- History, Contemporary History, Holocaust Studies, Historiography, Jewish Studies, Modern Jewish History, and 89 moreJewish History, European History, Holocaust, Historical Methodology, Jewish Responses to the Holocaust, Theory of History, Research Methodology, Historical and Comparative Sociology, Historical Sociology, French History, Belgian History, Dutch History, Transnational History, 20th Century, Military History, Modern Middle East History, Transnational and World History, Second World War, Commemoration and Memory, Cultural Heritage, Holocaust education, Philosophy of Science, Political Science, Political Philosophy, Ethics, Middle Eastern Studies, Arab-Israeli conflict, Comparative and historical sociology, Book Reviews, Memory Studies, Testimony, Jewish survival, Jewish council, Vichy France, Ego documents, Survival Skills, Hiding, Jewish Survival Rates, Archives of the Holocaust, Police History, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Bystanders to the Holocaust, Public Administration and Policy, Vichy collaboration, Vichy Regime, Diary Studies, Protest and resistance, Bystanders, Comparative Study, Holocaust Shoah, Comparative/Transnational History, Spanish Civil War, Anti-Fascism, Shoah, Antisemitism (Prejudice), 20th century (History), Jews in France during the Second World War, Western European History, Antisemitism, Holocaust History and Historiography, Collaboration, Belgium, Victims, Concentration Camps, Eyewitness Testimony, Slavery, Slave Trade, History of Historiography, חקר השואה, Anti-Semitism, Jordan, Israeli History, Zionism, Israel, Transjordan, Arab nationalism, United States, Palestinian refugees, Pan Arabism, Great Britain, Middle Eastern History, United Nations, Israel/Palestine, Israel Studies, Medieval History, History of Crusades, Church History, Legal History, and European Legal Historyedit
- Dr. Pim Griffioen is a historian and received his Ph.D. degree in History from the University of Amsterdam (UvA) in 2... moreDr. Pim Griffioen is a historian and received his Ph.D. degree in History from the University of Amsterdam (UvA) in 2008. The book publication of his doctoral dissertation, carried out jointly with Dr. Ron Zeller, “The Persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands, France and Belgium, 1940–1945: Similarities, Differences, Causes”, published by Boom in Amsterdam, was a finalist of the 2012 Yad Vashem Book Prize for Scholarly Studies published in 2011.
His scholarly work has been published in six languages in various peer-reviewed journals, including: The Netherlands' Journal of Social Sciences, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Yad Vashem Studies, Zagłada Żydów: Studia i Materiały, Cahiers d'Histoire du Temps Présent, Perspectives, Einsicht, and Sozialgeschichte.
His research project was awarded Saul Kagan fellowships for the 2013–2015 academic years by the Claims Conference Research Fellowships program in Advanced Shoah Studies, ועידת התביעות . Between June 1 and December 31, 2012, he was a visiting scholar and between October 1, 2016, and April 1, 2017, he was a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), Center of Excellence, University of Constance (Exzellenzcluster, Kulturwissenschaftliches Kolleg der Universität Konstanz), Seeburg address, Kreuzlingen, Switzerland.
Currently, he is a project researcher, part-time, for the Jewish Cultural Quarter (JCK), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
The Jewish Cultural Quarter includes the Jewish Museum, the Jewish Museum junior, the Portuguese Synagogue, the Holocaust memorial site Hollandsche Schouwburg, and the National Holocaust Museum.edit
Jodenvervolging in Nederland, Frankrijk en België, 1940–1945: overeenkomsten, verschillen, oorzaken (Persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands, France and Belgium 1940–1945: similarities, differences, causes). Boom Publishers, hardcover 2011, 1045 p. Repr. paperback 2014. Dutch text, Eng. abstract.more
REVIEWS: 1. "Recently, two Dutch historians finished a comparative analysis of the Holocaust in the Netherlands, Belgium and France, for the first time integrating the Jews as full protagonists in an explanatory model of the enormous... more
REVIEWS:
1. "Recently, two Dutch historians finished a comparative analysis of the Holocaust in the Netherlands, Belgium and France, for the first time integrating the Jews as full protagonists in an explanatory model of the enormous differences in the death toll of those countries. Their results are much more convincing than any preceding study."
Prof. Dan Michman, in: THE HOLOCAUST. VOICES OF SCHOLARS (editor: J. Ambrosewicz-Jacobs). Cracow, 2009, p. 120.
2. "The lower percentage of French victims has been caused mainly by the attitude of the French government. In the first years of the war the Vichy regime issued all sorts of antisemitic measures and it supported deportation actions by the occupier. But from October 1942 onwards the support was withdrawn. Without this help the German occupier could do less than it wanted to. Not only because of a lack of its own manpower, but also because the German government did not want to rebuff the Vichy government. In Belgium and the Netherlands the Germans had much more power and a larger freedom of action, as a consequence of which the persecution of the Jews proceeded more effectively there. The big difference in victimization rate between Belgium and the Netherlands had mainly to do with the methods implemented by the occupier. In Belgium the occupiers acted more violently and big roundups were carried out earlier than in the Netherlands. Because of this, Jews in Belgium sooner took to flight. The Belgian resistance also sooner arose. In the Netherlands the occupier operated more cunningly. Here false hopes of deferment and exemption from deportation were held out to the Jews."
Nadine Böke, 'Minder geweld, meer slachtoffers. Waarom driekwart van de Nederlandse Joden omkwam' (Less violence, more victims. Why three-quarters of the Dutch Jews perished), in: FOLIA (University of Amsterdam Weekly), Vol. 62, No. 13 (November 28, 2008), p. 15.
3. "A very detailed and systematic analysis of dozens of striking similarities and differences in successive stages of the persecution of the Jews. Altogether, that has yielded quite a lot. From the research by Griffioen and Zeller becomes clear that the decisive factor was the unanimity on the part of the German administration. Whereas in Belgium and France the persecution policy was frustrated by internal competency disputes, in the Netherlands - from February 1942 onwards - orders from Eichmann's department IV B 4 at the Reich Security Head Office in Berlin were directly forwarded, over the head of Seyss-Inquart, via the Judenreferat (anti-Jewish section) in The Hague to the Amsterdam Zentralstelle ('Central Office for Jewish Emigration') and from there to the Jewish Council."
Prof. Ido de Haan in: NRC HANDELSBLAD and nrc.next, May 5, 2011.
4. "A thoroughly documented and profound comparison between the Netherlands, Belgium and France."
Ad van Liempt, in: DE OORLOG (Amsterdam, 2009), p. 261.
5. "The SS, which had a much stronger position in the occupation regime in the Netherlands than in Belgium, wanted to prevent unrest as much as possible here, especially after the February Strike of 1941, the only protest strike against the persecution of the Jews during the war. After the strike the SS seized and deported the Jews as inconspicuously as possible."
HET PAROOL, November 22, 2008, p. PS 5.
6. "From the transnational comparison by Griffioen and Zeller emerges that the difference between the Netherlands and France has to be explained for a major part by the attitude of the French Vichy government. In the Netherlands the Germans had more freedom of action.
After the proclamation of the general compulsory labor draft of the Belgian population in October 1942, organized resistance and hiding got under way. In the Netherlands this happened only in May 1943."
HISTORISCH NIEUWSBLAD, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March 2009), p. 12.
7. "Anyone who henceforth wants to make pronouncements in scholarship on the causes of the high number of victims brought about by the occupier in the Netherlands, will have to take into account their arguments. The book has all the qualities to raise the discussion on the striking sequence of the persecution in the Netherlands to a higher level."
From Dr. Guus Meershoek's address, delivered at the NIOD, Amsterdam, October 25, 2011.
8. "In the Netherlands the SS, especially the Security Police, controlled the whole process, in the other two countries there were various parties."
Arthur Graaff, in: HP/DE TIJD, October 22, 2011.
9. "The importance of this book lies particularly in the comparative, methodical approach. By doing so, it has appeared possible to 'weigh' the various factors."
Rob Hartmans, in: HISTORISCH NIEUWSBLAD, Vol. 20, No. 10 (December 2011), p. 23.
10. "Inspired by Chris Lorenz' comparative causal mode of explanation (Chris Lorenz, The Construction of the Past) these two historians describe the major similarities and differences between France, Belgium and the Netherlands. The result is a balanced account of historical actors who were, individually and collectively, confronted with circumstances, events and choices. (...) The book is easy to absorb with conveniently arranged schemata and lucid summaries."
Hester Borms, in: GALAPAS, Vol. 32, No. 3 (December 2011), p. 43.
11. "It is unquestionably the merit of Griffioen and Zeller that they convincingly show the decisive causes of the exceptionally high number and percentage of Jewish victims in the Netherlands."
Robin te Slaa, in: *****DE VOLKSKRANT, January 14, 2012, Books supplement, p. 6.
12. "Griffioen and Zeller show that the process of exclusion and deportation was comparable, but that the administrative structures of German and indigenous agencies differed strongly and consequently also the freedom of action of the national-socialist tracing apparatus, which was much larger in the Netherlands. The surplus value lies in the scientific foundation and the bringing together and weighing of all these variables."
Enno van der Eerden, in: CONTACTBLAD '40-'45 (Stichting 1940-1945), Winter 2011–2012, p. 23.
13. "German police in Amsterdam gained almost unlimited control over the organization and implementation of the deportations. These proceeded largely non-violently and behind the scenes, through administration, intimidation and deception, preventing unrest and economic damage."
ONS AMSTERDAM, Vol. 63, No. 1 (January 2012), p. 36.
14. "A very thorough study which answers the ever-recurring delicate question: why was it that in the Netherlands, in comparison with other countries, such an excessively high percentage of Jews was murdered during the war? Griffioen and Zeller have succeeded in a sober and matter-of-fact analysis of all factors that played a role in answering this question. Clever work!"
Dr. Bart Wallet, in: NIEUWSBRIEF 'CRESCAS', Joods Educatief Centrum (Newsletter 'Crescas', Jewish Educational Center, Amsterdam), Vol. 8, No. 2 (Friday, January 20, 2012).
15. "Griffioen and Zeller have undeniably written a solid standard work. The book contains a true goldmine of facts between which many plausible relations are placed. Their study is nothing less than a land-mark in the running debate and everyone who wants to add something to that, does well in first consulting their book."
Dr. Ton Zwaan, in: GESCHIEDENIS MAGAZINE, Vol. 47, No. 1 (January–February 2012), pp. 8–13.
16. "This erudite work offers fundamental background information on the Holocaust in our country in comparison with the Netherlands and France."
Historia@pelckmans, No. 37 (March 2012), p. 10.
17. "Through the richness of explanatory factors the authors make particularly clear that historical events can by no means be explained simply and uniformly. (...) Congratulations to the authors with their lucid structure and the polished linguistic usage."
Dr. Veerle Vanden Daelen, in: Tijdschrift voor Sociale en Economische Geschiedenis (TSEG, Journal of Social and Economic History), Vol. 9 (2012), No. 2, pp. 124–125.
18. "So far, there was no comprehensive, comparative international historical study on the persecution of the Jews in Western Europe. The historians Pim Griffioen and Ron Zeller are the first who, with their book on this subject, have provided an important contribution in the clarification of this question. Central in their study is the explanation of the differences in outcome for each country. (...) This book belongs, without more ado, to the most important books that have appeared on this subject in the last 20 years."
Victor Brilleman, in: MISJPOGE. Quarterly published by the Netherlands Society for Jewish Genealogy (NKvJG), Vol. 25 (2012), No. 3, pp. 100–101.
19. "Griffioen and Zeller have written an impressive and convincing study, that offers a good insight in what caused the enormous difference in absolute number and percentage of murdered Jews in France, Belgium and the Netherlands."
Dr. Martijn Lak, in: TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR GESCHIEDENIS (TvG, Journal of History), Vol. 126 (2013), No. 1, pp. 139–141.
20. "Excellent". Johannes Swaen, www.blikopdewereld.nl, 2012.
21. "The authors deserve congratulations on producing such a comprehensive comparative analysis (...). Their more stringent methodology and use of statistical material unavailable or disregarded by earlier commentators has achieved a more refined rendering of previously accepted interpretations. (...) this study will undoubtedly stand as an essential text for all those wishing to take the debate forward in the future."
Prof. Bob Moore, in: YAD VASHEM STUDIES, Vol. 42-1 (2014), pp. 159–165.
22. "This study will undoubtedly belong to the most fundamental studies on the Shoah in general and on Western Europe in particular."
Prof. Dan Michman, in: BMGN - LOW COUNTRIES HISTORICAL REVIEW, Vol. 129-1 (2014), online review 8.
23. "Invaluable", Prof. F.W. Boterman, in: DUITSE DADERS (Amsterdam 2015), pp. 8-9.
1. "Recently, two Dutch historians finished a comparative analysis of the Holocaust in the Netherlands, Belgium and France, for the first time integrating the Jews as full protagonists in an explanatory model of the enormous differences in the death toll of those countries. Their results are much more convincing than any preceding study."
Prof. Dan Michman, in: THE HOLOCAUST. VOICES OF SCHOLARS (editor: J. Ambrosewicz-Jacobs). Cracow, 2009, p. 120.
2. "The lower percentage of French victims has been caused mainly by the attitude of the French government. In the first years of the war the Vichy regime issued all sorts of antisemitic measures and it supported deportation actions by the occupier. But from October 1942 onwards the support was withdrawn. Without this help the German occupier could do less than it wanted to. Not only because of a lack of its own manpower, but also because the German government did not want to rebuff the Vichy government. In Belgium and the Netherlands the Germans had much more power and a larger freedom of action, as a consequence of which the persecution of the Jews proceeded more effectively there. The big difference in victimization rate between Belgium and the Netherlands had mainly to do with the methods implemented by the occupier. In Belgium the occupiers acted more violently and big roundups were carried out earlier than in the Netherlands. Because of this, Jews in Belgium sooner took to flight. The Belgian resistance also sooner arose. In the Netherlands the occupier operated more cunningly. Here false hopes of deferment and exemption from deportation were held out to the Jews."
Nadine Böke, 'Minder geweld, meer slachtoffers. Waarom driekwart van de Nederlandse Joden omkwam' (Less violence, more victims. Why three-quarters of the Dutch Jews perished), in: FOLIA (University of Amsterdam Weekly), Vol. 62, No. 13 (November 28, 2008), p. 15.
3. "A very detailed and systematic analysis of dozens of striking similarities and differences in successive stages of the persecution of the Jews. Altogether, that has yielded quite a lot. From the research by Griffioen and Zeller becomes clear that the decisive factor was the unanimity on the part of the German administration. Whereas in Belgium and France the persecution policy was frustrated by internal competency disputes, in the Netherlands - from February 1942 onwards - orders from Eichmann's department IV B 4 at the Reich Security Head Office in Berlin were directly forwarded, over the head of Seyss-Inquart, via the Judenreferat (anti-Jewish section) in The Hague to the Amsterdam Zentralstelle ('Central Office for Jewish Emigration') and from there to the Jewish Council."
Prof. Ido de Haan in: NRC HANDELSBLAD and nrc.next, May 5, 2011.
4. "A thoroughly documented and profound comparison between the Netherlands, Belgium and France."
Ad van Liempt, in: DE OORLOG (Amsterdam, 2009), p. 261.
5. "The SS, which had a much stronger position in the occupation regime in the Netherlands than in Belgium, wanted to prevent unrest as much as possible here, especially after the February Strike of 1941, the only protest strike against the persecution of the Jews during the war. After the strike the SS seized and deported the Jews as inconspicuously as possible."
HET PAROOL, November 22, 2008, p. PS 5.
6. "From the transnational comparison by Griffioen and Zeller emerges that the difference between the Netherlands and France has to be explained for a major part by the attitude of the French Vichy government. In the Netherlands the Germans had more freedom of action.
After the proclamation of the general compulsory labor draft of the Belgian population in October 1942, organized resistance and hiding got under way. In the Netherlands this happened only in May 1943."
HISTORISCH NIEUWSBLAD, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March 2009), p. 12.
7. "Anyone who henceforth wants to make pronouncements in scholarship on the causes of the high number of victims brought about by the occupier in the Netherlands, will have to take into account their arguments. The book has all the qualities to raise the discussion on the striking sequence of the persecution in the Netherlands to a higher level."
From Dr. Guus Meershoek's address, delivered at the NIOD, Amsterdam, October 25, 2011.
8. "In the Netherlands the SS, especially the Security Police, controlled the whole process, in the other two countries there were various parties."
Arthur Graaff, in: HP/DE TIJD, October 22, 2011.
9. "The importance of this book lies particularly in the comparative, methodical approach. By doing so, it has appeared possible to 'weigh' the various factors."
Rob Hartmans, in: HISTORISCH NIEUWSBLAD, Vol. 20, No. 10 (December 2011), p. 23.
10. "Inspired by Chris Lorenz' comparative causal mode of explanation (Chris Lorenz, The Construction of the Past) these two historians describe the major similarities and differences between France, Belgium and the Netherlands. The result is a balanced account of historical actors who were, individually and collectively, confronted with circumstances, events and choices. (...) The book is easy to absorb with conveniently arranged schemata and lucid summaries."
Hester Borms, in: GALAPAS, Vol. 32, No. 3 (December 2011), p. 43.
11. "It is unquestionably the merit of Griffioen and Zeller that they convincingly show the decisive causes of the exceptionally high number and percentage of Jewish victims in the Netherlands."
Robin te Slaa, in: *****DE VOLKSKRANT, January 14, 2012, Books supplement, p. 6.
12. "Griffioen and Zeller show that the process of exclusion and deportation was comparable, but that the administrative structures of German and indigenous agencies differed strongly and consequently also the freedom of action of the national-socialist tracing apparatus, which was much larger in the Netherlands. The surplus value lies in the scientific foundation and the bringing together and weighing of all these variables."
Enno van der Eerden, in: CONTACTBLAD '40-'45 (Stichting 1940-1945), Winter 2011–2012, p. 23.
13. "German police in Amsterdam gained almost unlimited control over the organization and implementation of the deportations. These proceeded largely non-violently and behind the scenes, through administration, intimidation and deception, preventing unrest and economic damage."
ONS AMSTERDAM, Vol. 63, No. 1 (January 2012), p. 36.
14. "A very thorough study which answers the ever-recurring delicate question: why was it that in the Netherlands, in comparison with other countries, such an excessively high percentage of Jews was murdered during the war? Griffioen and Zeller have succeeded in a sober and matter-of-fact analysis of all factors that played a role in answering this question. Clever work!"
Dr. Bart Wallet, in: NIEUWSBRIEF 'CRESCAS', Joods Educatief Centrum (Newsletter 'Crescas', Jewish Educational Center, Amsterdam), Vol. 8, No. 2 (Friday, January 20, 2012).
15. "Griffioen and Zeller have undeniably written a solid standard work. The book contains a true goldmine of facts between which many plausible relations are placed. Their study is nothing less than a land-mark in the running debate and everyone who wants to add something to that, does well in first consulting their book."
Dr. Ton Zwaan, in: GESCHIEDENIS MAGAZINE, Vol. 47, No. 1 (January–February 2012), pp. 8–13.
16. "This erudite work offers fundamental background information on the Holocaust in our country in comparison with the Netherlands and France."
Historia@pelckmans, No. 37 (March 2012), p. 10.
17. "Through the richness of explanatory factors the authors make particularly clear that historical events can by no means be explained simply and uniformly. (...) Congratulations to the authors with their lucid structure and the polished linguistic usage."
Dr. Veerle Vanden Daelen, in: Tijdschrift voor Sociale en Economische Geschiedenis (TSEG, Journal of Social and Economic History), Vol. 9 (2012), No. 2, pp. 124–125.
18. "So far, there was no comprehensive, comparative international historical study on the persecution of the Jews in Western Europe. The historians Pim Griffioen and Ron Zeller are the first who, with their book on this subject, have provided an important contribution in the clarification of this question. Central in their study is the explanation of the differences in outcome for each country. (...) This book belongs, without more ado, to the most important books that have appeared on this subject in the last 20 years."
Victor Brilleman, in: MISJPOGE. Quarterly published by the Netherlands Society for Jewish Genealogy (NKvJG), Vol. 25 (2012), No. 3, pp. 100–101.
19. "Griffioen and Zeller have written an impressive and convincing study, that offers a good insight in what caused the enormous difference in absolute number and percentage of murdered Jews in France, Belgium and the Netherlands."
Dr. Martijn Lak, in: TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR GESCHIEDENIS (TvG, Journal of History), Vol. 126 (2013), No. 1, pp. 139–141.
20. "Excellent". Johannes Swaen, www.blikopdewereld.nl, 2012.
21. "The authors deserve congratulations on producing such a comprehensive comparative analysis (...). Their more stringent methodology and use of statistical material unavailable or disregarded by earlier commentators has achieved a more refined rendering of previously accepted interpretations. (...) this study will undoubtedly stand as an essential text for all those wishing to take the debate forward in the future."
Prof. Bob Moore, in: YAD VASHEM STUDIES, Vol. 42-1 (2014), pp. 159–165.
22. "This study will undoubtedly belong to the most fundamental studies on the Shoah in general and on Western Europe in particular."
Prof. Dan Michman, in: BMGN - LOW COUNTRIES HISTORICAL REVIEW, Vol. 129-1 (2014), online review 8.
23. "Invaluable", Prof. F.W. Boterman, in: DUITSE DADERS (Amsterdam 2015), pp. 8-9.
Research Interests: European History, French History, Comparative History, Antisemitism (Prejudice), Jewish History, and 15 moreSecond World War, Holocaust Studies, Vichy France, 20th century (History), Belgian History, Comparative Historical Analysis, Dutch History, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Historical Methodology, Jews in France during the Second World War, Historical and Comparative Sociology, Holocaust History and Historiography, Western European History, Jewish Responses to the Holocaust, and Jewish Survival Rates
Co-authored with Mirjam Pinkhof-Waterman and others. Published by Beit Lohamei Haghetaot / The Ghetto Fighters' House Museum, Study Center and Archives, Israel; October 1996; 61 pages, English text. Illustr. This exhibition... more
Co-authored with Mirjam Pinkhof-Waterman and others. Published by Beit Lohamei Haghetaot / The Ghetto Fighters' House Museum, Study Center and Archives, Israel; October 1996; 61 pages, English text. Illustr.
This exhibition catalogue provides supplementary visual and textual additions.
This bilingual, permanent exhibition is, in an updated version, still on display in the museum.
Also published in Hebrew:
יהודי הולנד בימי השואה. מדריך מלװה לתערוכה הקבועה בבית לוחמי הגיטאות, 21 באוקטובר 1996
טקסט: בית לוחמי הגיטאות, מחלקת הולנד. עריכה עברית: איתמר פרת. צילום: יאיר פלג. עיצוב גרפי: אוריגרף בע״מ, חיפה,61 עמי
.קטלוג תערוכה זה מספק תוספות ויזואליות וטקסטואליות משלימות
התערוכה הקבועה הדו-לשונית הזו, בגרסה מעודכנת, עדיין מוצגת במוזיאון
התערוכה על יהודי הולנד בימי השואה היא תערוכה ייחודית המאפשרת למבקרים לחוש את מורכבות סיפור השואה בהולנד. מעצב התערוכה, דודי גל, יצר מרחב המזמין את המבקר להתייחד עם המוצגים בלא שיהיה כפוף לציר תנועה מחייב. התערוכה נפתחת בתמונת אישה העומדת על המדרכה ובידיה תיקים. למה היא מחכה? למי
חלל התערוכה מואר ומזמין, וברקע - מוזיקה המשרה אווירה נינוחה, אפילו עליזה. כיבוש הולנד היה בעצם מעין סיפוח, משום שהגרמנים זכו לשיתוף פעולה הן מהאוכלוסייה ההולנדית והן מהאוכלוסייה היהודית. ערמתם של הנאצים, מחד גיסא, ותמימותם של בני העם ההולנדי ואמונתם בצדקת החוק מאידך גיסא, הן שאפשרו לנאצים לעשות ביהודי הולנד כרצונם.
בסוף המסלול אנו פוגשים שוב את האישה הממתינה על המדרכה, הפעם התמונה מתרחבת, היא לא לבד על המדרכה. סביבה עומדים, מדברים, שותים קפה, יהודים הולנדים, הממתינים לגירושם למחנה המעבר וסטרבורק, שממנו נשלחו רובם למחנות ההשמדה. כ-75 אחוזים מהם נרצחו בשואה.
בתערוכה תצוגה גדולה של מסמכים וחפצים מהאגף ההולנדי שבארכיון בית לוחמי הגטאות, המכיל 50 אלף פריטים, ביניהם אוסף המחתרת ההולנדית הגדול בעולם. חלקו הגדול של ארכיון הולנד עבר דיגיטציה, וניתן לעיין בפריטים הרבים באתר האינטרנט של בית לוחמי הגטאות.
בערב פתיחת התערוכה, שהתקיים במוזאון בהשתתפות שגריר הולנד בישראל, הוקרנו קטעים מסרט נדיר הנקרא "החתונה האחרונה". זהו סרט מצמרר בו מצולמים הזוג מארק וקלרה ון דאם ביום חתונתם בשנת 1942, ערב גירושם למחנה ברגן-בלזן. למראית עין נראית החתונה כחתונה לכל דבר, עד הרגע שבו מבחין הצופה שבעצם כל המשתתפים עונדים טלאי צהוב, כולל הכלה, החתן והשושבינות
This exhibition catalogue provides supplementary visual and textual additions.
This bilingual, permanent exhibition is, in an updated version, still on display in the museum.
Also published in Hebrew:
יהודי הולנד בימי השואה. מדריך מלװה לתערוכה הקבועה בבית לוחמי הגיטאות, 21 באוקטובר 1996
טקסט: בית לוחמי הגיטאות, מחלקת הולנד. עריכה עברית: איתמר פרת. צילום: יאיר פלג. עיצוב גרפי: אוריגרף בע״מ, חיפה,61 עמי
.קטלוג תערוכה זה מספק תוספות ויזואליות וטקסטואליות משלימות
התערוכה הקבועה הדו-לשונית הזו, בגרסה מעודכנת, עדיין מוצגת במוזיאון
התערוכה על יהודי הולנד בימי השואה היא תערוכה ייחודית המאפשרת למבקרים לחוש את מורכבות סיפור השואה בהולנד. מעצב התערוכה, דודי גל, יצר מרחב המזמין את המבקר להתייחד עם המוצגים בלא שיהיה כפוף לציר תנועה מחייב. התערוכה נפתחת בתמונת אישה העומדת על המדרכה ובידיה תיקים. למה היא מחכה? למי
חלל התערוכה מואר ומזמין, וברקע - מוזיקה המשרה אווירה נינוחה, אפילו עליזה. כיבוש הולנד היה בעצם מעין סיפוח, משום שהגרמנים זכו לשיתוף פעולה הן מהאוכלוסייה ההולנדית והן מהאוכלוסייה היהודית. ערמתם של הנאצים, מחד גיסא, ותמימותם של בני העם ההולנדי ואמונתם בצדקת החוק מאידך גיסא, הן שאפשרו לנאצים לעשות ביהודי הולנד כרצונם.
בסוף המסלול אנו פוגשים שוב את האישה הממתינה על המדרכה, הפעם התמונה מתרחבת, היא לא לבד על המדרכה. סביבה עומדים, מדברים, שותים קפה, יהודים הולנדים, הממתינים לגירושם למחנה המעבר וסטרבורק, שממנו נשלחו רובם למחנות ההשמדה. כ-75 אחוזים מהם נרצחו בשואה.
בתערוכה תצוגה גדולה של מסמכים וחפצים מהאגף ההולנדי שבארכיון בית לוחמי הגטאות, המכיל 50 אלף פריטים, ביניהם אוסף המחתרת ההולנדית הגדול בעולם. חלקו הגדול של ארכיון הולנד עבר דיגיטציה, וניתן לעיין בפריטים הרבים באתר האינטרנט של בית לוחמי הגטאות.
בערב פתיחת התערוכה, שהתקיים במוזאון בהשתתפות שגריר הולנד בישראל, הוקרנו קטעים מסרט נדיר הנקרא "החתונה האחרונה". זהו סרט מצמרר בו מצולמים הזוג מארק וקלרה ון דאם ביום חתונתם בשנת 1942, ערב גירושם למחנה ברגן-בלזן. למראית עין נראית החתונה כחתונה לכל דבר, עד הרגע שבו מבחין הצופה שבעצם כל המשתתפים עונדים טלאי צהוב, כולל הכלה, החתן והשושבינות
Research Interests:
CO-AUTHORED WITH OTHERS. Introductory chapter by Dr. Rudolf de Jong; Afterword by Dr. Lou Lichtveld. Published by the Verzetsmuseum (Resistance Museum) in Amsterdam, 1992; 80 pages; illustr. This book was published simultaneously with the... more
CO-AUTHORED WITH OTHERS. Introductory chapter by Dr. Rudolf de Jong; Afterword by Dr. Lou Lichtveld. Published by the Verzetsmuseum (Resistance Museum) in Amsterdam, 1992; 80 pages; illustr. This book was published simultaneously with the opening of a temporary exhibition on the same topic by the Dutch Resistance Museum in Amsterdam, 1992.
For an extensive summary, in Dutch, see the article by Anita Löwenhardt: "Statenloos strijden voor democratie" ('As a stateless person fighting for democracy'), in the daily newspaper TROUW, 2 November 1996, cf.: https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/statenloos-strijden-voor-democratie~be5bd01e/
For an extensive summary, in Dutch, see the article by Anita Löwenhardt: "Statenloos strijden voor democratie" ('As a stateless person fighting for democracy'), in the daily newspaper TROUW, 2 November 1996, cf.: https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/statenloos-strijden-voor-democratie~be5bd01e/
Research Interests:
Chapter, published in: Eva Sabrina Atlan, Mirjam Wenzel (Editors), "Back into the Light. Four Women Artists - Their Works. Their Paths. Rosy Lilienfeld, Amalie Seckbach, Erna Pinner, Ruth Cahn." Exhibition catalogue. Published by the... more
Chapter, published in: Eva Sabrina Atlan, Mirjam Wenzel (Editors), "Back into the Light. Four Women Artists - Their Works. Their Paths. Rosy Lilienfeld, Amalie Seckbach, Erna Pinner, Ruth Cahn." Exhibition catalogue. Published by the Jewish Museum Frankfurt and Kerber Verlag, Bielefeld/Berlin, November 2022 (ISBN 978-3-7356-0856-7), pp. 162 ̶ 165.
This book is also available in a German edition:
Zurück ins Licht. Vier Künstlerinnen – Ihre Werke, ihre Wege.
SUMMARY
With the exhibition catalogue Back into the Light: Four Women Artists – Their Works, Their Paths, the Jüdisches Museum Frankfurt has dedicated itself to four rediscovered women artists. Erna Pinner (1890–1987), Rosy Lilienfeld (1896–1942), Amalie Seckbach (1870–1944), and Ruth Cahn (1875–1966) shaped the artistic life of the 1920s in Frankfurt am Main and were also noticed supraregionally. National Socialist rule brought an end not only to the cosmopolitan way of life that they cultivated, but also threatened their work and their lives. Renowned art historians examine the works of the four artists in essays for the catalogue. Numerous illustrations and hitherto unpublished documents and letters accompany these texts. The various historical contexts of their individual lives and fate are also presented in cultural studies essays by international experts.
This essay is devoted to Westerbork transit camp in the Netherlands, where one of the four artists, Rosy Lilienfeld, was interned and from where she was deported to the Nazi death camp Auschwitz in 1942.
During the German occupation of the Netherlands, 1940–1945, the Westerbork camp for Jewish refugees from Germany, established by the Netherlands' government in 1939, was transformed into a transit camp under the command of the German SS police. From here 93 trains with a total of more than 100,000 Jews left for the German extermination and concentration camps between mid-July 1942 and mid-September 1944. This chapter (which includes references) describes both the internal functioning of the camp as part of the German anti-Jewish policy and also various aspects of social and cultural life of the camp internees.
This book is also available in a German edition:
Zurück ins Licht. Vier Künstlerinnen – Ihre Werke, ihre Wege.
SUMMARY
With the exhibition catalogue Back into the Light: Four Women Artists – Their Works, Their Paths, the Jüdisches Museum Frankfurt has dedicated itself to four rediscovered women artists. Erna Pinner (1890–1987), Rosy Lilienfeld (1896–1942), Amalie Seckbach (1870–1944), and Ruth Cahn (1875–1966) shaped the artistic life of the 1920s in Frankfurt am Main and were also noticed supraregionally. National Socialist rule brought an end not only to the cosmopolitan way of life that they cultivated, but also threatened their work and their lives. Renowned art historians examine the works of the four artists in essays for the catalogue. Numerous illustrations and hitherto unpublished documents and letters accompany these texts. The various historical contexts of their individual lives and fate are also presented in cultural studies essays by international experts.
This essay is devoted to Westerbork transit camp in the Netherlands, where one of the four artists, Rosy Lilienfeld, was interned and from where she was deported to the Nazi death camp Auschwitz in 1942.
During the German occupation of the Netherlands, 1940–1945, the Westerbork camp for Jewish refugees from Germany, established by the Netherlands' government in 1939, was transformed into a transit camp under the command of the German SS police. From here 93 trains with a total of more than 100,000 Jews left for the German extermination and concentration camps between mid-July 1942 and mid-September 1944. This chapter (which includes references) describes both the internal functioning of the camp as part of the German anti-Jewish policy and also various aspects of social and cultural life of the camp internees.
Research Interests:
ABSTRACT: In this article a comparison is made between the organizations imposed upon the Jews during the German occupation in France, Belgium and the Netherlands (1940–1945): UGIF, AJB and Amsterdam Jewish Council respectively. It... more
ABSTRACT:
In this article a comparison is made between the organizations imposed upon the Jews during the German occupation in France, Belgium and the Netherlands (1940–1945): UGIF, AJB and Amsterdam Jewish Council respectively. It examines the structural position of these coerced organizations and the strategies pursued by the leaders in them to cope with the increasing persecution. The article concludes that the leaders’ character, attitude and responses were of lesser significance than the formal, legal status and maneuvering space these organizations had, like in France and in Belgium, or the total lack thereof, as was the case in the Netherlands, with fateful consequences during the deportations (1942–1944). However, the pace and extent of the deportations were primarily determined, on the one hand, by the freedom of action of and methods applied by the German police, and, on the other hand, the extent of (organized) hiding and escape opportunities for Jews with the help of non-Jews.
A slightly abridged version of this article was presented by Dr. Pim Griffioen as a paper and lecture at the international conference VICHY REVISITÉ 1940–2018 צרפת בימי שלטון וישי ˗ עיון מחודש , organized by Daat Hamakom, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Yad Vashem, in cooperation with the Institut Français Israel and other institutions, held in Jerusalem, December 3–5, 2018.
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS: Prof. Renée Poznanski, Prof. Laurent Joly.
RÉSUMÉ:
Dans cet article, une comparaison est faite entre les organisations imposées aux Juifs pendant l'occupation allemande en France, en Belgique et aux Pays-Bas (1940–1945) : UGIF, AJB et le Conseil juif d'Amsterdam respectivement. Il examine la position structurelle de ces organisations contraintes et les stratégies poursuivies par leurs dirigeants pour faire face à la persécution croissante. L'article conclut que le caractère, l'attitude et les réponses des dirigeants avaient moins d'importance que le statut formel, légal et la marge de manœuvre dont disposaient ces organisations, comme en France et en Belgique, ou leur absence totale, comme ce fut le cas aux Pays-Bas, aux conséquences fatales lors des déportations (1942–1944). Cependant, le rythme et l'ampleur des déportations ont été principalement déterminés, d'une part, par la liberté d'action et les méthodes appliquées par la police allemande, et, d'autre part, par l'étendue des possibilités (organisées) de se cacher et de s'évader pour les juifs avec l'aide de non-juifs.
Une version légèrement abrégée de cet article a été présentée par le Dr Pim Griffioen sous forme de communication et de conférence à la conférence internationale VICHY REVISITÉ 1940–2018 צרפת בימי שלטון וישי ˗ עיון מחודש , organisée par Daat Hamakom, l'Université Hébraïque de Jérusalem et Yad Vashem, en coopération avec l'Institut Français Israël et d'autres institutions, à Jérusalem, du 3 au 5 décembre 2018.
INTERVENANTS PRINCIPAUX : Prof. Renée Poznanski, Prof. Laurent Joly.
A full and annotated article version of this paper, co-authored with Dr. Ron Zeller, has been published in English in the bilingual, scholarly journal PERSPECTIVES sur l’histoire, la culture et la société française, volume 26 (Jérusalem: Université Hébraïque de Jérusalem / The Hebrew University Magnes Press, January 2022), édition thématique: "Vichy revisité: Histoire, mémoire et historiographie" / "Vichy Revisited: History, Memory and Historiography" (introduction and edited by Denis Charbit and Nicole Hochner), pp. 51–75.
In this article a comparison is made between the organizations imposed upon the Jews during the German occupation in France, Belgium and the Netherlands (1940–1945): UGIF, AJB and Amsterdam Jewish Council respectively. It examines the structural position of these coerced organizations and the strategies pursued by the leaders in them to cope with the increasing persecution. The article concludes that the leaders’ character, attitude and responses were of lesser significance than the formal, legal status and maneuvering space these organizations had, like in France and in Belgium, or the total lack thereof, as was the case in the Netherlands, with fateful consequences during the deportations (1942–1944). However, the pace and extent of the deportations were primarily determined, on the one hand, by the freedom of action of and methods applied by the German police, and, on the other hand, the extent of (organized) hiding and escape opportunities for Jews with the help of non-Jews.
A slightly abridged version of this article was presented by Dr. Pim Griffioen as a paper and lecture at the international conference VICHY REVISITÉ 1940–2018 צרפת בימי שלטון וישי ˗ עיון מחודש , organized by Daat Hamakom, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Yad Vashem, in cooperation with the Institut Français Israel and other institutions, held in Jerusalem, December 3–5, 2018.
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS: Prof. Renée Poznanski, Prof. Laurent Joly.
RÉSUMÉ:
Dans cet article, une comparaison est faite entre les organisations imposées aux Juifs pendant l'occupation allemande en France, en Belgique et aux Pays-Bas (1940–1945) : UGIF, AJB et le Conseil juif d'Amsterdam respectivement. Il examine la position structurelle de ces organisations contraintes et les stratégies poursuivies par leurs dirigeants pour faire face à la persécution croissante. L'article conclut que le caractère, l'attitude et les réponses des dirigeants avaient moins d'importance que le statut formel, légal et la marge de manœuvre dont disposaient ces organisations, comme en France et en Belgique, ou leur absence totale, comme ce fut le cas aux Pays-Bas, aux conséquences fatales lors des déportations (1942–1944). Cependant, le rythme et l'ampleur des déportations ont été principalement déterminés, d'une part, par la liberté d'action et les méthodes appliquées par la police allemande, et, d'autre part, par l'étendue des possibilités (organisées) de se cacher et de s'évader pour les juifs avec l'aide de non-juifs.
Une version légèrement abrégée de cet article a été présentée par le Dr Pim Griffioen sous forme de communication et de conférence à la conférence internationale VICHY REVISITÉ 1940–2018 צרפת בימי שלטון וישי ˗ עיון מחודש , organisée par Daat Hamakom, l'Université Hébraïque de Jérusalem et Yad Vashem, en coopération avec l'Institut Français Israël et d'autres institutions, à Jérusalem, du 3 au 5 décembre 2018.
INTERVENANTS PRINCIPAUX : Prof. Renée Poznanski, Prof. Laurent Joly.
A full and annotated article version of this paper, co-authored with Dr. Ron Zeller, has been published in English in the bilingual, scholarly journal PERSPECTIVES sur l’histoire, la culture et la société française, volume 26 (Jérusalem: Université Hébraïque de Jérusalem / The Hebrew University Magnes Press, January 2022), édition thématique: "Vichy revisité: Histoire, mémoire et historiographie" / "Vichy Revisited: History, Memory and Historiography" (introduction and edited by Denis Charbit and Nicole Hochner), pp. 51–75.
Research Interests: French History, Comparative History, Holocaust Studies, Vichy France, Belgian History, and 9 moreComparative Historical Analysis, Holocaust, Dutch History, Jewish council, Holocaust Shoah, Holocaust History and Historiography, Holocaust Joodsche Raad Jewish Council Archival Science, Comparative/Transnational History, and Jewish Responses to the Holocaust
An abridged version of this paper, co-authored with Dr. RON ZELLER, was presented as a lecture at the international workshop "Der Holocaust in Europa: Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede bei der Implementierung des Holocaust in West- und... more
An abridged version of this paper, co-authored with Dr. RON ZELLER, was presented as a lecture at the international workshop "Der Holocaust in Europa: Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede bei der Implementierung des Holocaust in West- und Osteuropa" (The Holocaust in Europe: Similarities and Differences in the Implementation of the Holocaust in Western and Eastern Europe), organized by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung in Jerusalem, and the Akademie für Politische Bildung, Tutzing, Germany, held in Jerusalem, October 23–25, 2019.
KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Prof. Moshe Zimmermann.
For the full text, in German, see author's profile at ResearchGate.net: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pim_Griffioen
Vortrag (Ko-Autor: Dr. Ron Zeller) während des Workshops “Der Holocaust in Europa: Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede bei der Implementierung des Holocaust in West- und Osteuropa”, veranstaltet von der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS), Jerusalem, und der Akademie für Politische Bildung, Tutzing. Konferenzort: KAS in Jerusalem, 23.–25. Oktober 2019.
KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Prof. Moshe Zimmermann.
For the full text, in German, see author's profile at ResearchGate.net: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pim_Griffioen
Vortrag (Ko-Autor: Dr. Ron Zeller) während des Workshops “Der Holocaust in Europa: Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede bei der Implementierung des Holocaust in West- und Osteuropa”, veranstaltet von der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS), Jerusalem, und der Akademie für Politische Bildung, Tutzing. Konferenzort: KAS in Jerusalem, 23.–25. Oktober 2019.
Research Interests:
Essay published in "ANNE FRANK HOUSE". This new museum catologue, published in September 2018, follows the route through the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam: the Secret Annex plays a central role. How did the group of eight people keep... more
Essay published in "ANNE FRANK HOUSE". This new museum catologue, published in September 2018, follows the route through the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam: the Secret Annex plays a central role. How did the group of eight people keep going while they were in hiding there for more than two years? Who provided them with food? How did they follow the news? What were the dangers? In addition, the fate of everyone in the group is described in detail, Anne Frank as a writer, and the inspiration which Otto Frank and many others found in her words after the war.
Of the countries in Western Europe occupied by the Nazis, the Netherlands suffered the largest number as a result of the persecution, deportation and extermination of the Jews, both in terms of percentages and in absolute numbers. This essay, co-authored with Dr. Ron Zeller, is devoted to the question how this can be explained, by making a comparison between the Netherlands and Belgium and France. At the end of the catalogue references are made to sources and literature consulted in writing this essay. This first edition of the new museum catalogue has been published in eight languages: English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Hebrew, and Dutch.
This file contains the English, German and French versions of this essay.
Of the countries in Western Europe occupied by the Nazis, the Netherlands suffered the largest number as a result of the persecution, deportation and extermination of the Jews, both in terms of percentages and in absolute numbers. This essay, co-authored with Dr. Ron Zeller, is devoted to the question how this can be explained, by making a comparison between the Netherlands and Belgium and France. At the end of the catalogue references are made to sources and literature consulted in writing this essay. This first edition of the new museum catalogue has been published in eight languages: English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Hebrew, and Dutch.
This file contains the English, German and French versions of this essay.
Research Interests:
This unpublished paper (20 pages, 6,400 words in the text + 45 footnotes) was presented in an abridged version as a lecture at the international conference 'The Nations of Europe Facing the Holocaust', Session V: West European Countries... more
This unpublished paper (20 pages, 6,400 words in the text + 45 footnotes) was presented in an abridged version as a lecture at the international conference 'The Nations of Europe Facing the Holocaust', Session V: West European Countries under Occupation (Moderator: Dr. Marcin Urynowicz). This paper includes references to the most recent relevant research literature on this topic.
The conference was organized by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), Historical Research Office, December 6–8, 2017, in Warsaw.
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS: Prof. Andrzej Żbikowski, Prof. Antony Polonsky.
Due to (international) political controversy, which ignited shortly after conclusion of the conference, the collected articles will not be published in an edited volume.
The conference was organized by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), Historical Research Office, December 6–8, 2017, in Warsaw.
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS: Prof. Andrzej Żbikowski, Prof. Antony Polonsky.
Due to (international) political controversy, which ignited shortly after conclusion of the conference, the collected articles will not be published in an edited volume.
Research Interests:
Historical introduction on the activities of the various rescue groups in Holland that saved Jewish children and the postwar conflict about the guardianship of the orphans among them. In 1942, when the deportations of Dutch Jews began,... more
Historical introduction on the activities of the various rescue groups in Holland that saved Jewish children and the postwar conflict about the guardianship of the orphans among them. In 1942, when the deportations of Dutch Jews began, there was still no organized network for hiding the Jews, but several underground networks operated separately, mainly in an effort to save children. Interesting details about the various organizations are found in this introduction to the book.
PUBLISHED IN HEBREW IN: Miep Groenendijk, ‘Today J. came to us’ ["Vandaag J. haar intrede gedaan."]. The story of the hiding and rescue of a Jewish girl in the occupied Netherlands. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2016; pp. 7–16. Translated from the Dutch by Chava Diner. ISBN: 9789653085114.
For a book review, in Hebrew, on Facebook, see: https://www.facebook.com/546242655475645/photos/a.546244602142117.1073741827.546242655475645/805229446243630
מבוא היסטורי מאת פּים חריפיוּן מתאר את פעילויות תנועות ההצלה השונות בהולנד בדגש על הצלת ילדים.
בשנת 1942, כשהחלו הגירושים של יהודי הולנד, עדיין לא פעלה רשת מסודרת להסתרת היהודים, אולם כמה רשתות מתחתרתיות פעלו בנפרד, בעיקר במאמץ להציל ילדים. פרטים מעניינים על ההתארגנויות השונות מצויים במבוא לספר.
.מיפ חרוננדייק, היום הגיעה אלינו י׳. סיפור הסתרתה והצלתה של ילדה יהודייה בהולנד הכבושה
.יצה לאור ע״י הוצאת יד ושם, בשנת 2016, עמ' 16–7 , מכיל 96 עמודים
.תרגמה מהולנדית: חוה דינר
PUBLISHED IN HEBREW IN: Miep Groenendijk, ‘Today J. came to us’ ["Vandaag J. haar intrede gedaan."]. The story of the hiding and rescue of a Jewish girl in the occupied Netherlands. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2016; pp. 7–16. Translated from the Dutch by Chava Diner. ISBN: 9789653085114.
For a book review, in Hebrew, on Facebook, see: https://www.facebook.com/546242655475645/photos/a.546244602142117.1073741827.546242655475645/805229446243630
מבוא היסטורי מאת פּים חריפיוּן מתאר את פעילויות תנועות ההצלה השונות בהולנד בדגש על הצלת ילדים.
בשנת 1942, כשהחלו הגירושים של יהודי הולנד, עדיין לא פעלה רשת מסודרת להסתרת היהודים, אולם כמה רשתות מתחתרתיות פעלו בנפרד, בעיקר במאמץ להציל ילדים. פרטים מעניינים על ההתארגנויות השונות מצויים במבוא לספר.
.מיפ חרוננדייק, היום הגיעה אלינו י׳. סיפור הסתרתה והצלתה של ילדה יהודייה בהולנד הכבושה
.יצה לאור ע״י הוצאת יד ושם, בשנת 2016, עמ' 16–7 , מכיל 96 עמודים
.תרגמה מהולנדית: חוה דינר
Research Interests:
ABSTRACT: During the German occupation of the Netherlands, 1940-1945, the Westerbork camp for Jewish refugees from Germany, established by the Netherlands' government in 1939, was transformed into a transit camp under the command of... more
ABSTRACT:
During the German occupation of the Netherlands, 1940-1945, the Westerbork camp for Jewish refugees from Germany, established by the Netherlands' government in 1939, was transformed into a transit camp under the command of the German SS police. From here 93 trains with a total of more than 100,000 Jews left for the German extermination and concentration camps between mid-July 1942 and mid-September 1944. This chapter describes the internal functioning of the camp as part of the German anti-Jewish policy and some aspects of social and cultural life of the internees. Finally, it also pays some attention to the post-war history of the camp site.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG:
Während der deutschen Besetzung der Niederlande 1940-1945 wurde das 1939 von der niederländischen Regierung errichtete Lager Westerbork für jüdische Flüchtlinge aus Deutschland in ein Durchgangslager unter dem Kommando der deutschen SS-Polizei umgewandelt. Von hier aus fuhren zwischen Mitte Juli 1942 und Mitte September 1944 93 Züge mit insgesamt mehr als 100.000 Juden in die deutschen Vernichtungs- und Konzentrationslager. Dieser Artikel beschreibt die interne Funktionsweise des Lagers als Teil der deutschen antijüdischen Politik und einige Aspekte des sozialen und kulturellen Lebens der Lagerinternierten. Schließlich widmet es sich auch der Nachkriegsgeschichte des Lagerplatzes.
During the German occupation of the Netherlands, 1940-1945, the Westerbork camp for Jewish refugees from Germany, established by the Netherlands' government in 1939, was transformed into a transit camp under the command of the German SS police. From here 93 trains with a total of more than 100,000 Jews left for the German extermination and concentration camps between mid-July 1942 and mid-September 1944. This chapter describes the internal functioning of the camp as part of the German anti-Jewish policy and some aspects of social and cultural life of the internees. Finally, it also pays some attention to the post-war history of the camp site.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG:
Während der deutschen Besetzung der Niederlande 1940-1945 wurde das 1939 von der niederländischen Regierung errichtete Lager Westerbork für jüdische Flüchtlinge aus Deutschland in ein Durchgangslager unter dem Kommando der deutschen SS-Polizei umgewandelt. Von hier aus fuhren zwischen Mitte Juli 1942 und Mitte September 1944 93 Züge mit insgesamt mehr als 100.000 Juden in die deutschen Vernichtungs- und Konzentrationslager. Dieser Artikel beschreibt die interne Funktionsweise des Lagers als Teil der deutschen antijüdischen Politik und einige Aspekte des sozialen und kulturellen Lebens der Lagerinternierten. Schließlich widmet es sich auch der Nachkriegsgeschichte des Lagerplatzes.
Research Interests:
CO-AUTHORED WITH DR. RON ZELLER. Published in: Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały pismo Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów (Holocaust. Studies and Materials, published by the Polish Center for Holocaust Research), numer 11, Editors: Barbara... more
CO-AUTHORED WITH DR. RON ZELLER. Published in: Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały pismo Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów (Holocaust. Studies and Materials, published by the Polish Center for Holocaust Research), numer 11, Editors: Barbara Engelking, Jan Grabowski, Jacek Leociak, Dariusz Libionka, Jakub Petelewicz, Alina Skibińska. Warszawa, grudzień 2015 (December 2015), pp. 90 ̶ 130 (translated by Jerzy Giebułtowski). Publikacja zrealizowana przy udziale środków: PZU Fundacja, Stowarzyszenie Żydowski Instytut Historyczny w Polsce, Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. This is an augmented edition, with comparative outlines and updated annotation.
ABSTRACT:
This article focuses on a comparison of three stages of the persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands, France and Belgium during the Second World War: the beginning of the German occupation in the summer of 1940, the Anti-Jewish policies in each of the three countries from the summer of 1940 to the summer of 1942, including the responses these policies generated in society, and the stage of systematic deportations, hiding and escape from the summer of 1942 until the end of the occupation. References are made to archival key-documents. The conclusion includes an evaluation of the share of the indigenous, regular police in the three countries in carrying out the arrests of Jews for deportation by the German occupiers.
A slightly abridged, earlier English version of this text, with comparative schemata, was presented by the authors as guest lecturers during the EHRI Summer School for Ph.D. candidates, organized by and held at the Mémorial de la Shoah, Paris, July 15–August 2, 2013 (EHRI = European Holocaust Research Infrastructure, funded by the European Union).
ABSTRACT:
This article focuses on a comparison of three stages of the persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands, France and Belgium during the Second World War: the beginning of the German occupation in the summer of 1940, the Anti-Jewish policies in each of the three countries from the summer of 1940 to the summer of 1942, including the responses these policies generated in society, and the stage of systematic deportations, hiding and escape from the summer of 1942 until the end of the occupation. References are made to archival key-documents. The conclusion includes an evaluation of the share of the indigenous, regular police in the three countries in carrying out the arrests of Jews for deportation by the German occupiers.
A slightly abridged, earlier English version of this text, with comparative schemata, was presented by the authors as guest lecturers during the EHRI Summer School for Ph.D. candidates, organized by and held at the Mémorial de la Shoah, Paris, July 15–August 2, 2013 (EHRI = European Holocaust Research Infrastructure, funded by the European Union).
Research Interests: French History, Comparative History, Holocaust Studies, Vichy France, Belgian History, and 10 moreComparative Historical Analysis, Police History, Holocaust, Dutch History, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Holocaust History and Historiography, Western European History, Vichy collaboration, Vichy Regime, and Jewish Survival Rates
CO-AUTHORED WITH DR. RON ZELLER. Published in: Peter Romijn et al., THE PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS IN THE NETHERLANDS, 1940–1945. NEW PERSPECTIVES (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press/Vossiuspers UvA/NIOD, December 2012. ISBN:... more
CO-AUTHORED WITH DR. RON ZELLER. Published in: Peter Romijn et al., THE PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS IN THE NETHERLANDS, 1940–1945. NEW PERSPECTIVES (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press/Vossiuspers UvA/NIOD, December 2012. ISBN: 9789056297237), pp. 55–92.
An earlier version of this article was presented as a paper at the research workshop on day two of the International Conference on the "Holocaust and other genocides. Uses, Abuses and Misuses of the Holocaust Paradigm", organized within the framework of the International Task Force (ITF) for cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research, The Netherlands' Chairmanship 2011, held in the Peace Palace, The Hague, November 27–28, 2011. Keynote speakers: Prof. Eric Weitz, Prof. Abram de Swaan, Prof. Christian Gerlach, Prof. Debórah Dwork.
As of January 2013, the ITF, which is an inter-governmental organization established in 1998, is called the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Core of its mission is formulated as follows:
"We must strengthen the moral commitment of our peoples, and the political commitment of our governments, to ensure that future generations can understand the causes of the Holocaust and reflect upon its consequences.”
Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust.
An earlier version of this article was presented as a paper at the research workshop on day two of the International Conference on the "Holocaust and other genocides. Uses, Abuses and Misuses of the Holocaust Paradigm", organized within the framework of the International Task Force (ITF) for cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research, The Netherlands' Chairmanship 2011, held in the Peace Palace, The Hague, November 27–28, 2011. Keynote speakers: Prof. Eric Weitz, Prof. Abram de Swaan, Prof. Christian Gerlach, Prof. Debórah Dwork.
As of January 2013, the ITF, which is an inter-governmental organization established in 1998, is called the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Core of its mission is formulated as follows:
"We must strengthen the moral commitment of our peoples, and the political commitment of our governments, to ensure that future generations can understand the causes of the Holocaust and reflect upon its consequences.”
Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust.
Research Interests:
ABSTRACT: In view of the already existing research literature on the persecution in Belgium, it seems as if all aspects of this subject have already been sufficiently cleared up. Insa Meinen’s book shows, however, that more accurate... more
ABSTRACT:
In view of the already existing research literature on the persecution in Belgium, it seems as if all aspects of this subject have already been sufficiently cleared up. Insa Meinen’s book shows, however, that more accurate research yields new insights on how precisely most Jews, who were deported from Belgium, came into German hands. It also provides information on the various ways Jews tried to evade deportation. The study is based on new research on German documentation regarding the arresting of Jews who tried to hide or to escape abroad. The book is innovative in its description and insights. A Dutch translation of this book was published by De Bezige Bij in 2011. A French-language edition, "La Shoah en Belgique", translated by Sylvaine Gillot Soreau, was published by Renaissance du Livre, Waterloo, Belgium, 2012.
Published in: YAD VASHEM STUDIES, Vol. 39-1 (2011), pp. 289–296.
This review article is an annotated and slightly augmented version of the edition published in German in 'Einsicht' 05. Bulletin des Fritz Bauer Instituts, 2011.
In view of the already existing research literature on the persecution in Belgium, it seems as if all aspects of this subject have already been sufficiently cleared up. Insa Meinen’s book shows, however, that more accurate research yields new insights on how precisely most Jews, who were deported from Belgium, came into German hands. It also provides information on the various ways Jews tried to evade deportation. The study is based on new research on German documentation regarding the arresting of Jews who tried to hide or to escape abroad. The book is innovative in its description and insights. A Dutch translation of this book was published by De Bezige Bij in 2011. A French-language edition, "La Shoah en Belgique", translated by Sylvaine Gillot Soreau, was published by Renaissance du Livre, Waterloo, Belgium, 2012.
Published in: YAD VASHEM STUDIES, Vol. 39-1 (2011), pp. 289–296.
This review article is an annotated and slightly augmented version of the edition published in German in 'Einsicht' 05. Bulletin des Fritz Bauer Instituts, 2011.
Research Interests:
.יד ושם - קובץ מחקרים ל"ט 1 (ירושלים תשע"א - 2011), עמ' 239–233
Research Interests:
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Angesichts der bereits vorhandenen Forschungsliteratur zur Verfolgung der Juden in Belgien scheint es, als seien alle Aspekte dieser Thematik bereits ausreichend aufgeklärt. Das Buch von Dr. Insa Meinen zeigt jedoch,... more
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG:
Angesichts der bereits vorhandenen Forschungsliteratur zur Verfolgung der Juden in Belgien scheint es, als seien alle Aspekte dieser Thematik bereits ausreichend aufgeklärt. Das Buch von Dr. Insa Meinen zeigt jedoch, dass genauere Forschungen neue Erkenntnisse darüber liefern, wie genau die meisten Juden, die aus Belgien deportiert wurden, in deutsche Hände gelangten. Es informiert auch über die verschiedenen Wege, mit denen Juden versuchten, sich der Deportation zu entziehen. Die Studie basiert auf neuen Recherchen zur deutschen Dokumentation über die Verhaftung von Juden, die versuchten sich zu verstecken oder ins Ausland zu fliehen. Das Buch ist innovativ in seiner Beschreibung und Einsichten. Eine niederländische Übersetzung dieses Buches wurde 2011 von De Bezige Bij veröffentlicht.
Veröffentlicht in Einsicht 05. Bulletin des Fritz Bauer Instituts (Frankfurt am Main, Frühjahr 2011), S. 70–72.
Eine leicht erweiterte Version dieses Artikels, mit Fußnoten, erschien in englischer Sprache in Yad Vashem Studies, Band 39-1 (2011), S. 289–296.
Angesichts der bereits vorhandenen Forschungsliteratur zur Verfolgung der Juden in Belgien scheint es, als seien alle Aspekte dieser Thematik bereits ausreichend aufgeklärt. Das Buch von Dr. Insa Meinen zeigt jedoch, dass genauere Forschungen neue Erkenntnisse darüber liefern, wie genau die meisten Juden, die aus Belgien deportiert wurden, in deutsche Hände gelangten. Es informiert auch über die verschiedenen Wege, mit denen Juden versuchten, sich der Deportation zu entziehen. Die Studie basiert auf neuen Recherchen zur deutschen Dokumentation über die Verhaftung von Juden, die versuchten sich zu verstecken oder ins Ausland zu fliehen. Das Buch ist innovativ in seiner Beschreibung und Einsichten. Eine niederländische Übersetzung dieses Buches wurde 2011 von De Bezige Bij veröffentlicht.
Veröffentlicht in Einsicht 05. Bulletin des Fritz Bauer Instituts (Frankfurt am Main, Frühjahr 2011), S. 70–72.
Eine leicht erweiterte Version dieses Artikels, mit Fußnoten, erschien in englischer Sprache in Yad Vashem Studies, Band 39-1 (2011), S. 289–296.
Research Interests:
Paper (first draft) presented as a lecture during a researchers seminar at the International Institute for Holocaust Research, Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, November 11, 2010.
Research Interests:
ABSTRACT: About 25 percent of approximately 320,000 Jews in France did not survive the Holocaust, whereas 75 percent of the 140,000 Jews in the Netherlands perished. To what extent can these differences be explained by a comparison of... more
ABSTRACT:
About 25 percent of approximately 320,000 Jews in France did not survive the Holocaust, whereas 75 percent of the 140,000 Jews in the Netherlands perished. To what extent can these differences be explained by a comparison of anti-Jewish policy and the conduct of the deportations in the two countries? The present contribution compares the establishment of occupation regimes (1940) and their subsequent anti-Jewish policies (1940–1942), devoting special attention to competency disputes. The authors then compare the countries’ arrangements for the deportations (1942–1944), focusing on the relative availability of transport, the size of the available police forces, and the latitude of action of the German agencies involved.
Co-authored with Ron Zeller. Published in 'HOLOCAUST AND GENOCIDE STUDIES', Vol. 20, Number 3 (Oxford, UK/Washington, D.C.: Oxford University Press / United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [USHMM], Winter 2006-2007), pp. 437–473.
An earlier version of this article was presented as a paper at the Third Annual Conference of the Chancellor Rose and Ray Wolfe Chair in Holocaust Studies, “The Holocaust in the Netherlands: Comparisons, Assessments, and Significance,” organized by Prof. Dr. Michael R. Marrus and held at the Munk Centre for International Studies of the University of Toronto, Canada, in 2004.
About 25 percent of approximately 320,000 Jews in France did not survive the Holocaust, whereas 75 percent of the 140,000 Jews in the Netherlands perished. To what extent can these differences be explained by a comparison of anti-Jewish policy and the conduct of the deportations in the two countries? The present contribution compares the establishment of occupation regimes (1940) and their subsequent anti-Jewish policies (1940–1942), devoting special attention to competency disputes. The authors then compare the countries’ arrangements for the deportations (1942–1944), focusing on the relative availability of transport, the size of the available police forces, and the latitude of action of the German agencies involved.
Co-authored with Ron Zeller. Published in 'HOLOCAUST AND GENOCIDE STUDIES', Vol. 20, Number 3 (Oxford, UK/Washington, D.C.: Oxford University Press / United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [USHMM], Winter 2006-2007), pp. 437–473.
An earlier version of this article was presented as a paper at the Third Annual Conference of the Chancellor Rose and Ray Wolfe Chair in Holocaust Studies, “The Holocaust in the Netherlands: Comparisons, Assessments, and Significance,” organized by Prof. Dr. Michael R. Marrus and held at the Munk Centre for International Studies of the University of Toronto, Canada, in 2004.
Research Interests:
Co-authored with Ron Zeller. Paper presented at the international conference "The Shoah in Western Europe: Belgium, France and the Netherlands in comparison"/"La Shoah en Europe de l'Ouest", organized by the Centre d'histoire de l'Europe... more
Co-authored with Ron Zeller. Paper presented at the international conference "The Shoah in Western Europe: Belgium, France and the Netherlands in comparison"/"La Shoah en Europe de l'Ouest", organized by the Centre d'histoire de l'Europe du vingtième siècle (Chevs), SCIENCES PO, PARIS (Institut d'études politiques de Paris), in cooperation with the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Amsterdam, held at Sciences Po in Paris, December 1–3, 2005. Session 1: "The structures of Occupation and of persecution" (Chair: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Seibel).
Research Interests:
Paper presented at the international conference "The Shoah in Western Europe: Belgium, France and the Netherlands in comparison"/"La Shoah en Europe de l'Ouest", organized by the Centre d'histoire de l'Europe du vingtième siècle (Chevs),... more
Paper presented at the international conference "The Shoah in Western Europe: Belgium, France and the Netherlands in comparison"/"La Shoah en Europe de l'Ouest", organized by the Centre d'histoire de l'Europe du vingtième siècle (Chevs), SCIENCES PO, PARIS (Institut d'études politiques de Paris), in cooperation with the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Amsterdam, held in Paris, December 1–3, 2005. Session 2: "Aryanization and despoilment" (Chair: Dr. Jean-Marc Dreyfus).
Research Interests:
Co-authored with Ron Zeller. Synopsis of the paper presented at the Academy Colloquium “The destruction of European Jewry: structures, motivations, opportunities”, held at the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW),... more
Co-authored with Ron Zeller. Synopsis of the paper presented at the Academy Colloquium “The destruction of European Jewry: structures, motivations, opportunities”, held at the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 10–13 December 2003.
Keynote speakers: Prof. David Bankier, Prof. Hans Mommsen.
Keynote speakers: Prof. David Bankier, Prof. Hans Mommsen.
Research Interests:
Co-authored with Ron Zeller. Paper presented at the Fourth European Social Science History Conference (ESSHC), The Hague, The Netherlands, February 27–March 2, 2002; Network Theory and Historiography (Chair: Prof. C.F.G. Lorenz), Session... more
Co-authored with Ron Zeller. Paper presented at the Fourth European Social Science History Conference (ESSHC), The Hague, The Netherlands, February 27–March 2, 2002; Network Theory and Historiography (Chair: Prof. C.F.G. Lorenz), Session G-15: 'Problems of Comparative Explanation' (Chair: Prof. A.A. van den Braembussche).
Research Interests:
('The size of the Jewish population in Belgium before and during the occupation can be traced') Co-authored with Ron Zeller. Published in: BELGISCH ISRAËLITISCH WEEKBLAD, August 27, 1999, p. 1 and 5 (with references to sources).
Research Interests:
Cet article constitue une version abrégée et adaptée d’une étude ayant obtenu en novembre 1995 le prix Hartog Beem du Comité pour l’Histoire et la Culture des Juifs aux Pays-Bas, Académie royale néerlandaise des Sciences et des Arts... more
Cet article constitue une version abrégée et adaptée d’une étude ayant obtenu en novembre 1995 le prix Hartog Beem du Comité pour l’Histoire et la Culture des Juifs aux Pays-Bas, Académie royale néerlandaise des Sciences et des Arts (KNAW), Amsterdam.
This article is an abridged version of the study which was awarded the Hartog Beem Prize 1995 by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam. Published in CAHIERS D'HISTOIRE DU TEMPS PRÉSENT / BIJDRAGEN TOT DE EIGENTIJDSE GESCHIEDENIS (CHTP/BEG), No. 5 (Brussels: CEGES/SOMA, 1999), pp. 73–132. Co-authored with Ron Zeller.
ABSTRACT:
Of the 140,000 Jews living in the Netherlands in May 1940, about 104,000 did not survive the German occupation and persecution. This is relatively and absolutely the highest number of murdered Jews in the whole of Western Europe. Of the approximately 66,000 Jews in Belgium 25,000 did not survive. As yet we have no detailed comparative examination of the reasons for this large discrepancy in the number of Jewish victims in two states which share a border and in many respects are very similar. After a discussion of attempts to date to explain the high number of Dutch Jewish victims, the authors compare the situation in the Netherlands with that of Belgium, differentiating between the persecutors (the German occupying regime and its anti-Jewish policies), local factors (the conduct of the authorities and of the non-Jewish population, and so forth), and the victims (primarily their reactions). The results of the comparison are summarized in tables that accompany the text. The freedom of action of the German police involved and the methods used by them in each of the countries during the four stages of the deportations were of major importance. The German persecutors in Holland created a deportation system by setting up special work camps for Jewish men and by the use of various calculated methods which enabled them to organize and implement the deportations uninteruptedly. They employed a system of temporary exemptions, which helped them to get rid of the Jews smoothly and by stages, so as to cause the minimum disruption in Dutch public life. In Belgium the occupiers only employed the relatively ill-organized method of large-scale, brutal roundups and mass arrests, which soon also had adverse effects. The second main explanatory factor was the extent of (organized) hiding opportunities for Jews and, more important, the period in which these opportunities materialized. This was determined by the rise of general (non-Jewish) and specifically Jewish underground organizations and the degree of subsequent co-operation. A third major factor was the interaction between persecutors and victims: the extent to which the persecutors continued to use the organizations imposed upon the Jewish populations (Joodsche Raad or Jewish Council in the Netherlands and the Association des Juifs en Belgique or AJB in Belgium) as instrument in the deportations, and the responses by the victims to the persecutor's methods. Jewish responses were determined both by the nature of the methods used and by the general background of the Jewish population: the degree of organization on the one hand, the degree of integration and assimilation on the other. In Belgium, during the roundups of August and September 1942, the remaining Jews - 90 percent of them had an East European immigrant background - reacted by going underground into 'illegality' as they set up their own clandestine network for hiding and escape. All this in co-operation with general Belgian resistance organizations, mostly of a leftist nature. In Holland there was a strong tendency among the Jewish population - living in this country already for centuries and relatively well integrated and partly assimilated - at least during the first months of the deportations, to respond to the legal, apparent 'escape' opportunities (temporary exemptions) that the persecutors - by way of deception - seemed to offer them. Unlike in Belgium, in Holland organized resistance on a country-wide basis and general hiding networks, for both non-Jews and Jews, only materialized after the big strike wave of late April and early May 1943. Other factors contributed to a further enlargement of the discrepancy in the victimization rate; however, when judged on their own merits, these other factors were not of decisive, but of secondary importance.
This article is an abridged version of the study which was awarded the Hartog Beem Prize 1995 by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), Amsterdam. Published in CAHIERS D'HISTOIRE DU TEMPS PRÉSENT / BIJDRAGEN TOT DE EIGENTIJDSE GESCHIEDENIS (CHTP/BEG), No. 5 (Brussels: CEGES/SOMA, 1999), pp. 73–132. Co-authored with Ron Zeller.
ABSTRACT:
Of the 140,000 Jews living in the Netherlands in May 1940, about 104,000 did not survive the German occupation and persecution. This is relatively and absolutely the highest number of murdered Jews in the whole of Western Europe. Of the approximately 66,000 Jews in Belgium 25,000 did not survive. As yet we have no detailed comparative examination of the reasons for this large discrepancy in the number of Jewish victims in two states which share a border and in many respects are very similar. After a discussion of attempts to date to explain the high number of Dutch Jewish victims, the authors compare the situation in the Netherlands with that of Belgium, differentiating between the persecutors (the German occupying regime and its anti-Jewish policies), local factors (the conduct of the authorities and of the non-Jewish population, and so forth), and the victims (primarily their reactions). The results of the comparison are summarized in tables that accompany the text. The freedom of action of the German police involved and the methods used by them in each of the countries during the four stages of the deportations were of major importance. The German persecutors in Holland created a deportation system by setting up special work camps for Jewish men and by the use of various calculated methods which enabled them to organize and implement the deportations uninteruptedly. They employed a system of temporary exemptions, which helped them to get rid of the Jews smoothly and by stages, so as to cause the minimum disruption in Dutch public life. In Belgium the occupiers only employed the relatively ill-organized method of large-scale, brutal roundups and mass arrests, which soon also had adverse effects. The second main explanatory factor was the extent of (organized) hiding opportunities for Jews and, more important, the period in which these opportunities materialized. This was determined by the rise of general (non-Jewish) and specifically Jewish underground organizations and the degree of subsequent co-operation. A third major factor was the interaction between persecutors and victims: the extent to which the persecutors continued to use the organizations imposed upon the Jewish populations (Joodsche Raad or Jewish Council in the Netherlands and the Association des Juifs en Belgique or AJB in Belgium) as instrument in the deportations, and the responses by the victims to the persecutor's methods. Jewish responses were determined both by the nature of the methods used and by the general background of the Jewish population: the degree of organization on the one hand, the degree of integration and assimilation on the other. In Belgium, during the roundups of August and September 1942, the remaining Jews - 90 percent of them had an East European immigrant background - reacted by going underground into 'illegality' as they set up their own clandestine network for hiding and escape. All this in co-operation with general Belgian resistance organizations, mostly of a leftist nature. In Holland there was a strong tendency among the Jewish population - living in this country already for centuries and relatively well integrated and partly assimilated - at least during the first months of the deportations, to respond to the legal, apparent 'escape' opportunities (temporary exemptions) that the persecutors - by way of deception - seemed to offer them. Unlike in Belgium, in Holland organized resistance on a country-wide basis and general hiding networks, for both non-Jews and Jews, only materialized after the big strike wave of late April and early May 1943. Other factors contributed to a further enlargement of the discrepancy in the victimization rate; however, when judged on their own merits, these other factors were not of decisive, but of secondary importance.
Research Interests:
Co-authored with Ron Zeller. Published in: THE NETHERLANDS' JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, Vol. 34, No. 2, special issue on Persecution and Repression, editor and introduction: Prof. Dr. Cornelis J. Lammers (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1998), pp.... more
Co-authored with Ron Zeller. Published in: THE NETHERLANDS' JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, Vol. 34, No. 2, special issue on Persecution and Repression, editor and introduction: Prof. Dr. Cornelis J. Lammers (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1998), pp. 126–164.
ABSTRACT:
Of the 140,000 Jews living in the Netherlands in May 1940, about 104,000 did not survive the German occupation and persecution. This is relatively and absolutely the highest number of murdered Jews in the whole of Western Europe. Of the approximately 66,000 Jews in Belgium 25,000 did not survive. As yet we have no detailed comparative examination of the reasons for this large discrepancy in the number of Jewish victims in two states which share a border and in many respects are very similar. After a discussion of attempts to date to explain the high number of Dutch Jewish victims, the authors compare the situation in the Netherlands with that of Belgium, differentiating between the persecutors (the German occupying regime and its anti-Jewish policies), local factors (the conduct of the authorities and of the non-Jewish population, and so forth), and the victims (primarily their reactions). The results of the comparison are summarized in tables that accompany the text. The freedom of action of the German police involved and the methods used by them in each of the countries during the four stages of the deportations were of major importance. The German persecutors in Holland created a deportation system by setting up special work camps for Jewish men and by the use of various calculated methods which enabled them to organize and implement the deportations uninteruptedly. They employed a system of temporary exemptions, which helped them to get rid of the Jews smoothly and by stages, so as to cause the minimum disruption in Dutch public life. In Belgium the occupiers only employed the relatively ill-organized method of large-scale, brutal roundups and mass arrests, which soon also had adverse effects. The second main explanatory factor was the extent of (organized) hiding opportunities for Jews and, more important, the period in which these opportunities materialized. This was determined by the rise of general (non-Jewish) and specifically Jewish underground organizations and the degree of subsequent co-operation. A third major factor was the interaction between persecutors and victims: the extent to which the persecutors continued to use the organizations imposed upon the Jewish populations (Joodsche Raad or Jewish Council in the Netherlands and the Association des Juifs en Belgique or AJB in Belgium) as instrument in the deportations, and the responses by the victims to the persecutor's methods. Jewish responses were determined both by the nature of the methods used and by the general background of the Jewish population: the degree of organization on the one hand, the degree of integration and assimilation on the other. In Belgium, during the roundups of August and September 1942, the remaining Jews - 90 percent of them had an East European immigrant background - reacted by going underground into 'illegality' as they set up their own clandestine network for hiding and escape. All this in co-operation with general Belgian resistance organizations, mostly of a leftist nature. In Holland there was a strong tendency among the Jewish population - living in this country already for centuries and relatively well integrated and partly assimilated - at least during the first months of the deportations, to respond to the legal, apparent 'escape' opportunities (temporary exemptions) that the persecutors - by way of deception - seemed to offer them. Unlike in Belgium, in Holland organized resistance on a country-wide basis and general hiding networks, for both non-Jews and Jews, only materialized after the big strike wave of late April and early May 1943. Other factors contributed to a further enlargement of the discrepancy in the victimization rate; however, when judged on their own merits, these other factors were not of decisive, but of secondary importance.
Co-authored with Ron Zeller. Published in: THE NETHERLANDS' JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, Vol. 34, No. 2, special issue on Persecution and Repression, editor and introduction: Prof. Dr. Cornelis J. Lammers (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1998), pp. 126–164.
ABSTRACT:
Of the 140,000 Jews living in the Netherlands in May 1940, about 104,000 did not survive the German occupation and persecution. This is relatively and absolutely the highest number of murdered Jews in the whole of Western Europe. Of the approximately 66,000 Jews in Belgium 25,000 did not survive. As yet we have no detailed comparative examination of the reasons for this large discrepancy in the number of Jewish victims in two states which share a border and in many respects are very similar. After a discussion of attempts to date to explain the high number of Dutch Jewish victims, the authors compare the situation in the Netherlands with that of Belgium, differentiating between the persecutors (the German occupying regime and its anti-Jewish policies), local factors (the conduct of the authorities and of the non-Jewish population, and so forth), and the victims (primarily their reactions). The results of the comparison are summarized in tables that accompany the text. The freedom of action of the German police involved and the methods used by them in each of the countries during the four stages of the deportations were of major importance. The German persecutors in Holland created a deportation system by setting up special work camps for Jewish men and by the use of various calculated methods which enabled them to organize and implement the deportations uninteruptedly. They employed a system of temporary exemptions, which helped them to get rid of the Jews smoothly and by stages, so as to cause the minimum disruption in Dutch public life. In Belgium the occupiers only employed the relatively ill-organized method of large-scale, brutal roundups and mass arrests, which soon also had adverse effects. The second main explanatory factor was the extent of (organized) hiding opportunities for Jews and, more important, the period in which these opportunities materialized. This was determined by the rise of general (non-Jewish) and specifically Jewish underground organizations and the degree of subsequent co-operation. A third major factor was the interaction between persecutors and victims: the extent to which the persecutors continued to use the organizations imposed upon the Jewish populations (Joodsche Raad or Jewish Council in the Netherlands and the Association des Juifs en Belgique or AJB in Belgium) as instrument in the deportations, and the responses by the victims to the persecutor's methods. Jewish responses were determined both by the nature of the methods used and by the general background of the Jewish population: the degree of organization on the one hand, the degree of integration and assimilation on the other. In Belgium, during the roundups of August and September 1942, the remaining Jews - 90 percent of them had an East European immigrant background - reacted by going underground into 'illegality' as they set up their own clandestine network for hiding and escape. All this in co-operation with general Belgian resistance organizations, mostly of a leftist nature. In Holland there was a strong tendency among the Jewish population - living in this country already for centuries and relatively well integrated and partly assimilated - at least during the first months of the deportations, to respond to the legal, apparent 'escape' opportunities (temporary exemptions) that the persecutors - by way of deception - seemed to offer them. Unlike in Belgium, in Holland organized resistance on a country-wide basis and general hiding networks, for both non-Jews and Jews, only materialized after the big strike wave of late April and early May 1943. Other factors contributed to a further enlargement of the discrepancy in the victimization rate; however, when judged on their own merits, these other factors were not of decisive, but of secondary importance.
Co-authored with Ron Zeller. Published in: THE NETHERLANDS' JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, Vol. 34, No. 2, special issue on Persecution and Repression, editor and introduction: Prof. Dr. Cornelis J. Lammers (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1998), pp. 126–164.
Research Interests:
דפים לחקר תקופת השואה, מאסף טו (עורך: יהויקים כוכבי, המכון לחקר תקופת השואה, משותף לאוניברסיטת חיפה ולבית לוחמי הגיטאות, תשנ"ט, סתיו 1998), עמ' 88–53 (The number of Holocaust victims in the Netherlands is relatively twice as high as in... more
דפים לחקר תקופת השואה, מאסף טו (עורך: יהויקים כוכבי, המכון לחקר תקופת השואה, משותף לאוניברסיטת חיפה ולבית לוחמי הגיטאות, תשנ"ט, סתיו 1998), עמ' 88–53
(The number of Holocaust victims in the Netherlands is relatively twice as high as in Belgium – Why? A Comparative Analysis). Co-authored with Ron Zeller.
ABSTRACT:
Of the 140,000 Jews living in the Netherlands in May 1940, about 104,000 did not survive the German occupation and persecution. This is relatively and absolutely the highest number of murdered Jews in the whole of Western Europe. Of the approximately 66,000 Jews in Belgium 25,000 did not survive. As yet we have no detailed comparative examination of the reasons for this large discrepancy in the number of Jewish victims in two states which share a border and in many respects are very similar. After a discussion of attempts to date to explain the high number of Dutch Jewish victims, the authors compare the situation in the Netherlands with that of Belgium, differentiating between the persecutors (the German occupying regime and its anti-Jewish policies), local factors (the conduct of the authorities and of the non-Jewish population, and so forth), and the victims (primarily their reactions). The results of the comparison are summarized in tables that accompany the text. The freedom of action of the German police involved and the methods used by them in each of the countries during the four stages of the deportations were of major importance. The German persecutors in Holland created a deportation system by setting up special work camps for Jewish men and by the use of various calculated methods which enabled them to organize and implement the deportations uninteruptedly. They employed a system of temporary exemptions, which helped them to get rid of the Jews smoothly and by stages, so as to cause the minimum disruption in Dutch public life. In Belgium the occupiers only employed the relatively ill-organized method of large-scale, brutal roundups and mass arrests, which soon also had adverse effects. The second main explanatory factor was the extent of (organized) hiding opportunities for Jews and, more important, the period in which these opportunities materialized. This was determined by the rise of general (non-Jewish) and specifically Jewish underground organizations and the degree of subsequent co-operation. A third major factor was the interaction between persecutors and victims: the extent to which the persecutors continued to use the organizations imposed upon the Jewish populations (Joodsche Raad or Jewish Council in the Netherlands and the Association des Juifs en Belgique or AJB in Belgium) as instrument in the deportations, and the responses by the victims to the persecutor's methods. Jewish responses were determined both by the nature of the methods used and by the general background of the Jewish population: the degree of organization on the one hand, the degree of integration and assimilation on the other. In Belgium, during the roundups of August and September 1942, the remaining Jews - 90 percent of them had an East European immigrant background - reacted by going underground into 'illegality' as they set up their own clandestine network for hiding and escape. All this in co-operation with general Belgian resistance organizations, mostly of a leftist nature. In Holland there was a strong tendency among the Jewish population - living in this country already for centuries and relatively well integrated and partly assimilated - at least during the first months of the deportations, to respond to the legal, apparent 'escape' opportunities (temporary exemptions) that the persecutors - by way of deception - seemed to offer them. Unlike in Belgium, in Holland organized resistance on a country-wide basis and general hiding networks, for both non-Jews and Jews, only materialized after the big strike wave of late April and early May 1943. Other factors contributed to a further enlargement of the discrepancy in the victimization rate; however, when judged on their own merits, these other factors were not of decisive, but of secondary importance.
(The number of Holocaust victims in the Netherlands is relatively twice as high as in Belgium – Why? A Comparative Analysis). Co-authored with Ron Zeller.
ABSTRACT:
Of the 140,000 Jews living in the Netherlands in May 1940, about 104,000 did not survive the German occupation and persecution. This is relatively and absolutely the highest number of murdered Jews in the whole of Western Europe. Of the approximately 66,000 Jews in Belgium 25,000 did not survive. As yet we have no detailed comparative examination of the reasons for this large discrepancy in the number of Jewish victims in two states which share a border and in many respects are very similar. After a discussion of attempts to date to explain the high number of Dutch Jewish victims, the authors compare the situation in the Netherlands with that of Belgium, differentiating between the persecutors (the German occupying regime and its anti-Jewish policies), local factors (the conduct of the authorities and of the non-Jewish population, and so forth), and the victims (primarily their reactions). The results of the comparison are summarized in tables that accompany the text. The freedom of action of the German police involved and the methods used by them in each of the countries during the four stages of the deportations were of major importance. The German persecutors in Holland created a deportation system by setting up special work camps for Jewish men and by the use of various calculated methods which enabled them to organize and implement the deportations uninteruptedly. They employed a system of temporary exemptions, which helped them to get rid of the Jews smoothly and by stages, so as to cause the minimum disruption in Dutch public life. In Belgium the occupiers only employed the relatively ill-organized method of large-scale, brutal roundups and mass arrests, which soon also had adverse effects. The second main explanatory factor was the extent of (organized) hiding opportunities for Jews and, more important, the period in which these opportunities materialized. This was determined by the rise of general (non-Jewish) and specifically Jewish underground organizations and the degree of subsequent co-operation. A third major factor was the interaction between persecutors and victims: the extent to which the persecutors continued to use the organizations imposed upon the Jewish populations (Joodsche Raad or Jewish Council in the Netherlands and the Association des Juifs en Belgique or AJB in Belgium) as instrument in the deportations, and the responses by the victims to the persecutor's methods. Jewish responses were determined both by the nature of the methods used and by the general background of the Jewish population: the degree of organization on the one hand, the degree of integration and assimilation on the other. In Belgium, during the roundups of August and September 1942, the remaining Jews - 90 percent of them had an East European immigrant background - reacted by going underground into 'illegality' as they set up their own clandestine network for hiding and escape. All this in co-operation with general Belgian resistance organizations, mostly of a leftist nature. In Holland there was a strong tendency among the Jewish population - living in this country already for centuries and relatively well integrated and partly assimilated - at least during the first months of the deportations, to respond to the legal, apparent 'escape' opportunities (temporary exemptions) that the persecutors - by way of deception - seemed to offer them. Unlike in Belgium, in Holland organized resistance on a country-wide basis and general hiding networks, for both non-Jews and Jews, only materialized after the big strike wave of late April and early May 1943. Other factors contributed to a further enlargement of the discrepancy in the victimization rate; however, when judged on their own merits, these other factors were not of decisive, but of secondary importance.
Research Interests:
SUMMARY: This article, co-authored with Ron Zeller, was published as part of a debate generated by two articles by Dr. Jozeph Michman, ‘Regering in ballingschap liet joden in de steek’ (‘Government in exile abandoned Jews’, NRC... more
SUMMARY:
This article, co-authored with Ron Zeller, was published as part of a debate generated by two articles by Dr. Jozeph Michman, ‘Regering in ballingschap liet joden in de steek’ (‘Government in exile abandoned Jews’, NRC Handelsblad, 14 May 1997), and ‘Wilhelmina had in 1940 het goede voorbeeld moeten geven’ (‘Wilhelmina should have set a good example in 1940’, NRC Handelsblad, 25 July 1997). These articles strongly suggested that the going into exile of Queen Wilhelmina in May 1940 had an immediate and decisive effect on Hitler's decision to replace the German military administration in the Netherlands with a civilian occupation administration, which in turn had fatal consequences for the scale of the catastrophe that struck the Jews in the Netherlands. This article, however, argues that the absence of Queen Wilhelmina in May 1940 was not decisive. A comparison with Belgium shows that there were many more factors at issue, the significance of which has first to be assessed by a careful analysis. There was the struggle for competencies between the top level of the German army and the ideological part of the regime, which was mainly represented by the SS, to conquer as much political power as possible in the administration of the occupied areas. Also significant was that the Nazis considered the Dutch (as well as the Norwegians and the Flemish) as a ‘Germanic brotherly people’, that should become part of the Greater German Empire. Moreover, the speedy military advance in the West and the quick military surrender of the Netherlands also played their part. All things considered, Hitler’s sudden decision to replace the freshly installed military administration by a civilian one, with a strong influence of the SS, can in itself be characterized as a typical example of the impulsiveness and improvisation of his decisions. Also in Belgium the fate of the military administration hung in the balance in June-July 1940. Almost also here – under strong pressure of the highest SS chief Himmler – a civilian administration was about to be installed. The reason this did not happen then, was – and this is essential – not the mere presence in the country of King Leopold, but his acceptance in principal, twice, of Hitler’s invitation for a meeting as a basis for possible negotiations. With this, Leopold proved sufficiently, in Hitler’s eyes, that he was ‘reasonable’ and maybe prepared to enter into a cooperation. With a civilian occupation administration in Flanders – which would signify the division of Belgium – he could never win Leopold over to his side. Military-strategic interests were also of significance: for the German army high command, which Hitler needed badly to realize his plans, Belgium served as a staging area for the intended attack on England. Thus the Belgium issue remained unresolved for the time being and the military administration was maintained. The objectives of both types of occupation regime – military or civilian – did not differ essentially with regard to the anti-Jewish policy. The military administration was more inclined to take into account the local circumstances in the implementation of this anti-Jewish policy, than its civilian counterpart. But this prudence was, ultimately, not of decisive importance for the course of the deportations. In September 1943 the last roundups of the remaining Jews were carried out in the Netherlands. In the same month in Belgium the last group of about 4,000 Jews with Belgian citizenship – who had been temporarily exempted from deportation by the military administration for political reasons – were definitively removed from the Belgian authorities’ influence and delivered to the SS for deportation.
Published in NRC HANDELSLBLAD, August 19, 1997, p. 7.
P.S.: Also the case of Norway shows that Hitler ordered the installation of a civilian occupation administration for the whole country in occupied Oslo soon after the beginning of the German attack in April 1940, while the Norwegian government (king and cabinet ministers) were still in the free northern part of the country. They went into exile to Britain only in June 1940. Hitler apparently didn't need any ostensibly 'legal' pretext (absence of king and government ministers) to appoint a 'Reichskommissar' as head of the civilian occupation regime in Norway. The cases of Norway and Belgium corroborate our arguments in the case of the Netherlands.
This article, co-authored with Ron Zeller, was published as part of a debate generated by two articles by Dr. Jozeph Michman, ‘Regering in ballingschap liet joden in de steek’ (‘Government in exile abandoned Jews’, NRC Handelsblad, 14 May 1997), and ‘Wilhelmina had in 1940 het goede voorbeeld moeten geven’ (‘Wilhelmina should have set a good example in 1940’, NRC Handelsblad, 25 July 1997). These articles strongly suggested that the going into exile of Queen Wilhelmina in May 1940 had an immediate and decisive effect on Hitler's decision to replace the German military administration in the Netherlands with a civilian occupation administration, which in turn had fatal consequences for the scale of the catastrophe that struck the Jews in the Netherlands. This article, however, argues that the absence of Queen Wilhelmina in May 1940 was not decisive. A comparison with Belgium shows that there were many more factors at issue, the significance of which has first to be assessed by a careful analysis. There was the struggle for competencies between the top level of the German army and the ideological part of the regime, which was mainly represented by the SS, to conquer as much political power as possible in the administration of the occupied areas. Also significant was that the Nazis considered the Dutch (as well as the Norwegians and the Flemish) as a ‘Germanic brotherly people’, that should become part of the Greater German Empire. Moreover, the speedy military advance in the West and the quick military surrender of the Netherlands also played their part. All things considered, Hitler’s sudden decision to replace the freshly installed military administration by a civilian one, with a strong influence of the SS, can in itself be characterized as a typical example of the impulsiveness and improvisation of his decisions. Also in Belgium the fate of the military administration hung in the balance in June-July 1940. Almost also here – under strong pressure of the highest SS chief Himmler – a civilian administration was about to be installed. The reason this did not happen then, was – and this is essential – not the mere presence in the country of King Leopold, but his acceptance in principal, twice, of Hitler’s invitation for a meeting as a basis for possible negotiations. With this, Leopold proved sufficiently, in Hitler’s eyes, that he was ‘reasonable’ and maybe prepared to enter into a cooperation. With a civilian occupation administration in Flanders – which would signify the division of Belgium – he could never win Leopold over to his side. Military-strategic interests were also of significance: for the German army high command, which Hitler needed badly to realize his plans, Belgium served as a staging area for the intended attack on England. Thus the Belgium issue remained unresolved for the time being and the military administration was maintained. The objectives of both types of occupation regime – military or civilian – did not differ essentially with regard to the anti-Jewish policy. The military administration was more inclined to take into account the local circumstances in the implementation of this anti-Jewish policy, than its civilian counterpart. But this prudence was, ultimately, not of decisive importance for the course of the deportations. In September 1943 the last roundups of the remaining Jews were carried out in the Netherlands. In the same month in Belgium the last group of about 4,000 Jews with Belgian citizenship – who had been temporarily exempted from deportation by the military administration for political reasons – were definitively removed from the Belgian authorities’ influence and delivered to the SS for deportation.
Published in NRC HANDELSLBLAD, August 19, 1997, p. 7.
P.S.: Also the case of Norway shows that Hitler ordered the installation of a civilian occupation administration for the whole country in occupied Oslo soon after the beginning of the German attack in April 1940, while the Norwegian government (king and cabinet ministers) were still in the free northern part of the country. They went into exile to Britain only in June 1940. Hitler apparently didn't need any ostensibly 'legal' pretext (absence of king and government ministers) to appoint a 'Reichskommissar' as head of the civilian occupation regime in Norway. The cases of Norway and Belgium corroborate our arguments in the case of the Netherlands.
Research Interests:
Published in March 1997 in "Oorlogsdocumentatie '40-'45. Achtste Jaarboek van het Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie" (War Documentation 1940-1945. Eighth Yearbook of the Netherlands' State Institute for War Documentation). Editors:... more
Published in March 1997 in "Oorlogsdocumentatie '40-'45. Achtste Jaarboek van het Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie" (War Documentation 1940-1945. Eighth Yearbook of the Netherlands' State Institute for War Documentation). Editors: G. Aalders, N.D.J. Barnouw, M. Berman, H. Daalder, D. van Galen Last, M. van Hennik, M. de Keizer, P. Romijn, E. Somers. Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 1997, pp. 10–63.
FROM COMMENTS IN THE PRESS:
> ‘Jews were extra vulnerable here’.
By Paul Arnoldussen
Why was the number of Jews deported and murdered during the war so much greater in the Netherlands than in Belgium? The persecution system has been of great importance in the Netherlands, according to historians Pim Griffioen and Ron Zeller in the Eighth Yearbook of the National Institute for War Documentation, which was published today.
In this they also disprove a number of theories. No, they say, it had nothing to do with a lack of forests and mountains – natural hiding places – and with very limited escape options in the Netherlands. The difference in the size of the German police apparatus does not appear to play a major role either. Historians have been researching the differences in the number of victims for more than fifteen years. In Denmark, almost all Jews managed to escape, in France 25 percent became victims, in Norway and Belgium forty percent and in the Netherlands at least 75 percent.
Griffioen and Zeller start by stating that the Netherlands had an occupation administration in which Nazi ideology played a major role, while in Belgium the German army (the Wehrmacht) was more in charge. It mainly focused on military interests.
This difference was not expressed in a greater police effort in the persecution, but in a systematic and precise implementation. In the Netherlands, one-seventh of the Jewish population was incarcerated in a labor camp or institution relatively soon after the beginning of the occupation, making them easy prey for deportation. There were no such labor camps in Belgium. In the Netherlands, the Jews were deliberately taken from their homes over a longer period of time – often by name and not randomly – and then removed. This included a policy of ‘exemptions’. Large groups were exempted from deportation ‘until further notice’. Those involved did their utmost to belong to these apparently safe groups and thus sought refuge in legality. Of course, those exemptions were later withdrawn one by one.
In Belgium, large-scale raids were carried out quickly and there were hardly any ‘tempting’ exemptions. After the major raids, many remaining Jews managed to go into hiding. Both in Belgium and in the Netherlands, approximately 25,000 to 27,000 Jews went into hiding, while at the start of the war 66,000 Jews lived in Belgium and 140,000 in the Netherlands. Unlike in the Netherlands, larger institutions in Belgium, such as hospitals, monasteries and the like, also played a role in the hiding. In Belgium, the resistance – and also the hiding – started earlier than in the Netherlands. The causes, according to the researchers, include the harsh suppression of the February strike in 1941, which caused great fear, and the good food situation compared to Belgium, which did not stimulate revolt.
It was also striking that the majority of Belgian Jews came from abroad and had only recently lived in Belgium. That turned out not to be a disadvantage; as a result, there was still a strong organizational culture, which soon led to the emergence of Jewish aid organizations and resistance groups. The Belgian ‘Jewish council’, which came into existence later than the Dutch one, also maintained contacts with the resistance, unlike the Dutch one.
Source: Paul Arnoldussen in Het Parool, Tuesday, March 25, 1997, p. 3. ■
> "Dutch Jews victims of salami tactics of the occupying force. A more sophisticated and systematic method enabled the German occupiers to deport more Jews from the Netherlands during World War II than from any other Western European country. Pim Griffioen and Ron Zeller conclude this in the eighth yearbook of the National Institute for War Documentation, which was released yesterday."
Source: Trouw, March 26, 1997. ■
> “…a detached and meticulous analysis”.
Source: Hendrik Jan Schoo, ‘Eerbetoon aan Presser’, in: Elsevier, vol. 53, no. 15 (April 12, 1997), p. 32. ■
> "Moralistic Dutch people continue to condemn the wrong past"
In the research by the historians Pim Griffioen and Ron Zeller into the question why in the Netherlands during the Second World War, compared to other Western European countries, the most Jews were deported and murdered, both in percentage terms and in absolute terms, they mainly investigated why the difference between the Netherlands and Belgium was so great.
The first major explanation is that the Netherlands was given a more or less civilian SS administration, while Belgium was placed under military administration in view of the attack on England. The two had very different priorities. In addition, living conditions for the population in Belgium deteriorated more quickly. Partly because of this, the resistance in Belgium was organized earlier.
And finally there was the difference that in Belgium the Jews were much less assimilated than in the Netherlands. There, there were also separate groups that organized the resistance themselves. In the Netherlands, the Jews behaved like the Dutch and had therefore become more formalistic. Rather inclined to follow the Jewish Council, which was manipulated by the Germans but represented a more or less 'legitimate' form of authority.
Source: Ruud Verdonck, in: Trouw, April 18, 1997. ■
FROM COMMENTS IN THE PRESS:
> ‘Jews were extra vulnerable here’.
By Paul Arnoldussen
Why was the number of Jews deported and murdered during the war so much greater in the Netherlands than in Belgium? The persecution system has been of great importance in the Netherlands, according to historians Pim Griffioen and Ron Zeller in the Eighth Yearbook of the National Institute for War Documentation, which was published today.
In this they also disprove a number of theories. No, they say, it had nothing to do with a lack of forests and mountains – natural hiding places – and with very limited escape options in the Netherlands. The difference in the size of the German police apparatus does not appear to play a major role either. Historians have been researching the differences in the number of victims for more than fifteen years. In Denmark, almost all Jews managed to escape, in France 25 percent became victims, in Norway and Belgium forty percent and in the Netherlands at least 75 percent.
Griffioen and Zeller start by stating that the Netherlands had an occupation administration in which Nazi ideology played a major role, while in Belgium the German army (the Wehrmacht) was more in charge. It mainly focused on military interests.
This difference was not expressed in a greater police effort in the persecution, but in a systematic and precise implementation. In the Netherlands, one-seventh of the Jewish population was incarcerated in a labor camp or institution relatively soon after the beginning of the occupation, making them easy prey for deportation. There were no such labor camps in Belgium. In the Netherlands, the Jews were deliberately taken from their homes over a longer period of time – often by name and not randomly – and then removed. This included a policy of ‘exemptions’. Large groups were exempted from deportation ‘until further notice’. Those involved did their utmost to belong to these apparently safe groups and thus sought refuge in legality. Of course, those exemptions were later withdrawn one by one.
In Belgium, large-scale raids were carried out quickly and there were hardly any ‘tempting’ exemptions. After the major raids, many remaining Jews managed to go into hiding. Both in Belgium and in the Netherlands, approximately 25,000 to 27,000 Jews went into hiding, while at the start of the war 66,000 Jews lived in Belgium and 140,000 in the Netherlands. Unlike in the Netherlands, larger institutions in Belgium, such as hospitals, monasteries and the like, also played a role in the hiding. In Belgium, the resistance – and also the hiding – started earlier than in the Netherlands. The causes, according to the researchers, include the harsh suppression of the February strike in 1941, which caused great fear, and the good food situation compared to Belgium, which did not stimulate revolt.
It was also striking that the majority of Belgian Jews came from abroad and had only recently lived in Belgium. That turned out not to be a disadvantage; as a result, there was still a strong organizational culture, which soon led to the emergence of Jewish aid organizations and resistance groups. The Belgian ‘Jewish council’, which came into existence later than the Dutch one, also maintained contacts with the resistance, unlike the Dutch one.
Source: Paul Arnoldussen in Het Parool, Tuesday, March 25, 1997, p. 3. ■
> "Dutch Jews victims of salami tactics of the occupying force. A more sophisticated and systematic method enabled the German occupiers to deport more Jews from the Netherlands during World War II than from any other Western European country. Pim Griffioen and Ron Zeller conclude this in the eighth yearbook of the National Institute for War Documentation, which was released yesterday."
Source: Trouw, March 26, 1997. ■
> “…a detached and meticulous analysis”.
Source: Hendrik Jan Schoo, ‘Eerbetoon aan Presser’, in: Elsevier, vol. 53, no. 15 (April 12, 1997), p. 32. ■
> "Moralistic Dutch people continue to condemn the wrong past"
In the research by the historians Pim Griffioen and Ron Zeller into the question why in the Netherlands during the Second World War, compared to other Western European countries, the most Jews were deported and murdered, both in percentage terms and in absolute terms, they mainly investigated why the difference between the Netherlands and Belgium was so great.
The first major explanation is that the Netherlands was given a more or less civilian SS administration, while Belgium was placed under military administration in view of the attack on England. The two had very different priorities. In addition, living conditions for the population in Belgium deteriorated more quickly. Partly because of this, the resistance in Belgium was organized earlier.
And finally there was the difference that in Belgium the Jews were much less assimilated than in the Netherlands. There, there were also separate groups that organized the resistance themselves. In the Netherlands, the Jews behaved like the Dutch and had therefore become more formalistic. Rather inclined to follow the Jewish Council, which was manipulated by the Germans but represented a more or less 'legitimate' form of authority.
Source: Ruud Verdonck, in: Trouw, April 18, 1997. ■
Research Interests:
Ko-Autorschaft: Ron Zeller. Veröffentlicht in zwei Teile in: "1999. ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR SOZIALGESCHICHTE DES 20. UND 21. JAHRHUNDERTS", 11. Jahrgang, Heft 3 (Juli 1996), S. 30–54, und 12. Jahrgang, Heft 1 (Januar 1997), S. 29–48 + Errata auf... more
Ko-Autorschaft: Ron Zeller. Veröffentlicht in zwei Teile in: "1999. ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR SOZIALGESCHICHTE DES 20. UND 21. JAHRHUNDERTS", 11. Jahrgang, Heft 3 (Juli 1996), S. 30–54, und 12. Jahrgang, Heft 1 (Januar 1997), S. 29–48 + Errata auf S. 160. Der gegenwärtige Titel dieser Zeitschrift ist: SOZIALGESCHICHTE.
ENGLISCHE ZUSAMMENFASSUNG:
Of the 140,000 Jews living in the Netherlands in May 1940, about 104,000 did not survive the German occupation and persecution. This is relatively and absolutely the highest number of murdered Jews in the whole of Western Europe. Of the approximately 66,000 Jews in Belgium 25,000 did not survive. As yet we have no detailed comparative examination of the reasons for this large discrepancy in the number of Jewish victims in two states which share a border and in many respects are very similar. In the first part of their essay the authors summarize and discuss the attempts which have been made to date to explain the high number of Dutch Jewish victims. In the second part the authors compare the situation in the Netherlands with that of Belgium, whereby for each country a distinction is drawn between the persecutors (the German occupying regime and its anti-Jewish policies), local factors (the conduct of the authorities and of the non-Jewish population, and so forth), and the victims (primarily their reactions). The results of the research are summarized in comparative schemata which accompany the text. The freedom of action of the German police involved and the methods used by them in each of the countries during the four stages of the deportations were of major importance. The German persecutors in Holland created a deportation system by setting up special work camps for Jewish men and by the use of various calculated methods which enabled them to organize and implement the deportations uninteruptedly. They employed a system of temporary exemptions, which helped them to get rid of the Jews smoothly and by stages, so as to cause the minimum disruption in Dutch public life. In Belgium the occupiers only employed the relatively ill-organized method of large-scale, brutal roundups and mass arrests, which soon also had adverse effects. The second main explanatory factor was the extent of (organized) hiding opportunities for Jews and, more important, the period in which these opportunities materialized. This was determined by the rise of general (non-Jewish) and specifically Jewish underground organizations and the degree of subsequent co-operation. A third major factor was the interaction between persecutors and victims: the extent to which the persecutors continued to use the organizations imposed upon the Jewish populations (Joodsche Raad or Jewish Council in the Netherlands and the Association des Juifs en Belgique or AJB in Belgium) as instrument in the deportations, and the responses by the victims to the persecutor's methods. Jewish responses were determined both by the nature of the methods used and by the general background of the Jewish population: the degree of organization on the one hand, the degree of integration and assimilation on the other. In Belgium, during the roundups of August and September 1942, the remaining Jews - 90 percent of them had an East European immigrant background - reacted by going underground into 'illegality' as they set up their own clandestine network for hiding and escape. All this in co-operation with general Belgian resistance organizations, mostly of a leftist nature. In Holland there was a strong tendency among the Jewish population - living in this country already for centuries and relatively well integrated and partly assimilated - at least during the first months of the deportations, to respond to the legal, apparent 'escape' opportunities (temporary exemptions) that the persecutors - by way of deception - seemed to offer them. Unlike in Belgium, in Holland organized resistance on a country-wide basis and general hiding networks, for both non-Jews and Jews, only materialized after the big strike wave of late April and early May 1943. Other factors contributed to a further enlargement of the discrepancy in the victimization rate; however, when judged on their own merits, these other factors were not of decisive, but of secondary importance.
ENGLISCHE ZUSAMMENFASSUNG:
Of the 140,000 Jews living in the Netherlands in May 1940, about 104,000 did not survive the German occupation and persecution. This is relatively and absolutely the highest number of murdered Jews in the whole of Western Europe. Of the approximately 66,000 Jews in Belgium 25,000 did not survive. As yet we have no detailed comparative examination of the reasons for this large discrepancy in the number of Jewish victims in two states which share a border and in many respects are very similar. In the first part of their essay the authors summarize and discuss the attempts which have been made to date to explain the high number of Dutch Jewish victims. In the second part the authors compare the situation in the Netherlands with that of Belgium, whereby for each country a distinction is drawn between the persecutors (the German occupying regime and its anti-Jewish policies), local factors (the conduct of the authorities and of the non-Jewish population, and so forth), and the victims (primarily their reactions). The results of the research are summarized in comparative schemata which accompany the text. The freedom of action of the German police involved and the methods used by them in each of the countries during the four stages of the deportations were of major importance. The German persecutors in Holland created a deportation system by setting up special work camps for Jewish men and by the use of various calculated methods which enabled them to organize and implement the deportations uninteruptedly. They employed a system of temporary exemptions, which helped them to get rid of the Jews smoothly and by stages, so as to cause the minimum disruption in Dutch public life. In Belgium the occupiers only employed the relatively ill-organized method of large-scale, brutal roundups and mass arrests, which soon also had adverse effects. The second main explanatory factor was the extent of (organized) hiding opportunities for Jews and, more important, the period in which these opportunities materialized. This was determined by the rise of general (non-Jewish) and specifically Jewish underground organizations and the degree of subsequent co-operation. A third major factor was the interaction between persecutors and victims: the extent to which the persecutors continued to use the organizations imposed upon the Jewish populations (Joodsche Raad or Jewish Council in the Netherlands and the Association des Juifs en Belgique or AJB in Belgium) as instrument in the deportations, and the responses by the victims to the persecutor's methods. Jewish responses were determined both by the nature of the methods used and by the general background of the Jewish population: the degree of organization on the one hand, the degree of integration and assimilation on the other. In Belgium, during the roundups of August and September 1942, the remaining Jews - 90 percent of them had an East European immigrant background - reacted by going underground into 'illegality' as they set up their own clandestine network for hiding and escape. All this in co-operation with general Belgian resistance organizations, mostly of a leftist nature. In Holland there was a strong tendency among the Jewish population - living in this country already for centuries and relatively well integrated and partly assimilated - at least during the first months of the deportations, to respond to the legal, apparent 'escape' opportunities (temporary exemptions) that the persecutors - by way of deception - seemed to offer them. Unlike in Belgium, in Holland organized resistance on a country-wide basis and general hiding networks, for both non-Jews and Jews, only materialized after the big strike wave of late April and early May 1943. Other factors contributed to a further enlargement of the discrepancy in the victimization rate; however, when judged on their own merits, these other factors were not of decisive, but of secondary importance.
Research Interests:
Paper within the framework of the seminar 'The place of the Shoah in modern Jewish history'. Department of Jewish History, Faculty of Jewish Studies, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel; March 1995; 18 pages. (Please note that this... more
Paper within the framework of the seminar 'The place of the Shoah in modern Jewish history'. Department of Jewish History, Faculty of Jewish Studies, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel; March 1995; 18 pages. (Please note that this paper was not edited by a native speaker.)
ABSTRACT:
Theme of this paper is the book by the American sociologist Helen Fein, 'Accounting for Genocide. National Responses and Jewish Victimization during the Holocaust', first published in 1979 (reprint 1984). Objective of this paper is to gain a better insight in how Fein approaches the past in her attempt to find answers to the questions posed in her introduction. The summary presents the main structure and central notions of the book. After this, based on specific (general) theoretical questions, these central notions and the methodology of her research are analyzed and discussed. The conclusion takes into consideration the opinion of reviewers.
ABSTRACT:
Theme of this paper is the book by the American sociologist Helen Fein, 'Accounting for Genocide. National Responses and Jewish Victimization during the Holocaust', first published in 1979 (reprint 1984). Objective of this paper is to gain a better insight in how Fein approaches the past in her attempt to find answers to the questions posed in her introduction. The summary presents the main structure and central notions of the book. After this, based on specific (general) theoretical questions, these central notions and the methodology of her research are analyzed and discussed. The conclusion takes into consideration the opinion of reviewers.
Research Interests: Historical Sociology, Research Methodology, Jewish History, Theory of History, Holocaust Studies, and 9 moreComparative Historical Analysis, Holocaust, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Comparative studies, Historical and Comparative Sociology, Holocaust History and Historiography, חקר השואה, Bystanders to the Holocaust, and Jewish Survival Rates
With regard to the percentage of Jewish victims and survivors during the Shoah, France and the Netherlands are each other’s counterpart: 25 per cent of the about 320,000 Jews in France did not survive the persecutions, whereas 75 per cent... more
With regard to the percentage of Jewish victims and survivors during the Shoah, France and the Netherlands are each other’s counterpart: 25 per cent of the about 320,000 Jews in France did not survive the persecutions, whereas 75 per cent of the 140,000 Jews in the Netherlands did not survive. Belgium is in between: of the about 66,000 Jews some 40 per cent did not survive. The question raised by this observation is: what were the main causes of the striking differences in Jewish victimization in these three West-European countries?
This article, 82 pages + 2 pages Index, co-authored with Dr. RON ZELLER, begins with a brief overview of historiography on this question. This is followed by an outline of the comparability of the three West European countries. After this the main aspects of the comparative method, upon which the research results of this article (and of our book published by Koninklijke Boom Uitgevers in Dutch in 2011) are based, are presented, especially the regulating principles that underlie this research. After this, a paragraph is devoted to a discussion of sources: the various archival repositories and archival collections, which are relevant for every researcher of the persecution of the Jews in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. The main body of the text then focuses on a comparison of three stages: the beginning of the German occupation in the summer of 1940, the Anti-Jewish policies in each of the three countries from the summer of 1940 to the summer of 1942, including the responses these policies generated in society, and the stage of systematic deportations, hiding and escape from the summer of 1942 until the end of the occupation. References are made to archival key-documents (for direct access to the original archival documents, and the English translations of these documents, see EHRI weblink: : https://training.ehri-project.eu/general-introduction-part-ii-persecution-and-deportation-jews-france-belgium-and-netherlands ). The comparative conclusion includes an evaluation of the share of the indigenous, regular police in the three countries in carrying out the arrests of Jews for deportation by the German occupiers.
This is an augmented and annotated version, with comparative figures, February 2015, based on the version originally presented by the authors as guest lecturers during the EHRI Summer School for Ph.D. candidates, organized by and held at the Mémorial de la Shoah, Paris, July 15–August 2, 2013 (EHRI = European Holocaust Research Infrastructure, funded by the European Union); updated version 2019; 82 p. (Please note that parts of this paper were not edited by a native speaker.)
A slightly abridged version of this text (in which the introductory paragraphs on historiography, methodology and sources have been omitted), which also includes the comparative outlines and updated annotation, was published in Polish translation as ‘Prześladowania Żydów w Holandii, Francji i Belgii, 1940–1945 w ujęciu porównawczym: podobieństwa, różnice, przyczyny’, in:
Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały pismo Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów (Holocaust. Studies and Materials, published by the Polish Center for Holocaust Research), number 11, Editors: Barbara Engelking, Jan Grabowski, Jacek Leociak, Dariusz Libionka, Jakub Petelewicz, Alina Skibińska. Warszawa, December 2015, pp. 90–130 (Polish translation by Jerzy Giebułtowski).
This article, 82 pages + 2 pages Index, co-authored with Dr. RON ZELLER, begins with a brief overview of historiography on this question. This is followed by an outline of the comparability of the three West European countries. After this the main aspects of the comparative method, upon which the research results of this article (and of our book published by Koninklijke Boom Uitgevers in Dutch in 2011) are based, are presented, especially the regulating principles that underlie this research. After this, a paragraph is devoted to a discussion of sources: the various archival repositories and archival collections, which are relevant for every researcher of the persecution of the Jews in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. The main body of the text then focuses on a comparison of three stages: the beginning of the German occupation in the summer of 1940, the Anti-Jewish policies in each of the three countries from the summer of 1940 to the summer of 1942, including the responses these policies generated in society, and the stage of systematic deportations, hiding and escape from the summer of 1942 until the end of the occupation. References are made to archival key-documents (for direct access to the original archival documents, and the English translations of these documents, see EHRI weblink: : https://training.ehri-project.eu/general-introduction-part-ii-persecution-and-deportation-jews-france-belgium-and-netherlands ). The comparative conclusion includes an evaluation of the share of the indigenous, regular police in the three countries in carrying out the arrests of Jews for deportation by the German occupiers.
This is an augmented and annotated version, with comparative figures, February 2015, based on the version originally presented by the authors as guest lecturers during the EHRI Summer School for Ph.D. candidates, organized by and held at the Mémorial de la Shoah, Paris, July 15–August 2, 2013 (EHRI = European Holocaust Research Infrastructure, funded by the European Union); updated version 2019; 82 p. (Please note that parts of this paper were not edited by a native speaker.)
A slightly abridged version of this text (in which the introductory paragraphs on historiography, methodology and sources have been omitted), which also includes the comparative outlines and updated annotation, was published in Polish translation as ‘Prześladowania Żydów w Holandii, Francji i Belgii, 1940–1945 w ujęciu porównawczym: podobieństwa, różnice, przyczyny’, in:
Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały pismo Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów (Holocaust. Studies and Materials, published by the Polish Center for Holocaust Research), number 11, Editors: Barbara Engelking, Jan Grabowski, Jacek Leociak, Dariusz Libionka, Jakub Petelewicz, Alina Skibińska. Warszawa, December 2015, pp. 90–130 (Polish translation by Jerzy Giebułtowski).
Research Interests: History, Comparative History, Transnational History, Holocaust Studies, Vichy France, and 15 moreHolocaust education, Belgian History, Archives of the Holocaust, Comparative Historical Analysis, Police History, Holocaust, Dutch History, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Archival Research, Historical and Comparative Sociology, Holocaust History and Historiography, Western European History, Vichy collaboration, Rescue and Resistance, and Jewish Survival Rates
CO-AUTHORED WITH DR. RON ZELLER; Part of the European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) Online Course in Holocaust Studies, with references and direct access to reproductions of twelve archival key-documents (six for France, three... more
CO-AUTHORED WITH DR. RON ZELLER; Part of the European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) Online Course in Holocaust Studies, with references and direct access to reproductions of twelve archival key-documents (six for France, three for Belgium and three for the Netherlands), with English translations. Adapted version, 12 pages, of the lecture delivered at the Mémorial de la Shoah, Paris, July 19, 2013, as part of the Summer School organized by EHRI in cooperation with Mémorial de la Shoah, Paris, July 15–August 2, 2013. EHRI is funded by the European Union.
For direct access to the original archival documents, and the English translations of these documents, see EHRI weblink: : https://training.ehri-project.eu/general-introduction-part-ii-persecution-and-deportation-jews-france-belgium-and-netherlands
For direct access to the original archival documents, and the English translations of these documents, see EHRI weblink: : https://training.ehri-project.eu/general-introduction-part-ii-persecution-and-deportation-jews-france-belgium-and-netherlands
Research Interests:
Part of the European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) Online Course in Holocaust Studies (2014), section: 'The Nazi Camps and the Persecution and Murder of the Jews', in cooperation with Yad Vashem, Jerusalem. This is an updated... more
Part of the European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) Online Course in Holocaust Studies (2014), section: 'The Nazi Camps and the Persecution and Murder of the Jews', in cooperation with Yad Vashem, Jerusalem. This is an updated version. For the original text with references to archival documents, see EHRI weblink:
https://training.ehri-project.eu/transit-camps-western-europe-during-holocaust
EHRI is funded by the European Union.
https://training.ehri-project.eu/transit-camps-western-europe-during-holocaust
EHRI is funded by the European Union.
Research Interests:
Albert Heymans, Jood zonder ster (Jew without a star). Westervoort: Uitgeverij Van Gruting, 1999; 127 p. Dutch text editing: Pim Griffioen and René van Gruting. Second, revised edition 2004. Also published in German and English.... more
Albert Heymans, Jood zonder ster (Jew without a star). Westervoort: Uitgeverij Van Gruting, 1999; 127 p. Dutch text editing: Pim Griffioen and René van Gruting.
Second, revised edition 2004. Also published in German and English. Original Hebrew edition, Nahariya, Israel: Ronil Printing House, 1995; 128 p.
See weblinks and download for an abstract in Dutch.
Second, revised edition 2004. Also published in German and English. Original Hebrew edition, Nahariya, Israel: Ronil Printing House, 1995; 128 p.
See weblinks and download for an abstract in Dutch.
Research Interests:
Paper presented as a lecture at the "Colloque international LES RAFLES DE L'ÉTÉ 1942 EN EUROPE DE L'OUEST. De la planification à la mise en œuvre: des acteurs face au choix de la collaboration" (International symposium THE 1942 SUMMER... more
Paper presented as a lecture at the "Colloque international LES RAFLES DE L'ÉTÉ 1942 EN EUROPE DE L'OUEST. De la planification à la mise en œuvre: des acteurs face au choix de la collaboration" (International symposium THE 1942 SUMMER ROUNDUPS IN WESTERN EUROPE. From planning to implementation: actors faced with the choice of collaboration).
Scientific coordination: Tal Bruttmann, Julie Maeck.
KEYNOTE SPEAKER: DR. SERGE KLARSFELD.
Organized by and held at Mémorial de la Shoah, Paris, France, April 3–4, 2022.
For the lectures (with voice of French-speaking interpreter), see weblink to YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ5ajC2Sdxs .
The carrying out, in the summer of 1942, of major roundups in France, the Netherlands and Belgium marked the beginning of the Nazi “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” in Western Europe: within less than six months, approximately 100,000 Jews - men, women, children - were arrested and deported from the territories of these three countries. The vast majority of these deportees were murdered in the Nazi death-camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau in occupied Poland.
The planning from Berlin and the implementation of the operations on the ground was a vast set of interactions between the occupier and the local authorities, ranging from political negotiations to the practical organization of arrests, and mobilizing a complex network of actors belonging to various administrations.
This symposium intends to approach these operations in a comparative perspective, operations which are most often perceived under a mainly national prism. The symposium’s objective is also to provide a scientific answer to the falsifications of history on the policy of Vichy France with regard to the Jews, currently in vogue in the public debate.
Scientific coordination: Tal Bruttmann, Julie Maeck.
KEYNOTE SPEAKER: DR. SERGE KLARSFELD.
Organized by and held at Mémorial de la Shoah, Paris, France, April 3–4, 2022.
For the lectures (with voice of French-speaking interpreter), see weblink to YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ5ajC2Sdxs .
The carrying out, in the summer of 1942, of major roundups in France, the Netherlands and Belgium marked the beginning of the Nazi “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” in Western Europe: within less than six months, approximately 100,000 Jews - men, women, children - were arrested and deported from the territories of these three countries. The vast majority of these deportees were murdered in the Nazi death-camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau in occupied Poland.
The planning from Berlin and the implementation of the operations on the ground was a vast set of interactions between the occupier and the local authorities, ranging from political negotiations to the practical organization of arrests, and mobilizing a complex network of actors belonging to various administrations.
This symposium intends to approach these operations in a comparative perspective, operations which are most often perceived under a mainly national prism. The symposium’s objective is also to provide a scientific answer to the falsifications of history on the policy of Vichy France with regard to the Jews, currently in vogue in the public debate.
Research Interests:
In this lecture a comparison is made between the organizations imposed upon the Jews during the German occupation in France, Belgium and the Netherlands (1940–1945): UGIF, AJB and Amsterdam Jewish Council respectively. It examines the... more
In this lecture a comparison is made between the organizations imposed upon the Jews during the German occupation in France, Belgium and the Netherlands (1940–1945): UGIF, AJB and Amsterdam Jewish Council respectively. It examines the structural position of these coerced organizations and the strategies pursued by the leaders in them to cope with the increasing persecution. It concludes that the leaders’ character, attitude and responses were of lesser significance than the formal, legal status and maneuvering space these organizations had, like in France and Belgium, or the total lack thereof, as was the case in the Netherlands, with fateful consequences during the deportations (1942–1944). However, the pace and extent of the deportations in each of the countries were primarily determined, on the one hand, by the freedom of action of and methods applied by the German police, and, on the other hand, the extent of (organized) hiding and escape opportunities with the help of non-Jews.
This lecture was presented by Dr. Pim Griffioen at the international conference VICHY REVISITÉ 1940–2018 צרפת בימי שלטון וישי ˗ עיון מחודש
, organized by Daat Hamakom, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Yad Vashem, in cooperation with the Institut Français Israel and other institutions, Jerusalem, December 3–5, 2018.
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS: Prof. Renée Poznanski, Prof. Laurent Joly.
An augmented and annotated article version of this lecture, co-authored with Dr. Ron Zeller, has been published in the bilingual scholarly journal PERSPECTIVES sur l’histoire, la culture et la société française, volume 26 (Jérusalem: Université Hébraïque de Jérusalem / The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2022), theme issue ‘Vichy revisité: Histoire, mémoire et historiographie / Vichy Revisited: History, Memory and Historiography’ (introduction by Denis Charbit and Nicole Hochner), pp. 51–75.
This lecture was presented by Dr. Pim Griffioen at the international conference VICHY REVISITÉ 1940–2018 צרפת בימי שלטון וישי ˗ עיון מחודש
, organized by Daat Hamakom, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Yad Vashem, in cooperation with the Institut Français Israel and other institutions, Jerusalem, December 3–5, 2018.
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS: Prof. Renée Poznanski, Prof. Laurent Joly.
An augmented and annotated article version of this lecture, co-authored with Dr. Ron Zeller, has been published in the bilingual scholarly journal PERSPECTIVES sur l’histoire, la culture et la société française, volume 26 (Jérusalem: Université Hébraïque de Jérusalem / The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2022), theme issue ‘Vichy revisité: Histoire, mémoire et historiographie / Vichy Revisited: History, Memory and Historiography’ (introduction by Denis Charbit and Nicole Hochner), pp. 51–75.
Research Interests:
Paper presented as a lecture at the 10th Contact Day Jewish Studies on the Low Countries, organized by the Institute of Jewish Studies, University of Antwerp, May 16, 2017. Session 3: The Dutch "Diamond Jews" in Bergen-Belsen, Chair: Dr.... more
Paper presented as a lecture at the 10th Contact Day Jewish Studies on the Low Countries, organized by the Institute of Jewish Studies, University of Antwerp, May 16, 2017. Session 3: The Dutch "Diamond Jews" in Bergen-Belsen, Chair: Dr. Dienke Hondius, VU Amsterdam. (Please note that this paper was not linguistically edited by a native speaker.)
Research Interests:
Paper, 24 pages, with annotation, presented as a lecture at the 6th Annual Saul Kagan Fellowship in Advanced Shoah Studies Summer Workshop, held at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), Washington, D.C., June 21–25, 2015.
Research Interests:
Lecture delivered at the international conference Lessons and Legacies XIII: "The Holocaust after 70 years: New Perspectives on Persecution, Resistance, and Survival", as part of Panel 22: "Hiding: New Research on Locations, Networks, and... more
Lecture delivered at the international conference Lessons and Legacies XIII: "The Holocaust after 70 years: New Perspectives on Persecution, Resistance, and Survival", as part of Panel 22: "Hiding: New Research on Locations, Networks, and Narratives" (chair: Prof. Dawn Skorczewski), organized by the Holocaust Educational Foundation of Northwestern University (Evanston, Illinois), held at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, October 30–November 2, 2014.
Research Interests:
Paper presented as a lecture at the 7th Contact Day Jewish Studies on the Low Countries, organized by the Institute of Jewish Studies, University of Antwerp, Monday 26 May 2014. ABSTRACT: Whereas there are several scholarly books and... more
Paper presented as a lecture at the 7th Contact Day Jewish Studies on the Low Countries, organized by the Institute of Jewish Studies, University of Antwerp, Monday 26 May 2014.
ABSTRACT:
Whereas there are several scholarly books and numerous articles on Jewish responses to persecution in France and Belgium, a monograph on the various Jewish coping strategies and hiding in the Netherlands is still lacking. How were Jewish behavior and reactions – diverse as they were – shaped by the conditions and possibilities in the context of the occupation, persecution, local society and the background of the Jewish population in the Netherlands? How was Jewish hiding organized and financed in the Netherlands in its various stages, as compared with Belgium and France? This paper will present some preliminary results of a research project on Jewish responses to persecution, as well as hiding and escape opportunities in the Netherlands from 1940–1945, in a Western European context. A distinction is made between (individual) Jewish reactions during the first stage of anti-Jewish policies (1940–1942), and the reactions during the second stage of systematic deportations (1942–1944). During the first stage one of the coping strategies was a revival of Jewish cultural and religious life in the Netherlands, including the activities of youth associations. During the second stage there were various ways people tried to evade deportation, as well as different forms of going into hiding. Factors that had a positive or negative impact on hiding and escape opportunities of Jews in the Netherlands will be summarized and discussed against the background of the situations in this respect in Belgium and France. In France and Belgium relatively many survived under the cloak of a non-Jewish identity in boarding houses, rented rooms and cheap hotels, and children in convents, boarding schools and children’s colonies on the country-side, with the help of underground networks and relief organizations. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, Jews who survived did so mainly by going into hiding and concealing themselves completely through individual contacts with non-Jews.
Sources include Jewish testimonies, letters, diaries and recollections with regard to attitudes and responses to the persecution in the Netherlands, as well as unpublished archival material and short biographies of non-Jewish rescuers.
ABSTRACT:
Whereas there are several scholarly books and numerous articles on Jewish responses to persecution in France and Belgium, a monograph on the various Jewish coping strategies and hiding in the Netherlands is still lacking. How were Jewish behavior and reactions – diverse as they were – shaped by the conditions and possibilities in the context of the occupation, persecution, local society and the background of the Jewish population in the Netherlands? How was Jewish hiding organized and financed in the Netherlands in its various stages, as compared with Belgium and France? This paper will present some preliminary results of a research project on Jewish responses to persecution, as well as hiding and escape opportunities in the Netherlands from 1940–1945, in a Western European context. A distinction is made between (individual) Jewish reactions during the first stage of anti-Jewish policies (1940–1942), and the reactions during the second stage of systematic deportations (1942–1944). During the first stage one of the coping strategies was a revival of Jewish cultural and religious life in the Netherlands, including the activities of youth associations. During the second stage there were various ways people tried to evade deportation, as well as different forms of going into hiding. Factors that had a positive or negative impact on hiding and escape opportunities of Jews in the Netherlands will be summarized and discussed against the background of the situations in this respect in Belgium and France. In France and Belgium relatively many survived under the cloak of a non-Jewish identity in boarding houses, rented rooms and cheap hotels, and children in convents, boarding schools and children’s colonies on the country-side, with the help of underground networks and relief organizations. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, Jews who survived did so mainly by going into hiding and concealing themselves completely through individual contacts with non-Jews.
Sources include Jewish testimonies, letters, diaries and recollections with regard to attitudes and responses to the persecution in the Netherlands, as well as unpublished archival material and short biographies of non-Jewish rescuers.
Research Interests:
Lecture delivered by the historians RON ZELLER and PIM GRIFFIOEN on the occasion of the completion of the Project 'Stumbling Stones' (Stolpersteine) in the town of Weesp, the Netherlands, on April 9, 2010. Lezing door de historici RON... more
Lecture delivered by the historians RON ZELLER and PIM GRIFFIOEN on the occasion of the completion of the Project 'Stumbling Stones' (Stolpersteine) in the town of Weesp, the Netherlands, on April 9, 2010.
Lezing door de historici RON ZELLER en PIM GRIFFIOEN ter gelegenheid van de afronding van het Project Struikelstenen in de stad Weesp, gehouden in de Synagoge te Weesp, 9 april 2010.
See two weblinks:
http://www.weespernieuws.nl/lees/7613/laatste-struikelstenen-geplaatst ,
http://www.synagogeweesp.nl/site/vriendenkrant/syn-vrkrant-10.pdf
Lezing door de historici RON ZELLER en PIM GRIFFIOEN ter gelegenheid van de afronding van het Project Struikelstenen in de stad Weesp, gehouden in de Synagoge te Weesp, 9 april 2010.
See two weblinks:
http://www.weespernieuws.nl/lees/7613/laatste-struikelstenen-geplaatst ,
http://www.synagogeweesp.nl/site/vriendenkrant/syn-vrkrant-10.pdf
Research Interests:
Auteurs: Pim Griffioen, Ron Zeller, Amsterdam 2013. ABSTRACT: Books are there to be read and reviews indicate that this is what happens. After nearly twenty reviews in newspapers, journals and magazines, which are mainly positive or... more
Auteurs: Pim Griffioen, Ron Zeller, Amsterdam 2013.
ABSTRACT:
Books are there to be read and reviews indicate that this is what happens. After nearly twenty reviews in newspapers, journals and magazines, which are mainly positive or even favorable, a critical review of our book "Persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands, France and Belgium, 1940–1945: similarities, differences, causes" was published in a sociologists' edited volume in the autumn of 2012. In his review, the historian (M.A.) and political scientist (Ph.D.) Marnix Croes summarizes our methodology and conclusions on important points, but he makes a number of comments on our comparative research based on his strict, sociological conception, derived from the ICS (Interuniversity Center on Social Science Theory and Methodology, [Universities of Groningen, Nijmegen and Utrecht]).
His main criticisms are discussed in more detail in this reply. These are successively: 1) the 'mystery' of the choice of the countries to be compared, 2) the lack of clarity about how the causal weight of the comparison characteristics/factors is determined, 3) the application of J.S. Mill's comparative method, 4) shortcomings and contradictions in the research literature, 5) sometimes the lack of arguments or the use of unsound arguments when (wrongly) crossing off possible explanatory factors, 6) attributing too much explanatory power to certain characteristics, 7) debatable handling of discussions in the existing literature, and 8) reproducing what others have said before and go by what the 'consensus' between these others would be.
A first conclusion is that the propositions (or hypotheses) put forward by Croes in his review article do not withstand a further qualitative test. Another conclusion is that a fruitful cooperation between historical scholarship and the social sciences is quite possible and even desirable, but that the - from a dynamic historical perspective - rather static method of hypothesis testing with quantitative, statistical analysis techniques, advocated by Croes, is not the only or best approach.
SAMENVATTING:
Boeken zijn er om gelezen te worden en recensies wijzen erop dat dit ook gebeurt. Na bijna twintig recensies in kranten en tijdschriften, die overwegend positief of zelfs lovend zijn, verscheen najaar 2012 in een sociologenbundel een kritische recensie over ons boek Jodenvervolging in Nederland, Frankrijk en België, 1940–1945: overeenkomsten, verschillen, oorzaken. De historicus en gepromoveerd politicoloog Marnix Croes vat in zijn bespreking onze werkwijze en conclusies op belangrijke punten goed samen, maar plaatst vanuit zijn strenge, aan het ICS ontleende, wetenschapsopvatting een aantal kanttekeningen bij ons vergelijkend onderzoek.
Op zijn belangrijkste kritiekpunten wordt in deze repliek nader ingegaan. Dit zijn achtereenvolgens: 1) de 'raadselachtigheid' van de keuze van de landen die vergeleken worden, 2) de onduidelijkheid over hoe het oorzakelijk gewicht van de vergelijkingskenmerken/factoren wordt bepaald, 3) de toepassing van J.S. Mills vergelijkende methode, 4) tekortkomingen en tegenspraak in de literatuur, 5) het soms ontbreken van argumenten c.q. het gebruik van ondeugdelijke argumenten bij het (ten onrechte) afstrepen van mogelijk verklarende factoren, 6) het teveel verklaringskracht toekennen aan bepaalde kenmerken, 7) discutabele omgang met in de literatuur bestaande discussies, en 8) het reproduceren van wat anderen al eerder hebben gezegd en afgaan op wat de 'consensus' tussen deze anderen zou zijn.
Een eerste conclusie is dat de door Croes in zijn recensieartikel geponeerde stellingen (of hypothesen) een nadere, kwalitatieve toetsing niet doorstaan. Een andere conclusie is dat een vruchtbare samenwerking tussen wetenschappelijke geschiedschrijving en sociale wetenschappen goed mogelijk en zelfs wenselijk is, maar dat de door Croes voorgestane - vanuit dynamisch historisch perspectief - nogal statische methode van hypothesentoetsing door middel van kwantitatieve, statistische analysetechnieken niet de enige of best begaanbare weg is.
ABSTRACT:
Books are there to be read and reviews indicate that this is what happens. After nearly twenty reviews in newspapers, journals and magazines, which are mainly positive or even favorable, a critical review of our book "Persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands, France and Belgium, 1940–1945: similarities, differences, causes" was published in a sociologists' edited volume in the autumn of 2012. In his review, the historian (M.A.) and political scientist (Ph.D.) Marnix Croes summarizes our methodology and conclusions on important points, but he makes a number of comments on our comparative research based on his strict, sociological conception, derived from the ICS (Interuniversity Center on Social Science Theory and Methodology, [Universities of Groningen, Nijmegen and Utrecht]).
His main criticisms are discussed in more detail in this reply. These are successively: 1) the 'mystery' of the choice of the countries to be compared, 2) the lack of clarity about how the causal weight of the comparison characteristics/factors is determined, 3) the application of J.S. Mill's comparative method, 4) shortcomings and contradictions in the research literature, 5) sometimes the lack of arguments or the use of unsound arguments when (wrongly) crossing off possible explanatory factors, 6) attributing too much explanatory power to certain characteristics, 7) debatable handling of discussions in the existing literature, and 8) reproducing what others have said before and go by what the 'consensus' between these others would be.
A first conclusion is that the propositions (or hypotheses) put forward by Croes in his review article do not withstand a further qualitative test. Another conclusion is that a fruitful cooperation between historical scholarship and the social sciences is quite possible and even desirable, but that the - from a dynamic historical perspective - rather static method of hypothesis testing with quantitative, statistical analysis techniques, advocated by Croes, is not the only or best approach.
SAMENVATTING:
Boeken zijn er om gelezen te worden en recensies wijzen erop dat dit ook gebeurt. Na bijna twintig recensies in kranten en tijdschriften, die overwegend positief of zelfs lovend zijn, verscheen najaar 2012 in een sociologenbundel een kritische recensie over ons boek Jodenvervolging in Nederland, Frankrijk en België, 1940–1945: overeenkomsten, verschillen, oorzaken. De historicus en gepromoveerd politicoloog Marnix Croes vat in zijn bespreking onze werkwijze en conclusies op belangrijke punten goed samen, maar plaatst vanuit zijn strenge, aan het ICS ontleende, wetenschapsopvatting een aantal kanttekeningen bij ons vergelijkend onderzoek.
Op zijn belangrijkste kritiekpunten wordt in deze repliek nader ingegaan. Dit zijn achtereenvolgens: 1) de 'raadselachtigheid' van de keuze van de landen die vergeleken worden, 2) de onduidelijkheid over hoe het oorzakelijk gewicht van de vergelijkingskenmerken/factoren wordt bepaald, 3) de toepassing van J.S. Mills vergelijkende methode, 4) tekortkomingen en tegenspraak in de literatuur, 5) het soms ontbreken van argumenten c.q. het gebruik van ondeugdelijke argumenten bij het (ten onrechte) afstrepen van mogelijk verklarende factoren, 6) het teveel verklaringskracht toekennen aan bepaalde kenmerken, 7) discutabele omgang met in de literatuur bestaande discussies, en 8) het reproduceren van wat anderen al eerder hebben gezegd en afgaan op wat de 'consensus' tussen deze anderen zou zijn.
Een eerste conclusie is dat de door Croes in zijn recensieartikel geponeerde stellingen (of hypothesen) een nadere, kwalitatieve toetsing niet doorstaan. Een andere conclusie is dat een vruchtbare samenwerking tussen wetenschappelijke geschiedschrijving en sociale wetenschappen goed mogelijk en zelfs wenselijk is, maar dat de door Croes voorgestane - vanuit dynamisch historisch perspectief - nogal statische methode van hypothesentoetsing door middel van kwantitatieve, statistische analysetechnieken niet de enige of best begaanbare weg is.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Interview by Renske Krimp on the number of Jewish victims in the Netherlands, 1940–1945, published in: Renske Krimp, M.A., with an introduction by Dr. Regina Grüter, DE DODEN TELLEN. SLACHTOFFERAANTALLEN VAN DE TWEEDE WERELDOORLOG EN... more
Interview by Renske Krimp on the number of Jewish victims in the Netherlands, 1940–1945, published in: Renske Krimp, M.A., with an introduction by Dr. Regina Grüter, DE DODEN TELLEN. SLACHTOFFERAANTALLEN VAN DE TWEEDE WERELDOORLOG EN SINDSDIEN (Counting the dead / The dead count. Numbers of victims of the Second World War and since). Amsterdam: Nationaal Comité 4 en 5 mei (National Committee 4 and 5 May), May 2015, pp. 52–57.
Second, revised edition December 2016, pp. 62–67. For the revised edition of the book and this book chapter, see website of the National Committee 4 and 5 May: https://www.4en5mei.nl/nieuws/nieuwsbericht/248/herziene-editie-%27de-doden-tellen%27.
Second, revised edition December 2016, pp. 62–67. For the revised edition of the book and this book chapter, see website of the National Committee 4 and 5 May: https://www.4en5mei.nl/nieuws/nieuwsbericht/248/herziene-editie-%27de-doden-tellen%27.
Research Interests:
English translation of the testimony given by Maurits van Thijn (1922–2011) and Catharina van Thijn-Blitz (1924–2018) in Dutch and published as Chapter 2 in: Steffie van den Oord, "Liefde in oorlogstijd" (Love in wartime).... more
English translation of the testimony given by Maurits van Thijn (1922–2011) and Catharina van Thijn-Blitz (1924–2018) in Dutch and published as Chapter 2 in: Steffie van den Oord, "Liefde in oorlogstijd" (Love in wartime). Amsterdam/Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Contact, first edition 2004 (349 pages), pp. 43–65. Translated and annotated by Pim Griffioen. (Please note that parts of this English translation were not edited by a native speaker.)
ABSTRACT:
In this testimony Maurits and Catharina (Rina) van Thijn describe their experiences during the years of the German occupation of the Netherlands and the persecution of the Jews. They got engaged shortly after the beginning of the systematic deportations of the Jews from the Netherlands in 1942. Through luck they got an opportunity to go into hiding. However, after a number of months they were betrayed and sent to the Westerbork transit camp. There they married (September 20, 1943) and one day later they were deported to Auschwitz. He had to work hard and suffered from maltreatments and hunger. She was incarcerated in 'Block 10', the notorious experiments' block. Partly thanks to each other they endured the hardships. They describe the evacuation of Auschwitz in January 1945, and their experiences up to the liberation in May 1945. Finally they tell about the direct aftermath of the persecution during the first years after the war until their emigration (Aliya) to Israel in 1949. As a consequence of the criminal experiments Rina was subjected to in Auschwitz, she could not have children. Maurits and Rina van Thijn were married for more than 67 years and they lived and both worked in Israel for 50 years.
ABSTRACT:
In this testimony Maurits and Catharina (Rina) van Thijn describe their experiences during the years of the German occupation of the Netherlands and the persecution of the Jews. They got engaged shortly after the beginning of the systematic deportations of the Jews from the Netherlands in 1942. Through luck they got an opportunity to go into hiding. However, after a number of months they were betrayed and sent to the Westerbork transit camp. There they married (September 20, 1943) and one day later they were deported to Auschwitz. He had to work hard and suffered from maltreatments and hunger. She was incarcerated in 'Block 10', the notorious experiments' block. Partly thanks to each other they endured the hardships. They describe the evacuation of Auschwitz in January 1945, and their experiences up to the liberation in May 1945. Finally they tell about the direct aftermath of the persecution during the first years after the war until their emigration (Aliya) to Israel in 1949. As a consequence of the criminal experiments Rina was subjected to in Auschwitz, she could not have children. Maurits and Rina van Thijn were married for more than 67 years and they lived and both worked in Israel for 50 years.
Research Interests:
ABSTRACT: Letter to the editor of the daily paper Trouw in response to Meindert van der Kaaij's article (November 14, 2015) which asserts, among other things, that with regard to the Dutch role in slavery and slave trade there was "a... more
ABSTRACT:
Letter to the editor of the daily paper Trouw in response to Meindert van der Kaaij's article (November 14, 2015) which asserts, among other things, that with regard to the Dutch role in slavery and slave trade there was "a deafening silence" in Dutch historiography between the abolition of slavery in the Dutch colonies in 1863 and the 1970s. This letter provides proof to the contrary by making references to books and articles by Dutch historians such as Jan and Annie Romein (1934) and Jacques Presser (1941, 1953). They paid extensive attention to the Dutch role in slavery and slave trade, and not just in neutral terms.
Letter to the editor of the daily paper Trouw in response to Meindert van der Kaaij's article (November 14, 2015) which asserts, among other things, that with regard to the Dutch role in slavery and slave trade there was "a deafening silence" in Dutch historiography between the abolition of slavery in the Dutch colonies in 1863 and the 1970s. This letter provides proof to the contrary by making references to books and articles by Dutch historians such as Jan and Annie Romein (1934) and Jacques Presser (1941, 1953). They paid extensive attention to the Dutch role in slavery and slave trade, and not just in neutral terms.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The foundation of the State of Israel and the beginning of the Palestinian Arab refugee problem. Paper within the framework of the inter-university lecture series 'The Israeli Foreign Policy' - Middle Eastern Studies (guest lecturers:... more
The foundation of the State of Israel and the beginning of the Palestinian Arab refugee problem.
Paper within the framework of the inter-university lecture series 'The Israeli Foreign Policy' - Middle Eastern Studies (guest lecturers: Dr L.C. Biegel, Dr R.B. Soetendorp, Dr F. Grünfeld, Drs Ruud Hoff et al.), organized by and held at the Centre for Information and Documentation Israel (CIDI), The Hague. Submitted by Pim Griffioen in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorandus (Drs, equivalent of Master of Arts, M.A.), Department of History, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, August 1993; 46 pages Dutch text, English summary, 8 appendices + Index.
הקמת מדינת ישראל ותחילתה של בעיית הפליטים הערבים הפלסטינים. עבודה סמינריונית בהיסטוריה, נכתבה בשפה ההולנדית
באוניברסיטה החופשית, אמסטרדם, הולנד, מאת י.ו. (פּים) גריפיוּן, 1993 , 46 עמ׳, סיכום באנגלית, 8 נספחים, מפתח שמות וענײנים
ENGLISH SUMMARY
To gain better insight into the factors leading to the foundation of the State of Israel and the beginning of the Palestinian Arab refugee question, and the wider problems associated with this issue, it does not suffice to describe the historical events of 1948. From the extensive and widely divergent research literature, and after studying selected published sources, it soon appears that these events were determined by specific developments and circumstances in the preceding period, particularly from about 1880 onward. Therefore, this paper addresses, at first, questions like: why and how did among the Jews the desire arise to return to the Biblical land and build a national home there; why did this desire prove incompatible with the aspirations and interests of the Arab world at large and, more specifically, the Palestinian Arab population? After this, the developments that led to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1947–1948 and the war of independence are described. What were the guiding interests of the leaderships of the surrounding Arab states? Finally, how and under what circumstances did the Palestinian Arab refugee problem arise? Contradicting views on the latter question in the research literature are summarized and discussed.
The paper concludes that a complex of intertwined factors contributed to the crisis of 1948. The notion of creating a new Jewish state, i.e. Zionism as a political formula and social movement, – after and as a result of almost nineteen centuries of exile, dispersion and persecution of the Jews – arose in an era during which nationalism and imperialism reigned supreme in Europe (1880–1920). However, during this same period an Arab nationalism (or Pan-Arabism) arose in a feudal society, both in Palestine under Turkish (Ottoman) rule and in other territories, inhabited by Arabs, that were also part of the Turkish (Ottoman) empire. The strikingly inconsistent and at times contradictory policy by Great Britain during and after the First World War, and the fact that the Arabs and the Jews, e.g. the growing number of Jewish immigrants, did not develop a common (economic) interest in the British mandated territory of Palestine (1920–1948) explain why the situation was so irreconcilable in 1948.
By accepting the United Nations (UN) resolution of November 29, 1947, Partition Plan for Palestine, the Palestinian Jews – first of all in their own eyes, but also in the eyes of the UN, the world powers (USA and Soviet Union) and of the Western world – were allowed to legitimately establish a state in Palestine. However, this was rejected by the countries of the Arab world. This rejection by the Arab world and by leaders of the Palestinian Arabs was inspired both by ideological motives, by power play (instead of fair play) and by conflicting interests of the leaders of the surrounding Arab states. The Palestinian Arabs were the only party in the Middle East who – largely as a result of the disastrous course of the 1936–1939 Palestinian Arab uprising against British rule – had not succeeded in creating well-organized public support within or outside Palestine. Thus, the Palestinian Arabs lost the most during the anarchy and armed struggle that erupted in 1947–1948. This disadvantage was an advantage for Israel and was not outweighed by the covert British support for some Arab countries – foremost Transjordan – in their preparations for the armed struggle. These preparations culminated in the invasion of Palestine by six Arab countries in mid-May 1948 and the Israeli war of independence which ended in January 1949. During the fighting the Arab armies, with the exception of the Arab Legion of Transjordan, were defeated by the Israeli armed forces.
Between 600,000 and 700,000 Palestinian Arabs left their dwellings: some 30,000 wealthy and well-to-do departed orderly at a relatively early stage (from December 1947 onward), but the majority took to flight out of fear (e.g. Haifa) or were driven-out – with regional differences in sequence and causes – e.g. the expulsion of most Arabs from the towns of Lydda and Ramla. They left their dwellings in areas that were allotted to the Jewish state according to the UN resolution of November 29, 1947, or in areas captured by Israel in 1948–1949 beyond the UN partition border. The majority of them found refuge as displaced persons in remaining Arab territories in Palestine, occupied by either Transjordan or Egypt. The part of Palestine occupied by Transjordan was annexed in 1950 and the Arabs living there – residents and refugees alike – received the citizenship of Jordan, as the country henceforth was called. The much smaller part of Palestine occupied by Egypt (the Gaza-strip) remained under Egyptian military rule and the Palestinian Arabs there did not receive Egyptian citizenship, nor were they allowed to enter Egypt. About 175,000 Arabs stayed (or were allowed to return to their dwellings in 1949) and became citizens of the State of Israel. The armistice agreements of 1949 were concluded, under UN auspices, between Israel and the four neighboring Arab states. The Palestinian Arabs were no independent party in the negotiations and this would remain so for several decades to come.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Preface and central questions (3)
Chapter I: Historical background until 1947 (4)
1. Historical background until about 1920 (4)
2. The British mandated territory of Palestine, 1920–1947: the construction of a Jewish National Home (12)
3. The Palestinian Arab uprising of 1936–1939 and its consequences (20)
Chapter II: The establishment of the State of Israel (23)
1. The UNSCOP and the resolution: the last preparations for the establishment of the Jewish state (23)
2. Developments in the Arab world with regard to Palestine (1945–1948) (28)
3. The first Israeli-Arab war (May 15, 1948–January 7, 1949) (31)
Chapter III: The beginning of the Palestinian Arab refugee problem (36)
1. Overview of the period 1947–1949 (36)
2. Different theories/opinions about the causes of the departure/flight/expulsion (38)
3. Long term consequences (43)
Summary and conclusion (44)
Main research literature and published sources consulted (45)
English summary (47)
Appendices (48):
1. Area and borders of a 'Jewish National Home', as proposed by the World Zionist Organization (WZO) in 1919 (48)
2. The partition proposal by the 'Palestine Royal Commission Report', chairman: Lord Peel, 1937 (not implemented) (49)
3. Consequences of the 'White Paper' policy from May 1939 onward: British restrictions on Jewish immigration and Jewish land purchase (50)
4. The partition proposal by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (Morrison-Grady): Provisional Autonomy Plan, July 1946 (not implemented) (51)
5. The Partition Plan for Palestine according to the United Nations General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947 (not implemented) (52)
6. The Israeli-Arab demarcation lines according to the four armistice agreements of 1949 (53)
7. Distribution of the Palestinian Arab refugee camps in the period 1949–1967 (54)
8. Jewish immigration to Palestine/Israel and the increase of the Jewish population, 1882–1965 (55)
Index (56).
NOTE:
This paper was added to Academia.edu to mark 75 years of the proclamation of the State of Israel and the political and constitutional crisis as a result of the unnecessary and provocative legal reforms the current coalition government is seeking to implement. The background is the flaw in the structure of the state when the State of Israel was founded: the lack of a (completed) Constitution, a Senate and a Council of State. The latter two functions are performed by the Supreme Court. The necessary system of checks and balances (trias politica) is insufficient, whereas it is crucial for a proper functioning of parliamentary democracy.
This paper is of an old date, but not outdated, for it is in both informative-descriptive and analytical-explanatory respect of enduring value.
Paper within the framework of the inter-university lecture series 'The Israeli Foreign Policy' - Middle Eastern Studies (guest lecturers: Dr L.C. Biegel, Dr R.B. Soetendorp, Dr F. Grünfeld, Drs Ruud Hoff et al.), organized by and held at the Centre for Information and Documentation Israel (CIDI), The Hague. Submitted by Pim Griffioen in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorandus (Drs, equivalent of Master of Arts, M.A.), Department of History, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, August 1993; 46 pages Dutch text, English summary, 8 appendices + Index.
הקמת מדינת ישראל ותחילתה של בעיית הפליטים הערבים הפלסטינים. עבודה סמינריונית בהיסטוריה, נכתבה בשפה ההולנדית
באוניברסיטה החופשית, אמסטרדם, הולנד, מאת י.ו. (פּים) גריפיוּן, 1993 , 46 עמ׳, סיכום באנגלית, 8 נספחים, מפתח שמות וענײנים
ENGLISH SUMMARY
To gain better insight into the factors leading to the foundation of the State of Israel and the beginning of the Palestinian Arab refugee question, and the wider problems associated with this issue, it does not suffice to describe the historical events of 1948. From the extensive and widely divergent research literature, and after studying selected published sources, it soon appears that these events were determined by specific developments and circumstances in the preceding period, particularly from about 1880 onward. Therefore, this paper addresses, at first, questions like: why and how did among the Jews the desire arise to return to the Biblical land and build a national home there; why did this desire prove incompatible with the aspirations and interests of the Arab world at large and, more specifically, the Palestinian Arab population? After this, the developments that led to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1947–1948 and the war of independence are described. What were the guiding interests of the leaderships of the surrounding Arab states? Finally, how and under what circumstances did the Palestinian Arab refugee problem arise? Contradicting views on the latter question in the research literature are summarized and discussed.
The paper concludes that a complex of intertwined factors contributed to the crisis of 1948. The notion of creating a new Jewish state, i.e. Zionism as a political formula and social movement, – after and as a result of almost nineteen centuries of exile, dispersion and persecution of the Jews – arose in an era during which nationalism and imperialism reigned supreme in Europe (1880–1920). However, during this same period an Arab nationalism (or Pan-Arabism) arose in a feudal society, both in Palestine under Turkish (Ottoman) rule and in other territories, inhabited by Arabs, that were also part of the Turkish (Ottoman) empire. The strikingly inconsistent and at times contradictory policy by Great Britain during and after the First World War, and the fact that the Arabs and the Jews, e.g. the growing number of Jewish immigrants, did not develop a common (economic) interest in the British mandated territory of Palestine (1920–1948) explain why the situation was so irreconcilable in 1948.
By accepting the United Nations (UN) resolution of November 29, 1947, Partition Plan for Palestine, the Palestinian Jews – first of all in their own eyes, but also in the eyes of the UN, the world powers (USA and Soviet Union) and of the Western world – were allowed to legitimately establish a state in Palestine. However, this was rejected by the countries of the Arab world. This rejection by the Arab world and by leaders of the Palestinian Arabs was inspired both by ideological motives, by power play (instead of fair play) and by conflicting interests of the leaders of the surrounding Arab states. The Palestinian Arabs were the only party in the Middle East who – largely as a result of the disastrous course of the 1936–1939 Palestinian Arab uprising against British rule – had not succeeded in creating well-organized public support within or outside Palestine. Thus, the Palestinian Arabs lost the most during the anarchy and armed struggle that erupted in 1947–1948. This disadvantage was an advantage for Israel and was not outweighed by the covert British support for some Arab countries – foremost Transjordan – in their preparations for the armed struggle. These preparations culminated in the invasion of Palestine by six Arab countries in mid-May 1948 and the Israeli war of independence which ended in January 1949. During the fighting the Arab armies, with the exception of the Arab Legion of Transjordan, were defeated by the Israeli armed forces.
Between 600,000 and 700,000 Palestinian Arabs left their dwellings: some 30,000 wealthy and well-to-do departed orderly at a relatively early stage (from December 1947 onward), but the majority took to flight out of fear (e.g. Haifa) or were driven-out – with regional differences in sequence and causes – e.g. the expulsion of most Arabs from the towns of Lydda and Ramla. They left their dwellings in areas that were allotted to the Jewish state according to the UN resolution of November 29, 1947, or in areas captured by Israel in 1948–1949 beyond the UN partition border. The majority of them found refuge as displaced persons in remaining Arab territories in Palestine, occupied by either Transjordan or Egypt. The part of Palestine occupied by Transjordan was annexed in 1950 and the Arabs living there – residents and refugees alike – received the citizenship of Jordan, as the country henceforth was called. The much smaller part of Palestine occupied by Egypt (the Gaza-strip) remained under Egyptian military rule and the Palestinian Arabs there did not receive Egyptian citizenship, nor were they allowed to enter Egypt. About 175,000 Arabs stayed (or were allowed to return to their dwellings in 1949) and became citizens of the State of Israel. The armistice agreements of 1949 were concluded, under UN auspices, between Israel and the four neighboring Arab states. The Palestinian Arabs were no independent party in the negotiations and this would remain so for several decades to come.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Preface and central questions (3)
Chapter I: Historical background until 1947 (4)
1. Historical background until about 1920 (4)
2. The British mandated territory of Palestine, 1920–1947: the construction of a Jewish National Home (12)
3. The Palestinian Arab uprising of 1936–1939 and its consequences (20)
Chapter II: The establishment of the State of Israel (23)
1. The UNSCOP and the resolution: the last preparations for the establishment of the Jewish state (23)
2. Developments in the Arab world with regard to Palestine (1945–1948) (28)
3. The first Israeli-Arab war (May 15, 1948–January 7, 1949) (31)
Chapter III: The beginning of the Palestinian Arab refugee problem (36)
1. Overview of the period 1947–1949 (36)
2. Different theories/opinions about the causes of the departure/flight/expulsion (38)
3. Long term consequences (43)
Summary and conclusion (44)
Main research literature and published sources consulted (45)
English summary (47)
Appendices (48):
1. Area and borders of a 'Jewish National Home', as proposed by the World Zionist Organization (WZO) in 1919 (48)
2. The partition proposal by the 'Palestine Royal Commission Report', chairman: Lord Peel, 1937 (not implemented) (49)
3. Consequences of the 'White Paper' policy from May 1939 onward: British restrictions on Jewish immigration and Jewish land purchase (50)
4. The partition proposal by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (Morrison-Grady): Provisional Autonomy Plan, July 1946 (not implemented) (51)
5. The Partition Plan for Palestine according to the United Nations General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947 (not implemented) (52)
6. The Israeli-Arab demarcation lines according to the four armistice agreements of 1949 (53)
7. Distribution of the Palestinian Arab refugee camps in the period 1949–1967 (54)
8. Jewish immigration to Palestine/Israel and the increase of the Jewish population, 1882–1965 (55)
Index (56).
NOTE:
This paper was added to Academia.edu to mark 75 years of the proclamation of the State of Israel and the political and constitutional crisis as a result of the unnecessary and provocative legal reforms the current coalition government is seeking to implement. The background is the flaw in the structure of the state when the State of Israel was founded: the lack of a (completed) Constitution, a Senate and a Council of State. The latter two functions are performed by the Supreme Court. The necessary system of checks and balances (trias politica) is insufficient, whereas it is crucial for a proper functioning of parliamentary democracy.
This paper is of an old date, but not outdated, for it is in both informative-descriptive and analytical-explanatory respect of enduring value.
Research Interests: History, Israel Studies, Israel/Palestine, United Nations, Middle Eastern History, and 15 moreHolocaust Studies, Middle Eastern Studies, Anti-Semitism, Jordan, Israeli History, Modern Jewish History, Zionism, Israel, Transjordan, Arab-Israeli conflict, Arab nationalism, United States, Palestinian refugees, Pan Arabism, and Great Britain
De Kruistochten en de Joden van Europa (The Crusades and the Jews of Europe). Paper, Medieval history, within the framework of the seminar The Crusades, led by Prof. Koen Goudriaan; as part of undergraduate studies in History,... more
De Kruistochten en de Joden van Europa (The Crusades and the Jews of Europe).
Paper, Medieval history, within the framework of the seminar The Crusades, led by Prof. Koen Goudriaan; as part of undergraduate studies in History, submitted by Pim Griffioen, student at the Department of History, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit (VU University), Amsterdam, 1988; 16 pages Dutch text (annotation and references included).
CONTENTS:
Introduction (3)
1. The position of the Jews as a minority in medieval society until 1095 (4)
2. The events of 1096 (7)
3. What motives were there in the Crusader pogrom? (10)
Conclusion (13)
Notes (14)
References (16)
SUMMARY:
With the First Crusade, which began in 1096, a period also began during which, for the first time in Western European history, there were large-scale and very violent persecutions of the Jews. With that came an end to the relative tranquility that the Jews in Western Europe had known until then.
To provide an explanation for this turning point – also the question of this paper, which is therefore limited to the First Crusade – it is necessary first to give a picture of the position of the Jews as a minority in medieval society until 1095. After this a description is given of the events of 1096 itself. During the persecutions and massacres in dozens of towns, in both France, Lorraine and the German Empire, tens of thousands of Jews were robbed and at least twelve thousand lost their lives. The paper then focuses on the connection between the persecutions and the Crusade, outlining what the possible motives of the Crusaders were.
It can be concluded that an accumulation of factors already from the early Middle Ages onward slowly but surely undermined the (legal) position of the Jews in Europe. Due to the growth of the power of the Catholic Church, which, on the basis of her theology and more practical considerations (political interests), had an anti-Jewish character, the Jews' situation gradually deteriorated from a privileged minority with a certain degree of prestige to a very dependent, tolerated minority. The ecclesiastical-social complications of the eleventh century – Cluniac movement, Gregorian Church Reform, Investiture Controversy between Pope and German Emperor – created a climate in which the great unfolding of the Church's power, namely the First Crusade, could take place. The growth of power was at the expense of secular authority and in particular of the emperor. The effective and bellicose crusade propaganda led to an atmosphere of mission/expansion and revenge against non-Christians in general and, within Europe, against the Jews in particular. The latter, however, initially overestimated their position, because they insufficiently realized how weak the secular, royal authorities – also and especially as their patrons – had meanwhile become. Hence the shock of 1096, despite longer-term developments, was also felt as a sudden, profound change.
SAMENVATTING:
Met de eerste kruistocht die in 1096 begon, brak ook een periode aan, waarin voor het eerst in de West-Europese geschiedenis sprake was van grootschalige en zeer gewelddadige Jodenvervolgingen. Daarmee kwam een einde aan de betrekkelijke rust die de Joden in West-Europa tot dan toe hadden gekend.
Om een verklaring te geven voor deze omslag – tevens de vraagstelling van deze scriptie die zich dan ook beperkt tot de eerste kruistocht – is het nodig eerst een beeld te geven van de positie van de Joden als minderheid in de middeleeuwse samenleving tot 1095. Hierna is uitvoerig ingegaan op de gebeurtenissen van 1096 zelf. Tijdens de vervolgingen en moorden in tientallen plaatsen, zowel in Frankrijk, in Lotharingen, als in het Duitse Rijk, werden tienduizenden Joden beroofd en verloren minstens twaalfduizend hun leven. Vervolgens komt het verband tussen de Jodenvervolgingen en de kruistocht aan de orde, waarbij geschetst wordt wat de mogelijke motieven van de kruisvaarders hierbij waren.
Geconcludeerd kan worden dat een opeenstapeling van factoren al vanaf de vroege Middeleeuwen langzaam maar zeker de (rechts-)positie van de Joden in Europa heeft ondermijnd. Door de groei van de macht van de Kerk, die op grond van haar theologie en uit meer praktische overwegingen (politieke belangen) een anti-Joods karakter had, werden de Joden gaandeweg van een geprivilegieerde minderheid met een zekere mate van aanzien, tot een zeer afhankelijke, gedoogde minderheid. De kerkelijk-maatschappelijke verwikkelingen van de elfde eeuw – Cluniacenser-beweging, Gregoriaanse kerkhervorming, investituurstrijd tussen paus en Duitse keizer – schiepen een klimaat, waarin dè grote machtsontplooiing van de Kerk, namelijk de eerste kruistocht, zich kon voltrekken. De machtsgroei ging ten koste van het wereldlijk gezag en in het bijzonder van de keizer. De doeltreffende en krijgszuchtige kruistochtpropaganda leidde tot een sfeer van missie/expansie en wraak tegen niet-christenen in het algemeen en binnen Europa met name tegen de Joden. Dezen overschatten aanvankelijk echter hun positie, omdat zij zich de actuele zwakte van de wereldlijke vorsten – ook en vooral als hun beschermheren – onvoldoende realiseerden. Vandaar dat de schok van 1096, ondanks de langere termijn-ontwikkelingen, ook als een plotselinge, diepgaande omslag werd gevoeld.
Paper, Medieval history, within the framework of the seminar The Crusades, led by Prof. Koen Goudriaan; as part of undergraduate studies in History, submitted by Pim Griffioen, student at the Department of History, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit (VU University), Amsterdam, 1988; 16 pages Dutch text (annotation and references included).
CONTENTS:
Introduction (3)
1. The position of the Jews as a minority in medieval society until 1095 (4)
2. The events of 1096 (7)
3. What motives were there in the Crusader pogrom? (10)
Conclusion (13)
Notes (14)
References (16)
SUMMARY:
With the First Crusade, which began in 1096, a period also began during which, for the first time in Western European history, there were large-scale and very violent persecutions of the Jews. With that came an end to the relative tranquility that the Jews in Western Europe had known until then.
To provide an explanation for this turning point – also the question of this paper, which is therefore limited to the First Crusade – it is necessary first to give a picture of the position of the Jews as a minority in medieval society until 1095. After this a description is given of the events of 1096 itself. During the persecutions and massacres in dozens of towns, in both France, Lorraine and the German Empire, tens of thousands of Jews were robbed and at least twelve thousand lost their lives. The paper then focuses on the connection between the persecutions and the Crusade, outlining what the possible motives of the Crusaders were.
It can be concluded that an accumulation of factors already from the early Middle Ages onward slowly but surely undermined the (legal) position of the Jews in Europe. Due to the growth of the power of the Catholic Church, which, on the basis of her theology and more practical considerations (political interests), had an anti-Jewish character, the Jews' situation gradually deteriorated from a privileged minority with a certain degree of prestige to a very dependent, tolerated minority. The ecclesiastical-social complications of the eleventh century – Cluniac movement, Gregorian Church Reform, Investiture Controversy between Pope and German Emperor – created a climate in which the great unfolding of the Church's power, namely the First Crusade, could take place. The growth of power was at the expense of secular authority and in particular of the emperor. The effective and bellicose crusade propaganda led to an atmosphere of mission/expansion and revenge against non-Christians in general and, within Europe, against the Jews in particular. The latter, however, initially overestimated their position, because they insufficiently realized how weak the secular, royal authorities – also and especially as their patrons – had meanwhile become. Hence the shock of 1096, despite longer-term developments, was also felt as a sudden, profound change.
SAMENVATTING:
Met de eerste kruistocht die in 1096 begon, brak ook een periode aan, waarin voor het eerst in de West-Europese geschiedenis sprake was van grootschalige en zeer gewelddadige Jodenvervolgingen. Daarmee kwam een einde aan de betrekkelijke rust die de Joden in West-Europa tot dan toe hadden gekend.
Om een verklaring te geven voor deze omslag – tevens de vraagstelling van deze scriptie die zich dan ook beperkt tot de eerste kruistocht – is het nodig eerst een beeld te geven van de positie van de Joden als minderheid in de middeleeuwse samenleving tot 1095. Hierna is uitvoerig ingegaan op de gebeurtenissen van 1096 zelf. Tijdens de vervolgingen en moorden in tientallen plaatsen, zowel in Frankrijk, in Lotharingen, als in het Duitse Rijk, werden tienduizenden Joden beroofd en verloren minstens twaalfduizend hun leven. Vervolgens komt het verband tussen de Jodenvervolgingen en de kruistocht aan de orde, waarbij geschetst wordt wat de mogelijke motieven van de kruisvaarders hierbij waren.
Geconcludeerd kan worden dat een opeenstapeling van factoren al vanaf de vroege Middeleeuwen langzaam maar zeker de (rechts-)positie van de Joden in Europa heeft ondermijnd. Door de groei van de macht van de Kerk, die op grond van haar theologie en uit meer praktische overwegingen (politieke belangen) een anti-Joods karakter had, werden de Joden gaandeweg van een geprivilegieerde minderheid met een zekere mate van aanzien, tot een zeer afhankelijke, gedoogde minderheid. De kerkelijk-maatschappelijke verwikkelingen van de elfde eeuw – Cluniacenser-beweging, Gregoriaanse kerkhervorming, investituurstrijd tussen paus en Duitse keizer – schiepen een klimaat, waarin dè grote machtsontplooiing van de Kerk, namelijk de eerste kruistocht, zich kon voltrekken. De machtsgroei ging ten koste van het wereldlijk gezag en in het bijzonder van de keizer. De doeltreffende en krijgszuchtige kruistochtpropaganda leidde tot een sfeer van missie/expansie en wraak tegen niet-christenen in het algemeen en binnen Europa met name tegen de Joden. Dezen overschatten aanvankelijk echter hun positie, omdat zij zich de actuele zwakte van de wereldlijke vorsten – ook en vooral als hun beschermheren – onvoldoende realiseerden. Vandaar dat de schok van 1096, ondanks de langere termijn-ontwikkelingen, ook als een plotselinge, diepgaande omslag werd gevoeld.
Research Interests:
European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI), 2014 Part of the European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) Online Course in Holocaust Studies (2014), section: 'The Nazi Camps and the Persecution and Murder of the Jews', in... more
European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI), 2014
Part of the European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) Online Course in Holocaust Studies (2014), section: 'The Nazi Camps and the Persecution and Murder of the Jews', in cooperation with Yad Vashem, Jerusalem. This is an updated version. For the original text with references to archival documents, see EHRI website. EHRI is funded by the European Union.
For text file see also section 'Teaching documents' above. For weblinks directly to archival documents, see online course on EHRI website:
https://training.ehri-project.eu/transit-camps-western-europe-during-holocaust
Part of the European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) Online Course in Holocaust Studies (2014), section: 'The Nazi Camps and the Persecution and Murder of the Jews', in cooperation with Yad Vashem, Jerusalem. This is an updated version. For the original text with references to archival documents, see EHRI website. EHRI is funded by the European Union.
For text file see also section 'Teaching documents' above. For weblinks directly to archival documents, see online course on EHRI website:
https://training.ehri-project.eu/transit-camps-western-europe-during-holocaust
For text file and weblink see section 'Teaching documents' above.
For more info and text file see section 'Teaching documents' above.