“New Pages” of Anne Frank Diary Prove that Her Father Wrote Most of the Book

Two “newly discovered” pages from the “Diary of Anne Frank”—which supposedly contain risqué jokes—are in fact further proof that the book attributed to the Jewish teenager was in fact written by her father—because the “hidden” writing is, like most of the rest of the “diary,” in her father Otto Frank’s handwriting.

The “newly discovered” writing on show that the hidden writing is that of an older person, and not the teenager Anne. As seen in the image above (taken during a press conference at the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam, where the findings were announced), the contrast between Anne’s writing and that of her father’s is clear and obvious. This fact has been known for several years already, but is routinely ignored by the Jewish lobby controlled media.

The “newly-discovered” pages were announced at a press conference at the “Anne Frank House” museum in Amsterdam, where researchers apparently were able to remove two brown paper pasted pages and “read” the obscured writing underneath using lamps and optical character recognition technology.

The compliant Jewish lobby controlled media focused all its attention on the contents of the “new pages,” but ignored the obvious fact of the difference in handwriting styles on the new pages, with the “new material” all in her father’s handwriting, which contrasts obviously and strongly with the juvenile scrawl of Anne herself.

In fact, as revealed in 2015, most of the diary was written by her father after the war, and who then passed it off as “real” in order to sell it as a “holocaust memoir.

The scam was revealed in an article in the New York Times that year, when the copyright holders to the diary admitted Otto Frank’s involvement in an attempt to extend their control of the manuscript.

As the New York Times pointed out, when “Otto Frank first published his daughter’s red-checked diary and notebooks, he wrote a prologue assuring readers that the book mostly contained her words, written while hiding from the Nazis in a secret annex of a factory in Amsterdam.”

Normal copyright on books extends only 70 years after the author’s death. As Anne Frank died of typhus in Bergen Belsen in February 1945, the book theoretically entered the public domain in February 2015.

But, as the New York Times went on to say, the Anne Frank Fonds has now decided to try to extend copyright on the book past the 70 year cut-off period—by admitting that Otto Frank, who died in 1980, was indeed a “co-author” after all.

The implications of this admission are obvious. As the New York Times put it:

While the foundation, the Anne Frank Fonds, in Basel, signaled its intentions a year ago, warnings about the change have provoked a furor as the deadline approaches. Some people opposed to the move have declared that they would defy the foundation and publish portions of her text.

Foundation officials “should think very carefully about the consequences,” said Agnès Tricoire, a lawyer in Paris who specializes in intellectual property rights in France, where critics have been the most vociferous and are organizing a challenge. “If you follow their arguments, it means that they have lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank.”

The latest pages confirm once again that much of what is claimed to be “Anne Frank’s diary” was in fact written by her father after the war—a fact which also explains the use of ball point pen in the “diary,” a writing device which only became available after 1945.

Recommended reading: “Chapter 20: ‘Eyewitness’ Accounts” which includes a complete review of the Anne Frank diary hoax.

Recommended For You


  1. It’s clear the “diary” was written by Otto Frank and his Broadway playwright hack, Meyer Levin. Of that there is no doubt. I wouldn’t be one bit surprised, however, if these so-called “new” revelations of the diary weren’t even part of the original hoax, but added only recently because it’s VERY convenient how the modern news media are always coming up with stories that happen to keep the issue of the alleged holocaust ever fresh in the consciousness of the public. I think these new findings are a hoax on top of another hoax, and wouldn’t that be oh so jewy?

    1. That’s a very good point, because it does seem that whenever the Jews feel threatened by increasing public awareness of their paranoid control networks, up pops yet another reminder of the Holocaust: either another “survivor” suddenly appears, or another “Nazi officer” is found and jailed, or there is some “award” given, or a new “historical account”, or celebrities decide to visit Auschwitz, or yet another member of the public is jailed for freedom of speech, or for teaching their dog to raise his muddy little paw in a “Nazi salute”.

    1. Good idea! One of the first entries should be a confession of why he had to flee to Holland in the first place. Later entries could detail his business dealings with the occupying Nazis.

  2. They have been fooling us all for decades. And raking in the profits too. It has been suspected all along, only money speaks???

Leave a Reply

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

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