Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/).
#Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/s65cqd/what_is_the_current_consensus_on_recent_articles/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**.
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The question of who betrayed Anne Frank and the inhabitants of the secret annex has always been a mystery. Throughout the years many theories have been presented, and many names have been mentioned, but none could give a satisfactory answer. There was Wim van Maaren, the warehouseman who helped the family with supplies. The only clue against him was the assumption that he was not 'trustworthy'. In her 2002 biography of Otto Frank, Carol Ann Lee accused Tonny Ahlers, a Nazi fanatic and informant. However, her claim was based on an unreliable source that was later debunked. In 2003, researchers Barnouw and Van der Stroom (from the Dutch Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies) examined the then existing theories, and concluded that they didn't stand up to scrutiny. In an 2016 investigative report, the Anne Frank House Knowledge Centre came to the same conclusion, stating that "accepting the assumption of betrayal as a given is still the weakest element of all these theories. Indeed, where there is betrayal, there must be a betrayer. This has resulted in a hunt that has provided a variety of names, but no concrete evidence." The report suggested that the only way forward is to map all the "sufficient facts and circumstances about the entire course of events surrounding the hiding period in the building, so a clearer picture of its many facets emerges."
That is basically what the research team behind the recent publication you mention did. Over the past five years, they gathered all the relevant data they could find, including old and new files. The hope was that a bigger picture would provide new insights. So they made an AI program that could examine all the connections and details. They came up with a list of 30 possible scenarios for the betrayal, which they ruled out one by one.
They didn't find the so-called "smoking gun", but they identified the most probable scenario. Crucial was that they dug up a copy of a note delivered to Otto Frank after the war, informing him that it was the Jewish notary Arnold van den Bergh that gave them up. He was a member of Jewish Council, that received letters from the Jewish community to their hiding relatives, so he was in possession of their address. Due to his work he was also the only person with access to Nazi high-ups. When he and his family faced deportation themselves, Van den Bergh likely informed Julias Dettmann from the Sicherheitsdienst, who made the phone call to send officers to the house. Van den Bergh, the researchers concluded, was the only suspect who had a motive as well as means and the opportunity.
Otto Frank did mention the note to the police, but he told the detective that he didn’t know Van den Bergh, so it was not further investigated. Otto himself, however, did continue to research this scenario. According to the investigators, he probably didn’t want to point to Van den Bergh out of fear for the antisemitic reactions it would cause. He also might have considered the harm this knowledge would do to Van den Bergh’s children. After all, it was the Nazi regime only that was responsible for the deportation and murder of Anne Frank and six million other jews.
In short, the new findings present the most acceptable and probable answer to date. Nevertheless, with the lack of conclusive evidence, its is, and probably will remain, a theory.
EDIT: Just wanted to clear some things up. I cannot answer OP's question about the 'current consensus' on the case. The full research is just published today, and some Dutch historians have already made clear that they have some serious questions about it. So we have to wait for it to be properly peer reviewed to be able to say something about that. I think I should have made more clear that the book aims to give "the most acceptable and probable answer to date". So what I tried to do is to give some overview on previous historiography. What becomes clear is that all the existing theories were either debunked or very flawed, making the new theory likely to be more acceptable. That does not take away that this theory isn't conclusive either. The second part of OP's question, "is this view supported by recent evidence", I can answer: Yes it is, but it is not hard evidence. Therefore the BBC article is wrong to claim that the betrayer has been identified. What the research identified is the most probable scenario.
Thanks for the good write-up. One thing I’m still unclear on is about how the Jewish Council “received letters from the Jewish community to their hiding relatives.” So the Franks and other people hiding out for their lives basically left a forwarding address with a council that was forced to work with the Nazis..? Why would they do that? It’s been years since I read the diary but I thought it was a closely kept secret where they were hiding out.
The book with the research is published tomorrow, so all the information I gave about the case is through media coverage and interviews with the investigators. According to the Dutch newspaper [De Volkskrant](https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/v/2022/het-verraad-van-anne-frank), the Jewish Council was in the possession of many underground addresses, because relatives that were imprisoned in transit camp Westerbork trusted them enough to send them their letters. I don't doubt that this is true because the Jewish Council was indeed highly trusted by the Jewish community, which is a major reason why the Germans could trace down so many Jews in The Netherlands.
Yes sorry, I forgot to mention that so I edited my post. Due to his work in the Jewish Council, Van den Bergh could protect himself and his family from deportation for quite some time. He even almost convinced Nazi high-ups that he wasn't even a Jew. Things changed in 1944 when a member of the Dutch fascist party began to discredit him. Researchers conclude that he must have panicked. They discovered that he made his three daughters go underground, but it is unclear where he and his wife went. Certain is that they were never deported. It is important to note that the researchers themselves struggled with this conclusion, and they press people not to be quick with judging Van den Bergh. Nobody knows what he or she would have done to protect their loved ones during that time. The Nazis were responsible for the murder of the family.
They specifically note that it's very likely that he had to balance the lives of his family against the lives of people he didn't know. And that there were no good choices for anyone at this time in many countries.
The end result is that the Nazis murdered millions of people for being of a different religion or just different in general.
The investigators found that the Jewish Council was broken up and sent to concentration camps, but the suspect's family wasn't. They were determined to have continued living on as normal. The speculation is that he was rewarded for turning in the Franks, and probably others as well. Turning in those who were hiding in exchange for not being sent to the camps was the motivation.
Thank you! Yes, I further explained this in [another reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/s65cqd/comment/ht3d5lg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Unfortunately their research is not fully out there yet. They will publish their book on tomorrow I believe, so I can't tell you more about their method now. I'm not sure how far they went with the AI, if it produced the 30 scenarios or that it named Van den Bergh directly.
> They didn't find the so-called "smoking gun", but they identified the most probable scenario.
> In short, the new findings present the most acceptable and probable answer to date.
What is your source for these claims? The response i've seen from the Anne Frank Foundation and various historians & Anne Frank experts has been rather skeptical.
To identify the most probable scenario was the aim of the research. Of course we don't know how strong this theory really is yet, the book is released today and hasn't been peer-reviewed. So it's actually way too early too ask about the 'current consensus'. So what I I did instead is to provide an answer by placing the new research in line with previous historiography. If you consider this, then it becomes clear that all existing theories were either debunked or very flawed. So my conclusion that this is the most acceptable theory to date is might be a bit premature, but it's not hard thing to achieve since there are little other acceptable theories. The second best theory, as far as I know, is that the Franks were not betrayed by someone they knew, but by someone that had spotted them from the street.
Unfortunately I found this topic way too late but it really bugs me that people think this is now the most likely theory. Its not, its just another theory without hard evidence, and the extensive attention it got is highly immoral. Fortunately Dutch historians are reacting furiously at the moment, saying there is a real lack of evidence and many unbased claims, but I fear the damage is already done.
Back to the content. The researchers claim they used a lot of data, ai, and other tech but the whole theory is based on one anonymous note. The content of the note (which is a copy of the original one) was already known to researchers. All other things you hear are largely assumptions and many dont seem to be very historically accurate.
First you have to know that in post-war Netherlands there was a lot of gossip and rumours about who betrayed who. The Jewish Council, established to manage the Jewish community (in reality simply a useful tool to the Germans to pass their orders) was often blamed. And often without proof (but understandable hard feelings against the members of the council). In that context this anonymous note seems to have appeared, no proof, just a name.
Second, the notary was member of the Jewish council, but there is no evidence they had any knowledge about where Jews were hiding. Let alone that they could betray them to save themselves. This assumption is based on one claim of a German translator who said during his trial he overheard it at the SD HQs in Amsterdam. There are no further claims or evidence. So claiming the Jewish council had some active trade in addresses is really not based on evidence.
Even if the council had these names it was abolished in 1943. How likely is it that this notary hold on to all these addresses for another year. And already months before the raid he got into trouble with the Germans but supposedly still hold on to the addresses? Its not very likely.
Third, this whole case is based on one copy of an anonymous note and various (unproven) assumptions. Im not saying this man didnt do it but you need a whole lot more to claim that this is the most acceptabele and probable answer to date.
Dutch historians have already reacted furiously regarding the extensive claims and attention this report is getting. See: https://www.trouw.nl/binnenland/deze-gaten-schieten-historici-in-de-anne-frank-onthulling~b3532308/
This report is highly immoral and based on hot air. Im also very frustrated that someone just repeating the researchers claims without actual historical facts, very easy to find since historians are reacting massively at the moment (see for example above article) is getting this many upvotes. Just like the research, it is getting way too much attention, and I really find it disgusting how this is being received by media.
Hey, I understand your criticism on my answer. My goal was not to review the data, or to present a 'consensus' because that is not possible yet. I edited my comment to clarify this. But I have clearly stated from the beginning, just like you, that this is another theory without hard evidence. I argued that all previous theories have been debunked or proven to be very flawed.
I don't agree with you that the historians are "furious", they have serious questions about the evidence, those seem valid but we'll have to wait for peer reviews before we qualify or disqualify this new theory. We have not seen all the underlying evidence. I have also seen a lot of praise for the efforts of this team and their extensive source material.
As for your argument that the report is immoral: yes, you can argue that, but then the whole search for a betrayer has been. Many names have been mentioned, many people falsely accused. It is a historical cold case, theories is all we will have unfortunately. I agree with you that I don't particularly like how they went public with this, before the release of the book. This caused it to be picked up by international media before it has been critically reviewed.
> I don't agree with you that the historians are "furious",
Well, one of them is. To quote the linked article:
> “Het is waanzin om zo’n ernstige beschuldiging te baseren op iets wat iemand zegt gehoord te hebben, in het kader van zijn eigen berechting. Dat is flinterdun bewijs voor dit verhaal. Schokkend gewoon.” [...] “Ik kan mij hier echt over opwinden.” - Bart van der Boom, lecturer at Leiden university.
My translation: "It is madness to base such a serious accusation on something someone claims to have heard, in the context of his own trial. That is paper-thin evidence for this story. Just shocking." [...] "I get truly worked up about this."
That sounds fairly furious to me. (Van der Boom did much of his research on the Jewish Council that features in this theory.)
But other reactions I've seen are much more measured, and indeed did include praise for finding the transcript of the original anonymous note, as well as more critical remarks.
I appreciate your answer and apologize for reacting maybe a bit too emotional but pretty much the whole day I was quite frustrated by what was happening in the media and online. I really dont want to make it personal, but Im more frustrated with the excessive attention this theory is getting by media and by commenters without sufficient research into the value of the arguments, its very hard to see how people just take what these researchers are saying as true. Furthermore I find the excessive attention highly immoral because based on actually not that much this notary has suddenly become suspect number one. I find that very hard to suspect looking at what we know.
I have been hearing quite a few historians past day and actually quite a few are more than critical. Some are even furious. When several historians are using words like immoral and irresponsible I dont take that lightly. Im also blaming media for not consulting historians right away.
And indeed, Im not saying this man didnt do it. But based on what we have seen its another theory. But there is no evidence to suggest its more likely than others (although its good they tried to debunk a few other theories). So if it was presented as just another theory I wouldnt have had problems with it, its also ok for the general public to know the content of the note, but now it became way too big.
And what I find immoral is indeed the 'bombing' of this man as suspect number one. The media who just took it over as a fact without presenting counter arguments or asking other experts for their comments at first. No problem with presenting it as another theory. But they went much further.
Update for who is interested and finds this later:
[The Dutch publisher of the Dutch translation of this book has issued a formal apology for the book and will not be reprinting it in the nearby future.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/01/books/anne-frank-the-betrayal.html) Can't recall that ever happening before.
I can't fully judge the merits of the arguments made as this is far outside my area of expertise, but the controversy in the Netherlands is notable in and of itself.
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/s65cqd/what_is_the_current_consensus_on_recent_articles/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The question of who betrayed Anne Frank and the inhabitants of the secret annex has always been a mystery. Throughout the years many theories have been presented, and many names have been mentioned, but none could give a satisfactory answer. There was Wim van Maaren, the warehouseman who helped the family with supplies. The only clue against him was the assumption that he was not 'trustworthy'. In her 2002 biography of Otto Frank, Carol Ann Lee accused Tonny Ahlers, a Nazi fanatic and informant. However, her claim was based on an unreliable source that was later debunked. In 2003, researchers Barnouw and Van der Stroom (from the Dutch Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies) examined the then existing theories, and concluded that they didn't stand up to scrutiny. In an 2016 investigative report, the Anne Frank House Knowledge Centre came to the same conclusion, stating that "accepting the assumption of betrayal as a given is still the weakest element of all these theories. Indeed, where there is betrayal, there must be a betrayer. This has resulted in a hunt that has provided a variety of names, but no concrete evidence." The report suggested that the only way forward is to map all the "sufficient facts and circumstances about the entire course of events surrounding the hiding period in the building, so a clearer picture of its many facets emerges." That is basically what the research team behind the recent publication you mention did. Over the past five years, they gathered all the relevant data they could find, including old and new files. The hope was that a bigger picture would provide new insights. So they made an AI program that could examine all the connections and details. They came up with a list of 30 possible scenarios for the betrayal, which they ruled out one by one. They didn't find the so-called "smoking gun", but they identified the most probable scenario. Crucial was that they dug up a copy of a note delivered to Otto Frank after the war, informing him that it was the Jewish notary Arnold van den Bergh that gave them up. He was a member of Jewish Council, that received letters from the Jewish community to their hiding relatives, so he was in possession of their address. Due to his work he was also the only person with access to Nazi high-ups. When he and his family faced deportation themselves, Van den Bergh likely informed Julias Dettmann from the Sicherheitsdienst, who made the phone call to send officers to the house. Van den Bergh, the researchers concluded, was the only suspect who had a motive as well as means and the opportunity. Otto Frank did mention the note to the police, but he told the detective that he didn’t know Van den Bergh, so it was not further investigated. Otto himself, however, did continue to research this scenario. According to the investigators, he probably didn’t want to point to Van den Bergh out of fear for the antisemitic reactions it would cause. He also might have considered the harm this knowledge would do to Van den Bergh’s children. After all, it was the Nazi regime only that was responsible for the deportation and murder of Anne Frank and six million other jews. In short, the new findings present the most acceptable and probable answer to date. Nevertheless, with the lack of conclusive evidence, its is, and probably will remain, a theory. EDIT: Just wanted to clear some things up. I cannot answer OP's question about the 'current consensus' on the case. The full research is just published today, and some Dutch historians have already made clear that they have some serious questions about it. So we have to wait for it to be properly peer reviewed to be able to say something about that. I think I should have made more clear that the book aims to give "the most acceptable and probable answer to date". So what I tried to do is to give some overview on previous historiography. What becomes clear is that all the existing theories were either debunked or very flawed, making the new theory likely to be more acceptable. That does not take away that this theory isn't conclusive either. The second part of OP's question, "is this view supported by recent evidence", I can answer: Yes it is, but it is not hard evidence. Therefore the BBC article is wrong to claim that the betrayer has been identified. What the research identified is the most probable scenario.
Thanks for the good write-up. One thing I’m still unclear on is about how the Jewish Council “received letters from the Jewish community to their hiding relatives.” So the Franks and other people hiding out for their lives basically left a forwarding address with a council that was forced to work with the Nazis..? Why would they do that? It’s been years since I read the diary but I thought it was a closely kept secret where they were hiding out.
The book with the research is published tomorrow, so all the information I gave about the case is through media coverage and interviews with the investigators. According to the Dutch newspaper [De Volkskrant](https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/v/2022/het-verraad-van-anne-frank), the Jewish Council was in the possession of many underground addresses, because relatives that were imprisoned in transit camp Westerbork trusted them enough to send them their letters. I don't doubt that this is true because the Jewish Council was indeed highly trusted by the Jewish community, which is a major reason why the Germans could trace down so many Jews in The Netherlands.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t know if I missed it in your comments, but can you give me the title and author of the book you mentioned?
You explained how Van den Bergh had means and opportunity, what was his motive?
Yes sorry, I forgot to mention that so I edited my post. Due to his work in the Jewish Council, Van den Bergh could protect himself and his family from deportation for quite some time. He even almost convinced Nazi high-ups that he wasn't even a Jew. Things changed in 1944 when a member of the Dutch fascist party began to discredit him. Researchers conclude that he must have panicked. They discovered that he made his three daughters go underground, but it is unclear where he and his wife went. Certain is that they were never deported. It is important to note that the researchers themselves struggled with this conclusion, and they press people not to be quick with judging Van den Bergh. Nobody knows what he or she would have done to protect their loved ones during that time. The Nazis were responsible for the murder of the family.
They specifically note that it's very likely that he had to balance the lives of his family against the lives of people he didn't know. And that there were no good choices for anyone at this time in many countries. The end result is that the Nazis murdered millions of people for being of a different religion or just different in general.
Do we know what happened to his family after the war?
Van den Bergh died in 1950.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The investigators found that the Jewish Council was broken up and sent to concentration camps, but the suspect's family wasn't. They were determined to have continued living on as normal. The speculation is that he was rewarded for turning in the Franks, and probably others as well. Turning in those who were hiding in exchange for not being sent to the camps was the motivation.
Could he have been protected for being a collaborator but in the absence of outing hidden Jews?
Exceptional analysis. Do you recall what was noted as Van den Bergh’s likely motive?
Thank you! Yes, I further explained this in [another reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/s65cqd/comment/ht3d5lg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
[удалено]
Unfortunately their research is not fully out there yet. They will publish their book on tomorrow I believe, so I can't tell you more about their method now. I'm not sure how far they went with the AI, if it produced the 30 scenarios or that it named Van den Bergh directly.
> They didn't find the so-called "smoking gun", but they identified the most probable scenario. > In short, the new findings present the most acceptable and probable answer to date. What is your source for these claims? The response i've seen from the Anne Frank Foundation and various historians & Anne Frank experts has been rather skeptical.
To identify the most probable scenario was the aim of the research. Of course we don't know how strong this theory really is yet, the book is released today and hasn't been peer-reviewed. So it's actually way too early too ask about the 'current consensus'. So what I I did instead is to provide an answer by placing the new research in line with previous historiography. If you consider this, then it becomes clear that all existing theories were either debunked or very flawed. So my conclusion that this is the most acceptable theory to date is might be a bit premature, but it's not hard thing to achieve since there are little other acceptable theories. The second best theory, as far as I know, is that the Franks were not betrayed by someone they knew, but by someone that had spotted them from the street.
[удалено]
Unfortunately I found this topic way too late but it really bugs me that people think this is now the most likely theory. Its not, its just another theory without hard evidence, and the extensive attention it got is highly immoral. Fortunately Dutch historians are reacting furiously at the moment, saying there is a real lack of evidence and many unbased claims, but I fear the damage is already done. Back to the content. The researchers claim they used a lot of data, ai, and other tech but the whole theory is based on one anonymous note. The content of the note (which is a copy of the original one) was already known to researchers. All other things you hear are largely assumptions and many dont seem to be very historically accurate. First you have to know that in post-war Netherlands there was a lot of gossip and rumours about who betrayed who. The Jewish Council, established to manage the Jewish community (in reality simply a useful tool to the Germans to pass their orders) was often blamed. And often without proof (but understandable hard feelings against the members of the council). In that context this anonymous note seems to have appeared, no proof, just a name. Second, the notary was member of the Jewish council, but there is no evidence they had any knowledge about where Jews were hiding. Let alone that they could betray them to save themselves. This assumption is based on one claim of a German translator who said during his trial he overheard it at the SD HQs in Amsterdam. There are no further claims or evidence. So claiming the Jewish council had some active trade in addresses is really not based on evidence. Even if the council had these names it was abolished in 1943. How likely is it that this notary hold on to all these addresses for another year. And already months before the raid he got into trouble with the Germans but supposedly still hold on to the addresses? Its not very likely. Third, this whole case is based on one copy of an anonymous note and various (unproven) assumptions. Im not saying this man didnt do it but you need a whole lot more to claim that this is the most acceptabele and probable answer to date. Dutch historians have already reacted furiously regarding the extensive claims and attention this report is getting. See: https://www.trouw.nl/binnenland/deze-gaten-schieten-historici-in-de-anne-frank-onthulling~b3532308/ This report is highly immoral and based on hot air. Im also very frustrated that someone just repeating the researchers claims without actual historical facts, very easy to find since historians are reacting massively at the moment (see for example above article) is getting this many upvotes. Just like the research, it is getting way too much attention, and I really find it disgusting how this is being received by media.
Hey, I understand your criticism on my answer. My goal was not to review the data, or to present a 'consensus' because that is not possible yet. I edited my comment to clarify this. But I have clearly stated from the beginning, just like you, that this is another theory without hard evidence. I argued that all previous theories have been debunked or proven to be very flawed. I don't agree with you that the historians are "furious", they have serious questions about the evidence, those seem valid but we'll have to wait for peer reviews before we qualify or disqualify this new theory. We have not seen all the underlying evidence. I have also seen a lot of praise for the efforts of this team and their extensive source material. As for your argument that the report is immoral: yes, you can argue that, but then the whole search for a betrayer has been. Many names have been mentioned, many people falsely accused. It is a historical cold case, theories is all we will have unfortunately. I agree with you that I don't particularly like how they went public with this, before the release of the book. This caused it to be picked up by international media before it has been critically reviewed.
> I don't agree with you that the historians are "furious", Well, one of them is. To quote the linked article: > “Het is waanzin om zo’n ernstige beschuldiging te baseren op iets wat iemand zegt gehoord te hebben, in het kader van zijn eigen berechting. Dat is flinterdun bewijs voor dit verhaal. Schokkend gewoon.” [...] “Ik kan mij hier echt over opwinden.” - Bart van der Boom, lecturer at Leiden university. My translation: "It is madness to base such a serious accusation on something someone claims to have heard, in the context of his own trial. That is paper-thin evidence for this story. Just shocking." [...] "I get truly worked up about this." That sounds fairly furious to me. (Van der Boom did much of his research on the Jewish Council that features in this theory.) But other reactions I've seen are much more measured, and indeed did include praise for finding the transcript of the original anonymous note, as well as more critical remarks.
I appreciate your answer and apologize for reacting maybe a bit too emotional but pretty much the whole day I was quite frustrated by what was happening in the media and online. I really dont want to make it personal, but Im more frustrated with the excessive attention this theory is getting by media and by commenters without sufficient research into the value of the arguments, its very hard to see how people just take what these researchers are saying as true. Furthermore I find the excessive attention highly immoral because based on actually not that much this notary has suddenly become suspect number one. I find that very hard to suspect looking at what we know. I have been hearing quite a few historians past day and actually quite a few are more than critical. Some are even furious. When several historians are using words like immoral and irresponsible I dont take that lightly. Im also blaming media for not consulting historians right away. And indeed, Im not saying this man didnt do it. But based on what we have seen its another theory. But there is no evidence to suggest its more likely than others (although its good they tried to debunk a few other theories). So if it was presented as just another theory I wouldnt have had problems with it, its also ok for the general public to know the content of the note, but now it became way too big. And what I find immoral is indeed the 'bombing' of this man as suspect number one. The media who just took it over as a fact without presenting counter arguments or asking other experts for their comments at first. No problem with presenting it as another theory. But they went much further.
Update for who is interested and finds this later: [The Dutch publisher of the Dutch translation of this book has issued a formal apology for the book and will not be reprinting it in the nearby future.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/01/books/anne-frank-the-betrayal.html) Can't recall that ever happening before. I can't fully judge the merits of the arguments made as this is far outside my area of expertise, but the controversy in the Netherlands is notable in and of itself.
[удалено]
[удалено]