“The Betrayal of Anne Frank” received harsh criticism from researchers and historians when it revealed the accusatory finding of its investigation: Anne Frank and her family were betrayed by Arnold van den Bergh, a Dutch legal notary based in Amsterdam who was also a member of the Joodse Raad - the Jewish Council in the Netherlands.
The book which was written by Canadian writer Rosemary Sullivan with the help of a retired FBI investigator, as well as dozens of advisers, data scientists, and experts, used artificial intelligence and metadata to “discover” an anonymous letter written to Otto Frank, which accused Van den Bergh of selling out the location of the Frank family to the Nazis as a way to buy his freedom.
While experts take no issue with the letter itself, they say that there is no other evidence to back it as it was sent by an unknown individual during a contentious postwar period in the Netherlands. “The note only proves that shortly after the war, someone believed, or wanted Otto Frank to believe, that Van den Bergh had been the traitor,” said Dr. Bart van der Boom, a history professor at Leiden University.
“Big conclusions demand big proof,” said Johannes Houwink ten Cate, a professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at the University of Amsterdam. “I cannot believe that a member of the Jewish Council traded addresses for freedom. After the Council was abolished, its members were sent to camps, if they did not go into hiding,” he added.
The Amsterdam-based publication company says it should have taken a more critical stance on the publication of the controversial book, according to Reuters.
"We await the answers from the researchers to the questions that have emerged and are delaying the decision to print another run. We offer our sincere apologies to anyone who might feel offended by the book,” the company said in an email.
“This is problematic because the Jewish Council is an organization around which so many misconceptions already exist,” said Laurien Vastenhout, a researcher and lecturer at the National Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies. “The [book’s] investigative team should have been very careful in dealing with this topic. At least, they could have approached a historian who has dealt with the topic and with the archives. They failed to do so.”
“The researchers have not been able to identify who sent the notice to Otto Frank, nor what his/her motives were. Van den Bergh was a prominent Jew, also in postwar Jewish society, and taken into consideration that he had worked for the Jewish Council, someone might have wanted to show him in a bad light,” Vastenhout added.
Another criticism voiced by historians is that the book propagates the problematic idea of “Jews betraying Jews,” and John Goldsmith, president of the Basel-based Anne Frank Fund, said that the claim was comparable to that of a conspiracy theory.
“Perhaps all this will blow over once it’s established that this book proves nothing. But considering the very extensive media coverage, including a spot on ‘60 Minutes,’ the damage might already have been done,” said Van der Boom. “Anne Frank, the worldwide symbol of innocence, was betrayed by a Jew.”
Arnold van den Bergh’s relatives have also been angered by the accusation, saying it destroys his legacy and reputation.
Though books and documentaries have attempted to discover who sold the location of the Frank family to the Nazis, if there even was such a person, many scholars say the possibility of finding such a culprit is unlikely.
“For their own reasons, the Nazis destroyed 95% of their archives relating to the persecution of the Jews, so the one who did the betrayal took the secret with him to his or her grave. If there had even been a betrayal, that is. The Frank family was taking so many risks, so the arrest also may have been the result of lack of caution,” Johannes Houwink ten Cate said.