Miep Gies

SGT (Join to see) Important person.

Thank you, my friend SGT (Join to see) for making us aware that February 15 is the anniversary of the birth of Austrian-born author and biographer Miep Gies [born Hermine Santruschitz] who became the biographer of Dutch Anne Frank.
She was one of the Dutch citizens who hid Anne Frank, her family and four other Jews from the Nazis in an annex above Anne's father's business premises during World War II.

The Story of Miep Gies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liUjEO0pqaQ

Images
1. Oldest photograph of Miep Gies, ca. 1912 in Vienna Hermine Santruschitz
2. The small rucksack that Miep brought when she traveled from Vienna to Leiden in December 1920
3. A portrait of Miep, around 1925
4. Portrait of Miep Gies in the mid 1930s

Background from miepgies.nl/en/biography/
1. Youth
Oldest photograph of Miep Gies, ca. 1912 in Vienna
Oldest photograph of Miep Gies, ca. 1912 in ViennaOn 15 February 1909, Miep Gies was born into a working class family in Vienna, as Hermine Santruschitz (later spelt in the Netherlands as Santrouschitz). She was five years old when the First World War broke out. At first she thought all the soldiers in the streets were rather exciting. However, father and mother Santruschitz could barely make ends meet, both during and after the war. The serious food scarcity had a grave impact, and after their second daughter was born in 1919, there was even less food to go around. Hermine wasn't a strong child to begin with, and due to the lack of food she became undernourished and was often unwell. ‘I was a small child to begin with, and seemed to be wasting away, rather than growing normally. My legs were sticks dominated by bony kneecaps. My teeth were soft. When I was ten years ol, my parents had another child; another daughter. Now there was even less food for us all. My condition was worsening, and my parents were told that something had to be done or I would die.’

In the fall of 1920 she was suddenly thrown a lifeline: a Dutch workers' association had taken the initiative to set up and aid program for Austrian working class children. These children could come to the Netherlands for a number of months to regain their strength, and Hermine was one of the lucky ones, permitted to go along. On a cold winterday in December 1920, a train filled with weakened Viennese children departed for the unknown town of Leiden, in the unknown country of the Netherlands. ‘Although I was eleven, I looked much younger. My long, fine dark blond hair was held back with a large piece of cotton cloth tied into a big puffed bow. A card was hung around my neck. On it was printed a strange name, the name of people I had never met. The train was filled with many children like me, all with cards around their necks.’

Small rucksack Miep Gies, December 1920
The small rucksack that Miep brought when she traveled from Vienna to Leiden in December 1920. Click on the photo to enlarge. The train arrived in Leiden and the children were woken up and led into a large hall. Unfamiliar people tried to read the names on the tags, and Hermine was picked out by a 'not very big, but very strong-looking man'. 'I wasn't afraid and willingly went along with him'. The strong man's name was Laurens Nieuwenburg, and he was foreman at a coal company in Leiden. He brought Hermine to a small house just outside the town where he lived with his wife, four young sons and a daughter. The eldest boy spoke a few words of German and acted as interpreter. ‘Despite the language problem, all the children were kind to me. Kindness, in my depleted condition, was very important to me. It was medicine as much as the bread, the marmalade, the good Duch milk and butter an chees, the toasty temperature of the warm rooms. And, ahhh, the little chocolate flakes known as “hailstones” and other chocolate bits called “little mice” they taught me to put on thickly buttered bread-treats I’d never imagined before.'

Miep (on the right) around 12 years old, with foster mother in Leiden, around 1921.
Miep (on the right) around 12 years old, with foster mother in Leiden, around 1921.

The family Nieuwenburg soon started calling Hermine Miep, a more casual, informal name. Miep went to school, soon learnt to speak Dutch, and by the spring of 1921 was the best of her class. She learnt to ride a bicycle, learnt to prepare her sandwiches, but the quintessential Dutch pastime of skating was not for her. The family had an interest in politics, and they read the newspaper every day. They also enjoyed classical music. Miep embraced their interests, and she enjoyed discussing what she read in the newspaper. Initially she was to stay for just three months, but on account of her weak health this was prolonged with another three months, and after that there was no more talk of prolongation, Miep simply satyed in Leiden. When she was thirteen years old, she moved along with the family to the Rivierenbuurt in Amsterdam. At that time, this neighbourhood still lay at the edge of town, overlooking the Amstel River and the pastures beyond. Nonetheless, Miep was now living in real city, and she loved the liveliness of the streets, all the shops, the architecture of the tall canal houses, the evident political life and the many concert halls and cinemas.

A portrait of Miep, around 1925.
A portrait of Miep, around 1925.In 1925, when Miep had turned sixteen, she visited her parents and sister in Vienna, accompanied by Mr and Mrs Nieuwenburg. She was happy to see the town again but did not really feel at ease with her family, mainly because she feared having to stay in Vienna. However, her mother understood that her eldest daughter had become so integrated in Dutch life that staying in Vienna would make her unhappy. ‘I did not want to hurt my natural family’s feelings, and I was still young and needed their consent. But I wanted desperately to return to the Netherlands. My sensibilities were Dutch, the quality of my feelings also Dutch.' Miep was relieved to return to Amsterdam, together with her foster parents Mr and Mrs Nieuwenburg.

Living in Amsterdam Miep grew up an introvert, inquisitive young woman. She developed an interest in philosophy, read voraciously, and scribbled full exercise book after exercise book with all her attempt to understand life, just as Anne Frank would so years later. No-one knew of Miep's writings, and she didn't want anyone to know, either. And as suddenly as the urge to write had taken hold of her, it disappeared again, leaving her feeling embarassed for all those intimate thoughts, and afraid that someone might read them. So she ripped up all her exercise books, and embarked on a new phase in life. By now she was eighteen years old, she finished high school and started work as an office assistant. ‘Although I continued to be a staunchly private and independent woman, my zest for life turned outward again.'

2.
Life as an office assistant
After Miep Santruschitz left school at the age of 18, she first found a job as office assistant at a textile company. She worked there for six years, until she was laid off in 1933 on account of the economic crisis. Now aged 24, she remained unemployed for a few months, since it was difficult to find a new job. But she was lucky: an upstairs neighbor, who worked as a sales representative, told her of a temporary vacancy at one of her permanent clients, the Nederlandsche Opekta company, specialized in the trade of Opekta, a substance used in the household production of jam. The neighbor arranged an interview with Mr. Otto Frank, the company's director, established at Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal 120-126 in Amsterdam. On a Monday morning she rode her bicycle to that address, wearing a carefully ironed, self-made dress and blouse with high heel shoes, and her hair done up according to the latest Hollywood fashion with a loose knot in her neck. Her friends said she looked like the American film star Norma Shearer, and she wore high heels to compensate for her slight length of just 1.52 meters.

She was received cordially at the office of Otto Frank, and after he apologized for his poor Dutch they quickly switched to speaking German, their native tongue.’ 'He must have responded favorably to me, because he said to me, “Before you can start, you must come with me to the kitchen.” My cheeks felt hot. Did I have the job? I couldn’t imagine what he could want in the kitchen: perhaps a cup of coffee? But naturally, I followed him into the kitchen. He handed me a sheet of paper. “Here’s the recipe. Now make jam!” He turned and left, leaving me standing alone in the kitchen.’

Miep was once again lucky, as she was hired for the job although there were other candidates. She came through the test of competence with flying colors, making jam and continuing to do so for the next two weeks. She became a veritable expert and knew exactly how to achieve the right color, density and fruity flavor. Otto Frank later even made an commercial for Opekta, in which Miep appears as the expert jam maker.

Mr. Frank told her that he lived in a small hotel in the center of town while waiting for the arrival of his family, who were still staying with his mother-in-law in the German town of Aachen. He told her about his wife Edith and their two young daughters, Margot Betti and Anneliese Marie. Margot was the eldest, born in 1926, and Anne was three years younger. Otto Frank was lonely and hoped to be reunited with his family in Amsterdam as soon as possible. He developed a good relationship with Miep. Both could passionately discuss political topics, although they often held the same opinion about various situation and events. Both were vehemently opposed to Adolf Hitler, who had been inaugurated as the German Chancellor following his election victory earlier that year. Otto Frank had left his homeland on account of Hitler's anti-Jewish politics.

Advertising Opekta jam.After the first two weeks of making jam, Mr. Frank brought Miep out of the kitchen and pointed her to a desk next to the window. "You’ll now sit at this desk. I call it the Complaint and Information Desk. You’ll know why shortly.” Miep took the calls from indignant housewives that had bought the Opekta jam kit but had not followed the instructions, and whose jam therefore failed. It was Miep's job to first calm the ladies down, to then ask them to describe the end product, and to deduce from that what mistake they had made and how it could be remedied. The result was generally a customer satisfied after all.

Miep enjoyed her work and counted herself lucky for having found a nice job in a pleasant setting, while many of her peers remained jobless in those challenging years of crisis. Besides Otto Frank, there was also a Mr. Kugler that worked at Opekta. He was a serious man in his 30s who never joked around. Victor Kugler was born in Austria, just like Miep, and he mainly minded his own business. He would send the messenger boy Henk out on errands and would check his work. Henk was a friendly, agreeable boy. Miss Heel was another of Miep's colleagues. Miep had been hired to replace Miss Heel while she was ill, but after she recovered and returned the work, Miep was allowed to stay on, sharing a room with Henk. Miep didn't get along too well with Miss Heel, especially not after she became member of the NSB (a Dutch political association that sided with the Nazis). After some time Miss Heel called in sick and never came back. "Jokingly, Mr. Frank announced: “... an easy way to lose a Nazi.”

In the fall of 1933, Edith Frank traveled up and down between Aachen and Amsterdam, attempting to find a suitable house. In November she succeeded and from then on Otto Frank rented a house close to where Miep lived in the neighborhood of Amsterdam-South, a district that had become home to many German refugees in recent years. Margot joined them in Amsterdam in December, and Anne soon followed in February 1934. Edith's mother, Mrs. Holländer, also moved to Amsterdam.

In 1937 the Nederlandsche Opekta company moved to Singel 400, a tall canal house of a few floors, with a stockroom on the ground floor. Since the Opekta trade for fruit jams was a seasonal trade, Otto Frank sought to expand the business activities. He met Hermann van Pels, who was specialized in herbs and spices for meat. Otto Frank thought that this was a suitable market to expand into, and he invited Hermann van Pels to join his company. Hermann was an old business friend of Otto who had lived many years in Germany, although his parents were Dutch Jews. He too had fled Hitler Germany with his German Jewish wife named Auguste, and their son Peter. Van Pels became the consultant and specialist for the Pectacon spice trade, as the second component of the Nederlandsche Opekta company.

In January 1940, the company again moved to larger premises, this time to Prinsengracht 263, nearby the Westerkerk (Wester Church). The building consisted of a front and rear house with office space and a large stockroom. Henk had left the company and two new stockroom assistants had joined. In the office, Miep had a new colleague, the 21-year old Bep (Elisabeth) Voskuijl. Bep and Miep got along very well, becoming friends besides being colleagues. Otto Frank had also taken on Johannes Kleinman, described by Miep as "a calm personality, someone that you immediately trust". Frank and Kleiman worked for Opekta and took care of the financial aspects. Kugler and Van Pels worked for Pectacon and concentrated on the spices. They specialized in herbs and spices used to make sausages.

3. Staying the night in the Secret Annex
On Monday October 19, 1942, Miep and Jan Gies stayed the night in the Secret Annex, at the invitation of the hiders. This happened before Frits Pfeffer joined the hiders in the Secret Annex. The Annex occupants, and especially Anne, had insisted several times that Miep should stay the night with them once. On a Monday in October, Jan left his work to come to Prinsengracht, and after all the personnel had gone home Jan and Miep turned off all the lights in the building and entered the Secret Annex, via the swiveling bookcase. That night, Jan and Miep stayed in the room that belonged to Anne and Margot, who spent the night in their parents' room. Here you can read descriptions of that night as seen through the eyes of both Anne Frank and Miep Gies, and click here to see a video excerpt in which Miep Gies recounts that night.

4. The betrayal
For eight Jewish people in hiding at Prinsengracht 263 in Amsterdam, a more than 2 year period of hiding came to an end on the warm summer's day of August 4, 1944. The doors to the stockroom stood open, and the first to enter was the Austrian Nazi SS Oberscharführer Karl Silberbauer, followed by the Dutch NSB members (Dutch national socialists, allied to the Nazis) Gezinus Gringhuis, Willem Grootendorst and Maarten Kuiper. The hiders were taken away (and apparently their number was more than expected, as a second car had to be called for), along with two of the four helpers present that day. The remaining staff was not interfered with. Click here to see a video excerpt in which Miep Gies recounts the day of the arrest.

Of the eight Jewish hiders, only Otto Frank returned after the war, as did the two arrested helpers Johannes Kleiman and Victor Kugler. The Secret Annex had been betrayed, but by who?

To this day, no-one has been able to answer that question with certainty, and the definite answer will probably never be known. The Political Investigation Department of the Amsterdam police force conducted an inquiry in 1948, and a second inquiry took place in 1963. In 2003, the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation released a report. In addition to these official reports, there are also the biographers of Anne Frank and of Otto Frank, Melissa Müller and Carol Ann Lee, who each attempt to identify the betrayer in their books published in 1998 and 2002, respectively. The question is also a matter of much speculation, with varying degrees of substantiation. Below follows an inventory of possible betrayers and the circumstances that could have brought them to the betrayal. Every reader will have to draw his or her own conclusions.

The coincidence
As the period of hiding went on for longer, the hiders became less careful. Curtains were opened beyond just a crack, rooftop windows inadvertently stayed open, accidental noises became more frequent, and so on. All in all, the visible evidence mounted for the world outside that there were people in the building after office hours. People in the outside world may quite innocently have mentioned this in conversation, which could have been overheard by the wrong persons. In this scenario, the name of the night watchman Martin Sleegers plays a prominent role. Following the report of a burglary in the premises in April 1944, he and a police officer went to investigate. They actually fumbled with the bookcase that hid the entrance to the Secret Annex. Anne describes this burglary in her diary entry of April 11, 1944. There is no concrete evidence that Sleegers betrayed the hiders. While it is a fact Sleegers knew the NSB member Gringhuis (who was present at the arrest), this in itself does not constitute proof.

Tonny Ahlers
NSB member Tonny Ahlers visited Otto Frank at his office in April 1941, to confront him with a letter addressed to the NSB that mentioned a conversation between Frank and Job Jansen, a former employee. In this conversation, Otto Frank had expressed negative views about the German occupier. Ahlers said that he worked as a courier for the SD (Nazi security service) and for the NSB, and said that he had intercepted the letter by chance. Subsequent investigations showed that he was indeed a frequent visitor at the Security Service, but that his role as courier was simply made up. It is known that Frank twice gave money to Ahlers, though probably not more than 50 guilders altogether. It has not been established that Ahlers visited Frank regularly.

Ahlers was notoriously anti-Semitic, for which he was also convicted after the war, but also an inveterate liar and a braggart. This makes it difficult for researchers to distinguish fact from fiction. Can Ahlers have been the betrayer personally, or did he pass on information to the Nazi Security Service, for example? The latter is possible. Ahlers started a business in the same kind of commodities as Otto Frank's business. This would have given him access to the stockroom of Opekta / Pectacon, later Gies & Co., when coming to collect ordered goods at Prinsengracht. In this way he may also have had contact with the stockroom manager Willem van Maaren (more about him later). The three NSB members Gringhuis, Grootendorst, Kuiper and Sleegers and Ahlers all knew each other, but this doesn't really prove anything, certainly not given Ahlers' untrustworthiness. The facts are definitely striking and can be used to construct a plausible theory, but it will never amount to hard evidence. It is regrettable that Ahlers' widow, Martha van Kuik, was not interrogated extensively. She was an eye-witness and may have known and seen a great deal. She is still alive today. Carol Ann Lee, biographer of Otto Frank (2002), was the first to present this theory about Tonny Ahlers. In her book she works towards identifying Ahlers as the betrayer, yet without explicitly labeling him as such. It remains a speculative theory, woven into her pages. The Dutch television program Andere tijden, aired on March 12, 2002, explores Lee's theory.

Willem van Maaren
Stockroom manager Willem van Maaren was suspected of the betrayal for many years, although he never sided with the Nazis. He stole goods and was generally considered dishonest. In Anne's diary it becomes clear that the Annex occupants also did not trust him. However, inquiries conducted after the war did not turn up any evidence that he was the betrayer. On the other hand, his eager inquisitiveness was very striking. In all sorts of ways, he tried to establish whether people had entered the stockroom in the evening or during the night. From what he noticed, he must have concluded that this was indeed the case. Another very unusual moment occurred when he asked the employees whether there had previously been a Mr. Frank at the office. It is unknown how he came to that name, or why he asked that question. Van Maaren supplied goods to various customers, but it cannot be determined whether Ahlers was one of these. That Ahlers and Van Maaren knew each other, so that Van Maaren may have tried to obtain information for Ahlers, is yet another theory that sounds plausible but that cannot be proven.

Lena Hartog-van Bladeren
She is the least likely candidate for the role of betrayer. Her husband Lammert worked in the stockroom on Prinsengracht until the raid in 1944, while she worked as a cleaner at the same address (among others)— something that she initially denied, by the way. A second contradiction is Lammert's statement that he continued to work at the stockroom for several days following the raid, while according to the helpers he immediately ran off when the arrest took place. It can furthermore not be explained why Lena Hartog claimed that there were Jews hiding in the premises at number 263. Where could she have got this information? From her husband or from Van Maaren? The latter declared later to have had just a suspicion. So was there information trickling through a grapevine? Possibly, but hard to prove. Finally, Lena said that she feared for her husband, who worked in a place where Jews were hiding. But then why did she not warn her husband on the day the raid took place to avoid his arrest, and notify the Security Service afterwards? The Germans refers to their source as a 'reliable' source. Was it Lena? Anne Frank's biographer Melissa Müller first pointed to Lena Hartog as possible betrayer, in her 1998 book Anne Frank, The biography. Yet it remains unlikely, as she would have wanted as much as possible to avoid drawing attention to her family, given her husband's precarious position (he hadn't responded to the Arbeitseinsatz, the summons to work).

The above demonstrates that there is no indubitable proof for who betrayed the Secret Annex. There is something about all the persons and circumstances that make them suspicious, but precisely because this is so, all argumentation falters here. It could be that a number of persons suspected the presence of the hiders, and that a number of persons involved with the Prinsengracht address knew each other, but this does not add up to any form of evidence. Pure coincidence must moreover not be ruled out as a contributing factor. Perhaps neighbors sympathetic to or member of the NSB, who looked out on the rear facade of the premises, saw people moving past curtains that were not fully closed, and notified the authorities.

A few more 'loose ends' remain. For example, in late 1943 Victor Kugler was summoned to the local headquarters of the Nazi Party in his hometown of Hilversum, on the same night that the hiders on Prinsengracht were alarmed by an insistent ringing of the front doorbell. Kugler had apparently ignored the first summons, as the existence of the second summons demonstrates. Why was he summoned there, and what was discussed? And did the Austrian Silberbauer, who supervised the arrest, really not know who had tipped off the Amsterdam Security Service headquarters about the Jewish hiders, as he claimed during the investigation of 1963?

Practically everyone that had anything to do with the betrayal was interrogated after the war, without producing any definitive answer to the question, 'Who betrayed the occupants of the Secret Annex on Prinsengracht 263?'

FYI COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C. LTC (Join to see) Lt Col Charlie Brown Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Maj William W. "Bill" PriceSGT Jim Arnold Maj Robert Thornton SPC Douglas Bolton Cynthia Croft SSgt Boyd Herrst TSgt Joe C. SGT John " Mac " McConnell SP5 Mark Kuzinski CPL Dave Hoover SPC Margaret Higgins SSG William Jones PO3 Craig Phillips PVT Mark Zehnerne R]

Visiting the house where Ms. Frank ( et. al ) "lived" was quite eye opening.