droog magazine
HOME   

  March 29, 2022

The canard of

The Betrayal of Anne Frank (6)

Despite devastating report

sale book continues


Independent expert report devastating about 'The Betrayal of Anne Frank". Granddaughter of civil-law notary Arnold van den Bergh calls for the removal of the book from circulation. Dutch publisher withdraws book. American publishing multinational persists in selling its book. New defence of Rosemary Sullivan and the cold case team. Planned theatre play as well. Cause tunnel vision. Tool against bullshit books.

By Bart FM Droog

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

On Tuesday 22 March 2022, six historians, all of them specialised in the period of occupation of the Netherlands and the persecution of the Jews in particular, presented the research report 'The Betrayal of Anne Frank: A Refutation Critical Analysis of the Argumentation and Use of Historical Sources'.

This report is about the investigation of the so-called cold case team (CCT) and the book The Betrayal of Anne Frank by Canadian author Rosemary Sullivan.

The professional historians have focused on the main theme of the investigation and the book; the assertion that in 1944 the Jewish civil-law notary Arnold van den Bergh betrayed the people in hiding in the Secret Annex. They judge:

“The CCT has turned the betrayal of the Secret Annex into a thrilling cold case. Unfortunately, it is clear that the investigation was conducted amateurishly and, due to misinterpretation and tunnel vision, also wrongly identifies Arnold van den Bergh as Anne Frank's betrayer.”

To top of page.

Shaky house of cards

The report states that “the book displays a distinct pattern in which assumptions are made by the CCT, held to be true a moment later, and then used as a building block for the next step in the train of logic. This makes the entire book a shaky house of cards, because if any single step turns out to be wrong, the cards above also collapse. Furthermore, almost all the steps in the process for developing the argument are based on speculation, not just one of them.”

 The compilers of the report concur with the earlier criticism of the investigation and the book.

With all this criticism came the call from Mirjam de Gorter, granddaughter of the wrongly accused notary, to the publishers to take the book out of circulation.

Almost immediately after the presentation of the report, Ambo Anthos, publisher of the Dutch translation of the book, reported:

“Based on the conclusions of this report, we have decided that effective immediately, the book will no longer be available. We will call upon bookstores to return their stock. We would once again like to offer our sincere apologies to everyone who has been offended by the contents of this book.”

To top of page.


HarperCollins persists in sale

HarperCollins, the American-British publishing multinational with subsidiaries all over the world, shows the day after the publication of the report that it does not care about all the criticism and feelings of the relatives: with great fanfare it announced the launch of the Polish translation. In a message distributed by the Polish news agency PAP it says:

“The premiere the world has been waiting for with bated breath: "Who Betrayed Anne Frank" by Rosemary Sullivan is now in bookstores.”

HarperCollins, which according to The Guardian wants to publish the book in more than 20 languages, initially refused to respond. Only two days later, the company says it will continue to publish the book and mentions:

“While we recognize there has been some criticism to the findings, the investigation was done with respect and the utmost care for an extremely sensitive topic.”

Shortly afterwards, HarperCollins executives in Denmark, Norway, Portugal and Sweden declared that sales of the translation published there would continue.

To top of page.

Statement by Rosemary Sullivan

On 24 March, writer Rosemary Sullivan also issued a statement, which - as far as we know - was only published in full by the Canadian book blogger Steven Beattie:

“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.

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. 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. 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.

Without requesting a response from Pankoke and his team, the Dutch publisher AmboAthos [sic] printed an apology to anyone offended by the book and then withdrew the book. Pankoke has therefore published his rebuttal on the web site: www.coldcasediary.com.

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. 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.”

To top of page.

What is the truth of Sullivan's defence?

What is true about Sullivan's bold statements? Did CCT leader Vincent Pankoke actually refute earlier criticism? According to the compilers of the critical report, no:

"The CCT responded in a few ‘rebuttal statements’ in which it reiterates its own views, without addressing the criticism directed at the argumentation and content. On the contrary, it even tried to evade this entirely by claiming that its investigation was forensic in nature, rather than one based on historical analysis. That may be so, but even forensic evidence must ultimately stand the test of expert academic and scientific criticism."

This is about Pankoke's first defence, in February. Just before the presentation, the former FBI agent published another defence, on 21 March. It is notable that he does not name either the critics or the articles in which the objections about the investigation and book are made, making it impossible for most readers to check what he claims. Those who can, see that Pankoke comes up with wrong data, again piles up assumption after assumption and sometimes even completely distorts things. At the end of his defence he writes:

“Until now, we have not been presented with any piece of evidence or any new information that had enough strength to challenge our conclusion. That does not mean that we are blind to new information. In fact, we are very open to challenges, rational and respectful discussion, and are continually following up on leads sent to us. The Van den Bergh scenario is, in our opinion, still the most viable theory about the betrayal of the Prinsengracht 263.”

This is a mockery in itself. None of the questions I asked the cold case team in several e-mails from 1 February were answered. Open to discussion? Really...

To top of page.

High level of denial

The defence of the Dutch cold case team leaders has an equally high level of denial. Pieter van Twisk told RTL Nieuws that as far as he is concerned, the notary remains "the prime suspect":

 "We have investigated 30 scenarios, 25 of them were turned down. The scenario that Van den Bergh passed on the lists to the Nazis remains the most likely for us."

"This critical report is also full of 'interpretation'", emphasises Van Twisk. For example, he says he has proof that a daughter of the family was in Amsterdam in 1945, while according to the researchers she was in hiding.

"It remains a matter of argument. I maintain that our story is a strong one. There are some dents in it, but we are not taking it back."

Earlier, Thijs Bayens, with Van Twisk the initiator of the project, had stated in the NRC of 4 February:

"We have been taken to task by the community of historians over the past two weeks. But we have done exactly what we announced six years ago. We approached this case as a cold case - which it is - and not as a historical investigation. It was led by an FBI man, we used his methodology. He is the investigator in charge, and he determined with his expertise of 50 years of police work what he was going to do."

To top of page.

"Some dents"? The whole investigation is in ruins.

The defences of the CCT members and the writer also raise the question of what this CCT was really all about. It was set up by Dutch TV and film producers Pieter van Twisk and Thijs Bayens, with Luc Gerrirts as the financial man. The goal: make a spectacular international TV series to sell to Netflix, History or other Hitler channels. For this purpose, the American former detective Vincent Pankoke (ex-FBI) and the Australian former detective Brendan Rook (ex-murder cases and ex-International Criminal Court) were hired. If you look at photos of this pair, you will see that they are photogenic. And native English speakers. With a seemingly relevant work experience.

But is that really the case? Neither of them knows anything about the functioning of the Dutch police forces in 1945-1964. Neither of them has the faintest idea of what happened in the Netherlands during the Second World War and the immediate post-war years. Moreover, Pankoke stated that he had not previously handled any cold case cases older than five years. And: neither of them is fluent in the Dutch language - and as far as we know - that also applies to German.

What is also striking is that the historians in the team were almost all young attractive women (selected for suitability for supporting roles in the planned TV series?) studying for or graduated as "public historians".

To top of page.

Public history?

What is “public history?” It is taught at the University of Amsterdam. The UvA says about it: "You think about how history can best be shared with an intended audience, and work with professionals on tangible products."

In other words: a "public historian" is a kind of glorified public relations employee. This is a strong indication that the primary aim is to create a commercially attractive and sensational product.

This is not to say that public historians are not thorough researchers, but given their age, any criticism of them will quickly be smothered in a. the authoritarian leadership within the team and b. the pursuit of a sensational result.

Cause of tunnel vision

Mariëtte van den Hoven and Bert Theunissen in Trouw: "From the start of the investigation into the Frank family traitor, it has been clear that a documentary maker would be interested in the results. Another intended outcome is a book for a broad audience. Beautiful valorisation (knowledge utilisation) is what it is called in academic jargon. But this did increase the pressure to come up with something spectacular. Who would be interested in a documentary or public book whose conclusion is that there is actually no conclusion? This external pressure got in the way of good research: an offender had to be found, and that led to tunnel vision."

And that's the way it is. Without a sensational result, no international TV series. No bestseller. And no theatre production - because that is also what the producers were aiming for - as the Historisch Nieuwsblad reported last week.

To top of page.

The language barrier

Vincent Pankoke is an American. Brendan Rook is an Australian. Rosemary Sullivan is a Canadian. The other team members were Dutch. Almost all relevant documents were in Dutch or German. This meant that absolutely everything had to be translated for the English-speaking team members, who had no knowledge of linguistics. Since there is the potential for corruption in any translation, this is - as we argued in Part 4 of this series - a sure-fire recipe for a total botch job.

The finding of the CCT team.

In the report presented last week, the CCT gets a few compliments for its "drive and sleuthing." There are a few things to be said against that. The discovery of the much-discussed copy of the anonymous note, for instance, is not the result of a brilliant search and ditto detective work, but is based on following a strain of logic.

Every real cold case investigator (whether police officer or crime reporter) knows that in old cases you can often find more information from police officers who were previously on the case than in the archives. The police archives in the Netherlands are regularly cleaned up and only (parts of) official reports that are used in court cases are archived.
In high-profile, unsolved cases, there is always a good chance that investigators have retained copies of documents (or even the entire file) or that their relatives still do. Tracing relatives is quite easy these days - so no: I would not call it exemplary detective work.

To top of page.

How to proceed?

Now that HarperCollins stubbornly refuses to withdraw the book and continues to make unfounded accusations against the notary, the immediate next of kin (which includes grandchildren) can sue the publisher for defamation. The head office is in the United States, the land of big damage claims and lawyers who handle such cases on a no cure no pay basis.

As far as Germany is concerned, the main question is whether Jürgen Welte, the publisher of Verlagsgruppe HarperCollins who took office in July 2019, dares to break the agreement that his predecessor Ralf Markmeier made with the American parent company on the publication of the German version.

In Amsterdam, it remains to be seen what will be the outcome of the municipality's investigation into the possibility of reclaiming the EUR 100,000 subsidy granted to the cold case team in 2017.
In the Netherlands, the book has been bought by thousands of people. It can be found in many a public library. The insert that Ambo Anthos had added to the book a few weeks after it was published is in all likelihood not in the library copies. It would be a good idea for librarians to place this warning sticker on their copies:



To top of page.

A glimmer of hope?
Sven Felix Kellerhoff, the first journalist/historian to raise serious questions about The Betrayal of Anne Frank on the very day it was published, wrote in Welt last Thursday that there was no need to refer to the blatant deception of Hitler's diaries, because blunders like this were also made by other reputable publishers, who published books such as Hitler's Bomb by Rainer Karlsch, IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black or Hitler's Willing Executioners by Daniel J. Goldhagen. Kellerhoff:

“In all these cases, the sensationalist authors were quickly scientifically debunked. That is the positive thing about such scandals: The public functions as a corrective authority. Sometimes better, sometimes worse, certainly - but still.”

That may be so - but knowledge among the public (and scientists) is fleeting. If books such as The Betrayal of Anne Frank, the idiotic Hitler's Diamonds, the fraudulent Flowers of Evil. Poems of Dictators (which includes fake Hitler poems) and Stephen R. Pastore's The Complete paintings of Adolf Hitler have been put into circulation, they will continue to pop up in libraries for decades, doing their poisonous work.

Continuous warning against certain works is therefore a must. The bullshit book sticker is a useful instrument for this.

To top of page.


This article was co-facilitated by Steunfonds Freelance Journalisten.

This article is  a translation of 'Ondanks vernietigend rapport blijft HarperCollins wereldwijd bullshitboek verkopen. De canard van 'Het verraaad van Anne Frank'. De Tweede Wereldoorlog als industrie (3-VI)', Reporters Online, Haarlem, March 28, 2022.
Translation: Droog Magazine, with special thanks to W.M. Groenewegen.

To top of page.