The Dutch

[InsaneApache]

I remember it from the excellent World at War produced back in the '70s. I'm now furiously looking for a link to back me up.

[Fragony]

I remember it from the excellent World at War produced back in the '70s. I'm now furiously looking for a link to back me up.

The february strike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_strike

[InsaneApache]

The strike was set for February 25, a Tuesday. The Communists particularly wanted the participation of the city's municipal workers, especially the Amsterdam's streetcar conductors and drivers. The absence of streetcars, so it was thought, would be particularly dramatic. There was some hesitation among the streetcar employees---but on the day of the strike many of the streetcars never left the sheds and many of those which did, returned after their first run. By 12:00 not a single streetcar was running in Amsterdam. By day's end nearly 50% of all municipal employees had gone on strike. In turn, they were joined by many of Amsterdam's metal and shipyard workers. The strike spread among white and blue collar Large crowds assembled in the streets of Amsterdam. The Dutch police undertook no serious action against the strikers.

http://www-lib.usc.edu/~anthonya/war/febstrik.htm

Thanks Fragony.

[Fragony]

Kinda odd that nothing is to be found of this quite unique event in dutch schoolbooks, too busy making up stories of Marroccan soldiers who drowned near Dunkerk and washed ashore fought of 8 panzerdevisions armed with nothing other then their ancestral daggers and a strong desire for peace.

[InsaneApache]

So it's not taught in schools anymore? Strange. When I first met my erstwhile friend and colleague, I jokingly referred to the Dutch Waffen SS divisions recruited in The Netherlands. (The old 'don't mention the war' ploy ) and he got quite upset.

He reminded me of the February strike, which I'd forgotten about. I felt a right tit at the time, I'll never forget the look of hurt and anguish on his face, that's why I remember it to this day.

Although the Danes did something similar when they spirited the Jews across to Sweden on one night, going on strike in Nazi occupied territories was a brave thing to do.

[Fragony]

So it's not taught in schools anymore? Strange.

Learned about it a few years ago. You have to take into consideration that dutch schools are run by social democrats, bit like labour but radicalised. Could be that it was tought but I mostly remember how I was to educate my parents about acid rain. Take notice on how the mind of my buddy AdrianII instantly switches to the holocaust when confronted with national achievements.

[JR-]

sounds very like the British educational establishment, populated by the left wing in general, with the teaching unions staffed by people who still regard Maggie as the devil incarnate to this day!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why Were So Many Dutch Jews Killed?
The percentage of Jews from The Netherlands murdered by the Germans and their associates in World War II was higher than in any other Western European country.

Quite simple, dutch civil records you could see what religion someone had all the nazi's had a nice list to work with, and it's a small easily managed country. Where to hide there is no nowhere to hide.

The article already rubbished both excuses:


Nice lists and a well-managed country? Why, indeed it was, and far from being on massive strikes, the famous Dutch work ethic functioned unhampered. What's more, it appears this Dutch Protestant work ethic was more about finishing off a job than about any ethics:

In their preparations for the extermination of the Jews living in The Netherlands, the Germans could count on the assistance of the greater part of the Dutch administrative infrastructure. The occupiers had to employ only a relatively limited number of their own. Dutch policemen rounded up the families to be sent to their deaths in Eastern Europe. Trains of the Dutch railways staffed by Dutch employees transported the Jews to camps in The Netherlands which were transit points to Auschwitz, Sobibor, and other death camps. Van der Zee writes that with respect to Dutch collaboration, Eichmann later said "The transports run so smoothly that it is a pleasure to see."



Nowhere to hide in a small and flat country? Apparantly, there were no places to hide for Jews about to be murdered, but plenty for Dutch to evade labour service:

Yet another reason sometimes given for the high Jewish death-toll is that The Netherlands is a small and flat country in which it is more difficult to hide than in Belgium or France. This is a weak argument since, in the later war years, many hiding places were found for Dutch workers who had been called up for labor service in Germany.

-~-~-~<o(o{O}o)o>~-~-~-

A Jew was twice as safe in Catholic Belgium. A Jew was three times as safe in France, even in Vichy. Four times as safe in Italy. In fact, in the 1940's, a Jew was even safer in Berlin than in Amsterdam.

Part of the explanation is, that contrary to public perception, in West Europe, including Germany, Jews were much safer amidst Catholics than amidst Protestants. All the later uproar about the indifference of the silent pope Pius? Pah. For real cold, bitter disinterest in the plight of Jews, read some Protestant sermons of the time.
It is in Protestant theology, and in Calvinism even moreso than in Lutheranism or Episcopialism, that a man's misfortune is regarded rightful punishment from God for the error of his ways. And the reverse: a man's plight is proof of his wickedness. Being send to Ausswitch meant one had deserved it. And if one deserved it, obviously one ought to be send to there. Can't interfere with the will of God.

Short of memory and long of hypocrisy they are, our pious Protestant friends.

Sorry Fragony, I hate it when threads descent into WWII debates yet again, but it is a hobby of mine to debunk national mythology. A Renaniste will carefully point out that nationhood is as much about remembering a common past as about common 'forgetfulness' about the past.
I'll go one better and say that there isn't a past at all. There is but a representation of the past. In the case of nationalism, a construction of a past to create and bind a community, often were there wasn't a community to begin with. A construction founded on narratives that are, if not necessarily false, based on selective cherry-picking of events, out of which a narrative is build to support contemporary demands. A past does not create an identity, an identity creates itself a fitting past.

There is a gaping hole in the above: a construct of a past creates a national identity, and this identity creates a construction of a past. This is a circular reasoning that remains unexplained. This is because I, in fact, haven't got a clue what I'm going on about You shall all have to work it out for yourselves. I shall leave it it as a challenge. With no small hope of enticing Adrian into further discussion and lure him back into the abyss of Backroom debate.

[Fragony]

Sorry Fragony, I hate it when threads descent into WWII debates yet again, but it is a hobby of mine to debunk national mythology.

No national mythology your version is the commonly accepted one, you confusing what has been said about us not what we say ourselves. National myths should be known to the population I'd say, good luck finding a dutchman who has heard of that strike. There is a whole lot more to the high number of jews deported not in the least the role of the jews themselves.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~rescuers/bo...s.Holland.html

The second factor was the German device of setting up a Jewish Council, the Joodsche Raad, composed of a group of prominent middle-class Jewish leaders, for the purpose of conveying German commands efficiently to the Jewish population. The Jewish leaders reasoned among themselves, as they did in other occupied countries, that their role in keeping the channels of communication with their German oppressers open, and of maintaining law and order in the newly formed chaotic ghetto population of uprooted families, would help the bereft Jews more than harm them. In retrospect it is easy to see how wrong they were, as the Council quickly became the unwitting tool of the German destruction machinery, actually delivering the Jews directly to the German deportation trains.

^-didn't work out that well for them

[Adrian II]

Dutch policemen rounded up the families to be sent to their deaths in Eastern Europe.

Some did, but the majority of policemen didn't. Some Jews were rounded up by Dutch police, but the majority of Jewish victims were rounded up in German razzia's conducted by SS, Grüne Polizei and the regular army.

The source which you quote is rich on hyperbole, as is the work of the historian, Nanda van der Zee, on which it is partly based.

In fact, in the 1940's, a Jew was even safer in Berlin than in Amsterdam.

Eh?

You know as well as I that such comparisons are crap. But if you can't even get your crap right, what does it tell us about your real views?

Let's see if it's even approximately true.

By 1943 all Berlin Jews had been officielly deported. The city was declared 'Judenrein', i.e. 'clear of Jews', in that year. After the war it appeared that about 8.000 (out of almost 200.000) had managed to survive undercover. That's 4 % of the total. In Amsterdam there were about 90.000 Jews in 1940. Just over 25% survived, equalling about 23.000. If you factor in the comparative sizes of both cities, the difference becomes even more .. thought-provoking.

Regarding the February Strike (as it is known here) of 1941, this was the first and largest mass protest against the deportation of Jews anywhere in Europe. Are we to conclude that a Dutchman was ten times more likely to protest the deportations than a German, twenty-five times more than a Frenchman, etcetera...?

As for you statement that during 1940-1945 Jews were safer in Catholic countries and areas - try good old Catholic Austria for size. Not only did it do worse than most other nations in protecting Jews, it also provided a remarkable number of the actual persecutors. Among them Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Hitler's Reichskommissar for the occupied Netherlands.

As you can see I don't shy away from a good peeing contest. Or a crapping contest, rather. But it has little to do with history as we pretend to know it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Crap

Ah, but is that your hurt historical sense speaking, or your hurt national pride? Perhaps a mix?

I would venture to say that it is not just the wee bit of hyperbole and poetic license in my presentation of WWII in the Netherlands that got your back up.

Could it be, that maybe you too are not insensitive to nationalism? That your Dutch identity then is, in fact, present, and is based on more than just 'laws and institutions'?

National identity is a catch-phrase that never passes a reality test. To me, nationhood is defined by the laws and institutions of a nation, not by a supposed national identity.

[Fragony]

Could it be, that maybe you too are not insensitive to nationalism? That your Dutch identity then is, in fact, present, and is based on more than just 'laws and institutions'?

Was waiting for you to move in for the kill.

But AdrianII is correct that van der Zee work is controversial, often accused of being a political pamflet rather then a real historical study. It is dripping with rethoric and isn't that much respected nowadays.

[Adrian II]

Could it be, that maybe you too are not insensitive to nationalism?

Oh, stop the second-guessing. Let us say that I am related to people who were personally involved in all this. The good and the bad were always mixed in these episodes. The art is in getting the mixture right.

And what you did in your post is akin to mixing large chunks of Fourme D'Ambert into a bowl of lemonade and topping it off with potato chips and soy sauce.

[Fragony]

although that episode, too, is surrounded with myths, it is at least something to write home about.

I have no time for Europeans who boast about 'their' war past or belittle that of others. That's usually just crap meant to serve present-day purposes.

Yep. You even make the time when someone isn't boasting, pre-emptive pc strike.

Regarding the February Strike (as it is known here) of 1941, this was the first and largest mass protest against the deportation of Jews anywhere in Europe

Make up your mind. Can rub the wrong way can't it I have never seen such nationalistic zeal for quite some time. Stuck between two reflexes aren't we. A (somewhat) hostile when being proud of anything that goes back before you, but still you do appear to be kinda stung by Louis. I kinda am but that just me.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Let us say that I am related to people who were personally involved in all this. The good and the bad were always mixed in these episodes. The art is in getting the mixture right.

And what you did in your post is akin to mixing large chunks of Fourme D'Ambert into a bowl of lemonade and topping it off with potato chips and soy sauce.

I love fusion cooking!


As to the other points: we all are related to people who lived the age. All my grandparents and great-grandparents were in the resistance.

Which means, as most Europeans will know: they weren't. Or rather, they somewhat were. They did what everybody did: they tried to get through as well as they could. They did some things right, other things...not so much. WWII is not black and white, it is grey. The good and the bad were always mixed in these episodes indeed. The divide is certainly not between nations, nor, more relevantly, even between individuals. It was within each person. Empathy, context, an eye for the human scale of events are what is needed to write the history of WWII.


Edit: which is not to say that my post wasn't factually correct. With the exception of saying 'Berlin' where it should've been 'Germany'. If one compares the number of Jews pre-1933 with the number that were murdered, Germany's murder percentage is rather low. This is of course because many German Jews had fled abroad beore 1939, and were later murdered abroad or from abroad. And later appeared on the statistics of these countries. Lies, gross lies and statistics: shelter a lot a fleeing Jews in the 1930's, whom are duly at great risk a few years later because they haven't had time to integrate well in their host societies, and you end up in the history books as a nation with a high percentage of murdered Jews, easily surpassing Germany.

Which shows that it is all too easy to impose a ridiculous narrative on historical events while still sticking to historical fact. Which is pretty much what all the different nationalistic histories of European nations are all about.

[Kralizec]

Some did, but the majority of policemen didn't. Some Jews were rounded up by Dutch police, but the majority of Jewish victims were rounded up in German razzia's conducted by SS, Grüne Polizei and the regular army.

That reminds me of a story my late grandmother told me (several times): they had an old friend of the family who was an officer in the Royal Marechaussee. He along with several collegues refused to arrest several men when directed so by the Germans (I believe they were jews, but I'm not entirely sure- at any rate they weren't what any of us would call criminals in any sense of the word), and was discharged dishonoroubly because of it.

After the war, they refused to reinstate him in his position because of the "dishonourable" label
He tried to build a new life with a different job, but for various reasons he became an alcoholic and died a couple of decades afterwards because of it.

A Jew was twice as safe in Catholic Belgium. A Jew was three times as safe in France, even in Vichy.

I don't remember any numbers on how many jews the Vichy regime deported; but Petain persecuted them eagerly without much encouragement from the Germans. Thousends of jews fled there under the assumption that they'd be safe there, it being a non-occupied zone afterall. I hold little love for Jacques Chirac, but he at least had the moral fortitude to admit that many French actively and voluntarily participated in these horrorible crimes- something wich Mitterand had catagorically denied a few years earlier.

[Louis VI the Fat]

A political project requires no collective identity, no common religion, no shared history.

Look at the United States

Would you be terribly dissapointed if I said that I have an entirely different idea about any lack of collective identity in the US? Freedom of religion and freedom from history are the identity of the US. Well those and several other ingredients.

The US is not more succesful at absorbing immigrants because it has a less developed idea of collective identity, but because it has a stronger sense of national identity than European countries.

Why should we restrict a country's future by adhering to all these humbug assumptions. Why fret about a supposed national identity and a 'common heritage' that is considered to be in our genes or in our memes or whatever and that tells us who 'belongs' and who does not 'belong' to the nation? Meh.

Ah, but now you reveal yourself to be an adherent of multi-culturalism. Or, of nationalophobia. The urge to deny any organic, historical or cultural identity out of a stated political goal of creating a new, and 'better' post-national and multi-etnic identity.

It doesn't work and has gotten Western Europe into enormous trouble over the past few decades. This recent leftist top-down project is entirely different from America's ancient, bottom-up, national identity, even when both do bear a superficial resemblance.

-~+~- -~+~- -~+~- -~+~- -~+~-

I don't remember any numbers on how many jews the Vichy regime deported; but Petain persecuted them eagerly without much encouragement from the Germans. Thousands of jews fled there under the assumption that they'd be safe there, it being a non-occupied zone afterall. I hold little love for Jacques Chirac, but he at least had the moral fortitude to admit that many French actively and voluntarily participated in these horrorible crimes- something wich Mitterand had catagorically denied a few years earlier.

Well, naturally I have a thing or two to say about national myths in other European countries as well. I limited myself to the Netherlands since that was the subject of this thread. But now that you've brought it up:

Yes, Petain did indeed persecute Jews. And by the end of the war, 25% of French Jewry had been murdered while three quarters had found a safe haven in France during the war. In the Netherlands, there was no Petain, no Vichy, and no virtual civil war, yet 75% of Jews were murdered. I presented a single-sided version of Dutch WWII behaviour, but based on actual and correct numbers.
Whatever the French fascists threw at the Jews, they were far safer even under fascist Petain than in the 'dutifully compliant' Netherlands, where, according to national myth, unlike elsewhere in Europe, there was little to no anti-Semitism, just 'unfortunate circumstances'.

I appreciate Chirac for finally admitting in 1995 what French public opinion had gradually come to accept: that 'Vichy' was entirely of French making, and that 'circumstances' are no excuse. I would love for the Netherlands to also finally come to terms with it's dark past. Unfortunately, fear for financial claims has so far prevented any Dutch government from following the example of most of the other European countries. A few half-baked statements about unfortunate post-war treatment of returning Jews seems to be the grand total of official Dutch acceptance of its own responsibility.

-~+~- -~+~- -~+~- -~+~- -~+~-

The funny thing is, that both points above are deeply connected. 'Adrian's' urge to build a post-national, multi-etnic identity is the direct result of the aftermath of the moral compromisation during WWII and the stubborn denial of that until the 1960's.

Since 1968 - which was at heart a generational conflict - a new generation has tried to prove that they were not their parents or grandparents. They set out to prove that they, unlike their parents, would shelter Jews. That they did not share the pityful, petit, and provincial mental world of their parents. Nationalism became suspect. Any national identity the sign of proto-fascism. The 'Dark skinned immigrant' is a substitute Jew. And the more pityful and helpless he is, the better. In the multi-cultural mind, there must be a helpless 'other' - incapable of any independent action, and a brutal and oppressive 'host country' - the source of all misfortune of this 'other'. See, for example, HoreTore's ambulance thread.

Milticultural post-nationalism does not in the least bit accept 'the other' as equal or even independent. It can only accept them as hapless and helpless. It does not create a strong post-national identity, it can only make collective identity suspect. By both mechanisms, the function of a strong collectivity that can easily absorb strong newcomers is prevented.

[Kralizec]

Whatever the French fascists threw at the Jews, they were far safer even under fascist Petain than in the 'dutifully compliant' Netherlands, where, according to national myth, unlike elsewhere in Europe, there was little to no anti-Semitism, just 'unfortunate circumstances'.

I've never heard someone make that claim before. Part of the reason why many people (myself included) despise comparisons between the current muslim community and the jews before and during WW2 is because people are fully aware that they were always considered suspect at best. Over here it was mostly ol' fashioned prejudices, religious ire and bigotry rather than some sort of "race" ideal.

Nevertheless, there certainly were circumstances that made the deportation of jews easier than it was in France:
1) unlike Vichy France, the Netherlands didn't border a neutral country that could serve as a safe refuge (Spain)
2) there were, relatively speaking, more jews in the Netherlands than in France and they were mostly concentrated around the larger towns and cities in Holland
3) somewhat cliche but still true; the Dutch comprehensive census records wich showed how many jews there were and their general whereabouts. (did France hold similar censuses based on religious affiliation?)

That wasn't the point though; rather that the persecution of the Dutch jews occurred under collaborating civil servants with German and Austrian people at the helm. The Vichy persecution was entirely French.

Unfortunately, fear for financial claims has so far prevented any Dutch government from following the example of most of the other European countries. A few half-baked statements about unfortunate post-war treatment of returning Jews seems to be the grand total of official Dutch acceptance of its own responsibility.

I don't consider myself particulary knowledgable about the subject, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the Dutch record on returning property and whatnot to holocaust survivors to be atrocious. I'm open to any proof you can give me, so far I'm not impressed by your off hand knowledge of my country.

Since 1968 - which was at heart a generational conflict - a new generation has tried to prove that they were not their parents or grandparents. They set out to prove that they, unlike their parents, would shelter Jews. That they did not share the pityful, petit, and provincial mental world of their parents. Nationalism became suspect. Any national identity the sign of proto-fascism. The 'Dark skinned immigrant' is a substitute Jew. And the more pityful and helpless he is, the better. In the multi-cultural mind, there must be a helpless 'other' - incapable of any independent action, and a brutal and oppressive 'host country' - the source of all misfortune of this 'other'. See, for example, HoreTore's ambulance thread.

Milticultural post-nationalism does not in the least bit accept 'the other' as equal or even independent. It can only accept them as hapless and helpless. It does not create a strong post-national identity, it can only make collective identity suspect. By both mechanisms, the function of a strong collectivity that can easily absorb strong newcomers is prevented.

Seriously, I'm not a fan of what we'd call "multiculturalism" because of the association with failed integration policies and denial of (partially) ethnic causes in social problems in the last century. But the picture you paint both here and in the ambulance thread is a caricature.

[Adrian II]

The US [..] has a stronger sense of national identity than European countries.

Call it 'sense of purpose' and we are in agreement. Purpose is forward looking, identity politics is stagnant, inward-looking and plain dumb.

Ah, but now you reveal yourself to be an adherent of [..] a new, and 'better' post-national and multi-etnic identity.

I want to work for a better state and a better country, if that's what you mean. Yeah, I subscribe to that.

But a 'new multi-ethnic identity'? What is that? Does it imply that The Netherlands is at present mono-ethnic or something, and that it could or might be changed to multi-ethnic? Do you know how many people from all parts of the world have lived here, intermingled and built their own lives here for hundreds of years.

And pray, what exactly would it mean if I had a 'multi-ethnic identity'. Would I be part white, part black? Part Chinese, part Albanian? Hahaha. It's just fashionable nonsense.