It’s been two weeks since groundbreaking research on the traitor of Anne Frank made the news.
Ambo Anthos, the Dutch publisher of the book The Betrayal of Anne Frank: A Cold Case Investigation — which is based on this research — now feels called to apologise for not having been more critical.
Gaps in research
Since 2017, a research team has attempted to solve the cold case of Anne Frank: who gave the address of her hiding place on the Prinsengracht to the Nazi occupiers?
Then, beginning this month, a breakthrough. 🕵️ The researchers publish a book that states with 85% certainty that the traitor was the Jewish notary Arnold van den Bergh.
But immediately after, critics spotted gaps in the researcher, causing Ambo Anthos to apologise for not having been more nuanced when publishing the book.
The apology, says Ambo Anthos in an official statement, goes out to all those who felt attacked by the book. The distribution of more copies has been put on hold until all doubts regarding the theory are convincingly cleared by the researchers, reports the NOS.
Why are critics doubting the research?
There are different reasons why critical voices have raised one or two eyebrows at the blaming of Arnold van den Bergh for the tragic fate of the Franks.
A key aspect of the theory is that Van den Bergh was a member of the Jewish Council (Joodse Raad) that collaborated with the Nazi occupiers to establish a connection with the Jewish community.
As a prominent member, it was argued, Van den Bergh had access to the addresses of Jews in hiding in and around Amsterdam. However, some experts point out that there is no evidence for this.
University professor Bart van der Boom, who is currently writing a book about Jewish Councils, adds: “You’re not in your right mind if you think that the members of the Jewish Council, respectable men, have betrayed 500 to 1000 Jews in hiding.”
The research team has not yet officially responded to all the criticisms.
What do you think about this backlash on the Anne Frank cold case? Tell us in the comments.
Feature Image: Unknown Photographer/Wikimedia Commons/Public domain
Well, I was surprised that Dutch review published that original news item about that ‘discovery’ without any critical notes. I commented on this in your facebook post, but it stayed unanswered. I think that it is always good to stay critical to such bullshit as these ‘researchers’ published (your news agency did not even check that they are not researchers affiliated with any university. They are an FBI agent on retirement and a media communication person). So start from yourself, stop publishing the bullshit news items yourself, I would say.
Why is it so impossible to believe that a person would betray another person to save the lives of his family as well as his own /for money etc. This sort of thing has happened many times in the history of many nations. I saw this issue recently on CBS 60 Minutes.
As a history researcher and writer I know that many times there are gaps in available records. That does not mean you do not write about what you have found. You just note where there is a gap in the research and explain what your theory is about the subject at hand. The researchers in this case have said that they are not certain about their conclusion. This explanation normally would be enough to publish your research. In my opinion the publisher should continue to make the book available to the public. It is a stepping stone to further research.