Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 269–281 | Cite as

The ideological equivalent of the atomic bomb’. The Netherlands, Atlanticism, and human rights in the early Cold War

  • Floribert BaudetEmail author


This article analyses the roots of Dutch Atlanticism. It holds that during the early Cold War, in spite of the conviction that neutrality was a thing of the past, the Atlantic orientation of the Netherlands was something that had to be ‘sold’ to the public. A sustained propaganda campaign aimed at selling the notion of ‘Atlantic values’ domestically by defining security in moral terms. The memories of the Second World War and anticommunist sentiments that stemmed from the interwar years provided a framework that government agencies could build on.


Netherlands Atlanticism human rights propaganda Cold War anti-Americanism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    B. de Gaay Fortman, ‘Van het Bulgarije van de NAVO tot Hollanditis’, Internationale Spectator 35 (1981): 617–21. Atlanticism does not imply slavish idolatry of all things American. Even in the heyday of Atlanticism, the 1950s and 1960s, there were conflicts.Google Scholar
  2. 1a.
    A. E. Kersten, Luns. Een politieke biografie (Amsterdam: Boom, 2010). For a general English language introduction, seeGoogle Scholar
  3. 1b.
    D. A. Hellema, ‘The Politics of Asymmetry; The Netherlands and the United States since 1945’ in NL-US; Four Centuries of Dutch -American Relations, ed. H. Krabbendam, C. A. van Minnen and G. Scott-Smith (Amsterdam: Boom, 2009), 575–96. See alsoGoogle Scholar
  4. 1c.
    P. Koedijk, ‘The Netherlands, the United States, and Anticommunism during the Early Cold War’, in NL-US; Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations, ed. H. Krabbendam, C. A. van Minnen and G. Scott-Smith (Amsterdam: Boom, 2009), 597–608.Google Scholar
  5. 2.
    For a brief discussion: Koedijk, ‘Anticommunism’, 597.Google Scholar
  6. 3.
    B. Zeeman, ‘Jurist of diplomaat? Eelco Nicolaas van Kleffens (1939–1946)’, in De Nederlandse ministers van buitenlandse zaken in de twintigste eeuw, ed. D. A. Hellema, B. Zeeman and A. C. van der Zwan (The Hague: SDU, 1999), 146.Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    For an in-depth discussion, see M. D. Bogaarts, Parlementaire geschiedenis van Nederland. De periode van het kabinet-Beel, 1946–1948. Band A (The Hague: SDU, 1989), 394–406.Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    In the first post-war election (17 May 1946), the conservative Protestant Anti-Revolutionaire Partij (ARP) received about 13% of the vote. Leaders of this party argued in favour of a return to neutrality, and a re-establishment of full control over the Dutch East Indies.Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    Already in the 1930s there was discontent over pillarisation and the national fragmentation it ostensibly produced. It found expression both in the right-wing Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging and in its opponent Eenheid door democratie. In the initial stages of the German occupation, the Nederlandse Volksunie pleaded for national renewal. Pleas for renewal were warmly supported by Queen Wilhelmina. Cf. C. Fasseur, Wilhelmina: krijgshaftig in een vormeloze jas (Amsterdam: Balans, 2001). For a thorough discussion, seeGoogle Scholar
  10. 6a.
    R. van Ginkel, Op zoek naar eigenheid. Denkbeelden en discussies over cultuur en identiteit in Nederland (The Hague: SDU, 1999), 99–176 andGoogle Scholar
  11. 6b.
    N. Beyens, Overgangspolitiek. De strijd om de macht in Nederland en Frankrijk na de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek, 2009).Google Scholar
  12. 7.
    H. Amersfoort and P. H. Kamphuis, eds., May 1940. The Battle for the Netherlands (Leyden: Brill, 2010) is the state-of-the-art English language account.Google Scholar
  13. 8.
    Amersfoort and Kamphuis, May 1940, 35, 52, 413. See also: H. Amersfoort and P. Kamphuis, Mei 1940. De strijd op Nederlands grondgebied. 2nd ed. (The Hague: SDU 2005), 19–21.Google Scholar
  14. 9.
    In fact, Lou de Jong in his authoritative semi-official, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog deel 3, mei 1940 (The HagueL SDU, 1970) at 520 explained the defeat as follows: the brave Dutch were badly armed, but the Germans only won by employing Quislings and committing war crimes. His judgement reflected the mood of the nation. Cf. Amersfoort and Kamphuis, Mei 1940, 26–30.Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    M. Wagenaar, De Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst (The Hague: SDU, 1997), 53, 61. Van Ginkel, Eigenheid, 182–83.Google Scholar
  16. 11.
    Wagenaar, Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst, 62, 66, 68–69. The rejuvenators, joining forces with the social democrats in the Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA, Labour Party), won some 29% of the vote (29 seats), but the great majority of votes were cast along traditional lines. The PvdA did worse than its socialist predecessor, and in fact lost many votes to the Communists who obtained 10 seats.Google Scholar
  17. 12.
    H. A. M. Klemann, Nederland 1938–1948: economie en samenleving in jaren van oorlog en bezetting (Amsterdam: Boom, 2002).Google Scholar
  18. 13.
    On this: M. Traa, De Russen komen (Amsterdam: Athenaeum, Polak & van Gennep, 2009).Google Scholar
  19. 14.
    NL-HaNA, kabinet minister president (hereinafter NA), 2.03.01 file 193, ministerial order 1666 (published as standing order LO 1951 209 L-LM), 1 September 1951.Google Scholar
  20. 15.
    Wagenaar, Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst, 60. This was due mainly to post-war paper shortages. Government controlled the distribution of paper, and chose to lavishly use it for its own publications.Google Scholar
  21. 16.
    NA, 2.03.01, file 11687, Report on the activities of the LVD on 1949, 22 June 1950; NA 2.03.01, file 11685, Reports on the Marvo on 1948 and 1949: these sum up the number of communiqués and articles that were published. They also mention other activities, such as giving lectures at schools.Google Scholar
  22. 17.
    NA, 2.03.01, file 1748, ministerial order no. 27931 dated 31 March 1951.Google Scholar
  23. 18.
    NA, 2.03.01 (hereinafter NA, 2.03.01), file 11750, report AC/24-D/25/3, dated 3 February 1953; idem, file 5340, report of an informal press briefing by the minister of War, 21 August 1951.Google Scholar
  24. 19.
    For this reason, the Minister of War, Cornelis Staf, explained in 1951, the Netherlands even opposed the accession of Greece and Turkey, since these two states could not be considered Atlantic states. NA, 2.03.01, file 5340, informal press briefing by the Minister of War, 21 August 1951. The Netherlands accorded itself an important role in the development of Atlantic unity: J. J. C. Voorhoeve, ‘Idealisme en realisme in het Nederlandse buitenlands beleid’, in De Nederlandse natie, ed. W. Couwenberg (Utrecht: Spectrum, 1981), 90.Google Scholar
  25. 20.
    W. J. Hofdijk, quoted in M. Kuitenbrouwer, ‘Nederland en de mensenrechten, 1795–1995’, in Geschiedenis van de mensenrechten. Bouwstenen voor een interdisciplinaire benadering, ed. W. J. Hofdijk and M. Leenders (Hilversum: Verloren, 1996), 160.Google Scholar
  26. 21.
    M. Frey, ‘Decolonization and Dutch-American Relations’, in H. Krabbendam, NL-US, 609–20 notes in passing that in the 1950s some 22% of the Dutch still resented the American imposed solution of the Indonesian War.Google Scholar
  27. 22.
    To cite one example: my in-laws, living near the Scheldt estuary and liberated by the Canadians, had as many ill feelings about them as they had about the German occupier.Google Scholar
  28. 23.
    In the 1920s and 1930s, influential intellectuals despised American culture and complained about the ‘contamination’ of Dutch culture. C.A. van Minnen, ‘Dutch Perceptions of American Culture and Promotion of Dutch Culture in the United States’, in H. Krabbendam, NL-US, 431–41. See also K. Wouters, ‘The Introduction of Jazz in the Netherlands’ in the same volume, at 497–508, who stresses that all pillars campaigned against jazz and the American values it apparently stood for. The Second World War did not fundamentally change this attitude. The largest party, the Catholic People’s Party, for instance vowed to eradicate every foreign influence. Bogaarts, Beel, 153, cf. Van Ginkel, Eigenheid.Google Scholar
  29. 24.
    NA 2.03.01, file 2507, Memorandum Photo-BtZ 61735, as attached to H.F. Eschauzier (Foreign Ministry) to O. Josephus Jitta, secretary to PM dr. W Drees, 25 November 1952.Google Scholar
  30. 25.
    NA, 2.03.01, file 11750, report D-R (51), 13 of a meeting in preparation of the first NATIS conference, mid February 1951; instruction for the Dutch representative, J.M. Landré, 28 March 1951; NA, 2.03.01, file 11751, Foreign Minister Stikker to ambassador Van Royen (Washington), N2764, 17 December 1951 (quote), compare NA 2.03.01, file 2507, Memorandum Photo-BtZ 61735, as attached to Eschauzier to Josephus Jitta, 25 November 1952.Google Scholar
  31. 26.
    NA 2.03.01, file 2507, Memorandum Photo-BtZ 61735, as attached to Eschauzier to Josephus Jitta, 25 November 1952.Google Scholar
  32. 27.
  33. 28.
    NA, 2.03.01, file 11750, report AC/24-D/25/3, dated 3 February 1953.Google Scholar
  34. 29.
    NA, 2.03.01 file, 193, letter M.R.H. Calmeyer, director of the DSC, 480/DSC, 3 November 1952 and letter by Josephus Jitta, JJ 1819/1, to the General Defence Council (an advisory body to the Government), 10 November 1952. Judging from his comments on this letter, Prime Minister Willem Drees welcomed these suggestions.Google Scholar
  35. 30.
    Ibid., summary of the second DSC course’s final assignment, spring 1952, Letter Calmeyer to Josephus Jitta, 4 July 1952.Google Scholar
  36. 31.
    NA 2.03.01, file 1746, note J.M. Landré, chairman of the EIC, to PM Drees L/pl, date 28 May 1951, cf idem, note G.J. Lammers on the EIC, 15 August 1967.Google Scholar
  37. 32.
    NA 2.03.01, file 2507, Memorandum Photo-BtZ 61735, as attached to Eschauzier to Josephus Jitta, 25 November 1952; NA, 2.03.01, file 11750, report AC/24-D/26/3, 3 February 1953.Google Scholar
  38. 33.
    Idem, summary of the second DSC course’s final assignment, Spring 1952, Letter Calmeyer to Josephus Jitta, 4 July 1952.Google Scholar
  39. 34.
  40. 35.
    Although the cooperation between EIC and the BVD was less than satisfactory, see for instance NA, 2.03.01, file 1748, note J.M. Landré (director of GIS) to PM Drees, 27 August 1952.Google Scholar
  41. 36.
    NA 2.03.01, file 1746, note J.M. Landré, to PM Drees L/pl, date 28 May 1951, cf idem, note G.J. Lammers on the EIC, 15 August 1967.Google Scholar
  42. 37.
    Catholic leader Romme was commentator with newspaper de Volkskrant, protestant leader Bruins Slot was editor-in-chief of Trouw, and there was a direct link between the social-democrat PvdA, Het Vrije Volk and the VARA broadcasting corporation. Most of the nation’s media had ties to a pillar.Google Scholar
  43. 38.
    S. Casey, Selling the Korean War: Propaganda, Politics and Public Opinion in the United States, 1950–1953 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 39.
    NA, 2.03.01, file 11607, report of the Van Heuven Goedhart commission on government information (Fall 1946), 126.Google Scholar
  45. 40.
    The first article to do so was: M. R. H. Calmeyer, ‘De Koninklijke Landmacht na de bevrijding. Terugblik en vooruitblik’, Militaire Spectator 117 (1948): 308.Google Scholar
  46. 41.
    One of these authors was the then Captain FC. Spits, who between 1946 and 1968 also served as a radio commentator. Each Monday evening listeners to the armed forces programme could hear his (no doubt officially sanctioned) views on international political and military developments.Google Scholar
  47. 42.
    F. C. Spits, ‘De Londense besluiten’, De Militaire Spectator 119 (1950): 532.Google Scholar
  48. 43.
    De Militaire Spectator 120 (1951): 47.Google Scholar
  49. 44.
    ‘Uit de buitenlandse vakpers’, De Militaire Spectator 119 (1950): 451. The Dutch original is somewhat awkward as well.Google Scholar
  50. 45.
    B. Koning, ‘De strategie van de koude oorlog en zijn bestrijding’, De Militaire Spectator 124 (1955): 389.Google Scholar
  51. 46.
    D. van Tetterode, ‘Ideologische oorlogvoering’, De Militaire Spectator 119 (1950): 592.Google Scholar
  52. 47.
    J. B. Demeijer, ‘Geestelijke weerbaarheid’, De Militaire Spectator 127 (1958), at 648–50, 653.Google Scholar
  53. 48.
    S. W. Couwenberg, ‘Antwoord op Meningen van anderen: communistische dreiging dwingt tot hernieuwde bezinning op Westerse waarden’, De Militaire Spectator 131 (1962), at 549.Google Scholar
  54. 49.
    As its English title ran - there were versions in English and some other languages; the Dutch title is Wij Leven Vrij (we live as a free people). It was shown in most allied capitals. NA, 2.03.01 file 11749, F.A. Da Costa, acting head of the Film department of the GIS, to H.W. Spoor, EIC member, 27 January 1953. See also: file 1746, memorandum on the second NATIS conference, where it was shown to enthusiastic audiences. G.J. Lammers to PM Drees, 6 March 1953.Google Scholar
  55. 50.
    Home of the Free can be viewed at by clicking the video icon of ‘Wij leven vrij’.
  56. 51.
    De Gooi en Eenlander, 8 March 1952.Google Scholar
  57. 52.
    NA, 2.03.01, file 11749, Da Costa to Spoor, 27 January 1953.Google Scholar
  58. 53.
    NA, 2.03.01, file 11750, report AC/24-D/26/3, 3 February 1953. They drew support from a memorandum from 28 February 1952 that stated that information did have effect: there was a significant correlation between the level of knowledge and morale, in NA, 2.03.01, file 11749.Google Scholar
  59. 54.
    NA, 2.03.01, file 1280, undated note [early June 1948].Google Scholar
  60. 55.
  61. 56.
    There were exceptions: some conservative Christians rejected the idea of human rights, rooted as it was in the ‘nefarious’ ideals of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.Google Scholar
  62. 57.
    Koedijk, ‘Anticommunism’, 597. Cf. F. H Baudet, Het heeft onze aandacht. Nederland en de rechten van de mens in Oost-Europa en Joegoslavïe (Amsterdam: Boom, 2001), chapter 2.Google Scholar
  63. 58.
    Until 1967, the only challenge to the existing bipolar mindset had been posed by the Pacifist Socialist Party founded in 1957. It never attracted a large following. In the 1967 election both the Catholic and Protestant parties and the Social Democrats suffered defeats, while anti-establishment and thus anti-Cold War sentiments produced a resounding victory for the ‘non-ideological’ party Democraten’ 66. Lijphart and other characterize the 1967 election as the end of the Dutch pillarised consensus democracy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Military SciencesNetherlands Defence AcademyBredaNetherlands

Personalised recommendations