Abstract
In addition to the judicial action against collaborators — as executed by the Special Courts, Tribunals, and the SolicitorsGeneral — there was a further type of punitive action, the Zuivering1 [“Purification”], which was performed by the Purge Boards [Zuiveringsraden], An exact definition of the concept contained in Zuivering is difficult. Even men in high position were hard put to describe it accurately. A Dutch Cabinet Minister found no better definition than the following:
... Zuivering is of course related to judicial action, but ... one cannot completely identify Zuivering with it. Zuivering is a peculiar thing.... I am still wondering whether somebody will manage to give a correct definition of this concept.... The Zuivering is a form of justice which is applied in times of transition, ... between the completely lawless period of war and occupation, and the period of the new rechtstaat which we are slowly approaching 2.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
In this study, “purge” has been used to include all proceedings against collaborators, including those meted out by occupational Purge Boards. “Zuivering” has been used to refer to action by Purge Boards only. The Dutch sometimes use “Zuivering” to include Special Court and Tribunal action.
Minister van der Leeuw, Handelingen Tweede Kamer, February 20, 1946.
Handelingen Eerste Kamer, March 6, 1947.
Van Eck, op. cit., pp. 9-10.
Handboek M.G., p.24.
“Zuivering”, Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, LV, 47.
The presence of collaborators in industry, for example, was a continued cause of unrest, and even violence. (Overzicht M.G., pp. 115, 372, 513-514, 537).
“Zuivering”, Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, LV, 48-50. During the occupation, an “underground” pamphlet had advocated separate purge boards for all occupational groups. It was argued that only judges who were familiar with the circumstances of each group could administer such a purge. (“T.D.”, Zuivering en Illegaliteit [printed in occupied Netherlands in early 1945], p. 10).
France used occupational Purge Boards, primarely in industry. One writer justified their existence because of their speed, which enabled them to operate faster than the Special Courts and Chambres Civiques, the French equivalent of Tribunals. (P. H. Doublet, Commerce avec l’ennemi pendant l’occupation; épuration des entreprises [Paris, 1945], p. 18).
This was the explanation offered in the Overzicht M.G., p. 91. Cf. discussion of the early problems of the civil service purge: Overzicht M.G., pp. 91-106. Also: Handboek M.G., p. 28.
From the Napoleonic occupation, the Netherlands kept a centrally organized administrative machine. All mayors, and the “governors” of the eleven provinces — the “Commissioners of the Queen” — are appointed by the Minister of the Interior. However, elected provincial and local assemblies exercise certain powers, and provide a very considerable degree of local self-government.
The Zuivering-Decree of 1944 is not discussed here, because it was seldom applied.
In the Netherlands there are “neutral” grade schools, high schools, and universities, run by the government. In addition, there are “special” denominational schools and universities. These are government-financed, but privately operated. However, the government supervises their standards of education.
H. J. D. Revers, “Het Zuiveringsbesluit 1945”, in Weekblad voor Gemeentebe-langen, September 14, 1945, pp. 123–124.
The pre-war Parliament was purged by a special five-man commission. This commission consisted of the vice-president of the Council of State, the pre-war presidents of the Second and First Chamber, and the presidents of two resistance commissions. (Decree No. F 131, of August 2, 1945). The Dutch Parliament did not meet during the occupation.
Civil servants who could not be charged with any of the crimes of this decree could still be fired: a decree (No. F 70, later No. F 221) made it possible to get rid of those who failed to inspire the confidence required in connection with their function. The actual handling of cases under this decree was shrouded in secrecy.
No details could be found concerning the composition of this advisory commission. According to Mr. J. Le Poole, it was “decidedly not a resistance-commission”. (Letter to author, Jan. 9, 1951).
Onderdrukking en Verzet, I, 407.
Overzicht M.G., p. 164.
Van Eck, op. cit., p. 13.
Toezicht, I, 156.
Van Eck, op. cit., pp. 11-13, 21.
Verslag Stichting Toezicht, p. 51. Toezicht, I, 58.
Cf. van Eck, op. cit., pp. 13-14. Also in France judges were at first purged by ordinary civil service Purge Boards. This was changed after April 15, 1945, when special boards for judges were instituted. (Nederlandsch Juristenblad, 1946, p. 72).
No. F 242.
This included the Solicitor-General of the Hooge Raad.
In one case, a judge was dismissed for having temporarily been a functionary in a minor Fascist party. However, he was permitted to be court-clerk [griffier]. (Na-Oorlogsche Rechtspraak, I, p. 177).
Pro-Nazis were never in the majority on the Hooge Raad.
I.e. the Landoorlogsreglement of 1907.
Cf. Mr. L. H. K. C. van Asch van Wijck, in Onderdrukking en Verzet, I, 511.
Ibid., pp. 511-512.
Prof. R. P. Cleveringa, in De Hooge Raad, Antwoord aan Mr. N. C. M. A. van den Dries (Amsterdam, 1945), pp. 20-22. Cf. also:Prof. R. P. Cleveringa, “Telders Geschriften over Volkenrecht”, De Gids, 1949, pp. 36-64.
L. G. Kortenhorst, Was Samenwerking met den Vijand geoorloofd? (The Hague, 1945), pp. 18-19.
Cf. Vrij Nederland, October 27, 1945.
However, the appointments of Mr. Smits and Mr. van den Dries as vice-presidents of the Hooge Raad again caused protests from resistance circles. (Witboek van de Grote Advies-Commissie der Illegaliteit, pp. 172-173).
For a full discussion of these categories, cf. Revue de droit pénal et criminologie, 1946–1947, pp. 876-878.
Van Bemmelen, “Treatment of Political Delinquents”, p. 125.
“Danish Purge Laws”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, November-December 1948. French policies are discussed in Doublet, La Collaboration, pp. 23-24.
Na-Oorlogsche Rechtspraak III, p. 285.
Revue de droit pénal et criminologie, 1946–1947, p. 878.
For a discussion of the private Purge Boards, cf. “Zuivering”, Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, LV, 55-58. Many of the workers dismissed by private boards could have claimed that their dismissal was illegal, for it was not based on one of the grounds for dismissal specified by Dutch law and union-contracts. During the first weeks after the Liberation no “impure” worker thought it wise to insist on his legal rights. Later, the government provided legislation officially permitting discharge of disloyal workers. (Decree No. E 157). The same decree granted workers the right to leave pro-Nazi employers, even where this was not in accord with their contract.
Overzicht M.G., p. 115. “Zuivering”, Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, LV, 55-58.
Decree No. F 160.
French industrial Purge Boards consisted of 12 judges: a jurist presiding judge; 2 resistance representatives; 3 union representatives; 2 “technical” representatives (including 1 engineer); 1 employer; 3 persons from the same branch of industry as the accused. These French boards prosecuted not only the leaders of industry, but also workers and lower employees. French conditions made private boards impossible. (Doublet, Commerce avec l’ennemi, pp. 18-24)..
In the latter case, a completely new set of judges had to sit on the Purge Board.
Quoted by permission of Mr. J. B. W. P. Kickert from the two confidential reports of the Central Purge Board of July 1, 1946, and January 1, 1947.
Mr. J. B. W. P. Kickert, personal interview, 1949.
Na-Oorlogsche Rechtspraak, III, p. 283 ff.
Mr. Kickert, personal interview, 1949.
Professor van Bemmelen, “Treatment of Political Delinquents”, pp. 125-126. 47. Landelijk Comité voor Rechtszekerheid, Inleidingen (The Hague, 1947), p. 24.
After 1947, if Tribunals or Special Courts considered economic collaborators, they usually imposed the job-suspension penalty which the Purge Board would have suggested. (Mr. J. M. C. Romeijn, Landelijk Comité voor Rechtszekerheid, Inleidingen [The Hague, 1948], p. 39).
Usually, the special economic branch of the P.R.A. assembled dossiers and forwarded them to the Solicitor-General of the district. The Solicitor-General selected appropriate cases and sent them to the Central Purge Board. The Central Purge Board, in turn, distributed cases to the various Purge Boards.
This was especially true where big companies were concerned. (Cf. the report of the Central Purge Board, July 1, 1946, pp. 10-11, 14).
Fiscal measures against Quislings were severe. The “property increase tax” [Vermogensaanwasbelasting] took away all increase of property during the occupation, above all illicit gains of black marketeers and collaborators. The Dutch financial reform of September 1945 — probably the most thorough and most severely enforced measure of its kind on the continent — caused all banknotes to be turned in and temporarily froze all bank accounts. This made difficult use of Quislings’ funds. Additional measures, such as the registration of stocks and bonds, and decrees against simulated transactions involving illicit funds, had similar effects. Although certain Quislings undoubtedly managed to salvage some of their loot, it was indeed difficult for them to do so.
Documentatie, pp. 318-319. In Belgium, too, the great popular demand for the German-controlled newspapers was noted. (Struye, l’évolution du sentiment public, p. 45). Movies, although full of direct and indirect German propaganda, were more popular than ever during the occupation. (Documentatie, p. 319).
Documentatie, pp. 320, 323. However, according to Mr. J. B. Th. Spaan (Onder-drukking en Verzet, II, 135, 146-147) there were considerable internal struggles in German press matters in Holland. Supposedly, Dutch editors and journalists could at times exploit jealousies between the following factions: Propaganda Ministry (Goebbels); Reichspressechef Dr. Dietrich; the Foreign Ministry; the O. K. W.; Himmler. Mr. Spaan believes that until early 1942 Goebbels had most influence; after that Dr. Dietrich’s representative, Dittmar, became most powerful.
Ibid., p. 324.
Ibid., pp. 325-326.
Ibid., p. 316.
Revue de droit pénal et criminologie, 1947–1948, pp. 227 228.
During the last years of the war the resistance press grew increasingly important. A great many daily and weekly papers — often of large circulation — were secretly printed (or mimeographed) and distributed. The Netherlands State Institute of War Documentation, in Amsterdam, has a remarkable collection of these “underground” newspapers.
Decree No. E 69.
Overzickt M.G., pp. 119-120.
Decree No. F 177.
The ordinary courts enforced such suspensions. In January 1950, for example, a prison term of three months was demanded for an excluded journalist who had published an article. (Nieuwe Courant, January 13, 1950).
Decree No. H 211.
Ganshof van der Meersch, op. cit., p. 23.
Case of the Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, March 9, 1948. A few sentences of the Board of Appeal for the Press are available at the Modderman Stichting of Leiden University. (Kort Overzicht Jurisprudent, typed).
Case of Het Leidsch Dagblad, April 10, 1948.
Case of the Zeister Courant, March 30, 1948.
Case of the Algemeen Handelsblad, May 1, 1948.
Case of the Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, March 9, 1948.
Case of the Zierikzeesche Nieuwsbode, April 8, 1948.
Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant, June 2, 1948.
Handelingen Eerste Kamer, 1946–1947, p. 425 (6) (Bijlagen).
Handelingen Eerste Kamer, 1946–1947, p. 725 (11).
Personal Interview, 1949.
Cf. the purge of the French press: Noël Jacquemart, Quatre ans d’histoire de la presse francaise (Paris, 1948); Jean Mottin, Histoire politique de la presse (Paris, 1949).
A. Thomas, quoted in National Zeitung (Basel), December 11, 1947.
Life, February 28, 1949.
New York Herald Tribune (Paris), March 7, 1949. The Partisan Review of May and June 1949 carried several articles on the Pound-Bollingen prize question.
Je Maintiendrai, November 23, 1945.
Ibid.
As late as autumn 1947 the performance by the Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra of a recent composition by Richard Strausz (“Metamorphosen”) caused violent protests. It was claimed that the work in question had been dedicated to Hitler, that its composer had been a Nazi, and that the sacrifices of the resistance would have been in vain if such pieces were played. (Cf. the Groene Amsterdammer in October, 1947). In January, 1951, the engagement of the Dutch-born, but German-naturalized Paul van Kempen as conductor of the Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra caused trouble. At one of his first concerts in Amsterdam a tremendous uproar started in the concert hall, followed by throwing of stench bombs; then, sixty-two members of the orchestra walked off the stage, as protest against van Kempen. Also in The Hague van Kempen’s appearances were interrupted by loud protests and even tear-gas. Ex-resistance associations, and a special committee of protest — including among its supporters Professors G. van den Bergh, N. A. Donkersloot, and J. M. Romein — charged that van Kempen, as a German citizen, had never been cleared by a Dutch purge board. Furthermore, he was accused — but this point does not seem clearly established — of having participated in German cultural propaganda in the occupied Netherlands. The Affair van Kempen was complicated by long standing difficulties between management and musicians of the orchestra, and by thorough Communist exploitation of the whole issue. (Cf. the Dutch press, and also Daniel L. Schorr’s articles in the New York Times of Feb. 4 and Feb. 25, 1951).
Overzicht M.G., p. 117.
Decree No. G 84.
Exclusion terms were violated in only a few cases. In January 1950, Jo van Ammers-Küller, probably the most famous excluded Dutch author, was accused of having had a book published which had been written under a different name. (Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant, January 16, 1950). Mrs. van Ammers-Küller was cleared of this charge in March, 1951. The court stated that it was not established that she had received any kind of payment for the book in question, and that therefore there was no evidence that she had exercised her profession of author during the period of exclusion. (Het Vaderland, March 19, 1951).
Cf. Mr. Goedhart’s speech in the Second Chamber (February 20, 1946).
Decree No I 228.
According to one estimate, about one thousand Dutch artists were considered by the purge boards. (Nieuwe Courant, Dec. 28, 1950).
Mr. Wendelaar, Handelingen Tweede Kamer, February 20, 1946. Mr. A. van der Ent (secretary of Central Purge Board), personal interview, 1949.
Na-Oorlogsche Rechtspraak, II, p. 512.
“The … exceptional qualities of … [Mengelberg], his fame, and the limitless admiration for him … developed his vanity and sense of superiority to such an extent that he considered himself above the normal standards of behavior. … Therefore, he thought that he could sacrifice all interests — even those of the Dutch people in its desperate resistance against the occupier — to his music: he failed to realize that there were higher aims than the satisfaction of the artist’s personal musical passion.” (Central Purge Board, Na-Oorlogsche Rechtspraak, IV, p. 54).
Membership in the Nederlandsche Kultuurhamer was obligatory to all those who “participated in the production, the reproduction, and the publication of ‘cultural’ goods”, unless this consisted of purely “commercial, adminstrative, technical, or mechanical tasks”. The Kultuurkamer, the product of Goebbel’s Ministry of Propaganda, was not effective at all. Its activities were on a limited scale; artists who refused to join merely had to interrupt public appearances. Actually, other German organizations — the SS intelligence service (the S.D.) and the office of paper rationing — were preferred by the Germans to supervise Dutch cultural life. Also, other German “fronts” competed with the KuUuurkamer: the Nederlandsche Kultuurkring, and the Nederlandsche Kul-tuurraad. (Documentatie, pp. 145, 148-149, 166-169). Membership in the Kultuurkamer was not punished after the Liberation, neither by Tribunals and Special Courts, nor by artists’ Purge Boards. (Mr. A. van der Ent, personal interview, 1949). However, resistance circles condemned Kultuurkamer members, unless they acted like Dr. Roland-Hoist, Holland’s outstanding poet. He accepted membership, but at the same time wrote a letter to German authorities stating that by doing so he submitted to a German police measure. C’est le ton qui fait la musique. In Onderdrukking en Verzet (II, 510) Prof. N. A. Donkersloot protests against the post-Liberation tendency to underestimate the potential danger of the Kultuurkamer. He points out that its aim was complete nazification of Dutch cultural life, and concludes — with much justification — that without Dutch resistance against the Kultuurkamer, it could have done tremendous harm to the nation.
F. W. Blase (ed.), Studenten onder de Bezetting (Amsterdam, 1946), p. 15.
Ander Inzicht — De Studentenverklaring onder de Loupe (Delft? 1945?), p. 5.
Immediately after the Liberation there was even a tendency to exclude children of collaborators from grade schools and high schools. The M.G. had to instruct school authorities that children of Quislings were not to suffer for their parents’ acts, and that youths below fifteen years were not to be held responsible for their political opinions. Still, in some instances “impure” children had to be excluded, as otherwise the “pure” children would have stayed away from school. (Overzicht M.G., p. 113). School teachers were purged under the Zuivering-Decree for government employees. The N.S.B. had managed to attract a number of the most poorly paid grammar school teachers, the so-called Kwekelingen met acte. (Verslag Stichting Toezicht, p. 50).
Jaarboek der Rijksuniversitet te Leiden, 1945–1946, Vol. II, 88.
Published in the (official) Staatscourant, No. 58, August. 30, 1945. Amended in Staatscourant No. 115, November 20, 1945.
Jaarboek Leiden, 1945–1946, Vol II, 89.
Almanak Leidsch Studenten Corps, 1949, pp. 108-109. However, purge policies at Leiden University seem to have been more lenient than those at other universities, inspite of the fact that Leiden had been a center of student resistance. (Dr. J. G. Sauveplanne [secretary of Purge Board at Leiden University], personal interview, 1949).
Ander Inzickt, p. 3.
Professors were purged according to the Zuivering-decree for government employees. It has frequently been noted that the resistance attitude of Dutch students was better than that of professors. (Cf. the statement by the Minister of Education, Arts and Sciences in Studenten onder de Bezetting, p. VII).
Cf. Ander Inzickt, a pamphlet published by “signers” from Delft University.
Cf. the editorial in the Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant, January 7, 1946.
Minister Gielen, letter to Second Chamber, December 13, 1946.
The usual punitive measure applied by occupational Purge Boards consisted, as we have seen, of suspending the accused from his occupation. The Tribunals and Special Courts also could do this. Although many persons faced both a Purge Board and a Special Court or Tribunal, only few conflicts took place because of parallel powers of job-suspension. Whenever a person had previously been sentenced by a Purge Board, the Tribunal or Special Court would take no further action on job-suspension. If an accused was first judged by a Tribunal (or Special Court), the decision of job-suspension would usually be left to the Purge Board, if it concerned a person for whom a Purge Board existed. (Noach, op. cit., pp. 88-89). A few jurisdictional conflicts did occur. For example, the Tribunal at Almelo, supported by its Hoge Autoriteit, claimed that it was permitted to suspend a journalist. The Purge Board for the Press argued that it alone had this power. (Nederlandsch Juristenblad, 1948, pp. 709-711). When the Special Court of Cassation suspended a Protestant minister for a period of ten years, it was argued that such a decision should have been left to the purge authorities of the church. (Nederlandsch Juristenblad, 1949, pp. 203-204).
Elzeviers Weekblad, December 1, 1945.
Nederlandsch Juristenblad, 1946, p. 238.
Kortenhorst, Was Samenwerking met den Vijand Geoorloofd? p. 45.
Elzeviers Weekblad, December 1, 1945.
December 7, 1945.
“Lack of publicity [openbaarheid] is an evil of the entire Zuivering. …” (Minister van der Leeuw, Second Chamber, January 22, 1946). Cf. the long, but fruitless discussions on Zuivering in the Second Chamber in January and February 1946. (Handelingen Tweede Kamer, pp. 314-386, 571-585).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1952 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mason, H.L. (1952). The Occupational Purge Boards. In: The Purge of Dutch Quislings. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9532-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9532-4_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8704-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9532-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive