Anne Frank betrayal book pulled after findings discredited(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Anne Frank betrayal book pulled after findings discredited
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60843577
46 comments
> This seems like it is less about concerns about whether the book is true, and more that people did not want the theory to be true.
Not entirely. Here's another article:
https://nltimes.nl/2022/03/22/historians-contradict-findings...
Not entirely. Here's another article:
https://nltimes.nl/2022/03/22/historians-contradict-findings...
[deleted]
It's, at best, speculation, and would probably get the authors sued for libel if the person being speculated about wasn't dead. Now, obviously dead people can't (in most jurisdictions) sue for defamation, and that's probably sensible law, but it's fairly distasteful speculation and it's not surprising that the publisher would pull it, particularly after it was debunked.
People have been speculating about who murdered the Princes In The Tower for hundreds of years. Why isn't that considered "distasteful"? What's so wrong with trying to throw new light on old mysteries? Isn't that why there are historians?
I think time makes a difference there, along with the general character of the people involved. "Twenty generations back one of your ancestors killed some children" isn't likely to be particularly concerning to anyone, particularly when most of the obvious candidates are documented to have done far worse than that anyway.
Accusing someone's grandparent of a heinous crime to sell a book is a bit different, and, well, I mean, nothing's stopping you doing it, it's _legal_, but unless you can prove it (as they appear to have failed to), people aren't going to be too thrilled about it.
Like, this wasn't a sober academic paper, it was a mass-market pop-history book.
Accusing someone's grandparent of a heinous crime to sell a book is a bit different, and, well, I mean, nothing's stopping you doing it, it's _legal_, but unless you can prove it (as they appear to have failed to), people aren't going to be too thrilled about it.
Like, this wasn't a sober academic paper, it was a mass-market pop-history book.
Well, I think that's being hypersensitive.
[Edit] I don't mean you, rsynnott.
My father fought for the British Army in Malaya. I'm not campaigning for the suppression of information about the crimes the brits committed there.
Among my ancestors are people who were in the cotton business, in Liverpool; the ships went from Liverpool (manufactured goods) to the Gold Coast of Africa (sell goods, pick up slaves) to American colonies (sell slaves, buy cotton), and back to Liverpool. I'm not campaigning to block that information either.
[Edit] I don't mean you, rsynnott.
My father fought for the British Army in Malaya. I'm not campaigning for the suppression of information about the crimes the brits committed there.
Among my ancestors are people who were in the cotton business, in Liverpool; the ships went from Liverpool (manufactured goods) to the Gold Coast of Africa (sell goods, pick up slaves) to American colonies (sell slaves, buy cotton), and back to Liverpool. I'm not campaigning to block that information either.
> Isn't that why there are historians?
No, historians are not there to speculate, make up stuff and then act overconfident.
No, historians are not there to speculate, make up stuff and then act overconfident.
Literally paragraph 2:
- Now a new report by a team of World War Two experts and historians has said its research does not stand up to scrutiny.
- The new report into the book contradicted its findings, calling its work "amateurish".
- "There is not any serious evidence for this grave accusation," the experts found.
It's not at all clear to me why an investigation into the identity of the betrayer "tarnished Anne Frank's memory and the dignity of Holocaust survivors". This looks to me like the worst kind of gatekeeping: gentiles aren't allowed to do research on Jewish heroes.
Perhaps the BBC article is just really badly written.
Perhaps the BBC article is just really badly written.
Anne Frank is doubly sad: first you get murdered by the Nazi's, then you get milked over and over again by people trying to make a buck on your legacy.
I'm sick and tired of all these folks that effectively abuse her again and again, and in this particular case that should be doubled because not only do they hitch their wagon to her name (and fame) they also unjustly try to pinpoint the blame for her betrayal to the Germans on a particular individual in a terribly slipshod way.
I'm sick and tired of all these folks that effectively abuse her again and again, and in this particular case that should be doubled because not only do they hitch their wagon to her name (and fame) they also unjustly try to pinpoint the blame for her betrayal to the Germans on a particular individual in a terribly slipshod way.
NoahCohen78(2)
My grandmother was the last living Jew I knew who personally experienced any part the Holocaust. Her father was smart enough see the writing on the wall, and to throw whatever wealth he had at the problem of getting them out of Belgium shortly before it became impossible to do so. I'm sure there are others still alive, but she was a kid when it happened, so there can't be many.
I grew up in a community filled with old Jews, and I knew lots of people with numbers tattooed on their arms. I wonder how the narrative around the holocaust will change once there is nobody left to speak firsthand as to what happened.
I grew up in a community filled with old Jews, and I knew lots of people with numbers tattooed on their arms. I wonder how the narrative around the holocaust will change once there is nobody left to speak firsthand as to what happened.
I read that Israel did a good job documenting everything that happened. I bet you could do a reverse lookup from that number tattooed on them.
Yad Vashem has been recording testimonies for years and years... https://testimonies.yadvashem.org/index.html?search=&languag...
I had aunts, uncles, and various family friends with numbers on their arms. I vividly recall their expression when I asked (I was like 3 or so, late 1960s) if I could get one of those for me. I thought it was cool. I only learned much later, when my older brother came home with a swastika drawn on one of his school binders, what had happened.
This was "the talk". A discussion of the Shoah with my older brother and me, from my parents, who were kids (in the US) during that time. They simplified it somewhat, but it was absolutely horrible regardless.
As an adult, I read about the Evian Conference[1][2]. It was an opportunity to reduce and even, possibly, stop a genocide. All the participants had to do was to open their countries to jewish refugees. Of all of the participants, only 1 did. Not because it was morally the right thing to do. But because he thought it would enrich him.
After learning of many of the rest of the atrocities, the willing/eager participation in these from eastern European countries ... I am generally unwilling to feel sympathetic in the least, towards any country/people/group that participated in this. This includes those jews who turned into collaborators. They are called kapos btw. They existed.
Tieing this all back to today. There is precisely 1 country on the planet that accepts jews from where ever they are as olim, without appealing to other authorities. They enable jews to return from the diaspora to their historical homeland. Had this country existed in 1939, it is unlikely that the Shoah would have happened.
The same forces that allowed, and actively encouraged the Shoah to bloom are play today. Jews are still global targets. Antisemitism has been blossuming.
The difference? We have somewhere to go. And we won't go out quietly into that good night.
As Golda Meir pointed out with regards to our homeland, we have a secret weapon. We have no other place to go. And history has shown that we should never, ever, under any circumstances, trust another nation to provide security.
[1] https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-evian-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference
This was "the talk". A discussion of the Shoah with my older brother and me, from my parents, who were kids (in the US) during that time. They simplified it somewhat, but it was absolutely horrible regardless.
As an adult, I read about the Evian Conference[1][2]. It was an opportunity to reduce and even, possibly, stop a genocide. All the participants had to do was to open their countries to jewish refugees. Of all of the participants, only 1 did. Not because it was morally the right thing to do. But because he thought it would enrich him.
After learning of many of the rest of the atrocities, the willing/eager participation in these from eastern European countries ... I am generally unwilling to feel sympathetic in the least, towards any country/people/group that participated in this. This includes those jews who turned into collaborators. They are called kapos btw. They existed.
Tieing this all back to today. There is precisely 1 country on the planet that accepts jews from where ever they are as olim, without appealing to other authorities. They enable jews to return from the diaspora to their historical homeland. Had this country existed in 1939, it is unlikely that the Shoah would have happened.
The same forces that allowed, and actively encouraged the Shoah to bloom are play today. Jews are still global targets. Antisemitism has been blossuming.
The difference? We have somewhere to go. And we won't go out quietly into that good night.
As Golda Meir pointed out with regards to our homeland, we have a secret weapon. We have no other place to go. And history has shown that we should never, ever, under any circumstances, trust another nation to provide security.
[1] https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-evian-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference
> There is precisely 1 country on the planet that accepts jews from where ever
It is difficult to discuss the history, which is part of the history of anti-semetism. I think it was that anti-semitism and the Evian Conference that directly led to the British Mandate. But if attempting to understand these events, it is difficult because even attempting to talk about what these leaders and many others believed, their belief in stereotypes, draws accusations of anti-semetism. But I am going to risk it, not because it is a valid perspective, but because it happened, it was a common belief that Jewish populations put economic strain on a country by nepotistic practices and hoarding wealth, and this belief was behind the reluctance of the Evian Conference participants to accept refugees; to avoid accepting Jewish refugees, the British Mandate created Israel. The British just grabbed hold of a pre-existing dream of some Jews (Zionism) to return to the "Promised Land," and promoted it. But I think the truth behind this detail of anti-semitism is that the lazy envy the industrious and successful, and unjustly those among Jewish populations that were successful and wealthy became representative of all Jews. The fallacy here is hasty generalization, thus the sentiment was always invalid.
The British Mandate was a very weird thing because it handed victory over the current residents of the area to a conquered (effectively) alien nation. But Israel would not have been able to exist if not for the sheer amount of backbreaking labor and the terraforming of non-arable land by the original settlers (of the 20th Century, but migrations of Jewish populations to the Four Holy cities predated the British Mandate by about 4 centuries).
Contrasting the horrifying treatment of Jewish populations with the horrifying treatment of Native American populations and the horrifying treatment of African populations reveals what is distinct in anti-semitism compared to other forms of racism. It was and is all very very bad, so it is a bit of a shock that anti-Palestinian racism is also a thing and rampant. It seems for every identifiable culture there is a particular flavor of racism. Fundamentally, racism is ignorance and hatred overpowering the ability to reason.
It is difficult to discuss the history, which is part of the history of anti-semetism. I think it was that anti-semitism and the Evian Conference that directly led to the British Mandate. But if attempting to understand these events, it is difficult because even attempting to talk about what these leaders and many others believed, their belief in stereotypes, draws accusations of anti-semetism. But I am going to risk it, not because it is a valid perspective, but because it happened, it was a common belief that Jewish populations put economic strain on a country by nepotistic practices and hoarding wealth, and this belief was behind the reluctance of the Evian Conference participants to accept refugees; to avoid accepting Jewish refugees, the British Mandate created Israel. The British just grabbed hold of a pre-existing dream of some Jews (Zionism) to return to the "Promised Land," and promoted it. But I think the truth behind this detail of anti-semitism is that the lazy envy the industrious and successful, and unjustly those among Jewish populations that were successful and wealthy became representative of all Jews. The fallacy here is hasty generalization, thus the sentiment was always invalid.
The British Mandate was a very weird thing because it handed victory over the current residents of the area to a conquered (effectively) alien nation. But Israel would not have been able to exist if not for the sheer amount of backbreaking labor and the terraforming of non-arable land by the original settlers (of the 20th Century, but migrations of Jewish populations to the Four Holy cities predated the British Mandate by about 4 centuries).
Contrasting the horrifying treatment of Jewish populations with the horrifying treatment of Native American populations and the horrifying treatment of African populations reveals what is distinct in anti-semitism compared to other forms of racism. It was and is all very very bad, so it is a bit of a shock that anti-Palestinian racism is also a thing and rampant. It seems for every identifiable culture there is a particular flavor of racism. Fundamentally, racism is ignorance and hatred overpowering the ability to reason.
> we have a secret weapon. We have no other place to go
This is an excellent point, although I do wish most Jews would Israel would lead by example with their treatment of Palestinians, which currently is a shande
This is an excellent point, although I do wish most Jews would Israel would lead by example with their treatment of Palestinians, which currently is a shande
[deleted]
I watched a show on this, maybe 60 minutes, I can't remember, it was 100% not amateurish.
Well if corporate news says its true it must be then.
The refutation paper (very long fyi) is: https://admin.spui25.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Refutatio...
And the program page for the presentation is here: https://spui25.nl/programma/the-betrayal-of-anne-frank-a-ref...
News sites need to get over their aversion to linking outside of their own domain.
And the program page for the presentation is here: https://spui25.nl/programma/the-betrayal-of-anne-frank-a-ref...
News sites need to get over their aversion to linking outside of their own domain.
> News sites need to get over their aversion to linking outside of their own domain
One of my least favorite things in news today is when sites will say, “A new report from _NPR_” - and NPR is just a link to example.com/category/npr, and not the original source
SEO is genuinely one of the worst things to happen to journalism.
One of my least favorite things in news today is when sites will say, “A new report from _NPR_” - and NPR is just a link to example.com/category/npr, and not the original source
SEO is genuinely one of the worst things to happen to journalism.
Right behind the _free_ part
Agreed. Or perhaps Google is to blame, for disincentivizing the practice.
The book was not discredited, it faced a backlash, this is effectively a false title.
> The book's investigating team suggested a Jewish man called Arnold van den Bergh was responsible for her and her family's arrests during World War Two.
That seems poorly worded. Assigning the 'responsibility' for her arrest to someone other than the people who made her existence illegal is very harsh indeed.
That seems poorly worded. Assigning the 'responsibility' for her arrest to someone other than the people who made her existence illegal is very harsh indeed.
Do not forget it was a national hobby in Holland to sell information on (hidden) jews during WW2.
The initial price was 2,50 (Dutch Guilders) at the start of the war, it went up to 40 towards the end.
Dark numbers are said (no without discussion) to be up to 40% of the jews in hiding where sold out.
The initial price was 2,50 (Dutch Guilders) at the start of the war, it went up to 40 towards the end.
Dark numbers are said (no without discussion) to be up to 40% of the jews in hiding where sold out.
A third of the Jews that went into hiding were caught and deported, speculation is that these were betrayed but there isn't any solid proof for this, just a lot of circumstantial evidence, and the Germans were pretty rigorous with their house-to-house searches which would span entire neighborhoods. The very best case for this is one built by Ad van Liempt, but it definitely isn't uncontroversial, as is van Liempt himself, who has more than once been labelled 'careless'.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_van_Liempt
To portray this as a 'national hobby' is beyond disgusting, a very small fraction (Van Liempt identified a band of about 50 individuals) of the Dutch population ended up collaborating with the Germans on this, the bulk did what they could under exceedingly dangerous circumstances risking their own lives and the lives of their families in order to help others.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_van_Liempt
To portray this as a 'national hobby' is beyond disgusting, a very small fraction (Van Liempt identified a band of about 50 individuals) of the Dutch population ended up collaborating with the Germans on this, the bulk did what they could under exceedingly dangerous circumstances risking their own lives and the lives of their families in order to help others.
Is it? The claims of this book are disputed, but in general I see no issue with stating that those who collaborated with the Nazi regime are responsible for the consequences.
Those who shared information with the Gestapo about where Jews were hiding were knowing accomplices in genocide.
Those who shared information with the Gestapo about where Jews were hiding were knowing accomplices in genocide.
It's easy enough to say "led the gestapo to" or whatever is actually being claimed by the book.
They can be responsible for that, if there is evidence to support it, without being responsible for the arrest. Holding the jewish person at the end of the long chain of actions 'responsible' for the whole situation doesn't really seem that much different from blaming the victims themselves.
They can be responsible for that, if there is evidence to support it, without being responsible for the arrest. Holding the jewish person at the end of the long chain of actions 'responsible' for the whole situation doesn't really seem that much different from blaming the victims themselves.
If he hadn't been Jewish, does it make a difference?
Yes?
Apparently the theory is that he gave up this family to save his own family, which is a horrific situation to be in. So even if we knew this is what actually happened, and we don't, it's an obvious mitigating circumstance.
Apparently the theory is that he gave up this family to save his own family, which is a horrific situation to be in. So even if we knew this is what actually happened, and we don't, it's an obvious mitigating circumstance.
No, but it adds insult to injury. Keep in mind that the Germans used all kinds of pressure including the deportation or execution of family members to get people to betray others.
Sure, but how do you hold anyone accountable then? OPs language sounded like a rephrase of "just following orders"
There were extensive legal proceedings post WWII here, the only way people got away with stuff like that is if they fled abroad, even well into the 80's collaborators and other people that betrayed the local population were discovered and tried and convicted.
But this sort of 'posthumous trial by media' is revolting in its own right, especially because the instigators are simply trying to make a buck off the back of Anne Frank (they're not the first and likely won't be the last).
But this sort of 'posthumous trial by media' is revolting in its own right, especially because the instigators are simply trying to make a buck off the back of Anne Frank (they're not the first and likely won't be the last).
When the news of the 'discovery' first broke I assumbed it would be proven wrong mainly because they were touting that it was their AI that had finally helped them cracked the case.
This seems like it is less about concerns about whether the book is true, and more that people did not want the theory to be true.
I find this trend of conflating the two very problematic.
And to be honest, even if Anne Frank was betrayed by a Jewish man to save his own family, it in no way makes the Holocaust any less horrific and in no way excuses any of the guilt of the Nazis. I think it actually makes it more tragic in that people were faced with ethical and moral choices they should never have been faced with. (Having to decide between the lives of strangers and the lives of your family is a horrendous choice)