The Betrayal of Anne Frank

1. The Raid: A Sudden End to Two Years in Hiding

When the Gestapo came in with their guns, that was the end of everything.

The unthinkable happened. On August 4, 1944, a German SS officer, Karl Josef Silberbauer, and several Dutch policemen raided Prinsengracht 263, ending the 761-day hiding of eight people in the secret Annex. Otto Frank, Anne's father and the sole survivor, vividly recalled the shock and silence that met the raiders, who were acting on a tip about Jews in hiding. Silberbauer's greed, ironically, saved Anne's diary when he emptied her father's briefcase of papers to fill it with valuables.

A chilling encounter. Otto Frank's status as a World War I German officer briefly confused Silberbauer, highlighting the bizarre intersection of military hierarchy and Nazi racial ideology. However, this momentary hesitation did not alter the outcome. Silberbauer's callousness was evident in his later remarks, dismissing Anne as incidental and portraying himself as the victim of the subsequent attention.

The human cost. The raid led to the deportation of all eight hiders to concentration camps. Only Otto Frank survived the horrors that followed. The event underscored the terrifying reality of life under occupation, where ordinary people were hunted and betrayed, often for financial gain, as evidenced by the "head bounty" system.

2. The Helpers: Ordinary People Taking Extraordinary Risks

You were asked. You said yes.

Simple humanity. Otto Frank's employees—Johannes Kleiman, Victor Kugler, Miep Gies, and Bep Voskuijl—along with Miep's husband, Jan Gies, and Bep's father, Johannes Voskuijl, risked their lives daily to protect the hiders. Their motivation was not heroism but a fundamental sense of compassion and friendship. They provided food, news, and emotional support, navigating the constant fear of discovery.

Living a double life. The helpers had to compartmentalize their lives, maintaining secrecy from colleagues, neighbors, and even family members not involved in the hiding. This required immense discipline and emotional strain, as they witnessed the escalating persecution of Jews and the brutal realities of occupation firsthand. Miep Gies described losing "the habit of speech" outside the Annex.

Unwavering commitment. Despite the risks, including imprisonment and death, the helpers never wavered in their commitment. They secured forged papers, ration cards, and food, often at great personal cost and danger. Their actions stand as a powerful testament to individual courage and solidarity in the face of overwhelming evil.

3. Previous Investigations: Limited Scope and Lingering Questions

No other official police investigation into the betrayal had ever been undertaken.

Two official inquiries. Despite the global fame of Anne Frank's diary, only two official police investigations into the Annex betrayal were conducted: one in 1947–1948 and another in 1963–1964. Both were hampered by the passage of time, loss of evidence, and the death of witnesses.

Focus on one suspect. The initial investigation primarily focused on Willem van Maaren, the warehouse manager hired after Bep's father fell ill. Suspicious behavior and accusations of theft made him a prime suspect for the helpers, but the police found no concrete proof of his involvement in the betrayal.

Unanswered questions. These early investigations left many questions unresolved, fueling decades of speculation and numerous theories proposed by authors and researchers. The lack of a definitive answer contributed to the enduring mystery surrounding the raid and highlighted the challenges of solving historical cold cases.

4. New Methods: Leveraging Technology and Global Archives

We consulted twenty-nine archives... This was no abstract journey. It was emotionally costly to confront the tragic history these archives preserved.

A modern approach. Recognizing the limitations of previous efforts, the Cold Case Team employed cutting-edge methods, including artificial intelligence (AI), forensic analysis, and extensive archival research across multiple countries. The AI program helped process vast amounts of data, identifying connections between people, places, and events that were previously overlooked.

Global search for evidence. The team scoured archives in the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Israel, the UK, Canada, Russia, and the US, uncovering millions of documents, including previously unknown "head bounty" receipts paid to Dutch police for arresting Jews. This demonstrated the widespread nature of collaboration and the financial incentives involved.

Witness interviews. While direct witnesses were scarce, the team interviewed secondary and informational witnesses, including relatives of those involved and experts in relevant fields. This human element, combined with technological tools, provided crucial context and new leads, transforming the investigation from a purely historical exercise into a dynamic cold case inquiry.

5. Early Suspects: Disproving Theories Through Diligent Research

Applying the team’s hybrid law enforcement axiom of knowledge, motive, and opportunity to the remaining theories allowed the team to eliminate even more.

Systematic elimination. The Cold Case Team rigorously examined numerous theories, including those implicating Willem van Maaren, Anton "Tonny" Ahlers (who had blackmailed Otto Frank earlier), Bep Voskuijl's sister Nelly, and the greengrocer Hendrik van Hoeve. Each suspect was evaluated based on whether they possessed the knowledge, motive, and opportunity to commit the betrayal.

Lack of conclusive evidence. While some suspects had potential motives (e.g., Ahlers's opportunism, Nelly's Nazi sympathies and family conflict, Van Maaren's suspicious behavior) or possible knowledge (e.g., neighbors, warehouse workers), the team found no definitive proof linking them directly to the raid. Alibis, lack of access to high-level SD contacts, or insufficient evidence of specific knowledge ultimately led to their elimination as the most likely betrayers.

The complexity of collaboration. The investigation revealed the varied motivations for collaboration, ranging from ideological zeal and financial gain (as seen with the "Jew hunters" and V-people) to coercion and self-preservation. However, simply being a collaborator or having suspicions was not enough to prove betrayal of the Annex.

6. The Anonymous Note: A Crucial Piece of Overlooked Evidence

Your hideout in Amsterdam was reported at the time to the Jüdische Auswanderung [Jewish Emigration] in Amsterdam, Euterpestraat by A. van den Bergh, a resident at the time at Vondelpark, O Nassaulaan.

A hidden accusation. Shortly after his return from Auschwitz, Otto Frank received an anonymous note accusing a member of the Jewish Council, A. van den Bergh, of betraying the Annex. The note claimed Van den Bergh had provided a list of addresses of Jews in hiding to the SD office on Euterpestraat. Otto kept this note secret from most people, including some of the helpers, for years.

Otto's actions. Instead of immediately going to the authorities, Otto conducted his own quiet investigation, questioning Dutch policemen involved in the raid and even visiting Van den Bergh's former address. He also made a copy of the note, which he later gave to Detective Van Helden during the 1963–64 investigation, though its significance was seemingly overlooked at the time.

A secret kept. The existence and content of this note, and Otto's decision to largely keep it secret, became a central mystery for the Cold Case Team. It suggested that Otto knew more than he publicly revealed and that the identity of the betrayer was not just unknown, but actively concealed.

7. The Jewish Council's Role: Navigating a Bureaucracy of Death

The Germans threw us a bone and watched with great pleasure how the Jews fought over it among one another.

An impossible position. The Jewish Council was a controversial body established by the Nazis to manage the Jewish community. Its members faced an agonizing dilemma: cooperate with German directives, including compiling deportation lists and issuing temporary exemptions (Sperres), in the hope of mitigating suffering, or refuse and risk harsher reprisals against the entire community.

The illusion of safety. The Sperre system, particularly the highly coveted "Calmeyer status," offered a temporary reprieve from deportation but ultimately served the Nazi goal of control and deception. Obtaining these exemptions often required wealth, connections, and navigating a complex, corrupt bureaucracy, sometimes involving questionable means.

Access to information. As the central administrative body for the Jewish community, the Jewish Council inevitably accumulated information, including addresses of people in hiding. While their primary function was not to betray, the pressure from the SD and the desperate struggle for survival created opportunities for information to be compromised or exchanged for protection.

8. Arnold van den Bergh: A Prominent Figure with Access and Motive

If in fact he had done it, she said finally, she knew it could have been for only one reason: because he was forced, because he had to save his family’s lives.

Accused by a note. Arnold van den Bergh, a wealthy Jewish notary and member of the Jewish Council, was the individual named in the anonymous note Otto Frank received. He held a prominent position in the Jewish community and had connections that allowed him to navigate the Nazi bureaucracy in ways most Jews could not.

Strategies for survival. Van den Bergh actively sought ways to protect his family, including obtaining various Sperres and eventually securing "Calmeyer status," which reclassified him as non-Jewish and exempted his family from deportation. He also arranged for his daughters to be hidden by the resistance.

Access and opportunity. As a notary, Van den Bergh had access to sensitive information. His position on the Jewish Council and his efforts to secure his family's safety through connections with figures like Alois Miedl (who dealt with high-ranking Nazis like Göring) placed him in a unique position to potentially acquire or exchange information valuable to the SD, such as lists of hiding addresses.

9. The Goudstikker Connection: Art, Influence, and Survival Strategies

Van den Bergh was clearly counting on Miedl to return the favor by using his influence with the Nazi administration to protect him and his family.

A web of connections. Arnold van den Bergh served as the notary for the forced sale of the valuable Goudstikker art collection to Alois Miedl, a German art dealer with deep ties to the Nazi elite, including Hermann Göring and SD leaders. This transaction, though a form of collaboration, provided Van den Bergh with crucial contacts within the Nazi hierarchy.

Leveraging influence. Van den Bergh used these connections to secure exemptions and protection for his family, including his Calmeyer status. When this status was challenged, he likely relied on these same contacts for warnings and possibly sanctuary, such as hiding on Miedl's property.

A desperate exchange? As the war turned against Germany and Miedl fled, Van den Bergh's protection diminished. Facing renewed danger, the team hypothesized that he may have used information he possessed, such as lists of hiding addresses potentially obtained through his Jewish Council connections, as a final bargaining chip to ensure his family's survival.

10. The Conclusion: A Painful Truth and a Secret Kept

Arnold van den Bergh was a person put into a devil’s dilemma by circumstances for which he was not to blame, and, under pressure, he may have failed to understand fully the consequences of his actions.

The most likely betrayer. Based on the anonymous note, Otto Frank's actions, Miep Gies's later clues, and the evidence gathered regarding Arnold van den Bergh's knowledge, motive, and opportunity, the Cold Case Team concluded that Van den Bergh was the most likely person to have provided the address that led to the Annex raid. He had access to lists of addresses, a powerful motive (saving his family), and connections to the SD.

Otto's secret. Otto Frank likely learned of Van den Bergh's alleged role shortly after the war via the anonymous note. His decision to keep this secret, particularly from the public and even some helpers, was likely multifaceted:

• Protecting Van den Bergh's surviving family.
• Avoiding fueling anti-Semitic narratives that Jews betrayed Jews.
• Uncertainty about the note's absolute truth and the full context of Van den Bergh's actions.

A tragic dilemma. The team emphasizes that Van den Bergh, if he was the betrayer, acted under immense duress, facing a horrific choice between his family's survival and the lives of others. His actions, while deadly, were a product of the impossible situation created by the Nazi regime, which bears the ultimate responsibility for the deaths in the Annex and millions of others.

Last updated: May 15, 2025