Dutch Publisher Stops Broadcasting ‘Anne Frank’s Betrayal’


AMSTERDAM — A Dutch publisher has said it will no longer publish the bestselling book “The Betrayal of Anne Frank”, which claims the identity of the informant who reported the Nazi police to the young diarist’s hiding place, amid doubts about the results. .

Publisher Ambo Anthos, which published a Dutch translation of author Rosemary Sullivan’s book in January, said Tuesday that it will cease publication of the book in response to a “refutation” by five leading Dutch historians questioning the findings.

“Based on the results of this report, we have decided that the book will no longer be available, with immediate effect,” said Ambo Anthos, who apologized for the book last month. wrote in a statement on its website. “We will urge booksellers to return their stock.”

“The Betrayal of Anne Frank” gained worldwide attention in January when they were featured on the CBS News program “60 Minutes,” who described themselves as the “cold case team” led by a retired FBI investigator whose work formed the basis of the book.

The team accused Dutch Jewish notary Arnold van den Bergh of showing Nazi police the address Prinsengracht 263, where the secret annex in Amsterdam was located, where the Frank family and four other Jews had been hiding for two years.

Historians and other experts on WWII and the Holocaust quickly became expressed doubts about the findingHe questioned a central premise of his argument: the notary had lists of Jewish hiding places compiled by the Jewish Council of Amsterdam, which the occupying Nazis had set up in 1941.

Pieter van Twisk, principal investigator of the cold case project, said in an interview with The New York Times at the time that the evidence for lists was “situational, but circumstantial evidence is still evidence.”

On Tuesday night, Bart Wallet, professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Amsterdam, summarized the findings of the rebuttal written by Raymund Schütz, an expert on Dutch notaries during the German occupation; two experts from the Amsterdam Jewish Council, Laurien Vastenhout and Bart van der Boom; and two other researchers, Petra van den Boomgaard and Aaldrik Hermans.

“We felt like we had to step in because we owe it to our discipline,” Professor Wallet said. “For such a claim to be made,” he added, the historical context “had to be rock solid.” But the situation was “not like that at all,” he said.

“It’s clear the argument doesn’t hold up,” he finished. “Due to misinterpretation and tunnel vision, the investigation incorrectly identifies Arnold van den Bergh as Anne Frank’s traitor.”

Arnold van den Berg’s grandson, Mirjam de Gorter, made an emotional appeal to HarperCollins. an event in which the report was publishedasking the publisher to withdraw it and stop broadcasting.

He said that in the summer of 1944, when Anne Frank was betrayed, she repeatedly informed investigators and the author about the whereabouts of her grandfather and family. She said they ignored her and claimed that Mr. van den Bergh had won his freedom by addressing the Nazis.

“My grandfather, Arnold van den Bergh, was portrayed around the world as an international scapegoat,” he said. “Meanwhile, Anne Frank’s worldwide reputation is being exploited in a particularly dishonest way.”

Ambo Anthos before paused printing and distribution your book. “A more critical stance could have been taken here,” wrote Tanja Hendriks, the company’s publisher and director. Ms Hendriks did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

“We would like to once again offer our most sincere apologies to anyone who was offended by the content of this book,” the publisher’s website now says.

Documentary producer Thijs Bayens, a member of the team assembled to detect the betrayal of Mr. van Twisk, Ms. Sullivan and Anne Franks, also did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The lead investigator of the cold case team, former FBI detective Vince Pankoke, previously defense of businessHowever.

“Until now, we have not been presented with any evidence or new information with sufficient force to dispute our conclusion,” he said before the rebuttal was published. “The Van den Bergh scenario is, in our opinion, still the most valid theory about the betrayal of Prinsengracht 263.”

HarperCollins US, which published the book on January 17th, which plans to publish the book in more than 20 languages, has so far not responded to criticism.



Source link

Leave a Reply

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