Dutch publisher of book which claims Anne Frank was betrayed by Jewish notary apologises and suspends printing
Book includes findings of a six-year-long investigation that claims the Franks were betrayed
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A Dutch publisher has suspended the printing of a book that suggested that a Jewish notary is “very likely” to have been the person who betrayed the whereabouts of Anne Frank and her family to the Nazis.
The book The Betrayal of Anne Frank: A Cold Case Investigation, by Rosemary Sullivan was published on 18 January.
The book included the findings of a six-year-investigation carried out by around 20 historians, criminologists and data specialists. The book also suggested that businessman Arnold van den Bergh leaked the information that Frank was hiding with her family at her father Otto’s place of work.
The book received backlash from historians and other critics who said that it was full of errors and provided no evidence.
In an internal letter, the book’s Dutch publisher Ambo Anthos said that it is suspending printing.
“At present, the conclusions of the study are being questioned by several researchers. We are very sorry that the content of an edition of our publisher provokes such a reaction.
“As a publisher it is not possible to assess all details of the arguments of a team of researchers and author for correctness or substantiation, but we are responsible for the publication in the Dutch language area.”
“We realise that we have gained momentum through the international publication and that a more critical stance could have been taken here. We are waiting for answers from the research team to the questions that have arisen and are currently delaying the decision to print if necessary.”
One of the investigators quoted in the book, Pieter van Twisk, said to Reuters that he was surprised by the letter.
“We had a meeting last week with the editors and talked about the criticism and why we felt it could be deflected and agreed we would come with a detailed reaction later,” he said.
John Goldsmith, president of the Basel-based Anne Frank Fund, said that the claim the book makes was tantamount to a “conspiracy theory”.
“It contributes not to uncovering the truth but to confusion, and in addition, it is full of errors,” he said to Swiss newspaper Blick am Sonntag.
“Now the main statement is: a Jew betrayed Jews. That stays in the memory and it is unsettling.”
Van den Bergh’s relatives also criticised the investigation and said that he was innocent and that they were “upset” his reputation had been hurt by the claims in the book, reported The Times of Israel.
The Franks were discovered on 4 August 1944, having spent two years hiding in a secret annex attached to what had been Anne’s father Otto’s place of work.
Later her diaries were published by him after he became the only one in the group to survive the war.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments