I read somewhere once that the helpers would see the betrayer pass by everyday and they would say "There they are". It's just they decided to leave their identity unknown. It's logical that they would know though, it's a pity one of them never said. Personally I think it was that worker, van Maaren.
There was also a new investigation on Anton Ahlers. It's all in Carol Ann Lee's book "The Hidden Life of Otto Frank" and the Discovery channal aired a program about it as well. He died like a week before Carol Ann Lee learned his name.
____________________________
"You all, everybody" - Dominic Monaghan "Lost"
Member of *H.B.S.U*
That is just her speculation. Carol Ann Lee, who is "supposed" to be a "world authority" on Anne Frank, has a number of factual errors in her book. Errors that would immediately be noticed by anyone who has read the diary, and truly knows Anne's story
shareIve read the diary but not Carol Lee's book, what factual errors did she have?
Say it again, it keeps me awake
I love you
Since the critical editions came out, I think it's pretty clear that people could have seen various versions of the diary and read various translations and formed various opinions. I just reread Carol's book and I still think it's great.
shareI also suspect Van Maaren. I remember reading how he was setting traps outside the annexe to try to see who was wandering about after hours. Van Maaren claimed he was trying to catch whoever it was stealing supplies, despite the fact that he was himself caught stealing. Also, he allegedly pointed the way to the annexe when the Gestapo arrived.
sharewrong as a muthaloving peeble,
it was anton ahlers his son even telled carol ann lee that it was fact his father that betrayed them.
so anton ahlers was the man.
Melissa Muller's cleaning woman theory...But it could have been anyone...Sick bastards
shareI think it was Tonny Ahlers. Here is a link for the suspects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Betrayal_of_Anne_Frank#
Hope that helps.
I was just reading Muller's book when I finished a test yesterday and the way it depicts how the cleaning lady's husband told her about the jews in her book seems very realistic.
shareCouldn't have been her. She would never have sent the gestapo there when her husband was present. Her husband had ignored a summons to report for labor camp to Germany. If he had been caught there it would have been a disaster for them. He was wanted for not appearing after receiving a labor summons. He was working at the building illegally. Why would he want the Gestapo to show up when he was at work? I just finished rereading Melissa and Carol's books and Carol's makes more sense to me. Contrary to Muller's book, there is nothing in any of the reports to confirm it was a woman who called in the tip about the hidden Jews.
share[deleted]
Well once in English class we read the play that Natalie Portman played in, and it said Dussel (can't remember his real name, but he was denist who was the last to hide with them) didn't seem to celebrate Hanukka (sorry if it's spelt wrong) the traditional way. Also once he joined them things started going wrong, I haven't finished the diary yet and from what I have read the diary seems different from the play, but my point is Dussel's actions and the turn of events at his arrival seem to be suspicious. The play also mentioned a theif broke in, so that's another suspect. And if none of these are the diary well than I better start setting down more time to read so I know what I'm talking about. Once again I'm sorry for any spelling mistakes and not knowing Dussel's real name. We only read the play to learn about character development, not to learn the history of the diary.
shareDussel's real name was Pfeffer (the p is silent). In German, "dussel" means idiot or moron. Anne's dislike of Dussel is evident all through her diary. You might enjoy watching "Anne Frank Remembered". It's a documentary made in 1994 or 1995 and many of the people in Anne's diary are inteviewed -- Miep, Jacqueline (Jopie), Hannah (Lies), and Anne's cousin Buddy, now the only surviving relative of Anne's who actually knew her. (His children were born after the war.) Also Dussel's son, Peter Pepper, who died shortly after the documentary was filmed. Mr. Pepper was sent to London as a child by his father, and after the war went to America and changed his name. He met Miep in this movie for the first time and was able to thank her for helping his father.
shareThe dentist was the most Orthodox of them all. His name was Fritz Pfeffer. He was very religious unlike Otto Frank, who was never bar mitzvahed, whose first marriage was not accepted by the Orthodox synagogue, didn't send his kids to Jewish schools until he was forced to, had his second marriage in city hall, was cremated and buried in a non Jewish cemetery. Of course he felt differently about Jewish holidays.
shareI think it was who betrayed them in the movie.
sharei've always thought it was Tony Alhers (sorry if I spelt it wrong) =[
sharefirst of all, not even the helpers knew. and second, my friend Chelsea thinks the cleaning lady but i side with you now that i've read about Anne a lot and say van Maaren, i don't think he could be trusted
shareoh my goodness i have a lot of answers. i used to think office staff but Anne was seen in hiding but he didn't betray them he didn't know what was going on. i think another neighbor saw something and turned them in.
shareActually, at then end of the book, "The Hidden Life of Otto Frank", the author, Carol Ann Lee, argues very convincingly that it was Ahler's wife who made the phone call to the Gestapo. She knew everything that Ahler knew, and at that time, she was badly in need of money. The Nazis paid very well for each Jew that were caught hiding. When interviewed by Lee, she became very violent and almost threw her out of her house.
Also Otto Frank himself said that it was a woman that made the call. He and Miep probably knew this as well. Miep had always staunchly stated that the betrayer was not Van Maaren.
Van Maaren was hiding his own son in his home, as his son had ignored a call up for work in Germany. He would not want to draw attention to himself. He was unpleasant and a thief, but I don't think it was him. Miep admitted during a visit to Leslie Gold's house, when she came to America to go to the Oscars, in front of witnesses, that she knew who it was, but she refused to say a name.
share[deleted]
When reading the diary it is clear that, as time went on, the people in the Annexe became increasingly complacent, which was perhaps understandable as they entered their second year in hiding, particularly when it seemed that the war was entering its final phase.
Having avoided capture for so long, they probably began to feel invulnerable. Perhaps this is a natural psychological defence mechanism, as it would be almost impossible to live in a constant state of fear, nevertheless this may have been what sealed their fate.
In July 1944 (one month before their discovery) Anne refers to a day that the group spent making jam, with 'curtains and windows open, banging doors, loud voices' and muses to the diary 'Are we really in hiding?' This wasn't the only such incident by any means, there are also references to the people in hiding peering through curtains at the outside world, something which Anne herself wondered at the wisdom of, even though she couldn't help herself from doing so either.
Although on the face of it is is no more dangerous to hide 8 people than 7, in practice the greater number of people made it more dangerous as there was an increasing likelihood of someone slipping up and being noticed (given that they became less discreet over time) and the logistical problems of providing food for such a large number of people at a time when food shortages were increasing without drawing unwanted attention.
On reflection, the risk of discovery appears to have been cumulative, and it is perhaps surprising that the group survived over two years without being caught, given that other smaller groups were discovered earlier.
I cannot see why any of the usually touted suspects would have waited as long as they did before betraying the group, as if they were motivated by the bounty that was being offered by the authorities, any delay increased the risk that someone else would get in first with a tipoff and reap the beneft instead. As previous posters indicate, Van Maaren would probably not have wanted to draw attention to himself in any case.
It is quite possible that the tipoff came from a neigbour or random passer by that we have never heard of, and probably never will, unless somewhere there is a posthumous confession that has yet to be discovered which can be verified somehow.
If the person who betrayed them had any shred of conscience at all, one can only wonder at how they were affected by the subsequent publication of the diary. It would be difficult enough to live with the knowledge that you had condemned a nameless stranger to arrest, without subsequently learning all about that person and the horrible circumstances of their death.
[deleted]