Chi ha tradito Anne Frank. Indagine su un caso mai risolto

by Rosemary Sullivan

Avvalendosi di tecnologie all'avanguardia, nuovi documenti e sofisticate tecniche investigative, un team internazionale ha fatto luce su uno dei grandi misteri irrisolti della Seconda guerra mondiale.

Più di trenta milioni di persone in tutto il mondo hanno letto il Diario di Anne Frank, la tredicenne ebrea che affidò alle pagine di tre quaderni la storia dei due anni trascorsi nascosta con la famiglia e altre quattro persone nella casa segreta ricavata nel retro di un edificio di Amsterdam, fino a quando i nazisti non li arrestarono tutti e li mandarono in un campo di concentramento. Eppure, nonostante il gran numero di saggi, articoli, opere teatrali e romanzi che sono stati scritti su Anne e la sua storia, nessuno è mai riuscito a spiegare come otto persone siano potute vivere nascoste per tutto quel tempo senza essere scoperte, né chi o che cosa abbia portato la polizia alla loro porta.

Un team di investigatori guidati dall'ex agente dell'FBI Vincent Pankoke ha vagliato un'enorme quantità di documenti, alcuni mai esaminati prima, e intervistato i discendenti di molte persone che conoscevano i Frank. Avvalendosi delle più moderne tecniche di indagine sviluppate dall'FBI, la Squadra Casi Irrisolti ha ricostruito i mesi che hanno portato all'arresto degli inquilini della casa segreta, giungendo infine a una scioccante conclusione. Chi ha tradito Anne Frank. Indagine su un caso mai risolto è la storia della loro missione. Rosemary Sullivan ci presenta gli investigatori che hanno collaborato al caso, spiega il comportamento dei prigionieri e di coloro che li catturarono, stila un profilo psicologico dei principali sospettati, e descrive con straordinaria efficacia come si viveva in tempo di guerra ad Amsterdam... una città in cui a prescindere da quanto eri ricco, istruito o prudente, non sapevi mai di chi ti potevi fidare.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, True Crime, Audiobook, Holocaust, World War II, Historical

480 pages, Hardcover

First published January 18, 2022

About the author

Rosemary Sullivan is a Canadian poet, biographer, and anthologist. She is also a professor emerita at University of Toronto.

Reviews

[Erin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have sat on this review for a few days after completing my reading. I have read other people's reviews and the mixed reactions from the reading community. I also expanded my research to include a slew of articles from a variety of countries( Canada, United States, England, Israel, Germany) discussing the criticism of the book as well as the apologies of the Dutch publisher.

This is what I know for sure- The Diary of Anne Frank is perhaps one of those milestone reads of many a school child in many countries. As pointed in the book, so many people in the world feel deeply connected to Anne and because of that any book, report, or film is going to draw us in. I never read the diary in school, rather, it was my mother that gave me her copy and I always say that it was a life changing read. But yes, I also feel very protective of her legacy and that of all her family, including her father, Otto, the only survivor of the Annex. In 2015, I visited Israel and I met Anne's friend, Hanneli Goslar. Goodread friends, the emotion I felt to meet her. But that's a different story.

This is what I also know- Rosemary Sullivan was approached to write the details of the investigation. So it is not her research. Why then vilify her? Some articles claim that it is because it is pure sensationalism and it can do a lot of harm. Sullivan does tell the Globe and Mail that even she had a concern that aspects of the investigation; specifically who they believe is responsible for revealing that Jewish people were hiding at Prinsengracht 263 would be fuel for Anti-Semites.

Definition of betrayal
: the act of betraying someone or something or the fact of being betrayed : violation of a person's trust or confidence, of a moral standard, etc.

Betrayal. Anne Frank, her sister Margot, her mother Edith, her father Otto, Peter and his parents, the dentist, Fritz Pfeffer. They were BETRAYED. Their hiding place was discovered and only Otto would survive the horrors that they would all face. As I read this book, I cried and thought about how much that father and husband and friend was haunted. How every time he saw women his daughter's ages it must have caused much heartache. As the book discusses, immediately after the war, Otto desired the reunion of his children. Upon learning of their deaths, he wanted answers. Of course, he wasn't alone, so too did so many. And readers of The Diary of Anne Frank, well, we all wanted to know as well.

I think this too- We have been very good as a species as wanting to identify blame. We want to hold people accountable. Who were the perpetrators? Who are the survivors? A world of black and white, we like that. But it is also argued that there are a lot of grey areas and those who declare neutrality, often turn out to not be that neutral. We also have the bystanders and well, they tend to be the group that we, as a species have difficulty really pinning down.

Because it is the morality of it all. How could a person betray another person? Why would we put another human life in danger? Are the lives of our own family members more important than the lives of another persons? Well, aren't these questions unsettling? I know, I know, the mere fact I am asking these types of questions I am venturing into some pretty murky waters. I can lean back and assess and say " Am I passing a judgement?" " Do I consider that I wouldn't do the same in the exact situation?" What a tightrope we walk as a species!

I know that this has turned into something not even resembling a review. I guess I am just sharing everything that is on my mind. If you were expecting that I would tell you not to waste your time, I am not really one of those reviewers. If you are like me and you are curious, give it a read. For me, I kept turning the pages. I couldn't stop reading it. I was drawn in, I am human, I wanted a name or names. Does that make me guilty of falling into the sensational aspect of the book? Perhaps, it does.

In conclusion🤣 I read it. It gave me a lot to consider. I don't have all the answers. I hope that people who haven't read The Diary of Anne Frank will read it. Then, read the stories of other survivors. Learn about the helpers. Visit the holocaust museums in your country, province, state. Make sure we don't forget about the Holocaust. Keep reading and keep learning. ❤❤❤


Goodreads review published 26/02/22

[Ruben · Rating 3 out of 5]

***This review contains spoilers***

I read this non-fiction account of a cold case investigation into the betrayal of Anne Frank because it has been making headlines in the past weeks.

It claims, rather boldly, to have discovered the betrayer, thanks to the work of a cold case team that used modern investigation techniques and the involvement of a real FBI-agent... Following publication the book has attracted a lot of criticism from a wide variety of scholars and historians.

I went in with an open mind, but having finished the book I consider myself firmly in the camp of the critics: there is simply far too little proof to point the finger at the Jewish notary Van den Bergh. I think everybody with a healthy degree of common sense would come to the same conclusion.
There would not have been a problem if the investigators had simply said: 'we are not sure, but we believe there is a possibility he betrayed the Franks.' But they are much, much, much too bold in their conclusions, and that is very problematic given the consequences of their conclusion.

If the evidence they gathered were put in front of a judge there is no way Van den Bergh would be convicted. The only real piece of evidence is a copy of an anonymous(!) note. It could well have been Van den Bergh, but it could also very well not have been him. And for such a strong claim one needs to come up with strong evidence, especially because Van den Bergh was a Jew.

On the book:

Is it a pageturner? Absolutely, it is fascinating to learn more about the Frank family, the Amsterdam of WWII, how it was governed by the Nazis and how they used Dutch Nazis to track down Jews in hiding.

Is it well written? Not really, it is mostly a straightforward account, but the continuous praise of the investigative team is a bit nauseating. Attempts at instilling the horrors of the war in the reader feel artificial. Overall there is a rushed feeling to it. What is well done are the cliffhangers and build up of tension: the true crime lover in me had a great time.

Was it a good investigation? My impression is that the investigation went as far as it could and no stone was left unturned. However, it feels like the investigators thought they needed a strong conclusion in order to justify their efforts (and expenses?) and unfortunately the conclusion does not fit with the findings.

[Bel Rodrigues · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5 ⭐

jurídico miep gies.

[Lindsay L · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 stars!

A fascinating, eye-opening, thought-provoking look into one of the worst times in history.

This investigative book follows a Cold Case Team working toward uncovering the person(s) responsible for giving up the location of the Secret Annex where Anne Frank and her family and family friends hid for over two years.

There was much to consider while reading this. Various thoughts and theories are presented and investigated. There was so much secrecy, espionage and bartering that happened during this time — a lot of which was done to save loved ones. There is no telling what we would do in these brutal and devastating situations, though I’m sure we all would like to say we would never betray a friend. There are many people and theories introduced within these pages that I had not heard of or considered before, some of which include cell espionage and V-frau informants.

I know there is controversy surrounding this book. I do not know the particulars of all of the criticisms other than some dates don’t line up and there is no solid proof of some theories the Cold Case Team concluded. Please note, I am not reviewing and analyzing the answers presented by the Cold Case Team, only giving my honest review of my experience reading this book. This book gave me a lot to ponder and shared some interesting information. I found many great takeaways. I am simply sharing my personal thoughts as a reader and do not wish to partake in any discussion about the validity of the conclusions presented.

Audio rating: 5 stars! The audio narrator was excellent and added to my enjoyment.

Thank you to my lovely local library for the audio loan!

[Christine · Rating 1 out of 5]

(Please see the Update at the end of the review)

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 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 described as 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 historian 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 a claim put forward 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, it seems really surprising that the men seem clueless about the issues, which is strange considering. 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 stand 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 return address. So the source of the story is a bit 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 hiding. 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 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?

Editing to add a link to comments from the Anne Frank Fonds here

Additional edit to include the following links that discuss errors in the book.

medium article

Welt


Additional comment about Cold Case Team's statement on the criticism -

The Cold Case team has put together a letter that attempts to answer some of the charges put forward by historians. Historians have already challenged several of the statements, but I would like to point it out that it is well and good that the note says that they only said the notary was the main suscept. However the following quote is from the Afterword of the book. The Afterword was written by Vince Pankoke:


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.

Update
A team of historians has done a paper refuting the work of the Cold Case Team, and the Dutch publisher has totally ceased publication of the book. I highly suggest watching the presentation, at least. You can find it here. The presentation is in English. The report itself is available as a free download in both English and Dutch. You can find it after the author bios.

[Sharon Orlopp · Rating 5 out of 5]

5+++ stars!!

I was captivated with the following passages early in the book:

"Real tools of war; not only physical violence but rhetorical violence."

The report from the US Office of Strategic Services on how Hitler was able to seize control:
* Never admit a fault or wrong
* Never accept blame
* Concentrate on one enemy at a time
* Blame the enemy for everything that goes wrong
* Take advantage of every opportunity to raise a political whirlwind

"Soon hyperbole, extremism, defamation, and slander become commonplace and acceptable vehicles of power."

The Holocaust is "like a Petri dish to examine how people brought up in freedom react to a catastrophe."

"The majority simply try to keep their heads down."

The Frank family and friends hid for 25 months, 761 days, until a call was placed to senior German leaders in Amsterdam which resulted in a raid that uncovered their hiding place on August 4, 1944. There were eight people in hiding with the Frank family. All eight of them were transported on September 3, 1944 to Auschwitz. It was the last transport during the war from Camp Westerbork to Auschwitz. All perished except for Otto Frank, Anne's father.

A team of 23 experts comprised of investigators, historians, researchers, homicide detectives, leaders of cold cases, retired detectives, university interns, behavioral scientists, and a retired FBI leader spent five years researching documents and interviewing family members and friends across many nations to determine who betrayed the Frank family.

Part of the drive to try to determine how the Frank family was betrayed is the healing potential in finding the historical truth. And because "the present is never far from the past."

Before World War II, the Netherlands was viewed as a very tolerant country, yet 73% of the Jews in the Netherlands died which is a big contrast to 40% in Belgium, 25% in France, and 8% in Italy. One reason for the high percentage of Jewish deaths in the Netherlands was due to Dutch civil registration which required every citizen to list their religion since religious groups received government funding based on their membership.

There were 140,000 Jews in the Netherlands when the war started; 107,000 were deported. 5,500 returned after the war. That meant there were approximately 25,000 - 30,000 Jews hiding in the Netherlands during the war and German police officers focused aggressively on locating them.

There had been two official police investigations into who betrayed the Franks. One was conducted in 1947 - 1948 and another one was conducted in 1963 - 1964. In addition, there had been multiple other researchers and authors who investigated and determined who they thought had betrayed the Franks. Each book named a different person as the betrayer.

The team that was assembled reviewed all previous investigations, notes, book drafts, interviews, etc. They also utilized artificial intelligence technology, courtesy of Microsoft and Xomnia. This allowed the team to collect millions of data about the case and make connections among people, buildings and events that hadn't been done before. AI technology was able to show people from that time period in the specific Frank neighborhood and highlight who was part of the Nazi regime based on a threat category assessment. The speech part of Microsoft's AI program was able to convert video and audio recordings to text and have them searchable. The AI database could connect all relevant documents with specific addresses.

It was like combining gum-shoe detective work with lightening fast, data intensive technology to arrive at potential betrayers. The team also utilized crowdsourcing and appealed to the public to provide any knowledge they might have. This created a steady stream of tips.

All of these efforts began to form a narrative which created an initial list of 30 potential betrayers. The list was narrowed down to twelve after considerable due diligence on each person. For each possible betrayer, they utilized law enforcement's axiom "motive, knowledge, and opportunity" to thoroughly examine each scenario.

The story unfolds like a great thriller. There is terrific historical context as well as detailed due diligence about individuals who were identified as a potential betrayer.

Otto Frank's primary goal with bringing his daughter's diary to the global public's attention was that he wanted people to remember so that it wouldn't happen again.

Miep Gies, one of Otto's employees who helped the Frank family survive while in hiding, became Otto's spokesperson after he died. She summed it up beautifully:
" The message to take from Anne's story is to stop prejudice and discrimination right at its beginning. Prejudice starts when we speak about THE Jews, THE Arabs, THE Asians, THE Mexicans, THE Blacks, THE Whites. This leads to the feeling that all members of each such group think and act the same."

I highly recommend this book so that history doesn't repeat itself and for all the leadership and life lessons that are shared in The Betrayal of Anne Frank.

[Diane S ☔ · Rating 3 out of 5]

I knew there was a controversy surrounding this book and that it had been pulled by the Netherlands, but did not know the details. I decided to listen to the audio before investigating exactly what happened and what the objections were in that country. Obviously, it hasn't been
Pulled here. It's been many years since I read The Diary of Anne Frank and while I don't remember every detail there are just some books one doesn't forget.

I thought this filled in many of the blanks, providing new information and details in an investigative way. The experts and those investigating seemed reliable. I found it interesting, the large amount of research done seemed thorough and the results, plausible. There was some repetition, as they went over different theories and results, ruling information out here and there as things didn't fit or seem probable.

Of course we will never know exactly what happened but we know the horrific why. Now I'm going to look into why this book is surrounded with controversy and to what extent. Good old Google.

Enjoyed the narration.

[Taury · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Betrayal of Anne Frank by Rosemary Sullivan is a Non-Fiction book about what happened to the Frank family, specifically Anne Frank. It raised alot of questions and speculation. I don’t understand why Otto Frank tried to protect who he thought betrayed the family. There were a lot of theories, speculation and repetition in this book. It is obvious we will never know exactly what happened. I do believe Anne Frank’s diary is real!

[Wulf Krueger · Rating 1 out of 5]

I haven't read this book and I won't because it has been thoroughly discredited and, thus, withdrawn by its original publisher. Sadly, the English translation hasn't (yet?) been dropped.

Of course, you don't have to take my word for it (I wouldn't if I were you) so I'm adding two links to the BBC about the book and its issues:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe...

Please stay away from this money-grab.

Last but not least, a short excerpt from the second article:

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.

In response, Dutch publishing house Ambo Anthos said the book would no longer be available and asked bookshops to return their stocks.

The publisher offered its "sincere apologies" to those offended by the book's content, while the granddaughter of Van den Bergh has called on HarperCollins to drop the English-language edition.

[Hannah · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fascinating, well-researched look into the decades-old question: “Who betrayed Anne Frank?”

As a genealogist, I found the researchers’ methods and use of even the most minor of resources more engrossing than the mystery itself — I know that the tiniest bit of information can become a puzzle piece to build a bigger picture.

The occupants of 263 Prinsengracht were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, right when things were going badly for the Nazis, and they all almost made it — except for a web of deceit and convoluted motivations that ensured they were caught in the crosshairs.

I was also intrigued to learn what happened to Auguste van Pels (Mrs van Daan in Anne’s diary), whose whereabouts after Auschwitz, other than her arrival at Theresienstadt, were previously unknown.

[Jill Meyer · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the year 2017, the German railroad, Deutsche Bahn, proposed naming its new highspeed trains after important figures in German history. Some of the names proposed were "Konrad Adenauer", "Karl Marx", "Ludwig Erhard", and..."Anne Frank". Evidently not everyone at Deutsche Bahn was asleep at the proverbial wheel and the sheer wrongheadedness over naming a train after Anne Frank was pointed out. Officials took the name out of contention for a train a few months later and some other names like "Willy Brandt" and "Marlene Dietrich" were tactfully substituted for the "Anne Frank Unlimited" (to Bergen-Belson?). All this goes to show, though, the power that the two words "Anne" and "Frank" still play in our world today.

There have been many books, both fiction and nonfiction, written about Anne Frank and the Secret Annex. She is one of the most written about figures in history. Her story lives on in art forms like movies and plays and countless books. The latest book to be published is “The Betrayal of Anne Frank: A Cold-Case Investigation”, by Rosemary Sullivan. This is the first book by Sullivan I’ve read, but she sure can write. There’s not a word out of place; as for sheer readability, this book is almost perfect.

Rosemary Sullivan’s book takes up one of the most asked question of the Anne Frank story. Who betrayed the eight persons hiding in Otto Frank’s office’s annex? The four member Frank family and four others had been hiding for 26 months on August 4, 1944. Think about the date. By this time, the Allies were pushing towards Germany from all sides.

But the Germans still occupied Holland and Belgium and most of France. Jews were still being rounded up shipped “east”. In fact, the last train from Westerbork to Auschwitz would leave soon, and the Franks and the other occupants would be on it. Of those eight, only one, Otto Frank, would return to Amsterdam. The rest were murdered in the camps. Only Otto, and Anne’s diary and other papers, would survive.

There were many attempts over the years since the book was published to find the person or persons who betrayed them. Otto Frank may have known the identity of the person; it may have been a fellow Jew. Not many people knew about the hidden annex, but someone who did could have spoken about it to the wrong people. But basically, it’s probable that whoever did it, did for either the reward or as protection for their own family’s safety.

But after 70 years, the case was reopened in Holland as the ultimate “cold case” by scholars and police officials. Numerous records and interviews were gone through and police were able to tap into some of the new scientific methods were used on the evidence. Rosemary Sullivan writes well about the people involved today, 75 years after the events, as well as those at the time.

Her book is one of the best true crime books I’ve read.

[Brittany McCann · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot of research but not a very exciting way to narrate the data, and a lot of liberties seem to be made that aren't backed up adequately.

It is worth reading for the wealth of historical collection for sure.

I'm not sure that I would come back to it, though. Quite dry.

3 Stars

[Charlotte Baarda · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book makes wild assumptions that are not consistent with historical context, and does more harm than good to our understanding of the role of the Jewish Council. See also: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/18/bo...

[Maine Colonial · Rating 5 out of 5]

At a recent book club meeting, one of the discussion questions was whether we had a book that held special meaning in our lives. For me, that was easy. I read The Diary of a Young Girl when I was 12 or 13, and it was a formative book for me. It opened my eyes to the human tragedy of prejudice and, since I was about the same age as Anne Frank, of course I couldn’t help but imagine myself in her place. I’ve had a lifelong strong interest in the history of World War II in Europe, particularly the social history, and that started with Anne Frank’s story.

Like everyone else, I marveled at eight people staying hidden in a commercial building for over two years, having to stay silent all day during work hours, never going outdoors. I imagined what it must have been like to listen to the BBC radio reports about D-Day, learning that the Allies were winning and liberation coming. And then, on a beautiful August day to hear the heavy feet on the stairs and to be arrested. Knowing that they were on the last train to the camps from Amsterdam has always haunted me. What a life she could have lived, what a writer Anne Frank could have become if only she’d been able to stay hidden a little while longer.

Naturally, I always wondered how the Franks and the other four in hiding with them were betrayed. I’ve read a lot of books on the subject of Anne Frank, including several that theorized about the betrayer. I have to admit that when I first heard about this book, I was dubious about whether I wanted to read yet another theory, but I decided to go ahead once I heard a little more about the seriousness of the investigation.

The book starts with a few chapters about Anne Frank’s family history, their flight from Germany to Amsterdam, efforts to leave Europe, going into hiding, life in the Secret Annex, and capture. There will be very little new here for those who have read about Anne Frank. But then the book turns to the investigation.

I was impressed by Rosemary Sullivan’s ability to make detailed descriptions of document searches engrossing reading. It’s particularly interesting to read about the investigative team’s examination of various betrayal candidates and why they eliminated them. It’s gripping when she details the building of the case against the person identified in this book. It’s unlikely we’ll ever find out for sure if the investigative team got it right, but they make a compelling case against that person. To add even more interest, they present evidence that Otto Frank, Anne’s father, learned soon after the war who had betrayed them, but he never revealed it, and the team has solid ideas about why that was.

This is a thoroughly researched and vividly written book. It’s a standout, even among the hundreds of books about Anne Frank.

[Jessie Pietens · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first third of the book - in which Sullivan elaborates on the situation of the Franks before, during and after the war - was really strong. As a whole, the book was easy to read and really does speak to a broad audience. The two stars are mostly for the aforementioned.

As a historian, this was - at times - painful to read. Not just because of the subject matter, but because of the sheer obliviousness with which some statements were made. The conclusions drawn from the paper-thin “evidence” were beyond surprising. As an example: one of the women who knew of the family in hiding - her name was Miep Gies - could not have (accidentally) betrayed them because of her unbelievable self discipline. This “evidence”, to say the least, would barely satisfy a police dog, let alone that is should satisfy a former FBI-agent and his entire team of researchers. This is not to say I think Miep Gies has anything to do with the betrayal. It is just a prime example of the opportunism that seems to colour this research. The methodologies used were interesting, the amount of work done admirable, but the execution was anything but.

That being said, the reaction to the book in the media is nearly as sensationalistic as the book itself is at times, which is tiring. Just as the researchers of the cold case team seem to have ran with what “evidence” they could get, may reactions to the book take what they want from the book and run with it, leaving context behind. Moreover, I was taken aback by the publisher completely relinquishing any responsibility in forming an informed opinion on the book before it was published. Way to leave your author standing out in the cold for something to which you also hold responsibility.

My final conclusion is that the new “suspect” raised by this book may be just as suspicious as any other raised to this day. The researchers could have been more humble in their conclusions, the media could have calmed down and the publisher should have taken their responsibility and should have stuck with it.

[Deacon Tom (Feeling Better) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ever since I was young, the story of Anne Frank captivated my attention and also broke my heart. How this could happen to a little girl? It shows the absolute evil of the Nazi empire.

This book is incredibly researched, referenced and well edited. And I think it’s something in Anne Frank fan should take the time to read.

I visited the house years ago and broke broke my heart and the author takes back there and describes it in incredible detail.

A good book.

[Erik B.K.K. · Rating 1 out of 5]

Worthless drivel, slander and wildly speculative. Declaring an anonymous letter is proof enough that someone who has long since died and cannot defend himself was a traitor, when there have been much more plausible theories. Using experts' names without their knowledge to fend a 100k subsidy and credibility. Rushing the publication without time for anyone to study or refute the claim made. Clearly, the writers had huge dollar signs in their eyes. And while the Dutch media has sparked an outrage and the Dutch publisher has issued an apology and will not reprint, US publisher Harper Collins remains awfully silent. All those 4/5 star ratings prove that this is a perfect example of the American love for grandiose, dramatized Hollywood stories with cheap effects. No one cares for the truth.

[Mirona · Rating 4 out of 5]

Goed geschreven, leest lekker door. Inhoudelijk weet ik niet zo goed waar ik sta. Enerzijds houd ik van duidelijkheid en 'closure', dus ben ik geneigd de conclusie te geloven. Anderzijds zijn levens en echte gebeurtenissen niet altijd van begin tot eind te vatten en is het soms beter om het te laten. Als Otto Frank dacht te weten wie de verrader was en het blijkbaar alsnog nodig vond dit niet met de wereld te delen, wie zijn wij dan om te eisen dat het verhaal van het Achterhuis van alle antwoorden is voorzien?

[theliterateleprechaun · Rating 4 out of 5]

In short, ‘The Betrayal of Anne Frank’ is less a mystery solved than a secret well kept.

“Using new technology, recently discovered documents and sophisticated investigative techniques, the international team, led by an obsessed retired FBI agent, has finally solved the mystery that has haunted generations since WW2: Who betrayed Anne Frank and her family? And why?”

After her diary was published in June 1947, Anne Frank has become the most well-known victim of the Holocaust. Her diary is the most widely read account of life during the Holocaust. To uncover how the annex could have been compromised, a Dutch cold case team set out to solve it in 2016. Working tirelessly to condense 30 theories, they narrowed them down to 12 scenarios and finally down to four main suspects before settling on a single perpetrator. This non-fiction account is the story of the research – 66 gigabytes of data in 7500 files - and what was involved in the five year search to identify the informant.

Since the arrest at Prinsengracht 263, the Franks’ story has intrigued and puzzled historians for almost 80 years. Anne and her family went into hiding on July 6, 1942, but they were found 25 months later and deported. Most died in Auschwitz, Anne and her sister Margot in Bergen-Belsen. Anne’s father, Otto Frank, was the only survivor. He died in 1980 and was in possession of an anonymous note that identified the informant.

Written by a Canadian author, Rosemary Sullivan, this book is presented like a true-crime procedural. It was very well structured and I worked through the main facts presented and followed through to the conclusion of each scenario, setting it aside for later or allowing it to be put to rest. I was in awe of the dedication. I’ll be honest, my head wanted to know who, but my heart told me it wasn’t a good idea. My hope is that the revelation doesn’t perpetuate the problem; turning people against one another, resulting in them living in fear and constant dread.

[Aly Lauck · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book. A lot of it is speculative on who had the means and motive to rat out the Frank family. Anne Frank is one of the most posthumous influential people. Was interesting to learn more about Otto and his role in bringing Anne’s diary to life. Recommending this book to anyone interested in the Holocaust, WWII, and true crime.

[Celia · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the third book I have read about the Anne Frank Tragedy. Amazing: I learn something new each time.

Rosemary Sullivan is an excellent writer. I have also read The Red Shoes: Margaret Atwood/Starting Out which I highly recommend.

Since this is the third time I have read of Anne Frank, some of the facts have been more firmly established; other occurrences were completely new.

Now more firmly established:

_ Eight people and three families stayed for almost 22 months in a little cubby hole about Otto Frank's business establishment. After they were found, they were all sent to concentration camps and seven out of eight of them died. Otto Frank, Ann's father, was the only one to survive.

_ All of the employees that were in place the day the Franks, VanPels and dentist, Dr Fritz Pfeffer, KNEW that the annex dwellers were there. The most famous of these was Miep Gies, who later wrote a book of her own, Anne Frank Remembered: The Story of the Woman Who Helped to Hide the Frank Family. I have read this book as well and thought it excellent.

The Cold Case Team, its existence, and its findings constituted what I newly learned.
_They started with 30 betrayal suspects and weighed the possibiliy of each being the 'betrayer' against 3 criteria: knowledge, opportunity, and motive.

_They used AI technology to whittle down the list.

_They finally settled on one of these and made a good argument that he was the only one who fit all of the criteria.

_Otto Frank and Miep Gies also SEEMED to know who the betrayer was. If that is true, Otto exhibited no desire to disclose his identity.

And finally:
I have heard people say not to read the book; it is wrong and at least, misleading. I did not find that to be true at all and therefore, I highly recommend it as an excellent read.

4 stars

[Sara · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have some misgivings about this book that I’ll do my best to lay out. Firstly, it’s confusing in parts with the amount of people and places that are being discussed. Some of the names sounded similar to me and it became easy to lose the thread at times. I also found it quite repetitive sometimes, especially when reviewing a story from multiple perspectives or comparing people’s stories. I understand that’s a major part of any investigation, particularly a “cold case” like this, but it was just monotonous.
Secondly, I ultimately didn’t see the point in the entire project. Everyone involved is long deceased and it seems that the person who deserved to know, Otto Frank, did. Whoever he may have shared that information with was his choice. Short of there being active consequences for the betrayal (i.e.: current criminal or legal matter), I simply don’t see the point of publishing a long-dead suspect’s name now. How does naming this person do anything other than harm their living family? There is also no guarantee this suspect is even the right person, so what if they’re actually innocent? I guess I just don’t see how this investigation lessens any of the Frank family’s tragedy or solves anything other than curiosity.

Overall, for me, this one had issues in both conception and finished product. I didn’t realize there was so much controversy about it until I finished it, and I likely would’ve skipped it entirely had I known.

[Linden · Rating 4 out of 5]

A cold case team with historians, researchers, and a retired FBI agent looks into the mystery of who betrayed the Frank family hiding from the Nazis in Amsterdam. There were several names proposed, which were systematically dismissed based on their location or circumstances; however, there was one, finally, which could not be eliminated. Along the way, we learn about all of the people who turned in Jews to the Nazis, whether for money, spite, or the belief that it would save their families. A very thought provoking book--we'd all like to think that we would be the ones working for the resistance, that we would never betray a confidence, but we will never know how extenuating circumstances might affect our ideals.

[Karen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about this one. The description of the book says "...an obsessed retired FBI agent—has finally solved the mystery that has haunted generations since World War II: Who betrayed Anne Frank and her family? And why?" but in fact the mystery is not "solved", it's just that the investigators came to a conclusion that hinges on a minimum amount of evidence.

I did enjoy hearing the facts unearthed by the investigators. About the circumstances Otto Frank and his family were in, and about the people in their circle. It's a history of this particular time in Amsterdam that would be difficult to find elsewhere.

I found it a bit strange. There were many Jewish people in hiding who were betrayed and given up to authorities. I understand Anne Frank is famous for her diary. But I felt a bit sad hearing about these researchers spending so many resources to find out who *may have* betrayed the Frank family when so many other descendents of betrayed people would also like to know who betrayed their own families.

The research results were interesting and the author did a pretty good job of writing it all up. It's a lot of detail and a wee bit dry at times.

Good narration for the audiobook. Recommended for fans of The Diary of Anne Frank.

[Matthew Ansley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best history related books I’ve read to date. The author does an incredible job weaving the investigation’s progression through the actual events. Anne Frank, and perhaps more specifically Otto Frank’s life feel so tangible. It was powerful, haunting at times, and leaves you with the same sorrowful remembrance any holocaust-related story will do.

Great job to the researchers, author and team for putting this together. Five years after they started their journey – job well done!

[Tracey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting read . My heart still reaches out for otto Frank. I’ve always found Anne Frank’s short life interesting ever since I read her diary as a youngster.
This was a must read.

[Monica · Rating 4 out of 5]

I didn't know there was a controversy over this book until I started listening to it. A group decided to find out the answer to the question everyone wonders: Who turned in the Franks and their hiding place? This book tries to solve this mystery.

It comes out that Otto Frank knew who the person was. Of course, if this is true, why didn't he let anyone know who it was? Is it because he didn't know for sure, or was he afraid? The book says it was a friend of his and his family. That had to hurt Otto. If it was true, the person was a friend.

If someone did tell on the Franks, I don't know if I can really blame them. Think about it's WWII, and you have heard of the horrendous things the Nazis had done, and they are asking you what you know about the Franks. If you don't tell them what you know, they might do something to you or your family. What would you do? That's a hard question to ask yourself.

😊Happy Reading 😊

#libbyapp #carlislepubliclibrary #lonokecountylibrarysystem #audiobook #RosemarySullivan #TheBetryalofAnneFrank

[Katrien Van Wambeke · Rating 3 out of 5]

1e helft was enorm meeslepend en fascinerend.
Toch kon ik mij niet aan het gevoel ontdoen, dat de onderzoekers een conclusie nodig hadden om hun jarenlange onderzoek te verantwoorden/rechtvaardigen.
De ‘oplossende theorie’ is nogal magertjes en weinig onderbouwd; beetje sensationeel zelfs.

Toch heb ik heel wat bijgeleerd over de familie Frank; leven in tijden van oorlog & blijft dit een heel tragisch verhaal.

[Stefan Mitev · Rating 4 out of 5]

Дневникът на Ане Франк е една от най-издаваните и четени книги на двадесети век. Историята би трябвало да е позната на всеки. По време на нацистката окупация на Амстердам (1940 - 1945) евреите са подложени на преследване и депортиране в концентрационни лагери на изток. Една част от евреите опитват да намерят спасение чрез укриване в чужди домове и разчитат на милостта на съгражданите си, които да не ги предадат на нацистките служби. Семейството на Ане Франк, заедно с още четирима евреи, се укрива в тайно помещение (анекс), като прекарват затворени вътре над две години. Именно тогава малкото момиче пише своя дневник, който след войната се превръща в истинска сензация. Приятели на семейството ги снабдяват с храна и вещи, рискувайки живота си всеки ден. На 04.08.1944 г. след получаване на сигнал от информатор нацистите нахлуват в сградата и откриват жертвите си. Семейството на Ане Франк е разделено и изпратено в различни концлагери. Само бащата Ото Франк оцелява и се завръща вкъщи след края на войната. Ане Франк умира от тиф в Берген Белсен само дни преди освобождаването на концлагера.

След като дневникът на Ане Франк става световноизвестен много от читателите започват да задават въпроса кой предава семейството, кой е отговорен за залавянето им от нацистите. Малко преди започването на пандемията международен екип от историци, журналисти, преводачи, психолози и обик��овени любители на книгата се заема с нелеката задача да намери предателя. Книгата описва прогреса в разследването и огромния обем от анализирани данни. Използват се модерни компютърни програми за оценка на наличните данни, исторически документи, графологични експертизи, издирени са наследниците на основните действащи лица. Разгледани и отхвърлени са най-малко десетина възможни извършители - от съседи на семейството до платени информатори на нацистите, инфилтрирали нидерландското общество. Както и в много криминални романи, истината се оказва по-странна и шокираща от очакваното. Разбира се, няма да разкрия кой е предателят, но разследващият екип наистина го установява, като не оставя никакво съмнение в сигурността на своето заключение. Разследването наподобява модерен криминален сериал по Netflix с многобройни обрати и водовъртеж от заподозрени.

Книгата ще бъде интересна на запознатите с историята на Ане Франк и ще ви убеди, че някои исторически тайни могат да бъдат извадени на светло десетки години след събитията.

[Javier · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reseña publicada en: https://diagnosisbookaholic.blogspot....

4,5 ⭐️

Gracias a @harpercollinsiberica por el envío del ejemplar.

Recuerdo leer “El diario de Ana Frank” cuando tenía 12 ó 13 años y sentirme profundamente impresionado, no solo por ser probablemente mi primer acercamiento al horror del Holocausto, sino por el hecho de estar escrito por una niña que en ese momento tenia la misma edad que yo cuando lo leí.

Ana Frank, sus padres y hermana, y otras cuatro personas permanecieron escondidos en un anexo del edificio de oficinas de su padre durante 25 meses. El 4 de Agosto de 1944, una denuncia anónima tuvo como consecuencia su detención y posterior deportación a campos de concentración, siendo Otto Frank, el padre de Ana, el único superviviente.

¿Quién traicionó a Ana Frank? es el último de los libros publicados acerca de la historia de Ana Frank y que trata de dar respuesta a la pregunta que el mundo lleva casi 80 años haciéndose, ¿quién traicionó a Ana Frank y su familia?

Usando nuevas tecnologías, técnicas de investigación y documentos que hasta ahora habían permanecido ocultos, un equipo internacional de historiadores e investigadores liderados por un ex-agente del FBI, han llevado a cabo una minuciosa investigación durante 5 años para tratar de responder esa pregunta.

El libro comienza con algunos capítulos acerca de Ana Frank y su familia, su huida de Alemania a Amsterdam, el tiempo que pasaron escondidos en la Casa de Atrás y su posterior captura. A partir de aquí el libro se centra ya de pleno en la investigación y he de reconocer que su lectura (más allá de que esté completamente de acuerdo con las conclusiones a las que llegan) me ha parecido fascinante.

Fue interesante ver cómo iban planteando diferentes teorías y cómo iban siendo descartadas a medias que aparecían nuevos documentos o realizaban entrevistas a los descendientes de los testigos o implicados en los hechos. Incluso aquellas partes que podrían resultar más farragosas por la cantidad de datos, nombres, etc., me resultaron muy entretenidas.

Como en una buena novela de misterio, la tensión va creciendo a medida que se va formando la hipótesis contra la persona a la que se apunta como presunto culpable. Aunque el caso que presenta resulta en parte convincente, probablemente nunca se pueda llegar a saber a ciencia cierta si tienen razón o no. A mí, al menos, me han quedado bastantes dudas.

¿Quién traicionó a Ana Frank? es un vívido relato de una exhaustiva investigación, muy bien estructurado, y que se lee como si de un procedimental se tratase, y que recomiendo a todos aquellos que quieran saber un poco más acerca de Ana Frank y su historia.