AMSTERDAM – Dutch publisher of “Anne Frank’s Betrayal”, a new book that scholars have be censured for making inconclusive findings, apologized for “offending anyone” in an email to the book’s authors and said they would delay printing more copies of the book. books until further notice.
Tanja Hendriks, publisher and director of Ambo Anthos Publishers, wrote in an email seen by The New York Times: “A more important stance can be taken here.
“The Betrayal of Anne Frank,” by Canadian author Rosemary Sullivan, published in the United States by HarperCollins, received worldwide media attention upon its January 17 release, was reinforced by a double segment on CBS Network’s “60 Minutes” the night before. HarperCollins declined to comment for this article and Sullivan did not respond to emails and phone calls.
Sullivan’s book follows an investigation led by a retired FBI detective that concludes Arnold van den Bergh, a Jewish notary from Amsterdam, is most likely the informant who revealed the whereabouts. stay of the Frank family for the Nazis.
Dutch experts on World War II and Holocaust history say the authors and investigators lack appropriate evidence to make such allegations and they base their case on leaps of logic , rather than on any hard evidence or forensic science.
Ambo Anthos declined to comment on the email, which says the publisher is reviewing the book’s findings. “We are waiting for answers from the research team to the questions posed,” Hendriks wrote.
Critics of the book, such as World War II historian Bart van der Boom, said the publisher’s decision to delay further printing was a whitewash. “Without a doubt, it will reinforce the view that something is seriously wrong,” van der Boom said in an interview.
He added that he was glad the publisher appeared to have registered the historians’ objections. “The worst case scenario is that there are all kinds of valid criticisms and nothing happens,” he said.
The attempt to identify the traitor Anne Frank was a project run by a company called Proditionwas founded in 2017 by Pieter van Twisk, a media producer, and Thijs Bayens, a documentary filmmaker.
The project was funded by an advance from HarperCollins and a grant from the City of Amsterdam. Twisk did not respond to a request for comment for this article, and Bayens declined.
“The Betrayal” argued that its suspect, van den Bergh, had access to a list of Amsterdam Jews in hiding, compiled by the city’s Jewish Council.
Investigators have produced no evidence that such a list ever existed, nor has any scholar of the Jewish Council ever seen it. Van Twisk, in an earlier interview with The Times, said that there was “situational evidence” that a list existed, but that the three sources whose testimony he cited were all known collaborators of Nazi Germany.
Van der Boom said he found this the most insulting aspect of the “Anne Frank betrayal” argument.
“What bothers me the most is that the idea that the Jewish Council will hide this list of Jews is completely unfounded, and worse, very very unlikely,” he said. “It’s almost unthinkable.”
Emile Schrijver, director of Amsterdam’s Jewish Cultural Quarter, said Ambo Anthos’ email to their writers was “an important first step, albeit taken only in a letter to the author himself.” publisher, not in a news release or an official statement. It is important for international publishers to also rethink and reposition themselves now.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/01/books/anne-frank-the-betrayal.html Dutch publisher apologizes for disputed Anne Frank book