Peter Romijn and Ismee Tames
Introduction
Intheaftermathofthe SecondWorldWar,many countriesfelt theurgetorecordthe drasticexpe- riences of those who went throughit for future generations. TheCegesoma inBelgium,NIODin the Netherlands, IHTP in France, and the IfZin Germanywere all established during the imme- diatepost-war decades inordertodocumentand give meaning to experiences of repression, ter- ror,andgenocide fromanacademicperspective.
Thesetasks wereprimarilyde ned along national lines, and each of these institutes has thus taken up aspeci c positionintheirownnational remem- brance- and coping-landscape . This national framework, for example, accounts for the fact that Cegesoma commemorates its 50
th
birthday in 2019, whilst NIOD celebrates its 75
th
in 2020. The diverg- ing socio-political circumstances in both countries accountfortheirdifferences,whilethe continued existence of both institutes suggests an ongoing senseofsocietalrelevance.Simultaneously,how- ever, theexperiencesofcollectionspecialistsand scholars at these institutes show that supra-national approachestotheirworkarenot oflesserimpor- tance.For example,thehistory ofrepressionand persecution cannot be fully researched without involvingthesystemofpolitical prisons,concen- tration- and destruction camps.
As experiences of war, occupation, and the Holo- caust belong to an ever more distant past, naturally, these instituteshave implemented a broader inter- pretation of their remit in order to encompass more contemporary history. However, this expansion has been selective, and still primarily springs from theneed toresearch aspectsof warandoccupa-
1. henry rouSS o, Der Historiker als Therapeut und Richter : Was ist Zeitges chichte in Frankreich zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunder ts ?, in nor B erT Frei, Was heißt und zu welchem Ende studiert man Geschichte des 20. Jahrhundert s ?, Göttingen, 2006, p. 53.
tionand theiraftermath. Thesocietiesconcerned are still unable to experiencethe atrocitiesfrom thewarpast asa distanthistory somethingthat becomesevidentfromtheneedtolaytorestthe past by giving material and moral compensation to certain victims and groups of victims, three, or even four generations later. From a historiographical pointof view,Henry Rousso, theformerdirector of the IHTP in Paris, points towards another impor- tant fact : that from an initial orientation towards the history of the Second World War, researchers have developed a special sensibility towards broader themesofmassviolence,startingfromthebegin- ning of the 20
th
century, and they have increasingly orientatedthemselvestowards this
1
.Forthisrea- son, Cegesoma has added war and contemporary society to its name, whilst its Amsterdam counter- parthasrede neditselfastheNIODInstitutefor War, Holocaust, and Genocide Studies.
Startingfromthe Dutchexperience,we want to make two points regarding the political and public spheresinwhichtheresearchersof ourinstitutes shape their work, and the narratives to which they must relate in their public outreach. Whilst we take thepresentasourstartingpoint,we areeager to acknowledge that, asresearchers, we stand upon theshouldersof generations ofour predecessors.
Yet at the same time, we also search for new per- spectivesinother and more recently developed disciplines,and acknowledgethat today, we face differentpoliticalandsocial challengesthanwe did one or two generations ago.
Three Spheres
We differentiate three spheres in which the Second WorldWar isanimportant subjectof discussion : the academic, the political, and the public sphere.
Of course, we acknowledge that also in the personal sphere, the Second World War continues to be both relevant and present. However, for this contribution wefocusonthepublic debate, in whichpersonal experience is also brought into the discussion.
In the academic sphere, specialised researchers have moved the eld beyond the strict boundaries of any speci c country s Second World War history. In the rst instance, theywere especiallyin the case of those working at the predecessor of today s NIOD bound to a speci c place and time ( The Kingdom of the Netherlands during the Second World War ).
Preciselythisexpertisewaspartoftheinitialmis- sion of the institute which, by owning archives and combiningexpertise,had adefactomonopolyin the eld well into the 1980s, after which research- ersbecamemoreinterestedinbroaderthemesof war and massviolence, and universityresearchers made their entry into the eld. This stimulated wider scholarly involvement,which pushed researchers to break out of the national frameworkand exam- ine widerconnections andcontexts. In linewith contemporaryprofessionalnorms,researchplaces authoritative interpretations into perspective and is anti-particularistic when the historical protection of interests is concerned. What matters now is search- ing for academically relevant interpretations and generalisationsabout processingandexperiencing war and mass violence. Thus, those who are primar- ilylookingfor the political or social usability of this research, risk being disappointed because of the academic entry point.
In the political sphere in the Netherlands, the state successfullytooktheleadinshaping commemo- rative politics unlike Belgium, but comparable to France. After the German occupation of the Nether- landsduringtheSecondWorldWar andtheend ofthecolonialprojectinIndonesia,the aimwas to legitimise the recoveringpoliticalcommunity, and its exercise of power. The primary motive was the transfer of ideas of good citizenship, based on the lessons that could be drawn from the history of the Second World War summarised by Hermann von der Dunk as freedom at any price
2
. The idea of good citizenship could encompass anyone who accepted the concept of national unity in ideologicaldiversity as long asitwaspracticed
2. herM an W. VonDer Dunk, In het huis van de herinnering : Een cultuurhistorische verkenning, Amsterdam, 2007, p. 298 299.
3. ane T T e Wie Vio r k a, The Era of the Witness, Ithaca, NY, 200 6, p. 140 144.
4. Jol anDe WiT hui S, Zeitzeugen des Zweiten Welt krieges in der Niederlande, in MarT in SaBro Wen nor B erT Frei, Die Gebur t des Zeitzeugen nach 1945, Göttingen, 2008, p. 175.
within the boundaries of liberal democracy. How- ever, this concept could also have an exclusionary effect : rstly, against the supposed opponents of constitutional order (the national-socialistsof the waryears,the communistsof theColdWar)and subsequently against recent non-Western immi- grants (who were considered insuf ciently enlight- ened ). Therefore, these groups were presented with the correct idea of right and wrong. Especially theyoungwere educated with the idea that these norms of right and wrong would become properly ingrained into the collective consciousness over the generations. In this respect, the lesson of 1950 does not differfundamentallyfrom thatof 2019,even though of course,onecan point towards substan- tial differencesin itsform, the references it makes to current events, and its mediatisation. Moreo- ver, emphasis remained on the national frame- work, and the political sphere explicitly referred to insights gleaned from historical research. The focus of attention changed from a country victimised yet ghting (as Loe de Jong posited) to a country with a remarkably high proportion of deported Jews. These changesinperspective wereclosely connected to the changing preoccupations of the public sphere.
In the public sphere, the role played by the history oftheSecond World Warandthewayinwhich meaninghasbeenattri butedtoithavechanged over the decades. In the initial post-war years, community thinking was encouraged, causing individual experiences to be considered less relevant, and placed wit hin the same national framework. Subsequentl y, because the need to keep the memor ies alive was felt, the Author- ity oftheWitness becamecult ivated
3
.Sociolo- gist JolandeWithuis recognises the importance of witness accounts for coming to terms with the traumatic past.At the sameti me she right - fully warns that hist orical analysis should not be mixed upwith psychologicalintentionsand purposes
4
. Addi tionally, speci c groups of vi c- tims, until then subaltern, emerged into the pub -
lic sphere, demanding that his torical injustices shoul d be compensated, and preferably undone.
Hist orians weretaskedwith conductingforensic research (How didthe injusticecome intoexist - ence, andwhat was the natur e of the damage done ?), as well as with inter preting wher e the responsibility for any misconduct lay (Was the wrongdoing hushed up , due to formalism or indifference, or had i t simply been ignored ?).
The most important factor in the public sphere is theprominent attention paidtothehistoryof the Second World War, in which historical issues are almost automatically connected to political andmoralnotionsofright or wrong. Contempo- rarymassmedia, andsocialmediain particular, have facilitated an increasingcommercialisation and emotionalisation of the war past. We can observe a shift from public knowledge production toentertainment and opinionformation .Inthe public sphere, re ection is often fed by emotions such as indignation and rejection, and it no longer takes place starting from content or the will to knowabout what thusfar has remainedhidden and unprocessed and why.
The urge to expose those guilty and responsible to public contempt s us tains a type of chain reaction, whilst thereis littleornoattentionpaidtowhat is known about t he facts that underpin the issue.
An example of such dynami cs could be observed when in the autumn of 2018, descendants sought attention for the fate of so-called kraut gi rls . Intheaf termat hoftheli beration,thesewomen (the derogatory Dutch term was Moffenmei- den ), who had had(sexual) relationships with theGermanoccupi er s, werewidelymistreated.
Their fate was now attributed to the failure of the Dutchstatetosuf ciently protectthem.Inboth classic and social media, part icipants on both sides of the discussion directly vented especially their own opinion how wrong either these womenhad been, orthe peoplewho duri ng the liberat ion period humiliatedthem, forinstance by shavingtheir heads. The factual development ofeventsandthehistoricalcontextremainedin the background.
Another example is the controversy surround - ing German pensions for Dutch members of theWaffen-SSinthebegi nni ngof2019, which completel y passed over the phase of trying to det ermine what exactly was going on. Reactions focussedmainlyon indi gnat ion,drawing atten - tion tothe fact thatsome Jewish survivorsand othervictims haveunti l now beenbarely com - pensated. The indicative and exemplary function ofthe ultimateproof ofinjusticewasattributed tothepersonal embodiedbyaJewishsurvivor andhisbat tlefor recognitiononthe onehand, and t he daughter of a ‘Moffenmeid’ on the ot her.
In the example of the ‘Moffenmeiden’, when insulting and misogynous remarks poured in, theper sonal aspect was used t opoint the n - ger . The authority ofthe witness isthe authority of the accusing party, and the professional histo - rian is, at best, cal led upon onl y as a convenient judge not to offer insights, but to strengthen the judgement. In such public manifestations , histor- ical research seems just i ed only when it presses charges inasocio-polit icalsense.Interestingly, the commotion surrounding the ‘Moffenmeiden’
as well as the SS pensions or iginated abroad, respectivelyin Norway and Belgium.The con - sternation, however, quickly nationalised the issues, andmadea casefor thesupposedviola - tion of the national communit y a violation that wasalso denounced in an exclusivel ynational framework. In this respect, present preoccupa - tions can stil l be considered comparable to those of the period direct ly following the war.
Interaction between the Three Spheres
The academic, polit ical, and public spheres form a tri angl e, and at the cent re of this triangle lies the Second World Waranditslong-standinglegacy.
Whilst it may be expected that t he conversations in these three spheres pivot around the s ame subject, this is de nitely not al ways the case : indeed, the hist or y of the Second World War can becalled uponfor myriad reasons.Sometimes, this can be stimulating forprofessional histori - ans,yet withr egar dtotherepresentati onofthe past, theyalsoexperi enceitasas ignofstagna - tion or regression.
In the public sphere via classic and new media it is expected that professional histo- rianswill providethe rawmaterial,notonlyfor quotes, but also for indignation. Moreover, the authorisation ofarguments is expected froman institute such as the NIOD, summarised as : What does the NIOD think of this ? The political sphere oftenquickly intervenesinordertodemonstrate that the government is not deaf to the sentiments that live amongst the people . Politicians hurry to express their opinions on controversial issues such as in the cases of the supposed pensions for former members of the Waffen-SS or the question of whether apologies shouldbe offered for the treatment of ‘Moffenmeiden’. By doing so,pol- iticians again feed public debate. Meanwhile, bureaucracytakesituponitselftosearchbehind thescenesforpossiblewaystosmoothoverthe given controversy and to depoliticise the problem.
Academiacomes in handyhere, as thesupplier at least eventually of authorised visions on the topical past.
Moreover, inorder tosupport the legitimacy of the democratic order, the political sphere also makes broader claims on scholarship when it comestocitizenship.Public events,exhibitions, and educational packages use aspects of the Sec- ond World War in order to educate young people andrecentimmigrantsabout goodcitizenship: what being a Dutch citizen should mean with regardtoidealsof democracyand humanrights, but also about respect and pietyregarding vic- timsandsurvivorsoftheSecond World Warand their commemoration. Recently these educational political messageswerebundled together inthe so-called thematic Year of Resistance (2018).
These endeavours bring us back to the entry point of Loe de Jong, the rst director ofthe NIOD, who described the goal of his institute and his his- torical work as educatingthepeoplein howto be responsible citizens
5
. De Jong, a former jour- nalist himself, knew exactly how to nd and play themediainordertoplacehisworkatthecen-
5. loe De JonG, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, 12 : Epiloog, Leiden, 1988, p. 1109.
treofthenationaldebate. Thealliance between the historian and the media, directed towards the public, has by now become more diffuse just like the media itself, the public , and ultimately alsothepublicspherehavebecomeincreasingly diffuse. Today, historians who popularise histories of the war (such as Van der Heijden, Van Liempt, and Brokken) are the ones most likely to establish such an alliance with the media and reach a large public. They usually opt for narrative approaches, aproximitytoemotions,andadistancetowhat is considered an academic approach . Thus, they obtain anoutsiderimageassomeonewhomore truthfully addresses theconcerns oflarger audi - ences and the ordinary people.
Yetthisdevelopmentis notnecessarilyaloss,as long as academic historians also manage to relate effectively to questions that are being asked in thepublicsphere. Theirresponsibilityremainsto address those questions on the basis of their own professional standing.Ultimately,theirgoalisto work towardsabetter understanding oftrouble - some pasts. They should provide new and deeper interpretations, rather than simply comfortable and usable historiographies.
Above, the dynamics at the state and national level have been discussed. In the Netherlands this level has beendominant forthe past75 years, albeit not without being challenged. Below the level ofthestateandthenationmanycommunitiesof commemoration have emerged, demanding rec- ognitionand theundoingof historical injustices (Jewish victims were followed by forced labourers, postcolonial migrants, Sinti and Romani, homo- sexuals,civiliancasualties,thechildrenof Dutch Nazi-collaborators, to name but a few of the most striking groups). These groups found support with professionalresearchers writingabout their experiences as victims and the accompanying claims. The media gave those experiences and claims meaning and were able to put pressure on processes of recognition and compensation.
The nation provided thecommemorative frame- work for the desire of these pressure groups : theyaspired tobe writteninto thenational nar- rativeofthewaras apreviouslyoverlookedand victimised community. Atthe sametime the state provided both the political capacity and the nan- cial resources to offer restitution in the form of moral recognition and material compensation.
In the Netherlands, the will to be included in such national frameworks prevailed, whilst in Belgium, it was precisely the opposite : there identities solid- i ed not on the level of the state, but on a sub-state level, where Nazi collaboration, the ‘Konings- kwestie’ (literally, the Royal Question ), and social fault lines could be given a more obvious place.
Conclusion : Navigating ?
The dynamic between the academic, political, and public spheres surrounding Second World War history in the Netherlands displays signif- icant continuities. The NIOD and other aca - demic researchers still play an important role inthe politicalsphere, eveniftheprioritiesand perspectivesofthetwodonotalwaysconverge.
Thishappensforexample when lessonsinciti - zenship drawn from the Second World War in the publicsphere can bephrasedinsuch awaythat the search for insight and nuance is overruled by a desire for categorical judgements.
Thepolitical and mediaspheres areprofoundly interconnected.Upheavalinone domainresults
in upheaval in the other. Whereas the media want tosettheagenda,politicslookforunambiguous formsofagency ; bothwanttoshowtheyareon the right side. Academic knowledge is requested, yet simultaneously considered as complicat - ingwhenthisknowledgedoes notconcur with, for example, the emotional positions already taken. Researchers sometimes have to navigate between following their academic agenda, and wanting to prove their societal relevance.
Thenearfuturewillprobablyrevealalandscape inwhich mediaandpolitics willdeal withboth unveri edstories andspeci cclaimsinaneven less rigorous manner. Eyewitnesses, with their unique multilayered and complex memory of the events, will no longer point towards important aspectsthat arebeingoverlooked inthe debates.
Moreover, whilst research has generated more knowledge andmore informationhas been dis- closed and made available, knowledge of, and sensitivity to, the context in which such events took place is rapidly decreasing. Conversely, the increasing temporal distance may foster a demandforclear-cut representationsof thepast that are more attuned to the national community : How did we do during the war ? This suggests that, whilst the call for interpretation increases and with it a form of societal relevance, academ- ics will unabatedly have to ask themselves how to playtheirroleinawaythat isbothscienti cally relevant and honest.
Ismee Tam es is Program Director War and So ciety an d Senior Researcher at NIOD, Ins titute for War, Holocaust and Genocid e Stu dies. Sh e also hold s th e Stichting 1940-1945/Arq Chair Resistance in Times of War and Persecution at Utrecht U niversity.
Her wo rk focuses on how p eople deal w ith war and mass viol ence. Currently she is wo rking on th e topi cs of transnational res istance, ref ugee crises and forced migration, and tipp ing p oints in totalizin g war. She has published on resistan ce, collabo - ration, children in war, post war societies, neutrality and total war, processes of integration and exclusion.
Peter Romijn is Head of Research at the N IOD Institute for War, Holocau st, an d Genocide Studies, an Institute of the Royal Nethertlands Academ y of Arts an d Scien ces, and Professor of 20th century history at the University of Amsterdam. His res earch interests are th e history of p olitics an d administration in tim es of war and crises, includi ng regim e change an d po litical purges ; his pu blications mainl y relate to th e Second Worl d War, th e persecution of the Jews, an d the Indo nesian War of Independence, as w ell as to the historio grap hy o f war.
