Abstract
No study of the Dutch purge can be complete without a brief survey of the efforts to re-educate Quislings and to facilitate their return into society. Particularly in matters of “resocialization” the Dutch have done more than most other formerly occupied countries, although their attempts also were limited.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Article 1, Interneeringsregeling 1946 (Decree No. G 310).
Verslag Stickling Toezicht, pp. 21-22.
Handelingen Tweede Kamer, 1945–1946, No. 212, p. 15.
Cf. Noach, op. cit., pp. 80-81.
Gerda de Bock, Incivisme en Repressie (Antwerp, 1946), pp. 54-56. Miss de Bock reported that only 20 per cent of the women in the camp felt guilty. 30 per cent believed to have acted properly; the majority, being “careful”, admitted only that they had been “uncareful” during the occupation (p. 55). Most collaborators regarded themselves as losers, delivered to the victor, but not as criminals facing their judge. Many Eastern Front volunteers argued that their only mistake had been one of timing, and that instinctively they had tackled the real problem. (Vae Victis, p. 226). Also the Judicial Commission of the Second Chamber found that most internees failed to realize their guilt. (Handelingen Tweede Kamer, 1945–1946, No. 212, p. 15; 1947–1948, No. 631, p. 12).
Toezicht, I, 32.
Revue de droit pénal et criminologie, 1949, p. 382.
Cf. Overzicht M.G., pp. 141, 516.
“However paradoxical it may sound, the [Judicial] Commission believes that … [collaborators] would be cured sooner in free society … than in internment camps.” (Handelingen Tweede Kamer, 1945–1946, No. 212, pp. 15-16).
Verslag Stichting Toezicht, p. 34.
Handelingen Tweede Kamer, 1947–1948, No. 631, pp. 3, 9, 12.
Ibid., p. 9.
J. Le Poole, “Naar Kampen zonder Prikkeldraad”, Vrij Nederland, November 22, 1947.
Cf. Toezicht, I, 113-116; II, 153-155. A related experiment took place at “Westpolder”. (Toezicht, I, 101).
Handelingen Tweede Kamer, 1947–1948, No. 631, p. 10. Internees in the mining-camps sent home as much as 140 guilders a month — about ten times as much as those in ordinary internment camps. (Ibid.) In Belgium, too, Quislings were permitted to volunteer for underground work in the mines.
Ibid. Toezicht, II, 152-153.
There have been a few rather queer schemes which — along the lines of Mussert’s pre-war plans for Dutch Jews — advocated forced deportation of Quislings to outlying colonial areas. According to one pamphlet, all N.S.B. members, all other Quislings, and large-scale black marketeers were to be shipped to the Indies. (Tichelman and Alting von Geusau, N.S.B.-Deportatie naar Oost en West [1945]). A Communist member of the Second Chamber advocated forced deportation of “heavy” and “medium-heavy” collaborators to outlying areas — like Siberia, he did not fail to add. (Mr. Stokvis, Handelingen Tweede Kamer, 1947–1948, pp. 615, 624). In practice, forced deportation of Quislings was never seriously considered by the government or the Dutch public.
Toezicht, 11,34, 163.
Cf. on the East Indies projects: Verslag Stickling Toezicht, pp. 54-55; Toezicht, I, 151, and II, 162-163; the special report by the Stickling Toezicht of June 21, 1947 (mimeographed). Technically speaking, each volunteer was given a conditional release when he boarded ship for New Guinea. The condition in each case was that he would faithfully execute the terms of his labor-contract with the Dutch East Indies government.
Toezickt, II, 156.
Technically speaking, there were two kinds of camps for youths: those of the Directoraat-Generaal voor Bijzondere Rechtspleging, and the many “open” tehuizen of the Bureau Bijzondere Jeugdxorg. The latter only contained youths who had been granted a conditional settlement or a conditional release. The condition in each case was “residence” in the camp. The last of these camps closed on Jan. 1, 1950. (Cf. Verslag van het Bureau Bijzondere Jeugdzorg van de ye Afdeling van het Ministerie van Justitie [The Hague, 1950]).
Van Hoesel, op. cit., pp. 2-3. Throughout the following pages, dealing with re-education of young collaborators, Dr. van HoesePs unique study has been used.
Program of the Nederlandsch-Belgische Bijeenkomst van Criminologen, September 11-12, 1948, p. 4 (mimeographed.) The educators of the youth-camps appeared wholeheartedly devoted to provide the atmosphere of the traditional Dutch home. Mr. Huysmans, the director of Huize Offem at Noordwijk, opened his own study to the young men after working hours. Entirely unscheduled discussions were started there, which seemed to be very useful.
Van Hoesel, op. cit., 182, 129.
Revue de droit pénal et criminologie, 1949, p. 372. This emphasis on the democratic milieu, rather than on direct political indoctrination, was also advocated by the Paedagogische Commis sie van Bijzondere Jeugdzorg for the province of North-Holland. This commission conducted an inquiry among educators on this question. Only two, out of twenty-two, were in favor of “direct, conscious, rational indoctrination by means of lectures, debates, etc.” (Maandblad voor Berechting en Reclassering, 1946, pp. 114-119). The Judicial Commission of the Second Chamber saw little value in direct political education, because the internees — after having been fooled by Goebbels — were cynical about any kind of propaganda. (Handelingen Tweede Kamer, 1947-1948, No. 631, p. 12). Miss de Bock, too, noted that merely rational arguments could as a rule not convert Quislings, since Nazi ideas were rooted too deeply in their most intimate emotions. Miss de Bock suggested holding direct discussions only on the most basic principles of citizenship. (De Bock, op. cit., pp. 63-64).
Van Hoesel, op. cit., pp. 113-114. Children of parents who had become Nazis during the occupation for purely opportunist reasons hardly felt guilty. “The occupation had usually been for them and their parents a period of glory. With pride and longing they remembered the privileges they had enjoyed formerly, and above all the ‘high’ position which their father held in the party or elsewhere. After all, among their parents were many who had risen rapidly during the occupation. [For example], a movie usher had become an inspector for the motion-picture guild; … both of his sons hated having to face his demotion after the capitulation. Therefore, they sighed: ‘We never had it so good. …’ Thus also with this group no feelings of guilt can be found, but only feelings of sorrow that the ‘good old days’ were over so soon. … ‘We had a good time, why should I feel guilty?’ ” (Ibid., p. 118).
Ibid., p. 119.
Toezicht, I, 150-151.
Van Hoesel, op. cit., p. 125.
Ibid., p. 93.
Ibid., pp. 66-68.
Ibid., pp. 80-81.
Dr. van Hoesel suspects that all Dutchmen may have been unconsciously influenced by German anti-Semitism. (Ibid., p. 151).
Ibid., p. 181.
Ibid., pp. 232-234.
Ibid., pp. 133-134.
Ibid., p. 235.
Handelingen Tweede Kamer, 1947–1948, No. 631, p. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Ter Horst (op. cit., p. 54) complained that the funds allotted to the youth camps were insufficient, so that frequently only mediocre educators and youth leaders could be employed. Concerning youthful Quislings in general, one seemingly useful suggestion — coming especially from Stickling Toezicht circles — was never followed by the government: the institution of special judges for youthful collaborators only.
According to the Verslag Stichting Toezicht, the Queen could have intended only to permanently exclude those who would receive the death penalty or life imprisonment, (p. 29).
Zuivering en Illegaliteit, p. 1.
N.S.B.-Deportatie naar Oost en West, pp. 17, 19, 49.
The public opinion poll was conducted by the Netherlands Foundation for Statistics, and reported in Parool (Leiden), December 6, 1945.
Toezicht, I, 73.
Verslag Stichting Toezicht, pp. 42-43.
Toezicht, II, 134.
Ibid.
Verslag Stichting Toezicht, pp. 42-43. In Norway, ex-Quislings were also able to get jobs, except in the merchant marine or government. (National Zeitung [Basel], July 11, 1947). Ex-Quisling Belgian workers, too, were easily absorbed. (Revue de droit pénal et criminologie, 1946–1947, p. 899).
Verslag Stichting Toezicht, p. 43.
Cf. Handelingen Tweede Kamer, March 21, 1947, p. 1282.
Toezicht, I, No. 12, back cover.
Verslag Stichting Toezicht, pp. 43-44.
Rechtskundige Adviseurs are legal advisors who do not possess a law degree. They are often employed in routine cases because their fees are considerably below those of regular lawyers.
Ad. de Vries, De Rechtskundige Adviseur, May, 1948.
Toezicht, II, 60.
Trouw, September 6, 1949.
Parool, September 13, 1946.
Ds. Bardeloos, Toezicht, I 38-39. Cf. the same author, “Het Streekkarakter en het Nationaal Socialisme”, Sociologisch Bulletin, 1948, p. 66.
Toezicht, II, 143-145. Generally, the population in the Southern Netherlands appeared less hostile. (Maandblad voor Berechting en Reclassering, 1947, 75-76).
Verslag Stichting Toezicht, pp. 38-39.
Toezicht, I, 75.
Nieuwe Courant, December 4, 1948.
Ibid., October 25, 1948.
Ibid., November 7, 1949.
Verslag Stichting Toezicht, pp. 53-54. One newspaper reported that the postal department had appointed an ex-Quisling as a letter carrier, although an army volunteer had also applied for the job. After several other papers had reprinted this story, with the inevitable sour comment, it was admitted that the army volunteer had only existed in the editor’s imagination. (Toezicht, II, 35).
Toezicht, I, 59. The same was true in Belgium. Miss de Bock reported how particularly in smaller towns and villages released collaborators often saw no other solution than to move to another region. (Op. cit., pp. 52-53).
Verslag Stichting Toezicht, pp. 29-30.
Nieuwe Courant, December 21, 1949.
Toezicht, II, 104. Verslag Stichting Toezicht, p. 37. Bekaert, Maatschappelijke Problemen van het Incivisme, p. 15.
Toezicht, II, 100.
Ibid., p. 173.
Copies of more than 2,000 of these reports are available at the Criminological Institute of Utrecht University. Unfortunately, many of them are sketchy.
The Stichting also employed a full-time cell-visitor, who regularly visited internment camps. All internees could arrange private interviews with him. Further-more, the Stichting established libraries, and organized concerts and lectures in camps.
Of these, more than one-third were women. Almost 11,000 were below 25 years of age; 6,000 were between 26 and 30; 16,000 were laborers; 4,000 were farmers, artisans, or small shopkeepers; 8,000 were housewives; 6,800 were clerical employees or professional people; 288 were students. (Verslag Stichting Toezicht, pp. 17-19, 21, 23, 30-31). By January 1949, 41,847 persons were still under supervision. (Toezicht, II, 24).
Dutchmen had always been interested in reclassering [rehabilitation of prisoners]. Organized in government-approved rehabilitation associations, they tried to smooth the return into society of released prisoners. The Stichting was an outgrowth of these associations, specializing in Quislings. It used the pool of rehabilitators and other social workers, more numerous in Holland than in most other Western countries.
In January 1948, in a total of 16,708 Stichting supervisors, approximately 1,600 were laborers; 2,300 were farmers, shopkeepers, or artisans: 2,000 were housewives; 6,500 were clerical employees; 1,544 were professional people; 191 were students. Most supervisors were above thirty. (Verslag Stichting Toezicht, p. 31). By January 1949, the total of supervisors had grown to 17,388. (Toezicht, II, 24). Surprisingly many of the supervisors were ex-resistance men.
Toezicht, I, 1-2.
Ibid., II, 171. Cf. the experiences of supervisors as described in Toezicht, I, 9-10, 12-13 (No. 2).
Mr. J. Croese, the head of the Hilversum office of the Stichting, had this to say about the work of his more than seven hundred supervisors: “Considering the very heterogeneous composition of the body of supervisors, it is pleasant to note that the practice of supervision was satisfactory as a whole, although we would have preferred to see some things different. Some supervisors limited their efforts to the social field; some gave especially moral support; some emphasized political aspects; some considered their task more along police lines; finally there was the group of sluggards [lauwen], those who did nothing at all”. (Toezicht, II, 69).
Nieuwe Courant, December 28, 29, 1949. Toezicht, II, 172.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1952 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mason, H.L. (1952). Re-Education and Return into Society. In: The Purge of Dutch Quislings. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9532-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9532-4_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8704-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9532-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive