The Amsterdam publisher Ambo Anthos, which is distributing the book about the alleged new findings on the circumstances of Anne Frank’s arrest in the Netherlands, has apologized for the publication. “Het verraad van Anne Frank” (The Betrayal of Anne Frank) is about the fact that not just any Nazi henchman is said to have given the National Socialist security service the addresses of various hiding places, including the address of the Franks’ hiding place. But Arnold van den Bergh, notary and member of the Amsterdam Jewish Council – to save himself and his own family. Anne Frank later died in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, only her father Otto survived and published the diary from the hiding place, which posthumously made his daughter world-famous and her notes one of the best-known documents for the cruelty of Nazi crimes.
A “more critical attitude” to the research on which the book is based would have been possible, writes Tanja Hendriks, the publisher of Ambo Anthos, in an internal email to the publisher’s authors, which was reported by the Dutch media on Monday. A second edition, according to Hendriks, will therefore not be printed for the time being. One initially wants to wait for an answer from the investigation team “to questions that have arisen”. She offered an apology to anyone who felt offended by the book. Many experts had heavily criticized the research in the past few days. At the request of the SZ, Ambo Anthos said that no further comment would be made on the matter.
“What they cite as sources for the existence of these lists is really razor thin.”
Researchers, historians and criminologists from the USA came to the conclusion that with “85 percent certainty” Arnold van den Bergh was the one who revealed the whereabouts of the Jewish girl Anne Frank, her family and other people to the German occupiers in August 1944 and the Netherlands after several years of investigation. The research group operates under the name “Cold Case Team” and was headed by journalist Pieter van Twisk, filmmaker Thijs Bayens and former FBI agent Vince Pankoke. According to their own statements, they went into archives and combed through the material with the help of artificial intelligence, among other things. On January 16, they presented their findings on the American broadcaster CBS in an episode of “60 Minutes”, one of the most respected journalistic television formats in the USA.
Emeritus literary scholar and author Rosemary Sullivan wrote the book along with the research, originally for the American publisher Harper Collins. It has already been released in several countries, on January 18th in the Netherlands, as part of a major media campaign. A publisher’s employee could not tell the SZ how many copies were printed. Nor is there any plan to withdraw the first edition. The book is currently fourth in the Dutch bestseller list.
So far, “The Betrayal of Anne Frank” can be pre-ordered. But will it be delivered from March 22nd?
There is no “smoking gun,” Pankoke said, no 100% proof that it was the Jew van den Bergh who committed treason. But you have a “warm weapon with empty cartridges next to it”. Historians criticized precisely this point: the results were based far too much on mere assumptions. The assumption, for example, that van den Bergh, as a prominent member of the Amsterdam Jewish Council, must have had lists with the addresses of people in hiding. That was “defamatory nonsense,” said historian Bart van der Boom, who is working on a book about the Judenrat. “What they cite as sources for the existence of these lists is really flimsy and far too few to brand anyone in the world as a traitor to Anne Frank.” Yves Kugelmann from the Otto Frank Fund in Basel named the team’s results in an interview with the SZ one of “the most brilliant conspiracy myths and most effective anti-Semitism boosters in a long time”.
Pieter van Twisk from the “Cold Case Team” expressed surprise at the email from the publisher. The newspaper quoted him as saying that he was still at Ambo Anthos on Thursday and took a position on all the points of criticism there Volkskrant: “We stand by our investigation, we can take responsibility for everything. We stick to our story. Is it the truth? We don’t know for sure, but it’s a pretty plausible narrative.” According to van Twisk, the publisher did not express any criticism after the conversation and did not indicate that there was a trust problem. “Where that suddenly came from is a mystery to me.”
The matter puts the German publisher under severe pressure to act
The publisher’s reaction suggests that it was surprised by the publication of the email. The book was still prominently advertised on its website on Monday afternoon. The subtitle reads “The groundbreaking investigation by an international ‘cold case team’ in the Netherlands”. As the rights buyer, Ambo Anthos had no influence on the content of the book. The publisher was “not able to check all the details of the arguments” for their “correctness and validity”, writes Hendriks in the e-mail.
The local branch of Harper Collins, in which the book is to be published on March 22 under the title “The Betrayal of Anne Frank – An Investigation”, is under severe pressure to act. Jürgen Welte, Harper Collins publisher in Germany, initially did not want to say more than this when asked by the SZ: “After two specialist editings of the manuscript, we are currently in the process of an internal review.” According to Welte, the comparatively late publication date of the German edition shows “that we are dealing with this sensitive topic in an extremely responsible manner”. The statement does not appear as if the research in his house has been dealt with much more critically than at Ambo Anthos.
One thing is clear: to publish another book now, against which more and more well-founded objections are being raised and of which a central co-publisher is obviously no longer convinced, would seem extremely daring. Weighty counter-arguments – which shouldn’t be easy to come up with – would be the bare minimum on such a sensitive issue. Especially in Germany. Quite apart from that, the question remains as to how it can be that such explosive research is apparently not really checked in advance by the publishers who want to publish it.
For whether intentional or not, the book serves the narrative that the Jews themselves were involved in the Holocaust. This narrative was and is flimsy relativist at best, outright anti-Semitic at worst. For this reason alone, the book has so far led to a great deal of horror and criticism. Dutch best-selling author Jessica Durlacher reported in the SZ: “In court, 85 percent probability is equivalent to zero percent. In court, the following then applies: acquittal. But sometimes a lot of smoke is enough to make you think of fire. Good for those who always wanted to hear this ‘news’.” Author Leon de Winter said “the book itself is a crime”. And in mirror Arnold van den Bergh’s great-niece stated laconically: “Now the stereotype of a Jewish traitor is back in the world. You can try to contradict him, but it will remain. And contribute to hatred of Jews all over the world.”