on<strong> 3 May 1944</strong>, a plane crashed in Van Bossestraat.<sup data-footnote-id=\"udiwt\"><a href=\"#footnote-25\" id=\"footnote-marker-25-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[25]</a></sup> This was also a short distance from the Secret Annex. Planes also crashed in Tuindorp Oostzaan and Grote IJpolder that day.<sup data-footnote-id=\"2g3wk\"><a href=\"#footnote-26\" id=\"footnote-marker-26-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[26]</a></sup> Finally, a plane also crashed into the Carlton Hotel at the end of April.<sup data-footnote-id=\"udiwt\"><a href=\"#footnote-25\" id=\"footnote-marker-25-2\" rel=\"footnote\">[25]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>Related 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 <strong>in early 1944</strong> about the discussions between the people in hiding and the helpers when this danger threatened to take concrete forms.<sup data-footnote-id=\"xhz3o\"><a href=\"#footnote-27\" id=\"footnote-marker-27-1\" rel=\"footnote\">[27]</a></sup></p>\r\n\r\n<p>The 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.</p>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<header>\r\n<h2>Footnotes</h2>\r\n</header>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"zl06s\" id=\"footnote-1\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-1-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 9 May 1944, in: <em>The Collected Works, </em>transl. from the Dutch by Susan Massotty, London [etc.]: Bloomsbury Continuum, 2019.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ge0em\" id=\"footnote-2\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-2-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 15 and 17 April 1944, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"9tvui\" id=\"footnote-3\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-3-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Dineke Stam, 'Ik was de inbreker'. Hans Wijnberg: 'Ik ontdekte dat daar onderduikers zaten', in: <em>Anne Frank Magazine </em>1999, p. 32-35.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"2wfou\" id=\"footnote-4\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-4-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version B, 25 March 1943, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"a0o6f\" id=\"footnote-5\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-5-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 9 April 1944, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>; Stadsarchief Amsterdam (SAA), Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 2036: Meldingsrapport Warmoesstraat, 9 april 1944, mut. 23.25.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"cq0nb\" id=\"footnote-6\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-6-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version B, 16 July 1943, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"qdl1k\" id=\"footnote-7\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-7-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 1 March 1944, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"benwc\" id=\"footnote-8\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-8-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Centraal Archief Bijzondere Rechtspleging, inv. nr. 23892: Proces-verbaal 86/1963 v.H.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vn2j9\" id=\"footnote-9\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-9-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank Stichting (AFS), Getuigenarchief, Boon: Telefoongesprek Gertjan Broek met Ank Boon, 2 oktober 2013.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"w4dus\" id=\"footnote-10\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-10-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 7013: Rapporten Warmoesstraat, 8 april 1943, mut. 17.18.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"nx2b7\" id=\"footnote-11\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-11-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6380: Rapporten Marnixstraat, 22 november 1941, mut. 16.55.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"qq6e5\" id=\"footnote-12\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-12-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Inbraken”, <em>Algemeen Handelsblad</em>, 15 februari 1938 (ochtendeditie).</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"q94p5\" id=\"footnote-13\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-13-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Mondelinge mededeling van Gerard Oudhaarlem, 3 september 2013.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"ny8xy\" id=\"footnote-14\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-14-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 7014: Rapport Recherchedienst Amsterdam, 16 januari 1945, mut. 13.30.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"19pu2\" id=\"footnote-15\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-15-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, Pandenarchief (v.m. Bouw- & woningtoezicht), doss. 79837: Restauratie Prinsengracht 261, blad 2, 6 juni 1940.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"vo9r7\" id=\"footnote-16\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-16-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6382: Rapporten Marnixstraat, 17 maart 1942, mut. 11.20 a.m.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"igek3\" id=\"footnote-17\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-17-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>“Verduister v. 16.28-8.50 u.”, <em>De Telegraaf</em>, 23 december 1942.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"wxpi4\" id=\"footnote-18\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-18-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6439: Rapporten Marnixstraat, 4 maart 1941, mut. 10.00 n.m.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"75e0h\" id=\"footnote-19\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-19-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version B, 10 July 1942, 4 and 10 August 1943, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"b3n1r\" id=\"footnote-20\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-20-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>AFS, Anne Frank Collectie, reg. coee A_Achterhuis_II_078 en 079: Twee kozijnen.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"xfg9o\" id=\"footnote-21\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-21-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>‘Nieuw signaal bij luchtgevaar’, <em>De Tijd</em>, 9 juli 1943.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"kxbg3\" id=\"footnote-22\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-22-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version B, 26 July 1943, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"llz9o\" id=\"footnote-23\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-23-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 5428: Register luchtalarmering.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"6idhi\" id=\"footnote-24\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-24-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>J.F.M. den Boer & S. Duparc (samenst.), <em>Kroniek van Amsterdam over de jaren 1940 – 1945, </em>Amsterdam, De Bussy, 1948, p. 124.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"udiwt\" id=\"footnote-25\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-25-1\">a</a>, <a href=\"#footnote-marker-25-2\">b</a> </sup><cite>den Boer & Duparc, <em>Kroniek van Amsterdam over de jaren 1940-1945</em>, p. 98.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"2g3wk\" id=\"footnote-26\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-26-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 6489: Rapporten 3-4 mei 1943 Mosplein (Adelaarsweg), mut. 21.00; SAA, Gemeentepolitie Amsterdam, inv. nr. 5878: 3-4 mei 1943, Admiraal de Ruyterweg, mut. 20.00.</cite></li>\r\n\t<li data-footnote-id=\"xhz3o\" id=\"footnote-27\"><sup><a href=\"#footnote-marker-27-1\">^</a> </sup><cite>Anne Frank, Diary Version A, 3 February 1944, in: <em>The Collected Works</em>.</cite></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</section>",
"summary": "The people in the Secret Annex and the helpers were very alert to risky situations and did a lot to avoid risks.",
"summary_nl": "De onderduikers in het Achterhuis en helpers waren zeer alert op riskante situaties en deden er veel aan om risico’s te vermijden.",
"summary_en": "The people in the Secret Annex and the helpers were very alert to risky situations and did a lot to avoid risks.",
"same_as": null,
"parent": 396124388,
"files": []
}
]
}
