Book: The Betrayal of Anne Frank
Author: Rosemary Sullivan
I started reading this book just prior to all the recent news
coverage and suspension of the Dutch publishing of the book.
Even
before that news broke, by the time I hit
page 30 I had a serious question about the team behind this book.
But
first, I feel it needs to be pointed out that Rosemary Sullivan who wrote this
book was hired by the team to write the book.
Much, if not all, of the book is research the team did. The conclusion, therefore, is the team’s not Sullivan’s. This doesn’t let Sullivan completely off the hook
for the hot mess this book is, but it the team aspect should be noted. The main
members of the team that are most often mentioned are Thijis Bayens, Luc
Gerrits, Pieter van Twisk, Vince Pankoke, and Monique Koemans. Additionally, I
will not be using the name of the notary who was a member of the Jewish Council
during WII because the support for the conclusion that he is guilty is so weak. Also spoilers.
And the team
aspect is important. By page 30, Sullivan
has introduced the major players of the Cold Case Team and not one single member
is a historian whose area of focus is the Holocaust. There are historians but Sullivan describes
them as public historians or “young historians” (and if you look up the young
historians, they are public historians). Now public historians are important because of
their training and knowledge of archives and research. But a specialist in the Holocaust would also
be important. It should be noted that Sullivan
includes not only a list of the team but also a list a consultants, and at
least two of the consultants do seem to specialize in history of the Second World
War. One in art, and another in the
Dutch police. However, a Dutch news
source is reporting that one of the historians is claiming he only spoke with a
member of the team twice and doesn’t know why he was listed as being associated
with the project on a grant application (see here).
A historian
who works in the field of Holocaust studies would have given more depth to the
knowledge of the Jewish Councils as well as the use of Jewish informers by the
Germans and Dutch police to catch other Jews. When dealing with both these issues, the book lack depth and makes very board statements without nuance or even
context. The chapter about Jewish
Councils, for instance, lacks depth, is too general, and seems to be designed
to steer the reader into accepting the later claim put forward about the betrayer without proof.
But it
is not just the lack of a historian that raises questions. There are a few strange pieces, like how the
team leaders seem to be surprised at the friction between the two Anne Frank Trusts
-the one that runs the house (Anne Frank House) and the one that owns the
copyright (Anne Frank Fonds). There was
a lawsuit between the two in 2015, and if the team started research six years ago,
it seems really surprising that the men seem clueless about the issues. Also, while the
Fonds is usually portrayed as the more strictly correct and controlling of the
two foundations (it does really protect copyright), they raise a good point
about the proposed title “A Cold Case Diary: Anne Frank” - it wasn’t just Anne and Otto Frank who were
betrayed – though at times the book seems to put forward that view. There is also a line about how an
investigator looking at outside of the house and knowing that there was secret
place inside as he stands outside of the house a few years ago. While he has a point, it also is strange
because he is standing there with the knowledge of what it was. There also is a line that basically says it
is impossible to find someone in the Netherlands who doesn’t have a connection
to WWII, which seems like a slap to immigrants.
But the
real issue is with the accusation. The Cold
Case Team contends that the Jewish Council had a list of Jews in hiding and
that the notary had access to this list and basically traded it (or a location
on the list) for the lives of himself and his family.
The
first problem is that the story of Jewish Council having a list comes from a
German who also contends that the list was made because Jews in hiding put the hiding
address as the return address on letters. So the source of
the story is suspect.
Second
problem is that no historian of the Holocaust has ever seen such a list
connected to any Jewish Council. The Cold
Case Team has no proof, no document that proves such a list existed.
Thirdly,
the Cold Case Team cannot prove that even if such a list exist (and there is no
proof of such list existing in regards to any Jewish Council) that the Annex
address was on it. The team presumes
that such list existed and assumes that the Annex was on it because an informer
said something. And why the informer
went to the Council and not to the Dutch police or Germans instead is confusing.
Fourthly,
the Cold Case Team presumes because there the notary was not deported and wasn’t
in one of two hiding places, he and his wife were not in hiding even though his
children were. (After reading the book,
I found historians who stated there is proof that the notary and his wife were
in fact in hiding. One is here
Finally,
there is how the book and what seems to be the team deals with granddaughter of
the notary. Sullivan notes that the name
of the woman was changed at her request, and then name of the man who hide her
mother was also not mentioned out of respect for privacy. The granddaughter is described as being her
fifties and having being born after the death of her grandfather (the notary
who died in 1950). We are told that the
notary’s wife (the grandmother) died in 1968 and that the grand daughter had
the task of going though “their Amsterdam home”. Later, we are told that the granddaughter had
no memory of her grandparents speaking about being hidden. The thing is how would she have a memory of
her grandfather saying anything if she was born after he died. Not to mention, if the interviews with the team occurred in
2018 and 2019 and she was in her fifties, how old was she when her grandmother
died? For instance, if the granddaughter
was 60 in 2017, she would have been born in 1957, which meant she was, according
to the book, responsible for cleaning out her grandmother’s house when she was
11.
I’m confused. There is either fudging of dates, translation
issues, or just bad writing here.
Also the
Dutch news is reporting that the granddaughter is saying her grandfather was in
hiding at the time.
Also,
the book moves from using words such as “likely” to describe the suscept to
words that indicate and imply iron clad conviction of guilt on behalf of the
team.
Finally, even before reading the book, I had an issue with
the title and I wonder if it is a Dutch to English translation issue. Betrayal implies something personal. For me (and maybe it is just me), if someone betrayed
you to the Nazis, it was someone you trusted with the knowledge, not someone who
came across the knowledge (who would be an informer). So betrayal is a strange word to use, and it
does seem the Dutch is different because at points Sullivan talks about Dutch
people being charged with betrayal. This
is confusing because she also at times uses betrayal and collaborating interchangeably
or than as two different things. But
more importantly, if giving up a family you had never meet was something you
had to do to save your family, is it a betrayal? And aren’t the Nazis still to blame?
The book
does not seem to consider this point or the pressure put on people to inform
(or how unusual the Annex people in terms of numbers or even the risks those who
hide Jews took).
What is
most surprising about this is that no editor on the HarperCollins team said, “hey,
wait a sec maybe we should have some historian fact checking this shit”. Because this shit is dangerous. You already have jerks saying that the Dutch
publisher is in the pocket of the Jewish conspiracy controlling world bs. No, the book is not peer reviewed or fact checked. It is a bad book. Christ, why the hell didn’t any review pick
up on these problems?
In the end, our talented , dedicated team of investigators, researchers, and volunteers meet our goal: to figure out what happened at Prinsengracht 263. As is common in many cold case investigations, it turned out that a dismissed piece of evidence ended up being the key to solving the nearly eighty-year-old mystery. (297)
The quote does not mention historians but also the phrases used state that the mystery is solved, that they discovered the person who did it. There is not the use of the word likely or such. It is stated as determined and proven without doubt. This is also the case when earlier in the book Sullivan herself writes, "He did not turn over information out of wickedness, or for self-enrichment, as so many others had" (284). Again that sentence is not using likely or a similar word. And even on page 283, " the emergence of [name redacted by me] as the betrayer of just that" - again wording that implies no doubt as to his guilt.
Second blog post about the book is here
Granddaughter's statement is here and here
Comments
Post a Comment