The cosmopolitan fascist
Foreign influence on the antidemocratic ideas of the Dutch
avant garde artist and political activist Erich Wichmann.
MA Thesis in European Studies Universiteit van Amsterdam Daniël Lipsius
Main Supervisor: dr. M. Brolsma
Second Supervisor: dr. A. van Heerikhuizen August 2016
Table of content
Introduction 4
1. The context of antidemocratic thought in the Netherlands in the interwar period. 12
The crisis of democracy in the Netherlands 12
Early forms of right wing as well as left wing antidemocratic thought 13
predating the first wave of right wing antidemocratic thought
The first ‘wave’ of right wing antidemocratic thought in the 15
Netherlands
The second ‘wave’ of right wing antidemocratic thought in the 19
Netherlands
National Socialism in the Netherlands 21
Influence of foreign antidemocratic thought on the 22
second wave of right wing antidemocratic thought Netherlands
Influence of Italian Fascism on Dutch intellectuals 22
The influence of German Nazism on the NSB: the relationship between 24
the NSB, Mussolini Italy and the NSDAP
The reception of the Action Française by Dutch intellectuals 26
The Dutch press’ coverage of Mussolini Italy and Nazi Germany 26
2. The personal background and course of life of Erich Wichmann. 30
Youth and student time 30
Foreign influences and travel 33 Intellectual engagement and “activism” in antidemocratic in environments 38
3. References to foreign sources, movements, ideas and ideologues in the writings of 46 Erich Wichmann.
Avant garde art and poetry 46
War, violence and the glorification of direct action 49
Fascism as a contrast to the Dutch democracy 53
Dutch culture and mentality 59
Socialism 63
Final conclusion 68
Bibliography 74
Introduction
In Amsterdam during the first municipal elections of 1921, the antidemocratic ‘Rapaille’ party managed to get seats for a drunk vagabond and an anarchist in the municipal council. The alcoholic and vagabond was named Cornelis de Gelder, but was known publicly by his nickname ‘Had-je-me-maar’ (‘Wish-you-got-me’). He promised gin and beer for 5 cents and ‘free fishing in Vondelpark’.1 The event managed to get national attention, but soon it turned
out that no one took the elected members seriously. Had-je-me-maar never even attended the meetings in the municipal council, since immediately after the elections, he was arrested for public drunkenness (which could happen to him at any time of the day).
Among the founders of the ‘Rapaille’ party were many anarchists, amongst which the
avant garde artist, cultural critic and political activist Erich Wichmann.2 With the ‘Rapaille’
party stunt, Wichmann wanted to ridicule democracy. During his intellectual and artistic career Wichmann developed a hatred for many features he attributed to Dutch society, especially the bourgeois establishment and the recently established democracy. Therefore, he found refuge among anarchists. However, Wichmann was very flexible in his choices of ideology. During a trip to Italy, he experienced the early years of fascism and immediately admired it.3 After his return to the Netherlands, Wichmann built relations with newly
established Dutch fascist organizations and started to propagate fascism in his brochures and articles. The last year of his life he spent, almost entirely, writing fascist propaganda articles for the magazine De Bezem (‘the broom’).4
The case of Wichmann has left many questions among historians and political philosophers. What were the reasons for Wichmann’s cultural critique and antidemocratic activism? Which ideas from abroad have influenced him? To which extent there were foreign inspirations on Wichmann’s antidemocratic ideas, will be the main focus of this research. This is expressed in the main question of this research: ‘To what extent were the antidemocratic ideas of the Dutch avant garde artist and political activist Erich Wichmann inspired by foreign movements, ideologues and ideas?’. To explore to which extent and in what ways Wichmann was inspired by foreign ideas I will analyse the writings, poems, letters and the 1 Koen Vosen, Vrij Vissen in het Vondelpark: Kleine Politieke Partijen in Nederland 1918-1940, Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek 2003, pp. 143-144.
2 http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/bwn1880-2000/lemmata/bwn4/Wichmann, retrieved on 10-2-2016. 3 Ibidem.
articles he wrote in the fascist magazine De Bezem, as my primary sources. The analysis of these primary sources makes it possible to study the context of Wichmann’s ideas, within the corresponding stage of his life and area of residence. Moreover, special attention will be given to the people Wichmann refers to, when he writes about his ideas.
This research will build further on the findings of previous studies about the
Wichmann case. Over the past decennia Wichmann’s antidemocratic ideas and embracement of fascism have slowly gained interest. Right after the Second World War, people saw the pre-war events from a different perspective. Pre-war antidemocratic movements were analysed through a post-war perspective of ‘good’ and ‘wrong’. Many right wing
antidemocratic movements and ideologues have been placed in a direct relationship with German Nazism. The fact that before the Second World War not everyone foresaw what antidemocratic ideas could lead too, was not taken into account. As a result, Erich Wichmann is often unfairly remembered only as a right wing extremist, ignoring his support for
anarchism.5 Furthermore, sometimes in art encyclopaedias even the label ‘Nazi’ was
attributed to him.6 As a result, there was a low interest in the study of cases like Wichmann’s.
In the 1950s the only study about Wichmann was done by H. H. van Regteren Altena in 1954. For the first time, an analysis was published about the reasons behind Wichmann’s embrace of fascism.7 However, it is very likely that the study did not reach a broad audience, since it
would take another 30 years before new studies would be published. We observe this first in the study of Wichmann from Van Burkom and Mulder, in which the main focus were Wichmann’s art works.8 Later, other publications would follow.9 As an example, Geest,
koolzuur en zijk from 1999 (with its remarkable title based on Wichmann’s poems and
translated to English as: ‘spirit, carbonated drinks and whining’) was a collection of old letters from Wichmann that were published and illustrated with a broader historical and biographical context by J. Haffmans. Haffmans would be the first to emphasize that the sharp differences between ‘good’ and ‘wrong’ in the post-war era, as a result of the horrors of the Nazi
occupation, have influenced the memory of pre-war intellectuals like Erich Wichmann. These 5 F.J. Haffmans, Geest, Koolzuur en zijk; Briefwisseling van Erich Wichman (1890-1929), Westervoort : Van Gruting 1999, p. 27.
6 Ibidem, p. 27
7 H. H. van Regteren Altena, Erich Wichmann, bohemien en fascist, Warmond: ’t Huys te Warmont 1954. 8 Frans van Burkom and Hans Mulder, Erich Wichman 1890-1929: tussen idealisme en rancune, Utrecht: Centraal Museum Utrecht 1983.
9 Wim Zaal, Erich Wichmann: Lenin stinkt en andere geschriften, Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers 1971;
F.J. Haffmans, Geest, Koolzuur en zijk; Briefwisseling van Erich Wichman (1890-1929), Westervoort : Van Gruting 1999.
publications of Van Burkom and Mulder and Haffmans have provided a good insight into the art, philosophy and political ideas of Wichmann. However, an analysis that focusses on the cultural transfer and foreign influences, to which a cosmopolite such as Wichmann has been exposed to, is still missing. Therefore, this study will also focus on transnational aspects.
Wichmann can be regarded as a unique case study for the broader context of transnational exchange of antidemocratic thought, between the Netherlands and the rest of Europe. Against which social background, in the Netherlands and in Europe, was it possible for antidemocratic activists like Wichmann to flourish? How did the broader context of transnational exchange of these ideas between the Netherlands and the rest of Europe evolve in the interwar period? With the case study of Erich Wichmann, I hope to contribute to these questions that are central to the study of the transnational exchange theme. Wichmann is a good case study for the transnational exchange of antidemocratic ideas in Europe because, for a fascist, Wichmann was very internationally orientated. Wichmann visited Paris and Milan, the last of which enabled him to fully experience fascism.
By focusing on the transnational exchange of antidemocratic thought between the Netherlands and the rest of Europe in the interwar period, this study contributes to previous studies done on antidemocratic thought in the Netherlands through a new theme and
perspective. Antidemocratic thought in the Netherlands in the interwar period has already been studied under various themes and perspectives, from Catholic antidemocrats to organized fascists and from state and polity issues to the political culture. Just like the Wichmann case, it took some time before a renewed interest in antidemocratic movements emerged. However, in the following decade interest increased by the younger generation which sought to explain the impressions from their youth.10 In 1964, L.M.H. Joosten analysed
the relation between Dutch catholic intellectuals and fascism in the interwar period. Joosten analysed to which extent existed a linkage between integralism and fascism, as it did in France.11 Here he focusses on the relationships between the Catholic and Dutch fascist
movements. Subsequently, in 1966, Wim Zaal wrote a historiography about the reactionary ‘restoration movement’.12 Two years later, in 1968, A. A. De Jonge published a handbook on
10 A.A. De Jonge explains the impressions from his youth as a driving force to start his historical handbook about Dutch antidemocratic thought in the 1920s and 30s.
See: A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, ‘voorwoord’ (preface).
11 L. M.H. Joosten, Katholieken en Fascisme in Nederland 1920-1940, Hilversum-Antwerpen: Paul Brand 1964. 12 Wim Zaal, De Herstellers: Lotgevallen van de Nederlandse Fascisten en van Wouter Lutkie’s Tijdschrift Aristo, Utrecht: Amboboeken 1966, p. 10.
the origins and development of the Dutch antidemocratic movements and activities in a chronological context, focusing on the extent to which these movements tried to provide an alternative to issues concerning the state and polity.13 Next, in 1969, the historian Loe de Jong
published the first book of his series Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede
Wereldoorlog (The Kingdom of the Netherlands during the Second World War), titled Voorspel (Prelude). In it De Jong gave attention to, amongst other things, the history of the
Dutch antidemocratic thought in the interwar period.14 Another research about the relationship
between Catholicism and fascism in the tradition of Joosten was published in 1979.15 Other
studies followed, namely, those of Zaal on the ‘Dutch fascists’ (1973), Ronald Havenaar on the ideology of the Dutch National Socialist party NSB (1984), J. L. van der Pauw (1987) about the movement Verbond van Actualisten and Koen Vossen (2003).16 This last author
explicitly studied the history of smaller political parties in the Netherlands and analysed their
political culture.17 More recently more studies have been published.18 However, Dutch
antidemocratic thought in the interwar period has primarily been studied within a national framework. The parallel developments in other European countries were often mentioned and explained under the perspective of an influencing element, but were often explained in a context of comparison. As a result, the interactions, interrelations and acculturations are not always mentioned and when they are, they are not always studied as the main focus.
Exceptions are the studies of Johannes Leendert Schippers (1986), of Frank van Vree about 13 A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie.
14 Loe de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, Amsterdam: Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie 1969, pp. 244-277.
15 Boudewijn Kustner, De Rooms Katholieke herstellers en het fascisme : een studie over de aantrekkingskracht van het fascisme op bepaalde katholieken; met name op degenen die aan de wieg stonden van het Nederlands fascisme, Amsterdam : Universiteit van Amsterdam 1979.
16 Wim Zaal, De Nederlandse Fascisten, Amsterdam: Wetenschappelijke uitgeverij 1973;
Ronald Havenaar: De NSB tussen Nationalisme en ‘Volkse’ Solidariteit: de Vooroorlogse Ideologie van de Nationaal Socialistische Beweging in Nederland, The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij 1983;
J.L. van der Pauw, De Actualisten: de Kinderjaren van het Georganiseerde Fascisme in Nederland 1923-1924, Amsterdam: Sijthoff 1987;
Koen Vossen, Vrij Vissen in het Vondelpark: Kleine Politieke Partijen in Nederland (1918-1940).
17 According to Koen Vossen, in Dutch political history most attention has been given to the parties of the political establishment, based on the idea that they were the only ones who had considerable influence. Antidemocratic parties therefore gained less attention, given their small influence. To contribute to this part of the Dutch political history, Vossen published a study on the ‘smaller’ Dutch political parties. He named his book after the remarkable election promise of Wichmann’s Rapaille Party: ‘Vrij vissen in het Vondelpark’ (‘Free fishing in Vondelpark’).
See: Koen Vossen, Vrij Vissen in het Vondelpark: Kleine Politieke Partijen in Nederland (1918-1940), pp. 13-14; p. 17.
18 Willem Hubers, Er was altijd ruzie: opkomst, bloei en ondergang van het Nederlandse fascisme (1923-1945), Amsterdam: Aspekt BV 2013;
Robin te Slaa and Edwin Klijn, De NSB: Ontstaan en Opkomst van de Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging, 1931-1935, Amsterdam-Amersfoort: Uitgeverij Boom 2009.
the Dutch press coverage of Italy and Germany from 1989 and 1991, the article of Dietrich Orlow from 1999, the study of Tamara van Kessel (1999) and the studies done by Helleke van den Braber and Jan Gelkens (2010).19 In order to contribute to the existing literature, this
study will focus on the transnational aspects as its main topic by studying the interactions, interrelations and acculturations of ideas within different national contexts, using Wichmann as a case study. Furthermore, most case studies of Dutch antidemocratic movements and ideologues are focused in a period starting from the 1930s, such as the NSB. This case study will thereby contribute to knowledge about the 1920s.
This focus on the transnational perspective has already been applied in other studies of fascism. Fascism, originally, was studied within national frameworks of influence. According to Roger Griffin, an expert on fascism, despite the efforts of a few historians, amongst them George Mosse, fascism was often seen as a static Italian phenomenon that did not have an ideology and did not exist outside Italy.20 It was described by scholars in terms of the violent exercise and monopoly of power.21 According to Griffin, only on the past decade has more
interest been shown on the ideological part of fascism and as a result, the transnational manifestations of it.22 The recent tendency for scholars, is to take more seriously the
ideological and cultural context parts. Griffin proved that fascism was a serious utopian ideology, a revolutionary form of nationalist extremism that propagated the myth about the need to ‘regenerate’ the nation.23 Because fascism is a universally applicable ideology instead
of an Italian phenomenon, it can be described locally through the relevant national context and unique cultural traditions of the people it embraces. In books such as, The Nature of
Fascism and International Fascism: Theories, Causes and the New Consensus, Griffin
applied his findings with examples of various national cases.
19 Frank van Vree, ‘In het land van Mussolini: de Nederlandse pers en fascistisch Italië’, in: Incontri: rivista europea di studi italiani, 1991, Vol. 6 (1) 1991, pp. 3-26;
Frank van Vree, De Nederlandse pers en Duitsland 1930-1939. Een studie over de vorming van de publieke opinie, Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij 1989;
Dietrich Orlow, ‘A Difficult Relationship of Unequal Relatives: The Dutch NSB and Nazi Germany, 1933–1940’, in: European History Quarterly, Vol. 29 (3) 1999;
Johannes Leendert Schippers, Zwart en Nationaal Front: Latin Oriented Right-Radicalism in the Netherlands (1922-1946), Amsterdam: Stichting Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1986;
Tamara van Kessel, Tussen italianità en fascisme : de Haagse afdeling van ‘Dante Alighieri’ en de Italiaanse cultuurpolitiek in Nederland, 1914-1938, Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam Faculteit der Letteren 1999; Helleke van den Braber and Jan Gelkens, ed., In 1934: Nederlandse cultuur in internationale context, Amsterdam and Antwerp 2010, pp. 281-290.
20 Roger Griffin, ‘Studying Fascism in a Postfascist Age. From New Consensus to New Wave?’, in: Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies, Fascism 1, 2012, pp. 1-2.
21 Ibidem. 22 Ibidem. 23 Ibidem.
Moreover, A. Iriye and P. Saunier also argue in The Palgrave Dictionary of
Transnational History that fascism can be easily studied, under a transnational perspective, in
three topics.24 The first being the role of the diasporas. In the Italian case this means studying
how the Mussolini’s regime tried to influence the Italian communities in the diaspora, as well as the rest of the countries abroad. This research area has been chosen by Tamara van Kessel in her study on the cultural policy of the Dante Alighieri institute.25 The second possible
research topic, is on the links between fascist movements in different countries. Dietrich Orlow studied this, particularly the link between the Dutch NSB party, Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy.26 In 2009, the historians Te Slaa and Klijn also reanalysed the Dutch party
NSB in terms of its ideology and links with foreign sister parties in Italy and Germany.27 The
third possible research topic is the study of the spread of fascism and its cultural manifestations in different countries, by focusing on interactions, interrelations and acculturations. This latter research topic, about the manifestations in different national contexts, will be the focus of my study on Erich Wichmann.
For the transnational perspective, in this research I derive some insights from the concept of cultural transfer. In humanities, cultural transfer is an increasingly used concept in the analysis of positions of a critic or scholar, from a particular country, by placing them in a larger transnational context.28 The term itself indicates the changes in ideas that arise when
two cultures meet each other.29 Cultural transfer arose in the mid-eighties of the twentieth
century, against a background of dissatisfaction with the, at that time, standard comparative method. This alternative approach criticized one of the most commonly used concepts, namely the theory of historical comparison, that occupied an important position in the literature sciences in the mid-twentieth century. Michel Espagne can be seen as one of the founders of the concept of cultural transfer.30 In the 1980s, historians became critical about the
potential of equations. Comparison was now described as something that was not useful in the 24 A. Iriye and P. Saunier, The Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History, From the mid-19th century to the present day, New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2009, pp. 381-383.
25 Tamara van Kessel, Tussen italianità en fascisme : de Haagse afdeling van ‘Dante Alighieri’ en de Italiaanse cultuurpolitiek in Nederland, 1914-1938.
26 Dietrich Orlow, ‘A Difficult Relationship of Unequal Relatives: The Dutch NSB and Nazi Germany, 1933–1940’, in: European History Quarterly, Vol. 29 (3) 1999, pp. 349-350.
27 Robin te Slaa and Edwin Klijn, De NSB: Ontstaan en Opkomst van de Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging, 1931-1935, p. 782; pp. 24-26.
28 Petra Broomans and Sandra van Voorst, Rethinking Cultural Transfer and Transmission Reflections and New Perspectives, Eelde: Barkhuis 2012, pp. 49-61; pp. 117-131.
29 Martijn van der Burg, Nederland onder Franse invloed : cultuurtransfer en staatsvorming in de Napoleontische tijd, 1799-1813, Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw 2009, pp. 7-10.
human sciences. It became associated with quantitative methods and, more generally, the social sciences. The comparative method was, moreover, described as a method that neglected cultural aspects in history. That is why cultural transfer arose as an alternative method to comparison, against a background of the so-called, cultural turn in history. Cultural transfer theorists suggested a radical change of perspective. Instead of comparing different cultures they proposed to focus on interactions, something that had never been popular before the cultural transfer became accepted. This happened because of the difficulty in envisaging any increase in knowledge from comparing different cultures, since such a comparison limits itself to the political boundaries of nation states, not taking acculturation into account. In order to overcome the limitation to national entities and identities, Espagne preferred studying the translation and circulation of knowledge between his case studies, France and Germany in the nineteenth century.31
Recently, the concept of cultural transfer has been applied to political history in research done by Henk te Velde. He presented the concept as Political transfer. It studies the transfer of political practices and policies across national borders. Comparative history, however, is also of importance in such cases since it focusses on comparison, and if there is migration of practices in politics between two nations under study, at least two national cases have to be compared with each other.32
However, in order to analyse the works of Erich Wichmann, a method based purely on the concept of cultural transfer is the best approach, since Wichmann’s case focusses on culture and not on political practice. When studying the transnational influence of culture, it is inadequate to make a comparison between the ideas of Wichmann and those of right-wing nationalist Italian or French cultural critics. Such an approach limits itself to the boundaries of the nation state and does not take into account the acculturation of ideas, from one country to another. In Wichmann’s case, the ideas he might have taken over from foreign thinkers, adapted to the cultural situation in the Netherlands and if not were possibly rejected. Thus cultural transfer focusses on the acculturation of ideas to national contexts and is, therefore, the most useful method.
This methodological approach provided by the concept of cultural transfer will be the basis of the third chapter of this research. In order to indicate foreign influence on the
31 Olga Yakushenko, ‘What is cultural transfer; speaker: Michel Espagne (École normale supérieur)’,
http://eu.spb.ru/en/news/14094-what-is-cultural-transfer, retrieved on 9-3-2016.
32 Henk te Velde, ‘Political Transfer: an Introduction’, in: European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire, Vol 12 (2), 2005, p. 208.
antidemocratic ideas of Wichmann I will analyse in the third chapter to what extend
Wichmann used foreign sources in his political, cultural and art critique where rejection of the democracy was a part of. It is preceded by the second chapter in which I will focus on
Wichmann’s personal background, contacts, activities and the motives for his political activities and writings. The first chapter of my thesis focusses on the general context of foreign influence on the broader antidemocratic movements in the Netherlands.
Chapter 1: The context of antidemocratic thought in the Netherlands in the interwar period.
This chapter will place Wichmann in a broader context of antidemocratic thought in the Netherlands. It will focus on the origins of Dutch antidemocratic movements, ideologues and
ideas. It will also analyse to which extent there was foreign influence on the Netherlands, by focusing on transnational contexts, linkages and interactions between antidemocratic
movements in Europe in general. The chapter will try to answer the following questions. Which movements were actively propagating antidemocratic ideas in the 1920s and 30s and what were their ideas? What were the origins and motives for this criticism on the democracy in politics and broader society and how can we explain their limited, but relatively reasonable, amount of popularity? To which extent were Dutch antidemocratic movements, ideologues and ideas inspired by those from abroad?
The crisis of democracy in the Netherlands
In Europe, during the course of the interwar period, a crisis of democracy developed. In 1968, the Dutch historian A. A. De Jonge, made a distinction between the ‘small crisis of
democracy’ in Europe and the ‘big crisis’.33 The small crisis of democracy refers to the idea
that in many European countries the institutions of the modern parliamentary democracy would not be able to cope with modern problems, such as massification and economic crisis. During the ‘small crisis of democracy’ especially, some people in the artistic and intellectual elite of European countries, related the inability to solve economic problems with the
functionality of the state institutions.34 Against this background an atmosphere of criticism
arose, but it was often unstructured and certainly not focused on the ideal foundations of the establishment. However, the ‘big crisis’ of democracy did not only relate to the institutions, but also to the ideal foundations of democracy. During the ‘big crisis’ the ideas legitimizing democracy came into discredit. This was based on the idea that ordinary people were too dumb to make rational decisions about politics and only a strong leader would be able to represent the common interest. Big structured movements would thus try to form a ‘modern alternative’ to democracy.35
In countries that were severely affected by this crisis, democracy would cease to exist. In 1918, directly after the First World War, democracies were established almost everywhere in Europe, however a few years later they vanished in several of these countries. In Germany, democracy continued in a very unstable way with a lot of political violence and terrorism until it was abolished by Hitler in the 1930s. Mussolini abolished democracy in Italy in 1922. Old, 33 A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, pp. 4-10.
34 Ibidem. 35 Ibidem.
but instable democracies such as Italy, Spain and Portugal, were liquidated in 1922, 1923 and 1926.
However, in the Netherlands the crisis of democracy never resulted into a fascist dictatorship. Democracy in the Netherlands survived the turbulent interwar crisis years. This did not mean there was no antidemocratic thought. The parliamentary system came under heavy pressure, was heavily criticized and pushed onto a defensive position. Media and critics would say that the parliamentary system only served the elites and not the society of the masses. For De Jonge, Democracy in defensive was the formula that best describes the political and cultural situation in countries like the Netherlands, who did not evolve all the way into a dictatorship.36
Early forms of right wing as well as left wing antidemocratic thought predating the first wave of right wing antidemocratic thought
The earliest forms of right wing antidemocratic ideas, similar to Mussolini’s fascism, were already present in the Netherlands before his rise to power.37 De Jonge, as well as the historian
L.M.H. Joosten, attribute this right wing antidemocratic thought to the psychological climate, which characterized itself as: on a longer term, a dramatic reaction to the past century of modernization and democratization, and on a shorter term, the ‘revolution of 1917-1919’, when the universal suffrage would be implemented.38 The historian J. L. van der Pauw
therefore emphasizes that, at the time, the early antidemocratic movements were famous under the designation of ‘restauration movements’.39 Koen Vossen argues there was a big
change in the political climate in the Netherlands in the nineteenth century. Between 1850 and 1913 the number of people eligible to vote increased and in 1917-1919 the universal suffrage was implemented. Politics became less a meeting of the ‘noblest and most capable’, done by a select group of elites, and more a mirror of society that penetrated into the daily life.
Independence, good manners and a pragmatic defense of the common interest were replaced by party manifesto’s and political leadership.40 Because of the abolishment of the district
36 A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, p. 6.
37 L.M.H. Joosten, Katholieken en Fascisme in Nederland 1920-1940, p. 16; A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, p. 29.
38 A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, p. 64;
Koen Vossen, Vrij Vissen in het Vondelpark: Kleine Politieke Partijen in Nederland 1918-1940, pp. 65-66. 39 J.L. van der Pauw, De Actualisten: de Kinderjaren van het Georganiseerde Fascisme in Nederland 1923-1924, p. 120.
system and the lowering of the election threshold, smaller parties were able to gain
importance.41 For Thorbecke, the Dutch founder of parliamentarism, these were necessary and
positive developments, but on the other hand, also worrisome.42 Thorbecke was not the only
one. Many people of the old bourgeois elites propagandized a ‘restoration’ of the parliamentary system to the previous condition, out of fear that due to the parliamentary reforms, politics would be led by ‘the emotions of the uneducated mass’ at the expense of the economy and common interest.43 This growing gap between the parliamentary elites and the
mass in the democratic system is a recurring discussion topic in the handbook of De Jonge. De Jonge describes this as a serious problem of the modern west that the parliamentary elites were not able to overcome during both the interwar period and the post-war period.44
We can trace the first antidemocratic movement to as early as the fin de siècle, namely in 1894. The Bond van Vrije Liberalen (‘Federation of Free Liberals’), founded in 1907, amongst which were many influential elites of the Dutch society, broke with the traditional liberal party because of the discontentment with the democratization plans and called for a strong government based on authoritarian standards.45 Furthermore, De Jonge refers to
Valckenier Kips (1862-1942) as an early right wing antidemocrat who believed in the
traditionally conservative idea of the state as an organically and naturally grown mechanism, in which people cannot intervene, completely contradicting the liberal democratic idea of the state as merely being created by human beings. Kips was very inspired by German Kultur. During the First World War he wrote pro-German propaganda in which he called the Germans, in order not to replace their authoritarian system with the ‘devilish’ British and French parliamentary system, framed the war as a battle between ‘high spirited’ and ‘Ariyan’ German culture and ‘decadent materialist’ Roman culture.46. Kips combined old style
conservatism with modern Social Darwinism and racist myths of purity. From the same environments came Gerardus Bolland (1854-1922), a professor of philosophy in Leiden who was not only reactionary, but also a fervent anti-Semite.47
The above discussed early forms of right wing antidemocratic thought were also a direct response to the left wing revolutionary movements, such as communists and anarchists, 41 Ibidem, pp. 35-37.
42 Ibidem, pp. 25-26. 43 Ibidem, pp. 65-66.
44 A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, Epilogue. 45 Ibidem, pp. 30-31.
46 Ibidem, pp. 32-41. 47 Ibidem, pp. 46-48.
who also provided an alternative to the capitalist liberal democracy. Because of their proposed alternative, namely the ‘dictatorship of the proletarians’, these left wing revolutionary
movements can also be regarded as part of a form of left wing antidemocratic thought in the Netherlands.48 This left wing antidemocratic thought expressed itself during ‘the red week’
(De Roode Week), from November 9 to November 13, when Pieter Jelles Troelstra (1860-1930) called for a ‘socialist revolution’. Not many people took Troelstra’s call for revolution seriously. As a result, it failed and would go into history as ‘Troelstra’s mistake’.49 Left wing
antidemocratic thought was mostly expressed, in the early 1910s, by the SDAP (when it was still a revolutionary party), the CPN (Communistische Partij Nederland) and some individuals in the 1920s.However, in the 1930s the social-democratic SDAP started to accept the
parliamentary democracy and the communist CPN used to accept the ‘bourgeois democracy’ as the ‘most feasible form of capitalism’. Although the CPN never dissociated itself from criticism on the liberal individualist society and the belief in the need for a revolution to create the desired utopian society, the new vision since the 1930s was that this had to be initiated culturally instead of violently and through the policy of a democratically elected government. Gradually, in the course of the 1920s towards the 1930s, antidemocratic thought became more characteristic for the radical right than the radical left.50
The first ‘wave’ of right wing antidemocratic thought in the Netherlands
Concerning the radical right, the Bond van Vrije Liberalen only existed a short time and Kips and Bolland were one of the few individual thinkers of their time. However, after 1922 right wing antidemocratic ideas like theirs were organized into political movements with some, but not many, members. De Jonge therefore calls 1922 the beginning of the first ‘wave’ of real and organized right wing antidemocratic thought, a ‘wave’ that would have its end in 1927.51
Along with the idea of dysfunction of the parliamentary system and the wish to reverse the democratization process, the reason behind the organization of right wing antidemocratic thought into movements was, according to De Jonge, mainly the successful coup done by Mussolini in Italy. Mussolini’s takeover of power gave people the idea that it was possible to create a ‘modern alternative’ for the democracy.52 Furthermore, De Jonge discusses the
48 L.M.H. Joosten, Katholieken en Fascisme in Nederland 1920-1940, p. 364. 49 Wim Zaal, De Nederlandse Fascisten, p. 19.
50 Frans van Burkom and Hans Mulder, Erich Wichman 1890-1929: tussen idealisme en rancune, pp. 149-150; A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, pp. 2-3.
51 A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, pp. 63-65. 52 Ibidem, p. 64.
economic downturn of 1921, which was not as dramatic as that of 1929, but was taken very seriously at the time. It created a belief that the parliamentary reforms had caused the economic dysfunction.53 De Jonge describes, just as De Bond van Vrije Liberalen, Kips and
Bolland, that the first ‘wave’ of right wing antidemocratic thought had an elitist and
reactionary character. It took a conservative stance on its visions of the existing society and its values.
A good example of a set of movements that developed during the ‘first wave’ of antidemocratic thought are the catholic-reactionary orientated antidemocratic movements. Catholicism was, according to Joosten and to some extent De Jonge, extra vulnerable to pseudo-fascistoid ideas, due to their discontentment with modernity, the loss of importance of Catholicism in society and politics and with what they called ‘evading of God’ already for a long time.54 For these Catholic reactionary voices, the democratization of society was a logic
consequence of ‘demonic individualism’ that, unlike God, made the individual human the norm and verity, an idea that had already started during the Renaissance.5556 In general, the
ideology of ‘integralism’ believed in romantic ideas of the nation as an ‘organic’ community and propagated class differences through the beliefs of ‘corporatism’, the idea that class differences were ‘natural’ and therefore should not be erased but harmonized by establishing national unity.57 However, Zaal did not agree with the link Joosten made between Catholic
integralism and fascism. According to Zaal almost all the later fascists from Catholic origin, except Wouter Lutkie, were children at the moment integralism was at its highest. Zaal describes that no fascist of the 1930s referred praisefully to integralism. Already in 1914, Pope Pius X put an end to it.58
There are many examples of Catholic antidemocratic thought. The weekly magazine ‘Katholieke Staatkunde’, ‘Catholic statesmanship’, published for the first time in 1922, can be 53 Ibidem, p. 6 ; p. 64.
54 A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, pp. 28-30;
L.M.H. Joosten, Katholieken en Fascisme in Nederland 1920-1940, Hilversum-Antwerpen: Paul Brand 1964, p. 364.
55 L.M.H. Joosten, Katholieken en Fascisme in Nederland 1920-1940, Hilversum-Antwerpen: Paul Brand 1964, pp. 109-110;
J.L. van der Pauw, De Actualisten: de Kinderjaren van het Georganiseerde Fascisme in Nederland 1923-1924, pp. 8-9.
56 L.M.H. Joosten, Katholieken en Fascisme in Nederland 1920-1940, Hilversum-Antwerpen: Paul Brand 1964, p. 364.
57 A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, pp. 28-30.
58 Wim Zaal, De Herstellers: Lotgevallen van de Nederlandse Fascisten en van Wouter Lutkie’s Tijdschrift Aristo, pp. 25-27;
seen as an example of catholic antidemocratic thought.59Under the editorship of Emile
Verviers (1886-1968), it was a very vague antirevolutionary magazine that rejected the ‘Godless’ establishment that, according to Verviers, abandoned religion, the church, the ‘power of God’, military strength, and capitalism and would therefore end in chaos. In this narrative of Verviers, democracy was the symptom of this chaos.60 The magazine was actually
seen as a propaganda source for the ideologically affiliated political party named Nieuwe
Katholieke Party.61 However, many Catholics criticized Verviers and ultimately force him to
change the name of the magazine to ‘Opbouwende Staatkunde’ (Constructive statesmanship) in 1924. In this way, the magazine could freely radicalize, as is visible in Verviers admiration of Mussolini at the end of the 1920s.62 After Verviers, the magazine would be taken over by
‘the fascist priest’, Wouter Lutkie (1887-1968).63 In 1924, magazine De Valbijl (‘The
Guillotine’), leaded by the brothers Gerard and Henri Bruning (1898-1926 and 1900-1983),
presented itself as a magazine of the Catholic youth, causing further disputes between the supporters and critics, because the Bruning brothers would, inspired by Wouter Lutkie, expand the magazine’s focus to radical religious visions of intellectual matters such as the democracy, universal suffrage and fascism.64
Besides Catholic antidemocratic movements and magazines, there was Het Verbond
van Actualisten (‘The Covenant of Actualists’), which was founded in 1923. Just like the
catholic movements, it wanted to compete with the communist movements at that time.65 The
ideology of this movement was that ‘socialists dream, liberal democrats only talk, but actualists watch and act’.66 The organization was mainly extremely nationalist,
anti-communist and anti-liberal democracy. J. L. van der Pauw argues in his book that Het
Verbond van Actualisten was the first fascist organization in the Netherlands, because it
believed in the fascist ideas of ‘action over words’ and ‘uniting the nation across class divides in order to reach unity’.67 Van der Pauw proves this by analyzing its ideology, but he explains
59 L.M.H. Joosten, Katholieken en Fascisme in Nederland 1920-1940, Hilversum-Antwerpen: Paul Brand 1964, p. 364.
60 A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, p. 66-68.
61 L.M.H. Joosten, Katholieken en Fascisme in Nederland 1920-1940, Hilversum-Antwerpen: Paul Brand 1964, p. 29-31.
62 Ibidem, p. 32. 63 Ibidem, p. 44. 64 Ibidem, p. 68-69.
65 J.L. van der Pauw, De Actualisten: de Kinderjaren van het Georganiseerde Fascisme in Nederland 1923-1924, p. 11.
66 Ibidem, p. 19.
that it never wanted to define itself as such, because as proud Dutch patriots, they did not want to be seen as a product of Italian national culture.68
Furthermore, Het Vaderlandsch Verbond (the ‘Fatherland Alliance’), founded in 1921, and Nationale Unie, founded in 1924, can be considered one of the most elitist formed parties. The members of Het Vaderlandsch Verbond, who broke with the right wing faction of the general liberal party in 1924, were lawyers, industrials and directors of enterprises. It was a protest movement of ultra-reactionary dissidents from the right wing of the liberal party. According to them, democracy would have turned the politics into a ‘parliamentary chaos’ and would ‘undermine the feelings of responsibility’ of the members of parliament.
Therefore, it urged to create a system of skilled businessmen that would do ‘what is best for the people’.69 The comparable Nationale Unie, also emphasized that the democracy was fake
and therefore gave ‘political advice’ to the parliamentary establishment, but it had more fascist tendencies than Het Vaderlandsch Verbond, because it idealized a totalitarian state system.70
Moreover, Het Haags Maandblad was another conservative antidemocratic movement and magazine of the 1920s, founded in 1924. In the 1920s it published articles that, just like the other antidemocratic movements, expressed its concern about the functioning of the parliamentary system in the new society of the masses. In the articles it was written that the parliamentary system was outdated and would soon cease to exist. It emphasized that at the time when society’s ruling class was more homogenous it worked perfectly, but ‘now it was useless’.71
The second ‘wave’ of right wing antidemocratic thought
During the time of the ‘first wave’ of antidemocratic thought, the ‘revolutionary’
antidemocrats, who also rejected the intellectual foundations of democracy, only constituted a tiny group.72 According to De Jonge this would change, from around 1927 up to 1934, when
the second wave of antidemocratic thought flourished in the Netherlands. The antidemocratic thought of bourgeois conservatives was taken over by antibourgeois revolutionaries who 68 J.L. van der Pauw, De Actualisten: de Kinderjaren van het Georganiseerde Fascisme in Nederland 1923-1924, pp. 11-27.
69 A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, pp. 89-93. 70 Ibidem, pp. 94-95.
71 Ibidem, pp. 102-103. 72 Ibidem, p. 65.
rejected the entire society and its values. Contrary to the conservative elites which existed before the revolutionary ideologues, these had a desire for the complete reversal of society, more specifically, by their characterization of the ‘big crisis’ of democracy.73 A big
motiviation for this ‘second wave’ was the fact that halfway through the 1920s, Mussolini’s Italy started to present fascism as a universal ideology explaining the relations between the state and the individual, instead of merely an Italian nationalist antidemocratic movement. As A. A. de Jonge explained, this had a ‘flattening effect’, meaning that it resulted in a lower creativity, lower inventiveness and a radicalization. This was due to the fact that from now on, individual intellectuals did not need to carry out any theoretical elaborations on
antidemocratic ideas anymore. They could simply propagate the regime of Mussolini.74
Furthermore a new target audience was needed given the fact that the conservative bourgeois elites, whose antidemocratic thought never really targeted the ideal foundations of democracy, accepted democracy. Conservative antidemocratic thought was almost dead.75 The working
class, however, did not associate democracy with welfare anymore, due to the outbreak of the big economic world crisis. The new movements therefore played on to their feelings.76
A typical example of ‘second wave’ antidemocratic thought was De Bezem. Founded in 1927 as a magazine and organization it propagated exclusively the fascism of Mussolini’s Italy among the masses, especially the working class. When Erich Wichmann (1890-1929) joined in 1928, the magazine experienced its peak in popularity. His emotional and vulgar style of writing, full of violent threats, insults and hatred for the political establishment, gained more popularity among the masses than the intellectual writings of his successor, Alfred Haighton (1896-1943), who was not as anti-rationalist as Wichmann.77 Haighton took
over the Wichmann’s columns after his death in 1929, but was unable to compete, in terms of vulgarity, with him. Soon after that, the movement and organization split up due to internal turmoil. Two sides continued their ‘own’ version of De Bezem, both claiming theirs as the ‘true’ one. The tone of the Bezem of Alfred Haighton would become more Nazi anti-Semitic under the growing German cultural influence and would fuse with the NSNAP (Nederlandse
Nationaal Socialsitische Arbeiderspartij). The other part fused with the Algemene
73 Ibidem, p. 65 ; p. 118. 74 Ibidem, pp. 118-119. 75 Ibidem, p. 118.
76 Jaques De Kadt, Het fascisme en de nieuwe vrijheid, Amsterdam: G.A. van Oorschot 1939, pp. 242-243. 77 A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, pp. 121-123.
Nederlandse Fascistenbond (ANFB) and continued the ‘traditional’ style of Italian inspired
fascism, which was not necessarily anti-Semitic. 78
As described earlier, Nationale Unie used to be described as being very reactionary.79
But under the influence of Mr. Dr. Westerman (1892-1950), also professor in law, its character would become significantly more revolutionary and populist. Westerman became known in the Netherlands for his book De zieke staat (‘the sick state’) full of reactionary statements. His later books would contradict his old reactionary ideas by propagating fascism, because revolutionary alternatives would prevent us from ‘sticking to the old-fashioned institutes’, as expressed in De crisis van het gezag (‘the crisis of power’).80 The subsequent
leader Gerretson (1884-1954) used to propagate popular fascists ideas in the late 1920s towards 1930s as well. After 1934, when fascism developed in an absolutist direction and he saw that it was not in the interest of the Netherlands, he broke with fascism.81
Furthermore, already in the 1920s there were a wide range of Catholic
‘non-conformist’ magazines from Catholic youngsters in artistic environments who were open to new and unique ideas.82 In 1927, the magazine De Roeping (‘The Calling’), founded in 1922,
started to openly portray antidemocratic ideas. It was originally was focused on vague art critique mixed with religion and the high ambition to ‘rechristen the godless world’. 83
Together with the magazine De Gemeenschap (‘The Community’) their rebellion against the establishment applied, initially, more to the Roman Catholic State Party than to the whole democratic society.84 However, after 1927 De Roeping would dramatically change its
character due to its new chief editor, Gerard Knuvelder (1902-1982), who would openly praise fascist thoughts and the Nazi takeover of power. The character turned popular and emotionally antidemocratic, but without concrete and clearly defined political statements. For Knuvelder these events would solve ‘the problems of modern society concerning the relation of people and the state’.85 Knuvelder also used to relativize the Nazi persecution of dissidents
and Jews using statements filled with banal anti-Semitism.86
National Socialism in the Netherlands
78 Ibidem, pp. 129-132. 79 Ibidem, pp. 144-145. 80 Ibidem.
81 Ibidem, pp. 146-147.
82 L.M.H. Joosten, Katholieken en Fascisme in Nederland 1920-1940, p. 126. 83 Ibidem, p. 133.
84 A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, p. 170. 85 Ibidem. p. 177.
De Jonge sees 1934 as a turning point: some revolutionaries, such as Gerretson, broke with the fascist ideology and returned to standard conservativism. They saw that the ‘revolutionary right’ took a too radical stance, that was not in the interest of the Netherlands. However, the enthusiastic ones, such as Haighton, continued their support and even ‘converted’ to anti-Semitic Nazism.87 Furthermore, most antidemocratic parties, which no longer had a lot of
votes, would split up and eventually dissolve. For the first time one party would dominantly withstand all others: the NSB (Nationaal Socialistische Beweging). This party would continue to exist and even radicalize.88 Furthermore, the NSB used to be the only Dutch antidemocratic
party having a serious number of members. At the end of 1936 the NSB had almost as much as 52.000 members, about one percent of the total Dutch population.89
The NSB was founded in 1931. It is the Dutch fascist organization that is mostly recognized nowadays. This, since it was, in both quantity and quality, the most ambitious and biggest antidemocratic party of the 1930s and because of its involvement in the collaboration with the German occupiers between 1940 and 1945. The success of NSB between 1933-1935 was based on the economic crisis and Hitler’s successful fight against unemployment, which gave many Dutch people, just as many Germans, the idea that Nazism was a serious
alternative for democracy.90 The relationship of the NSB with the NSDAP and anti-Semitism
will later be explained in detail.
Next to NSB, there were only little groups without a serious number of members such as the Zwarte Front and NSNAP. Alfred Haighton of De Bezem moved to both parties after his ‘conversion’ to anti-Semitism and National Socialism. The NSNAP, despite being strongly inspired on Germany, was a very Dutch nationalist party. It propagated a ‘Great-Germanic alliance’ and called for the expulsion of all Dutch Jews.91 The movement called Zwart Front
was founded by Arnold Meijer (1905-1965), a former Catholic priest inspired by Wouter Lutkie and Henri Bruning, with the aim of reviving the older Dutch fascism from the times of
De Bezem during a time in which the NSB was dominant. Despite the fact that Lutkie and
Bruning were not very Semitic, Meijer himself did not show any will of hiding his anti-Semitism.92 He hoped to collaborate with the Nazi’s during the occupation, but the party was
87 Ibidem, p. 189. 88 Ibidem.
89 Robin te Slaa and Edwin Klijn, De NSB: Ontstaan en Opkomst van de Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging, 1931-1935, pp. 21-22.
90 Ibidem, p. 20. 91 Ibidem, p. 199.
banned due to the pro-Dutch nationalist character of the movement and the party’s refusal to swear loyalty to Hitler instead of the Netherlands.93 The NSNAP never had to be dissolved by
the Nazi’s. Due to their extremism they were forced to dissolve by the Dutch government as early as 1939.94
Influence of foreign antidemocratic thought on the second wave of right wing antidemocratic thought in the Netherlands
In order to contextualize the foreign influence on Erich Wichmann it is important to identify the foreign influence on and reception of foreign antidemocratic persons, movements and ideas, such as Italian fascism, German National Socialism and the Action Française.
Influence of Italian Fascism on Dutch intellectuals
Going back to the influence of the portrayal of fascism as a universal movement on the second ‘wave’ of Dutch antidemocratic thought, it is important to emphasize that the success of this influence should be seen as a result of the growing cultural policy of the Mussolini regime. Halfway through the 1920s, Mussolini finished the consolidation of his internal position as a dictator and started focusing on the defence of his regime with cultural policy. 95
A 1999 study done by Tamara van Kessel proves this. Van Kessel emphasizes the founding of a separate ‘ministry for press and propaganda’ that focused particularly on other countries. Furthermore, she focusses on the ‘fascistization’ of Italian cultural policy institutions, like Dante Algieri which was to dominate the national cultural institutions and media in order to indoctrinate both Italian and foreign people about the change that fascism could bring (which in reality was little) in order to breathe new life to the myth of the continuous fascist
revolution that Italian society had always been under.96 Especially in the 1930s the Italian
ambassador in the Hague, F.M. Taliani, was very active in his support of the Dutch fascist organizations.97 Ironically he saw more possibilities in the NSB than the ANFB, stating the
93 Ibidem, pp. 322-328.
94 A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, p. 197.
95 Tamara van Kessel, Tussen italianità en fascisme : de Haagse afdeling van ‘Dante Alighieri’ en de Italiaanse cultuurpolitiek in Nederland, 1914-1938, p. 36;
A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, p. 197.
96 Tamara van Kessel, Tussen italianità en fascisme : de Haagse afdeling van ‘Dante Alighieri’ en de Italiaanse cultuurpolitiek in Nederland, 1914-1938, p. 38.
NSB was wrongly named ‘national socialist’. 98 According to Van Kessel, Taliani successfully
convinced Mussolini to financially and politically support the NSB. 99
The Dutch antidemocrats were also engaged in spreading the ‘universal’ fascist propaganda.100 For instance, the Dutch writing couple Carel and Margo Scharten-Antink.101
The book ‘Littoria. De verlossende arbeid’, published in 1935 was an ode to Mussolini. Fascism was the solution to the chaos in the world and communists and social-democrats were to blame. In this book the authors made no secret of their radical opinions by writing slogans like: ‘Duce, we want to die for you too’. Scharten-Antink were not the only ones. Already in 1925 Arthur van Schendel published poems that idealized fascism. The Dutch painter Jan Toorop even made paintings of Mussolini. Furthermore, a propaganda center for fascism named Centre international d’études sur le fascisme was founded in Lausanne by the dutchman De Vries Heekelingen.102 Two other Dutchmen Godin de Beaufort and Treub
occupied administrative functions. A prominent board member was Giovanni Gentile himself.
103 De Vries Heekelingen also had personal relationships with Mussolini.104 The Dutch
journalist Simon Ooms joined the magazine Ottobre in order to support the battle for a new fascist Europe together with Jan Baars, who was also the founder of the ANFB.105 There is
even evidence for direct influence of the Dante Alighieri institute on Dutch antidemocrats. Inventories of archives of the Dutch Catholic Documentation Centre of Radbout University Nijmegen formed in 2007 on Wouter Lutkie prove that he corresponded with Taliani and visited many events organized by the Dante Alighieri institute. 106 Moreover, the majority of
the members of the Dante Alighieri institute were non-Italian, Dutch citizens. Since 1932, the Dante Alighieri Institute department on The Hague even got a Dutch chairman, named F. 98 Robin te Slaa and Edwin Klijn, De NSB: Ontstaan en Opkomst van de Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging, 1931-1935, p. 207.
99 Tamara van Kessel, Tussen italianità en fascisme : de Haagse afdeling van ‘Dante Alighieri’ en de Italiaanse cultuurpolitiek in Nederland, 1914-1938, p. 41.
100 Ibidem, p. 39
101 Helleke van den Braber and Jan Gelkens, ed., In 1934, Nederlandse cultuur in internationale context, pp. 281-290.
102 Tamara van Kessel, Tussen italianità en fascisme : de Haagse afdeling van ‘Dante Alighieri’ en de Italiaanse cultuurpolitiek in Nederland, 1914-1938, p. 39
103 Wolfgang Benz, Handbuch des Anti-Semitismus: Judenfeindschaft in Geschichte und Gegenwart; Band 8: Nachträge und Register, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 2015. p. 143.
104 Tamara van Kessel, Tussen italianità en fascisme : de Haagse afdeling van ‘Dante Alighieri’ en de Italiaanse cultuurpolitiek in Nederland, 1914-1938, p. 39.
105 Ibidem.
106 Inventory of the archive of W.L. Lutkie Katholiek Documentatie Centrum 2007, Archiefnummer: 117 Archiefnaam: LUTK Archiefsector: Cultuur en recreatie / persoonsarchief Datering: (1783) 1906-1966. See:
http://www.ru.nl/kdc/over_het_kdc/archief/over_de_archieven/cultuur_en_recreatie/archieven_van_0/person en/lutkie_w_l/
Emmerling, after the Italian director resigned due to health problems.107 Taking into account
that the Italian ambassador was forced by Mussolini in Rome to screen all foreign employees at the institutes and all the Dutch employees passed this screening successfully, this supports that they must have been very ideologically driven. 108
The influence of German Nazism on the NSB: the relationship between the NSB, Mussolini Italy and the NSDAP
As the study of Tamara van Kessel points out, the NSB was under direct influence of Mussolini’s Italy. However, in the Dutch culture of memory, the NSB, is often seen as a product of German Nazism, based on what its name suggests. Of course this is understandable due to its subsequent active collaboration with the German occupiers and therefore its shared responsibility for the Holocaust. Recent historians such as Dietrich Orlow and Robin te Slaa and Edwin Klijn prove that the NSB was not just a German export product, but an original Dutch antidemocratic organization that tried to form an alternative to the pillarization society (‘Verzuiling’), by claiming the leaders of the pillars to be the ones responsible for the decline in the global importance of the Netherlands. 109 Te Slaa and Klijn argue that initially, the NSB
tried to form its own Dutch version of what was called fascism in Italy and National Socialism in Germany, but was eventually unable to dissociate itself from the growing influence of German Nazism.110 According to the writers, the religious aspects of salvation
and rebirth, that were also part of the NSB ideology, can be seen as attempts to form a political religion that played onto the irrationality of the masses, what Emilio Gentile once described as the ‘sacralization of politics’, namely the declaration of the state and nation as holy.
In the beginning, the NSB movement was mostly inspired by the fascists of Mussolini’s Italy.111 This because everything that made National Socialism differ from
fascism was not part of the NSB’s ideology.112 For instance, the NSB leaders embraced
colonialism, but the Lebensraum ideas of territorial expansion on the European continent were 107 Tamara van Kessel, Tussen italianità en fascisme : de Haagse afdeling van ‘Dante Alighieri’ en de Italiaanse cultuurpolitiek in Nederland, 1914-1938, p. 44.
108 Ibidem, p. 45.
109 Dietrich Orlow, The Lure of Fascism in Western Europe: German Nazi’s, Dutch and French Fascists 1933-1939, New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2009, p. 152;
Dietrich Orlow, ‘A Difficult Relationship of Unequal Relatives: The Dutch NSB and Nazi Germany, 1933–1940’, in: European History Quarterly, Vol. 29 (3) 1999, pp. 349-250.
110 Robin te Slaa and Edwin Klijn, De NSB: Ontstaan en Opkomst van de Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging, 1931-1935, p. 782 ; pp. 24-26.
never propagated.113 Maybe even the idea of the leader (Il Ducce or the Führerprinzip), that
was also central to fascism, lacked in the case of the NSB, since Mussert was not as
megalomaniac as Hitler and Mussolini were.114 Also concerning anti-Semitism, there were no
Blut und Boden ideas included in the NSB propaganda. Mussert initially defined the Dutch Volksgemeinschaft as a non-anti-Semitic term, stating that anti-Semitism was not part of the
Dutch cultural tradition.115 Historian Dietrich Orlow also agrees with Te Slaa’s and Klijn’s
thesis on the more fascist character of the early NSB. However Orlow did not find the party to be presenting any ideology of its own, emphasizing that, in order to strengthen their political cause to destroy the Dutch democracy and Verzuiling to ‘unite’ the Dutch, the NSB merely copied all of its ideas from, especially, Mussolini’s Italy.116 Later, due to the political isolation
of the NSB, did the frustration of its lack of success in the dissolution of the pillarized system of Verzuiling and the growing influence the radical völkische wing in the party, under the leadership of the fervent anti-Semite Rost van Tonningen, Mussert had no other choice but to align with Nazi-Germany in order to keep the party together.117 Gertjan Broek argues that
even the para-military militias of the NSB increased in terms of violence in the course of the 1930s when the NSB became more focused on Germany instead of Italy. During the German occupation, starting in 1940, the militias could fully exercise their violent tradition. That is why they have been affiliated with the NSB in the Dutch collective memory.118
The reception of the Action Française by Dutch intellectuals.
In addition to the examples of right wing antidemocratic thought in Germany and Italy, there were also related expressions of antidemocratic thought in France. Particularly in the catholic and royalist environments, where antiparliamentary ideas gained popularity. The Action 112 De Jonge sees National Socialism as an essentialist form of fascism emphasizing ‘racial consciousness’ above ‘state consciousness’. Whereas National Socialism focused on a chosen people, the myth of the existence of ‘racially pure Ariyans’, fascism focused on the state and wanted to create a ‘new human’.
See: A. A. de Jonge, Crisis en Critiek der Democratie, pp. 190-191.
113 Robin te Slaa and Edwin Klijn, De NSB: Ontstaan en Opkomst van de Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging, 1931-1935, p. 25.
114 Ibidem.
115 Dietrich Orlow, The Lure of Fascism in Western Europe: German Nazi’s, Dutch and French Fascists 1933-1939, p. 152;
Robin te Slaa and Edwin Klijn, De NSB: Ontstaan en Opkomst van de Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging, 1931-1935, p. 25.
116 Dietrich Orlow, ‘A Difficult Relationship of Unequal Relatives: The Dutch NSB and Nazi Germany, 1933– 1940’, in: European History Quarterly, Vol. 29 (3) 1999, pp. 349-350.
117 Ibidem, p. 349.
118 Gertjan Broek, Weerkorpsen: Extreemrechtse strijdgroepen in Amsterdam 1923-1942, Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam 2014, pp. 345-346.
Française, led by Charles Maurras, would be the best example of these antiparliamentary,
antimodernist, royalist and extreme patriotic ideas. The reception of the Action Française in the Netherlands and the extent to which the Action Française influenced the Dutch right wing antidemocrats can only be answered with the use of hypothesis, because no research has been done on this topic yet. In literature, the Dutch poet J.C. Bloem has often been described as a very conservative and reactionary antimodernist. He believed in a hierarchically organized society in which people would not be free as individuals but only as a collective, inspired by the ideas of Charles Maurras’s movement.119
The Dutch press’ coverage of Mussolini Italy and Nazi Germany
Going back to the topic of the influence of Italian fascism, according to historian Frank Van Vree it was not just the Italian diplomatic propaganda of ‘universal fascism’ that influenced the public opinion.120 The influence of the media coverage was very important as well.121 Van
Vree’s study proves that due to the propaganda and censorship of foreign correspondents, the Dutch media were not critical and there was a lack in quantity and quality of information.122
Furthermore, intimidation and the risk of imprisonment or even torture resulted in self-inflicted censorship by foreign correspondents. Given that the media had a significant role in the formation of the Dutch society’s public opinion about the Verzuiling (‘the pillarization’) of Dutch society, since the political or cultural group of every ‘pillar’ only read their
ideologically affiliated newspaper, the outcome was a Dutch public opinion that was not critical enough.123 In religious magazines even more positive articles were written about
Mussolini. Some columnists even went as far as declaring to feel an ideological affinity.124
Moreover, the agreement between Mussolini and the Catholic church, the Lateran Treaty that provided self-rule for the Holy See, was a very smart step on Mussolini’s part as it preserved his good reputation in at least some catholic circles, such as the newspapers De Maasbode and
De Volkskrant.125 In the liberal NRC the lack of democracy was criticized, but Italy’s return to
stability was admired.126 Under Mussolini, the mafia was suppressed and the violent
119 Bart Slijper, Van alle dingen los: Het leven van J.C. Bloem, Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers 2007, p. 169 120 Frank van Vree, ‘In het land van Mussolini: de Nederlandse pers en fascistisch Italië’, in: Incontri: rivista europea di studi italiani, pp. 4-6.
121 Ibidem, p. 4. 122 Ibidem. 123 Ibidem, pp. 4-6; p.12. 124 Ibidem, p. 21 125 Ibidem, p. 17 126 Ibidem, p. 14
communists eliminated. For many it looked like Mussolini had brought more stability to Italy than democracy did.127 Only the socialist Het Volk remained critical. Especially the
communist inspired wing saw fascism as a way to steal the minds of the working class and distract them from class struggle.128 All newspapers were only really critical by the end of the
1930s, when the aggressiveness of the regime became undeniable.129
Along with the analysis of the Dutch press coverage of Mussolini’s Italy, Frank van Vree is also known for his 1989’s big analysis of the Dutch press coverage of Nazi Germany. The studies he published on this, based once again on case studies of the descriptions from newspapers of different political and religious backgrounds, about the events in Germany and Italy by the correspondents, press agencies, travelers and refugees.130 Van Vree argued there
was a lot of coverage on Nazi Germany and even the less important events got full coverage and attention.131 He stated that the problem of the coverage was not the quantity, it was the
quality. Correspondents in Berlin witnessing torture, racism and violent intimidation towards dissidents were afraid to be seen as too sensational. They wanted to be as neutral as possible. The result of this ‘neutral’ coverage was that the intellectual support for extreme right wing movements had a late decrease.132 Furthermore, Van Vree concluded that the Dutch
perspective of the ideas of the Verzuiling (the pillarization society) resulted in a relativist attitude towards Nazism, which was visible in the media coverage. Van Vree describes 1933 as the turning point, before this the tone was not always critical on the Germans. There was a lot of understanding for the German national frustration, because of Versailles and the
nationalistic politics of France. Only after 1933 did the newspapers stop showing sympathy.133
Summary
Contrary to other European countries, in the Netherlands democracy was ‘only’ put in defense. The first wave of right wing antidemocratic thought, between 1918 and 1927 in the Netherlands, can be attributed to a response to the threat of communism (left wing
antidemocratic thought). As well as the successful destruction of democracy abroad, for 127 Ibidem, p. 3
128 Ibidem, p. 14 129 Ibidem, p. 19.
130 Loe de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog: part 1 ‘Voorspel’, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff 1969, pp. 167-170.
131 Frank van Vree, De Nederlandse pers en Duitsland 1930-1939: Een studie over de vorming van de publieke opinie, pp. 343-358.
132 Ibidem, pp. 354-355. 133 Ibidem, p. 346.
instance, done by Mussolini in Italy, which inspired people to propagate the reverse of the democratization in the Netherlands as well. Another cause of the first wave of right wing antidemocratic thought is the belief of elites that the parliamentary system did not function well within the mass society. The second wave of antidemocratic movements, starting in 1927, dared to name themselves as ‘fascist’, due to the influence of the cultural politics of Mussolini’s Italy which described fascism as a universal ideology. This resulted in a lower creativity, lower inventiveness and a radicalization, because of the fact that from now on, individual intellectuals, did not need to carry out any theoretical elaborations on
antidemocratic ideas anymore. Most movements were of short duration due to internal wrangling. Only the NSB continued to exist for a longer period. Contrary to common beliefs, the NSB was initially more inspired by Mussolini Italy than Hitler’s Germany and also tried to form its own identity, but eventually could not dissociate itself from the growing influence of German Nazism. Moreover, in the literature, in the Dutch case, the pillarization society was described both as a preserver of social stability and a social problem. This was because on the one hand the Dutch antidemocratic and fascist movements never obtained electoral success, because people remained loyal to their ‘pillar’, and on the other hand, antidemocratic
movements were a reaction to the pillarization society in the sense that they expressed a wish to ‘unify’ the Dutch people. The cultural framework of the pillarization society resulted in relativistic media reports and public opinions for the rising of foreign antidemocratic movements, including fascism and National Socialism. Against this background, fascist ideologues, movements and newspapers gained popularity among some, but not many, Dutch civilians. Only against this convolution of local and transnational cultural backgrounds can we fully understand the development of a person like Wichmann.
