Tag: Diary of Anne Frank

This is an outstanding non-fiction mystery story. Most people know the basics of the Anne Frank story. Anne and her family were Jews living in Amsterdam when the Nazis conquered the Netherlands. They went into hiding in the annex behind her father’s business premises. They hid there for a long two years and thirty days, during which time Anne kept a diary. On August 4, 1944, the Nazis raided the annex in response to a tip that there were Jews hiding there. Anne and her family were deported to Auschwitz, where her mother perished. Anne and her sister died in Bergen-Belsen. Only her father, Otto, survived. In a fascinating twist of fate, the book reveals that two days before the liberation of the Auscwitz camp, Otto “had been in a lineup awaiting execution when Russian soldiers had approached, sending the SS firing squad running for cover.”

What we don’t know

The Nazis were skilled in tracking down Jews in hiding. Two of their favorite techniques were to offer a bounty to those who reported Jews (Kopgeld), and to bargain with those who had been captured to report on their fellows Jews in hiding. Tragically, betrayal was commonplace, even among the Jews themselves.

What no one knows is who tipped off the Nazis that there eight Jews hiding in the annex.

The book recounts the work of the team of investigators, led by retired FBI undercover agent, Vince Pankoke. For six years this team crawled over historical documents, searched through archives, interviewed survivors, and put together their best guess on who betrayed the Frank family. The story is a fascinating read as the author takes us through the examination of multiple leads, culminating with their final decision.

So who did it? (Spoiler Alert)

The team identifies the betrayer as Arnold van den Bergh, one of only seven Dutch-Jewish notaries in the Netherlands. The book explains that the notary role was very different to the role of a notary in the US. This role was highly prestigious and notaries were present at all manner of events, from marriages to business creation to property transactions. Van den Bergh has lost his position as a notary because of his Jewish heritage and the investigators believed that he traded away a list of addresses where Jews were in hiding in order to save his own life, and that of his wife and three daughters. Tragically, the address of the annex was one of those on the list.

So did he really do it? The only people who really know the answer to this question have all died. However, the book presents some compelling evidence in support of this conclusion.

Three things I learned

First, the investigators concluded that Otto ultimately knew who had betrayed them. He had been tipped off by an anonymous note that pointed out van den Bergh. However, Otto consistently refused to identify the betrayer, and expressed that he did not want the betrayers family to suffer for what had been done. This is indeed a noble gesture.

Second, the use of Jews who turned traitor was quite shocking to me. The book recounts multiple V-men and women – Jews who had been identified but to save themselves, went undercover to help sniff out other Jews in hiding. One of the most notorious — — was executed in Amers

Third, the division among the Dutch citizens was more pronounced than I realized. There were many who assisted the Nazis, either actively or by merely looking the other way, or even enriched themselves openly at the expense of the Jews who lived among them. But then there was the resistance movement and the Dutch citizens who became “hiders”. These were the people who risked their own lives to frustrate the Nazi machine and save the lives of thousands of Jews who depended on them. Related to this, the book brings through the sense of dependency that Otto felt. In a short space of time he went from being a prosperous and successful businessmen, to someone whose life depended on the goodwill of his former employees and friends.

Concluding thoughts

My first instinct at the thought of van den Bergh betraying his fellow Jews was one of disgust. How could he do it? But Otto’s willingness to forgive and the books concluding comment on this is quite compelling. The author notes that:

Like Otto Frank, his goal was simple: to save his family. That he succeeded while Otto failed is a terrible fact of history.

While I can see this point, I remain unconvinced of the moral equivalency of Otto Frank and Arnold van den Bergh. It’s true that Otto did everything he could do survive and to protect his family — but it didn’t come at the cost of the lives of other Jews. In contrast, van den Bergh sold out countless other Jews to save his own life and his family. Ultimately, he collaborated with the Nazis for personal gain and, in that regard, he was a traitor rather than a hero.