5 ms·

Anne Frank betrayal book pulled after findings discredited

46 points by mellosouls 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago
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.
NoahCohen78 5y ago
[flagged]
- validuser 5y ago
  That was sarcasm, right?
  - jhoechtl 5y ago
    I think well-crafted sarcasm is one which cannot be judged as such. If the OP doesn't respond my bet is yes.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    It’s way too close to some narratives that are pushed in nominally-liberal but actually quite regressive parts of western societies (how can you pretend to be progressive when you’re arguing that truth is secondary if it makes some people feel bad?) It’s like Nazi edgelords. If your sarcasm is indistinguishable from propaganda, then either you’re very bad at it, or you’re using “free speech” as a cover because you know your opinions are not acceptable. In either case, these posts do not belong in a civilised discussion.
    - a_imho 5y ago
      not agreeing with the parent, but if that is not the main use case of free speech then what is? Stating things others might consider inconvenient, disrespectful or outright unacceptable. Indeed, if one is serious about freedom of speech they will find themselves defending the rights of all kinds of extremists, it is inevitable.
- PHGamer 5y ago
  no. nothing should be ever free from questioning. else things get distorted or exaggerated over time. It would have been enough imo if the book just had a forward that noted some of it was conjecture based on whatever info they had. No one can truly know as I imagine there was either no documentation or it got destroyed in whatever allied bombing happened. also blaming white people for shirking responsibility is a bit rich given that term encompasses a lot of nationalities including the British and Americans who fought against the Germans who were the ones doing the geocoding.
  - sodonotaskis 5y ago
    If: 'no. nothing should be ever free from questioning.' Than: "It may be 'Sympathic, a pianoplayer appears playing in pantofles' for some, but others may..." was listening to > hint://youtu.be/GLujhLBZdPg?t=188 P-:
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > nothing should be ever free from questioning Nothing should be free of questioning, but I don't think a major publisher has much interest in publishing a book whose research has been discredited. That's just basic common sense—just like (most) people don't go around repeating things that they know to be false. Except for things like Santa Claus, I guess.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > It would have been enough imo if the book just had a forward that noted some of it was conjecture based on whatever info they had. No, it would not be enough. It would be enough if the text of the book itself expressed a lot of uncertainty around facts that are uncertain. Not just CYA in forward and then writing it all confident and convincing to those who did not went through massive amount of work it takes to verify it all.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
> But the book, by Canadian author Rosemary Sullivan, prompted a backlash from Jewish groups and historians. The European Jewish Congress urged publisher HarperCollins to pull its English language edition, saying it had tarnished Anne Frank's memory and the dignity of Holocaust survivors. 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)
- jb1991 5y ago
  > 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-book-anne-frank-betrayal https://nltimes.nl/2022/03/22/historians-contradict-findings...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- rsynnott 5y ago
  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.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    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?
schwartzworld 5y ago
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.
- rafale 5y ago
  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.
  - FuriouslyAdrift 5y ago
    Yad Vashem has been recording testimonies for years and years... https://testimonies.yadvashem.org/index.html?search=&language=en https://testimonies.yadvashem.org/index.html?search=&languag...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hpcjoe 5y ago
  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-conference https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-evian-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference
ykevinator2 5y ago
I watched a show on this, maybe 60 minutes, I can't remember, it was 100% not amateurish.
- macinjosh 5y ago
  Well if corporate news says its true it must be then.
sct202 5y ago
The refutation paper (very long fyi) is: https://admin.spui25.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Refutation_ENG_PDF.pdf 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-refutation 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.
- lelandfe 5y ago
  > 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.
  - cyanydeez 5y ago
    Right behind the _free_ part
- francisofascii 5y ago
  Agreed. Or perhaps Google is to blame, for disincentivizing the practice.
danamit 5y ago
The book was not discredited, it faced a backlash, this is effectively a false title.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
> 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.
- odd_perfect_num 5y ago
  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.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    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.
    - chucksta 5y ago
      If he hadn't been Jewish, does it make a difference?
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        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.
        chucksta 5y ago
        Sure, but how do you hold anyone accountable then? OPs language sounded like a rephrase of "just following orders"
macinjosh 5y ago
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.
aaron695 5y ago

46 points by mellosouls 5y ago

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.

NoahCohen78 5y ago

[flagged]

validuser 5y ago
That was sarcasm, right?
- jhoechtl 5y ago
  I think well-crafted sarcasm is one which cannot be judged as such. If the OP doesn't respond my bet is yes.
- kergonath 5y ago
  It’s way too close to some narratives that are pushed in nominally-liberal but actually quite regressive parts of western societies (how can you pretend to be progressive when you’re arguing that truth is secondary if it makes some people feel bad?) It’s like Nazi edgelords. If your sarcasm is indistinguishable from propaganda, then either you’re very bad at it, or you’re using “free speech” as a cover because you know your opinions are not acceptable. In either case, these posts do not belong in a civilised discussion.
  - a_imho 5y ago
    not agreeing with the parent, but if that is not the main use case of free speech then what is? Stating things others might consider inconvenient, disrespectful or outright unacceptable. Indeed, if one is serious about freedom of speech they will find themselves defending the rights of all kinds of extremists, it is inevitable.
PHGamer 5y ago
no. nothing should be ever free from questioning. else things get distorted or exaggerated over time. It would have been enough imo if the book just had a forward that noted some of it was conjecture based on whatever info they had. No one can truly know as I imagine there was either no documentation or it got destroyed in whatever allied bombing happened. also blaming white people for shirking responsibility is a bit rich given that term encompasses a lot of nationalities including the British and Americans who fought against the Germans who were the ones doing the geocoding.
- sodonotaskis 5y ago
  If: 'no. nothing should be ever free from questioning.' Than: "It may be 'Sympathic, a pianoplayer appears playing in pantofles' for some, but others may..." was listening to > hint://youtu.be/GLujhLBZdPg?t=188 P-:
- mcphage 5y ago
  > nothing should be ever free from questioning Nothing should be free of questioning, but I don't think a major publisher has much interest in publishing a book whose research has been discredited. That's just basic common sense—just like (most) people don't go around repeating things that they know to be false. Except for things like Santa Claus, I guess.
- watwut 5y ago
  > It would have been enough imo if the book just had a forward that noted some of it was conjecture based on whatever info they had. No, it would not be enough. It would be enough if the text of the book itself expressed a lot of uncertainty around facts that are uncertain. Not just CYA in forward and then writing it all confident and convincing to those who did not went through massive amount of work it takes to verify it all.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

> But the book, by Canadian author Rosemary Sullivan, prompted a backlash from Jewish groups and historians. The European Jewish Congress urged publisher HarperCollins to pull its English language edition, saying it had tarnished Anne Frank's memory and the dignity of Holocaust survivors. 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)

jb1991 5y ago
> 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-book-anne-frank-betrayal https://nltimes.nl/2022/03/22/historians-contradict-findings...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
rsynnott 5y ago
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.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  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?

schwartzworld 5y ago

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.

rafale 5y ago
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.
- FuriouslyAdrift 5y ago
  Yad Vashem has been recording testimonies for years and years... https://testimonies.yadvashem.org/index.html?search=&language=en https://testimonies.yadvashem.org/index.html?search=&languag...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hpcjoe 5y ago
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-conference https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-evian-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference

ykevinator2 5y ago

I watched a show on this, maybe 60 minutes, I can't remember, it was 100% not amateurish.

macinjosh 5y ago
Well if corporate news says its true it must be then.

sct202 5y ago

The refutation paper (very long fyi) is: https://admin.spui25.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Refutation_ENG_PDF.pdf 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-refutation 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.

lelandfe 5y ago
> 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.
- cyanydeez 5y ago
  Right behind the _free_ part
francisofascii 5y ago
Agreed. Or perhaps Google is to blame, for disincentivizing the practice.

danamit 5y ago

The book was not discredited, it faced a backlash, this is effectively a false title.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

> 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.

odd_perfect_num 5y ago
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.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  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.
  - chucksta 5y ago
    If he hadn't been Jewish, does it make a difference?
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      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.
      - chucksta 5y ago
        Sure, but how do you hold anyone accountable then? OPs language sounded like a rephrase of "just following orders"

macinjosh 5y ago

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.

aaron695 5y ago