After 77 years since the end of the Second World War, one question filled with doubt in the hearts of those who read Anne Frank’s diary: who denounced Anne and her family’s hiding place?
Reporting her own experiences surrounded by the atrocities committed in the Holocaust, the 15-year-old girl spent two years hidden in a secret annex which, on August 1st, 1944, was found by the Gestapo, the secret police of Nazi Germany. More than 70 years later, her case was reopened, when investigators believed they had found the real delator of the hideout. Analyzing both the scenario and the victims of this denunciation becomes essential to understand the tragic dimensionality of that time.
The investigation began in 2016 and was led by the former FBI agent Vince Pankoke, who had the collaboration of multiple experts and historians, as well as the use of artificial intelligence and computer algorithms for document analysis. The result suggests that Arnold van den Bergh, a member of The Amsterdam Jewish Council, reported the secret annex. It is also believed that the Jew gave the address of other hiding places to save his own family.
The breakdown of the case is narrated in the book “The Betrayal of Anne Frank: A Cold Case Investigation”, recently published by Rosemary Sullivan. Seeking to solve the mystery of millions of visitors to Anne Frank’s house in Amsterdam, investigators interviewed descendants of families who knew the Franks and inspected documents never before analyzed.
It was a completely troubled and uncertain period, from which there was no way of knowing who to trust to survive the violence imposed by the Nazis, which made the precaution of checking interviews very necessary. Among the several pieces of evidence presented, the main one is an anonymous letter to Anne’s father, Otto Frank, which declared that his address had been betrayed.
The Amsterdam Jewish Council, an organization that enforced the implementation of Nazi policy and deportations in Jewish areas, was dissolved in 1943 and all its members were sent to concentration camps. However, Van de Bergh was the only one between them who continued to reside in the Netherlands. Witnesses also declared that there were rumors of an informant within the Council.
The investigative team believes that Mr. Frank knew that a Jew had reported his addresses to save his and his wife’s lives, who were spared from the camps, but he kept it a secret. The main cause is explained by the strong anti-Semitic pressure present at that time and the lack of understanding of the extreme decisions they had to make to save their family members.
Dealing with the controversy created after the book was published, former agent Pankoke declares the following opinion: “Without the Nazi occupiers, none of this would have happened”. Having a different religion and customs was the main reason for many years of repression, pain, and torture for a whole people that carries deep scars in its history until today. The conception of an ideal race neglects the heterogeneity of individuals and leaves room for prejudice, an old ally of wars.
And this is not far from us. A Brazilian journalist, called Eliane Brum, interviewed the holocaust survivor David Dubin, who fled to Brazil after the war, in her book “The life that no one sees”, or “A Vida Que Ninguém Vê”, in Portuguese. It becomes impossible not to reflect on how the Jews who survived became victims as much as those sent to concentration camps, held hostage by memories that will last a lifetime. Eliane says: “Their people were killed by those they lived with for a lifetime, with whom they exchanged good and bad news, and suffered from the same hunger.”
In the end, the words of Anne Frank touch us precisely because they are that particular spark that unfortunately was extinguished too soon. Her personal and internal questions dialogue with millions of readers around the world till nowadays. The owner of the most famous diary in history uttered the following sentence twenty days before being captured: “Despite everything, I still believe in human kindness”. Even under the circumstances, Anne had an optimistic view of the individuals. It is precisely this empathetic vision that could have avoided the hatred created by the war and its terrible consequences, such as the unsustainable decision Arnold van den Bergh had to make. Her life may have ended prematurely, but her story, like all those sparks, will never be forgotten.
————————-
The article above was written by Marcela Abreu and edited by Isabela Novelli. Liked this type of content? Check out Her Campus Casper Libero for more!