From the article:
>A relatively unknown figure, Arnold van den Bergh, has emerged as the prime suspect in a painstaking investigation that has called on the expertise of around 20 historians, criminologists and data specialists. […]
>The Jewish businessman Arnold van de Bergh was a member of the council and neither him nor his immediate family died in the camps, according to the new research. One of the investigators, Pieter van Twisk, told the daily NRC newspaper on Monday that it was “very likely” that Van de Bergh had betrayed the Franks in order to save his own family. The team concluded that Van de Bergh, who died in 1950, had access to information about the hiding place through his role on the council.
>“He was simply a very smart man who played it safe. Someone who played three-dimensional chess,” Mr van Twisk said. “You would like to know exactly how Van de Bergh did it, and we don’t know that.”
>He referred to an anonymous note that Otto Frank received shortly after the war identifying “A. van den Bergh” as the person who revealed the Frank’s hiding place. Mr van Twisk added: “You would, of course, also want to know who wrote that anonymous note, and we don’t know that either.”
Stereotypical notary.
If that’s true that wouldn’t surprise me really. People in power have often pitted Jews against each other and any other minority they considered threats or scapegoats to get what they want.
The core of the story is
> it was “very likely” that Van de Bergh had betrayed the Franks in order to save his own family.
Yet, The Independent prefers to point out in the title just the Jewishness of the traitor.
Oh, great, it wasn’t the Germans’ fault after all
[removed]
This article is published to sell an upcoming book and documentary
This man was already marked in the 60s as a suspect and there has been no new evidence since then. It was inconclusive back then.
Some nuance:
Here’s a reaction of Ronald Leopold, General Director of the Anne Frank Foundation.
> Leopold calls the investigation of the cold case team ‘very good and careful’, but according to him the important puzzle pieces are still missing.
>One of the proofs is an anonymous note that father Otto Frank is said to have received shortly after the war. It stated that this notary had shared Frank’s hiding place with the Germans and that more addresses were shared by him. Investigators found a copy of this note in a police officer’s family records.
>Leopold calls the finding of the copy of the note ‘special’. But he also has many questions. “Where is the original? Who wrote it and with what intention?”
> The general director also has many questions about the alleged list of hiding addresses that Van den Bergh may have possessed through the Jewish Council, of which he was a member, and that Van den Bergh would have shared it with the Germans. “We don’t know for sure if it existed and therefore we don’t know if he had it.”
in “the banality of evil” annah arendt talks a lot about the fact that the germans in every country they occupied, created organizations made by jews to handle the control of the kewish question.
Ahahahahahahahaha *cartman wheeze*
[removed]
Did they finally find our how her diaries were written in part with ballpen?
11 comments
From the article:
>A relatively unknown figure, Arnold van den Bergh, has emerged as the prime suspect in a painstaking investigation that has called on the expertise of around 20 historians, criminologists and data specialists. […]
>The Jewish businessman Arnold van de Bergh was a member of the council and neither him nor his immediate family died in the camps, according to the new research. One of the investigators, Pieter van Twisk, told the daily NRC newspaper on Monday that it was “very likely” that Van de Bergh had betrayed the Franks in order to save his own family. The team concluded that Van de Bergh, who died in 1950, had access to information about the hiding place through his role on the council.
>“He was simply a very smart man who played it safe. Someone who played three-dimensional chess,” Mr van Twisk said. “You would like to know exactly how Van de Bergh did it, and we don’t know that.”
>He referred to an anonymous note that Otto Frank received shortly after the war identifying “A. van den Bergh” as the person who revealed the Frank’s hiding place. Mr van Twisk added: “You would, of course, also want to know who wrote that anonymous note, and we don’t know that either.”
Stereotypical notary.
If that’s true that wouldn’t surprise me really. People in power have often pitted Jews against each other and any other minority they considered threats or scapegoats to get what they want.
The core of the story is
> it was “very likely” that Van de Bergh had betrayed the Franks in order to save his own family.
Yet, The Independent prefers to point out in the title just the Jewishness of the traitor.
Oh, great, it wasn’t the Germans’ fault after all
[removed]
This article is published to sell an upcoming book and documentary
This man was already marked in the 60s as a suspect and there has been no new evidence since then. It was inconclusive back then.
Some nuance:
Here’s a reaction of Ronald Leopold, General Director of the Anne Frank Foundation.
> Leopold calls the investigation of the cold case team ‘very good and careful’, but according to him the important puzzle pieces are still missing.
>One of the proofs is an anonymous note that father Otto Frank is said to have received shortly after the war. It stated that this notary had shared Frank’s hiding place with the Germans and that more addresses were shared by him. Investigators found a copy of this note in a police officer’s family records.
>Leopold calls the finding of the copy of the note ‘special’. But he also has many questions. “Where is the original? Who wrote it and with what intention?”
> The general director also has many questions about the alleged list of hiding addresses that Van den Bergh may have possessed through the Jewish Council, of which he was a member, and that Van den Bergh would have shared it with the Germans. “We don’t know for sure if it existed and therefore we don’t know if he had it.”
https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/5281574/anne-frank-stichting-reactie-verraad-notaris-verder-onderzoek
in “the banality of evil” annah arendt talks a lot about the fact that the germans in every country they occupied, created organizations made by jews to handle the control of the kewish question.
Ahahahahahahahaha *cartman wheeze*
[removed]
Did they finally find our how her diaries were written in part with ballpen?