August 1944 Anne Frank, the young Jewish girl whose journal of her life in hiding in Nazi-occupied Amsterdam made her a world-wide symbol for the Holocaust, was betrayed. Now, 60 years on, the question of who reported the Frank family to the Nazis remains unanswered.
Between 1942 and 1944 Anne Frank, her parents, older sister Margot and four other people hid in a small annex behind her father's office in the center of Amsterdam. In the cramped space Anne wrote of her daily life in hiding and her teenage fears and hopes.
PHOTOS: AFP
On August 4, 1944, after somebody reported their presence to the Nazis, Anne and the others were deported. She died in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in March 1945, aged 15, shortly before the camp was liberated by the Allies at the war's end.
After the war, only Anne's father Otto returned from the camps. He got Anne's diary from a Dutch woman who helped the Frank family in hiding and published it. In 1952, when it was first published in English, the diary touched a nerve in the US and Anne came to symbolize the horrors of the Holocaust to people all over the world.
Over the years several theories have surfaced about who betrayed the Frank family and why.
"It is perfectly natural. If you see what happened to Anne Frank, you want to catch the culprit. People are angry and they want to know," Hans Westra, director of the Anne Frank Foundation in Amsterdam, said.
On Aug. 4, 1944, SS official Karl Joseph Silberbauer and three Dutch collaborators came to the Prinsengracht 263, where the Frank family was in hiding. The police arrived and demanded to be taken to the Jews in hiding and were taken straight to the annex, Silberbauer told investigators after the war. He could, however, not say who denounced the Frank family to the Nazis.
Over the years, three main suspects for the betrayal of Anne Frank emerged: Wim van Maaren, an employee of Otto Frank-Lena Hartog-Van Bladeren, a cleaning lady in the office and Anthon "Tonny" Ahlers, a committed Nazi who was also a petty thief who blackmailed Otto Frank.
Two years ago English researcher Carol Anne Lee, who wrote a biography of Otto Frank, pointed to Ahlers as the culprit. This former business associate of Otto was a well-known anti-Semite who needed money and protection from the Nazis, she argued.
Austrian writer Melissa Muller said Hartog-Van Bladeren betrayed the family because she feared she could be deported together with her husband for aiding the Frank family if they were discovered.
For many years Van Maaren was the main suspect but two post-war police investigations turned up nothing and he always professed his innocence.
After extensive research last year, historians of the Dutch War Documentation Institute concluded that we will probably never know who betrayed Anne Frank.
"The conclusion of our inquiry is that we do not consider any of the three suspects to be a likely candidate for the role of betrayer," the historians wrote.
The Germans burned their archives when they pulled out of Amsterdam and there is little chance today of finding evidence to substantiate any of the claims.
"Going into hiding with seven others in the center of Amsterdam, a situation where you even have to be afraid of the warehouse assistant in your old business and do not know what your neighbors are thinking and doing, greatly reduces your chances of survival. The annex could and still can be seen, by at least a hundred residents [in the area]," the historians explained.
The mystery of who betrayed the 15-year-old Anne Frank will probably always remain as her remarkable story continues to move people all around the world.
Her diary was translated into 69 languages and has sold over 31 million copies. The house where the family hid receives almost a million visitors each year.
May 6 to May 12 Those who follow the Chinese-language news may have noticed the usage of the term zhuge (豬哥, literally ‘pig brother,’ a male pig raised for breeding purposes) in reports concerning the ongoing #Metoo scandal in the entertainment industry. The term’s modern connotations can range from womanizer or lecher to sexual predator, but it once referred to an important rural trade. Until the 1970s, it was a common sight to see a breeder herding a single “zhuge” down a rustic path with a bamboo whip, often traveling large distances over rugged terrain to service local families. Not only
Ahead of incoming president William Lai’s (賴清德) inauguration on May 20 there appear to be signs that he is signaling to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and that the Chinese side is also signaling to the Taiwan side. This raises a lot of questions, including what is the CCP up to, who are they signaling to, what are they signaling, how with the various actors in Taiwan respond and where this could ultimately go. In the last column, published on May 2, we examined the curious case of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) heavyweight Tseng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦) — currently vice premier
The last time Mrs Hsieh came to Cihu Park in Taoyuan was almost 50 years ago, on a school trip to the grave of Taiwan’s recently deceased dictator. Busloads of children were brought in to pay their respects to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正), known as Generalissimo, who had died at 87, after decades ruling Taiwan under brutal martial law. “There were a lot of buses, and there was a long queue,” Hsieh recalled. “It was a school rule. We had to bow, and then we went home.” Chiang’s body is still there, under guard in a mausoleum at the end of a path
Last week the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) released a set of very strange numbers on Taiwan’s wealth distribution. Duly quoted in the Taipei Times, the report said that “The Gini coefficient for Taiwanese households… was 0.606 at the end of 2021, lower than Australia’s 0.611, the UK’s 0.620, Japan’s 0.678, France’s 0.676 and Germany’s 0.727, the agency said in a report.” The Gini coefficient is a measure of relative inequality, usually of wealth or income, though it can be used to evaluate other forms of inequality. However, for most nations it is a number from .25 to .50