4 ms·

> But the book, by Canadian author Rosemary Sullivan, prompted a backlash from Jewish groups and historians. The European Jewish Congress urged publisher Harper

> 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?
  - watwut 5y ago
    > Isn't that why there are historians? No, historians are not there to speculate, make up stuff and then act overconfident.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    I think time makes a difference there, along with the general character of the people involved. "Twenty generations back one of your ancestors killed some children" isn't likely to be particularly concerning to anyone, particularly when most of the obvious candidates are documented to have done far worse than that anyway. Accusing someone's grandparent of a heinous crime to sell a book is a bit different, and, well, I mean, nothing's stopping you doing it, it's _legal_, but unless you can prove it (as they appear to have failed to), people aren't going to be too thrilled about it. Like, this wasn't a sober academic paper, it was a mass-market pop-history book.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      Well, I think that's being hypersensitive. [Edit] I don't mean you, rsynnott. My father fought for the British Army in Malaya. I'm not campaigning for the suppression of information about the crimes the brits committed there. Among my ancestors are people who were in the cotton business, in Liverpool; the ships went from Liverpool (manufactured goods) to the Gold Coast of Africa (sell goods, pick up slaves) to American colonies (sell slaves, buy cotton), and back to Liverpool. I'm not campaigning to block that information either.
denton-scratch 5y ago
It's not at all clear to me why an investigation into the identity of the betrayer "tarnished Anne Frank's memory and the dignity of Holocaust survivors". This looks to me like the worst kind of gatekeeping: gentiles aren't allowed to do research on Jewish heroes. Perhaps the BBC article is just really badly written.
watwut 5y ago
Literally paragraph 2: - Now a new report by a team of World War Two experts and historians has said its research does not stand up to scrutiny. And then: - 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. So, maybe the question is, what motivates people to cherry pick one sentence out of that article and then lie about nature of complains?

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?
- watwut 5y ago
  > Isn't that why there are historians? No, historians are not there to speculate, make up stuff and then act overconfident.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  I think time makes a difference there, along with the general character of the people involved. "Twenty generations back one of your ancestors killed some children" isn't likely to be particularly concerning to anyone, particularly when most of the obvious candidates are documented to have done far worse than that anyway. Accusing someone's grandparent of a heinous crime to sell a book is a bit different, and, well, I mean, nothing's stopping you doing it, it's _legal_, but unless you can prove it (as they appear to have failed to), people aren't going to be too thrilled about it. Like, this wasn't a sober academic paper, it was a mass-market pop-history book.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Well, I think that's being hypersensitive. [Edit] I don't mean you, rsynnott. My father fought for the British Army in Malaya. I'm not campaigning for the suppression of information about the crimes the brits committed there. Among my ancestors are people who were in the cotton business, in Liverpool; the ships went from Liverpool (manufactured goods) to the Gold Coast of Africa (sell goods, pick up slaves) to American colonies (sell slaves, buy cotton), and back to Liverpool. I'm not campaigning to block that information either.

denton-scratch 5y ago

It's not at all clear to me why an investigation into the identity of the betrayer "tarnished Anne Frank's memory and the dignity of Holocaust survivors". This looks to me like the worst kind of gatekeeping: gentiles aren't allowed to do research on Jewish heroes. Perhaps the BBC article is just really badly written.

watwut 5y ago

Literally paragraph 2: - Now a new report by a team of World War Two experts and historians has said its research does not stand up to scrutiny. And then: - 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. So, maybe the question is, what motivates people to cherry pick one sentence out of that article and then lie about nature of complains?