Anne Frank may have been betrayed by a prominent Jewish businessman who became a Nazi informant to save her own family, a documentary has revealed.
The mystery of who gave away the Frank family hideaway has eluded investigators for decades. But a new CBS poll 60 minutes saw Arnold van den Bergh, who died in 1950, emerge as the “prime suspect”, walkie talkie reported.
Led by former FBI detective Vince Pankoke, the investigation deployed “artificial intelligence to look at massive records to reach conclusions.”
The Franks were in hiding on July 6, 1942 during the “Nazi was hellbent in eliminating all Jews in the Netherlands“As “part of the Final Solution”, CBS speak. At the time, they were “among the 25,000 Jews hiding across the country.”
As recorded in Anne’s diary, they hid in an annex of her father Otto Frank’s barn, where they remained until being raided by Dutch detectives and the SS in August 1944. The last entry in her diary was the date. August 1, 1944.
Anne was sent to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in northern Germany, where she died in early 1945, at the age of 15, possibly from typhus.
Her father was sent to Auschwitz and “was the only one living in the secret annex to survive”, The Telegraph reported. Until his death, he “spent most of his life trying to find out who had led the authorities to the cramped hideout in central Amsterdam”.
Previous attempts to identify the culprit have pointed the finger at Wilhelm van Maaren, a warehouse worker. But Pankoke told CBS that although he was “very cunning” and “suspicious”, there was no evidence that he was anti-Semitic, adding that he had “an incentive not to betray him”. [the family] because if he does, he will lose his job.”
Instead, the new investigation focused on the Jewish Council, an organization set up by the Nazis in Amsterdam to help carry out its policies and find Jews in hiding.
“We know from history that the Jewish Council was disbanded at the end of September 1943 and they were sent to camps,” Pankoke told CBS. “We figured out if Arnold van den Bergh was in a camp somewhere, he certainly couldn’t hide the information that led to the compromise of the addendum.”
When asked if records show he was incarcerated in a concentration camp, he replied: “We could not find Arnold van den Bergh or any of his immediate family members in the prison. those camps. If he’s not in the camp, where is he? ”
Further investigations revealed he was living in Amsterdam, an outcome only possible if he “had some kind of leverage”, he added.
In Time, Daniel Finkelstein described how the team found that van den Bergh had “managed to designate himself as a non-Jew and had left the council”. However, he added that “evidence that the council or he knows such addresses is rather weak”, labeling it as “possible, but speculative”.
According to The Telegraph, his name “appeared in a 1963 Dutch police investigation, but there was little evidence that the ringleader was being tracked”.
Van den Bergh was also mentioned in “an anonymous letter to Otto Frank, which he typed for the record”, the newspaper added. “Copies of Frank’s notes appear in files kept by the son of a member of the Dutch police investigation team” and “have been turned over to CBS.
Pankoke told the broadcaster that while the case was still “episodic”, the evidence gathered in such an old case was “quite convincing”.
Finkelstein of The Times agrees that “it is the facts that matter” and that “all research into what happened to Anne Frank helps fight Holocaust denial”.
He added that Pankoke’s team was “fueled by the feeling that it is now, again, conceivable that people living in formerly civilized countries are finding ways to adapt to undemocratic government.”
https://www.theweek.co.uk/arts-life/culture/history/955433/jewish-businessman-prime-suspect-anne-frank-betrayal Jewish businessman identified as ‘main suspect’ in betrayal of Anne Frank