Reaction to the book The Betrayal of Anne Frank

 While there have been articles and responses in the Dutch press about the recent book The Betrayal of Anne Frank by Rosemary Sullivan, much of the US press has stayed quiet about the controversary and issues surrounding the book as well as the methods of the investigative team. This was true even before the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.

   By and large, most of the English reviews and comments about the book appear to be largely positive or simply promotional.  As someone who has read the book and had issues with it, I find these to be a bit eyebrow raising.  For instance, few reviews of any type (formal and informal) point out the lack of Holocaust historian on the team.  Even if you are not an expert on the Holocaust, this should have been a point of note.  Additionally, even some readers consider such a lack of an expert unimportant.  

In some ways, especially considering the current invasion of the Ukraine, this is unimportant.  But as someone who does teach and who does teach the use of sources, the disregard and disinterest of the response to the book is a bit disturbing.  Readers can enjoy the book, but the lack of critical thinking is problematic simply because, in part, this is how false history sometimes becomes the history that everyone knows.  

This post contains links as well as descriptions of articles that discuss the problems with the book.  Please bear in mind that many are in Dutch, and some may have been moved behind paywalls (or the newspaper has a limit on the number of few articles a month).  Also I will most likely be updating this post when new articles are printed.

The best English language look at the response to the book has been a series published by Bureau Droog which includes not only a comprehensive source listing but also likes to statements by the Cold Case Team and Rosemary Sullivan.  I highly recommend starting with this.

The Anne Frank House released a statement as did the Anne Frank Fonds.

On Jan 18, 2022, Dutch historian Bart Wallet tweeted a thread that examined the claim of the book.  Wallet is a Professor of Early and Modern Jewish History at the University of Amsterdam.  Read the tweet thread.  Wallet is also part of the group that is presenting a refutation to the book.  You can see that information here

On Jan 19, 2022, filmmaker and member/leader of several Dutch Jewish organization, Ruben Vis published an op-ed piece.  The original piece can be found here and a more recent version here.  Vis also did an podcast for The Candian Jewish News.  The podcast is also in response to Sullivan's own interview with the News (a link for this is at the bottom of the Vis podcast page).

The embargo that reviewers were placed under when copies were sent them was written about by Emile Schrjiver here

At the end of January, Ester Voet published a piece in Nieuw Isrealietisch Weekbald that details the controversary as well as looks at the impact of the book.  Additionally historian Pieter van den Heede of Erasmus University in Rotterdam, publishes an essay about the book and the importance of context.  It makes for an interesting read.  Another essay about history vs collective memory was written by Bart van der Boom.  The essay discusses how collective memory views Jewish Councils.  It is important because the section about the Councils in the book is very, very general.

At the beginning of February, the Dutch newspaper De Trouw reported that the Cold Case Team used the names of experts without those experts' knowledge when applying for a grant application.  here.  Additionally, the Cold Case team starts to respond to the criticism both in the news and on their website

The Dutch publisher announced  that it was suspending publication of the book, though some people declare that the book is still widely available.  The publisher also offered an apology  The German publication of the book will include annotations and notes

Writing for The Center of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Remco Ensel summarizes the team's research and the criticism surrounding it.

On the 15 of February, Dutch journalist Natasha Gerson published her first piece about the book.  She is continuing to take a in depth look at all the evidence presented.  She publishes in various news outlets and on Medium.  Her work challenges not only the conclusion of the Cold Case Team but also the presentation of the history in the book and other claims by the team itself - including in a more recent article about the interview with Miep Giles that is detailed as the "aha" moment in the book.  Gerson has also tweeted regularly about the book.

One of the rare American comments on reaction to the book can be found in True Crime Trashes the Holocaust where Jonathan S. Tobin looks at the impact of true crime on Anne Frank (this is now behind a paywall, so try library access.  It is an excellent article).

The granddaughter of the accused notary did an interview with De Trouw where her view of her interactions with the Cold Case Team are discussed. 

On March 22,  a team of Dutch historians, including Bart Wallet, Bart van der Boom, and Laurien Vastenhout will present a refutation of the book.  You can register for the event or livestream here.  Vastenhout has stated that the report (Dutch-English dual language) will be publicly available. It also seems likely that it will be on Youtube as well.

Edited on 3/22/2022 - Natasha Gerson has published another piece on her Medium space in response to another posting on the Cold Case webpage.

Edited on 3/24 - In wake of the refutation done on the 22, the Dutch publisher has halted publication.  Harper Collins is apparently not going to do so.  The actual refutation is pretty damning and can be found here (link is to the English version).  The video of the presentation is done in English and includes remarks from the granddaughter.  The refutation includes information about the infamous note that features prominently with the Cold Case Team as well as evidence that the notary and his family were in hiding.  It is rigorously footnoted and has been peer-reviewed.  The refutation also gives a more detail and footnoted presentation of the Jewish Council of Amsterdam and whether or not the council had lists of Jews in hiding.  Quite frankly, in newer printings of the book, HarperCollins should include either the refutation itself, a summary of it, or direct readers to it.