University of Amsterdam
Tim van Noord -10624236 30-6-2015
tim.vannoord@student.uva.nl
Master Thesis ‘Holocaust and Genocide Studies’
Supervisors: Prof. dr. Johannes Houwink ten Cate and Dr. Karel Berkhoff, NIOD
‘I really learned to
pray by heart’
Table of Contents
Introduction ...3
0.1. Historiography ...3
0.2. Structure ...6
0.3. Camp Westerbork (1939-1945) ...7
Chapter 1: History of the Jews in the Netherlands (1870-1940) ... 11
1.1 A religious symbiosis between old and new ... 11
1.2. The Zionist project ... 14
1.3. Anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism ... 16
1.4. Demography and economics ... 17
1.6. Classifying ‘Jewishness’... 20
1.7. Christian Hebrew Alliances ... 21
1.8. Enker, Benfey, and Blumenthal ... 23
Chapter 2: The history of camp Westerbork ... 24
2.1. The November pogrom... 24
2.2. The Dutch refugee problem ... 26
2.3. Central Refugee Camp Westerbork October 1939 – May 1940... 29
2.4. Internment camp Westerbork May 1940 – July 1942 ... 32
2.5. Transit camp Westerbork July 1942 – May 1945 ... 35
Chapter 3: Living up to the mitzvot ... 38
3.1 Bar and bat mitzvah... 38
3.2. Jewish rites and practices ... 41
3.2.1. Dietary laws ... 41 3.2.2. Fasting rituals ... 43 3.2.3. Hanukkah ... 44 3.2.4. Sabbath ... 45 3.2.5. Passover Seder ... 46 3.2.6. Outward appearances ... 47 3.2.7. Mikveh ... 48
3.3. Religious guidance and advice ... 49
3.4. Religious education ... 50
Chapter 4: Religious conflicts and changes after July 1942 ... 53
4.1. Religious changes for observant Jews ... 53
4.3. Religious changes for converted Jews ... 58
4.4. Christian services and other activities ... 64
4.5. Food packages and other presents ... 66
Conclusion ... 70
Comparing my findings with the historiography ... 73
Bibliography ... 75
Video-testimonies from the USC Shoah Foundation... 80
Attachment 1 ... 82 Attachment 2 ... 83 Attachment 3 ... 84 Attachment 4 ... 84 Attachment 5 ... 85 Attachment 6 ... 85 Attachment 7 ... 86 Attachment 8 ... 88
Introduction
‘’Sunday May 30th [1943]: The Jews are living here at Westerbork like Job on the dunghill—without possessions. A suit and some underclothes to cover their miserable limbs in the daytime and a blanket at night, a pair of shoes, a cap, a knife, fork, and spoon and a mug are their only belongings. Like Job the religious Jews have
not [emphasis mine] lost their trust in God and every Friday evening and Saturday
evening bear witness to their devotion of the Almighty. The non-religious, i.e., those among them who are strong, trust in the power of their own spirit and bow down their heads before religious traditions of their camp companions. The believers do not enquire about the reason for their degradation. They accept it and endure it as something that cannot be pushed aside or avoided—in the firm conviction that their God will help them through it all, as He helped their forefathers to undergo trials of a similar nature. An unshakable trust in God underlies in their whole attitude.’’1
0.1. Historiography
This quote came from the famous diary of former Westerbork inmate Philip Mechanicus. After the war, several ego-documents about inmate’s time in camp Westerbork emerged on the literary scene. Waiting for Death was one of those rare historical documents, written by an inmate himself. Before he got arrested, Mechanicus worked as a journalist. Throughout his internment in the camp, he made good use of the excellent writing skills he possessed. From 28 May 1943 to 28 February 1944, Mechanicus wrote down his personal impressions of life in the bizarre world of transit camp Westerbork. His daily entries vividly convey the confusion of his fellow-prisoners, their cynicism, their burst of optimism, their crucial humour and brief merriment, their religious life, and the silent horror of the transports. Mechanicus felt he acted as ‘a news reporter on a slowly sinking ship at open sea.’2 Eventually, Philip Mechanicus died in Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Other important ego-documents regarding daily life in camp Westerbork were Dat
onverwoestbare in mij by Etty Hillesum and Ik zal je beschrijven hoe een dag er hier uitziet by
Mirjam Bolle. These books existed out of multiple diary fragments and a series of letters sent by former camp inmates Etty Hillesum and Mirjam Bolle. On 15 July 1942, Etty Hillesum was appointed by the Jewish Council in Amsterdam to the detachment Hulp aan Vertrekkenden, meaning she had to take care of Jewish deportees.3 Two weeks later, she voluntary applied to stay in camp Westerbork to provide some sort of aid to its inmates. Although she was in the position to travel back and forth to Amsterdam, which she sometimes did, she would not let down the Jewish camp community. Eventually, she got officially detained in the camp from 30 July 1942 to 7 September 1943. On that last day, she voluntary offered to join her
1 M. Boyars, Waiting for Death, a Diary by Philip Mechanicus (London 1986) 17. 2
P. Mechanicus, In Depot, Dagboek uit Westerbork van Philip Mechanicus (Amsterdam 1964) 14.
3
H. van der Veen, Westerbork 1939-1945: Het Verhaal van Vluchtelingenkamp en Durchgangslager Westerbork (Herinneringscentrum Westerbork 2003) 64.
parents and her younger brother Mischa to their final destination, Auschwitz. Here, Etty passed away on November 30, 1943.4 While in Westerbork, she struggled to maintain her faith in God. She stated in a letter, dated 7 June 1943, ‘’Ik zeg maar aldoor: ‘Ach God, ach
God’, maar zou ie eigenlijk nog wel bestaan?’’5 Alongside her own struggle with God, she did not mention a lot about religious life in camp Westerborkin either her diary or letters.
Mirjam Bolle, born as Mirjam Levie, sent a series of letters to her fiancé Leo Menachem, who lived in Palestine. Similar to Hillesum, she also worked on behalf of the Jewish Council in Amsterdam during the first years of the war. Throughout her internment, she kept on sending letters to Leo. These letters vividly portrayed daily life in camp Westerbork and camp Bergen-Belsen. They also regarded to several religious features belonging to Judaism. In Westerbork, she organized special Sabbath dinners on Friday night.6 Moreover, she also organized a special Hanukkah celebration on 24 December 1943 for children living in the camp. She wrote to her fiancé:
‘’We hadden voor de kinderen een reuzeleuk chanoekafeest georganiseerd, in iedere barak hetzelfde. Dinsdag om twee uur vond in barak 61 de eerst opvoering plaats. Het was enorm geslaagd. De kinderen zaten allemaal aan de ingang van de barak, ieder met een etensbakje en een beker voor zich, aan tafels met witte lakens, er was poppenkast, koor, dansjes, toneelstukjes, het voorlezen van het beste opstel over Chanoeka enfin, het was buitengewoon, werkelijk waar.’’7
Mirjam Bolle was eventually released from camp Bergen-Belsen when she and several other Jews were exchanged with German prisoners of war in 1944. She therefore survived the war. Camp Westerbork would take a central place in the works of historians A. Herzberg, J. Presser, and L. de Jong as well. In their eyes, this camp represented the most important portal to deport Jews out of the Netherlands. They analysed the camp organisation, the destructive deportations, and the complicated relationship between the German occupiers and the Jews. Herzberg provided his readers with a thorough, detailed description of the camp.8 Presser however, went one step further and analysed its distinctive camp life. Camp Westerbork was commonly referred to as the ‘Jewish capital’ of the Netherlands during the Second World War. ‘’Hoofdstad: daar immers hebben verreweg de meeste, meer dan
100.000 Joden in die periode ‘gewoond’, beter gezegd: vertoefd, enkele uren, vele enkele dagen, vele maanden en enkele jarenlang,’’9 according to Presser. Nevertheless, the Jewish community living in this Jewish capital was heavily divided. ‘’Men weet: de inwoners van dit
kamp waren volstrekt geen homogeen geheel; in sociaal, cultureel, godsdienstig en nationaal
4 Ibidem. 5
E. Hillesum, Dat onverwoestbare in mij (Amsterdam 2014) 78.
6
M. Bolle, Ik zal je beschrijven hoe een dag er hier uitziet, Dagboekbrieven uit Amsterdam, Westerbork en
Bergen-Belsen (Amsterdam 2003) 177 and 184.
7 Ibidem, 186. 8
A.J. Herzberg, Kroniek der Jodenvervolging, 1940-1945 (Amsterdam 1985) 197-212.
9
J. Presser, Ondergang. De Vervolging en Verdelging van het Nederlandse Jodendom 1940–1945 (The Hague 1985, part two) 287.
opzicht kwam men er van alles tegen. (…) Daar waren er die troost vonden in hun geloof, ongetwijfeld; hoevelen en hoeveel geloof, wie zal het zeggen?’’10 De Jong on the other hand, focused most on the organisation of the transports. ‘’Men kan (…) over Westerbork een heel
boek schrijven – wij hebben ons tot de aspecten beperkt die ons wezenlijk leken en daarbij, naar wij menen terecht (veruit de meeste joden die het kamp binnengevoerd werden, zijn er slechts korte tijd geweest), het accent laten vallen op de deportatie-machinerie die er in werking was, op het kamp als Durchgangslager.’’11 Consequently, religious beliefs and other manifestations were not thoroughly analysed by De Jong in his extensive work. Eva Moraal however, used multiple ego-documents of former camp inhabitants which displayed a diversified religious life inside the camp. ‘’Religieuze toespraken, muziek, declamatie en het
zingen van joodse liederen zou de jeugd geestelijk ondersteunen. (Joodse) feestdagen zouden gezamenlijk met de kinderen worden gevierd.’’12 Inhabitants of camp Westerbork therefore displayed relatively high levels of religious awareness throughout their time spend in the camp, according to Mechanicus, Bolle, Presser, and Moraal.
Based on scholarly literature and several ego-documents of former inhabitants, I will strife to recreate the religious environment in camp Westerbork from the time of its creation in late 1939 to its liberation in 1945. To complement my research, I will use over more than 35 survivor video-testimonies from the USC Shoah Foundation,13 accessible in the Jewish Historical Museum in Amsterdam. These interviews were sponsored by the profit made from the 1993 movie Schindler’s List. Steven Spielberg started a worldwide project to interview over more than 50,000 Holocaust survivors. These survivors, all with different backgrounds, beliefs, and memories, were given the possibility to tell their own unique oral history. Survivors could speak freely about their life history, mostly in the comfort of their own living rooms. Eventually, after almost half a century, these survivors were ready to tell their story, their truth. From the viewpoint of historians, the most important benefit of using these kind of audio-visual testimonies was that they bring another micro-perspective into a historical event that would otherwise remain completely unknown.14 Most conventional reports and other documentation was to be found in several archives—nearly all these documents were written by perpetrators and organizers of genocide. Therefore, these video-testimonies provided historians with other perspectives and unknown details. However, when using an oral history source, it is necessary to be mindful of ‘’incorporated memories.’’15
10 Ibidem, 337-338.
11 L. de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog (The Hague 1978) 729. 12
E. Moraal, ‘Als ik morgen niet op transport ga, ga ik ’s avonds naar de revue’: Kamp Westerbork in brieven,
dagboeken en memoires (1942-2010) (University of Amsterdam 2013) 238.
13
The USC Shoah Foundation was dedicated to making audio-visual interviews with survivors and witnesses of the Holocaust and other genocides a compelling voice for education and action. At: https://sfi.usc.edu/, accessed on February 15, 2015.
14 O. Bartov, ‘Setting the Record Straight,’ in: PastForward: The Digest of the USC Shoah Foundation Institute for
Visual History and Education (Spring 2011) 24-26.
15
C. Browning, ‘Remembering Survival,’ in: PastForward: The Digest of the USC Shoah Foundation Institute for
0.2. Structure
In the first chapter of my thesis, I will provide the reader with a proper introduction to the history of the Jews in the Netherlands. Assimilation, integration, and anti-Semitism were central terms in the period 1870-1940.16 In this first chapter, the relationship between the various different Jewish communities and the Dutch society at large is examined. Were Jews well integrated into Dutch society, and how did the Dutch community reacted to this integration and assimilation process? Which Jewish communities adapted more effectively and for what reasons? What were their goals and how did they want to achieve them? Moreover, several important Jewish people are described who would play a large role in the history of camp Westerbork between 1939 and 1945.
The second chapter deals with a detailed history of camp Westerbork, respectively from late 1939 to April 1945. Before the German invasion of the Netherlands in May 1940, camp Westerbork functioned as a central refugee camp for German and Austrian Jews. Why did these Reich Jews sought refuge in the Netherlands?How did the Dutch government and society reacted to this expanding refugee problem?How and why was Central Refugee Camp Westerbork created? What happened and altered after the German invasion in May 1940, and how did its Jewish inhabitants reacted to this change of guard?Who were in charge and how was daily life organized in the camp? What were the distinctive features of life in transit camp Westerbork, and how did its inhabitants coped with the threat of deportation?
The third chapter deals with the Jewish inhabitants of camp Westerbork living up to the mitzvot, the Jewish commandments. Important traditions, rituals, and ceremonies are of essence in this chapter. How did a Jewish youngster became bar or bat mitzvah in camp Westerbork? How essential were other Jewish rites and practices as upholding dietary laws, fasting rituals, celebrating Holy Days as Hanukkah, Sabbath, and Passover Seder? Moreover, did Orthodox and highly observant Jews retain their distinctive outward appearances in camp Westerbork? Important in answering all these questions, did the official German take-over of the camp in July 1942 have any significant effect on the level of observance of these distinctive Jewish rites and practices? Furthermore, who was guiding and advising the Jewish community in Westerbork, and who was educating them?
In the last, fourth chapter, I will examine religious ‘conflicts’ and other significant changes in camp Westerbork after July 1942. What were the differences between the two largest religious groups who inhabited the camp, namely the observant Jewish community and converted Jews? Can these differences be explained? How did these two groups react to several anti-religious orders implemented by the German commanders? How did the Jewish community react to the fact that the Christian Jews were privileged in receiving additional food packages from the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church and other religious institutions? Moreover, what distinctive role did this Protestant church played in actively educating and supporting their subjects living in camp Westerbork?
16
J.C.H. Blom and J.J. Cahen, ‘Jewish Netherlanders, Netherlands Jews, and Jews in the Netherlands, 1870-1940,’ in: The History of the Jews in the Netherlands (Portland 2002, Edited by J.C.H Blom, R.G. Fuks-Mansfeld, and I. Schöffer) 260.
0.3. Camp Westerbork (1939-1945)
Originally, camp Westerbork was created by the Dutch government to overcome the large flow of Jewish refugees from Germany and Austria.17 These Jews came to the Netherlands after persecutions began under Nazi policies implemented since 1933. In the late 1930s, the influx of German and Austrian Jews became an uncontrollable difficulty for both the Dutch government and society. However, in the pillarized society of the Netherlands, the Dutch Jews stood alone facing the task to help their fellow Jews. In late 1939 Central Refugee Camp Westerbork was created as a suitable solution to control the major Jewish refugee problem. The camp was located on a piece of ground owned by the government in the province of Drenthe, described by some refugees as a ‘desolate, muddy and barren place.’18 Central Refugee Camp Westerbork was only a temporary solution. The Dutch government and Dutch Jewish organisations, as the Committee for Jewish Refugees, aimed for emigration to a refugee’s country of preference. However, everything changed when the German army invaded and defeated the Netherlands in a mere four days. The Jews in camp Westerbork were stuck and back in the hands of their former oppressors. The Dutch government fled oversees and the Germans installed a new leadership, which was of course pro-German. The German occupation of the Netherlands and National Socialist domination lasted some five years. In this relative short time span more than 100,000 Dutch Jews were murdered. Their killing formed part of the Nazi plan for mass destruction of European Jewry. From July 1942, they deported Jews gradually out of the Netherlands. Almost every train, loaded with Jewish deportees, ran through camp Westerbork. From July 1942 to September 1944, Durchgangslager Westerbork functioned as a portal to several concentration and extermination camps located in Eastern parts of Europe.19 The majority of the Jews of Europe were exterminated after being held for different periods of time in camps or assembly areas in the West or in Ghettos in the East. Commanders of camps as Westerbork, made sure trains were arriving and leaving on time, loaded with Jewish victims. ‘’It was desirable that the deportations be proceeded with quickly but carefully. Greater efficiency demanded that the community to which the victims belonged help in the execution of the Germans plans,’’20 according to Peter Romijn. This was why the German occupiers gave key functions in the camp administration to members of the prisoner-community of Westerbork. This cooperation between the occupier and the prisoners was what Primo Levi coined in his book The Drowned and the Saved (1989) as the ‘’gray zone.’’21 Levi’s notion of this gray zone was one of the most unsettling ideas coming out of the work of this Auschwitz survivor. He developed this concept in an effort to understand his own camp experience in Poland. However, this notion could also be applied to the bizarre world of internment and transit
17
Van der Veen, Westerbork 1939-1945, 8.
18
Moraal, ‘Als ik morgen niet op transport ga, ga ik ’s avonds naar de revue,’ 349.
19
Van der Veen, 83.
20 P. Romijn, ‘The War, 1940-1945,’ in: The History of the Jews in the Netherlands (Portland 2002, Edited by
J.C.H Blom, R.G. Fuks-Mansfeld, and I. Schöffer) 318.
21
P. Levi, ‘The Gray Zone,’ in: Genocide, A Reader (Oxford University Press 2014, edited by J. Meierhenrich) 369.
camp Westerbork. ‘’The zone Levi speaks of refers to the moral ground among inmates, the grayness to the uncertain moral boundaries of this zone. Thus the zone was inhabited by ‘’prisoner functionaries’’ who were ready to cooperate with the Nazi authorities in order to ensure their own survival.’’22 After Dutch commander Schol set up the foundations for a better camp organisation, which would be eventually taken over by the SiPo und SD, the original refugees occupied important roles in the functioning of the camp. ‘’The camp was hierarchically organized in Dienstbereiche with Dienstleiter. This put especially the first inhabitants of the camp, a group of German Jews, at a comparative advantage. The fact that Jews themselves (in a sense) managed the camp, had as a consequence that Jews were forced to aid the Germans in the deportation of Jews,’’23 according to Moraal. Nevertheless, one could not easily speak about notions as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ prisoners, victims or persecutors. Camp survivor Primo Levi explained:
‘’The network of human relationships inside the Lagers was not simple: it could not [emphasis mine] could be reduced to the two blocs of victims and persecutors. Anyone who today reads (or writes) the history of the Lager reveals the tendency, indeed the need, to separate evil from good, to be able to take sides, to emulate Christ’s gesture on Judgement Day: here the righteous, over there the reprobates.’’24 Although conditions were far from pleasant, Westerbork came out far better in comparison to similar camps as Theresienstadt or Bergen-Belsen. While in Westerbork, the inhabitants were allowed a theatre, an orchestra, a hospital run by some of the best Jewish doctors, a school with a library, an orphanage, and even a synagogue and a small Protestant church.25 Moreover, classic recitals were often held. These starred some of the biggest Jewish names of their time, as Willy Rosen, Max Ehrlich, and Erich Ziegler.26 Inmate Hans Margules had the opportunity to work with Ehrlich, who he described as one of the greatest artists of his time.27 These artists formed the corner stone of European Jewish cultural life, according to Van der Veen and Moraal.28 These recitals were often visited by the German commanders as well.29 Furthermore, football, boxing, and chess tournaments would also provide some sort of entertainment.30 Unlike other camps, maintaining relative ‘normal’ family-life was thus possible. Furthermore, sustaining relative high levels of religious life was also manageable in Westerbork, especially until July 1942. ‘Es gibt viel Juedisches Leben’, wrote Gertrud Hanemann-Kelemen in her post-war report, ‘(…) Rosch Haschanah und Yom
Kippur geht man an die Arbeitstaette, arbeitet aber nicht. Mossel, De Vries im Zelt, mit
22
Ibidem.
23 Moraal, 530. 24
Levi, ‘The Gray Zone,’ 369.
25
Moraal, 351.
26
Van der Veen, 73.
27 Hans Margules, USC Shoah Foundation, number 00196, 51.54 min. 28
Van der Veen, 73; Moraal, 414.
29
Moraal, 297.
langem weissem Bart. Zu Sukkoth gibt es wunderhuebsche Huetten.’31 Moreover, inmate Werner Löwenhardt wrote that Jewish festivals were ‘commonly celebrated’ until the camp was liberated in 1945.32 These cultural and religious outlets provided some sort of relief to escape the daily reality of their harsh internment.
‘’In this crowed and richly variegated community of camp Westerbork, many signs of degeneration were observed. The older Jewish generation professed an Orthodox religion in keeping with the traditional laws and values.’’33 This religion was often merely outward convention and tradition and was alien to real life; it had not been reformed and had, as a result, became rigid and petrified. The prescribed commandments, traditions, and rituals were carried out and every deviation from it was hardly condemned, even in Westerbork.34 The younger generation still had their roots largely in the traditions and customs of the ‘Ghetto,’ according to Mechanicus.35 They had cast overboard the Orthodoxy of the Talmud, but they had not acquired any other spiritual values to replace it. They lived purely materialistic lives—often downright materialistic and selfish through and through.36 A large group of liberal Jews inhabited Westerbork as well.37 This group of liberal Jews functioned as a mediator between the old Jewish dogma and laws and the spirit of the modern age. These liberal Jews were described by Mechanicus as ‘’spiritual hermaphrodites,’’38 because they were politically moving back and forward between the other two Jewish groups.
However, there was yet another Jewish group living in the camp. A relative small group of baptized Jews also inhabited Westerbork. These Jews had converted to Christianity and had embraced its distinctive norms and values.39 They had their own barrack, held their own services, celebrated their own holidays, and had their own privileges.40 ‘’One [Westerbork] group who may also have benefited from German indecision was the baptised Jews,’’41 according to Bob Moore. ‘’After the protest on 11 July 1942 about the first deportations signed by all the major church leaders, Generalkommissar Schmidt informed them that ‘Christian Jews’ baptised before 1 January 1941 would be exempted from labour service and the work-camps.’’42 As the church leaders were to discover, this did not help those who were merely believers or associated with Christian churches, nor did it mean that all the German authorities were prepared to take the same line. However, in transit camp
31
Hanemann-Kelemen, Westerbork II, NIOD, 250d, inv.nr. 571, 9; Moraal, 158.
32
W. Löwenhardt, Ik houd niet van reizen in oorlogstijd (Alkmaar 2004) 96; Moraal, 158.
33 Boyars, Waiting for Death, 17.
34 W. Lindwer and K. van Coeverden, Kamp van Hoop en Wanhoop: Getuigen van Westerbork, 1939-1945
(Amsterdam 1990) 182-186. 35 Mechanicus, In Depot, 16. 36 Ibidem. 37 Moraal, 194. 38 Boyars, 19. 39
F.G.M. Broeyer, ‘Max Enker, de Joodse dominee van Westerbork en Theresienstadt,’ in: Van kansel naar
barak, Gevangen Nederlandse predikanten en de cultuur van herinnering (Zoetermeer, 2012, edited by G.
Harinck and G. van Klinken) 50-61.
40 Ibidem. 41
B. Moore, Victims & Survivors. The Nazi Persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands 1940-1945 (New York 1997) 127.
Westerbork this meant that some baptized Jews had an huge ‘advantage’ over other non-converted Jews. They were in the position to apply to the Zentralstelle for a Sperre, which exempted them from the danger of deportation. They could stay in camp Westerbork for another couple of weeks, months, or even years.
At almost 12 years of age, Betty Gerard-Kubaschka inhabited this strange world of transit camp Westerbork. Betty was born in Dortmund on March 29, 1934. The far most traumatic experience in her life was ‘Kristallnacht’ in 1938. This traumatic night was the direct cause of her parent’s choice to hide her in a German Catholic convent.Betty stayed at the convent for over a year and she truly appreciated her time there. To avoid possible deportation, the nuns tried to bring her by train to her aunt who lived in the Netherlands. Eventually, she ended up living in two other orphanages for a couple of months. After this last children’s home was emptied by the Germans, she was brought to camp Westerbork. When she was asked about her internment in Westerbork during a video-interview, she replied with a detailed description of the camp. She also spoke abundantly about religious life in the camp. During her internment, services were formally forbidden by German commanders. However, in several barracks services were still regularly held. Mostly children kept a watchful eye for approaching Germans. She learned to remember prayers and, even while it was forbidden to celebrate any kind of festivals, she observed Pesach, Yom Kippur, and Rosh Hashana during her internment. She did this without ever learning Yiddish. Therefore, language proved not to be a barrier when one was devoted to prayer. Betty stated in her video-interview that it was in camp Westerbork where ‘’I really learned to pray by heart.’’43
Chapter 1: History of the Jews in the Netherlands (1870-1940)
The Netherlands experienced ‘’a process of accelerated change, expansion, and prosperity which held good for almost all sections of society’’ in the first five decades after 1870, according to J.C.H. Blom and J.J. Cahen.44 Within this time span of fifty years, the Dutch economy modernised due to a process of industrialization and economic growth, which created an increase of the gross domestic product (GDP).45 Even citizens with low income shared in this newly created affluence. The social structures of the Dutch society at large also started to alter. This was a positive side effect of the new economic environment. Dutch civilization now resembled a class society. However, traditional norms and values were still visible. ‘’On the political scene, a process of democratization extended the influence that the middle classes, followed by the working population, were able to exert through mass organizations.’’46 In this era, political parties first entered the scene; one man parties gradually transformed into the twentieth century political parties known today. Dutch society at this time was also characterized by distinct forms of social segmentation known as
verzuiling or pillarization.47 Paradoxically, this strong division within society went conjointly with the rise of nationalistic feelings and several features of national identity. How did these social developments affected Jewish life in Dutch society? This chapter evaluates the history of the Jews in the Netherlands, respectively between 1870 and 1940. Jews were already living for centuries in the Netherlands, mainly in large cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam. ‘’Assimilation, internal differences, and the preservation of a more or less recognizable Jewish community are the most striking hallmarks of Dutch Jewry in the period from 1870 to 1940. This period can also be characterized as a gradual and prolonged process of emancipation and emigration, which the Netherlands, unlike in many other countries, proceeded fairly calmly and smoothly,’’48 according to Blom and Cahen.
1.1 A religious symbiosis between old and new
The second half of the nineteenth century was characterised by ‘democratic revolutions’ all over Europe. In the Netherlands, for example, the constitution was revised in 1848; the Netherlands changed from a monarchy to a system of parliamentary democracy.49 In this new system, the House of Representatives was directly elected by the people with the right to vote. Moreover, the parliament was now granted the right to amend government law proposals. They could also assemble investigative hearings, whereby individuals had to defend themselves for an inquiry. Furthermore, the States-Provincial appointed members of the Senate by majority vote; these members were selected out of upper class society.
44
Blom and Cahen, ‘Jewish Netherlanders, Netherlands Jews, and Jews in the Netherlands, 1870-1940,’ 230.
45
F. Wielenga, Nederland in de Twintigste Eeuw (Amsterdam 2009) 44.
46
Blom and Cahen, 230.
47 Wielenga, Nederland in de Twintigste Eeuw, 80. 48
Blom and Cahen, 293.
49
H. te Velde, Land van Kleine Gebaren, Een Politieke Geschiedenis van Nederland 1780-1990 (Amsterdam 2010, edited by R. Aerts a.o.) 103.
‘’Viewed from today, the practices which make up democracy, legislative elections based on widening franchises, greater freedom or even fully secrecy at the ballot itself, executives at least partially accountable to those whom they ruled, were extended dramatically, sooner or later, across most of the continent,’’50 according to John Dunn.
The dynamic course of events after 1870 naturally affected all sections of Dutch Jewry as well. A new religious organization of the Portuguese Israelite and the Dutch Israelite congregations was created after long deliberations in 1870. Under the supervision of newly installed chief rabbi Joseph Hirsch Dünner of the province of North Holland in 1874, Jewish religious life transformed into a new symbiosis created of both Orthodox and observant features and values.
‘’It was distinguished by a remarkable combination of Orthodox religious services, an ‘orderly’ conduct of worship, and the acceptance of a rather lax observance of the Jewish commandments by large groups of affiliates. Moreover, the predominant social dynamics now held out genuine prospects to the Jewish population as a whole as well as for each individual and group within it.’’51
Trends towards assimilation, acculturation, and integration where, for example, fostered by the legal emancipation of 1796. Before this emancipation proclamation, active participation of Jews in political, social, cultural, and economic dimensions of Dutch society was mostly limited to a limited number of leading Jewish figures. After 1796, the field was opened to Jewish participants from all classes. For example, Jews were enticed in all sorts of professionsaround the turn of the century, making up 7.4 percent of all dentists, 7.0 percent in trades, 3.8 percent of all doctors, and 3.2 percent of all lawyers.52 Moreover, this period was also characterized by remarkable achievements in the arts and sciences. For instance, Jews were actively participating in community councils, working as university professors, responsible for the establishment and reorganisation of several newspapers, engaged in drama and theatre clubs, and active as painters and graphic designers.53 Jewish economic, social, and cultural life was thus blossoming.
There was definitely no one size fits all in the Netherlands, with regards to Jewish identity. Similar to the pillarized Dutch society at that time, the Jewish community was also characterized by social segmentation, according to Ludo Abicht.54 On the one hand, some Jews neglected their Jewish identity, when they choose to be fully absorbed into Dutch society, accepting traditional norms and values common in the Netherlands. On the other hand, some Jews choose to upheld strict Orthodox religious beliefs and traditions, which erected their own ‘closed pillar’ in Dutch society. Within the range of these two ‘extremes,’ a whole strata of variations and combinations existed in the Netherlands. Old concepts like
50
J. Dunn, Setting the People Free: The Story of Democracy (London 2005) 153.
51 Blom and Cahen, 231. 52
L. Abicht, Geschiedenis van de Joden van de Lage Landen (Amsterdam 2006) 202.
53
Ibidem, 202-211.
strict Sephardi identity or Ashkenazi identity were becoming rather vague due to processes of differentiation and fragmentation. Resembling Dutch society at large, the Jewish community experienced the full effect of the official separation of Church and state in the Netherlands, as more and more Jewish citizens were influenced by the secularization process. Within the Jewish Orthodox pillar, however, there were also sparks of internal flourishing in relation to religious life. Just a small percentage of Jews went even one step further in their process of assimilation, when they arranged mixed marriages and choose to upheld Christian beliefs.55 These radical steps were not received well within the community of Orthodox Jews, but no actual problems arose from this negative opinion. Jews living in surrounding countries were facing more serious problems. Only relatively large flows of refugees from Eastern European Jews after World War One and from Germany and Austria in the 1930s caused difficulties for the Dutch government and society.
Most Jewish members of society did not officially leave the congregations in this secularist environment of the Netherlands after 1870. Therefore, nominal membership remained fairly common, according to Blom:
‘’The synagogue and Jewish rituals, however, became progressively less important to the orientation and conduct of many Jews. Substantial numbers restricted their ‘Jewish behaviour to circumcision, marriage, and burial, occasionally supplemented by celebration of a few holidays or deliberate or inadvertent retention of some Jewish customs (concerning food for instance).’’56
All these tendencies combined threatened Jewish cultural life as well. The social advancement, for example, of the Jewish bourgeoisie caused the weakening of the roots with the Jewish sub-culture. ‘’Many [Jews] deliberate or subconsciously began to act as Dutch people and shed characteristics considered typically Jewish. An orientation toward the Dutch bourgeois lifestyle became increasingly commonplace.’’57 Sigmund Seeligmann (1873-1940), a German historian and bibliographer, coined therefore in 1923 the term ‘species Hollandica Judaica.’58 The term was based on the high level of assimilation and adaptation of Dutch Jews to their non-Jewish environment. This was commonly considered atypical in the rest of Europe. The strong measure of integration and assimilation and the relative few anti-Semitic sentiments in the Netherlands made Jews feel safe and tolerated. ‘’Tolerance is considered to be part of the [Dutch] national character,’’59 according to Selma Leydesdorff. She concluded, ‘’All of the foregoing leads back to my argument that even the most integrated and assimilated part of the Jewish population did stick to certain cultural forms.
55 Ibidem, 265. 56
J.C.H. Blom, ‘Dutch Jews, Jewish Dutchmen and Jews in the Netherlands 1870-1940,’ in: Dutch Jewry, its
History and Secular Culture (1500-2000) (Leiden 2002, edited by J. Israel and R. Salverda) 217.
57
Ibidem, 218.
58 S. Seeligmann, ‘Die Juden in Holland. Eine Charakteristik’, in: Festskrift i Anledning af Professor David
Simonsens 70-aarige Fodelsdag (Kopenhagen 1923) 253-257.
59
S. Leydesdorff, ‘The Veil of History: The Integration of the Jews Reconsidered,’ in: Dutch Jewry, its History and
Modernity was not the last step in a straight line but started within the old culture.’’60 The process of integration was thus still hampered by traditional norms and values; there would always be some Jewish features within the most assimilated Jew, according to Leydesdorff. For instance, some non-religious Jews justified the circumcision of their son(s) for the sake of their grandparents, while others did it out of hygienic reasons.
A remarkable symbioses of ‘old’ and ‘new’ Jewish elements survived the gradually secularized Netherlands during this period. Jewish traditions, like important Jewish festivals, lost most of their religious context but were still celebrated, even outside the Jewish Orthodox pillar.61 Many young Jewish boys still received their bar mitzvah, while not formally attending services at the synagogue regularly. Moreover, these young boys were sometimes asked to gather the required quorum of ten men, which formed a minyan. For many Jewish families, Friday night still was celebrated, but then again, without any serious religious connotation. Kosher food also became a point of discussion, whereby these dietary habits became just a matter of preference for some non-observant Jews. However, ‘’Strict observance of the Jewish commandments and regular synagogue attendance, by contrast, were largely ignored.’’62 Despite the fact that just a small percentage of the Jewish community, not more than fifteen percent,63 was visiting the synagogue on a regular basis, new synagogues were built in Amsterdam, Utrecht, Groningen, Nijmegen, and Enschede in the twentieth century. These new synagogues were larger and displayed more grandeur than those built in the nineteenth century, especially in the mediene. In Amsterdam alone, there were twenty-four synagogues in 1931. In the cases of the newly build synagogues in Groningen and Enschede, oriental elements were added on purpose, however, most other houses of worship were built in contemporary styles.64
1.2. The Zionist project
The Zionist movement was created as a political reaction to nineteenth century anti-Semitism in great parts of Eastern and Western Europe. These anti-Semitic feelings were founded upon age old Christian anti-Judaic sentiments, whereby Christians, both Protestants and Catholics, blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus.65 ‘’The Jews are scattered around the world, because they crucified [emphasis mine] Him. They, the chosen people, who carried the messianic tradition, did not accept the Messiah, who is greater and more beautiful than they could ever dream of being.’’66 The first Zionist congress in Basel (1897) marked the beginning of the modern Zionist movement in the Netherlands, according to Abicht.67 Both Orthodox and assimilated Jews were not enthusiastic at first, only a few prominent Dutch
60 Ibidem, 236. 61
Blom and Cahen, 250.
62 Ibidem. 63
J. Meijer, Hoge Hoeden Lage Standaarden: De Nederlandse Joden Tussen 1933 en 1940 (Baarn 1969) 44; Abicht, Geschiedenis van de Joden van de Lage Landen, 265.
64
Blom and Cahen, 250.
65 Abicht, 234. 66
T. Salemink, ‘Strangers in a Strange Country: Catholic Views of Jews in the Netherlands, 1918-1945,’ in: Dutch
Jews as Perceived by Themselves and by Others (Leiden 2001, edited by C. Brasz and Y. Kaplan) 112.
Jews, like banker Jacobus Kann and chief rabbi Dünner, supported this Zionist project. Orthodox Jews did not supported this ‘secular and nationalistic’ movement because they believed that the creation of an ethnic nation state did not resemble the right way to rebuild the Holy Land under the supervision of the Messiah.68 Most Zionistic leaders were agnostic or even atheist, that was why, for example, the religious paper Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad created an anti-Zionistic column. Moreover, most anti-Zionistic rabbis were supported by Jewish leaders of local communities, called parnassim, who were members of the successful Jewish bourgeoisie. These members were fully integrated and assimilated into Dutch society. Within the Zionistic movement there was eventually a fracture between members who supported the official Nederlandse Zionistenbond (NZB) and members from the Jewish Territorial Organisation who believed that a Jewish state could also be created, for example, in Uganda.69
In 1907, a Zionistic student organisation (NZSO) was founded, which gave birth to new Zionist leaders in the Interbellum. ‘Interbellum’ was a Dutch term for the time span between the two world wars.70 The creation of the student wing of the organization attracted Jewish students from all over the Netherlands, eventually almost one out of every two students would be a member of the NZSO. The process of ongoing secularization in the Netherlands created for non-observant Zionists a greater awareness of Jewish identity and traditions, and consequently acted as a restraint on successful assimilation in Dutch society.71 Moreover, in 1909, an Orthodox branch within the Zionist movement was founded, called mizrachie.72 After the First World War, Jewish communities and Zionistic individuals continued to nurture special feelings for the Land of their Fathers, i.e., the Holy Land. Zionists experienced the feeling of belonging together to, or at least the feeling of being descended from, a community of Jews who originated in Palestine, but were now spread across the world, according to Michael Berkowitz.73 ‘’The number of Palestine pioneers, or halutsim, from the Netherlands remained fairly small; in all an estimated 1,600 Dutch Jews made aliyah. Some of these eventually returned and some died, so that by 1940 there were about 1,000 Jews from the Netherlands still living in Palestine.’’74 A psycho-sociological research, conducted by Abraham Weinberg, also concluded that by 1940 and 1941 some 800 to 1,000 Dutch individuals were still living in Palestine.75 Notwithstanding its low membership, the Zionist movement in the Netherlands presented itself successfully as a new form of Jewish identity and consciousness, which clearly manifested itself in an ever-changing religious environment in Dutch society.
68 Ibidem. 69
J. Michman, H. Beem, and D. Michman, Geschiedenis van de Joodse Gemeenschap in Nederland (Amsterdam 1992, translated by R. Verhasselt from Hebrew) 122.
70
Wielenga, 79.
71
Michman, Beem, and Michman, Geschiedenis van de Joodse Gemeenschap in Nederland, 124.
72
Ibidem.
73 M. Berkowitz, Western Jewry and the Zionist Project 1914-1933 (Cambridge University Press 1996) 1. 74
Blom and Cahen, 278.
75
C. Brasz, ‘Dutch Jews as Zionists and Israeli Citizens,’ in: Dutch Jews as Perceived by Themselves and by Others (Leiden 2001, edited by C. Brasz and Y. Kaplan) 221.
1.3. Anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism
Anti-Semitic and anti-Judaic feelings and sentiments were also present in the Netherlands, which could be roughly divided into three different types. Due to the process of pillarization, an identifiable, mostly Orthodox, Jewish minority remained visible in Dutch society. The anti-Semitic and anti-Judaic outlets targeted mainly the most ‘visible’ and ‘archetypical’ Jewish members of this community, as happened for instance in Germany.76 These anti-Jewish sentiments in the Netherlands were reflected in, and strengthened by, the existing prejudices regarding ‘typical’ Jewish identity. Jewish stereotypes were mainly based on typical Jewish appearance, behaviour, and manner of speech. Members of the Jewish community were commonly seen as a ‘people,’ occasionally regarded as a race, distinguished from the Nederlander by a variety of stock characteristics. For example, the Jew could be seen as both ‘pure’ capitalist or as the socially destructive Bolshevik.77 Due to this negative connotation, some Dutch nationalists did see the Jews as a threat to society and the nation at large. However, in the Netherlands such sentiments were relatively restrained and moderate. More common in Dutch society were risjes, typical choice of Dutch words whereby the Jew (jood) or Jewish (joods) people were targeted.78 For example, a ‘dirty trick’ could be called a jodenstreek and someone could be called a four-eyeds, which in Dutch was called a brillejood. One could also say: ‘Jews were always good with money,’ which resembled a ‘back handed compliment.’ What might at first sounded like a compliment, but could/should really be taken as an insult, when considered in its entirety.
Malevolent displays of anti-Semitic appearances were only occurring occasionally. The phenomenon of a ‘pogrom,’ which mostly manifested itself in Eastern parts of Europe, was luckily for the Jewish community completely unknown to the Netherlands. Besides the typical stock characters, there were also, predominantly anti-Judaic, sentiments present in the Netherlands. In Christian circles, both in Catholic and Protestant spheres, Jews were blamed for the death of Jesus Christ. Anti-Jewish sentiment was relatively widespread under Catholics, as Catholic liturgy was full of this accusation. This was seen in writings regarding Catholic apologists and in Catholic periodicals.79 However, this did not meant that every Catholic in the Netherlands fostered anti-Judaic feelings. Anti-Judaist sentiments were expressed by some members of Catholic community. However, these expressions relied heavily on the personal views and opinions of local leaders of Christian congregations. As a result, for and far most in the provinces of Limburg and Noord-Brabant, this feeling was often given free expression.80 In Protestant spheres, the Orthodox Protestant leader of the Anti-Revolutionary Party, Abraham Kuyper, targeted the ‘liberal’ Jews in one of his
76
S.T. Katz, ‘1918 and After: The Role of Racial Antisemitism in the Nazi Analysis of the Weimar Republic,’ in:
Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis (New York 1991, edited by S.L. Gilman and S.T. Katz) 235-239.
77 Salemink, ‘Strangers in a Strange Country,’ 121. 78
Blom and Cahen, 269.
79
Salemink, 113.
publications: Liberalisten en Joden (Liberalists and Jews).81 ‘’While socialists opposed capitalists, the traditional enemies of the Orthodox protestants had been the Dutch Liberals. In 1875 and 1878, however, an additional danger was identified, namely the Jews,’’82 according to Gert van Klinken. Noteworthy, the Anti-Revolutionary Party was the first nationally organized political party in the Netherlands, founded in 1879 by Abraham Kuyper.83 Moreover, the Jews, as God’s chosen people, refused to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. This was considered a painful point for Christian people. ‘’As retribution God punished them with the diaspora and persecution.’’84 Although marginal, there was also another tradition. The chiliastic Catholics altered and modified ‘’dominant substitution-theology on one particular point,’’85 whereby Jewish people played an important role shortly before the Last Judgement. Furthermore, a secular vision targeted Jewish religion as well by describing it as a narrow-minded and backwards religion, according to Blom and Cahen.86
These two types of anti-Jewish sentiment, predominantly social and anti-Judaic, were considered just a small part of the socially segmented Dutch society. However, also a third type of anti-Semitic sentiment was to be distinguished in the Netherlands. In this view, Jews were seen as a separate nation defined by quasi-scientific and political reasons and arguments; this was anti-Semitism in its most acute form. The most hard-line form of this kind of anti-Semitism served as a basis for much more deep-rooted racial anti-Semitic hatred.87 In the 1930s, this would gave rise to a National Socialist anti-Semitic movement in the Netherlands. This was consequently connected to times of economic and social hardship affecting Dutch society after the Beurskrach of 1929. The same phenomenon occurred in Germany where Hitler and the Nazis blamed the Jews for both the loss in World War One and the deep economic and political crisis raging through Germany.88 The Jews served throughout history as the perfect scapegoat, and in the 1930s they were blamed again. The milder version of this acute form of racial anti-Semitism was derived from social-Darwinist terminology, whereby Jews were not necessarily defined as an ‘inferior’ people or race. Overall, the most hard-line deep-rooted anti-Semitic sentiment was rejected by the Dutch society at large. The milder form applied therefore better to the ‘tolerant’ religious and social environment in the Netherlands.
1.4. Demography and economics
The social and economic situation of Jews in the Netherlands began to change around 1870, which accelerated even more during the half century that followed. The new social and
81 I. Schöffer, ‘Abraham Kuyper and the Jews,’ in: id., Veelvorming Verleden: Zeventien Studies in de
Vaderlandse Geschiedenis (Amsterdam 1987, edited by I. Schöffer) 159-170.
82 G. van Klinken, ‘Dutch Jews as Perceived by Dutch Protestants, 1860-1960,’ in: Dutch Jews as Perceived by
Themselves and by Others (Leiden 2001, edited by C. Brasz and Y. Kaplan) 127.
83
Te Velde, Land van Kleine Gebaren, 122.
84
Salemink, 111.
85 Ibidem, 115. 86
Blom and Cahen, 268.
87
Ibidem, 271.
economic dynamics offered many Jews, both individually and collectively, opportunities for improvement. More than half of the Jews in the Netherlands lived in major cities, most of them in the Jewish Quarter located in Amsterdam. Within this new changing environment, the population of Jews living in this Jewish Quarter, as well in other major municipalities, decreased. However, this new environment did not lose its distinctive features. Although the number of Jews had been rising for some time, from 70,000 in 1870 to about 115,000 in 1920 respectively, their relative share in the Dutch population decreased from slightly over two percent around 1900 to less than one and a half percent by 1930.89 Michman, Beem, and Michman concluded that this relative decline was caused by the rising GDP, better living conditions, a rising social status, better educational possibilities, and processes of assimilation, acculturation, and integration.90 After 1920, the absolute number of Jews declined as well, which was caused by secularization and a low birth rate. Moreover, the number of mixed marriages was also rising, from six percent between 1901-05, reaching almost seventeen percent between 1931-34 respectively.91 More men than women arranged marriages outside the Jewish community, whereby almost one out of three married a non-religious person.
However, in the 1930s the number of Jews in the Netherlands increased again, almost exclusively due to large flows of Jewish refugees from Germany and Austria. In 1941, the German occupier counted 79,400 Jews living in Amsterdam. Out of this vast number of Jews, 73,100 Jews were registered member of the Jewish congregation. Moreover, around 500 Jews were baptized and 5,700 Jews, some 7.2 percent, were non-religious.92 Noteworthy, already in 1930 some 35 percent of the non-Jews living in Amsterdam were non-religious, whereby dwarfing the Jewish numbers of 1941, according to Michman, Beem, and Michman.93 In total, the Netherlands counted 140,522 ‘full Jews,’ 14,549 ‘half Jews,’ and 5,719 ‘quarter Jews’ in 1941.94 The criteria for ‘full Jews’ was based upon the occupier’s criteria, whereby a full Jew would have four Jewish grandparents. However, these criteria changed regularly and remained a point of discussion during the Nazis’ reign. Noteworthy, many non-religious Jews kept intact Jewish traditions.95 For example, 362 out of 403 boys born in 1934 Amsterdam were circumcised, which came down around 90 percent. Furthermore, some 92 percent of the people who got married in the 1930s did this in a house of worship. Thus, where the relative and absolute numbers of Jews were decreasing, symbolic cultural values remained mostly intact.
The roaring twenties, an era of both tremendous economic growth and social advancement in the Western World, came to an abrupt halt in the last months of 1929. In the United States, stock markets plummeted and shortly after Wall Street crashed. The
89
Michman, Beem, and Michman, Geschiedenis van de Joodse Gemeenschap in Nederland, 128.
90
Ibidem.
91
Meijer, Hoge Hoeden Lage Standaarden, 16-19; Michman, a.o., 130.
92Michman a.o., 125. 93 Ibidem. 94 Meijer, 9; Abicht, 294. 95 Michman a.o., 130-131.
Beurskrach or Black Tuesday, marked the beginning of an era called the Great Depression,
which would target almost every major economy in the Western world. The Netherlands were not left unharmed.96 However, the Netherlands, in contrast to other countries in Europe, ‘survived’ these times of economic hardship and turmoil due to a relatively stable political environment.
‘’The economic depression, with its resulting social effects (large-scale unemployment and the pauperization of the petite bourgeoisie), had a devastating impact and became the paramount issue of daily life. The political crisis, on the other hand, though certainly not an unknown phenomenon in the Netherlands in the form of doubts about value, importance, and functioning of parliamentary democracy, raged less [emphasis mine] furiously there.’’97
Many Dutch Jews also felt the full effect of the Great Depression. However, to them the persecution of Jews in the Reich became more and more important. The Jewish community fostered strong feelings of solidarity with persecuted Jews living outside the Netherlands. In this they became far more concerned with the growing Jewish refugee problem than other groups in Dutch society. When the Nazis seized power in 1933 Germany, this transfer of power also caused indirectly some major changes to occur in Dutch society, whereby the dynamic balance between Jews and non-Jews in the Netherlands shifted.
The rising influx of Jewish refugees from the Reich to the Netherlands was one of the main catalyst causing these dynamic changes. The Jewish community in the Netherlands had some difficulties with the dissimilarity of foreign, mostly Eastern European, culture, language, behaviour, and habits. This was especially the case when German Jews actively participated, for instance, in religious or Zionist organisations. German Jews were seen by Dutch Jews in the first place as Germans, and therefore this group was approached in the same way the non-Jewish population did. Moreover, internally, the elite of the Jewish community became more and more divided regarding the religious attitudes. According to Jaap Meijer, author of Hoge Hoeden Lage Standaarden, the elite of the Jewish community in the Netherlands became in the 1930s blinded by the possibilities to step up the social ladder (Hoge Hoeden or Top Hats). However, in this process of emancipation and assimilation this elite was neglecting their Jewish roots (Lage Standaarden or Low Standards).98 In the decade before the Second World War, recognizable Jewish life in the Netherlands had faded away, according to Meijer, who had his own definition regarding classifying ‘Jewishness.’ He argued that the distinctive features of Judaism already ended ‘before the Germans came’ and occupied the Netherlands in 1940.99 He equated ‘Judaism’ with traditional Jewish norms and values, whereby both nation and state were closely intertwined with the Jewish community in the Netherlands.
96 Wielienga, Nederland in de Twintigste Eeuw, 100. 97
Blom and Cahen, 279.
98
Meijer, 23-48.
1.6. Classifying ‘Jewishness’ But who was considered a non-observant, observant, or Orthodox Jew? According to R.R. Brenner, writer of The Faith and Doubt of Holocaust Survivors, a non-observant Jew characterized himself or herself as having kept no more than five of the most universally observed Jewish religious rites and practices belonging to Judaism. In general, such a person:
‘’observed these few commandments to a limited degree: observance of minimal kashrut, in the home, that is, following to some measure dietary laws, such as abstaining from pork products; celebrating in some minimal way the festival of Passover, which broadly speaking may be set forth as observing the Passover Seder, with at least a family meal consisting of a number of appropriate symbolic foods and wine, even without reciting from the Passover Haggadah (Hebrew for narration); observance of the Hanukkah holiday by lighting at least one of the nights; fasting on the Day of Atonement for however long one deems appropriate; and attendance at the synagogue on that day.’’100
It was considered insufficient for a non-observant Jew to transpose to the category of an observant Jew, even while fully observing these five commandments. A Jew would eventually transpose to the category of ‘observant’ when all others were considered. Furthermore, Brenner described characteristics belonging to moderately, highly observant, and extremely or ultra-observant Jews. Jews were considered ‘moderately observant’ if they kept observing these five universal commandments ‘’as well as at least one of the following: observance of dietary laws outside home; attendance at the synagogue on the Sabbath, at least occasionally; and on the festivals occasionally as well; observance of the Sabbath in some general manner; and, for a woman, kindling of the Sabbath candles.’’101 A Jew was considered ‘highly observant’ by Brenner when he kept nine of these commandments, or ten for a woman, and at least one of the following: ‘’fasting on the Ninth of Av (Tisha b’Av); daily prayer; observance of the Sabbath without using electrical switches; without riding in an automobile; and, for men only, the daily use of tephillin (phylacteries).’’102 Last, Jews were considered ‘extremely or ultra-observant’ when they kept fourteen commandments or, for a woman, fifteen, and additionally one of the following: ‘’observes shaatnez; wears tzitzin (if men); wear peot (if men); keeps head covered (if men); attends mikveh (if women).’’103
Benner made these descriptions on the assumption that not merely the quantity, but the quality or character of the mitzvot played a more influential role among contemporary Jews. Therefore, to be elevated or transcended into the higher regions of ‘Jewishness,’ one had to keep certain commandments in order to become, for instance, a highly observant Jew. Others would be judged upon their practising skills of highly religious rituals to be
100 R.R. Brenner, The Faith and Doubt of Holocaust Survivors ( New York 1980) 31 and 35. 101
Ibidem, 35.
102
Ibidem.
classified as extremely or ultra-observant. Thus, consequently, the disregard or neglect of certain religious commandments would resolve in a declassification of ‘Jewishness,’ which lowest level was considered to be non-religious. Throughout this thesis, I will use the religious characteristics sketched by Brenner to analyse religious life in camp Westerbork.
1.7. Christian Hebrew Alliances
The year 1928 marked the beginning of a new era for Christian Jews in the Netherlands with the creation of the Nederlandsche Vereeniging van Joden-Christenen (1928-1941). This was a Dutch organisation for Christian Jews. This development could be connected to missionary movement of Christianity, whereby the ‘three-self-formula’ took a central place. This formula opted for the construction of selfgoverning, selfsupporting, and selfextending communities.104 Philip Trostianetzky, since 1925 member of the missionary organisation Elim in Rotterdam, visited the second International Hebrew Christian Alliance in Hamburg in 1927. The chairman of the Alliance asked Trostianetzky why there was still no Hebrew Christian Alliance branch in the Netherlands. One year later, on October 24, the
Nederlandsche Vereeniging van Joden-Christenen was founded in Utrecht.105 This creation was received with enthusiasm from members of Elim and the Nederlandse Vereeniging voor
Israël, two other Jewish unions.106 Initially, Dr. W ten Boom wanted the newly founded union to be a place for both Jewish and non-Jewish members, but this wasn’t received well within Jewish circles. Only Christian Jews would have the right to vote. As solution the Raad van
Advies, an advice council, was created. Non-Jewish members could visit all meetings,
however, they did not have the right to vote. For example, Ds. J van Nes Czn, a non-Jewish missionary from the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, would be a member of this
Raad van Advies. He believed this was a great opportunity to help his missionary activities.
The Nederlandsche Vereeniging van Joden-Christenen wanted to unite all Christian Jews under one banner, whereby:
‘’De Vereeniging stelt zich ten doel de Joden-Christenen in Nederland samen te
brengen: om den band der gemeenschap met den Heeren Jezus, als hun Messias en Zaligmaker, te versterken en den onderlingen band te bevorderen; om te getuigen van de vernieuwende kracht, die er voor het Jodendom uitgaat van het geloof in Jezus Christus, den Messias, den Zoon Gods, den Koning der Joden; om bij de Christenen, Joodsche zoowel als niet Joodsche, het besef te versterken van de bijzondere plaats, welke Israël blijft innemen in de bedeeling des heils en van de daaruit voortkomende roeping jegens den Jood, en eindelijk om de verbinding met de Joden-Christenen in het buitenland te onderhouden.’’107
104
E.J. de Ruiter, Op Zoek naar Identiteit: Geschiedenis van Gemeenschapsvorming bij Messias-belijdende Joden
in Nederland (The Hague 1989) 60.
105
Ibidem.
106
Ibidem, 61.
With this statement, they were clearly hinting to both national and international features of the Hebrew Christian Alliance, which they quickly joined after the creation of the
Nederlandsche Vereeniging van Joden-Christenen. They believed that when they grouped
together, they would be significantly stronger. The International Hebrew Christian Alliance (IHCA) was founded in 1925 out of twelve national unions of Christian Jews.108 Noteworthy, the chairman of the IHCA was a freemason. This was the reason why some Christian Jews would not join the Alliance. At the first official meeting of the Nederlandsche Vereeniging
van Joden-Christenen, some ‘famous’ missionary members representing the Dutch Reformed
Churches held speeches. Dr. W. ten Boom, K.H. Kammeijer, and Ph. Trostianetzsky, were one of those members. Also some baptized Jews from Israel spoke on their own behalf, as did chairman J.H. Zalman. The meeting was closed with saying grace and singing songs.
The first Christian Jewish conference was held in Rotterdam on May 9, 1931. The central notion of this conference was ‘Gods weg met Israël,’ which could be translated as ‘God’s way with Israel.’ The conference was chaired by chairman Ph. Trostianetzsky and attended by 500 members. Ds. J. Rottenberg and Johannes de Heer (1866-1961), a Dutch Evangelist, both held speeches. The next day, May 10, missionary K.H. Kammeijer led the liturgical celebration. Anew, also some baptized Jews like Hirsch Blum and Israël Paulus Tabaksblatt were present at this meeting. The Nederlandsche Vereeniging van
Joden-Christenen requested the Synode van de Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk, the highest organ of
the Dutch Reformed Church, to hold a meeting regarding the ‘Jewish question’ in 1933. The converted Dutch Jews were concerned about rising anti-Jewish sentiments in surrounding countries.109 This applied mostly to Germany, were Adolf Hitler was now chancellor. They felt it was time to actively show acts of sympathy for Jews living in the Reich. However, their request was rejected:
‘’Het antwoord der Synodale Commissie op dit schrijven was, dat zij overtuigd is, dat het de roeping der gemeente is, aandacht te wijden aan Israël en een gebed aan Israël te doen, maar dat zij van oordeel is, dat het in de gegeven omstandigheden niet goed zou zijn een speciale Zondag voor deze taak te bestemmen.’’110
The commission stated that it was the task of the local community to be concerned with the ‘Jewish question.’ The initial goal of the organisation was to unite Christian Jews in the Netherlands under one banner. However, this failed. The organisation therefore focused more on non-Jewish Christians. Eventually, the organisation was officially forbidden by the German occupiers in 1941. However, in 1942 new religious communities were founded in several internment camps. For example, in transit camp Westerbork, De noodgemeente ter
Westerbork (1942-1944) was created.
108 Ibidem. 109 Ibidem, 63. 110 Ibidem.
