droog magazine
HOME   

  April 9, 2022

The canard of

The Betrayal of Anne Frank

The defense by


Rosemary Sullivan




By Bart FM Droog

[this page is part of the Betrayal of Anne Frank. A 21st Century Canard files]


In a statement released by her publisher HarperCollins on March 24, 2022, Rosemary Sullivan, the Canadian author of the contested book, responded to the critique by Dutch historians voiced in the report The Betrayal of Anne Frank: A Refutation. Critical Analysis of the Argumentation and Use of Historical Sources.

What she wrote is quite amazing, as can be seen in this commented version of her defense.


[1] Although I was not involved in the research process, I have full confidence in the investigation led by Vince Pankoke into the betrayal of Anne Frank.


How could Ms. Sullivan have confidence in anything she can't check for herself? She doesn't understand Dutch and German, so she was unable to read any original document. She was also unable to understand most of the studies about life in the occupied Netherlands. And, as any academic knows, confidence = belief = opposite to science.


[2] Certain critics have questioned the book’s conclusion: that a Jewish notary Arnold van den Bergh gave a list of anonymous addresses to the SD which included that of the Secret Annex where Anne Frank and her family were hiding.


And why do they question the conclusion? According to NIOD the critics pointed out that the argumentation used in the book to eventually claim Van den Bergh betrayed the Frank family is incorrect. The cold case team, made many assumptions and then builds arguments on those assumptions. This makes the whole thing "a shaky house of cards, because if any single step turns out to be wrong, the cards above also collapse".

And indeed, many single steps turned out to be wrong. 


[3] This conclusion was reached in part because of the lengths to which Otto Frank and Miep Gies went to protect the identity of the betrayer.


The fact that Otto Frank and Miep Gies thought there had been a betrayer doesn't necessarily mean that there had been such a person. And even if there had been a betrayer, the only “evidence” pointing to the notary, is an anonymous note, sent to Otto Frank on an unknown date, somewhere after the war. The first documented evidence of its existence dates from March 31, 1958.


[4] It is the critics who refer to Van den Bergh as a “traitor.” The team is always careful to see him as a victim whose motive was to save his family from deportation and death under the Nazi occupation.


This is an absolute distortion of the truth. In the book 77 times the word "betrayer" is used, repeatedly in connection with Arnold van den Bergh. In interviews after the publication cold case team members as well as Sullivan called the notary repeatedly “the traitor”.


[5] Without requesting a response from Pankoke and his team, the Dutch publisher AmboAthos printed an apology to anyone offended by the book and then withdrew the book.


The proper name is “Ambo Anthos”. Apart from that: what Sullivan mentions here is completely irrelevant to the criticism on the book.


[6] Pankoke has therefore published his rebuttal on the web site: www.coldcasediary.com.


This is another blatant lie. Vincent Pankoke hasn't responded at all on the report by the Dutch historians. His rebuttal was posted on March 21, one day before the historians' report was published. Pankoke's rebuttal is a response to criticism mentioned in earlier publications, and sub-standard reaction at that, based mainly on bluff and distortions.


[7] While new information is continually coming to light, Pankoke has been able to refute the distorted assumptions the critics say the team makes about the wartime Jewish Council, the existence of lists, and other matters.


Another outright lie: Pankoke hasn't refuted anything at all.


[8] The team has also been careful to protect the identity of the granddaughter of Van den Bergh. The way she has been manipulated by the press is regrettable.


This last remark by Ms. Sullivan is an outright insult – to the relatives of Arnold van den Bergh and the press as well. It suffices to refer to the statement by Mirjam de Gorter, Van den Bergh's granddaughter, to realize what mendacious creature this Canadian author really is.


To top of page.