Nederlandse vertaling:

Onderwijs in het oog van de storm. Een geschiedenis van het katholiek middelbaar onderwijs tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog in België

Cover: picture of the KSA Camp in Yvoir, 1945. Source: ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Aalst, nr. 12/2D, ‘Aalst Foto’s’, nr. 2, ‘KSA Sint- Jozefscollege Aalst’

The author and the supervisors give the authorisation to consult and to copy parts of this work for personal use only. Every other use is subject tot the copyright laws. Permission to reproduce any material contained in this work should be obtained from the author.

!

University of University of Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences Faculty of Arts and Humanities

Sarah Van Ruyskensvelde

Education in turmoil A history of Catholic secondary education during the Second World War in

Dissertation offered to obtain the degree of Doctor of Educational Sciences and Doctor of History within the framework of a joint doctorate at KU Leuven and Universiteit Antwerpen

2014

! !

! Samenvatting

[Sarah Van Ruyskensvelde – Onderwijs in het oog van de storm. Een geschiedenis van het katholiek middelbaar onderwijs tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog in België – Proefschrift aangeboden tot het verkrijgen van de graad van Doctor in de Pedagogische Wetenschappen en Doctor in de Geschiedenis in het kader van een joint doctoraat tussen de KU Leuven en de Universiteit Antwerpen, 2014. Onder leiding van Prof. dr. Marc Depaepe en Prof. dr. Marnix Beyen]

Aan de grondslag van voorliggend proefschrift ligt de onderzoeksvraag in welke mate de Duitse militaire bezetting van België tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog een invloed heeft gehad op de ontwikkeling, het verloop en de organisatie van het katholiek middelbaar onderwijs voor jongens. Het doel van dit proefschrift was een leemte op te vullen binnen het veld van de onderwijsgeschiedenis en het historiografisch onderzoek naar de Tweede Wereldoorlog, dat thans slechts enkele deelaspecten van dit onderwerp heeft belicht. Voorliggende studie presenteert daarentegen de resultaten van een algemeen onderzoek naar de (politieke) impact van de Duitse bezetting op het katholiek middelbaar onderwijs in België. Concreet is deze studie opgebouwd rond vier clusters van onderzoeksvragen. In de eerste plaats onderzoekt deze studie de onderwijspolitiek van het Duitse militaire bestuur in België tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog en behandelt het de vraag in welke mate de bezetter het onderwijs heeft ingezet als een (politiek) wapen om aanvaarding van het regime te bewerkstelligen in brede lagen van de maatschappij. In tweede instantie spitst deze studie zich toe op de relatie tussen het Duitse regime en de vooroorlogse onderwijsautoriteiten. Omdat dit onderzoek zich uitsluitend op het katholiek onderwijs in België toespitst, onderzoekt dit proefschrift vooral de relatie tussen de Verwaltungsstab en de Rooms-Katholieke Kerk, die – op grond van de constitutionele vrijheid van onderwijs – bevoegdheid had over het netwerk van (niet-gesubsidieerde) vrije scholen. Vervolgens verlegt dit proefschrift de focus van het centrale niveau van de politieke besluitvorming naar dat van het dagelijkse schoolse leven en de klaspraktijk. Meer bepaald levert deze dissertatie eveneens een antwoord op de vraag in welke mate de onderwijspolitiek van de bezetter een invloed had op het dagelijks verloop van het schoolse leven. Bovendien worden ook de vragen behandeld in welke mate de oorlog en de politieke situatie doordrongen tot in de klas en de school, en of en hoe leerlingen en leraars zich engageerden voor of tegen het Duitse regime. Hoewel in dit onderdeel de subjectieve oorlogservaringen

! 1! van leerlingen en leraren reeds centraal stelt, bespreekt dit proefschrift tot slot de oorlogsherinneringen van leraars en leerlingen in het katholiek middelbaar onderwijs. Meer bepaald gaat het laatste hoofdstuk op zoek naar patronen in de oorlogsherinneringen van leraars uit de bisschoppelijke colleges en leerlingen uit de Jezuïetencolleges in Vlaanderen en Wallonië en kadert het deze patronen binnen de bestaande literatuur over de herinnering aan de Tweede Wereldoorlog in België. Dit proefschrift toont aan dat de Duitse onderwijspolitiek zich vooral entte op een zogenaamde Gleichschaltung van het Belgische onderwijssysteem. De inperking van de episcopale macht over het onderwijs en het terugschroeven van de ontwikkeling van katholieke scholen vormden een belangrijke voorwaarde voor de controle- en machtsaspiraties van het Duitse bezettingsbestuur. In tegenstelling tot wat soms in de literatuur wordt gesuggereerd, kan de Duitse bezetting van België echter niet louter gezien worden als een eenzijdig opleggen van Duitse regels en controle en waren de Katholieke Kerk en de katholieke scholen geen loutere slachtoffers van de bezetting. Zo negotieerde het aartsbisdom in Mechelen met de Verwaltungstab over het Duitse restrictieve onderwijsbeleid, niet enkel met het oog op het behoud van de episcopale macht over onderwijs tijdens, maar ook na de oorlog. Bovendien onderhandelde ook de katholieke school haar positie op het continuüm tussen het binnen- en buitenschoolse leven. De oorlogsperiode en de Duitse bezetting veranderden de katholieke schoolcultuur niet radicaal, maar brachten een nieuwe dynamiek op gang die gedragen werd van onderuit.

! 2! Summary

[Sarah Van Ruyskensvelde – Education in Turmoil. A history of Catholic secondary education during the Second World War in Belgium – Dissertation presented to obtain the degree of Doctor of Educational Sciences and Doctor of History within the framework of a joint doctorate between KU Leuven and Universiteit Antwerpen, 2014. Under the supervision of Prof. dr. Marc Depaepe and Prof. dr. Marnix Beyen]

At the basis of the dissertation at hand lies the question whether the German military occupation of Belgium during the Second World War influenced the development and organization of Catholic secondary education for boys. This dissertation aims at filling a current gap in the history of education and the historiography of the Second World War that has only shed light on certain aspects of this subject. In contrast, the study at hand presents the research results of a general investigation of the (political) impact of the German occupation on Catholic secondary education in Belgium. More specifically, this study revolves around four clusters of research questions. Firstly, this study investigates the educational policy of the German military governement during the Second World War and deals with the question as to what extent the occupier used the educational system as a (political) tool for gaining acceptance of the regime within broad layers of society. Secondly, this study focuses on the relation between the German regime and the pre-war educational authorities. As this study specifically focuses on Catholic education in Belgium, this dissertation mainly sheds light on the relation between the Verwaltungsstab and the Roman that – on grounds of the constitutional principle of the freedom of education – held authority over the network of (non-subsidized) private schools. Thirdly, the focus of this dissertation shifts from the central level of political decision-making to that of daily school life and classroom practice. More specifically, this dissertation answers the question as to what extent the educational policy of the occupier influenced the development of daily life in schools. Furthermore, this dissertation also addresses questions about the extent to which the war and political situation penetrated the classroom or school, and whether and how teachers and pupils engaged in favor or against the German regime. Although this previous part already puts central the subjective experiences of pupils and teachers, this dissertation also deals with the war memories of teachers and pupils in Catholic secondary education. More specifically, the last chapter focuses on patterns in the war memories of teachers in episcopal secondary schools and pupils in Jesuit secondary schools in both and

! 3! , and frames those memories within the current historiography about World War II memories in Belgium. This dissertation shows that the German educational policy was founded on a so-called Gleichschaltung of the Belgian educational system. The restriction of episcopal power over education and the reversal of the strong development of Catholic schools were an important condition for the German regime’s aspirations of control and power. Yet, contrary to what is often suggested in literature, the German occupation of Belgium cannot be merely considered as a unilateral imposition of German rules and control, and the Catholic Church and schools were not merely victims of the occupation. More specifically, the top of the Roman Catholic Church in Mechelen succesfully negotiated with the Verwaltungsstab about the German restrictive educational policy, not only in view of the maintenance of episcopal authority over education during, but also after the war. Furthermore, also Catholic schools negotiated their position in the dense relationship between the school and the larger society. The Second World War and the German occupation did not drastically change Catholic school culture, but stirred up new dynamics that was carried from below.

! 4! Dankwoord

Het dankwoord van heel wat doctoraatstudies begint vaak met de vaststelling dat een doctoraatsonderzoek geen eenmansonderneming is, maar het resultaat van discussies met en de hulp van een hele groep mensen. Ik wil deze haast cliché geworden vaststelling ook in dit dankwoord nog eens herhalen. Niet zo zeer door een gebrek aan tijd of inspiratie, maar omdat ze misschien nog meer dan voor sommige van de collega’s die mij voorgingen in dit avontuur opgaat voor dit onderzoek. Bij de totstandkoming van dit proefschrift – en ik heb dit altijd als een enorm genoegen en geluk, eerder dan als een last beschouwd – keken steeds twee promotoren over mijn schouder mee. Bovendien deden ze dat allebei door een heel andere bril. In de eerste plaats is voorliggende studie schatplichtig aan Prof. dr. Marnix Beyens expertise in de cultuurhistorische aspecten van de Tweede Wereldoorlog en zijn analytisch inzicht dat ik steeds erg heb bewonderd. Hoewel ik gewapend met een zekere bagage in het ‘historisch ambacht’ aan dit onderzoek begon, hebben zijn inzichten en feedback mij in vele opzichten misschien meer gevormd dan mijn – niettemin zeer degelijke – geschiedenisopleiding aan de Universiteit Gent. Zijn feedback en advies hebben mij geïnitieerd in het van een wetenschappelijke studie, het schrijven van een academisch artikel of het opbouwen van een degelijk betoog. Hetzelfde geldt zeker ook voor mijn promotor aan de KU Leuven, Prof. dr. Marc Depaepe, die mij de kans heeft gegeven andere horizonten te ontdekken. Vanuit zijn expertise in de onderwijsgeschiedenis stimuleerde hij me om het pad van de politiek-institutionele geschiedenis te verlaten en de focus te (durven) leggen op een onderzoek van de schoolcultuur tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Hoewel zijn kennis en ervaring mij soms overdonderden, is hij is een belangrijke mentor geweest in het aansnijden van een meer onderwijshistorische onderzoekslijn die mij misschien wel té lang onbekend was gebleven. Bovendien is Marc Depaepe, naast een belangrijke speler in het onderzoeksveld die heel wat bewondering opwekt, één van mijn grootste supporters geweest in het schrijven van artikels en het afwerken van dit doctoraat.

Dit doctoraatsonderzoek heeft me dus – op aanraden en advies van bovengenoemde gidsen – langs verschillende methodologische en thematische paden gebracht. Onvermijdelijk voerde deze studie mij dan ook langs de verschillende de archiefinstellingen die dit land rijk is. Ik wil dan ook de medewerkers van het Studie- en Documentatiecentrum voor Oorlog

! 5! en Hedendaagse Maatschappij te Brussel, het Documentatie- en Onderzoekscentrum voor Religie, Cultuur en Samenleving te Leuven, alsook de verschillende bisschoppelijke archieven en de archivarissen van de Klein Seminaries van , Mechelen en Sint- Niklaas bedanken voor hun bereidwillige medewerking bij het aandragen van alwéér een nieuwe doos archiefmateriaal en hun niet aflatende enthousiaste ondersteuning in de zoektocht naar relevant bronnenmateriaal. Toch moet gezegd dat deze doctoraatstudie mij niet enkel in contact heeft gebracht met ‘oud papier’. Ik heb ook het enorme genoegen gehad om met diegenen ‘die het allemaal zelf hebben meegemaakt’ te kunnen spreken. Ik wil dan ook de oud-leerlingen van de Vlaamse en Franstalige Jezuïetencolleges die mijn vraag om een interview over hun ervaringen op de schoolbanken tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog enthousiast hebben ontvangen, hartelijk danken om mij niet enkel in hun woning, maar ook in hun herinnering binnen te laten. Ook aan de familie Van Acker uit Lokeren wil ik een bijzonder woord van dank richten voor het delen van hun herinneringen aan hun geliefde broer, echtgenoot of vader Juliaan Van Acker, wiens dagboek een belangrijke bijdrage leverde aan dit doctoraatsonderzoek.

In tijden van doctoraatsstress leert men – naast het historische métier – ook zijn vrienden kennen. Ik wil dan ook vooral de vele vrienden, zoals Fré’tje, Evelien, Kristof, Maarten, Lieselot, Dagmar, Rien en Elke (om er maar enkele te noemen) bedanken om – hoewel er andere (café-)gespreksstof te bedenken is – steeds naar mijn verhalen ‘over den oorlog’ te luisteren, mijn enthousiasme over mijn onderzoek aan te moedigen, maar ook om mijn doorzettingsvermogen te prikkelen wanneer de motivatie op een laag pitje stond. Hetzelfde geldt voor de vele collega’s die, door hun blijvende gezelschap langs de lange weg die ik heb afgelegd eigenlijk meer vrienden zijn geworden. Ik wil dan ook het Leuvense gezelschap Pieter Verstraete, Pieter Fannes en Bart Vranckx bedanken voor de luchtige middaggesprekken en discussies bij de occasionele pot en pint. Ook collegae onderwijshistorici, Prof. dr. Iveta Kestere, Geert Thyssen, Walter Kusters en Prof. dr. Angelo Van Gorp verdienen een woord van dank voor hun stimulerende commentaren en opmerkingen in discussies op congressen. Ook de collegae academici, Heidi, Elliot, Maarten en Walter, die hun taalkundige talenten op de afzonderlijke delen van voorliggende studie loslieten, wil ik in het bijzonder bedanken voor hun hulp. Bovendien ben ik ook veel dank verschuldigd aan de leden van de Onderzoeksgroep Educatie, Cultuur en Samenleving van de KU Leuven en de Onderzoeksgroep Politieke Geschiedenis van de Universiteit Antwerpen voor de vele uitnodigingen tot discussies en

! 6! debat. Tot slot, verdienen ook de medewerkers van het secretariaat van de onderzoeksgroep in Leuven, Maria Leon en Bartel Wilms, een grote pluim voor hun praktische ondersteuning en advies.

Daarnaast mag en wil ik ook mijn familie niet vergeten. In de eerste plaats dan vooral mijn ouders en grootouders, zonder wie ik nooit het enorme geluk zou hebben gekend nu reeds bijna tien jaar van mijn leven mijn ‘ding te kunnen doen’ en mijn persoonlijke interesses verder te kunnen ontwikkelen. Heel veel dank gaat ook uit naar de rest van mijn familie en schoonfamilie die het soms jarenen hebben volgehouden mij steeds even geïnteresseerd te bevragen naar de voortgang van mijn onderzoek, vaak zonder daar ooit een duidelijk of coherent antwoord op te krijgen.

Tot slot leerde ik in tijden van doctoraatstress ook de liefde kennen. Hoewel Wouter er niet bij was bij de aanvang van het doctoraat, heeft hij mij door de beslissende jaren geloodst. In de hoop dat onze geschiedenis niet bij dit verhaal eindigt, is deze studie dan ook aan hem opgedragen.

Gent, januari 2014.

! 7! ! 8! Table of Contents

Samenvatting 1

Summary 3

Dankwoord 5

Table of contents 9

Introduction 15

1. Definition of research questions and relevance of the project 15 2. A study of wartime education from the perspective of negotiation 21 3. A study of wartime education: a focus on actors and their networks 27 4. Education and war: a focus on school culture 35 5. Education in times of war: status quaestionis of secondary literature 40 6. Source survey 54 6.1. The archives of the Military Administration in Belgium 54 6.2. Archives of the Catholic dioceses 56 6.3. Archives of the Society of Jesus 60 6.4. School archives 63 6.5. Life histories and oral history 65 6.6. Miscellaneous 68 7. Structure of this dissertation 69

PART I EDUCATION UNDER SIEGE. A POLITICAL-INSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF CATHOLIC EDUCATION DURING WORLD WAR II

Chapter 1 75 The school as a subject of pacification and conflict. The development, structure and actors of Belgian education and the challenge of National

1. Introduction 75

! 9! 2. The Catholic school as a bastion of French elite culture, and the challenge of the state and Movement 77 3. Belgian education as an exponent of parliamentary democracy, and the challenge of the New Order 87 4. A new chapter in Belgian educational history: actors of Belgian education during the Second World War 94 4.1. Exponents of a New Order: the Militärverwaltung and its members 94 4.2. Old protagonists of a New Order? The Ministry of Public Education 103 4.3. Exponents of the German educational policy: the structure and protagonists of the Commision for Linguistic Control, the Flemish and Walloon Cultural Boards and the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals 109 4.4. Supporters of the New Order: the educational ideals of collaborating movements in Belgium 114 4.5. Protagonists of the established order: the Roman Catholic Church and the Society of Jesus in Belgium 118 5. Conclusion 126

Chapter 2 129 Towards a Gleichschaltung of Belgian education? The Military Administration’s educational policy during World War II in Belgium

1. Introduction 129 2. The Belgian cultural landscape as a Janus face: the first reports of the Culture Department, June-November 1940 130 3. Education and Kulturpolitik: the development of a German, 1940-1944 136 4. Tailpiece of the German educational policy: the decrees of August 13 and November 7, 1942 152 5. Conclusion: balance of the German educational policy during the Second World War in Belgium 154

! 10! Chapter 3 157 Education as an Apple of Discord ... Negotiations over the future of Catholic schools between the German occupier and archbishopric in Belgium, 1942-1943

1. Introduction 157 2. The Belgian Roman Catholic Church and the burden of ‘political Catholicism’ 159 3. The ‘Miracle Summer of 1942’? The long process of negotiation over the future of Catholic education in Belgium 165 4. The letter of protest of March 15, 1943: the episcopal negotiation strategy under pressure 177 5. Negotiating educational peace. An analysis of the strategies of the Belgian archbishopric in dealing with the German occupation 179 5.1. The Military Administration ‘under siege’? 179 5.2. Belgian Church policy between traditional and renewal 185 6. Conclusion: balance of the Catholic negotiation strategy during World War II in Belgium 190

PART II SCHOOLING AND THE WAR. A STUDY OF SCHOOL CULTURE IN BELGIAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY EDUCATION, 1940-1944

Chapter 4 203 Setting the framework. The development, protagonists and structure of Catholic secondary education in Belgium

1. Introduction 203 2. Bastions of elite culture: the Catholic educational project in secondary schools and its main protagonists 204 3. Conclusion 221

! 11!

Chapter 5 223 Schooling and the war. The development of Catholic school culture during World War II in Belgium

1. Introduction 223 2. Education interrupted: Catholic schooling during the early days of the war 226 3. Under pressure: the impact of the German restriction of private education and the textbook policy of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals on Catholic schools in Belgium 229 3.1. The impact of the German restriction of private education on schools 229 3.2. The impact of the German curriculum and textbook policy on Catholic schooling 237 4. Politics in the classroom: pupils’ and teachers’ engagement in debates about war and politics 246 4.1. Introduction 246 4.2. References to the war and politics in textbooks, course preparations and excercise books 249 4.3. Pupils’ engagement in political debates in extra-curricular societies: the Literary Guilds and Literary Academies 262 4.4. Politics on the playground: a ‘chalk face’ study of conflict between supporters and opponents of the 264 5. Politics outside the classroom: Catholic youth movements and the lure of New Order ideology 275 5.1. Contacts between Catholic and New Order youth movements 276 5.2. Teachers’ and pupils’ membership of collaborating or New Order youth movements 285 6. Fifty shades of gray? Collaboration and resistance in Belgian schools during World War II 292

! 12! 6.1. Images of collaboration and resistance in Catholic schools: black schools in Flanders versus white schools in Wallonia? 292 6.2. Catholic schools and the collaboration 296 6.3. Teachers and pupils in the resistance 301 7. Catholicism and the Jewish Question 307 8. Conclusion 314

Chapter 6 317 A (school) trip down memory lane ... Teachers’ and pupils’ memories of World War II in Belgium

1. Introduction 317 2. Teacher and pupil memory of World War II: scraping the surface of a new field? 320 2.1. Introduction 320 2.2. Belgian teachers’ and pupils’ memories of World War II: sources and methodology 323 2.3. Teachers’ and pupils’ memories of World War II: testimonies of a failed German educational policy? 330 2.4. Teacher and pupil memory of World War II in Belgium: a fragmented landscape of memory? 337 3. Conclusion 352

Conclusion 357 Catholic secondary education during World War II. Victim of a German indoctrination program?

Epilogue 363

Suggestions for furture research 375 Education during World War II. Exploring virgin territory of the history of education?

! 13! List of abbreviations 379

References 381

Attachment 1 409 List of respondents, ‘Enquête Kerk en clerus tijdens de bezetting’

Attachment 2 413 List of respondents, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’

! 14!

Introduction

1. Definition of research questions and relevance of the project

On May 12, 1945 two British newspapers published an article on the end of the war in Europe, stating that Belgian education had functioned as a genuine weapon in the hands of the German occupying regime. According to journalists of the News Chronicle and Daily Telegraph, the Nazi system had had such an influence on children that, after the war, Belgian authorities would have to submit them to a ‘scientific purge’.1 Furthermore, in Belgian newspapers, such as the Catholic Francophone newspaper La Libre Belgique, “la nazification des écoliers belges” was fiercely debated after the war.2 On the opening ceremony of the Birckbeck College in London, even the English Minister of Education, R.A. Butler, claimed that Belgian education needed ‘a period of inoculation’. In his view, Belgian children had been the victims of a unilateral procedure of misinformation, since during the occupation ‘the individuality of children had not mattered’.3 Not only this speech, but also the presence of the Belgian Minister of Education at the ceremony was fiercely criticized in Belgium, particularly by Catholic educational authorities. In a note of May 22, 1945, the Jesuit provincial of the Walloon Province, Victor Le Cocq, argued that the speech and articles damaged private and public education (both in Flanders and Wallonia) and that nothing could support these false allegations. Contrary to the situation in the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, he argued, collaborators or exponents of the German regime had never replaced Belgian educators.4

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 A French translation of the article and comment can be found in APBM, Section 6 ‘Enseignement’, nr. 10, box 1, ‘Traduction d’un ou deux articles parus dans “News Chronicle” et le “Daily Telegraph”’, May 12, 1945. 2 Cited in Leo Roels, Twintig jaar boeman (Lier: Van In, 1966), 211. 3 A French translation of the article and comment can be found in APBM, Section 6 ‘Enseignement’, nr. 10, box 1, ‘Traduction d’un ou deux articles parus dans “News Chronicle” et le “Daily Telegraph”’, May 12, 1945. 4 APBM, Section 6 ‘Enseignement’, nr. 10, box 1, Letter of Victor Le Cocq s.j. to Robert de le Court s.j., May 22, 1945.

! 15! Although this case illustrates that the position of teachers and the alleged German influence on education were heavily debated right after the liberation, the discussions soon petered out. Ever since, the subject has been neglected both in scientific and popular literature. As a result, the question as to whether R.A. Butler was right about the German indoctrination program of children and adolescents during the war has never been completely answered. Hence, the central question of this dissertation is one of impact: how and to what extent did the German occupation impact the organization and development of education and everyday life in schools? Generally, impact refers to a direct influence or effect, which is, however, not easy to detect in history. The influence of one thing on another often amounts to a combination of several actions, events, developments or structures. Although one can distinguish many more different kinds of impact, this dissertation only focuses on the ways in which the implementation of the ideological and political outlooks of the German Military Administration on the Belgian educational system influenced the organization and structure of Belgian education and the relations between and actions of several actors, such as Military Administration and its protagonists, the Catholic authorities responsible for private secondary schools, the Flemish movement and its protagonists, principals, teachers, pupils and parents. I am aware of the fact that, by focussing only one specific category of impact, other relevant aspects of the war – such as the material impact of the German occupation on food, paper or coal provisioning in schools or the material devastations of school buildings – remain entirely unaddressed in this dissertation. The material impact of war is, however, a well-studied aspect of the history of education during the Second World War. As the implementation of the Militärverwaltung’s ideological outlooks in Belgian education and its repercussions for schools is less documented, I decided to focus on this specific matter. During me research, it soon became very clear that the magnitude of the archival material and the scope of the subject called for a narrow definition of the geographic and thematic scope of this subject. More specifically, I chose to focus only on private, Catholic education for three distinct reasons. Firstly, at the time, the private network of Catholic schools represented the majority of pupils, especially, as far as secondary education was concerned. As a result, by focusing on Catholic education, this research encompasses the majority of secondary schools and pupils. Secondly, education was an important subject in Church- state relations. Hence, this adds to the relevance of a study of the relations between the German military government and the Ministry of Public Education, which held responsibility over state education during the Second World War, and the Roman Catholic

! 16! Church that held authority over private Catholic schools. The third argument is of a rather pragmatic and practical nature. Many Catholic institutions have considerably invested in conserving their patrimony and archives and in making them accessible to the public. Particularly the preservation of relevant source material and detailed archive inventories has provided a solid empirical basis for this study. A second important thematic restriction is the focus of this dissertation on secondary elite education for boys. A study of both systems (i.e. private education for boys and girls that, at the time, still remained strictly separated) was impossible within the given time frame of this study. More specifically, the differences in curriculum and organizational structure hampered a thorough study of both systems. Most general secondary schools for girls still emphasized the teaching of domestic science in the 1940s, whilst boys were educated in classical and modern humanities. At the same time, however, Catholic secondary schooling for boys was also very heterogeneous, which underlines the importance of a study of different types of Catholic schools. More specifically, this dissertation focuses on both the network of episcopal schools, which functioned under the direct supervision of the dioceses, and congregational schools, which were organized at the level of Roman Catholic congregations. Because of my thematic choice to focus only on elite education and the large variety in congregations active in Belgian education, I chose to focus on the educational activities of the Society of Jesus. The choice for a focus on both episcopal schools and the secondary schools of the Jesuit congregation in Belgium was inspired by many factors. First and foremost, episcopal secondary schools represented a majority of the school population. More specifically, during the 1920s, the dioceses supervised 54% of Belgian schools. In contrast, about 21% of Belgian schools were state-run.5 Moreover, the network of episcopal schools (i.e. general secondary episcopal schools and Minor Seminaries6) directly fell under the responsibility of the archbishop and bishops, which make them an interesting case as to how the episcopal (educational) policy during the Second World War was actually translated and implemented at the local level. Besides episcopal secondary schools, this doctoral dissertation also focuses on educational !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5 Paul Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’: schoolbeleving in het middelbaar onderwijs voor jongens in de provincie , 1878-1970’ (Doctoral Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2007), 230. 6 These were secondary schools that fell under the direct authority of the bishops and were established to prepare boys for priesthood.

! 17! developments within the school network of the Society of Jesus. Firstly, the Jesuit congregation had a long tradition in schooling in Belgium. Apart from the abolition of the order, roughly between the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, the involvement of the Jesuit order in education was uninterrupted from the 17th century onwards. Moreover, the Jesuit congregation (and by extension also their schools) did not fall under the responsibility of the Belgian episcopacy, but was directly subordinate to the in Rome, which offers many possibilities for comparison with the network of episcopal schools. Lastly, the Society of Jesus derived its (political) influence on Belgian society mainly from its focus on the education of an elite that would deliver many future politicians and the contacts it maintained with (local) civil authorities.7

At the basis of this dissertation about Catholic secondary elite education for boys lies a quadruple question. Firstly, the question arises how and to what extent the German occupier used the educational system as a tool for gaining acceptance of the new regime. Education has always enjoyed the particular attention of political, social and religious elites, since it is an instrument in shaping the secular and religious values of the future generation, and an important vehicle for social mobility. During the 19th and 20th century, education was a major stake in the state building process of a democratic nation. In that sense, it was not only the subject of struggle between different national groupings or political parties, but in the hands of totalitarian regimes, such as Fascim or , education also served as an important political tool to challenge and dismantle liberal parliamentary democracy. Hence, the question arises: to what extent – to once again put it in R.A. Bulter’s words – did Belgian education function as a political or ideological weapon in the hands of the German military regime? What were their aims in relation to the organization of Belgian education, what were the pillars founding their educational program, and what place did education take within the larger context of their cultural policy? Secondly, the question arises as to how Belgian educational authorities, such as the Ministry of Public Education or the Catholic Church (including the dioceses and congregations), and several concerned interest groups, such as youth movements that were also affected by the German youth policy responded to the German educational reforms. In

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7 Alain Deneef, Xavier Dusausoit, Christophe Evers, Maurice Pilette s.j. and Xavier Rousseau, Les Jésuites belges 1542-1992: 450 ans de Compagnie de Jésus dans les Provinces belgiques (Bruxelles: AESM éditions, 1992), 153.

! 18! other words, how did the multidimensional relation between the Militärverwaltung, the administration of the Ministry of Public Education and Catholic institutions develop and evolve? Moreover, how did nationalistic groupings, such as the , Verbond van Dietse Nationaal Solidaristen or Rex, which were closely intertwined with education already before the war, position themselves in this relation? Although these questions constitute a large part of the history of education during World War II, to stop here would be to limit this study to the developments at the very top of the educational pyramid. Many historical studies of education have done this in the past.8 Roy Lowe, for instance, has argued that because of the global scale of the Second World War, historians are “confronted by the challenge of making sense of, and interpreting, an event in which any local or national development can only be fully comprehended within a much broader framework. Indeed it could be argued that to focus exclusively upon local responses to a war of this magnitude may be to distort them (…).”9 Although Lowe rightly points to the importance of contextualization, when viewed from a different angle, the question arises if we can really measure the impact of World War II on schooling systems merely by studying national or international developments. Do we not run the risk of presenting a ‘zero-sum’ image of the influence of the Second World War on school life? Therefore, in third place, this study is also concerned with educational developments at the level of educational practice. More specifically, did the occupation and the German educational program impact the organization of Belgian schooling or the curriculum? How did teachers and pupils respond to the new political situation? Was the German occupation met with resistance or collaboration? Probably more than anything else, the period of the war is characterized by conflicts between several ideological groups. Focusing on these conflicts and “the role of educational systems in underpinning the national values at stake”10 offers an interesting perspective, since – as Lowe pointed out - “the Second World War was seen at the time as a war of competing ideologies which seemed, at least to those living through it, to be more starkly contrasting than the issues which had divided combatants in earlier conflicts”.11 Hence, did the installation of a ‘New Order’ regime affect

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8 Marc Depaepe, Order in progress: everyday school practice in primary schools. Belgium, 1880-1970 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 9. 9 Roy Lowe, ‘Introduction’, in Education and the Second World War: studies in schooling and social change, ed. Roy Lowe (London: The Falmer Press, 1992), 1. 10 Lowe, idem, 2. 11 Ibidem.

! 19! the relations between teachers and pupils with different political or ideological backgrounds or convictions, and how did collaborating movements, such as the Vlaams Nationaal Verbond in Flanders or Rex in Wallonia, position themselves in this relation? Did they organize propaganda in schools and how exactly did they try to win over adolescents to support their views? Lastly and in close connection to the previous questions, a fourth question is more concerned with the aspect of memory, which is taking an increasingly important place within the historiography of World War II, as well as the history of education.12 How did pupils and teachers remember their time in school during the war? Do they have specific recollections of the German occupation and do they have actual memories of repercussions of the Militärverwaltung’s educational policy or the German occupation in their school? What was their own position during the war and that of their fellow pupils and teachers, and how do they remember their involvement or engagement?

A combination of these four angles can help grasping the complexity of wartime education. Although this dissertation gives a central place to the specificity of the war context, the war perspective is not too strictly defined either. More specifically, this dissertation is also concerned with developments or issues, such as Flemish-nationalist involvement or the rivalry between public and private schools, that transcend the strict war context. This, combined with the confrontation of developments on different levels of the educational pyramid, offers the possibility of finding out which developments during the war can be understood in terms of continuity and which in terms of discontinuity. As I will discuss in the following sections, some research on the Second World War tends to overemphasize discontinuity, by mainly focusing on the installation of a new, foreign regime and the implementation of its political outlook in the occupied territories.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 12 See for instance the recent special issue of Paedagogica Historica: ‘Longing for the Present in the History of History of Education’, Paedagogica Historica 48 (2012), nr. 6.

! 20! 2. A study of wartime education from the perspective of negotiation

!

From the previous section, it follows that the central focus of this dissertation is on the position of education in relation to the war and society, and the dynamic interactions between different actors involved (such as the Roman Catholic Church, the military government, teachers or pupils). The dynamic aspect is very meaningful in this respect, for it offers a new angle from which to approach this subject. Because of their focus on the ways in which the German military government aimed at controlling all sectors of society, literature on World War II traditionally emphasizes the idea of a quasi-unilateral imposition of a German occupation policy upon Belgian society. The titles of some of the standard works on Belgium during the Second World War, such as Etienne Verhoeyen’s België Bezet (“Occupied Belgium”) or Jean-Gérard Libois and José Gotivitch’s L’an 40: La Belgique occupée, are already illustrative in this respect. The focus of België Bezet/La Belgique Occupée, for instance, is explicitly centered “aux processus décisionnels, aux stratégies de conquête, de maintien ou de renforcement du pouvoir (...)”.13 The position of Belgian societal groups or institutions towards the German occupier and their policy has mainly been defined in terms of collaboration or resistance. This is particularly the case as far as literature on the Catholic Church during the occupation is concerned. Generally, two stances can be distinguished in past research on the Roman Catholic Church during World War II. On the one hand, numerous authors have tried to prove the complicity of Catholicism in the Third Reich and occupied Europe. On the other hand, scholars have portrayed the Church as an institution that fell victim to Nazi persecution. As Michael E. O’Sullivan already rightly argued, “scholars on both sides ignore the ambiguous interactions between Catholic leaders and their followers under a regime hostile to the public practice of Catholicism”.14 To a large extent, the same holds for the historiography on the Belgian Church during World War II, which mainly crystallizes around cardinal Joseph-Ernest Van Roey. The attitude of Van Roey has been the subject of controversy and debate. Particularly his accommodating attitude towards the occupier and his public silence in relation to the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 13 Etienne Verhoeyen, La Belgique occupée. De l’an 40 à la libération (Bruxelles: De Boeck, 1994), 5. 14 Michael E. O’Sullivan, ‘An eroding milieu ? Catholic youth, Church authority, and popular behavior in Northwest during the Third Reich, 1933-1938’, The Catholic Historical Review 90 (2004): 236.

! 21! deportation of the has been criticized. Unsurprisingly, after the war, a number of contributions were published to legitimize Van Roey’s wartime policy.15 It was not until the 1990s that the subject came under the attention of scientific researchers. A standard work in this respect is Alain Dantoing’s La “collaboration” du cardinal, which particularly focuses on the pre-war Belgian neutrality politics and the first two years of the occupation.16 Importantly, Dantoing documents the political interventions of the episcopacy, the central position of the cardinal and his advisor Van der Elst in the contacts with the occupier and the ways in which the Catholic Church established its policy of ‘the lesser evil’. In many ways, Dantoing’s work formed the starting point of a number of scientific publications on the subject that tend to emphasize the evolution of the cardinal’s attitude from circumspection to resistance, and subdivide the period of the occupation into two distinguished periods going from (i) May 1940 to 1942, and (ii) from 1942 to the end of the occupation. More specifically, historiography underlines the limited, reserved and businesslike character of the contacts, particularly from 1942 onwards.17 In her influential publication Catholicism in the during World War II, Lieve Gevers, for example, notes that “1942 was a turning point in the relationship between the Church authorities and the occupying regime. The Belgian cardinal Van Roey, along with many others, become convinced that the Germans would not win the war and that eventually a liberal- democratic regime would be restored.” She adds: “(I)t can be concluded from his pastoral letter of February 1, 1942 that at that time he had abandoned the idea of accommodation between the occupying and occupied, but that he wanted to raise hopes for a more promising perspective.”18 By focusing on the conclusion of Church-state concordats, international literature has, much more than Belgian research, addressed the question of negotiation. More specifically, it starts from the idea that, as a result of the increasing power of the state, the Church sought non-political means to safeguard its interests, particularly in relation to education

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 15 Joseph Kempeneers, Kardinaal Van Roey en de “Nieuwe Orde” (Gembloux: Duculot, 1982); Edmond Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey en de Duitsche bezetting in België (Brussel: Goemaere, 1945). 16 Alain Dantoing, La “collaboration” du cardinal. L’Eglise de Belgique dans la guerre 40 (Bruxelles: De Boeck, 1991). 17 Robrecht Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey en de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Averbode: Altoria, 1997), 15. 18 Lieve Gevers, ‘Catholicism in the Low Countries During the Second World War. Belgium and the : a Comparative Approach’, in Religion under Siege I. The Roman Catholic Church in Occupied Europe (1939-1950), eds. Lieve Gevers and Jan Bank (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 219.

! 22! and social matters. Approval of Church-state agreements represented a compromise on behalf of the Church with governments that did not fully recognize its claim to independence and, by making concessions that did not undermine the spiritual functions of the Church, implied a guarantee for the continued existence of ecclesiastical activities. As Frank Coppa has put it, the Church “surrendered incidentals to preserve essentials”.19 The most controversial among these concordats, were those with authoritarian leaders, such as the Church concordats with Mussolini (1929) and Hitler (1933). The Vatican attained accommodation with these regimes, as they were not burdened with the political diversity and anticlericalism that characterized some of the democratic states.20 Furthermore, the rise of authoritarian regimes presented new possibilities for the Church, as it was disillusioned with pre-war liberal governments in Europe that were not inclined to make agreements with the Church, or at least not for a long period of time, since this could have diminished the sovereignty of the parliament in law and could have enlarged the Church’s influence in educational matters.21 Biesinger argued that, generally, the Papacy was convinced that only negotiations could successfully resolve the conflict with Nazi leaders.22 Although the concordat was eventually violated by the Nazis, Pope Pius XI and his state secretary Eugenio Pacelli (who would later become Pope Pius XII) still trusted traditional diplomacy. Generally, they were convinced that the best way to pull as much as possible out of the fire was patience and persistent diplomacy.23 Moreover, as Cornwell has pointed out, the Holy See was convinced that their influence could be guaranteed by adopting a neutral position.24 At the same time, however, international literature often draws attention to the Church’s weakness towards National Socialist persecution. In relation to the Holy See for example, some scholars argued that although the Church of Rome believed that a concordat with

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 19 Frank J. Coppa, ‘Mussolini and the Concordat of 1929’, in Controversial Concordats: the Vatican’s relations with , Mussolini and Hitler, ed. Frank J. Coppa (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 81-2. 20 Ibidem. 21 John Zeender, ‘Introduction’, in Controversial Concordats: the Vatican’s relations with Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler, ed. Frank J. Coppa (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 16. 22 John Biesinger, ‘The Reich Concordat of 1933. The Church’s struggle Against ’, in Controversial Concordats: the Vatican’s relations with Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler, ed. Frank J. Coppa (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 171. 23 Zeender, ‘Introduction’, 29. 24 John Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope. The secret history of Pius XII (New York: Viking, 1999), 69.

! 23! Hitler would create a basis for protest in the event that it would be violated25, it was in fact paralyzed by it26. Furthermore, scholarship on some of the national churches discusses the unsuccessfulness of Church protests and the dramatic consequences for the persecution of the Jews27. This image of a relatively weak Church does not completely correspond to that of the Belgian cardinal and his entourage. Although the Belgian Church too faced major difficulties, I believe that it was not completely ‘paralyzed’ by the occupation, precisely because Van Roey – and in contrast to what Gevers has argued, particularly from 1942 onwards – increasingly reverted to traditional means of diplomacy as a way of securing Church interests and solve (potential) conflicts with the Verwaltungsstab. In this dissertation, I argue that both the Military Administration and the Roman Catholic Church negotiated the further existence and position of Catholic institutions, and that the negotiation process was beneficial to both. On the one hand, the Military Administration (and more specifically, the German Culture Department) wanted to avoid an overt conflict with the archbishopric in Mechelen. More specifically, the Military Administration not only realized that some peace with the Church was necessary in maintaining the order and peace in the country, it also found a willing partner in Van Roey’s administration when it came to defending itself against the increasing attacks of the National Socialist Party and the hineinregieren of the SS. On the other hand, and in line with Martin Conway’s conclusions in relation to the Papal concordats with Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany28, the Catholic Church (and more specifically, cardinal Joseph-Ernest Van Roey) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 25 Cornwell, idem, 160. 26 Biesinger, ‘The Reich Concordat of 1933’, 142. 27 For the Croatian Church, see Karolina Vidović-Kristo, ‘The Catholic Church in Croatia’, in Religion under Siege I. The Roman Catholic Church in Occupied Europe (1939-1950), eds. Lieve Gevers and Jan Bank (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 90; For Poland see Idesbald Goddeeris, ‘The Catholic Church in Poland under Nazi Occupation (1939-1945) and the First Years of Communism (1944-1948)’, in Religion under Siege I. The Roman Catholic Church in Occupied Europe (1939-1950), eds. Lieve Gevers and Jan Bank (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 22; For Lithuania see Vilna Narkute, ‘The Catholic Church in Lituania under Two Occupying Regimes’, in Religion under Siege I. The Roman Catholic Church in Occupied Europe (1939-1950), eds. Lieve Gevers and Jan Bank (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 187-8 and 200; for the Netherlands see Gevers, ‘Catholicism in the Low Countries’, 221. Conversely, Lionel Schafer has argued that the French bishop of Lille was successful in saving condemned men and women. See Lionel Schafer, ‘L’église catholique sous Vichy: analyse comparative avec l’église belge sous l’occupation’ (Master’s Thesis, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1993), 34. 28 Martin Conway, ‘Introduction’, in Political Catholicism in Europe, 1918-1965, eds. Tom Buchanan and Martin Conway (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 17.

! 24! needed the Military Administration in maintaining the independence of its network of institutions. Hence, I believe that the position of the archbishopric is not to be solely understood in terms of resistance, accommodation or collaboration, partly because its position was determined by factors that transcend the war context by itself. Firstly, I argue that the battle between modernity and tradition, on the one hand, and the views with regard to the future of the Church, on the other hand, are to be taken into account in explaining its attitude. Cooperation with or sympathy for (certain aspects of) the German military regime could be based on the idea that the new regime could break down the pre-war liberal constellation many Catholic intellectuals were averse to, and enable the re-establishment of the Occident.29 In that sense, National Socialism was not the ultimate goal, but rather the vehicle to get rid of the pre-war liberal society, which can partly explain the cardinal’s ambiguous attitude in relation to the departure of the government, but – at the same time – his attachment to a Belgian (authoritarian) state under the rule of King Leopold III.30 Secondly, I argue that the negotiations did not only serve to maintain the independence of Catholic institutions during the war, but were also conducted with the intention of preserving its independent position with regard to the state after the occupation. Given that, in the 20th century, the dominant position of the Roman Catholic Church in educational matters was increasingly contested by the secular state, the archbishop feared that the restriction or even abolition of its educational liberties and rights during the occupation would be capitalized on by the state after the war. Hence, the Church’s principal willingness to negotiate with the German Military Administration underlines its strong attachment to an independent private educational network, rather than its attachment to National Socialism. If the Church had left the organization of education to the Militärverwaltung, it would not only have lost its authority over education, but also one of the foundations of its negotiation position towards the state. Thirdly, I advocate that the negotiations were influenced by the interactions between several actors, mentioned above. Although the negotiations occurred between two parties, they were essentially multidimensional. The German Militärverwaltung had to take into account the demands of , the presence of the secretaries-general and the public opinion. The Military Administration had to continuously strike a balance between keeping !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 29 Marnix Beyen, ‘Weerbarstige collaboratie: Uitgeverij De Lage Landen’, in Inktpatronen: De Tweede Wereldoorlog en het boekbedrijf in Nederland en Vlaanderen, ed. Hans Renders (Amsterdam: Bezige Bij, 2006), 85. 30 Dantoing, La “collaboration” du cardinal, 314-5.

! 25! the collaborating groupings within Belgian society and Berlin happy, and maintaining its credibility with the mostly non-collaboration minded population. Conversely, the archbishopric in Mechelen not only had to secure its interests towards the occupier, but also had to take into account the maintenance of its (moral) prestige in society and the continuation of education in Catholic schools under episcopal supervision.

As the previous paragraph already suggests, the basis of the educational system (i.e. schools, principals, teachers, pupils and their parents) forms an important factor in this relationship as well. I believe that the perspective of negotiation can also be applied to the history of wartime education ‘at the chalk face’, meaning that actors of the lower educational orders negotiated their position within the specific school context and larger society. Again, this angle is almost completely absent in current literature, which tends to emphasize certain aspects of the restrictive German educational or cultural policy or the consequences of the war conditions on schools and, as a result, often portrays schools as mere receivers of the German educational measures or as victims of war. Kristel De Smedt’s dissertation on daily school life during the war in Belgium, for instance, is predominantly concerned with the material conditions of war and the German interference in schools.31 Moreover, because she restricted her study to investigating circular letters of the Ministry of Public Education, as well as official documents of both the Belgian and German authorities and questionnaires, the perspective of actors at the basis of the educational pyramid is largely absent. Parallel to the previous discussion of the central level, this work shows that schools (and all actors involved) were more than just victims of war or of the strict imposition of German measures. Rather than merely carrying out orders or recommendations principals received from above (i.e. from the Militärverwaltung, the Ministry of Public Education and the episcopal or congregational authorities), school culture was defined through a process of negotiation that took place in the dense network between the military regime, the Catholic educational authorities (i.e. the diocese or a congregation), (collaborating) youth movements, principals, teachers and pupils and their parents/family. It was a continuous challenge for schools to find a balance between the school context (teachers, pupils,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 31 Kristel De Smedt, ‘Schoollopen in Oorlogstijd: het dagelijkse leven in de middelbare scholen tijdens de Duitse bezetting (1940-1944)’ (Master’s Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1990).

! 26! principals, youth movements active in schools), the political context (Military Administration, diocese or congregation) and the profane world outside of the Catholic school context (parents, extra-scholar social networks). Again, parallel to the developments on the central level, school culture needs to be considered in a framework larger than the actual war itself. Current literature often puts emphasis on what changed during the war or on specific conditions of war, such as bombardments, deprivations of all sorts or aspects of a dictatorial policy of control. Although this remains very important and, to a certain extent, I also start from the idea of change, I argue that, generally, World War II was not a breach in 20th century history of education, but rather stirred up new dynamics in relation to developments in educational history, such as the issue of language (i.e. the traditional opposition between French and Dutch), nationalism (for instance, the existence of a Flemish movement, a 19th and 20th century nationalistic movement aiming at the promotion of Dutch and the of education) or the traditional division of the educational landscape in private and public schools.

3. A study of wartime education: a focus on actors and their networks

!

The previous section already indicates that the power landscape over education was in fact partitioned into small lots, rather than structured according to large power blocs localized merely on the level of political decision-making. One of the consequences of the proposed approach is that the overall focus of this dissertation shifts from structures to individuals. In that sense, one might consider this dissertation a return to ‘traditional historiography’ with its emphasis on ‘big men’, who, for some reason, were able to distinguish themselves from the rest. This approach was criticized in particular by structuralist historiography, which reversed the ‘traditional’ idea that ‘men make history’ into the idea that ‘history makes men’. Hence, rather than looking at individuals or large events, structuralist historiography looks at the system in which these events took place; or the general structure in relation to which the historical relevance of events is to be assessed. More specifically, structuralists believe that the variation of social conduct, specific features of institutions, and beliefs and opinions of people are regulated and ultimately determined by

! 27! an underlying or overarching structure.32 Or, as Simon Blackburn described it, structuralism boils down to the thesis that all phenomena of human life are intelligible only through their interrelations with each other. These interrelations form a structure that is determined by constant laws.33 In line with Michel Foucault’s idea of the ‘Great Restraint’, for example, structuralists of the 1960s and 1970s generally emphasized the function of the school as an overpowering institute.34 Although structuralists were right in their criticism of traditional historiography’s preoccupation with ‘the famous’, their alternative constitutes only one part of the solution. The problem with the structuralist approach is that it starts from the deterministic idea of a system imposed on people’s lives, and the existence of homogeneous groups within society. Or, as William Sewell has pointed out, structure is predominantly conceived as a given or as “the solid social facts or underlying and fundamentally invariable logics that determine the phenomenal shapes of social action”. The question remains, however, how mutations or transformations of the encompassing structure over the course of time can be explained.35 More specifically, although there are many different currents and forms of structuralism, structuralists generally share the idea that every ‘system’ has a structure and that this overarching structure determines the position of each of its elements.36 Especially the somewhat older studies of the Second World War in Belgium tend to depict the German military occupation of Belgium as a similar overarching structure that determined the position of its elements. More specifically, the Military Administration is often portrayed as a monolithic power bloc that quasi unilaterally imposed its policy on Belgian society. Furthermore, many Belgian scholars have focused mainly on collaboration and resistance as particular modes of responding to the occupation. In contrast, this dissertation starts from the idea that structures, though important, should not be overestimated, and that the history of education during the Second World War can be

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 32 William H. Sewell, The Logics of History. Social Theory and Social Transformation (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2005), 14. 33 Simon Blackburn, Oxford Dictionary of (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). 34 Marc Depaepe, Orde in Vooruitgang. Alledaags handelen in de Belgische Lagere School (1880-1970) (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 15. 35 Sewell, The Logics of History, 14. 36 See for instance Alison Assiter, ‘Althusser and structuralism’, British Journal of Sociology 35 (1984), nr. 2: 272-96.

! 28! discussed in terms of negotiations between heterogeneous, rather than homogeneous power blocs. In the first part, I argue that the negotiation strategy and politics of the archbishop and his advisor were not founded on ideological grounds, but that there was a significant ideological affinity with certain members of the Militärverwaltung, especially with Franz Thedieck who, being a Catholic himself, often sided with the Catholic Church, rather than with the Military Administration. Conversely, the evolution of the negotiations shows that different members within the Catholic Church or even the archbishopric held different opinions about the nature and implications of Church-state relations. The same probably holds even more when it comes to the lower educational levels. In the second part, I argue that heterogeneity constituted the very essence of school culture during World War II. Although the educational project of Catholic schools revolved around the idea of educating children in isolated communities with their own set of rules, they did in fact function in close connection to the outside world. As a result, within such an isolated environment, the coexistence of pupils, teachers and principals with their own preconceptions of and ideas about the new situation of occupation remained a precarious balancing exercise for schools throughout the war. At the same time, the fact that schools also positioned themselves within a particular local context makes the results of this study highly case-dependent. As a result of this heterogeneity, it is sometimes hard to draw general conclusions. Still, it is precisely this heterogeneity of power blocs and actors that adds to the complexity of wartime schooling and that can explain the diversity of interactions.

So, rather than a return to traditional historiography with its emphasis on the rich and famous, this dissertation focuses on the agency of actors (which often gets lost in the language of structuralism37) at all levels of the educational pyramid, and the interactions between them. Hence, in order to widen the scope of this dissertation beyond the traditional collaboration-resistance (-accommodation) perspective, I partly need to shift away from an approach that tends to depict actors as “cleverly programmed automatons”38, as Sewell phrased it, who have a limited set of options in responding to certain events or developments. This, however, does not mean that the idea of structure is entirely discarded.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 37 Sewell, The Logics of History, 125. 38 Ibidem.

! 29! As Depaepe et. al. have convincingly argued, a study of the micro-level does not necessarily imply that we need to avert our gaze from structures and governmental strategies to control or organise education. Rather, we need to develop intricate concepts that allow us to theoretically interpret the basic mechanisms of education.39 In this respect, I found merit in the Agent-Network Theory (ANT) as developed by Bruno Latour, precisely because it proposes to “follow the actors themselves, that is try to catch up with their often wild innovations in order to learn from them what the collective existence has become in their hands, which methods they have elaborated to make it fit together, which accounts could best define the new associations that they have been forced to establish.”40 In contrast to what Bruno Latour calls the ‘sociology of the social’, ANT claims that there is no society. Instead of considering the social as the glue fixing everything (i.e. some sort of super-structure that determines everything or in which all developments need to be situated), ANT claims that the social is rather what is glued together by so-called connectors.41 Before proceeding to the merits of this approach for this study, we need to give an exact definition of ANT. Firstly, in order to define the term actor, Latour distinguishes the difference between intermediaries and mediators. Whereas the first refers to mere transporters of information, the second concept refers to transformers of information. In other words, in the case of intermediaries, input always equals output, whereas in the case of mediators output is always uncertain and can differ from the input.42 Secondly, in contrast to popular understanding of the word, within the context of ANT ‘network’ refers to a series of transformations. Hence, ‘network’ cannot be understood as a transmitter of data (such as an internet network transmitting data without deformation), or as the mere relationship between different actors within a given society. Rather, it is a tool for understanding interactions or, as Latour phrased it himself, “a string of actions where each participant is treated as a full-blown mediator”.43

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 39 Depaepe, Orde in Vooruitgang, 15. 40 Bruno Latour, Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 12. 41 Latour, idem, 5. 42 Latour, idem, 37-9. 43 Latour, idem, 128; Bruno Latour, ‘On recalling ANT’, in Actor Network Theory and After, eds. John Law and John Hassard (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 15-6.

! 30! Thirdly, the word ‘theory’ in ANT is confusing since it constitutes a method rather than a theory for understanding social behavior of social actors. In that sense, the researcher inspired by ANT should look at what actors do, and why and how they do it.44 Fourthly, also the hyphen between ‘actor’ and ‘network’ is ill chosen for, as Latour himself admits, it reminds of the macro/micro, agency/structure or actor/system debate. It is precisely against this ‘urge’ of social scientists to contextualize developments situated at the micro level within some sort of super-structure that ANT want to react:

“when social scientist concentrate on what could be called the micro level, that is face to face interactions, local sites, they quickly realize that many of the elements necessary to make sense of the situation are already in place or are coming from far away.”45

In ANT, the scale difference or ‘zoom’ disappears, for the social order is perceived as being made of circulating entities, rather than agency (local/micro) and structure (global/macro).46

After this introduction to ANT ‘in a nutshell’, the question arises as to what extent ANT can contribute to a better understanding of the developments within Belgian education during World War II. If my only aim would be to discuss the relations between different actors involved, any social theory would probably do. It is precisely because this dissertation aims at refining the image of World War II as an all-encompassing structure imposed on Belgian society to which children, adolescents and adults fell victim, that I need the concept of ANT to make sense of the interactions (or in this case negotiations) between different actors. It is not my intention to apply ANT to the subject (even Latour himself would probably find this impossible47). Within the context of this dissertation, ANT serves as a toolbox providing concepts that allow me to gain a better understanding of the educational developments during the Second World War. What is important within this dissertation is that ANT focuses on (i) actor’s agency, (ii) a network of interactions and (iii) that it endorses the merits of a descriptive approach.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 44 Latour, idem, 19-20. 45 Latour, idem, 17. 46 Ibidem. 47 This follows from the dialogue between Latour and a PhD student, cited in Latour, Reassembling the social, 141.

! 31! Whereas past historiography on the topic has often treated its actors (such as the Military Administration, the body of secretaries-general or the Roman-Catholic Church) as intermediaries, merely executing or receiving orders from ‘above’ and responding to them according to the lines of resistance, collaboration or accommodation, this study considers the very same actors as mediators, constantly redefining and repositioning themselves as a result of the interactions. In Latour’s words, this dissertation offers ‘a good account’, for it aims at tracing “a network, in which each participant acts as a mediator”.48 Moreover, Latour underlines that a good ANT account “is a narrative or a description or a proposition where all the actors do something and don’t just sit there” (original italics). Since the main tenet of ANT is that “actors themselves make everything, including their own frames, their own theories, their own contexts, their own metaphysics, even their own ontologies”49, it is important to start from a precise description of the state of affairs, before proceeding to the analysis. Therefore, both parts of this doctoral dissertation start from a description of the context and the actors involved, before proceeding to the analysis of the interactions and developments during the Second World War. Furthermore, the term ‘network’ in this dissertation does not merely refer to the relations between different actors, but rather serves as a conceptual tool for investigating the negotiations and the connectedness between actors. As a result, the concept of ‘network’ does not refer to what is being described, but serves as a tool to help describe something.50 In line with Latour’s argument, I start from the idea that this connectedness of different actors or groups is considered “an on-going process made up of uncertain, fragile, controversial, and ever-shifting ties”.51 Only this assumption allows me to explain the often ambiguous and shifting position of the Militärverwaltung, archbishopric, episcopal and congregational school authorities, principals, teachers and pupils.

In spite of the many merits of ANT, the method is not without problems. Firstly, there is the lack of transparency in some of the concepts introduced in Latour’s studies about ANT. Secondly, at many stages in Reassembling the Social Latour reveals himself as a supporter of both positivism and relativism, thereby transmitting a, sometimes paradoxical, message. A third and maybe more problematic issue for historians is his questioning of the idea of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 48 Latour, idem, 128. 49 Latour, idem, 147. 50 Latour, idem, 131. 51 Latour, idem, 28.

! 32! contextualization. Generally, Latour criticizes the urge of social scientists to reduce their social explanations to ‘the force of society’ or the broader context in which every action takes place, since it results in deformation. More specifically, Latour argues, “when you put some local site ‘inside’ a larger framework, you are forced to jump”52, leaving a yawning gap between empirical data and analysis. This constitutes a tricky problem for the historian aiming at understanding historical developments or events within their specific (time) context. The only alternative Latour seems to be able to put is his proposition to ‘let the actors speak for themselves’. Since historians usually deal with deceased actors or evaporated past events, Latour’s alternative would quickly boil down to ‘letting the sources speak for themselves’, echoing the naïve and much criticized (by postmodernists, by the way!) assumption of historicism. Furthermore, he remains rather vague about how exactly the actors should speak for themselves. As discussed earlier, Latour claims that actors define their own contexts. Yet, actors rarely make the frames in which they operate explicit in historical source material. Futhermore, is the researcher really able to define whether “the text that comments on the various quotes and documents are more, less or as interesting as the actor’s own expressions and behaviors”53, as Latour proposes? Does the contextualization of historical phenomena, developments or events within their time frame necessarily imply that we are jumping to conclusions? I think that Latour has stretched his critique on the micro/macro debate a bit too far here. Yet, although I am not ready to give up on the whole idea of contextualization, I do think that he does have a point in, what he calls, ‘keeping the social flat”54. This means that we get rid of the traditional distinction between the macro and micro level, since the context or structure is no longer above the interactions, but on the same level. More specifically, within the context of this dissertation, I equally consider the events or developments that have influenced (read: transformed) the interactions between or decisions of actors, as actors in the story. With this, I subscribe to the idea of the transformative role of events in history. In his history about the arrival of Captain Cook on Hawaii, the ethnographer Sahlins, for instance, has demonstrated the transformative role of the intrusion of Europeans on the island, not only by explaining it in terms of brutal imposition of Europeans norms on Hawaiian society, but also by underlining the appropriation of the event in the Hawaiian !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 52 Latour, idem, 174. 53 Latour, idem, 30. 54 Latour, idem, 171.

! 33! (cultural) scheme. As such, he developed a possible ‘theory of events’ that helps explaining why events are not only shaped by structures, but also transform structures themselves and can provide a possible explanation of historical actor’s actions that are the result of certain events.55 As Sewell points out, the relevance of Sahlin’s historical ethnography for historians is that it renders an appreciation of historical detail imperative for the explanation of historical developments. More specifically, “the entire thrust of his theory impels us to identify the specific situations in which novel acts of reference (and markings of the world) are made”.56 In other words, the specific time, spatial and situational context acquires great significance. Applied to this research, the societal context in which the occupier needed to implement its particular educational policy or the background of the actors that were involved in negotiations about the future of Catholic education, for instance, becomes central in making sense of the political-institutional history of education during the Second World War, just as local events influenced to a certain degree the development of school culture during the war. Although it remains difficult for historians to formulate what if?-scenarios it is conceivable that the negotiations between the archbishop and the Military Administration, for instance, would have turned out differently if certain events, such as the removal of Franz Thedieck from the Military Administration in 1943 or the turn of the military chances of the Red Army at the Eastern Front, would have panned out differently. Moreover, it is conceivable that the reaction of some principals against collaborating pupils in their schools partly depended on the ways in which the former’s decision was welcomed or critized in the locality or in the local press. Although these questions remain essentially open, it should be clear that these events, at some level, influenced the actions of the actors involved, and, as such, equally functioned as a mediator or actor in the history of education during the Second World War. To come back to our initial critique of a structuralist approach to the history of education during the Second World War, the idea of events as full blown actors in history allows us to come to a somewhat different conception or definition of structure: a notion of structure that coincides with that of Anthony Giddens, for instance, who has insisted on the duality of structure. More specifically, Giddens sees the structure as both the medium and outcome of practices that shape the social system.57 Hence, people’s social practices are !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 55 For more details on this matter, see for instance, Sewell, The Logics of History, 204. 56 Sewell, idem, 219. 57 Anthony Giddens, A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Vol. 1 Power, Property and the State (London: Macmillan, 1981), 27. Cited in Sewell, The Logics of History, 127.

! 34! considered in a direct mutual influencing relation with the overarching structure: not only does the structure shape people’s practices, it is (trans)formed in equal measure by social practices.58

4. Education and war: a focus on school culture

One of the consequences of the aforementioned focus on actors and the interactions between them is the impossibility to restrict this study to the level of political decision- making. As Depaepe et. al. have argued, the question as to how society passes on knowledge, values and skills through its educational agents, should be at the center of the history of education. The fact that the pedagogical reality has often been neglected was partly the result of the paradigmatic developments within the field itself. In spite of the fact that Ideengeschichte has long made way for the social and (new) cultural history of education, many historians of education have exclusively focused on the macro and meso levels of the educational pyramid.59 So, if this study aims at including all of the actors involved, it needs to take steps in the direction of an exploration of school culture. Internationally, school culture was first introduced as a concept in the 1980s. Since then, contributions on various aspects of school life, such as school architecture, textbooks or school exercise books60, have mushroomed within the history of education. Yet, as Frederik Herman has pointed out in his doctoral dissertation School Culture in the 20th Century, “the concept degenerated almost immediately into a container concept”61, precisely because there is some discussion as to what the precise definition of ‘culture’ is.62 As the definition of culture remains difficult and complex, there are many classifications of the concept. On

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 58 Sewell, idem, 127. 59 Depaepe, Orde in Vooruitgang, 11. 60 See for instance, Martin Lawn and Ian Gosvenor eds., Materialities of schooling. Design – Technology – Object – Routine (Oxford: Symposium Books, 2005); or see Angelo Van Gorp, Nelleke Bakker, Sjaak Braster and Marjoke Rietveld-van Wingerden, Materiële schoolcultuur. Over artefacten als bron in de onderwijsgeschiedenis. Jaarboek voor de geschiedenis van opvoeding en onderwijs van de Belgisch-Nederlandse Vereniging voor de Geschiedenis van Opvoeding en Onderwijs (BNVGOO) (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2009). 61 Frederik Herman, ‘School Culture in the 20th Century. Mentality and Reality History of the Primary School’ (Doctoral Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2010), 9. 62 Frederick Erikson, ‘Conceptions of School Culture: An Overview’, Educational Administration Quarterly 23 (1987): 11-12.

! 35! the one hand, culture has been defined as a theoretical category or an aspect of social life that must be abstracted from the complex reality of human existence. In this sense, culture has been juxtaposed to non-cultural fields or activities, such as politics or biology. On the other hand, however, in various academic disciplines, the notion of culture has been used and understood as the concrete and bounded world of beliefs and practices.63 It was not before the second quarter of the 20th century that the notion of culture was defined more narrowly in anthropology as a “category of learned behavior that is concerned with meaning”. Particularly from the 1960s onwards, this definition of culture has become common in the social sciences.64 Moreover, it is in this respect that culture was defined as a particular institutional sphere devoted to the making of meaning. Hence, researchers have looked at the activities that take place within institutional spheres and the meanings that are produced in them.65 Within the history of education, this is exactly how the concept of school culture has been used and has gained meaning. Dominant conceptions of school culture start from the idea of standard didactical-pedagogical practices or fixed patterns of behavior, which are sometimes compared to a “choreography”66. Dominique Julia, for instance, defined school culture as

“a set of standards that define the knowledge to be taught and conduct to be inculcated and a set of practices enabling the transfer of this knowledge and the assimilation of these forms of conduct, these standards and practices being arranged for ends that may vary according to the era (religious or socio-political ends or quite simply for the purpose of socialization)”.67

Also Maslowski considers the rigid character of school life to be a consequence of the (often implicit) basic assumptions, standards, values and cultural artifacts that are shared

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 63 Sewell, The Logics of History, 156. 64 Sewell, idem, 158. 65 Ibidem. 66 See Betty Eggermont, ‘The choreography of schooling as a site of struggle: Belgian primary schools, 1880- 1940’, History of Education 30 (2001): 129-40. 67 Cited and translated from French to English in Herman, ‘School Culture in the 20th Century’, 11. For the original citation in French, see Dominique Julia, ‘La culture scolaire comme objet historique’, Paedagogica Historica 1 (1995): 354.

! 36! by school members.68 As a result, contributions on school culture are devoted to identifying the characteristic elements of the school or the “specific pattern of behaviour with its own rituals and interpretations (...)”.69 Many historians of education have argued and documented that, generally, the distinct character of the school boils down to three inter- acting basic elements, which make school culture ‘recognizable’: (i) the academic actions or interactions, (ii) school time, and (iii) school space.70 In shifting their focus to time-practices, school buildings or the particular construction of a pedagogical language that regulates and constitutes daily school life71, historiography on school culture has made a significant contribution to the (new) cultural history of education and to the history of pedagogical realities and mentalities. Yet, as Antonio Viñao has convincingly argued in his article on educational reforms, the notion of school culture and its use within the history of education is not without limitations or dangers. As he sees it, the notion of school culture fails in detecting medium and long-term changes in the same school culture or prevents us from looking beyond the mere school context and consider other aspects, such as the political context, that equally determine school culture.72 Generally, the common notion of school culture in history of education scholarship starts from the idea of principles, rituals or practices that have settled over time into customs or ground rules of educational institutions and are unquestioned and shared by its actors. This

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 68 Ralf Maslowski, School culture and school performance: an explorative study into the organizational structure of secondary schools and their effects (Enschede: Twente University Press, 2001). 69 Marc Depaepe, Frederik Herman, Melanie Surmont, Angelo Van Gorp and Frank Simon, ‘About Pedagogization: From the Perspective of the History of Education’, in Educational Research: the Educationalization of Social Problems, eds. Paul Smeyers and Marc Depaepe (Dordrecht: Springer, 2008), 20. 70 See for instance Antonio Viñao, ‘History of education and cultural history: possibilities, problems, questions’, in Cultural History and Education: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Schooling, eds. Thomas S. Popkewitz, Barry M. Franklin and Miguel A. Pereyra (New York/London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2001), 125-50; Antonio Viñao, ‘The School Head’s Office as Territory and Place: location and physical layout in the first Spanish graded schools’, in Materialities of schooling: design, technology, objects, routines, eds. Ian Grosvenor and Martin Lawn (Oxford: Symposium Books, 2005), 47-70; Carey Jewitt and Ken Jones, ‘Managing Time and Space in the New English Classroom’, in Materialities of schooling: design, technology, objects, routines, eds. Ian Grosvenor and Martin Lawn (Oxford: Symposium Books, 2005), 201-14; Herman, ‘School Culture in the 20th Century’, 10. 71 Depaepe, Herman, Surmont, Van Gorp and Simon, ‘About Pedagogization’, 20-2. 72 Antonio Viñao, ‘Do Education Reforms Fail? A Historian’s Response’, Encounters on Education 2 (2001): 34- 5.

! 37! notion of school culture implies a certain continuity and relative autonomy of the school.73 The question arises, however, whether school culture can really be reduced to a fixed set of rules, symbols or standards. Does the enrolment of pupils in one particular school implies that they all are carriers of the same school culture per se?

The common notion of school culture is often applied and adopted within the history of education as a singular concept. More specifically, although Dominique Julia claims that the school is not an isolated space, most research focuses on the rituals and symbols, as well as the meaning given to them, as they develop within the specific context of a school. In other words, in spite of the fact that most researchers acknowledge the centrality of the school “in the midst of life itself”74, the relation between the school and other societal fields remains underdeveloped. As a result, literature on school culture does not sufficiently take into account the idea that “the meaning of a symbol always transcends the particular context, because the symbol is freighted with its usages in a multitude of other instances of social practice”. As William H. Sewell has convincingly argued, the meaning of a symbol in a certain institutional context may be subjected to redefinition by a dynamics that is foreign to that institutional domain.75 Essentially, research on school culture often starts from a circular preconception: in order to identify the typicality of the school, research focuses on instances that are typical to schooling. But what about aspects of schooling that are not unique or even foreign to school life? The ways in which the pedagogical language or rituals specific to a give school culture are contested, for instance, are often neglected in historical literature on school culture although this focus too could contribute to the identification of the specific character of the school.

In response to the singularity of the notion of school culture in many history of educaiton studies, Antonio Viñao has proposed to refer to school cultures (instead of school culture) since school culture can gain different meanings in different educational contexts, on different educational levels or is attributed a different meaning by different actors.76 Yet, in my view, Viñao’s solution to the limits and dangers of the common notion of school culture does not reach far enough. More specifically, the question arises whether we can really !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73 Viñao, idem: 32. 74 Depaepe, Herman, Surmont, Van Gorp and Simon, ‘About Pedagogization’, 21. 75 Sewell, The Logics of History, 166. 76 Viñao, ‘Do Education Reforms Fail?’: 35.

! 38! solve the problem merely by considering school culture in its (linguistic) plural form. As I see it, the plural notion of school cultures (as opposed to school culture) by itself does not necessarily allow us to consider aspects outside or beyond the context of schooling, such as the political context, or to explain the contestation or changes in school culture. Instead, I believe we should consider school culture, not just als linguistically plural, but also as conceptually plural. More specifically, and parallel to Giddens’ plural notion of structure (cf. previous section), the school can also be considered as an institutional sphere that overlaps, intersects or collides with several other spheres, such as the political, economic or religious sphere. So, rather than a pedagogical island in the midst of social life, the school becomes an integral part, or one specific sphere, of social life itself. This extended notion of school culture is, I believe, particularly fruitful in the context of this doctoral dissertation, which explicitly aims at entangling the school and political and institutional spheres. More specifically, rather than merely considering Belgian school culture as a pedagogical island within Belgian society or as a sphere determined by the rules and norms of the Catholic educational project, this dissertation precisely investigates how, within the context of the Second World War, Catholic secondary school culture met with foreign (in this case German) ideas, rituals or symbols of schooling, and how that encounter ultimately gave meaning to or changed the meaning of the symbolic structures in Belgian schools during the occupation. More specifically, rather than considering Catholic secondary school culture during the Second World War in Belgium merely as a resultant of the imposition of the Military Administration’s ideological outlooks, I look at the ways in which school culture was shaped ‘from below’. In that sense, the history of education during the Second World War can be considered as an encounter between several school cultures. More specifically, this dissertation precisely documents what happens in the classroom or in schools as a result of developments that unfolded outside of the school context. In this study, the institutional or power factor is directly incorporated in the notion of school culture. So, rather than looking at the continuity or typicality of schooling, this dissertation precisely deals with what happens when a common value system or standard set of rituals is questioned, in this case as a result of a changed political system. Particularly the concept of mediator in Actor-Network Theory is relevant in this respect, since this notion allows us to understand and consider the transformative role of actors and events.

! 39! 5. Education in times of war: status quaestionis of secondary literature

Until today, the development of education during World War II remains an underdeveloped topic in both recent history of education and the historiography of the Second World War. General overviews of the history of World War II often do not touch upon the subject of education. Although there are some exceptions77, this is a missed opportunity for historians of the Second World War, since the field of education offers possibilities for examining the interaction between occupied society and occupying authorities. Not only does the field of education concern a large segment of society, it has always received the particular attention of political authorities and social or religious elites. Unsurprisingly, in the context of National Socialism, education presented an important means to steer the minds of the future generation. Conversely, for historians of education, periods of war or occupation present interesting test cases for measuring the impact of changing political systems on education and schooling.

Until today, there are only four general studies available on the development of the educational system in Belgium during the Second World War. A first introductory booklet on the subject was edited by historian Mark Van Den Wijngaert in 1988, and discusses food shortages, school life, the revision of school manuals, youth movements and several forms of Nazi youth propaganda in less than seventy pages. As a result, the edited volume presents a very short and rather fragmentary image of school life during the war.78 The subject was, however, picked up by one of the authors, Kristel De Smedt, who presented her Master’s thesis on school life during World War II in 1990 at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.79 As previously mentioned, however, this dissertation is predominantly concerned with the material conditions of war and German interference in schools. In spite of De Smedt’s interest in daily school life, she only used circular letters of the Ministry of Public Education, official documents of both the Belgian and German

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 77 See for instance the chapter on schooling in Robert Gildea, Olivier Wieviorka and Anette Warring, Surviving Hitler and Mussolini: Daily life in Occupied Europe (Oxford/New York: Berg, 2007); for Germany see the chapters ‘Youth’ and ‘Education’ in Richard Grunberger, The 12-year Reich: a social history of Nazi Germany, 1933-1945 (New York: Da Capo Press, 1995). 78 Mark Van Den Wijngaert, Schoolopen in Oorlogstijd. Het dagelijkse leven van middelbare scholieren tijdens de Duitse bezetting (1940-1944) (Brussel: UFSAL, 1988). 79 De Smedt, ‘Schoollopen in Oorlogstijd’.

! 40! authorities and questionnaires. As a result, the perspective of actors at the basis of the educational pyramid is, in contrast to what the title of her thesis suggests, largely absent. It was not until the 1990s that educational developments in Belgium came under international scholarly attention. In 1992, Guy Naeve, published a comparative article on Belgium, the Netherlands and .80 Because of the lack of a sound knowledge of the historical context, the absence of a thorough study of the sources and the controversial assumptions put forward by Naeve, the article was critized by several Belgian historians. Olaf Moens, Frank Simoens and Jeffrey Tyssens, for instance, argued that although Naeve’s article offers some thought- provoking insights, the contribution shows some considerable gaps. The educational political context of the 1930s in Belgium, for instance, is never touched upon. Furthermore, Naeve founded his study only on post-war sources about reconstruction, such as the proceedings of the conference held in 1945 in Vers de l’éducation nationale, and the Hannah Arendt Collection.81 A fourth attempt to bring this subject under attention was made by Marc Depaepe and Dirk Martin who edited the conference proceedings of the colloquium La Seconde Guerre mondiale, une étape dans l’histoire de l’enseignement, organized in 1995 by the present Center for Historical Research and Documentation on War and Contemporary Society in Brussels.82 This publication, however, presents an unavoidably fragmentary account of education during the war and, unfortunately, did not instigate further research in the following years. Furthermore, although of great merit, in their article, Olaf Moens, Frank Simon and Jeffrey Tyssens start from the assumption that the German occupier never aimed at radically reforming Belgian education because it feared the fierce opposition of the Church, holding a strong position in educational matters.83 The same holds for Vošahlíková, Rochet

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 80 Guy Naeve, ‘War and educational reconstruction in Belgium, France and the Netherlands, 1940-1947’, in Education and the Second World War. Studies in Schooling and Social Change, ed. Roy Lowe (London/Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press, 1992). 81 Olaf Moens, Frank Simon and Jeffrey Tyssens, ‘”De dag van de opvoeders is nu op komst”: onderwijshervormingsvoorstellen rond de Tweede Wereldoorlog’, in Tweede Wereldoorlog als factor in de onderwijsgeschiedenis.Verkenningen van een onderbelicht domein in België/La Seconde Guerre Mondiale une étape dans l'histoire de l'enseignement. Approches d'un domaine méconnu en Belgique, eds. Marc Depaepe and Dirk Martin (Bruxelles: Cegesoma, 1997). 82 Marc Depaepe and Dirk Martin eds., Tweede Wereldoorlog als factor in de onderwijsgeschiedenis.Verkenningen van een onderbelicht domein in België/La Seconde Guerre Mondiale une étape dans l'histoire de l'enseignement. Approches d'un domaine méconnu en Belgique (Bruxelles: Cegesoma, 1997). 83 Moens, Simon and Tyssens, ‘”De dag van de opvoeders is nu op komst”’, 17-61.

! 41! and Weiss’ comparative article on Belgium, Poland and Czechoslovakia that only briefly touches upon university education, the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals and the consequences of forced labor for schools and pupils.84 As a result, although many aspects of education during the war have been investigated, such as teachers and pupils in the resistance85, development of university education86, the purge and revision of textbooks87, the German cultural policy during World War II88, children’s lives during the war89, the development of Jewish education and the lives of Jewish children90, case studies on specific schools91 or the German educational measures92,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 84 Pavla Vošahlíková, Benedicte Rochet and Fabrice Weiss, ‘Schooling as a Cultural Interface’, in Surviving Hitler and Mussolini: Daily Life in Occupied Europe, eds. Robert Gildea, Olivier Wieviorka and Anette Warring (Oxford/New York: Berg, 2007), 129-52. 85 Fabrice Maerten, ‘La participation du personnel enseignant hennuyer à la Résistance’, in Tweede Wereldoorlog als factor in de onderwijsgeschiedenis.Verkenningen van een onderbelicht domein in België/La Seconde Guerre Mondiale une étape dans l'histoire de l'enseignement. Approches d'un domaine méconnu en Belgique, eds. Marc Depaepe and Dirk Martin (Brussel: Cegesoma, 1997), 107-44; Fabrice Maerten, ‘Jeunesse et Résistance. Entre mythe et réalité. Le cas du Hainaut, 1940-1944’, Bijdragen tot de Eigentijdse Geschiedenis 8 (2001): 257-305. 86 See for instance, Dirk Aerts, ‘Het bestuur van de Leuvense universiteit tijdens de bezetting (1940-1944)’ (Master’s Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2000); Emile Lousse, De Leuvensche Universiteit tijdens den Tweeden Wereldoorlog (Brugge: Desclée De Brouwer, 1945), Bénédicte Rochet, Les Universités belges pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Le cas particulier de l’Université catholique de Louvain et de l’Université d’Etat de Gand (Master’s Thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1998); Dirk Martin, ‘De Rijksuniversiteit Gent tijdens de bezetting, 1940-1944, levend met de vijand’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1985). 87 Kristel De Smedt, ‘De herziening van de schoolboeken tijdens de bezetting (1940-1944)’, Bijdragen tot de Geschiedenis van de Tweede Wereldoorlog 14 (1991): 177-202. 88 See for instance, Marnix Beyen, ‘Wetenschap, Politiek, nationaal-socialisme. De cultuurpolitiek van het Duits militair bezettingsbestuur in België, 1940-1944’, Bijdragen tot de Eigentijdse Geschiedenis 11 (2003): 47-70; Marnix Beyen, Oorlog en Verleden: nationale geschiedenis in België en Nederland (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2002). 89 Walter Gansemans, Wij zijn nooit kind geweest. Opgroeien tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Leuven: Davidsfonds, 2006). 90 See for instance, Barbara Dickschen, L’école en sursis: la scolarisation des enfants juifs pendant la guerre (Bruxelles: Didier Devillez, 2006); Barbara Dickschen, ‘L’AJB et l’enseignement’, in Les Curateurs du Ghetto. L’association des Juifs en Belgique sous l’occupation nazie, eds. Jean-Philippe Schreiber and Rudi Van Doorslaer (Bruxelles: Labor, 2004), 233-60; Hanne Hellemans, Schimmen met een ster: het bewogen verhaal van joodse ondergedoken kinderen tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog in België (Antwerpen: Manteau, 2007); Hanne Hellemans, ‘Tot wie behoort de ziel van het kind? De herintegratie van kinderen in de joodse gemeenschap na de Tweede Wereldoorlog’, Bijdragen tot de Eigentijdse Geschiedenis 13/14 (2004): 187-222; Pierre-Luc Plasman, ‘Le sauvetage des enfants juifs dans le diocèse de Namur’, La revue générale. Pour l’humanisme des temps nouveau 12

! 42! a general study encompassing the field of Belgian education in all its complexity is still lacking. As a result of this gap in the history of education in Belgium and the historiography of the Second World War, the development of the educational system during the German occupation largely remains virgin territory. Unfortunately, the same still largely holds for other European countries that were occupied by Germany during the Second World War. For the occupied territories, there are only two general overview publications in which educational developments in Eastern and Western European countries are described93 or even compared94. Generally, Eastern Europe, and Poland in particular, has received the most attention. There are over a hundred studies about the educational policy of the German occupier in Poland, most of which are written in Polish. The country forms an interesting case, for, as Josef Krasuski has argued, it “was the first state in Europe to offer armed resistance to the claims and aggression of Nazi Germany” and, with over six million people dead, suffered the greatest losses.95 In 1980, Christoph Kleßmann published about the Bildungspolitik of the German occupier in Poland, in which he hypothesizes that the country functioned as a laboratory for the National Socialist Volkstum, economic and cultural policy. In his book chapter, German educational policy is investigated as an integral part of the German Lebensraumpolitik and their irrational-atavistic revolution against capitalist civil society.96 Josef Krasuski has complemented this work with his study on underground schools, in which he argued that “the educational system imposed in occupied Poland by the Germans !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (2007): 33-45; Suzanne Vromen, Hidden Children of . Belgian Nuns and their Daring Rescue of Young Jews from the Nazis (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). 91 See for instance, Bénédicte Rochet, ‘La vie quotidienne au Collège du Sacré-Coeur de Charleroi sous l’occupation allemande. (1940-1944)’ (Master’s Thesis, Université Catolique de Louvain, 1999); Jacques Walravens, ‘Le Collège Saint-Stanislas à Mons Pendant les Années de Guerre, 1940-1945 (Mons: Debruxelles, 2011). 92 See for instance, Pol Defosse, ‘A propos de quelques directives de l’occupation aux établissements scolaires (1940-1944)’, Histoire et Enseignement 1 (2008): 15-20. 93 Roy Lowe ed., Education and the Second World War. Studies in Schooling and Social Change, (London/Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press, 1992). 94 Vošahlíková, Rochet and Weiss, ‘Schooling as a Cultural Interface’. 95 Josef Krasuski, ‘Education as Resistance: the Polish Experience of Schooling During the War’, in Education and the Second World War. Studies in Schooling and Social Change, ed. Roy Lowe (London/Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press, 1992), 128. 96 Christoph Kleßmann, ‘Die Zerstörung des Schulwesens als Bestandteil deutscher Okkupationspolitik im Osten am Beispiel Polens’, in Erziehung und Schulung im Dritten Reich, ed. Manfred Heinemann (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1980), 176-192.

! 43! functioned only at the surface.”97 As a result, Krasuski discerns a rapid development of clandestine education, which was a result of the ruthless policy of the German occupier against Polish national identity and Poland’s pre-war struggle for independence.98 Although authors agree that the educational policy of the German occupier differed according to the administrative division of the Polish territories99, there is some discussion as to what the precise consequences of its school policy were. Whereas Krasuski, for instance, claims that the “most tragic situation of the Poles was undoubtedly in the areas incorporated in the Third Reich” where Polish education and culture were ruthlessly destroyed100, Vošahlíková et.al. argued the exact opposite. In their view, it was precisely in the occupied areas that schools needed to be closed down, since Germany considered Polish children not to be in need of a decent education.101 Generally, the secondary literature on Western-European education during World War II is very specific in focus. Although there are some disparate studies on Scandinavia102, for instance, they never specifically discuss general educational developments or even school culture. Moreover, literature on the Netherlands focuses on the establishment of National Socialist schools or educational ideals of National Socialists103, rather than discussing the developments within the existing Dutch educational system. A.H. Paape and David Barnouw have argued that, following the German occupation, Dutch schools were subjected to a number of reforms. At the same time, however, they downplay the impact of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 97 Krasuski, ‘Education as Resistance’, 132. 98 Ibidem. 99 After the defeat in 1939, Poland was divided into two parts. The Western part was occupied by Germany, the Eastern part was occupied by the . By virtue of Hitler’s decree of October 8 and 12, 1930, the Polish territory, occupied by Germany, was again subdivided. The Northern and Western parts were incorporated in the Third Empire, whereas the Eastern and Southern parts were put under the responsibility of the General Government. 100 Krasuski, ‘Education as Resistance’, 129. 101 Vošahlíková, Rochet and Weiss, ‘Schooling as a Cultural Interface’, 133. 102 See for instance, Tessa Dunseath, ‘Teachers at war: Norwegian teachers during the German Occupation of Norway, 1940-45’, History of Education 31 (2002): 371-83; Aura Korppi-Tommola, ‘War and children in Finland during the Second World War’, Paedagogica Historica 44 (2008): 445-55. 103 See for instance David Barnouw, Van NIVO tot Reichsschule. Nationaal-socialistische onderwijsinstellingen in Nederland (’s Gravenshage: Staatsuitgeverij, 1981); Henk Van Stetten, ‘Opvoeding in volkse geest. De onderwijsideologie van het ‘Opvoedersgilde’ van de NSB’, in Comenius. Thema 15. Pedagogiek en nationaalsocialisme (s.l.: SUN, 1984), 250-71.

! 44! the German educational policy because the very structure of Dutch education was never fundamentally altered.104

Although the war had serious ramifications for countries all over the world, educational historians have largely overlooked the war era as a critical period of scholarly analysis.105 This gap in the history of education during the Second World War in the countries that were occupied by Germany is unfortunate, since precisely these territories form interesting cases in terms of measuring the impact of National Socialist educational policy on the educational system in Europe. Remarkably, scholars have paid much more attention to the non-occupied countries, such as Britain or Vichy France. For what British literature is concerned, researchers have investigated educational policy and administration106, such as the influence of the war on the 1944 Education Act and the evacuation of British children107. Moreover, parallel to scholarship on Germany and the United States, British researchers have addressed the question whether education during the war should be considered in terms of continuity or discontinuity. Traditionally, the war was presented as a huge disruption in British educational history. More specifically, this breach was almost

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 104 Barnouw, Van NIVO tot Reichsschule, 5 and 15. 105 See Charles Dorn, American Education, Democracy, and the Second World War (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 14. 106 See for instance, Peter Gosden, Education in the Second World War: A Study in policy and administration (London: Methuen, 1976); Raymond Wallace, ‘The origins and authorship of the 1944 Education Act’, History of Education 10 (1981): 265-307; Brian Simon, ‘The 1944 Education Act: A conservative measure?’, History of Education 15 (1986): 31-43; Deborah Thom, ‘The 1944 Education Act: the ‘art of the possible’?’, in War and social change. British Society in the Second World War, ed. Harald Smith (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986), 129-48; Peter Gosden, ‘From Board to Ministry: the impact of the war on the education department’, History of Education 18 (1989): 183-93; Joan Simon, ‘Promoting educational reform on the home front: the TES and The Times 1940-1944’, History of Education 18 (1989): 195-211. 107 See for instance, Carlton Jackson, Who Will Take Our Children: The Story of Evacuation in Britain, 1939-1945 (London: Methuen, 1985); John Macnicol, ‘The effect of the evacuation of schoolchildren on official attitudes to state intervention’, in War and Social Change: British Society in the Second World War, Harold Smith ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986); Ruth Inglis, The Children’s War: Evacuation, 1939-1945 (London: Collins, 1989); A.M. Preston, ‘The evacuation of school children from Newcastle-upon-Tyne: an assessment of the factors which influenced the nature of educational provision in Newcastle and its reception areas’, History of Education 18 (1989): 231-41; Peter Cunningham and Philip Gardner, ‘’Saving the nation’s children’: teachers, wartime evacuation in England and Wales and the construction of national identity’, History of Education 28 (1999): 327-37.

! 45! exclusively reduced to the material conditions of war, such as air raids, evacuation, school accommodation difficulties, shortages or difficulties in staffing schools.108 Recent scholarship, however, has somewhat nuanced the alleged deep impact of the war on British schooling. As Roy Lowe has argued, there can be no doubt about the massive impact the war had on the provision of schooling and educational standards. At the same time, however, Lowe develops the idea that “this disruption, as well as the experience of evacuation itself, generated a widespread will to return to the tried, the familiar, the well- known once the national crisis was over.”109 Furthermore, scholarly work about France almost exclusively investigates educational developments under the collaborationist Vichy regime. Already in 1964, Edmond Mailard published an article about educational reforms, in which he shows that these were of vital concern to the Vichy government and demonstrates that the purge of teachers constituted an important element in these reform plans.110 Mailard’s article was also the first to discuss the educational debates that took place between the state and the Roman Catholic Church, a theme that would be picked up by Nicholas Atkin. After Mailard’s publication, however, the focus mainly shifted towards youth and youth policy111, and the role of teachers. As Nicholas Atkin has pointed out, scholars “focused on the ways in which Vichy attempted to mobilize the [teaching] profession behind its schemes to rebuild France along the lines of Travail, Famille, Patrie”.112 In his research, Atkin complemented these findings with the relationship between teachers and the Church, and the inability of the latter “to recast the political and religious outlook of the teaching body”.113 Although Hall’s study on youth and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 108 See for instance, Gosden, Education in the Second World War; Eric Hopkins, ‘Elementary education in Birmingham during the Second World War’, History of Education 18 (1989): 243-55. 109 Roy Lowe, ‘Education in England during the Second World War’, in Education and the Second World War. Studies in schooling and social change, ed. Roy Lowe (London: The Falmer Press, 1992), 15. 110 Edmond Mailard, ‘La réforme de l’enseignement’, Revue d’histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale 56 (1964): 43-64. 111 See for instance: Aline Coutrot, ‘Quelques aspects de la politique de la jeunesse’, in Le gouvernement de Vichy, 1940-1942 (Colloque: FNSP, 6-7 mars 1970), 245-84; Michèle Cointet-Labrousse, ‘Le gouvernement de Vichy et la jeunesse: sources nouvelles et nouveau éclairages’, Bulletin de la Société d’histoire moderne 2 (1976): 13-21. 112 Nicholas Atkin, ‘Church and teachers in Vichy France, 1940-1944’, French History 4 (1990): 1. See also Roger Austin, ‘Political surveillance and ideological control in Vichy France: a study of teachers in the Midi’, in Vichy France and the Resistance. Culture and ideology, eds. Roderick Kedward and Roger Austin (London: Croom Helm, 1985), 13-35. 113 Atkin, ‘Church and teachers in Vichy France’: 2.

! 46! politics in Vichy France did not solely focus on education, he does discuss the main educational reforms and the two most important groups to influence children’s lives, the Church and teachers. In his contribution, he convincingly demonstrates that “les dirigeants français qui, entre le 10 juillet 1940 et le 21 août 1944, exercèrent leur influence sur le destin des jeunes de leur pays n’étaient nullement d’accord entre eux sur la politique à suivre”.114 It was not until 1991 that Nicholas Atkin published a reference work with a more specific focus on education, in which he develops the idea that “the relationship between the Church and the government was less close than previously imagined, but that Vichy consciously rewrote history as a way of controlling politics and influencing mentalities”.115 Ever since, the subject has received little attention. It was not until recently in 2007 that Pavla Vošahlíková, Bénédicte Rochet and Fabrice Weiss paid some attention to the patterns of German control over French schooling during the Second World War.116

All in all, even the history of education during the Second World War in non-occupied European countries remains quite sparse. The largest share of historical literature on educational developments during the war, concerns Germany and the United States. For Nazi Germany, early literature between the 1960s and the 1980s mainly emphasizes educational change or the ‘total’ impact of the Nazi regime on education. In his 1979 publication on National Socialist textbooks and syllabi, Kurt-Ingo Flessau emphasized the all-embracing influence of the National Socialist state and party over schools:

“Die Schule wurde zum Vollzugsorgan einer Partei und wichtige, ja wichtigste Instanz im Bildungsbereich, indem sie, teils fast bedingungslos, die Aufträge der Machthaber ausführte und sich der damals gängigen Maxime anbequemte, derzufolge der einzelne nichts, das Volk alles sei.”117

Gradually, this image of ‘total impact’ of the Nazi state on education and the significance of the school as an instrument of indoctrination has been adjusted. In this respect, many !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 114 Wilfred Halls, Les jeunes et la politique de Vichy (Paris: Syros Alternatives, 1986), 403. 115 Frank Tallet and Michael Biddis, ‘Professor Nick Atkin: Celebrated scholar of French and Catholic history’, The Independent, 20 November 2009, Obituaries. 116 Vošahlíková, Rochet and Weiss, ‘Schooling as a Cultural Interface’. 117 Kurt-Ingo Flessau, Schule der Diktatur. Lehrpläne und Schulbücher des Nationalsozialismus (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1979), 14.

! 47! authors have pointed to the importance of youth organizations, such as the Hitler Jugend, over schools. Elke Nyssen, for instance, has pointed out that the integration of youth into National Socialist society did not primarily take place through the school, but rather through the installation of a compulsory extracurricular movement, the .118 Also, Wolfgang Keim has argued that the Hitler Youth, as well as Landjahr or the Reichsarbeitsdienst, were at the very center of the National Socialist youth policy. Their questioning of the existence and monopoly of traditional educational authorities, such as the Church, the family and the school, functioned as a tool to Gleichschalt education under the Nazis.119 Moreover, as Michael Buddrus has convincingly shown, the conflict between these youth movements and the school would remain constant during the Nazi era.120 Parallel to this, authors have also nuanced the ‘real’ impact of National Socialist youth and education policy on schools and have emphasized continuity with the Weimar Republic (and the post-war DDR).121 Generally, research questions of most secondary literature on education during the Nazi era crytalize around aspects of political decision-making and issues of educational organization. Firstly, most authors start from references to youth and education in Mein Kampf to argue that the Nazis aimed at reforming education according to Hitler’s Weltanschauung, in which the Führerprinzip, ‘racial health’, imperialism and the national community occupied a prominent position.122 The National Socialist plans to Gleichschalt education, establish so-called Ausleseschule123, alter teachers’ education, revise

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 118 Elke Nyssen, Schule im Nationalsozialismus (Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer, 1979), 15. 119 Wolfgang Keim, Erziehung unter der Nazi-Diktatur. Antidemokratische Potentiale, Machtantritt und Machtdurchsetzung (Darmstadt: Primus Verlag, 1997), vol. 1, 123-4. 120 Michael Buddrus, Totale Erziehung für den totalen Krieg. Hitlerjugend und nationalsozialistische Jugendpolitik (München: Saur, 2003), 852-3. 121 See for instance, Lisa Pine, Education in Nazi Germany (Oxford/New York: Berg, 2010), 12; Reinhard Dithmar, Schule und Unterricht im Dritten Reich (Neuwied: Luchterhand Verlag, 1989), 6; Heidemarie Kemnitz and Frank Tosch, ‘Zwischen Indoktrination und Qualifikation Höhere Schule im Nationalsozialismus’, in Erziehungsverhältnisse im Nationalsozialismus. Totaler Anspruch und Erziehungswirklichkeit, eds. Klaus-Peter Horn and Jörg-W. Link (Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt Verlag, 2011), 120. 122 See for instance, Keim, Erziehung unter der Nazi-Diktatur, 86; Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 13-21. 123 For a general overview of Nazi elite schools, see Harald Scholtz, NS Ausleseschulen. Internatschulen als Herrschaftsmittel des Führerstaates (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1973); Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 71-94 or Anke Klare, ‘Nationalsozialistische Ausleseschulen. “Stätten konzentrierter und auserlesener Menschenforschung”’, in Erziehungsverhältnisse im Nationalsozialismus. Totaler Anspruch und Erziehungswirklichkeit, eds. Klaus-Peter Horn and Jörg-W. Link (Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt Verlag, 2011), 137-62. For more specific details on the Schools, see Dietrich Orlow, ‘Die Adolf-Hitler-

! 48! school timetables, abolish private education and introduce racism and anti-Semitism in schools are broadly discussed. Furthermore, many authors have drawn attention to the role of pedagogues and/or pedagogical psychologues to legitimize the National Socialist outlooks with regard to education.124 Secondly, the textbook policy and re-organization of the curriculum, as well as the purge and re-education programs of teachers and the establishment of new schools directly depending on the NSDAP or SS have received much attention. In the context of textbook and curriculum history, scholars have focused on specific subjects, such as biology, history, physics, chemistry, geography, mathematics, as well as new subjects, such as racial genetics (Rassenkunde), that gained importance during the Nazi regime, since they “could permeate the curriculum with its ideology”.125 Next to changes in the curriculum, teacher policy too played an important part in the National Socialist education reform program. Most research on this level has focused on the Nazi purge of Jewish, freemason and other ‘politically unsuitable’ teachers, the re-

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Schulen’, Vierteljahrhefte für Zeitgeschichte 13 (1965): 272-84. For more specific details on the NS Ordenburgen, see for instance Harald Scholtz, ‘Die “NS Ordensburgen”’, Vierteljahrhefte für Zeitgeschichte 15 (1967): 269-98. For more specific details on SA Schools, see for instance Martin Kipp, ‘Privilegien für “alte Kampfer” – Zur Geschichte der SA-Berufschulen’, in Erziehung und Schulung im Dritten Reich, eds. Manfred Heinemann (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1980), 289-300. 124 See for instance, Marc Depaepe, ‘Struggling with the Historical Attractiveness of Psychology for Educational Research: Illustrated by the Case of Nazi-Germany’, in Between Educationalization and Appropriation. Selected Writings on the History of Modern Educational Systems, ed. Marc Depaepe (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2012). 125 Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 66. For a general overview of curriculum and textbook history under National Socialist rule, see Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 41-70. Also see the different chapters on respectively German, History, Music, Sports education and Mathematics in Dithmar, Schule und Unterricht. For more specific details on biology education, see also Anne Bäumer, NS-Biologie und Schule (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995). For more details on the introduction of Rassenkunde in schools, see also Gregory Wegner, ‘Schooling for a New Mythos: Race, Anti-Semitism and the curriculum Materials of a Nazi Race Educator’, Paedagogica Historica 27 (1992): 188-213. For more details on sports education, see also Rainer Brämer and Armin Kremer, Physikunterricht im Dritten Reich (Marburg: Soznat, 1980). More detailed information about history classes can be found in H. Genschel, ‘Geschichtsdidaktik und Geschichtsunterricht im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland, in Gesellschaft, Staat und Geschichtsunterricht, eds. Gerhard Schneider and Klaus Bergmann (Dusseldorf: Pedagogischer Verlag Schwann, 1982), 126-94; Norbert Schausberger, ‘Intentionen des Geschitsunterrichts im Rahmen der nationalsozialistischen Erziehung’, in Erziehung und Schulung im Dritten Reich, ed. Manfred Heinemann (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1980), 251-62. For mathematics, see also, Nyssen, Schule im Nationalsozialismus, 93-114.

! 49! education of the teaching staff, and complicity or resistance of teachers with regard to Nazi school policy. In contrast to early German literature emphazising the thorough and complete character of the Nazi purge of schoolteachers, recent scholarship argues that the teaching staf remained unchanged during the Weimar Republic and Third Empire. Not only did the National Socialist program to re-educate teachers in line with the Führer’s Weltanschauung fail126, the intended purge of Jewish, freemason or ‘politically unsuitable’ teachers also failed due to personal, political, ideological and economic reasons.127 The radical anti-democratic, anti-liberal, miltary and imperialist attitude of pedagogues and teachers in the Weimar Republic led some authors to go even further and claim that schools helped and approved of the Nazi oppression.128 Particularly Wolfgang Keim discussed the antidemokratische Potentiale in Erziehungswissenschaft, Hochschullehrerschaft und Lehrerschaft and their subsequent active involvement in the Nazi regime.129

What the previously cited works lack, however, is a more direct concern for Alltagsgeschichte, which does not focus on the activities and deeds of the great, but rather deals with the “life and survival of those who have remained largely anonymous in history”.130 More specifically, the history of everyday life aims at challenging the predominant focus of structuralist historiography on the macro level by focusing on the day-to-day experiences of ‘ordinary’ people.131 As a historic movement, Alltagsgeschichte was particularly spread by the work of Michel de Certeau who, in his L’invention du quotidien (1980), was the first to systematically analyze the ordinary or everyday as a constructed practice, pervaded with complex meanings.132

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 126 Charles Lansing, From to Communism. German schoolteachers under two dictatorships (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010), 6 and 87. 127 Lansing, idem, 53-9. 128 Rolf Nemitz, cited in Dithmar, Schule und Unterricht, 6; Jörg-W. Link, ‘”Erziehungsstätte des deutschen Volkes”. Die Volksschule im Nationalsozialismus’, in Erziehungsverhältnisse im Nationalsozialismus. Totaler Anspruch und Erziehungswirklichkeit, eds. Klaus-Peter Horn and Jörg-W. Link (Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt Verlag, 2011), 80 and 106. 129 Keim, Erziehung unter der Nazi-Diktatur, 21-9. 130 Alf Lüdtke, ‘Introduction: What is the history of everyday life and who are its practitioners?’, in The History of Everyday Life: Reconstructing Historical Experiences and Ways of Life, ed. Alf Lüdtke (Translation by William Templer) (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 3-4. 131 Joe Moran, ‘History, Memory and the Everyday’, Rethinking History 8 (2004), nr. 1: 52. 132 Michel de Certeau, L’invention du quotidien. Part I Arts de Faire (Paris: Gallimard, 1980).

! 50! Although de Certeau has found much resonance in the work of historians of education, the history of everyday life in school during the Second World War is almost exclusively studied from the perspective of memory studies and childhood studies. There is a great amount of literature on children’s lives during the Nazi era133, but these studies are usually very general in approach, thereby neglecting aspects of education and schooling. In addition, they are mainly written on the basis of oral testimonies and memories, and overlook source material dating from the Nazi era and stemming from the school context itself. Klaus-Peter Horn’s and Jörg-W. Link’s attempt to include the Erziehungswirklichkeit in their recently edited volume is not consistently visible throughout the different articles. In conclusion, although education under the Nazis is a relatively well-studied topic, the field of school culture and everyday school life largely remains virgin territory.

Apart from Germany, the Second World War has received considerable attention in American historiography, particularly as a result of the then widespread idea in American society that education was considered the solution to the direct fascist challenge of democratic ideals.134 Already in 1948, Isaac Leon Kandel published a book on The Impact of the War upon American Education. In this contribution, which was in fact the first to appear on the subject, Kandel puts forward the idea that the war revealed the ability of the American people to meet a crisis of such magnitude, but, at the same time, the many deficiencies of American education. Not only did the war bring to the surface the illiteracy of young men, causing them to be rejected by the Selective Service, it also forced America to face its educational deficiencies, such as the lack of discipline, the inadequate instruction of teachers and their droppping out from the teaching profession to find better payment in war industry, and increased juvenile delinquency.135 Moreover, Kandel stresses the changes in education caused by the war. Both in the context of secondary and university education, he emphasizes the far-reaching changes in the curriculum and the increased attention to vocational training, the increasing importance of practical courses, mathematics and science. Generally, the Japanese attack on Pearl !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 133 See for instance Nicholas Stargardt, Witnesses of War. Children’s Lives Under the Nazis (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2006). 134 Isaac Leon Kandel, The Impact of the War upon American Education (North Carolina: The University of North Carolina University Press, 1948), 12; Ronald D. Cohen, ‘Schooling Uncle Sam’s children: Education in the USA, 1941-1945’, in Education and the Second World War. Studies in Schooling and Social Change, ed. Roy Lowe (London/Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press, 1992), 47. 135 Kandel, The Impact of the War, 5, 7, 41-45 and 55-66.

! 51! Harbor is considered a breaking point in American educational history during the Second World War. Before the attack, educational goals revolved around the propagation of democratic ideals. When the United States entered the war, however, education was put in more direct service of the war efforts.136 Parallel to the nuancing of the total impact of National Socialism on education in German literature, American authors have questioned Kandel’s argument about the impact of war on education. Firstly, researchers have picked up Kandel’s idea of the inclusion of war- related subjects into the curriculum and the extension of vocational training of pupils for war industries as a response to the demands of mobilization and war industry.137 Both Charles Dorn and Ronald D. Cohen, for instance, have discussed the introduction of specific war related subjects, such as defense mathematics or aeronautics courses and the increasing attention and inclusion of vocational training.138 At the same time, however, they both questioned the extent to which the war impacted schooling. Cohen, for instance, argued that in spite of the educational reform proposals and plans, much of the regular curriculum was kept and that the war had little effects upon prevailing routines in schools.139 Also Dorn has pointed out that these alterations occurred at the periphery of the curriculum, and, with that, also nuanced Kandel’s claim that traditional academic subjects were in severe crisis.140 Moreover, Dorn questions the unilateral focus on schools as mere arsenals for the war effort. Instead, he argues that educational institutions were essentially conservationist in their response to war-time mobilization and remained committed to the fostering of civic education.141 Hence, the mobilization effort did change education, but educational attachment to democratic citizenship remained constant. Within this context of education for democratic citizenship, however, William Tuttle has put forward the interesting paradox that schools promoted democratic ideals, but at the same time contributed to the proliferation of hatred and anti-democratic ideals.142 Whereas in the 1930s and 1940s, racial prejudice functioned !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 136 Kandel, idem, 4 and 18. 137 Dorn, American Education, Democracy, and the Second World War, 62; Cohen, ‘Schooling Uncle Sam’s children’, 47-9 138 Cohen, idem, 49. Dorn, American Education, Democracy, and the Second World War, 61-94. 139 Cohen, ‘Schooling Uncle Sam’s children’, 49-50, 55. 140 Dorn, American Education, Democracy, and the Second World War, 62. 141 Dorn, idem, 3. 142 William M. Tuttle Jr., “Daddy’s gone to war”. The Second World War in the lives of America’s children (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 116.

! 52! as an instrument of cultural and social domination, anti-Japanese sentiments became national in scope and came to function as a manifestation of American patriotism during the war.143 In conclusion, as Charles Dorn has argued, higher education, public elementary and secondary schooling, and early childhood education, bore the brunt of political, social, and economic forces, which the Second World War had unleashed.144 Still, the war’s long- lasting impact may not be overestimated. As Dorn has pointed out, both elementary and secondary schooling would experience little lasting change.145

Compared to these countries, Belgium offers a particularly interesting case-study. Firstly, although the Belgian educational system showed many similarities with those of other countries (such as the Netherlands or France, where the state played an equally important centralistic role or where the liberty of education was equally anchored in the Constitution) the strong position of private, Catholic schools was rather unique in Belgium. In France, for instance, the state was much more able to capitalize on the central position of the école laïque (official, public school) and was able to push confessional schools to the private sphere. In Belgium, however, the religious educational authorities often emerged as the victors of the so-called schoolstrijd (Schools’ War). As a result, the public school never obtained a status of reverence in Belgium.146 This development makes it particularly interesting to look at how the school issue resurfaced during the war, when the private educational network met with a German educational policy that, amongst other things, aimed at calling a halt to the development of private (Catholic) schooling. Secondly, the competition between several nationalistic, ideological groupings, such as Flemish-nationalism, that Belgium witnessed since its independence in 1830 also contributes to the complexity and importance of Belgium as a case study. As several chapters in this dissertation will reveal, the Second World War would not only stir up

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 143 Robert Wm Kirk, Earning Their Stripes. The Mobilization of American Children in the Second World War (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 108. 144 Dorn, American Education, Democracy, and the Second World War, 176. 145 Ibidem. 146 For a more detailed comparison between the Dutch, French and Belgian educational system, see Jeffrey Tyssens, ‘Onderwijsconflict en – pacificatie vanuit een comparatief perspectief: België, Nederland, Frankrijk’, in Het Schoolpact van 1958. Ontstaan, grondlijnen en toepassing van een Belgisch compromis, eds. Els Witte, Jan De Groof and Jeffrey Tyssens (Brussel-Leuven: VUBPress-Garant, 1999), 39-86.

! 53! ideological conflicts between supporters and opponents of National Socialism, but also primed new dynamics within or between pre-war groupings, nationalistic issues or linguistic and ideological conflicts that dominated Belgian society since its very independence.

6. Source survey

This doctoral dissertation is based on five large corpuses of source material: (i) the archives of the Militärverwaltung, (ii) the archives of the Roman Catholic dioceses, (iii) the archives of the Society of Jesus, (iv) school archives, and (v) written questionnaires of and interviews with former teachers and pupils in Catholic secondary education.

6.1. The archives of the Military Administration in Belgium

Although the German administration in the occupied territories produced a bulk of archival material, many files have disappeared or have been dispersed. Also the documents of the Military Administration in Belgium have traveled a long way. Already at the end of August and beginning of September 1944, the Militärverwaltung’s archives were put on a train in the direction of Koblenz. Since the war front was proceeding, however, the Ehrenbreinstein fortress where the documents were initially preserved soon became unsafe. As a result, the majority of the documents were transported to the Staatsarchiv in Marbourg. A smaller part was transported to either Ôhringen or Heidenheim. With the intention of transferring all the documents to Ôhringen, two functionaries of the Military Administration travelled to Marbourg to sort the documents classified as secret from the rest of the material. Eventually, these secret files ended up being hidden in different archival funds.147

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 147 Guy Beaujouan, Anne-Marie Bourgoin, Pierre Cézard, Marie-Thérèse Chabord, Elisabeth Dunan, Jean- Daniel Pariset and Christian Wilsdorf, La France et la Belgique sous l’occupation allemande, 1940-1944. Les fonds allemands conservés au Centre historique des Archives nationales (Paris: Centre historique des Archives nationales, 2002), 51.

! 54! After the war, the Allied forces bumped into files belonging to the Military Administration in Belgium and the North of France and classified them as the Fonds Marbourg.148 The Allied interest in the archives of the German occupying administrations was, however, older than that. Already during the war, the Allied forces gained interest in German documents for military reasons. Furthermore, these were considered necessary proof material in the retaliation trials against German war criminals.149 Today, one part of the Military Administration’s archives is conserved in the Bundesarchiv- Militärarchivs Freiburg. A second part is preserved in the Centre Historique des Archives Nationales in Paris. Both archival funds constitute an archival sub-series, called AJ40. The archive conserved in Freiburg is incomplete and does not hold relevant documents for this study. Therefore, I have only consulted the Fonds Marbourg that is preserved in the French Archives Nationales de France in Paris. The inventory La France et la Belgique sous l’occupation allemande, 1940-1944 was published in 2002 by the Centre historique des Archives nationales and can be consulted in the reading room of the Center for Historical Study and Documentation on War and Contemporary Society (Cegesoma) in Brussels. Within this archival fund, particularly the Tätigkeitsberichte150, in which Militärverwaltungschef Reeder reported on daily life in the occupied territory to the supreme command of the German land army, and the internal reports of the Culture Department, are of great importance for this dissertation. As Marnix Beyen has argued, the two culture reports of Petri and Reese can rightly be considered as the fundament of the cultural policy of the Military Administration.151 As a result, they do not only reveal the German aims in relation to education, they also show that the very structure of the Belgian educational system, the Ministry of Public Education and the Catholic school monopoly would remain a problem throughout the war. At this point it is, however, it is important to note that particular caution is in order when interpreting or analyzing these documents, since they are punctuated with misrepresentations. More specifically, the Tätigkeitsberichte, for example, were frequently used to mobilize the Oberkommando des Heeres against the attacks of certain civil services, the SS or the NSDAP. Hence, the reports tend to leave us with the impression of a more

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 148 Beaujouan, Bourgoin, Cézard, Chabord, Dunan, Pariset and Wilsdorf, idem, 56. 149 Beaujouan, Bourgoin, Cézard, Chabord, Dunan, Pariset and Wilsdorf, idem, 43. 150 Importantly, the Tätigkeitsberichte were recently digitalized by the Cegesoma and can be consulted on their website. 151 Beyen, Oorlog en Verleden, 91.

! 55! powerful Military Administration than was actually the case. Still, the reports do illustrate its activities and tasks and were published on a relatively constant basis.152 Next to the internal reports within the Military Administration, the Fonds Marbourg also contains a number of thematic files concerning specific aspects of their educational policy. More specifically, the AJ40 holds files on the German textbook policy, the reports of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals, censorship and control over pupils’ and pedagogical journals, linguistic issues in education, control over class and pedagogical material, school buildings (including the requisitioning of schools), examination regulations or forced labor. Besides information about the internal policy of the German Military Administration in Belgium, the Fonds Marbourg is also important for investigating the relations between the Militärverwaltung and the Ministry of Public Education (which is – considering my focus on Catholic education – less important) and the archbishop in Mechelen. More specifically, the file ‘educational orders’ (AJ40/22.13) offers an important source to reconstruct the contacts between the archiepiscopal and Reeder’s administration. Furthermore, the AJ40 provides interesting data on the interactions between Reeder’s administration and the lower educational orders, although most thematic files concern official education, the policy of the Ministry of Public education, inspection in official schools or appointments in public education. Catholic education is treated in only in a small number of files concerning propaganda, Deutschfeindliche Schule or the ban of private and religion teachers from their profession. The overrepresentation of material on official education probably is symptomatic for the Military Administration’s lack of control over private education.

6.2. Archives of the Catholic dioceses

In order to complement the material from the Fonds Marbourg, I consulted several Roman Catholic archives. As private archives are not subjected to the same regulations in terms of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 152 Patrik Teurfs, ‘Het Duits Militair Bestuur tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog in België en Noord-Frankrijk. Een beschrijving en analyse van de struktuur en de bevoegdheden vanuit militair-organisatorisch oogpunt’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1997), XII-I; Mark Van Den Wijngaert, Een Koning geloofd, gelaakt, verloochend: de evolutie van de stemming onder de kathlieke bevolking ten aanzien van Leopold III tijdens de bezetting (1940- 1944) (Leuven: Acco, 1984), 10.

! 56! accessibility, publicity and preservation as state archives, the researcher usually depends on the ‘goodwill’ of the archivist to gain access to the archive in question. Due to the touchy nature of the subject, researchers in the past have stuggled to get approval for consulting archival funds treating the Second World War. Fortunately, much has changed. Although it is still impossible to gain access to the Secret Archives of the Vatican, in which the archives of the Papal nuncio in Belgium, Mgr. Micara, are conserved, the archives of the Belgian dioceses have opened their doors for scholars researching the position of the Catholic Church during World War II. Yet, although I found it relatively easy to gain access to the archives of the various dioceses in Belgium, it soon became clear that the source material is usually only fragmentarily preserved. Not only do the various institutions have different regulations in terms of accessibility, consultation and reproduction, but also the type, quality and relevance of the source material varies. As a result, some dioceses remain underrepresented in this study.

Firstly, I consulted the archives of the archbishopric in Mechelen, since it was the principal seat of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium. Interestingly, the archives of the archdiocese preserve the minutes of the meetings of the cardinal and bishops, which I have consulted for the entire period of the occupation. The archive in Mechelen also holds the archive of cardinal Van Roey’s personal advisor, canon Van der Elst, which contains the correspondence between the archdiocese and Military Administration. Since the contacts between both parties usually took place through mediation of Van der Elst, this fund constitutes an important source corpus to investigate the negotiations on education between the Catholic and German authorities. Besides sources of a political and administrative nature, I have also looked into the file ‘Schools’ that is preserved within the fund ‘Van Roey’, which focuses on different specific aspects of school culture. Particularly important are the sub-files ‘correspondence’ (discussing issues such as the destruction of school buildings or questions of principals as to how to respond to the German measures), ‘prisoners of war’ (holding information and names on priest-teachers in captivity), ‘billeting of troops’ (documenting the German requisitioning and billeting of school buildings), ‘Catholic education’ (preserving material concerning the use of textbooks, conflicts between pro- and anti-German teachers, pupils and/or their parents or sabotage of German billeted troops), ‘Catholic youth organizations’ (providing information on the Catholic prohibition to participate in New Order inspired

! 57! youth organizations) and ‘censorship’ (holding an exhaustive list of prohibited and authorized textbooks by the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals). The archive of the archbishopric also provides data on daily school life or the financial, material, educational and psychological impact of the war on education. Particularly the Verslagen van de colleges en lycees, 1940-1944 (Reports of secondary schools, 1940-1944) are interesting in this respect. These reports are not included in the inventory and are preserved in a separate box in a hidden corner of the archive. It is only because the archivist, Gerrit Vanden Bosch, took them out that I found these invaluable reports. The reports were drawn up by the principals of episcopal schools in the diocese according to a fixed, standardized structure and they are subdivided into two parts. Firstly, the reports provide detailed statistics of the number of pupils per class, per department and per school year. Since there are no published statistics available for Catholic education during the war, these reports shed light on the developments of enrolment numbers in Catholic schools. Secondly, the reports also hold information about the pedagogical and financial developments within the school, as well as notes on discipline, the intellectual capacities of pupils and the development of religious life. In addition, modifications in the teaching staff or the pedagogical, disciplinary, religious and intellectual plans for the future are discussed. Furthermore, these reports can be complemented with the minutes of the meetings of principals that, although they do not treat the actual war period, shed light on the enrolment regression right after the war and the plans to redirect Catholic education in the post-war era. At this point, however, it is important to note that the archive of the archdiocese of Mechelen has been subjected to re-inventory. As a result, some of the inventory numbers I use in this dissertation do not correspond with the current inventory numbers.

Since every bishop held responsibility over episcopal schools in his diocese, I have also consulted the archives of the different Belgian dioceses. Belgium was subdivided into six dioceses. Next to the archbishopric in Mechelen, which was already discussed in detail in the previous paragraphs, there were two more dioceses in Flanders ( and ) and three in Wallonia (Liège, Namur and Tournai). Generally, the nature and relevance of the source material, as well as the archival situation is quite different in the various dioceses. The archive of the diocese of Bruges, for instance, does not contain many sources from the period of World War II, due to the ‘tidying mania’ of an archivist. It does hold one file

! 58! concerning the establishment and functioning of Honorary Council for teachers (Ereraad voor leerkrachten), which was founded after the war for the retaliation against teachers in primary education who had been members of the VNV or had been sympathetic to the New Order. The archive of the diocese of Ghent preserves more interesting and relevant material for the study at hand, although the sources are very administrative in nature. More specifically, I have looked at the files concerning the ‘correspondence with the Ministry of Public Education’, ‘correspondence with different dioceses’ and ‘episcopal correspondence and guidelines’. Furthermore, the archive also preserves some of the notes of the Centrale Raad van het Katholiek Onderwijs (Central Council for Catholic Education), which discusses the post-war educational reform plans and the retaliation against wartime collaboration by teachers. Lastly, I have consulted some separate boxes with archival material on ravaged schools or the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church towards Gerard Romsée, secretary- general of internal affairs during World War II. Generally, the archives of the Flemish dioceses were not a specifically rich source of empirical data. Many archival funds or files are very fragmented. To a certain extent, the same holds for the archives of dioceses in Wallonia, although these generally provide richer source material. In the archive of the diocese of Liège (encompassing the current province of Liège in Wallonia and province of Limburg in Flanders), I firstly consulted the fund Monseigneur Kerkhofs, former bishop of the diocese during the Second World War. Although Kerkhofs was a much-debated personality because of his overt criticism of the deportation of the Jews during the occupation, this fund only preserves some disparate administrative material and correspondence. The files of the ‘Vicariat Education’ offered more relevant sources, such as statistics, reports of meetings with the vicar of education, circular letters to the principals of secondary schools, correspondence and inspector reports about the material and financial situation of schools in the diocese. Within the archive of the diocese of Namur, particularly the archive of former bishop Monseigneur Charue is important. More specifically, I have consulted the correspondence about the organization of education within the diocese, files of approval and subsidy schemes. Of particular importance are the inspection files of schools and teachers within the diocese. Although these are generally quite short, they do shed light on pedagogical and class practices. Not only do these report on the lack of discipline of some teachers, they also discuss the percentages of pupils passing their exams and the quality and level of complexity of, in this case, mathematics or religion subjects. Lastly, the fund “S” contains

! 59! source material for the period of World War II. Of particular importance are the files ‘Requisitioning of schools’, ‘Reports concerning the situation in the schools of the provinces of Luxemburg and Namur in 1940’, ‘collaborators’, ‘Secours d’Hiver’ (Winter Relief), ‘Priests and teachers in captivity’, ‘Questionnaires about the mobilization of teachers’ and ‘correspondence with the occupier’. Lastly, I have also consulted the archive of the diocese of Tournai, and more specifically, that of former bishop Monseigneur Delmotte. The fund preserves reports on the material and financial impact of the war on education within the diocese or pedagogical reports on the role of the religion teacher in class. Parallel to the situation in different dioceses, the fund Delmotte also contains detailed statistics of enrolment numbers and numbers about the teaching staff. The reports of principals only document the educational reform plans – such as the prolongation of compulsory school attendance – after the war.

As will become clear from the previous paragraphs, the source material preserved in the archives of the Catholic dioceses usually is of a very administrative nature. With the exception of Mechelen, Liège and, to a lesser degree also, Tournai, these archives provide interesting empirical data for investigating the organization of Belgian Catholic secondary education, but document daily school life, class practices or curricular developments to a far lesser degree.

6.3. Archives of the Society of Jesus

As this dissertation is also concerned with the developments within secondary Jesuit education, I have also consulted the archives of the Society of Jesus in Belgium. Although the congregation was founded much earlier, the origin of the archives only goes back to the 19th century. In 1773, the Vatican abolished the Jesuit order. It was only after its re- recognition by the Pope in 1814 and the permission of the Belgian state to found a seat in the newly founded country that a Jesuit archive was established. In 1935, the Belgian Jesuit province was divided into a Flemish and Walloon Province. With that, it was decided that the archives of the old provincialate were to be conserved in the archives of the Flemish province. The archives of the various Jesuit houses and schools were –

! 60! depending on their geographical location – kept in the archives of the Flemish or Walloon province.153 Between 1935 and 1990, the archives of the Flemish province were accommodated in the Gesú residence in Brussels. In 1990 they were transported to the Jesuit residence in Heverlee. Recently, the funds have been transferred to the Documentation and Research Centre for Religion, Culture and Society (KADOC) in Leuven.154 In contrast to the episcopal archives, the archives of the Flemish Jesuit province provide a rich source for the history of school culture during World War II. Firstly, I have consulted the fund “COE” that is specifically concerned with educational matters. Besides general correspondence, curricula and enrolment statistics in this “COE” fund, the various archives of the Flemish Jesuit colleges were centrally deposited in the Jesuit archive of the Flemish Province. More specifically, I have consulted the archives of the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Antwerp, the Sint-Jan Berchmanscollege in Brussels, the Sint-Barbaracollege in Ghent, the Sint-Jozefscollege in Aalst, the Sint-Jozefscollege in Turnhout and the Xaveriuscollege in Borgerhout. These are very interesting funds as they shed light on the local situation in schools and on pedagogical practices. Although the volume of source material varies per school archive, I have found and consulted pupils’ essays, school chronicles that were drawn up by the superior, school management documents, school calendars, festival and theatre programs, lectures, school schedules, class and pupils’ diaries and pictures. The lion’s share of the school archive even holds detailed chronicles or reports of the mobilisation in 1939-1940, the requisitioning of school buildings and daily life during the occupation. Furthermore, archival number 16, files 1 to 3 are specifically dedicated the two world wars. Together with the school archives, these offer a unique look on school culture during the Second World War. At this point, however, it is important to note that the archive of the Flemish Jesuits has been subjected to re-inventory. As a result, some of the inventory numbers I use in this dissertation do not correspond with the current inventory numbers.

The situation in the archive of the Walloon Province, however, is less rosy. From 1944 onwards, the archives of the Walloon province were accommodated in the Brussels

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 153 Societas Jesu, ‘Archief van de Vlaamse Jezuïeten. Geschiedenis’, http://www.jezuieten.org/html/geschiedenis/archief/geschiedenis.html 154 Ibidem.

! 61! Résidence de Luxembourg, which was founded by German Jesuit Fathers in 1895.155 It is only very recently that these archives have been transferred to the Documentation and Research Center for Religion, culture and Society in Leuven. In contrast to the Flemish archive, the files concerning the educational activities of the Jesuits in Walloon schools have not yet been the subject of a re-inventory by the Kadoc. Hence, researchers have to put up with the chaotically organized old inventory. As the inventory consists out of several MS Word-files that can easily be modified, many numbers have disappeared from the inventory. Moreover, some of the requested archive numbers could not be retraced in the archive. Hence, I have only been able to consult a fragment of the entire archive. This considerably hampered the study of school culture during the Second World War in these Francophone Jesuit school and, as a result, partly accounts for the fact that this dissertation holds more information on Flanders than it does on Wallonia. Although the administrative sources of the provincialate are not open for consultation, I have consulted the archives of the various Francophone Jesuit schools. More specifically, I have looked into the archives of the Collège Saint-Michel in Brussels, Collège Sacré Coeur in Charleroi, Collège Saint-Paul in Godinne, Collège Saint-Louis in Liège, Collège Saint- Servais in Liège, Collège Saint-Stanislas in Mons, Collège Notre-Dame de la Paix in Namur, Collège Notre-Dame in Tournai and Collège Saint-François-Xavier in Verviers. Although these funds usually are smaller in volume than the school archives of the Flemish province, I found some very similar material, such as school diaries and chronicles, pictures, circular letters, pupils’ journals or school schedules and statistics. More interesting for this research was the “Section 6”, which preserves source material on general educational developments. In this fund, I found source material treating general educational issues, inspection files, school regulations, and course specific source material. Moreover, number 2 of the ‘Section 18: Documentation Profane’ and number 11 in the ‘Section 9: Notitiae Provinciae’ are specifically concerned with the Second World War and eventually provided the most interesting material for this dissertation.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 155 Province BML, ‘Aperçu des fonds historiques’, http://www.jesuites.be/Apercu-des-fonds-historiques.html

! 62! 6.4. School archives

As the previous section shows, the archives of the Jesuit schools are centralized in the general archives of the provinces. This is, however, certainly not the rule. Generally, the archives of episcopal schools are preserved locally. The problem here is that the local archival situation is very diverse. Although some schools have put considerable effort in preserving and inventorying their archive (such as the episcopal Minor Seminars of Sint- Niklaas or Mechelen, to only name two), many school archives remain unclassified. I found that the volume and state of school archives often depend on the priority given by the school board and principal to preserve historical source material and the means invested to develop an actual archive. In the case of the Minor Seminary of Basse-Wavre, for instance, one of the former principals decided at some point that there was no room for an archive anymore. As a result, the entire historical archive – including that for the period of the Second World War – was chucked into a container and destroyed. Fortunately, this remains an exceptional case. Still, it is a fact that many schools do not have the means, time nor staff to organize and structure their archive. In many cases, (former) history teachers are responsible for arranging, organizing and inventorying the archive on a voluntary basis when they are not teaching. Apart from that, the fact that there is no general survey of available school archives in Belgium, also considerably hindered this research. Therefore, in 2008, Mathieu Roeges of the Centre for Historical Research on War and Contemporary Society in Brussels and myself sent out a questionnaire to all public and private schools in order to assess the state of school archives and the volume of historical source material on World War II. On a total of 285 questionnaires, 51 Catholic schools responded and filled in the questionnaire (this is 17%). In contrast, on a total of 205, only 12 state schools responded to our national survey (this is 6%). The fact that Catholic schools can build on a much longer and stronger tradition in education and, as a result, have invested much more time and means in conserving their patrimony and making it public, can explain for this difference. Still, although the response rate is much higher for Catholic schools, state schools are obliged by law to deposit their archives in one of the state archives in the provinces. Although certain schools bend this rule, this considerably facilitates consultation and makes the historian less dependent on the ‘goodwill’ of private institutions to open their archives for scientific research. The problem with private schools is that if the school administration is non-

! 63! responsive – because they do not want to cooperate, deny access to the archive or have no exact idea of what actually is preserved in the archive – the archives remain closed. On the basis of the results of the national survey (i.e. based on the availability of source material, the state of the archive in terms of classification and the willingness of the school to cooperate with this study), I decided to only consult the school archives of the so-called episcopal Minor Seminars (apart from the Jesuit secondary schools that are centrally preserved in the Kadoc, of course). Since this dissertation is concerned with elite education for boys, this choice is legitimate. For the Roman Catholic Church, the Minor Seminars were of extreme importance, since these elitist secondary boarding schools were established with the specific purpose of educating boys to become priests. Generally, there are five Minor Seminars in Flanders (i.e. Klein Seminaries in Sint-Truiden, Hoogstraten, Mechelen, Sint-Niklaas and Roeselare) and four in Wallonia (i.e. Petit Séminaires Saint- Roch in Ferrières, Notre Dame de Bonne Espérence in Vellereille-les-Brayeu, Petit Séminaire Notre-Dame in Basse-Wavre and the Petit Séminaire de Floreffe). Eventually, I only got to consult the archives of the Minor Seminars of Mechelen, Sint-Niklaas and Roeselare. I was not able to consult the archives of the six other Minor Seminars because the archive was either destroyed or because the school administration did not respond to my emails or telephone calls. The lack of goodwill or effort of some school administrations to open up their archives in large part accounts for the fact that developments in Flemish school culture are much better documented than those in Walloon schools. The archives of the Minor Seminars I could consult, however, were a very rich source for the history of Catholic secondary school culture during the Second World War. Not only did I find class pictures or principals’ diaries dealing with various aspects of daily school life during the war, these archives also preserved letters between pupils and principals about their wartime collaboration, school exercise books containing pupils’ essays and reports of youth movement meetings that were organized in the school. In complement to similar sources I found in other school archives, these sources provide a unique pathway to a deeper understanding of the interactions among pupils or between teachers and pupils, as well as of the general development of school culture during the Second World War.

! 64! 6.5. Life histories and oral history

Popular and individual memory is taking an increasingly important place in both the history of education and the historiography of World War II. The problem for me was that many potential respondents already had been deceased. Hence, I had to rely on complementary and alternative material. Fortunately, the Study and Documentation Centre for Historical Research on War and Contemporary Society (CEGESOMA) in Brussels preserves the Enquête Kerk en clerus tijdens de bezetting (Questionnaire Church and Clergy during the Occupation). In 1977/8, three researchers of the Cegesoma organized a national questionnaire aiming at collecting and archiving World War II memories of (former) Belgian priests. Since, at the time, most teachers in Catholic secondary schools were priests, the questionnaire also documents the impact of the war on school culture and the ways in which teachers in Catholic secondary education dealt with and remembered the German occupation. On the basis of the identity index (on the first page of the questionnaire), I have selected all priests who were active in secondary education between 1940 and 1944 (but not necessarily during the whole period), as a teacher, financial administrator, principal or housemaster. This selection resulted in a total sample of 436 questionnaires (269 for Flanders and 167 for Wallonia). Considering the age of the respondents, this is in fact our only source to investigate the memories of priest-teachers of, for instance, May 1940 (i.e. the German attack on May 10 and the capitulation by Leopold III on May 28), the relation between the Church and the German occupier, collaboration, resistance, forced labor, the Jewish Question, bombardments, food shortages, the development of religious practices, the Royal Question156 or the street and legal retaliation against war-time collaboration. Interestingly, the Cegesoma preserves very similar questionnaires concerning pupils’ memories. In 1998, the Confédération Francophone des Associations des Anciens Elèves des Pères Jesuites (Francophone of the Associations of Former Pupils of Jesuit Schools) organized a questionnaire with the intention of collecting and archiving Francophone pupils’ memories in relation to their Jesuit education before, during and after the Second World War. Initially, the Confédération intended to also include the memories of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 156 The Royal Question refers to a political conflict that arose after the Second World War about the return of King Leopold III. For an English introduction to this subject, see Ramon E. Arrango, Leopold III and the Belgian royal question (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1961).

! 65! pupils in Flemish Jesuit schools. Due to the still very sensitive issues of collaboration and the post-war retaliation against wartime collaboration, in particular, the Flemish former pupil bond refused to take part in the project. As a result, the questionnaire only covers the Belgian region of Wallonia and the capital area of Brussels. This gap is regrettable, for the questionnaire fails to – as one of the respondents Georges Lethé, former pupil of Collège Saint-Michel, phrases it in his testimony – “mettre en lumière la différence de mentalité entre le Nord et le Sud du pays”.157 On the basis of the identity index on the first page of the questionnaire, I have selected former pupils that were enrolled in a Belgian Jesuit school (or a Jesuit school in the Belgian colony of Congo) between 1940 and 1944, the actual period of the German occupation of Belgium. This selection resulted in a total of 298 questionnaires. Generally, the questionnaire, Enquête auprès des anciens èléves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950), is divided into two main sections. A first section consists of multiple choice questions in which the respondent is given a list of historical events or developments that occurred before, during and after the Second World War. More specifically, in a first part the respondent is asked to indicate which events, in relation to the (i) 1920s (e.g. the financial crisis or l’Action Française), (ii) the 1930s (e.g. the rise of National Socialism or the Spanish Civil War), (iii) the declaration of war by Germany and the 18-days campaign, (iv) daily life during the war (e.g. rationing or bombardments), (v) the position of the civil and moral authorities during the occupation (e.g. war or political prisoners, collaboration or resistance), (vi) Belgium’s interior policy (e.g. the return of prisoners or the deepening of the colonization in Belgian Congo) and (vii) the international situation and Belgium’s foreign policy (e.g. the Allied conference of Yalta or the Korean War), they still remembered. The second part is structured according to open questions treating (i) the pre-war period at the grammar school (questions dealing with amongst others the rise of extreme right youth movements or the Belgian policy of neutrality), (ii) the declaration of war and the 18-days campaign in the spring of 1940, (iii) the actual war period (questions dealing with amongst others the material deprivations or anti-German manifestations), (iv) the political or ideological engagement of pupils during the war and the liberation (questions dealing with amongst others participation of students in the resistance or in collaborating youth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 157 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Questionnaire of Georges Lethé.

! 66! movements), (v) the immediate post-war period (questions dealing with amongst others the return of prisoners or the retaliation law suits against collaborators).

The fact that both of these questionnaires were systematically conducted and archived makes them useful for both a qualitative and a quantitative approach to this subject. Moreover, because of the lack of oral history source material, these questionnaires are one of few sources that leave us with an idea of the activities and involvement of pupils and teachers in the resistance or their experiences of material deprivations, or their dynamic strategies to escape from forced labor in German war industry. As the identity index of the Enquête Kerk en clerus tijdens de bezetting shows, most priest-teachers who were active in education between 1940 and 1944 were born between 1890 and 1920. As a result, the youngest respondents would now be over 90 years old. To some extent, the same holds for the Enquête auprès des anciens èléves Francophones des collèges jésuites. As the identity index shows, many pupils were born between 1922 and 1932. Considering their age, many potential respondents already have deceased. The rather disparate oral history source material as a result of that cannot provide for an equally large and representative sample for this type of research. In conclusion, both questionnaires offer the possibility of mapping patterns of World War II memories in Catholic educational milieus in the period between the 1970s and the 1990s.

At the same time, however, both questionnaires also present some methodological pitfalls. Firstly, as I was not involved in the organization of either of the questionnaires, I could not ask additional questions with a more specific focus on educational practices. One very general remark is that, although the organisers of the questionnaire Enquête auprès des anciens èléves Francophones des collèges jésuites, for instance, explicitly invited respondents to share their experiences in relation to school life during the war, most of the questions concern large developments of a highly political-historical nature, thereby neglecting more specific aspects of school culture. Ideally, the questionnaire should have combined a political historical with an educational historical approach. At the same time, however, some important developments in the history of World War II are simply and almost completely overlooked, which is, in my opinion, a result of the highly generalizing nature of the open questions in the second section of the questionnaire. One remarkable example is that of the Jewish Question, which only forms the subject of one of the checkboxes in the first section of the questionnaire, but is never explicitly referred to in the open questions in the second

! 67! section. As a result, the questionnaire is a missed opportunity to map Jewish rescue networks, to investigate the presence and spread of anti-Semitism within Catholic educational contexts, and to complement previous research with testimonies from pupils.

Still, considering the fact that some former pupils of Jesuit secondary schools are still alive and in view of the methodological pitfalls discussed earlier, an oral history project remains useful. Moreover, since the questionnaires were organized by the Confédération in the 1990s, I aimed at complementing and comparing these questionnaires with oral history interviews that I conducted myself, not only to investigate whether and to what extent their wartime memories have changed over the past two decades, but also to complement the mere focus of the 1990s questionnaires on Wallonia with a view on developments in Flanders and to complement its rather strict political historical focus with a more educational historical one. In order to find potential respondents, I contacted the various former Jesuit student unions that preserve enrolment lists. Although not every pupil bond responded to my request, I have been able to track down some pupils who were enrolled both in Flemish and Walloon Jesuit schools during the war. Since I already had the names of former pupils in Francophone schools, I have been able to track down slightly more Francophone than Dutch respondents. This is also partly the result of a larger willingness of Francophone pupils bonds to cooperate with a historical research project about the Second World War. In total, I have conducted eight interviews with former pupils from Francophone Jesuit schools and five interviews with pupils from Flemish Jesuit education.

6.6. Miscellaneous

Next to the large body of source material discussed above, I have also consulted some smaller archival funds. Firstly, I consulted the archives of Marcel Nyns, secretary-general of Public Education during the Second World War. As Kristel De Smedt has argued, the archive of Marcel Nyns contains a total of 161 files concerning education, the policy of the secretaries-general during World War II and the development of the war in general.158 Since this dissertation is only concerned with private, Catholic schools, this archival fund was less relevant. The records preserved at the General State Archives shed light on the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 158 De Smedt, ‘Schoollopen in Oorlogstijd’, 16.

! 68! material consequences of the war within the Department of Public Education, as well as on the mobilization of the teaching staff, hygiene, alimentation, heating, etc. only in official schools. Because the archives of the Ministry of Public Education, which are preserved in the General State Archives since 1974, partly went up in flames in June 1948 and remain unclassified, I have not consulted the funds concerning the war myself. The preliminary inventory made by Mathieu Roeges, however, shows that the archive contains documents concerning the linguistic conflict, the opening of new schools, staff and attribution files, school statistics and the influence of the Cultural Boards159 only in relation to public education.

Secondly, although their importance cannot be sufficiently underlined, it remains very hard to find teachers’ archives. Yet, in the KADOC, I have been able to find the personal archives of teachers in Catholic education during the war. More specifically, I have consulted the archives of secondary school teachers Leo De Vylder, Albert de Schepper and Albert Van den Berghe. Although quantitatively, these funds provided only a small amount of material, the quality of the sources is exceptional. Besides personal reports about the war or the retaliation against collaborators, I have found school exercise books and course preparations, which are very rare. Furthermore, I have also consulted the fragmentarily preserved curricula of the Catholic school network, the excerpts of some Belgian educational conferences before and after the war and the official publications of the Catholic school network.

7. Structure of this dissertation

Generally, this dissertation unfolds into two main parts, each dealing with educational developments at different levels. Whereas the first part presents a political and institutional history of education during the Second World War and mainly focuses on the actors and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 159 In October 1940, the Militärverwaltung re-established the Flemish and Walloon Cultural Boards, which had initially been founded in 1938. During the war, the Cultural Boards were re-organized in order to unify the Belgian cultural landscape and re-organize Flemish and Walloon culture according to the New Order. The establishment, organization and development of the Cultural Boards are discussed in more detail in chapter 1 of this dissertation.

! 69! interactions on the level of political decision-making, the second part is concerned with the development of school culture during the war, as well as with the actors and interactions on the lower levels of the educational pyramid. Each part, in its turn, unfolds in three chapters. The first chapter of either part (i.e. chapters 1 and 4) presents a general historical context and provides the necessary background information about the actors that are introduced in the part in question. These general introductory chapters allow the reader to better understand the developments during the war that are documented in the second and third chapters. As a result, the methodological choices I have made and discussed in this introduction find their translation in the global structure of the two main parts of this dissertation.

The first chapter of the first part of this dissertation starts by introducing the history of education in Belgium. More specifically, I introduce its development according to the main fracture lines that have crossed Belgian society and its educational system since its very independence in 1830, such as the linguistic issue or the tense relationship between the Church and the state in educational matters. Furthermore, I introduce the National Socialist educational project that, from the interwar years onwards, challenged the liberal democratic foundations of Belgian education and would soon spread all over Western and Eastern Europe. Lastly, I also introduce the various actors, such as the military government, the body of secretaries-general (and the Ministry of Public Education), collaborating movements, the ecclasiastical authorities, the Society of Jesus, and its protagonists that play an important role in the political and institutional history I present in the second and third chapters. This general framework is imperative to understand the educational policy of the German occupier, which I discuss in the second chapter, and its negotiations with the Catholic authorities responsible for private Catholic schools, which I discuss in the third chapter.

The second part of this dissertation shifts its focus from the level of political decision- making to the level of school culture and, therefore, starts by introducing the main actors of secondary education in Belgium (such as the Catholic secondary schools, their educational project and to a lesser degree the Catholic youth movement) that form the subject of the fourth chapter. Again, this general framework is necessary to understand the developments in Catholic school culture during the Second World War, which are discussed in the fifth chapter. Considering the scope and variety of angles from which to approach this type of research, I have made a thematic selection of issues that particularly illustrate or grasp the

! 70! interactions between various actors in my story. More specifically, after discussing the effects of the German ordinances restricting the development of private schools and its textbook policy, I respectively look at the extent to which the war or politics was discussed in the classroom, the ways in which the war and the political situation of that time were being discussed in the context of the youth movement, the engagement of pupils and teachers in collaboration and resistance and the ways in which their involvement was dealt with by the educational authorites, school authorities, parents and their social networks, as well as the ways in which Catholic schools experienced, dealt with or responded to the removal of Jewish children from Belgian schools. In this second part, I particularly analyze school diaries, pupils’ essays or teachers’ and pupils’ letters. As a result, this fifth chapter partly sheds light on pupils’ and teachers’ subjective experiences of the war. This subjective experience is further elaborated in a sixth chapter that deals with the notion of memory. More specifically, this final chapter is particularly concerned with the question as to whether and how pupils and teachers have any recollection of the German educational policy and its implementation in schools, and – parallel to the general discussion in Belgian World War II memory studies – deals with the ways in which the issues of collaboration and resistance (and to a lesser degree also the retaliation against wartime collaborators) have been remembered by pupils and teachers.

! 71!

! 72!

PART I EDUCATION UNDER SIEGE. A POLITICAL-INSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF CATHOLIC EDUCATION DURING WORLD WAR II

! 73! ! 74!

Chapter 1

The school as a subject of pacification and conflict. The development, structure and actors of Belgian education and the challenge of National Socialism

1. Introduction

As Marc Depaepe has argued, education has played a central role in the modernization of society.160 As a result, schooling has always enjoyed the particular attention of political, social as well as religious authorities and elites, for it is an important instrument in shaping religious and secular values of the future generation and a vehicle for social mobility. Debates about the function of education in instructing children and youth in becoming ‘good citizens’ (or good Christians) are by no means limited to the present. During the 19th and 20th century, education was a major stake in the state building process of a democratic nation and Christian society. Hence, education has been the subject of conflict between various political or ideological groupings. Parallel to Seymour-Martin and Stein Rokkan’s contribution on party systems and voter alignments161, Paul Wynants has argued that the history of education in Belgium can be understood in terms of (i) the ideological cleavage between the Roman Catholic Church and the state, (ii) the socio-economic gap between the working class and the level of political decision-making, and (iii) the geographical tension between centre and periphery, in which linguistic issues played a pivotal role in Belgium.162

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 160 Marc Depaepe, ‘The School, Cornerstone of Modern Society’, in Between Educationalisation and Appropriation: Selected Writings on the History of Modern Educational Systems, ed. Marc Depaepe (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2012), 23. 161 Seymour-Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan, Party Systems and Voter Alignments (New York: The Free Press, 1967). 162 Paul Wynants and Martine Paret, ‘Ecole et clivages au XIXe et XXe siècles’, in Histoire de l’Enseignement en Belgique, ed. Dominique Grootaers (Bruxelles: Crisp, 1998), 15-6.

! 75! This chapter aims at introducing the history of education and its actors before and during the Second World War in Belgium. More specifically, a first section of this chapter deals with the ways in which discussions about the organization, structure and nature of education took place during the 19th and 20th century. As Paul Wynants has argued in the context of the cleavages in Belgian society, ideological fractures between the Church and the state were the first to surface in discussions about education.163 Hence, the first section of this chapter deals with the power struggle between the episcopal and state authorities in their efforts to establish power and control over the educational system. Secondly, from the Belgian independence onwards, the Flemish movement contested the language regime of the educational system that was in large part Francophone. During the 1930s, a radicalized wing of this Flemish movement shifted towards and National Socialism and, as such, formed an important breeding ground for New Order (educational) ideas during the interwar and war years. Thirdly, before proceeding to the Military Administration’s educational policy during the German occupation, this first chapter also discusses the educational policy of the Nazis in Germany. As this doctoral dissertation particularly draws on Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory, a second section of this first chapter deals with the actors that were involved in the history of education during the Second World War. A first important ‘new’ protagonist in Belgian education was the Military Administration that occupied Belgium between 1940 and 1944. Instead of discussing the Militärverwaltung as a monolithic bloc, this section particularly draws attention to the background of several leading figures within the Verwaltungsstab and the Cultural Department, which was responsible for educational matters. As the Military Administration did not have the means, staff nor time to establish a new administration from scratch, the second section of this chapter also discusses the body of secretaries- general that (after the government went in exile to London and King Leopold III was made ) held governmental rule over occupied Belgium. Considering the subject of this dissertation, this section particularly focusses on the organization and structure of the Ministry of Public Education that was presided by secretary-general for education, Marcel Nyns. Thirdly, in order to document the German occupier’s aim to gain control over Belgium, this second section also discusses the ways in which the Military Administration aimed at replacing Deutschfeindliche by Deutschfreundliche personalities within the Belgian

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 163 Wynants and Paret, idem, 16.

! 76! administration and (re-)established independent commissions and boards to implement its cultural ideological outlooks. Fourthly, apart from (re-)establishing (new) commissions or nominating pro-German personalities, the German occupier could also make use of the existing right-wing groupings within Belgian society. Already before the war, the radical wing of the Flemish movement (of which right-wing educational movements, such as the Dietsch Opvoedkundige Beweging164, were an integral part) supported the National Socialist regime in Germany and were ready to collaborate with the German occupier during the war. In their aim to establish total control over the entire Belgian educational system, all of the aforementioned parties faced the strong position of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgian society. More specifically, the cardinal as well as the bishops and congregations were not ready to give up their authority over the Catholic schools under their supervision. Particularly the ‘freedom of education’, constitutionally anchored in article seventeen, made the Church and congregations an important actor in the history of education during the Second World War.

2. The Catholic school as a bastion of French elite culture, and the challenge of the state and Flemish movement

During the Middle Ages and the Ancien Régime, the Church took the forefront in the socialization of good Christians through education. As Depaepe has documented, “the Church organized teaching within institutions which came into being between the sixth and twelfth centuries (...)”.165 Yet, under the influence of the Enlightenment, secular state authorities increasingly contested the Church’s educational monopoly. Already in 18th century Belgium, the state became increasingly interested in establishing a secular educational system as a way to consolidate its centralist aspirations and affirm state power, which was detrimental for denominational education and private Catholic schools. Under Austrian rule (1715-1795), for instance, Jesuit colleges were abolished by Empress Maria

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 164 The notion Diets refers to a common origin of the people of the Low Countries. The term was frequently used by Flemish right-wing movements, such as the or DOB, who aimed at the establishment of a Dietse nation, encompassing the territories of the former (Imperial States of the Habsburg Netherlands) or the United Kingdom of the Netherlands (1815-1830). 165 Depaepe, ‘The School’, 23.

! 77! Theresia and replaced by so-called Royal Theresian Colleges. Although her policy resulted in the reversion of Church power in educational matters, Maria Theresia was still quite moderate, as these newly found institutions were designed to educate citizens useful to both the state and the Church. Maria Theresia’s son, Joseph II, however, went much further by, for instance, suppressing contemplative religious orders and modernizing administrative and legal institutions. Unsurprisingly, these reforms met with fierce Catholic opposition and financial difficulties. Eventually, the Brabantse Omwenteling (Brabant Revolution) ruined the Habsburg educational project.166 Under French rule (1795-1815), “the bourgeois authorities made every effort to maximize their control over the running of the school system without, however gaining a real monopoly hold over it”.167 Several educational institutions fell victim to Napoleon’s radical policy that aimd at the establishment of entirely secularised schools, thereby banning religion out of the curriculum.168 Yet, Napoleon moderated his restrictive policy and eventually concluded a concordat with the Roman Catholic Church in 1801.169 After the agreement, the situation in primary schools returned to the time before the , when the central government had a very limited role to play in education, and religion regained its supremacy. Under Dutch rule (1815-1830) too, the Oranjes aimed at expanding official control over education, for William I believed it was the state and not the Church that needed to engage in the development of (public) education. Although he recognized the principle of ‘freedom of education’, he actively engaged in the establishment of state universities (i.e. those of Ghent, Liège and Leuven) and the control over primary and secondary schools. As a result of this secularization trend, the public school gained a more ‘educational task’ next to its religious function.170 After the fall of the Dutch regime and the establishment of an independent Belgian nation in 1830, the Catholic Church cherished high hopes for the reinstallation of religion as the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 166 Wynants and Paret, ‘Ecole et clivages’, 18-9. 167 Depaepe, ‘The School’, 28. 168 Wynants and Paret, ‘Ecole et clivages’, 19. 169 For more details on the 1801 Concordat and Papal relations with Napoleon, see for instance William Roberts, ‘Napoleon, the Concordat of 1801, and Its Consequences’, in Controversial Concordats: The Vatican’s Relations with Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler, ed. Frank Coppa (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 34-80; Jacques-Olivier Boudon, L’épiscopat français à l’époque concordataire (1802-1905): Origines, formation, nomination (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1996). 170 Depaepe, ‘The School’, 28- 29.

! 78! basis of the educational system.171 Yet, the educational policy under Austrian, French and Dutch rule had set in motion an irreversible secularization trend. After the Belgian Revolution in 1830, the educational system of the previous Dutch regime was largely dismantled. On December 24, 1830, the National Congress accepted article seventeen, constitutionally anchoring the principle of ‘freedom of education’. As Dominique Grootaers has argued, this article seventeen sowed the seeds of future conflicts over its organization.172 More specifically, for the Catholics, the newly drafted Constitution could help promoting the emancipation of Catholicism from every form of state control.173 Indeed, they used the principle of the freedom of education to expand the Catholic private educational network and used their political majority in restoring Catholic power over public schools.174 For the liberals, however, the Constitution served civil rights and functioned as a leverage in countering Church independence and submission.175 The educational interests of Church and state continued to clash. More specifically, controversies arose over the double interpretation of the principle of freedom of education. On the one hand, article seventeen affirmed the liberty of the family (read: father) to select a school. On the other hand, article seventeen recognized the freedom of private institutions or persons to establish schools on every educational level. Moreover, conflicts arose over the issue of state subvention that was attributed to private schools under certain conditions. As a result, political debates about education continuously revolved around the attribution of state subventions and the level of state involvement in the organization of schools.176 With regard to primary education, Catholics generally aimed at maximizing guarantees for the practice of their cult. In their view, if the state was to establish schools, it would have to guarantee a Christian education parallel to that in private schools. Conversely, liberals precisely aimed at minimizing the influence of the Catholic Church in educational matters. In 1842, these differences in interpretation of the freedom of education resulted in a first !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 171 Els Witte, Jan Craeybeckx and Alain Meynen, Politieke Geschiedenis van België, van 1830 tot heden (Antwerpen: Standaard Uitgeverij, 2010), 41. 172 Dominique Grootaers, ‘Cent cinquante ans d’instruction publique à la poursuite de l’intégration sociale et de la promotion individuelle’, in Histoire de l’Enseignement en Belgique, ed. Dominique Grootaers (Bruxelles: Crisp, 1998), 85. 173 Wynants and Paret, ‘Ecole et clivages’, 21. 174 Witte, Craeybeckx and Meynen, Politieke Geschiedenis van België, 41. 175 Wynants and Paret, ‘Ecole et clivages’, 21. 176 Grootaers, ‘Cent cinquante ans’, 85-6.

! 79! organic law, which determined that every municipality could establish a Catholic school and allowed for their financial state support. As such, the Catholic Church reaffirmed its superiority over primary education.177 As far as secondary education was concerned, the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium benefitted from a renaissance of its congregations and orders that increasingly established secondary schools for both boys and girls.178 Particularly the Society of Jesus was active in establishing new schools. Between 1831 and 1845, the Jesuit order established ten grammar schools in Belgium.179

Yet, Church-state tensions resurfaced in 1846, when liberals put the organization of public schools and the rejection of Church intervention in official schools on top of the political agenda.180 These controversies eventually resulted in a first schools’ war (1879-1884). As Depaepe has argued, the conflict “had much less bearing on the curriculum, in which the liberals wanted to give greater prominence to science than to religion, or on subsidies for Catholic schools, than on the modernisation of the ideology of education. The Catholics advocated a model which, in accordance with tradition, placed moral improvement before the acquisition of knowledge, whereas the liberals, heirs of the Enlightenment, put forward the contrary model”. In spite of the fact that the issue was settled in 1884 with the electoral victory of the , this schools’ war remained a source of latent tension.181 Meanwhile, Catholics continued expanding their educational network and regained grip on religious education in state schools. As Wynants has convincingly argued, their aims went further than gaining control over the mere field of education, since, after the introduction of so-called Algemeen Meervoudig Stemrecht (Plural Voting Right, AMS) in 1893, the school came to function as a tool for disciplining its future Catholic electorate.182

In many ways, the First World War marked a new political era in Belgian history (of education). After 1918, Belgium was led by political coalitions, in which Catholics still played a prominent role. The new political constellation gave rise to the establishment of a

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 177 Witte, Craeybeckx and Meynen, Politieke Geschiedenis van België, 41. 178 Wynants and Paret, ‘Ecole et clivages’, 23. 179 Lieve Gevers, Kerk, onderwijs en Vlaamse Beweging. Documenten uit kerkelijke archieven over het taalregime en Vlaamsgezindheid in het katholiek middelbaar onderwijs (Leuven: Editions Nauwelaerts, 1980), 41. 180 Wynants and Paret, ‘Ecole et clivages’, 24. 181 Depaepe, ‘The School’, 31-2. 182 Wynants and Paret, ‘Ecole et clivages’, 30.

! 80! pacification democracy, in which political actors needed to compromise. As a result, the interwar period was marked by relative stability and a status quo, based on the idea of non- decision making. The Catholics used this strategy of political immovability, as it allowed them to maintain state subventions for private schools, which were legally granted to them in 1919.183 Eventually, the status quo was broken under the government Van Zeeland II. In 1937, three educational laws were passed, which are an illustration of the ways in which a policy of ideological opposition had made room for a politics of compromise. More specifically, on June 17, 1937, the so-called Vanderpoorten law was passed, regulating the financing of new and maintenance of old educational infrastructure by the state. This law, named after the liberal politician Vanderpoorten, legally anchored the expansion and development of official state education. Importantly, this ‘liberal law’ was introduced together with two other laws: one was introduced by the socialist senator Missiaen and regulated the establishment of municipal schools according to the local educational demand, and another was introduced by the representative of the Catholic Party, Marck, and regulated the equal treatment of the teaching staff in both private and state education.184

A second cleavage in Belgian history of education is of a socio-economic nature. More specifically, it revolves around the central question whether the school should reproduce the existing socio-economic stratification or, conversely, should function as leverage for social mobility. In Belgium, debates particularly crystallized around (i) the limitation or even abolishment of child labor, (ii) the introduction of compulsory education, and (iii) the democratization of education. In the 19th century, working class children were employed in the household, (proto-) industry, agriculture or in the mines from infancy onwards. Before the Belgian independence, only the law of March 3, 1813 abolished child labor under the age of ten in the mining industry. It was not until 1884 that this law was extended to boys and girls under the age of fourteen. As a result of the improvement of living standards in the beginning of the 20th century, however, things started to change. Not only did working- class families’ dependence on the salaries of their children gradually decreased, employers also increasingly preferred and required specialized and better educated workers. Yet,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 183 Wynants and Paret, idem, 31-2. 184 Jeffrey Tyssens, Strijdpunt of Pasmunt. Levensbeschouwelijk links en de schoolkwestie, 1918-1940 (Brussel: VUBPress, 1993), 284-9.

! 81! enrolment fees still formed the main reason for working class children’s deprivation from education. Therefore, access to primary education was made partly free in 1842. Secondary education, however, maintained its elitist and selective character until after the Second World War.185 Besides the demand for tuition-free education, also compulsory education appeared on the political agenda from the second half of the 19th century onwards, when schools came to function as social defence mechanisms as a result of the rise of emancipatory movements. As a result, the idea of compulsory education increasingly received the attention of political decision-makers. Yet, the issue divided progressive and conservative politicians. On the hand, progressives were in favor of compulsory education as a way to emancipate the working class population and saw it as a means for their integration in society. As liberals linked compulsory education with neutral, lay state schooling, their demands met with fierce Catholic conservative opposition that considered compulsory education as a Masonic conspiracy against private education and an infringement of the liberty of the father to freely choose a school. As a result, although political initiatives multiplied in the course of the second half of the 19th century, the electoral victory of the Catholic party in 1884 postponed the introduction of compulsory education, as well as the abolition of child labor. It was only under the impulse of socialism, which gradually developed after 1890, that Catholics increasingly altered positions in the debate, as long as financial state subsidizing was equally distributed among the official and private school networks. Eventually, compulsory education for children under fourteen years old in a private institution, official school or at home was introduced in 1914. The principle of free primary education for boys and girls between six and fourteen years old was introduced at the same time.186

A third cleavage in Belgian history of education concerns the linguistic regime in schools. Already from Belgium’s independence in 1830, the big cities witnessed a rapid Frenchifying process that ousted the use of Dutch as a popular language in administration, justice or in the army. In response to these developments, a Flemish movement arose in the Northern provinces (Flanders), demanding equal rights for the popular language, Dutch. Initially, this Flemish movement was an amalgam of several journals and associations that aimed at the restoration of Dutch as a language of administration, justice

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 185 Wynants and Paret, ‘Ecole et clivages’, 52-7. 186 Wynants and Paret, idem, 56 and 66-7; Grootaers, ‘Cent cinquante ans’, 87-91.

! 82! or education.187 Furthermore, as Lieve Gevers has noted, the Flemish movement was particularly popular in Catholic circles. This development is understandable since the Catholics remained strong in rural Flemish areas, whereas industrialized Wallonia pursued a more anti-clerical line. The Flemish movement recruited especially among the educated lower middle class of priests, teachers and writers. As Gevers has pointed out, “priests were inspired by Romantic and traditionalist ideas. As pastoral workers they had close ties with the people and defended the preservation of the Flemish language as an element of folk-culture”.188 These clergymen stongly influenced youth in the Flemish provinces through the extensive network of Catholic primary and secondary schools. The language of instruction in these schools was French, since these fulfilled the needs of a society that was dominated by French. Yet, supported by the Flemish bishops, many priest-teachers in Catholic private schools conveyed their love for the Dutch popular language in their classes.189 As a result, Flemish consciousness was particularly intertwined with education and public life.190 , a Belgian historian and Liberal Flemish politician, for instance, argued in his 1909 Sketch of the history of the Flemish movement that education was the most important and significant ‘battlefield’ for the Flemish movement.191 Flemish militants considered socialization of the masses in Dutch of central importance to their success. As von Busekist has observed: !

“(...) ils avaient consciences que leurs revendications seraient vouées à l’échec sans la contribution des générations futures, qui devaient, dans cette optique, être socialisées en flamand, et c’est là d’une importance capitale, car l’éducation confère l’identité et la première loyauté est celle que l’individu porte à une culture”.192

Flemish frustrations were mainly a result of the rapid Frenchifying of Belgian education after 1830. The Belgian independence ended the linguistic policy of William I. Although !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 187 Lode Wils, Van Clovis tot Happart. De lange weg van de naties in de Lage Landen (Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant, 1992), 159-63. 188 Lieve Gevers, ‘The Catholic Church and the Flemish Movement’, in Nationalism in Belgium: shifting identities, 1780-1995, eds. Kas Deprez and Louis Vos (Houndmills: Macmillan, 1998), 112. 189 Gevers, idem, 111-2. 190 Gevers, Kerk, Onderwijs en Vlaamse Beweging, 3. 191 Original title Schets eener geschiedenis der Vlaamsche Beweging, cited in Gevers, ‘The Catholic Church’, 3. 192 Astrid von Busekist, La Belgique Politique des langues et construction de l’État, de 1780 à nos jours (Paris/Bruxelles: Duculot, 1998), 93.

! 83! the choice between the two national languages was free and created a basis for the organization of education in both Dutch and French, it was not until June 1850 that Dutch became the second obligatory language in Flemish education. In spite an increase of hours Dutch in schools between 1850 and 1873, the basic structure of secondary education remained essentially French.193 By the last quarter of the 19th century, however, the increasing political power of the Flemish movement could not be ignored any longer. As a result, a number of Flemish demands were granted. In 1883, for instance, it was decided that a number of subjects were to be taught in Dutch. Although this was an important step in the direction of the establishment of education in Dutch, the law of June 15, 1883 only applied for official, state education.194 The turn of the century proved important for the Flemish movement. The recognition of Dutch as an official language in 1898 and the growing economic importance of Flanders called into being a flamingant middle class with growing political and economic power.195 It is particularly within this context that cultural flamingantism arose, which revolved around the idea that linguistic discrimination caused the material deprivation of the Flemish workers, civil servants, farmers and the middle class. Education was a major stake for this new Flemish (cultural) elite. As a result, during the first half of the 20th century, the recognition of Dutch as the official language in secondary, technical and university education remained the main theatre of the flamingant emancipation battle.196 At the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, Flemish frustrations increasingly grew over the linguistic law of 1883 that only applied to official state schools. In 1890, 1894 and 1901, Edward Coremans, an Antwerp politician and member of the so- called Meetingpartij197, promoted the introduction of a similar linguistic regime in Catholic schools. His bill met with fierce opposition of the Catholic establishment that rejected Dutch as an official language in education, and the Catholic episcopacy that refused state

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 193 von Busekist, idem, 88-90. 194 Witte, Craeybeckx and Meynen, Politieke Geschiedenis van België, 106. 195 Witte, Craeybeckx and Meynen, idem, 147; Gita Deneckere and Bruno De Wever, Geschiedenis van België (Gent: Academia Press, 2007), 77. 196 Hans Blomme, ‘Scholen met een zwart etiket. Sint-Lutgardisschool, Sint-Lievenscollege en Sint- Xaveriuscollege te Antwerpen, 1940-1945’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 2010), 44. 197 The Meetingpartij was a political party that opposed the Belgian government and obtained a majority in Antwerp between 1862 and 1872. After that , the party would be included in the Catholic Party.

! 84! mediation in private education. Flamingant persistence, however, eventually resulted in a compromise: private schools could choose between the introduction of the linguistic system prevailing in official schools or the introduction of eight hours of Dutch a week.198 In a reaction against the Flemish language battle, a (liberal) Walloon movement199 arose from the 1880s onwards.200 Generally, the aimed at maintaining bilingualism in Flanders (or at least at securing the use of French in Flemish society as much as possible) and Wallonia’s particular character. In doing so, the Walloon movement dedicated itself to curbing the linguistic laws. As Lode Wils has argued, the activities of this Walloon movement only reinforced the Flemish movement’s Catholic character. Furthermore, the First World War was of particular importance to the development of the Flemish movement. Between 1914 and 1918, the German occupier tried to win over the Flemish population by taking advantage of pre-war Flemish demands (such as a general Dutchification of schools in Flanders), by spreading anti-Walloon propaganda or by supporting flamingant journals.201 Yet, the First World War and Germany’s severely divided the Flemish movement. In radicalized Catholic milieus, the German Flamenpolitik and the war further boosted the Flemish movement. Due to the involvement of a fraction of the Flemish movement in collaboration with the German occupier during the First World War (or aktivisme) Flanders and Belgium increasingly became juxtaposed. More specifically, during the interwar years, a strong anti-Belgian wing established, whereas before 1914, the Flemish movement had always been Belgian patriotic.202 As a result, two wings appeared after 1918. On the one hand, the so-called Maximalists aimed at Flemish independence. These radical ideas found translation in youth movements such as the Blauwvoeterij203. The so-called Minimalists were more moderate and aimed at the full

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 198 Witte, Craeybeckx and Meynen, Politieke Geschiedenis van België, 147; Deneckere and De Wever, Geschiedenis van België, 151-2. 199 For more details on the history of the Mouvement Wallonne, see also L’histoire du mouvement wallon. Journée d’étude de Charleroi, 26 février 1976 (Charleroi: Institut Jules Destrée, 1978); Chantal Kesteloot, Mouvement wallon et identité national (Bruxelles: CRISP, 1993); Chantal Kesteloot, ‘Tendences récentes de l’historiographie du Mouvement Wallon (1981-1995)’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis XXV (1994), nr. 3-4: 539-68. 200 Lode Wils, Van de Belgische naar de Vlaamse Natie: een geschiedenis van de Vlaamse Beweging (Leuven: Acco, 2009), 287. 201 Wils, idem, 196-9. 202 Wils, idem, 204-5. 203 The Blauwvoeterij was a youth movement established in 1875 by at the Minor Seminary of Roeselare. It targeted the dominant position of French in education.

! 85! Dutchification of public life in Flanders. This second wing, supported by, amongst others, the flamingant politician and lawyer , was politically more influential. As a result of the increasing political power of Flemish-nationalist politicians and a boom of Flemish consciousness, both official and private schools rapidly Dutchified. In the beginning of the 1930’s, cardinal Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, for instance, allowed all subjects in Catholic schools to be taught in Dutch, with the exception of French and Latin.204 A last and important step in the direction of the recognition of Dutch as an official language of instruction was taken in 1932 when, following Frans Van Cauwelaert’s program and that of the Minimalists, a unilingual education program was established. More specifically, the principle ‘local language equals official language’ was introduced in . In contrast to the resistance of the Catholic Church in the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the Catholic network complied with the 1932 regulation, as its implementation was considered a necessary condition for the homologation of certificates in the classical humanities and the state subvention of agricultural and technical schools. Yet, French sections would continue to exist until after the Second World War.205 In Brussels, the situation was quite different than in Flanders. More specifically, many city and town councils in the Brussels agglomeration continued their Frenchifying education policy. As a result, at the eve of the Second World War, only 19% of pupils frequented Dutch schools in the Brussels agglomeration.206 Hence, the activities and battle of the Flemish movement were not over. Moreover, the development of an anti-Belgian wing during the interwar years went hand in hand with the total rejection of parliamentary democracy and was accompanied by the spread of Fascist and National Socialist ideas. Particularly the aktivisten who had collaborated with the German occupier during the First World War placed their hopes in German National Socialism to abolish the Belgian state.207 As such, the radical, anti-democratic and anti-Belgian fraction of the Flemish movement formed an important breeding ground for Fascist and National Socialist ideas that gradually seeped through in Belgian society from the end of the 1930s onwards.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 204 Blomme, ‘Scholen met een zwart etiket’, 48. 205 Blomme, idem, 48-9. 206 Witte, Craeybeckx and Meynen, Politieke Geschiedenis van België, 147; Deneckere and De Wever, Geschiedenis van België, 195. 207 Wils, Van Clovis tot Happart, 209.

! 86! 3. Belgian education as an exponent of parliamentary democracy, and the challenge of the New Order

The end of the 1920s and beginning of the 1930s witnessed the rise of Fascism and National Socialism in Europe, which anticipated on the widespread discontent about the worldwide economic crisis and parliamentary democracy. As many authors have convincingly argued, education and youth played pivotal roles in both Facism and National Socialism, as the National Socialists and Fascists considered those imperative for the longlasting success of the New Order. Hitler understood the importance of education in creating a general atmosphere of national pride and in promoting his radical ideas of blood and soil, as well as in building loyalty to his person and regime. As Hitler himself argued:

“In my great educative work, I am beginning with the young; We older ones are used up. Yes, we are old already. We are rotten to the marrow. We have no unrestrained instincts left. We are bearing the burden of a humiliating pas, and have in our blood the dull recollection of serfdom and servility. But my magnificent youngsters! Are there finer ones anywhere in the world? Look at these young men and boys! What material! With them I can make a new world.”208

According to Hitler, the category of youth was of central importance to his project, for it embodied change and a total breach with the (democratic) Weimar Republic, which he loathed. During the Weimar era, educational policy gradually moved away from the anti- liberal and authoritarian trend of the Kaiserreich, and instead facilitated and implemented democratic reforms and pedagogical innovations, such as the polongation of compulsory education or a broadened access to higher education. This democratic educational renewal, however, met with fierce anti-modernist opposition of reactionary educationalists, academics and teachers. During his pre-election, Hitler precisely appealed to these anti- modern sentiments.209 In contrast to the democratic educational reforms of the Weimar era, Hitler envisaged a ‘total education’ that revolved around the principle of the race, the imperialitic idea of Lebensraum, the notion of the Führerstaat and Führerprinzip and the ascendency of the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 208 Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks: a series of Political Conversations with Adolf Hitler on his Real Aims (London: T. Butterworth, 1939), 246 cited in Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 1. 209 Pine, idem, 4-12.

! 87! national community over the individual.210 More specifically, in his view, schools served the state and were an integral part of the national community. As a result, education needed to propagate and support German culture, rather than the Marxist ideas that, according to Hitler, had penetrated the schooling system during the Weimar Republic.211 Pivotal in the establishment of this German state was the formation of strong, brave men. Hence, Hitler’s ideas of total education centered on physical education, which he considered important in the formation of willpower, character and instinct, rather than on intellectual formation.212 Yet, although Hitler aimed at reversing the (democratic) Weimar heritage, the development of the education system in the Third Reich showed many similarities with those of earlier governments. As many recent histories of education of the Nazi era have documented, 1933 did not mark a clear-cut breach in German history of education. Lisa Pine, for instance, has argued that the idea of total submission to state authority goes back to the Stiehl Ordinance of 1854, standardizing the curriculum, pedagogy and teacher training.213 Moreover, the schooling system did not undergo structural changes during the Nazi era.214 Hitler’s coming to power did not represent a strong breach with the past, precisely because of the existence of a strong anti-modern atmosphere in schools prior to 1933. Yet, in comparison to the preceding Weimar Republic, National Socialism did add a more radical direction to educational policy and operated within a fundamentally different, anti-democratic framework.215 Generally, two periods can be distinguished in relation to educational reforms under National Socialist rule.216 During a first period from 1933 to 1937, Hitler consolidated his power through a number of initiatives. Firstly, in April 1933, a law was passed that attributed teachers a civil servant status, and prepared the total removal from Jews from the educational system.217 Secondly, the autonomy of the Länder was abolished in order to establish total state control over schools. Furthermore, the leadership principle, consolidating the absolute supremacy of the headmaster, was introduced and parents’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 210 Pine, idem, 13; Keim, Erziehung unter der Nazi-Diktatur, 10-4. 211 Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 26. 212 Keim, Erziehung unter der Nazi-Diktatur, 86. 213 Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 7. 214 Link, ‘”Erziehungsstätte des deutschen Volkes”’, 80; Kemnitz and Tosch, ‘Zwischen Indoktrination und Qualifikation’, 120. 215 Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 2 and 12. 216 See for instance Nyssen, Schule im Nationalsozialismus, 84. 217 Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 26-7; Link, ‘”Erziehungsstätte des deutschen Volkes”’, 81.

! 88! councils were abolished and subsequently replaced by a single School Community, consisting of parents, teachers and representatives of the National Socialist youth movement, the Hitlerjugend.218 Thirdly, in order to gain control over the teaching staff, the Nationalsozialistischer Lehrersbund (National Socialist Teachers League, NSLB), established in 1929 and mainly recruiting among radicalized reactionary teachers, was recognized as the single teacher association in the Reich in 1933.219 Lastly, during this first phase of educational reform, Hitler aimed at spreading National Socialist ideas in the classroom by introducing specific rituals, such as the Nazi salute, or by spreading educational propganda under the form of propaganda films.220 In a second phase, roughly going from 1937/8 to 1942, Hitler further implemented changes in order to establish total control over the educational system, its teaching staff and pupils. Firstly, the number of different school types was drastically reduced, which fitted in with Hitler’s Gleichschaltung’s policy. Secondly, the National Socialist regime consolidated its idea of separate gender roles for boys and girls by separating the schooling system for both sexes. Thirdly, against the backdrop of Hitler’s anti-intellectualism, secondary education was shortened with one year. Only the Gymnasium and the Oberschule that fell apart in a science/mathematics and a language section, further continued to exist. Fourthly, central in consolidating total control over education, Hitler imposed severe restrictions on private schooling, with the intention of eventually and completely abolishing them. His National School Law abolished private preparatory schools and made attendance of the state run Volksschule compulsory. With the establishment of Volksschule, Hitler aimed at providing a general education for all German children, regardless of their religion or social class. As a result, the elementary schools system was considerably homogenized. Yet, with the restriction and abolishment of private schooling, Hitler broke his Concordat with the Holy See of 1933221, in which he had promised to respect the Church’s institutions in exchange for a Catholic withdrawal from politics. In spite of Catholic protest, mainly from Catholic Bavaria, private schools were succesfully shut down and replaced by state schools by the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 218 Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 26-7. 219 Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 14; Link, ‘”Erziehungsstätte des deutschen Volkes”’, 88; Kemnitz and Tosch, ‘Zwischen Indoktrination und Qualifikation’, 118. 220 Kemnitz and Tosch, idem, 119; Keim, Erziehung unter der Nazi-Diktatur, 88. 221 For more details on the Reich Concordat with the Holy See, see for instance Biesinger, ‘The Reich Concordat of 1933’, 120-81.

! 89! summer of 1939. In addition, Hitler reduced the number of hours of religious instruction.222 Between 1939 and 1942, Hitler also further implemented the total exclusion of Jews from German society and German education. Already in 1938, a law was passed denying Jewish children the right to attend German schools and referring them to special Judenschule.223 Moreover, as the following paragraph demonstrates, racial hatred towards Jews increasingly permeated in the curriculum. As Gregory Wegner has demonstrated, history and geography textbooks portrayed Jews as cultural outsiders, and biology lessons and racial studies were designed to spread the idea and image of Jews as racial pariahs.224 National Socialism’s total control over education was mainly achieved by a curriculum reform, emphazing the nation and bloodpurity of the race. In order to spread National Socialist ideas in the classroom, textbooks were examined, not only with the intention of weeding out undesired passages, but also with a view on publishing a general Reich Reader. Furthermore, racial studies was introduced as a new subject in secondary education. Its focus on differences between the Jewish and Aryan race helped in legitimizing Jewish persecution and the Endlösung. The existing subjects of biology, physics, chemistry, geography, history, mathematics, German and physical education were completely altered according to Hitler’s Weltanschauung. Biology, for instance, was reformed to instruct pupils “about the living nature of German ‘living space’ as the basic nourishment of the German Volk”. Hereditary biology, which was made an integral part of biology education, legitimized the sterilization program, the gender roles of both men and women, and contributed to the understanding of racial differences. Physics and chemistry, in their turn, focused on arms and underlined the achievements of German Aryan physicists (the names of Non-Aryan scientists, such as Albert Einstein were removed from textbooks), raised national pride and highlighted the significance of Hitler’s Weltanschauung. Geography generated a political understanding of Germany’s position in the world, whereas history lessons demonstrated the greatness of Germany and instilled pupils with pride for their country. German lessons emphasized German folklore and treated blood and soil literature. Even mathematics dealt with national political issues and questions of the ‘hereditary unfit’.225

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 222 Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 27-31. 223 Link, ‘”Erziehungsstätte des deutschen Volkes”’, 94-5. 224 See Wegner, Anti-Semitism and Schooling, 67-156. 225 See Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 42-52.

! 90! Apart from reforming the existing education system, Hitler also established a number of elite schools that reflected the formation of the ideal National Socialist boy/man. The goal of these elitists Ausleseschulen (selection schools) was to create a body of well-trained, loyal and strong leaders. In order to create this new elite, pupils had to live up to strict standards, such as Aryan descent, and pass strict selection tests. Firstly, the Nationalpolitische Erziehungsanstalten (National Political Educational Institutions, Napola’s) trained boys for a career in the National Socialist government or in the German Army. These schools were state run and put under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. In these boarding schools, children received a political education. They had to pass a strict selection process, i.e. an entrance exam and physical inspection during which they had to prove their Aryan descent, Hitlerjugend membership and physical fitness. The Napola’s were a textbook example of the total control the National Socialist regime envisaged: pupils were immersed in a bath of racial ideology and were trained to prove their loyality to the Volksgemeinschaft. Gradually, however, the Napola’s shifted in the direction of a (pre-) military training, under increasing direction and control of the SS.226 In 1937, the Adolf Hitler Schools (AHS) were established in direct response to the Napola’s. In contrast to the Napola’s, the AHS were established by Robert Ley, Head of the German Labor Front during the Nazi era, and Baldur von Schirach, Head of the Hitlerjugend, in order to train future party officials. These schools operated outside of the influence sphere of the Ministry of Public Education and instilled pupils with loyalty and strict obedience to the state and party. The selection criterion for admittance in these schools was equally strict: after a pre-selection in the Hitlerjugend on grounds of their bravory and toughness, pupils underwent a racial and physical examination.227 Apart from the Napola’s and AHS, other elitist private schools were established during the Nazi era, such as the Reichschule der NSDAP228, which were private schools of the Sturm Abteilung (Storm Troopers, SA), the Ordensburgen (Order Castles), which were finishing schools for the Nazi elite that had already finished their AHS education, army and labor service, as well as the SS Junkerschulen, which developed into training institutes of the Waffen SS (Armed SS).229

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 226 Pine, idem, 75-9; Klare, ‘Nationalsozialistische Ausleseschulen’, 142-7. 227 Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 79-83; Klare, ‘Nationalsozialistische Ausleseschulen’, 147-53. 228 Klare, idem, 153-5. 229 Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 83-9.

! 91! As the previous paragraphs document, the National Socialist regime aimed at gaining total control over education in order to deeply steer the minds of German youth, and established new selective schools for the training of political and Army officials. Yet, it is important to keep in mind that, in addition to traditional forms of schooling, the indoctrination of youth also took place through non-institutionalized forms of education, such as the Kinderlandverschinkung (Evacuation of children in Germany during the Second World War, KLV) or Nazi youth movements, such as the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth, HJ) for boys and the Bund Deutche Mädel (League of German Girls, BDM) for girls230. Through the KLV, for instance, children were withdrawn from the dangers of Allied bombings in the cities and repatriated to the countryside. Yet, their, often deliberate, removal from the family offered the ideal opportunity to instill them with Nazi ideology, employing them in agriculture and introducing them to military drill and marching. The youth movement also played a particularly important role in the Nazi indoctrination of youth. Some Nazi pedagogues even prioritized the youth movement as a socialization institute over traditional forms of schooling. Hitler himself, for instance, “firmy believed that the education and socialization of German youth should not be limited to the schools, but extended to incorportate the activities of the youth groups. The Nazi youth groups were accorded a very significant task in Nazi educational aims and in Nazi society as a whole”.231 Already before Hitler’s coming to power in 1933, virtually every political fraction or religious institution had its own youth group. Yet, as a result of economic, social and generational issues and problems, the youth group of the NSDAP became increasingly popular.232 As Lisa Pine has argued, “the NSDAP was able to capitalize on the crisis of youth, as well as the tensions that existed between the older and the younger generations, and made many recruits among young Germans”.233 In 1926, the NSDAP Youth League transformed into the Hitlerjugend, and was intiated by Kurt Gruber, a law student and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 230 As this doctoral dissertation focusses on boy’s education, the development of youth movements for girls falls beyond the scope of this dissertation. For more details on the development of the BDM, see for instance: Gisela Miller-Klipp ed., ‘Auch du gehörst dem Führer’: die Geschichte des Bundes Deutscher Mädel (BDM) in Quellen und Dokumenten (Munich: Juventa Verlag, 2002); Dagmar Reese, ‘Mädchen im Bund Deutscher Mädel’, in Geschichte der Mädchen- und Frauenbildung, vol. 2, Elke Kleinau and Claudia Opitz (Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, 1996, 271-82; Renate Strien, Mädchenerziehung und –sozialisation in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus und ihre lebensgeschichtliche Bedeutung (Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 2000). 231 Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 1, 31 and 95. 232 Pine, idem, 96; Michael H. Kater, Hitler Youth (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 10. 233 Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 96.

! 92! Hitler adherent. Yet, it was not until Baldur von Schirach was appointed head of all NSDAP youth activities in 1931, that the Hitlerjugend gained significance and rapidly expanded. More specifically, after von Schirach’s appointment, membership of the Hitler Youth grew from 107,956 members in 1932 to over two million members in 1933.234 Its rapid growth, however, was not only a result of its initial popularity, but also a consequence of Hitler’s Gleichschaltung’s policy. More specifically, after 1933, the Hitler Youth would gradually incapsulate other existing youth movements. Initially, only the Catholic youth movement was protected on grounds of the Reich Concordat with the Holy See, in which Hitler promised to respect Catholic institutions, but, in return, demanded the withdrawal of all Catholics from politics. On the basis of Baldur von Schirach’s increasing accusations of their engagement in political actitivities, also Catholic youth movements were banned by the end of 1936. As a result of the general elimination of all other youth movements, the Hitler Youth established a monopoly over German youth and grew to over five million members.235 The Hitlerjugend existed out of a fixed structure of Jugenschaften, Jugenzug (consisting of two to four Jugenschaften) and Fählern (consisting of two to four Jugenzug). Its organization was basically founded on the principals of , militarism and imperialism.236 All activities, such as reading, hiking or excursions, were designed to instill its members with love for the countryside, German folklore and national pride, and to legitimize the Nazi’s territorial expansion and racial hatred towards the Jews.237 Yet, the initial attractiveness of the Hitler Youth soon waned, mainly as a result of a reduction of the voluntary aspect of membership. As Michael Kater has argued, a boy’s willingness to become a member of the Hitlerjugend particularly depended on regional and religious aspects. In Catholic Bavaria, for instance, the churches and Catholic parents contested the control of the Hitlerjugend over German youth.238 Although dissenting youth would remain a problem throughout the entire Nazi era, membership to the Hitler Youth was made compulsory for boys between the age of 10 and 19 in October 1939. From 1939 onwards, the Hitler Youth increasingly opposed traditional institutes of socialization, such as the Church, the family and the school and further shifted into the direction of a military

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 234 Pine, idem, 93-9. 235 Pine, idem, 100; Kater, Hitler Youth, 20-2. 236 See Kater, idem, 28-48 and 101. 237 Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 101; Kater, Hitler Youth, 28-9. 238 Kater, idem, 24.

! 93! training organization. More specifically, children had to swear loyalty to both the Führer and the Hitler Youth, and the qualities of physical fitness, discipline and dress code gained even more significance. Particularly this compulsory aspect, as well as the propangandistic character of the Hitler Youth would distinguish it from previous youth movements.239

As this section has documented, National Socialism attempted to gain full control over German youth and establish a system of ‘total education’. Both the school and the youth movement played a pivotal role in creating a sense of national pride and racial awareness among youth. From 1939 onwards, the Nazi regime did not only spread its ideology among German youth, but also targeted the educational systems and youth movements in the countries it attacked and subsequently occupied. Before proceeding to the discussion of developments in Belgian education during the period of German occupation, the actors of Belgian education during the Second World War are introduced.

4. A new chapter in Belgian educational history: actors of Belgian education during the Second World War

4.1. Exponents of a New Order: the Militärverwaltung and its members

On May 10, 1940, German troops attacked Belgium. In spite of the Belgian army’s resistence, the German attack soon proved unstoppable. After only eighteen days of combat, the curtain fell over Belgian armed resistance. The capitulation marked a new chapter in Belgian history, for King Leopold III was made prisoner of war. The King’s decision to surrender soured his relationship with the government that went in exile to continue the battle alongside the Allied Forces. Prime Minister Pierlot and his ministers disagreed with the Kings’s decision and retreated to France. In France, Pierlot issued a decree on May 28, stating that, by virtue of his captivity, the King was unable to exert his function. The King, for his part, did not accept this and sought to reach an agreement with Hitler in November 1940. As a compromise between them was never reached, the government went in exile to set up a war government in England.240 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 239 Pine, Education in Nazi Germany, 102-3. 240 Martin Conway, ‘Belgium’, Political Catholicism in Europe, 1918-1965, eds. Tom Buchanan and Martin Conway (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 204.

! 94! After the capitulation, Hitler decided to install a Militärverwaltung für Belgien und Nordfrankreich. As early as the autumn of 1939, he had commissioned the German army command to prepare the military offensive in the West, after which neutral countries, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg and parts of France would be occupied. Therefore, an administrative department was established under the Army Group B that was stationed near the Western borders. This department had to secretly prepare the establishment of a Militärverwaltung for the territories that were to be occupied. This Sondergruppe Student, named after the famous general Kurt Student, consisted of 24 members, under which ten academics who had devoted their careers to scientific research on Belgium and the Netherlands. Some of its members eventually held office in the military administration during the actual occupation, as was the case with the historian and former deputy secretary of the Deutsch-Niederlandisches Forschungsinstitut in , Franz Petri, and his two colleague historians Werner Reese and Fritz Textor, who held positions in the German Culture Department.241 This also goes for the Studienkommission that was established around the same time and is not to be confused with the Sondergruppe. The aim of this commission was to outline a draft plan for the installation of a military government in the West. This task force also included several members holding office during the occupation, such as head of the study group , and members as Harry von Craushaar and Franz Thedieck.242 The Belgian historian Albert De Jonghe argued that the preparation of the Militärverwaltung in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg started as a characteristic manoeuvre of the land army, on the one hand, against the civil government services, the National Socialist party and the SS, on the other hand, to (i) prevent that ‘teachers, chimney sweepers and landowners’ would receive leading positions; (ii) withdraw power over the occupied territories from the party; and (iii) expand the power radius of the land army over the occupied territories. After the conquest of Poland in 1939, the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH), or the supreme command of the army, was hindered by a series of civil

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 241 Etienne Verhoeyen, ‘Een Duits netwerk bij de voorbereiding van de Militärverwaltung in België (1939- 1940)’, Wetenschappelijke Tijdingen op het Gebied van de Geschiedenis van de Vlaamse Beweging LXIX (2010), nr. 4: 289-90, 293 and 295. 242 Albert De Jonghe, Hitler en het politieke lot van België (1940-1944): de vestiging van een Zivilverwaltung in België en Noord-Frankrijk: koningskwestie en bezettingsregime van de kapitulatie tot Berchtesgaden (28 mei – 19 november 1940) (Antwerpen: Nederlandse Boekhandel, 1972), 23-4; Werner Warmbrunn, The German Occupation of Belgium 1940-1944 (New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 70; Verhoeyen, ‘Een Duits netwerk’, 290.

! 95! agencies. As a result, its desire to organize a military government in Poland did not come true. The failure of their expectations put a heavy burden on its relations with Hitler, who needed the land army for his future plans to occupy the West. Therefore, he eventually fobbed the land army with the promise to organize the military government in the Western occupied territories.243 The military government was formally installed only three days after the capitulation and held responsibility over the entire Belgian territory, with the exception of the districts of Eupen-Malmédy and the village of Moresnet that were annexed to Germany. The military government also obtained responsibility over the French Département du Nord and Département du Pas-de-Calais. At the start of the occupation, Hitler had no fixed idea about the future position of Belgium in relation to the German Reich and the issue remained a subject of discussion throughout the war. As Etienne Verhoeyen argued, Hitler was convinced that the decision about the political future of Belgium was to be postponed until after the war.244 Eventually, it would take until the summer of 1944, only a few weeks before the end of the German occupation, for a civil regime to be installed. According to Werner Warmbrunn, particularly the country’s strategic location and the presence of King Leopold III prevented Hitler from establishing a civil regime in the summer of 1940.245 Moreover, Hitler wanted to avoid suspicion of his annexationism246 and aimed at avoiding a repetition of the situation during . As early as the start of the first German occupation of Belgium in 1914, Germany had directly and entirely assumed control over the administration and had dismantled pre-war Belgian institutions. The severe consequences of that policy (i.e. the complete immobilisation of the administrative staff) were to be avoided at all costs during World War II.247 Lastly, the fact that a military government allowed for a controlled cooperation of the pre-war Belgian authorities248 was advantageous, considering the limited financial means and staff249. As the military government mainly was an Aufsichtsverwaltung, the cooperation of the pre-war national

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 243 Teurfs, ‘Het Duits Militair Bestuur’, 9. For more info on the ‘Polish failure’, see Teurfs, idem, 13-4. 244 Etienne Verhoeyen, België bezet 1940-1944 (Brussel: BRTN, 1993), 15. 245 Warmbrunn, The German Occupation, 97. 246 De Jonghe, Hitler en het politieke lot van België, 17. 247 Jean Gérard-Libois and José Gotovitch, L’an 40: la Belgique occupée (Bruxelles: CRISP, 1971), 132. 248 Paul Aron and José Gotovitch, Dictionnaire de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale (Bruxelles: Versailles, 2008), 6. 249 More detailed information about staff numbers are to be found in Teurfs, ‘Het Duits Militair Bestuur’, 49- 54.

! 96! authorities was imperative for maintaining the order and peace in the country.250 Hence, its main and initial responsibility was to ‘bring back a situation of normality’, supervise the national administration and make sure the resources in the country would be used as effectively as possible to meet the needs of the and the German war economy.251 The Militärverwaltung controlled, corrected and advised the local administration that remained at its post. Only if the national government refused or was be unable to implement the proposed measures, the Militärverwaltung stepped in.252 The military government was led by a body of officials in military uniform that was directly subordinate to the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH).253 The OKH was the intermediary between Berlin and Brussels.254 On May 31, 1940 the Prussian nobleman Alexander von Falkenhausen was appointed head of the military government in Belgium. Before his appointment as Militärbefehlshaber, von Falkenhausen had held several positions as a military advisor or representative in Japan, Turkey, China and Germany.255 As Werner Warmbrunn put it, “during his years in Belgium, von Falkenhausen presented an unusual and striking figure”.256 Not only did he combine a specific interest in historical literature with sheer hard work and a rich social life, his fascination for Catholicism led him to oppose the anti-Christian character of National Socialism. Although he was a nationalist and authoritarian and did harbor the ‘typical’ anti-Semitic prejudices, he was (passively) involved in the assassination complots against Hitler in 1944.257 As Beyen attested, von Falkenhausen did not eschew harsh reprisals from time to time. However, he never aimed at a radical Nazification of the country.258 As discussed earlier, von Falkenhausen was only to maintain order and peace in the country and supervise the national administration. In light of this ‘precautionary control’, von Falkenhausen needed

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 250 Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 9. 251 Gerard-Libois and Gotovitch, L’an 40, 129; De Jonghe, Hitler en het politieke lot van België, 16 and 58. 252 Teurfs, ‘Het Duits Militair Bestuur’, 5. 253 De Jonghe, Hitler en het politieke lot van België, 15. 254 Teurfs, ‘Het Duits Militair Bestuur’, 42. 255 For a more detailled overview of von Falkenhausen’s positions, see Warmbrunn, The German Occupation, 77-8. 256 Warmbrunn, idem, 78. 257 Warmbrunn, idem, 79. 258 Beyen, Oorlog en verleden, 85.

! 97! to prevent the national administrative authorities to take decisions that were detrimental to Germany.259

In his daily rule over occupied Belgium, von Falkenhausen was assisted by a hierarchical structure of staff members. Generally, the Militärverwaltung was subdivided into a military branch or Kommandostab that was primarily responsible for military affairs and matters of security, and an administrative branch or Verwaltungstab, which was responsible for civil affairs.260 Militärverwaltungschef Eggert Reeder led the Verwaltungsstab or Military Administration, which is the most relevant for the study at hand. Reeder was born on July 22, 1894 in a Prussian family of landowners. In 1914, he voluntarily reported for the infantry.261 After his duty in the German Army, he went to study law, which quickly opened career opportunities as a civil servant. After the Nazi seizure of power, he worked as a provincial governor in the Rhineland cities of Aachen (1934), Cologne (1936) and Düsseldorf (1939).262 Reeder assumed the position of Militärverwaltungschef in June 1940 and held office in the Verwaltungstab until the end of the occupation.263 During his stay in Belgium, he had the reputation of a competent administrator, but at the same time, of being impulsive and rather fiery. As his colleague Franz Thedieck attested after the war, Reeder was “ein Verwaltungsbeamter von grossen Qualitäten”.264 Although there is some discussion as to what extent Reeder was a National Socialist265, he was member of the NSDAP. Moreover, he had accepted an honorary rank within the SS, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 259 De Jonghe, Hitler en het politieke lot van België, 58-9. 260 Verhoeyen, België bezet, 13; Warmbrunn, The German Occupation, 71; Gérard-Libois and Gotovitch, L’an 40, 133. In his master’s thesis, however, Patrick Teurfs questions this traditional division and argues that also the Oberquartiermeister, who held responsibility over the provisioning of the troops needs to be considered as a full branch of the military government. See Teurfs, ‘Het Duits Militair Bestuur’, 42, 100-1 and 127. 261 Max Rehm, Eggert Reeder. 22 Juli 1894 – 22 November 1959 Preussischer Regieringspräsident, Militärverwaltungschef, Staatsburger (s.l.: Personal publication, 1976), 6. 262 More detailled information about Eggert Reeder’s college days and early career can be found in Laurence Petrone, ‘‘Sind das Alles Nazis?’ Eggert Reeder (1894-1959): aspectbiografische studie van de 'Militärverwaltungschef' in België (1940-1944)’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 2009), 107-16; Rehm, Eggert Reeder, 6; BK, Nachlass Thedieck, N 7411/136, ‘Stellingnahme von Reeder’, July 24, 1952. 263 Warmbrunn, The German Occupation, 86. 264 BK, Nachlass Thedieck, N 1174/55, ‘Thedieck an den Deutschen Entnazisierungs-Hauptausschuss des Regierungsbezirks Köln’, September 24, 1947. 265 See for instance Holger Wilken, ‘Zwischen Kommando und Kerker. Alexander von Falkenhausen – Deutscher Militärbefehlhaber in Brüssel 1940-1944’, IFDT- Zeitschrift für Innere Führung (2002), nr. 2: 64-71;

! 98! though only after being assured by himself that his religious beliefs and church membership would not pose problems for his SS membership.266 Unsurprisingly, Reeder was (much more than von Falkenhausen) imbued with völkische Elemente, and although lower in rang, can be considered the driving force behind the German administration in Belgium267:

“Although Reeder was inferior to von Falkenhausen in general education and in subtlety of character and style, in his own way he, too, managed to create a harmonious and loyal administrative apparatus. His associates and subordinates knew where they stood with him, policies and lines of authority were clear and remained essentially unchanged throughout the occupation, except in the case of the labor draft and of the police.”268

As Albert De Jonghe has argued, Eggert Reeder had far-stretching ideas about the power and responsibilities of the military government. Unlike von Falkenhausen, for instance, who preferred to remain far from interfering in political matters (as Hitler expected from a militaries), Reeder took a more active line in politics. In his view, the military government was equal to a civil regime. Reeder’s ideas about the inevitable political task of the Military Administration that functioned under his control, rooted in his ideas about the Flamenpolitik. In his view, the strong French influence on the country since its independence in 1830, and the opposition between the Flemish and as a result of that, were two important political factors that needed to be taken into account. Hence, politics and administration could not be seen separate from each other. Reeder supported an active Flamenpolitik on both realpolitische and volkstumpolitische grounds. Therefore, the military government had to conduct a policy to reinforce the Germanic influence and to weaken the French orientation. After the war, Reeder claimed that von Falkenhausen left him free in outlining the staff policy, daily rule and Volkstumpolitik. Furthermore, he stated that the Militärbefehlshaber agreed with his moderate policy. De Jonghe, however, questions von Falkenhausen’s approval of his Militärverwaltungschef’s policy, which boiled down to the support of Flemish collaboration (and more specifically that of the Vlaams Nationaal !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Svenja Weers and Marnix Beyen, ‘Een anti-politieke “Homo Politicus”. De naoorlogse correspondentie van Militärverwaltungschef Eggert Reeder (1948-1959)’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis XLIII (2013), nr. 1: 46-77. 266 Warmbrunn, The German Occupation, 85-7; Petrone, ‘‘Sind das Alles Nazis?’’, 116. 267 Beyen, Oorlog en verleden, 85. 268 Warmbrunn, The German Occupation, 90.

! 99! Verbond, VNV) against the collaborating cultural organization DeVlag, an exponent of the SS. Somewhat simplistically put: von Falkenhausen was pro-Belgian, Reeder pro-Flemish (in the sense that he took into account the Flemish-Walloon opposition, which he would politically exploit).269 As the following section documents, on the level of the German culture policy, education was an important means in implementing this Flamenpolitik.

The Verwaltungstab in itself was subdivided into a Präsidalbüro (presidential bureau), an economic Wirtschaftsabteilung and an administrative Verwaltungsabteilung, which was led by Harry von Craushaar. Von Craushaar was born on July 10, 1891 in Löbau, Sachen zur Welt. When the First World War broke out, he served from the very beginning to the end of the war as, amongst others, a reserve officer in the Ardennes. During the interwar years, he followed in his father’s footsteps and held office in several Amtshauptmanschaften. In the fall of 1933, von Craushaar joined the NSDAP and the reserve of the SA.270 During the first years of the war, he was Reeder’s official second-in-command, supported him administratively271 and was responsible for the, often difficult, contacts with the Belgian administration and political authorities272. In November 1943, on request of the German Ministry of Internal Affairs, he was again summoned to Poland by the OKH “um in der Regierung des Generalgouvernements den länger Zeit verwaisten Posten des Leiters der Hauptabteilung “Innere Verwaltung” kommissarisch zu verwalten”.273

In their turn, the two aforementioned departments were subdivided into Referaten that managed all sectors of political, public and economic life and were frequently staffed by Reeder’s confidants from the Rhineland.274 The outline of the Referaten was based on the organization of German and Belgian central services. Every German civil government service was, with the exception of the Sicherheitspolizei and Sicherheitsdienst (Sipo-SD), directly represented in Reeder’s staff.275

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 269 De Jonghe, Hitler en het politieke lot van België, 59-62. 270 Max von Rehm, Harry Georg von Craushaar. 10 Juli 1891- 7 April 1970 (Nürtingen: Senner-Druck, 1978), 8- 18. 271 Warmbrunn, The German Occupation, 89. 272 Verhoeyen, België bezet, 13. 273 von Rehm, Harry Georg von Craushaar, 27. 274 Beyen, Oorlog en verleden, 85. 275 De Jonghe, Hitler en het politieke lot van België, 65.

! 100! His first assistant and advisor in Volkstumfragen was Franz Thedieck. Before the war, and as a member of the Regierungsrat in Cologne, Thedieck had served as Reeder’s personal counselor. Thedieck was well acquainted with the Belgian situation and was a specialist of the Western frontier territories.276 As Volkstumreferent, Thedieck was an important architect of the German Flamenpolitik and mediator in the relations with the secretaries-general and the Roman Catholic Church. As I discuss in the following chapter, Thedieck, being a Catholic himself, maintained close ties with cardinal Joseph-Ernest Van Roey and his advisor canon Van der Elst. A post-war letter from the Catholic politician Victor Leemans to the Catholic member of parliament August De Schryver, for instance, documents Thedieck’s readiness to help the Church in securing its interests and bears witness of his friendship with cardinal Van Roey’s personal advisor, canon Van der Elst:

“From the beginning of the occupation, he [this is Thedieck] was the confidant of the Catholics, particularly of His Eminence cardinal Van Roey’s delegate, the late canon Van der Elst. On several occasions, canon Van der Elst and myself have appealed to him in favor of the rights of Catholic associations, the settlement of several difficulties, the relief or release of prisoners. Not only have we always found a warm welcome with him, he was a man who bravely devoted himself to our complaints.”277

Already as Generalreferent in Aachen before the war, Thedieck had maintained close relations with the German Catholic Church. In March 1942, the Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD, Heydrich, lamented Thedieck’s contacts with the advocate of the Catholic Action, Jansen.278 Precisely his moderate stance towards the Head of the Belgian Church, combined with his support of the Flemish-nationalist Vlaams Nationaal Verbond (Flemish National Union, VNV) made him unpopular in SS circles during the war. On Himmler’s insistence and as a result of his “nichtnationalsozialistischen Haltung”279 he was eventually

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 276 Warmbrunn, The German Occupation, 88. 277 BK, Nachlass Thedieck, N 1174/57, Letter from Victor Leemans to A.E. De Schrijver, December 15, 1949. 278 BK, Nachlass Thedieck, N 1174/54, Letter from Heydrich to Reeder, March 18, 1942. 279 BK, Nachlass Thedieck, N 1174/55, ‘Anlage 2 zu Fragebogen Thedieck’, s.d.

! 101! removed from the military government in April 1943.280 Upon his departure to Germany, Van der Elst offered Thedieck a golden cross as a token of their friendship.281

Equally important within the context of this study is Eugen Löffler, who was appointed head of the so-called (Sammel)gruppe Kultur, which was responsible for outlining the military government’s cultural, educational and scientific policy. Although Löffler drew on his experience as Ministerialrat in Württemberg before the war, particularly Werner Reese and Franz Petri were the real architects of the military government’s cultural policy. As head of the section for Culture and Education and substitute of Eugen Löffler, Petri was a leading figure within the Culture Department. Petri, professor at the University of Cologne and, since 1936, president of the Niederländisches Institut (Institute for the Low Countries), was in favor of the use of the Flemish language and promoted the exchange between Flanders and Germany as a way of promoting German culture in the occupied territory.282 Between 1930 and 1935, Petri had studied at the Catholic University in Leuven (Flanders), where he did the groundwork for his Germanisches Volkserbe in Wallonien und Nordfrankreich, which discussed the origin of the linguistic border. Furthermore, he had been involved in the DuitschVlaamse Arbeidsgemeenschap (DeVlag).283 As Petri was mainly responsible for science policy and college affairs, he was not directly involved in the discussions about the (future of) primary and secondary education during the war. As leading figures within the Culture Department, Petri and Reese wrote two extensive internal reports within the first year of the occupation, which can be considered a cultural-political outline for the military government in Belgium.284 As education was an entire part of the military government’s cultural program, the aforementioned internal culture reports will be discussed in the next chapter.285 Before proceeding to this next chatper, however, it is important to shortly discuss the regional organization of the German !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 280 Beyen, Oorlog en verleden, 85-6; Warmbrunn, The German Occupation, 88; More details on the exact circumstances of Thedieck’s removal from the Militärverwaltung can be found in BK, Nachlass Thedieck, N 1174/54, Letters from Heydrich to Reeder, March 18, 1942 and May 23, 1942. 281 BK, Nachlass Thedieck, N 1174/57, Letter from Victor Leemans to A.E. De Schrijver, December 15, 1949. 282 Beyen, Oorlog en verleden, 85-7; Warmbrunn, The German Occupation, 86-90. 283 Verhoeyen, ‘Een Duits netwerk’: 295. 284 Beyen, Oorlog en verleden, 85-6; Warmbrunn, The German Occupation, 91. 285 A more detailled discussion of the two internal reports written by Petri and Reese in the first year of the occupation can be found in chapters three to eight of Beyen, Oorlog en verleden.

! 102! regime and the Belgian administration of secretaries-general. Already in the months preceding the military occupation, it became clear that a military government could not be implemented without a hierarchic structure of local administrations. As the Belgian administration was well-structured, Reeder’s department advised to copy its administrative division in municipalities, districts and provinces. The Military Administration drew up a structure of Ortskommandanturen (OK’s), functioning as the counterpart of the town councils, Kreiskommandanturen (KK’s), functioning as the pendant of the districts and Oberfeldkommandanturen (OFK’s) that were in charge of the operation of the provincial administration. Every KK, OK and OFK had a bipolar structure, similar to that of the general military government: their Kommandostab was responsible for military matters, whereas their Verwaltungstab was concerned with political, administrative and economic issues.286

4.2. Old protagonists of a New Order? The Ministry of Public Education

On the central level, the body of secretaries-general formed the Belgian counterpart of the Militärverwaltung and represented the higest officials at the ministries. After the departure of the prewar Belgian government under the direction of Prime Minister Pierlot, the Council of Ministers decided that the daily rule over Belgium needed to be put in the hands of a body of secretaries-general.287 More specifically, on May 10, 1940, the Belgian Parliament issued a law guaranteeing the transmission of responsibilities in times of war. By virtue of this law, civil servants substituted for their superiors during the occupation. As a result, every secretary-general could hold a departemental office and could issue ministerial resolutions. As King Leopold III was made prisoner of war in his palace and the pre-war Belgian government resided in London, the body of secretaries-general to a large extent had legislative and executive power over the country. The civil mobilisation book – based on the Convention of The Hague – defined civil servant’s duties in times of war. Important in this respect were the articles 42 and 56 of the Convention of The Hague, stipulating that civil servants were not allowed to abandon their posts, nor could they oppose the enemy in any way. At the same time, however, civil servants were not allowed to obey German

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 286 Teurfs, ‘Het Duits Militair Bestuur’, 101-5. 287 Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 14.

! 103! orders of anti-patriotic nature, since it was determined that the occupying forces, from their side, were not allowed to act against the prevailing national laws.288 Already before the capitulation of Belgium on May 28, 1940, however, the secretaries- general reached an understanding with German officials in order to cope with the chaos after many Belgian civil servants had abandoned their posts. It was not until June 1940, however, that a protocol was defined in which the secretaries-general agreed to implement German ordinances as Belgian laws. Conversly, the German occupier agreed to respect the autonomy of the secretaries-general and patriotic feelings of Belgian civil servants.289 As discussed earlier, the shortage of staff did not allow for the appointment of a German commissioner in every Belgian administration. This left the body of secretaries-general with a considerable amount of freedom.290 The position of the secretaries-general and their relation with the German occupier was severely criticized both during and after the German occupation. The majority of the population, for instance, put the body of secretaries-general on an equal par with the German ‘enemy’. Yet, many authors have argued that the cooperation of the secretaries- general with the military regime was mainly based on the fear of its replacement by a less accommodating (civil) regime, which was discussed in Berlin from the very outset of the war. Hence, the secretaries-general adopted a ‘politics of the lesser evil’.291 As Mark Van Den Wijngaert has argued, it is important to keep in mind that the body of secretaries-general was a heterogeneous bloc. More specifically, some secretaries-general were willing to cooperate with the German occupier, whilst others explicitly distanced themselves from the Military Administration. Their willingness to cooperate depended on the specific passage of their careers or even their language, religion or political obedience.292 Many of the secretaries-general had been active in the Belgian administration before the war. Marcel Nyns, secretary-general of Public Education, for instance, who was responsible for the network of official state schools during the Second World War was

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 288 Mark Van Den Wijngaert, ‘Tussen vijand en volk. Het bestuur van de secretarissen-generaal tijdens de Duitse bezetting 1940-1944’, in België in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Het minste kwaad, ed. Etienne Verhoeyen (Kapellen: Uitgeverij Pelckmans, 1990), 9-10. 289 Van Den Wijngaert, idem, 10-2; Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 14-20. 290 Van Den Wijngaert, ‘Tussen vijand en volk’, 12; Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 14-20. 291 Aron and Gotovitch, idem, 14-20; Van Den Wijngaert, ‘Tussen vijand en volk’, 15. 292 Van Den Wijngaert, ‘Tussen vijand en volk’, 20.

! 104! already in service within the Belgian administration since 1930.293 Unfortunately, there is relatively little biographical information available about Nyns. On May 16, 1940, he was appointed secretary-general of the Ministry of Public Education and would maintain his post until September 1944. The relation between Nyns, a Francophone freethinker, and the Militärverwaltung was rather tense, particularly towards the end of the war. Gradually, Marcel Nyns turned out to be an adversary of the military regime, as he increasingly disobeyed German orders.294 Unsurprisingly, in 1944, the military government concluded that as long as he remained in charge, the anti-German atmosphere in official education would find an important ally.295 Yet, the Ministry of Public Education was soon ‘infiltrated’ by adherents or at least sympathizers of the New Order. The appointment of Deutschfreundliche personalities within the ministries fitted in with a German replacement policy. More specifically, on the basis of the German ordonnance of July 16, 1940, stating that all civil servants over sixty were to be pensioned off, around 2,500 aldermen, mayors and functionaries were replaced, mostly by ‘German-friendly’ officials. According to the Militärbefehlshaber, the aforementioned decree had, within the Ministry of Public Education, resulted in the removal of several Deutschfeindliche officials and the future appointment on key positions of civil servants willing to cooperate with the German government.296 Three important pro-German staff members of the Ministry of Public Education were Remigus Van Mieghem, who was appointed inspector general for primary education, Filip De Pillecyn and Herman De Vleeschauwer, both appointed in 1941 respectively as deputy secretary of secondary and higher education. Firstly, there is not much biographical information available for Van Mieghem, except for the fact that he was the author of a number of Belgian history textbooks and had been a primary school inspector. His German sympathies during the First World War and contacts with the German occupier in 1940 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 293 Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 165. 294 Beyen, Oorlog en Verleden, 199-202. 295 Orginal quote: “Solange er im Amte ist, wird der deutchfeindliche Geist im öffentlichen Erziehungswesen in ihm eine Stütze haden; dass auch im freien Unterrichtswesen, das seiner Einflussnahme nicht untersteht, ein solcher Geist herscht, ist bekannt”. ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/37.3, ‘Rapports du bureaus (sujets divers)’, ‘Beitrag der Gruppe volk zum Tätigkeitsbericht der MV für die Zeit vom 1 Oktober bis 31 December 1943’, January 10, 1944. 296 Mark Van Den Wijngaert, Het beleid van het comité van de secretarissen-generaal in België tijdens de Duitse bezetting 1940-1944 (Brussel: Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, 1975), 100.

! 105! resulted in his swift promotion to general inspector for primary education during the Second World War. Van Mieghem was particularly in favor of a Gleichschalted state-run educational system. More specifically, his educational reform plans in Flanders revolved around the unification of primary education, the integration of the teacher staff in one organization and unification of the curriculum.297 Moreover, during the occupation, he founded a Dietse pedagogical study group that swore absolute faith to the Führer and strictly observed Rosenberg’s blood and soil principles.298 Secondly, in 1941, Filip De Pillecyn, was appointed deputy secretary for secondary education. De Pillecyn was a particularly well-known personality within the Flemish movement. Already during his classical humanities studies at the Minor Seminar of Sint- Niklaas, he developed his love for the . Hence, after his secondary education, he went to Leuven to study Germanic Philology. At the Catholic University of Leuven, his flamingantism further developed, mainly as a result of his involvement in the literary society Met Tijd en Vlijt, his activities in the Algemeen Katholiek Vlaamsch Studentenverbond (General Catholic Flemish Student Association, AKVS) and his contribution to many Flemish journals.299 The First World War, however, was pivotal for his flamingant ideas. More specifically, at the Front, De Pillecyn was deployed as an observer in a military unit consisting mainly of Francophone officials. In a reaction against the quasi unlingual army top, De Pillecyn, together with many other , such as Frans Daels, or , organized study groups, not only to tackle analphabetism among Flemish soldiers but also to respond to Flemish complaints against Franchophone officials at the Front.300 After the war, he became the editor of the Catholic Flemish newspaper De Standaard. In 1922, however, he resigned for he did not longer agree with the, in his view, too limited engagement of the newspaper for the Flemish cause. After 1922, he became chief editor of the journal De Tijd, the journal of the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 297 Karel De Clerck, ‘The ‘Dietsch Opvoedkundige Beweging’ in Flanders’, in Values in Education: topical issue in honour of Prof. dr. M.-L. Van Herreweghe, ed. Marc Spoelders (Gent: Rijksuniversiteit Gent, 1988), 262. 298 Roels, Twintig jaar boeman, 205. 299 Anton Van Wilderode, J.L. de Belder, Fernand Van de Velde, Koenraad De Meulder eds., 100 jaar Filip De Pillecyn (Gent: Academia, 1992), 59. 300 Van Wilderode, de Belder, Van de Velde, De Meulder, eds., idem, 61-6; Peter De Graef, ‘Het jouralistieke werk en de politiek-kulturele activiteit van Filip De Pillecijn, katholiek Vlaams-nationalist 1891-1962’, (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1986), 10-1; Nancy Custers, ‘Filip De Pillecijn. Een bijdrage tot de kennis van zijn leven, persoonlijkheid en scheppend oeuvre’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1972), 8.

! 106! Confederation of Catholic Trade Unions and founded the satirical journal Pallieter.301 As Peter De Graef has argued, De Pillecyn was not really attached to any political party during the 1920s. It was not until the 1930s that he politically showed his colors as a Catholic Flemish-nationalist. During the 1930s, he left his career in journalism for a job in education, but he still wrote for Flemish-nationalist journals, such as Nieuw Vlaanderen or Jong Dietschland, which are symptomatic for the rising fascist trend within Catholic Flemish circles.302 After the German attack in May 1940, De Pillecyn radically chose to collaborate with the German occupier and almost immediately became a member of the fascist Vlaams Nationaal Verbond (Flemish National Union, VNV) and the fascist cultural association Deutsch- Vlämische Arbeidsgemeinschaft (German-Flemish Working Group, DeVlag).303 In May 1941, he was appointed general director of secondary education at the Ministry of Education. Nyns was not in favor of the appointment of a collaborator within his ministry, and his nomination was imposed by the German occupier.304 In his capacity as general director at the Ministry of Education, De Pillecyn issued many undemocratic and anti-Semitic circular letters and actively engaged in propaganda for the battle against Communism.305 Yet, at the same time, he often signed the work cards of many functionaries in order to prevent their deportation to Germany for forced labor.306 Furthermore, he shared some ideas about education with the Nazis. More specifically, De Pillecyn particularly aimed at countering some, in his view, unpopular abuses, such as the quasi monopoly of the Roman Catholic Church, the distinction between private and official education, and the ‘uncommitted’ transfer of knowledge in traditional education.307 De Pillecyn also criticized the fact that the very structure of the Ministry of Public Education remained loyal to the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 301 Lammert Buning and Karen Van Hoorick, ‘Filip De Pillecyn’, in Nieuwe encyclopedie van de Vlaamse Beweging, eds. Reginald De Schryver, Bruno De Wever, Gaston Durnez, Lieve Gevers, Paul Van Hees and Machteld De Metsenaere (Tielt: Lannoo, 1998), 2478. 302 De Graef, ‘Het jouralistieke werk’, 106. 303 Buning and Van Hoorick, ‘Filip De Pillecyn’, 2479; De Graef, ‘Het jouralistieke werk’, 113. 304 De Graef, idem, 119; Frank Seberechts, ‘’Geheel het schoolstelsel in den dienst van de volksgemeenschap’. Filip De Pillecyn als directeur van het Middelbaar Onderwijs (1941-1944)’, Filip De Pillecyn Studies III (2007): 107-8. 305 For more details on De Pillecyn’s cooperation in implementing the Military Administration’s anti-Semitic policy in education, see Seberechts, idem: 114-7. 306 De Graef, Het jouralistieke werk’, 129. 307 Seberechts, ‘Geheel het schoolstelsel’: 110.

! 107! idea of a unitary Belgium and, as a result, hindered Flemish teachers in transmitting flamingant ideas in the classroom. Moreover, he blamed the abuses and failure of traditional schooling for the lack of Flemish commitment of Flemish youth.308 Thirdly, Herman De Vleeschauwer was appointed deputy-secretary of higher education during the war. After his school studies in the flamingant Heilige-Maagdcollege in Dendermonde (Flanders) and the Kruisheren (Order of the Holy Cross) grammar school in Maaseik (Flanders), he studied Philosophy and History and the University of Ghent. After completing his doctoral dissertation, he started working as a lector at the Arts and Humanities Faculty of the Ghent state universtity. After the outbreak of the war in Belgium, De Vleeschauwer openly displayed his pro-German ideas. On July 11, 1940, for instance, he held a lecture in the Flemish town of Gentbrugge in which he explicitly defended the New Order and criticized the failure of parliamentary democracy. During the war, De Vleeschauwer held many functions. Not only was he the educational ideologue of the VNV, he was also appointed president of the Commission for Linguistic Control that was re-established by the German occupier in 1940, and he became a member of the Flemish Cultural Board.309 Despite the importance of his nomination for the history of education during the Second World War, there is not much information available about his activities at the Ministry of Education.310 Yet, parallel to De Pillecyn, he advocated the establishment of a state monopoly over education. In his view, schooling needed to be based on the principles of intuition, will power and physical education, rather than on rationality and intellectualism. More specifically, the school and youth movement were designed to “create a new man, harden youngster’s character and arouse Germanic awareness (...)”.311

Although these pro-German personalities played an important role within the Ministry of Public Education, it is important to keep in mind that their power was limited as they

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 308 De Graef, ‘Het jouralistieke werk’, 143-5. 309 Rik Bostoen and Olaf Moens, ‘Herman De Vleeschauwer’, in Nieuwe encyclopedie van de Vlaamse Beweging, eds. Reginald De Schryver, Bruno De Wever, Gaston Durnez, Lieve Gevers, Paul Van Hees and Machteld De Metsenaere (Tielt: Lannoo, 1998), 3514; Palmer Ruysschaert, Drie Vlaamse Pioniers (Antwerpen: VVVG, 1998), 79-80. 310 For his ideas about the cultural unity in the Netherlands and his National Socialist ideas, see Ruysschaert, idem, 91-9. 311 Seberechts, ‘Geheel het schoolstelsel’: 113.

! 108! needed to operate within the framework of national legislation.312 Moreover, Marcel Nyns frequently sidelined pro-German personalities, such as Herman De Vleeschauwer, within his administration.313 In contrast, the implementation of the ideological outlooks of the German Military Administration was facilitated through the establishment or restructuring of specific commissions.314 In relation to culture and education, this function was particularly reserved for the Commission for Linguistic Control, the Flemish and Walloon Culture Boards and the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals.

4.3. Exponents of the German educational policy: the structure and protagonists of the Comission for Linguistic Control, the Flemish and Walloon Culture Boards and the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals

Already from the very onset of the occupation, both the secretaries-general and the Military Administration were confronted with linguistic issues that had troubled Belgian society since its independence. Generally, the German occupier was convinced that the prevailing national linguistic laws needed strict implementation during the war. Therefore, Kulturreferenten Franz Petri and Werner Reese suggested to re-establish a Sprachkontrollkommission (Commission for Linguistic Control). Importantly, this commission was not a German invention or institution and was a mere continuation of the linguistic commission that had been established long before the outbreak of the war. More specifically, the first Kommissie voor Taaltoezicht was established on June 28, 1932 in order to supervise the correct implementation of the linguistic law of July 14, 1932 in primary and secondary education and in all state-run institutions.315 Initially, the Commission, consisting out of six members that were nominated for a period of four years by the King, advised the government about the implementation of the linguistic law of 1932, dealt with complaints about infringements of the law and formulated solutions for violations. Yet, as Dierickx has argued, the Commission had a mere consultative function, without any right of initiative. Furthemore, the procedure to investigate violations of the law by local

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 312 Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 165. 313 Rudy Dierickx, ‘De Eerst Kommissie voor Taaltoezicht en de Brusselse onderwijsproblematiek onder Duitse bezetting (mei 1940 – december 1941)’, in Het probleem Brussel sinds Hertoginnedal, vol. 1, ed. Els Witte (Brussel: VUB Press, 1989), 64. 314 Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 165. 315 Dierickx, ‘De Eerst Kommissie voor Taaltoezicht’, 55-6.

! 109! administrations was time-consuming and its advices were often ignored by the ministries.316 Many Flemish politicians and flamingants witnessed violations of the linguistic law with great dissapointment. One of those flamingants who was very concerned with linguistic issues was Florimond Grammens. In 1920, Grammens started working as a teacher in the grammar school of , which was a bilingual city, but de facto administrated by a unilingually French local government. In order to draw people’s attention to the linguistic issue that troubled the country, he established libraries, organized meetings and held lectures about linguistic problems in Belgium. In 1930, he resigned as a teacher and entirely devoted himself to establishing linguistic actions groups. Already before the outbreak of the war, Grammens frequently had contact with the German professor Franz Petri, who was equally interested in linguistic issues around border regions.317 Moreover, in January 1939, he accepted a place as independent party leader for the VNV in Antwerp for the parliamentary elections.318 In the period prior to the establishment of the Commission for Linguistic Control, Militärverwaltungschef Eggert Reeder suggested Grammens as the president of the commission. Yet, Grammens’ nomination aroused protest of the secretaries-general who considered him too flamingant. Eventually it was decided that Herman De Vleeschauwer would be appointed president of the commission. and E. Gaillard, private secretary of the governor of Brabant, were appointed as, respectively Flemish and Francophone members of the commission.319 The goal of the commission was to halt the Frenchifying process of the Brussels agglomeration, in the towns near the linguistic border and in Flanders. Therefore, the commission verified or formulated advices for the correct implementation of linguistic laws. Yet, their suggested transfer of thousands of pupils from Francophone to Flemish classes in Brussels did not only meet with protest within Nyns’ administration, but also with protests from fathers who did not agree with the transfer of their children to Dutch sections. According to Leo Roels, inspector general for primary education and also a member of the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 316 Dierickx, idem, 51-2. 317 Maria Vandeweerd, ‘Grammens en de Kommissie voor Taaltoezicht 1940-1944: haar ontstaan en werking op het onderwijsvlak’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1974), 7-10. 318 Lode Wils, ‘Flor Grammens, de man van de daad’, Wetenschappelijke Tijdingen op het Gebied van de Geschiedenis van de Vlaamse Beweging (1999), nr. 1: 37. 319 Dierickx, ‘De Eerst Kommissie voor Taaltoezicht’, 56-7.

! 110! commission, teachers and principals boycotted the functioning of the Commission by urging Dutch-speaking pupils to pretend not to understand Dutch.320 By the middle of 1941, the commission was doomed to be dissolved. Since he was not willing to compromise with Nyns, Grammens had offered the Military Administration his resignation. Furthermore, Gaillard had resigned and Herman De Vleeschauwer had accepted the position of deputy-secretary within the Ministry of Public Education. Yet, a second Commission was established in December 1941. This time, Grammens was appointed president, but only on the condition that he would have a decent apparatus at his disposal and he would be granted full independence. Apart from Grammens, Professor Debra of the University of Ghent and George Rency, state inspector in Woluwe, were appointed as members. Yet, the Military Administration never agreed with Grammens’ presidency. As a result, the second Linguistic Commission was a mere creation of the secretaries-general, which considerably weakened its position. More specifically, the second Commission for Linguistic Control only formulated advice about certain linguistic issues and organized inspections in schools and administrations. The actual implementation of its advices completely depended on the goodwill of the secretaries-general.321

Apart from the Commission for Linguistic Control, the German Culture Department also reorganized the so-called Flemish and Walloon Cultural Boards that had already been established in 1938. Before the German occupation, these boards had functioned as advisory committees with regard to national cultural development. After their re- establishment on October 10, 1940, however, both cultural boards were designed to reorganize Flemish and Walloon culture according to the New Order.322 In Flanders, the Cultural Board (Vlaamse Kultuurraad) was an exponent of the German Flamenpolitik and consisted of Flemish-nationalist collaborators, such as the priest Cyriel Verschaeve, who was assigned president, or , secretary of the board.323 The Francophone Cultural Board was presided by Fourmarier, professor at the University of Liège. He was

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 320 Roels, Twintig jaar boeman, 202-3. 321 Vandeweerd, ‘Grammens en de Kommissie voor Taaltoezicht’, 42-52. 322 Johan Fleerackers, Marc Le Bruyn and Bruno De Wever, ‘Cultuurraden’, in Nieuwe encyclopedie van de Vlaamse Beweging, eds. Reginald De Schryver, Bruno De Wever, Gaston Durnez, Lieve Gevers, Paul Van Hees and Machteld De Metsenaere (Tielt: Lannoo, 1998), vol.1, 826. 323 Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 276.

! 111! assisted by his colleague Corin, the viscount Henri Davignon and the sculptor V. Rousseau.324 In spite of its purely advisory function, which limited its power considerably, the commission was primarily concerned with the promotion of popular education, university nominations, the application of linguistic laws and the promotion of a cultural alliance with Germany. Hence, the commission advised the military government about the coordination of Belgian cultural life and about the promotion or reinforcement of cultural ties between Germany and Belgium.325 Although Petri and Reese, showed appreciation for the theoretical work the cultural boards delivered, their strong attachment to political parties was considered highly problematic in implementing practical changes and reforms. The main task of the Cultural Boards was not so much to manage or control daily state government, but:

“[I]hnen ist vielmehr von Staatswegen in den Grenzen ihres eigenen flämischen bezw. wallonischen Volkstums eine Ordnungspflicht gegenüber den freien kulturellen Einrichtungen und Verbänden und die Sorge für den Ausbau der kulturellen Bezichnungen zu Deutschland übertragen worden.”326

As Herman Van De Vijver has argued, the Military Administration followed a completely different line of policy towards the Flemish, than towards the Francophone Cultural Board. The nomination of pro-German personalities for the Flemish Cultural Board, such as Cyriel Verschaeve, Robert Van Roosbroeck, Herman De Vleeschauwer, Jan Van de Wiele or Filip De Pillecyn, was not followed in the establishment of its Francophone counterpart. Fourmarier, for instance, eventually ended up in prison and also the wife of Frère and the son of Davignon, two members of the Francophone Cultural Boards, were deported to concentration camps. At the end of 1943, the mandate of the Cultural Boards expired. Yet, against Nyns’ advice, the German Military Administration only prolonged the mandate of the Flemish Cultural Board, for, according to the occupier, the Francophone

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 324 Herman van de Vijver, België in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Deel 8: het cultureel leven tijdens de bezetting (Kapellen: Uitgeverij Peckmans, 1990), 9. 325 Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 165 and 457. 326 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/15, ‘Rapports d’activités des dr. Petri et Werner dans le domaine de la culture’, ‘Zweiter Bericht über Tätigkeit und Arbeitsziele der M.V. in Belgien auf dem Gebiete der Kultur’, November 15, 1941.

! 112! Cultural Board had failed in one of its most important duties: the intensification of cultural contacts with Germany. Yet, although the German occupier did not prolong its mandate, the Francophone Cultural Board continued its activities behind the scene.327 A last important tool in order to implement the ideological outlooks of National Socialism in Belgian education was the establishment of a Commission for the Revision of School Manuals. Already during the early days of the war, Petri and Reese concluded that Belgian schools manuals were permeated by anti-German comments. “Auf die Gebote der deutschen Ehre und die billigen Erfordernisse der historischen Gerechtigkeit”, the Culture Department prepared the establishment of a Commission for the Revision of School Manuals.328 The commission, which operated under the auspices of the Ministry of Public Education but enjoyed a great deal of independence, was established by a decree of October 8, 1940, as a direct result of repeated complaints about the widespread use of anti-German (text)books in Belgian education.329 Its assignment was twofold. Not only was the commission charged with the removal of anti-German (passages in) textbooks, it was also responsible for uniformizing Belgian school manuals.330 Its members were mostly designated by Marcel Nyns, secretary-general for education. Yet, the Military Administration ensured the assignment of some of its ‘confidents’, such as Jan Grauls.331 After a short career in education, Grauls started his career as a civil servant. In 1911, he was appointed at the translation service of the Ministry of Public Education. Eventually he was promoted to the function of adjunct of the deputy secretary of higher education.332 Grauls was a sympathiser of the VNV, but kept out of politics. Yet, in the summer of 1940, he was appointed governor of Antwerp after his predecessor, baron Georges Holvoet, had

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 327 van de Vijver, België in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, 9-10. 328 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/15, ‘Rapports d’activité des dr. Petri et Werner dans le domaine de la culture’, ‘Zweiter Bericht über Tätigkeit und Arbeitsziele der M.V. in Belgien auf dem Gebiete der Kultur’, November 15, 1941. 329 Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 166. 330 De Smedt, ‘De herziening van schoolboeken’: 179. 331 Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 166. 332 J. Gallant, Archief J. Grauls (Brussel: Studie- en Navorsingsinstituut voor de Geschiedenis van de Tweede Wereldoorlog, 1973), 5.

! 113! fled to France.333 Later that year he was appointed Head of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals and worked together with several other pro-German protagonists, such as Robert Van Roosbroeck, adherent of the Flemish section of the SS, Professor at the and alderman of Public Education in Antwerp, and Jef Van de Wiele, head of the cultural collaborating organization DeVlag. Officially, the commission continued working during the entire period of the war. In reality, however, its work and power suffered from the continuous disinterest of most of its members and, by extention, of the Military Administration itself. Nevertheless, the commission contributed to the German control over an important section of schooling.334

As previously mentioned, the (re-)establishment of these commissions was an important tool in the hands of the German occupier for implementing their educational outlooks. Contrary to some secretaries-general, the pro-German personalities that were nominated in these commissions were ready to collaborate with the Military Administration. Yet, apart from the German occupier itself, also collaboration movements attempted to gain control over the cultural domain, which resulted in a power struggle and conflicts between various collaboration movements.

4.4. Supporters of the New Order: the educational ideals of collaborating movements in Belgium

Already in the 1930s, Belgium witnessed the rise of cultural organizations, supporting Fascist and National Socialist ideals and aiming at reforming the educational landscape according to New Order principles. In Flanders, for instance, particularly the Dietsch Opvoedkundige Beweging (Dutch Educational Movement, DOB) that was officially founded in July 1937 by a group of young teachers, who aimed at the establishment of a Dietse nation, that encompassed Flanders, the North of France and the Netherlands and consisted

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 333 Bernard Van Causenbroeck, ‘Jan Grauls’, in Nieuwe encyclopedie van de Vlaamse Beweging, eds. Reginald De Schryver, Bruno De Wever, Gaston Durnez, Lieve Gevers, Paul Van Hees and Machteld De Metsenaere (Tielt: Lannoo, 1998), 1352-3. 334 Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 166-7.

! 114! of one ‘race’ and one language.335 The DOB explicitly presented itself as National Socialist and was radically in favor of the reform of the Flemish educational system according to the German example.336 More specifically, the DOB envisaged a system of kindergartens that were made compulsory for children between three and six years old, and primary schools that were reorganized in three-year cycles. According to the DOB, secondary education was to be split up into a so-called kopschool (intellectual section), preparing boys for higher education, and a so-called beroepsschool (vocational school) that trained skilled laborers. After their secondary education, boys were subjected to a compulsory year of labor and army service.337 Furthermore, their educational ideals, revolving around notions of honor, blood and soil, paralleled those of the Nazis in Germany. More specifically, the DOB argued that education needed to move away from textbook teaching, towards a moral value education, centering on blood purity, race, anti-Semitism, discipline and character. Hence, the DOB favored the introduction of Heimatkunde and geo-politics, instilling boys and girls with love for the national community, and hereditary studies that was punctuated with anti- Semitism. Moreover, the study of Dutch and other German languages was given priority. The teacher in the classroom was considered the ‘political soldier’, instilling his pupils with a fighting spirit. Teachers were to be joined in one teacher association.338 Yet, precisely the DOB’s overt sympathy for German National Socialism aroused the suspicion of the Belgian State Security Service that, in February 1940, labelled the organization as dangerous and prohibited the spread of its publications.339 After the capitulation and subsequent installation of a German military regime, however, the DOB resumed its activities with a renewed journal, Volksch Opvoedkundige Beweging (Popular Educational Movement). Essentially, however, its core ideas remained unchanged. More specifically, it still aimed at a radical reform of the educational system according to a German spirit, Teutonic ideals and the concept of the nation. More !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 335 Maurits De Vroede and An Bosmans-Hermans, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van het pedagogisch leven in België in de 19de en 20ste eeuw. 4 Tweede Stuk: De Periodieken 1914-1940 (Leuven: KUL, 1973), 1675; De Clerck, ‘The ‘Dietsch Opvoedkundige Beweging’’, 260. 336 van de Vijver, België in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, 92; De Vroede and Bosmans-Hermans, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis, 1675. 337 De Vroede and Bosmans-Hermans, idem, 1676. 338 De Vroede and Bosmans-Hermans, idem, 1675-7; De Clerck, ‘The ‘Dietsch Opvoedkundige Beweging’’, 260. 339 De Clerck, idem, 261.

! 115! specifically, it aimed at introducing National Socialism and its (pedagogical) ideals in schools, envisaged a curriculum reform and carried on propaganda for the battle against Communism at the Eastern Front. Its activities and ideas, however, did not only appeal to the Militärverwaltung.340 The membership basis of the DOB rapidly grew in the early days of the occupation. Organizationally, a system of arbeidsgemeenschappen (labor communities) that organized discussions about various curriculum subjects for teachers, and werkgemeenschappen (work communities) that were responsible for the training of its members, was introduced and put under the supervision of Van Boghout. Van Boghout was a former student of the Teacher Training College in Antwerp, the cradle of the DOB, and had graduated as a primary school teacher and lower secondary school teacher in the second half of the 1930s. He soon became one of the leading figures of the DOB, propagating the establishment of National Socialist schools and the abolition of traditional official state and private education. He did, however, realize that the success of the DOB’s educational plans depended on support of the established educational authorities. In order to find allies at the Ministry, he approached Remigus Van Mieghem, inspector of primary education at the Ministry of Education and, as discussed in a previous section, a fervent supporter of the idea of educational unification. Apart from the DOB’s support for Van Mieghem’s unification plans, it also aimed at (parallel to the Nazis in Berlin) the establishment of elite schools that ensured the proliferation of National Socialist ideals among Flemish youth. More specifically, in September 1942 and 1943, the DOB experimented with the establishment of a Vlaamse School (Flemish School) in Antwerp and a Rijksschool Vlaanderen (State School Flanders) in the Flemish town of Kwatrecht.341 Yet, the DOB increasingly faced conflicts with other collaboration movements, resulting in its incorporation in the cultural collaborationist organization DeVlag by the end of 1942.342 As Bruno De Wever has argued, the DeVlag, established in the mid 1930s as a cultural organization that brought together Flemish and German academics, increasingly emerged as an important player within the cultural field. Its success was due to the authority of some of its members, such as Franz Petri, that held high positions within the Military Administration. Rolf Wilkening, who had been the driving force within the DeVlag before

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 340 De Vroede and Bosmans-Hermans, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis, 1678-9. 341 De Clerck, ‘The ‘Dietsch Opvoedkundige Beweging’’, 259-65. For more detailed discussion of the State School Flanders, see Thomas Verhasselt, ‘Rijksschool Vlaanderen: Een nationaal-socialistische school tijdens Wereldoorlog II’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Antwerpen, 2007). 342 De Clerck, ‘The ‘Dietsch Opvoedkundige Beweging’’, 264.

! 116! the outbreak of the war also held a key position within the cultural department of the Propaganda Abteilung343. Both Wilkening and Lutz Pesch, head of the Volkstum section of the Gruppe Kultur, cherished far-stretching political plans for Belgium’s cultural future.344 During the occupation, the DeVlag developed several educational initiatives. More specifically, in the context of the German ‘welfare’ program Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfart (National Socialist People’s Welfare, NSV) and through the mediation of the DeVlag, about 15,000 Flemish children were sent to Germany in 1941 and 1942 to spend a couple of weeks in a German foster family. Furthermore, the DeVlag actively took part in the German Kinderlandverschikung that aimed at instilling young children with National Socialist ideas. Importantly, the National Socialist education of young Flemish children in the KLV-Lager was entrusted to Flemish teachers and youth leaders, who were expected to “actively built a German and National Socialist future for our Flemish youth”.345

The succes of the DeVlag was detrimental to that of the collaborating Flemish-nationalist party, Vlaams Nationaal Verbond (VNV) that equally aimed at gaining control over the Flemish cultural scene. As De Wever noted:

“Evidently, the party that considered itself to be the emanation of the attached great importace to gaining control over the cultural sphere. As such, it ensured itself of a permanent legitimization of its self-proclaimed role in society.”346

The main educational ideologue of the VNV was Herman De Vleeschauwer, who aimed at reforming the national educational system according to Flemish-nationalist principles. In his Voor een nationaal kultuur- en opvoedingsprogramma (Towards a national cultural and educational program), a blueprint of his educational and cultural reform ideals, De Vleeschauwer advocated a centralized cultural policy, revolving around the central notion of the nation (volk), supervised by a corporatist culture board (kultuurkamer). Furthermore, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 343 The main aim of the Propaganda Abteilung, officially established in July, 1940, was to control the press and media. Furthermore, it financed cultural events, organized by collaborating movements. 344 Bruno De Wever, Greep naar de macht: Vlaams-nationalisme en Nieuwe Orde: het VNV 1933-1945 (Gent: Perspectief, 1994), 439. 345 ADG, Archive of Joseph-Honoré Coppieters, nr. 7.2.23, ‘Varia Oorlogsdocumentatie’, Letter to the teachers, members of the DeVlag concerning youth vacations in Germany and the accommodation of Flemish children in KLV-Lagers, January 19, 1943. 346 De Wever, Greep naar de macht, 439.

! 117! according to De Vleeschauwer, only the state could hold the educational monopoly, as it was the single emanation of the people. In his view, a national educational corporation needed to be made responsible for the organization of and control over a uniform educational network of national volkscholen (popular schools).347 Yet, since the VNV did not hold the political monopoly, it considerably struggled to gain control over state institutions. From the 1940s onwards, however, it attempted to expand its power over the cultural domain, mainly by promoting the assignment of its members within governmental organizations. Yet, in fact, the VNV had to content itself with the appointment of its members De Pillecyn and De Vleeschauwer within the Ministry of Public Education and, until 1941, the De Vleeschauwer’s nomination as president of the Commission for Linguistic Control. Its representation within the Flemish Cultural Board, however, was limited. In sum, the position of the VNV in these governmental institutions remained weak, which mainly was a consequence of the early nomination policy of the Militärverwaltung that had not been keen on concluding agreements with the VNV during the early weeks of the war. Furthermore, the VNV did not only struggle to expand its power over state institutions, it had absolutely no chance in gaining control over the private educational network that was run by the bishops and Catholic congregations. Before and during the war, the Belgian Church refused cooperation with the VNV, which it considered a threat to the Belgian unitary idea.348

4.5. Protagonist of the established order: the Roman Catholic Church and the Society of Jesus in Belgium

As Wladimir Plavsic notes in his contribution on the relation between the Catholic Church and politics, “la Belgique a toujours été une terre de pédilection pour le catholicisme. La fidélité de ses populations au “Pausch van Rome”, au Pape de Rome, est légendaire.”349 In 1920, for instance, about 98% of the population was baptized. In the interwar years, the relationship between the state and the Church was good, as its enjoyed a great deal of independence and was financially supported by the state.350 During the first half of the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 347 Bostoen and Moens, ‘Herman De Vleeschauwer’, 3514. 348 De Wever, Greep naar de macht, 439-40. 349 Wladimir S. Plasvic, ‘L’Eglise et la politique en Belgique’, Res Publica 10 (1968), nr. 2: 211. 350 Gevers, ‘Catholicism in the Low Countries’, 208 and 211.

! 118! twentieth century, secularization was halted and there was an increasing return to ‘rituals of Catholicism’, witness the increasing number of baptisms, marriages and burials.351 The Belgian Roman Catholic Church derived its power particularly from the far-stretching constitutional liberties, such as the freedom of education. Immediately after the independence in 1830, Catholic politicians and the archbishopric actively participated in setting out the structures of the new Belgian state. As Martin Conway argued, “the consitution of 1831 guaranteed the position of the Catholic Church and was reinforced by subsequent laws which granted the Church considerable influence over education.”352 Within the constitutional boundaries, the successive Catholic governments that ruled over the country between 1884 and the First World War protected the interests of the Catholic electorate and ensured the monopoly position of the Church’s rapidly expanding educational network.353 Furthermore, the Catholic Action contributed to the proliferation and strenghtening of the Catholic subsystem, particularly among youngsters.354 In short, “the power of the Church and its myriad affiliated organizations was guaranteed by the dominant position occupied in Belgian politics by the Catholic Party”.355 Although the archbishopric in Mechelen often claimed that it was not involved in political matters, politics was in fact its most efficient means to ensure and maintain the position of Catholic religion in society.356

The Catholic Church in Belgium was organized according to a strict hierarchical structure. Generally, each bishop held responsibility over the development and organization of Catholic (episcopal) institutions, such as schools, within his diocese. During the Second World War, Joseph-Ernest Van Roey ran the Belgian Roman Catholic Church. After his ordination, Van Roey worked for the university, where he obtained his doctoral degree in 1903. His academic career as a lecturer in Moral Theology, however, prematurely came to an end when he was appointed private secretary of the former archbishop Désiré-Joseph

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 351 Conway, ‘Belgium’, 188. 352 Conway, idem, 191. 353 Ibidem. 354 Gevers, ‘Catholicism in the Low Countries’, 208 and 211. 355 Conway, ‘Belgium’, 187. 356 Plasvic, ‘L’Eglise et la politique’: 211-2.

! 119! Mercier in 1906.357 During his term of office, Van Roey was concerned with the religous communities and the officiancy.358 Twenty years later, on January 23, 1926 Mercier died. Prime Minister Poullet was charged to inform the papal nuncio.359 As Plasvic documented, Van Roey’s nomination found wide support with Flemish Catholic parliamentaries.360 However, their support and enthousiasm about his designation soon swung over in disappointment, as Van Roey surrounded himself with assistants who took little interest in the Flemish cause or even condemnded the Flemish-nationalist political party VNV in the 1930s.361 His frequent use of Latin and French (instead of Dutch) and mere dialectic knowledge of Dutch was criticized.362 As Conway argued in his article about Belgian Political Catholicism:

“Van Roey’s attitudes were highly traditional. Although Flemish in origin, he was distrustful of Flemish-nationalism and possessed a deep-rooted antipathy to the atheistic, corrupting influences of modern culture. All forms of innovation – be they doctrinal, political, or social – were in Van Roey’s eyes suspect and his aim throughout his long primacy was to protect the Catholic against the evil spirit of the modern age.”363

One particular means to achieve this goal was to expand the network of social and educational institutions.364 Furthermore, Van Roey left his stamp on Belgian political life.365 In an article in the Brussels socialist newspaper Le Peuple of August 7, 1961, Van Roey was even portrayed as one of the most active instigators of the willful confusion between religion and politics in Belgium.366

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 357 Wladimir S. Plavsic, Le Cardinal Van Roey (Bruxelles: Labor, 1974), 27-9; Kempeneers, Le Cardinal Van Roey, 19-20. 358 Plavsic, Le Cardinal Van Roey, 29. 359 Plasvic, ‘L’Eglise et la politique’: 225; Plavsic, Le Cardinal Van Roey, 35-6. 360 Plasvic, ‘L’Eglise et la politique’: 225. 361 See for instance De Wever, Greep naar de macht. 362 Kempeneers, Le Cardinal Van Roey, 22. 363 Conway, ‘Belgium’, 194. 364 Ibidem. 365 Plasvic, ‘L’Eglise et la politique’: 230. 366 Quoted in Kempeneers, Le Cardinal Van Roey, 25.

! 120! In spite of the widespread support at the time of his nomination, Van Roey’s position during the Second World War has been the subject of debate and controversy.367 Particularly his ambiguous and accommodating stance towards the German military regime was held against him.368 Yet, in the early days of the war, popular critique was minor, as Van Roey exerted a great influence in society.369 As Plasvic notes:

"on l’a vu, par la plume et la parole, il a exercé de son bureau, une influence énorme sur les catholiques de son temps, car cette influence s’exerçait sur les consciences".370

Furthermore, Van Roey supported the King’s decision to capitulate, as in the early days of the occupation the victory of the German army was overwhelming and, for many people, was to be considered permanent.371 Moreover, he defended the King against the attacks of both the French and Belgian Prime Ministers, Reynaud and Pierlot, who criticized Leopold’s decision.372 His support should not surprise, as his relations with the Belgian Royal family had always been tight.373 As the two Belgian historians Jan Velaers and Herman Van Goethem have argued, the active participation of the cardinal in drafting a semi-authoritarian constitution during the ‘miracle summer of 1940’, also forms a clear illustration of the episcopal support of the monarchy.374 On June 10, 1940, King Leopold III contacted his liberal minister of state, Maurice Lippens, in order to discuss the problems that resulted from the installation of a new world order. As a result of that meeting, a commission was founded on August 20 to outline an authoritarian constitution. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 367 In 1982, for instance, the Belgian journalist Maurice De Wilde produced the episode ‘The Church accommodates itself’ in the context of his famous tv documentary series ‘The New Order’, in which the cardinal’s unconditional support of Leopold III and his awaiting stance were questioned. See Kempeneers, idem, 10-2. 368 Alain Dantoing, ‘La hiérarchie catholique et la Belgique sous l’occupation allemande’, Revue du Nord LX (1978), nr. 237: 320. This vision, however, needs to be nuanced, for Alain Dantoing himself argues that Mercier, despite his publicly strong patriotism, maintained a catious and non-provoking stance towards the German occupier during World War I. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind the difference between the situation in 1914 and that of 1940. See Dantoing, La “collaboration” du cardinal , 321. 369 Dantoing, idem, 125. 370 Plavsic, Le cardinal Van Roey, 213. 371 Gevers, ‘Catholicism in the Low Countries’, 213-4. 372 Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey, 13. 373 Plavsic, Le cardinal Van Roey, 37. 374 Jan Velaers and Herman Van Goethem, Leopold III: de koning, het land, de oorlog (Tielt: Lannoo, 2001), 492-3.

! 121! It consisted of, amongst others, the rector of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Mgr. Van Waeyenbergh, the provincial of the Walloon Jesuit province, Victor Le Cocq, the future president of the Catholic Party, Robert Houben, and members of the VNV, Hendrik Borginon and Victor Leemans. Eventually, two draft plans were presented to cardinal Van Roey, who requested the King’s secretary, Count Cappelle, to set up an urgent meeting with the King in order to discuss the future constitution and, more specifically, the freedom of education and religion.375

In his daily rule over Catholic Belgium, his advisor, canon Willem Van der Elst, mainly assisted Van Roey. During the First World War, Van der Elst had been actively involved in a spy network, for which he was arrested and condemned to forced labor. On May 4, 1919, he was ordained priest. In January 1922, he was appointed chaplain of the Centre d’Instruction des Brancardiers-Infirmiers (Instruction Centre of Stretcher-bearers and Nurses, CIBI), an army unit for seminarians and religious in the camp of Beverlo (Leopoldsburg). When the Second World War broke out, he was made prisoner of war and was deported to Germany. After his return in July 1941, he was appointed priest in the parish of Onze-Lieve- Vrouw van de Rozenkrans in Ukkel and national chaplain of the Girls Scouts. Between 1941 and his death in 1944, Van der Elst occupied a central place within the administration of the archbishopric as the personal advisor of cardinal Van Roey. Because of a lack of detailed biographical information, it is still not clear as to why he was chosen for this function.376

Besides the archdiocese of Mechelen, Belgium was divided in five other dioceses, i.e. the dioceses of Brugge, Ghent, Namur, Liège and Tournai. Firstly, during the Second World War, the diocese of Bruges (Flanders) fell under the responsibility of the bishop of Bruges, Henri Lamiroy. Lamiroy was ordained as a priest in December 1919. After a a short career at the Major Seminars of Leuven and Brugge and a career as a priest, he was appointed suffragan bishop in August 1929. After the death of his predecessor, Mgr. Waffelaert, Lamiroy became bishop of the diocese of Bruges in December 1931. Lamiroy strictly directed his diocese and aimed at maintaining episcopal power, witness his refusal to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 375 Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey, 16. 376Patricia Quaghebeur and Gerrit Vanden Bosch, ‘Willem Petrus Van der Elst’, ODIS, http://www.odis.be/pls/odis/opacuvw.toon_uvw?CHK=PS_6413&p_modus=O&P_DOC_TYPE_ID=HTM &refresh=undefined

! 122! establish Jesuit secondary schools, in the diocese of Bruges. His contacts with civil authorities were rather distant, as he was convinced that only the Catholic party could guarantee the maintanance of Catholic values. Furthermore, he condemned every anti- Christian tendency. More specifically, Lamiroy distrusted Flemish-nationalism, which he reproached of undermining Church authority and disrespecting episcopal instructions. Yet, his suspicion of Flemish-nationalism was not absolute, witness his designation of Cyriel Verschaeve as priest of the Flemish town of . Yet, Lamiroy hesitated to give his consent about Verschaeve’s appointment as president of the Flemish Cultural Board in 1940. Initially, he had written down his consent on the back of Verschaeve’s request letter. He soon understood, however, that Verschaeve’s appointment would serve only the German cause and, hence, could compromize his own position. During the war, Lamiroy refused to meet the German occupier and the mayor of Bruges, Devroe. Furthermore, he explicitly forbade priests in his diocese to give information to the German occupier about the Church bells, for instance.377 Secondly, during the Second World War, Mgr. Honoré Coppieters led the diocese of Ghent. Ordained in September 1896, he started his career as doctor and magister in Theology in 1902. After a career as a Theology professor and dean, he was nominated bishop of the diocese of Ghent in May 1927. During his office, he particularly devoted himself to further developing Catholic institutions, such as episcopal secondary schools or Catholic (youth) associations within his diocese. Compared to Lamiroy, Coppieters was more sympathetic to the Flemish movement. Although he rejected Flemish and prioritized Church over Flemish interests, he did acknowledge the rationale of the Flemish movement. During the war, his relations with the German occupier progressed with difficulty, as he was not afraid to protest against the German requisitioning of parochial houses for VNV meetings, for instance.378 Thirdly, until 1941, Thomas-Louis Heylen ran the diocese of Namur. Heylen entered the Norbertine Order and was ordained priest in 1881. Eight years later, he was nominated

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 377 Robrecht Boudens, ‘Henri Lamiroy (1931-1952)’, in Het bidsom Brugge (1559-1984): bisschoppen, priesters, gelovigen, Michel Cloet, Boudewijn Janssens de Bisthoven and Robrecht Boudens (Brugge: Westvlaams verbond van Kringen voor heemkunde, 1985), 389-99. 378 Robrecht Boudens, ‘Honoré Coppieters (1927-1947)’, in Het bidsom Gent (1559-1991): vier eeuwen geschiedenis, Michel Cloet and Ludo Collin (Gent: Werkgroep Geschiedenis van het bisdom Gent, 1992), 367 and 370-7.

! 123! bishop of Namur, but passed away in 1941.379 He was replaced by André Marie Charue. After his studies at the Pontificia Università Gregoriana in Rome, he was ordained priest in 1922. In 1926, he completed his doctoral dissertation. After a career as professor Exegesis at the Major Seminar of Namur, he was nominated bishop of the diocese of Namur from 1941 until 1974.380 As Lefevre notes in his commemorative study, Charue started his office under difficult circumstances. More specifically, the financial situation of many Catholic social works was precarious.381 Apart from that, there is little information about his position during the war. Unfortunately, the same holds for the bishop of the diocese of Tournai, Louis Delmotte. Apart from his birth date and his studies at the Università Gregoriana Rome, little is known about his life, his office and activities during the war. Fifthly, during the war, the diocese of Liège fell under the responsibility of Mgr. Louis- Joseph Kerkhofs. After his studies at the Università Gregoriana in Rome, where he also completed his doctoral dissertation in Theology, he was ordained priest in 1900 and worked as a Philosophy and Dogmatic Theology professor at the Major Seminars of Sint- Truiden and Liège. Only two years after his nomination as suffragan bishop in 1925, he became Liège’s 88th bishop in 1927.382 During the war, Kerkhofs used his authority to help Jews escape from deportation to concentration camps. More specifically, several convents in his diocese opened their doors to hide Jews. Kerkhofs personally arranged a safe-place for the Chief Rabbi Salomon Ullman and Joseph Lepkikfer, Head of the Jewish community in Liège. In 1981, Kerkhofs was recognized by Yad Vashem as Rightuous among the Nations for his help in the hiding of Jews during the Second World War.383

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 379 Biographical information retrieved from Patricia Quaghebeur, ‘Thomas-Louis Heylen’, http://www.odis.be/pls/odis/opacuvw.toon_uvw?CHK=PS_28947&p_modus=O&P_DOC_TYPE_ID=HTM &refresh=undefined (Last consulted September 12, 2013). 380 Ibidem. See also Placide Lefèvre, In Memoriam. Mgr. André-Marie Charue 1898-1977 (Leuven: Peeters, 1978), 221-22. 381 See also Lefèvre, idem, 222. 382 Biographical information retrieved from ‘Lodewijk-Jozef Kerkhofs’, http://www.odis.be/pls/odis/opacuvw.toon_uvw?CHK=PS_3660&p_modus=O&P_DOC_TYPE_ID=HTM &P_FILTER=Kerkhofs&refresh=undefined (Las consulted September 21, 2013). 383 For more information about Jewish rescue networks during the Second World War in the diocese of Liège, see Vromen, Hidden children of the Holocaust; Mordecai Paldiel, The path of the righteous: gentile rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust (Hoboken: KTAV Publishing House, 1993).

! 124! Apart from the bishops, also many Catholic congregations were active in both Flanders and Wallonia, where they developed a network of Catholic institutions and (social) movements. In Belgium, particularly the Society of Jesus devoted itself to the education of youth. More specifically, the Jesuits exerted a profound influence on Belgium’s leading class, since their activities were primarily concerned with the education of a Catholic elite. Yet, the congregation often clashed with the episcopacy or other congregrations. As they were directly subordinate to the Holy See in Rome, some congregations or bishops considered them as ‘intruders’. Furthemore, they experienced great difficulties with secular authorities, witness the abolition of the Society of Jesus under Maria Theresia, for instance. Yet, once re-established after the independence of Belgium, in 1832, the Jesuit congregation rapidly expanded a network of secondary schools, noviciates or university institutions. At the eve of the First World War, their modernly built and designed institutions enjoyed great prestige. Although the representation of Jesuit Fathers in Belgian politics was rather limited, they did excert a certain political influence. As Xavier Dusausoit has convincingly argued, they did not only derive their influence from the instruction of many future politicians in their schools, they also actively maintained relations with (local) civil authorities, organized social actions for the people (such as the Conférences de Saint-Vincent de Paul) or spread their ideas by means of Jesuit journals.384 On the national level, the Belgian Jesuit province was led by a provincial, who was nominated for three years by a General. The provincial held the administrative, religious, legislative, economic and regulary responsibilities within his province.385 As mentioned in the introduction, the Belgian Jesuit province was divided into a Flemish and Walloon province in 1935. As a result of this organizational division, the Belgian Jesuit province was de facto run by two provincials, one for the Provinciae Belgicae Septentrionalis (Flemish Province) and one for the Provinciae Belgicae Meridionalis (Walloon Province). During the Second World War, the Flemish province was put under the supervision of John Janssens. Janssens was ordained priest in 1919 and worked as a professor and rector in Leuven. In 1935 he was nominated as provincial of the Flemish Jesuit Province and guided the Flemish Society of Jesus through the war. As De Coninck, attaché of the Jesuit residence in Brussels, testified after the war in an article in La Libre Belgique, Janssens

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 384 Deneef, Dusausoit, Evers, Pilette s.j. and Rousseau, Les Jésuites belges, 33, 109-11, 125, 139 and 153. 385 Deneef, Dusausoit, Evers, Pilette s.j. and Rousseau, idem, 19-20.

! 125! ordered his staff members to abstain from provocation, but at the same time to always “say what needs to be said”.386 Victor Le Cocq, on the other hand, led the Walloon Province. After his studies, he became director of the Apostolic School in Verviers (Wallonia), rector of the Philosophical Schools of the Jesuits in Eegenhoven (Flanders), rector of the Jesuit High School for Engineering (Institut Gramme) in Liège (Wallonia) and the Facultés Universitaires in Namur (Wallonia). In 1938 he was nominated provincial of the Jesuit Walloon Province. He devoted himself to promoting secondary education within his province and emerged as an advocate of state subvention for private schools. Furthermore, he wrote down a general study regulation that was implemented in the Jesuit schools in the Walloon province.387

5. Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was to discuss the educational context in which the developments during the Second World War need to be framed, and to focus on the actors in the history of education during the German occupation. This chapter introduced the Roman Catholic Church as an important power factor in Belgian society. Yet, this chapter documented the ways in which the Roman Catholic Church, at several stages in the 19th and 20th century, faced the contestation of its position and power. Not only did the episcopacy had to agree with the gradual secularization of society, it also witnessed the growing power of the state in educational matters and had to give up the Francophone character of many of its schools. Furthermore, during the 1930s and 1940s, National Socialism was besides direct threat to democracy, also a danger to (within the context of the secularization process) ²the development of Catholic institutions in particular. In Germany, the Führer’s aims to establish a total education, based on the principles of the nation, blood and soil and anti- Semitism, conflicted with the Catholic educational project. In spite of the concordat between Hitler and the Holy See, the German Church fell victim to the National Socialist Gleichtschaltung policy. In Belgium, many of National Socialism’s educational ideas found support within right-wing political parties or in New Order educational associations, such

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 386 Deneef, Dusausoit, Evers, Pilette s.j. and Rousseau, idem, 236-7. 387 Deneef, Dusausoit, Evers, Pilette s.j. and Rousseau, idem, 244.

! 126! as the Dietsch Opvoedkundige Beweging. During the occupation, these collaborating movements rendered their assistence in implementing the ideological outlooks of Berlin.

As the discussion of the biographical background of many of the members of the Military Administration demonstrates, certain German officials (of the Culture Department) were well informed about the structure, organization and nature of Belgian society. Furthermore, some members had experience with the German occupation during the First World War and, hence, were well aware of the dangers of a radical imposition of the German model on Belgian society or a radical implementation of their policy. Furthermore, since they lacked the time, means and staff to completely dissolve the Belgian pre-war administration and establish a new, German administration from scratch, they had to accept cooperation with a large segment of the pre-war Belgian administration that was not always ready to collaborate with the new regime. Marcel Nyns, secretary-general of the Ministry of Public Education is a particular example of that. Due to organizational or competence issues, the replacement of anti-German and subsequent nomination of pro- German personalities within the Ministry or the (re-) establishment of commissions or boards was only partly successful. The state authorities and official bodies only held responsibility over the state educational network, did not have authority over the network of private schools, run by the Roman Catholic Church and Catholic congregations. The Military Administration’s less radical policy towards the Roman Catholic Church was not only based on its fear of antagonizing the Church and with that a large part of Catholic Belgian society, but also on the explicit Catholic background and sympathies of some of its members, such as Franz Thedieck. Yet, although not all members of the Militärverwaltung were in favor of a radical Nazification of Belgian society and its educational system, the German occupier did take steps in the direction of the establishment of total German control over the entire Belgian school network and the implementation of the National Socialist outlooks of Berlin.

! 127! ! 128!

Chapter 2

Towards a Gleichschaltung of Belgian education? The Military Administration’s educational policy during World War II in Belgium

1. Introduction

At a conference of the Katholieke Studerende Jeugd (Catholic Student Youth) in 1941, the Head of the Belgian Catholic Church, cardinal Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, argued:

“La jeunesse contient en germe l’avenir: c’est pour ce motif que tous ceux qui veulent se rendre maîtres de la société, s’efforcent en premier lieu de s’emparer des jeunes et de les façonner à leur image. Le fait peut se constater à toutes les époques de l’histoire. Actuellement, dans les Etats totalitaires, et principalement en régime nationale-socialiste, nous voyons ce moyen de domination mis en oeuvre de la manière la plus systematique et d’après les méthodes les plus perfectionnées.”388

As Van Roey’s quote already suggests, the German military government that occupied Belgium during World War II aimed at influencing all sectors of society. More specifically, the Belgian historian Etienne Verhoeyen has advocated in his publication on occupied Belgium that control over the domain of culture in its broadest sense was a particular and important means for bringing about acceptance of the new regime.389 Furthermore, according to the authors of the Dictionnaire de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale “pas plus que d’autres institutions ou lieux de pouvoir, l’école ne peut se soustraire à la mainmise nazie. De tout temps enjeu de pouvoir fondamental, puisque conditionnant les générations montantes, l’enseignement jouit, en ces années de profonds bouleversements, d’une attention tout particulière, en tant qu’instrument essentiel de la révolution national- socialiste en marche.”390 Or, as a German report stated: “von weitreichender Bedeutung für

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 388 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 277. 389 Verhoeyen, België bezet, 222. 390 Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 164.

! 129! das endgültige Gelingen einer deutschen Politik sind deshalb die kulturpolitischen Massnahmen (...)”.391 This chapter is precisely concerned with the development and evolution of the military government’s educational policy. Both from a national and international point of view, little research has been concerned with educational developments during this specific period. This is, however, in sharp contrast to the importance of World War II in contemporary history. Not only does this ‘total war’ have an important place in both public and individual memory (witness the many annual commemorations of World War I and II), there is also a vast amount of scientific and popular historical writing on this subject. At the same time, there still is much debate as to what the impact of World War II on post-war society was, what the activities and political aims of the German occupational regime were and how the position of the pre-war Belgian government offices and institutions – such as the body of secretaries-general and the Roman Catholic Church – is to be interpreted. More specifically, this also goes for the culture policy of the military government and the position of some of its leading exponents. For instance, until today, there is little consensus about whether the Culture Department should be considered a protector of the Belgian people, or rather as a tool of the Nazi regime.392

In this chapter, it is not my intention to give a comprehensive overview of the existing literature, nor is it to give a thorough summary of the development and installation of a military government. My aim is to discuss the development and evolution of one specific aspect of the Military Administration’s culture policy, viz. its educational aims and goals.

2. The Belgian cultural landscape as a Janus face: the first reports of the Culture Department, June – November 1940

The first Bericht über Tätigkeit und Arbeitsziele der M.V. in Belgien auf dem Gebiete der Kultur, dating from June 20, 1940 already drew attention to the complexity of the Belgian cultural,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 391 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ10/12, ‘Situation politique en Belgique – Problème flamand’, ‘Politische Lage in Belgien, hier Flamenfrage’, July 31, 1940. 392 A more detailled description of this ongoing debate can be found in Beyen, ‘Wetenschap, politiek, nationaal-socialisme’: 47-69.

! 130! and by extension educational, landscape. In their first report to Berlin, Petri and Reese distinguished three characterizing elements of the Belgian cultural landscape: (i) The Liberal foundation of the Belgian constitution and the constitutional freedom of education; (ii) The discord between the Flemish and Walloons, which, to a large extent, characterized the dual character of Belgian culture; and (iii) The country’s particular cultural orientation towards France. According to Petri and Reese, it were precisely these three characteristics that prevented them from pursuing a uniform cultural policy:

“Diese Voraussetzungen erklären zu einem erheblichen Teil dem Zustand der letzen Jahrzehnten. Sie machten es auf der einen Seite unmöglich ein einheitliches und eindeutig formulierten Gesamturteil über das Kulturleben und die Kultureinrichtungen in Belgien abzugeben.”393

Particularly the deep French cultural influence was a thorn in the Culture Department’s side. This was, however, particularly the case in Wallonia and Brussels. In Flanders, the Kulturreferenten did observe a readiness to establish a “Kulturverbundenheit mit dem niederländischen Norden”, in which the Catholic Church had played an important role. According to Reese and Petri, the Church had counterbalanced the one-sided French cultural influence and general contempt for the (Flemish) national character from the 1930s onwards.394

This first report already illustrates the Gruppe Kultur’s particular concern about the division of the educational landscape in private (mostly Catholic) and public schools. Although it was pleased about the Flemish movement’s success in establishing Dutch as an official language in education, the French linguistic influence was still very palpable. According to Reese and Petri, however, the Flemish movement’s readiness for the Flemish cause was by

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 393 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/15, 'Rapports d’activité des dr. Petri et Werner dans le domaine de la culture', 'Bericht über Tätigkeit und Arbeitsziele der M.V. in Belgien auf dem Gebiete der Kultur', June 20, 1940. 394 Ibidem.

! 131! no means a guarantee for their support of a society under German rule.395 ’ statement can be illustrative in this respect:

“If they were to ask us to become German, we would be half Germans; but as good Flemings we are complete Teutons”.396

Generally, there was a large willingness to preserve national and linguistic independence from Germany. In sum, in order to incorporate Belgium within the larger Germanic cultural sphere, Petri and Reese recommended that (i) the domination of cultural life by political parties and ideological (or confessional) groupings would have to be replaced by a Volkspolitischen Ordnung, and (ii) the cultural orientation towards the West, and towards France in particular, would have to be replaced by an orientation towards Germany.397 At the same time, however, Petri and Reese were well aware of the difficulty of influencing schooling, because of the strong power of the Church in educational matters. In their report to Berlin, they had to conclude that the responsibility and power of the Ministry of Public Education in Brussels was in fact very limited:

“Das Brüsseler Unterrichtministeriums erwies sich als unzureichend orientiert über die Verhältnisse im Lande und besitzt nur begrenzte Möglichkeiten, auf die gemeindlichen oder “freien” Einrichtungen einzuwirken.”398

Although the Gruppe Kultur found that “irgendein Eingriff in den Schulaufbau und Lehrbetrieb der 'freien' wie der staatlichen Schulen im Rahmen der Militärverwaltung gegebenen Weisungen, untunlich [ist]”, it was convinced that “er sich auch für eine weiterschauende Kulturarbeit im deutschen Sinne aufdrängt”.399 According to Petri and Reese, however, the German aim to influence education was jeopardized by (i) the textbook policy of the Ministry of Public Education, and (ii) the French orientation of private, Catholic schools. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 395 Ibidem. 396 Cited in Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey, 37. 397 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/15, 'Rapports d’activité des dr. Petri et Werner dans le domaine de la culture', 'Bericht über Tätigkeit und Arbeitsziele der M.V. in Belgien auf dem Gebiete der Kultur', June 20, 1940. 398 Ibidem. 399 Ibidem.

! 132! Firstly, the Culture Department argued that:

“Wie ons von flämischer Seite wiederholt bestätigt wurde, bedürfen die amtlich zugelassenen Lehrbücher einer gründlichen Umgestaltung, da sie bisher gänzlich von belgizistischen und vielfach sogar französischen Gesichtspunkten beherrscht werden und eine wesentliche Hemmnis für das Wiederhineinwachsen Belgien in den germanisch- deutschen Lebensraum bilden”.400

Unsurprisingly, Marcel Nyns’ argument that the existing Belgian history textbooks also served the establishment of good relations with Germany, was considered unsatisfactory. Secondly, the division of the Belgian educational system in private and public schools was considered to be one of the “grundsätzlichen Probleme”. Particularly the pro-French character of some Catholic schools could compromise the German Kulturpolitik. According to Reese and Petri, “sie werden von der volksbewussten Flamen als stätten der Verwelschung seit langem bekämpft und können bei ihrer durchaus profranzösischen und antivölkischen Einstellung auf die Dauer der deutschen Verwaltung nicht gleichgültig bleiben.”401 From this, it may be clear that the existence of a largely independent Catholic educational system caused specific difficulties for the military government and demanded its special attention. Firstly, Petri and Reese concluded that, under the given circumstances, the military government could not entirely control the “richtungweisenden Exponenten des kulturpolitischen Leben” (i.e. the Catholic Church) and, as a result, could not have a deep influence on public opinion. The majority of the Belgian population was still deeply religious, especially in those areas where Catholic schools were “der einzige Träger des Volksbildungswesens”.402 Therefore, the Culture Department was convinced that Catholic schools needed to be subjected to precautionary control. As a result, the fact that the occupier outlined a more well defined educational policy, which especially aimed at a reversal of episcopal power in educational matters, may not come as a surprise. On July 31, 1940, a report was published, stating that Reeder’s department supported “die Entpolitisierung und Entfkonfessionalisierung des Bildungs- und Erziehungwesens bei

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 400 Ibidem. 401 Ibidem. 402 Ibidem.

! 133! gleichzeitiger Neuausrichtung in germanish-völkischem Sinne.”403 More specifically, Reeder argued that a thorough educational reform, a reorganization of school manuals, the reorganization of the University of Ghent and Vrije Universiteit Brussel (University of Brussels), as well as the reform of scientific life and the private educational network were imperative to this end.404 As the Tätigkeitsberichte for the month of August 1940 show, one important aspect of this educational reform was the removal of all political commentary in school manuals and in class in general. On August 4, 1940, Reeder stated that:

“1) Politik ist dem Unterricht unter allen Umständen fernzuhalten. 2) Die Lehrbücher und die Bücher der Schulbibliotheken sind sofort daraufhin zu überprüfen, ob sich in ihnen Aufsätze deutschfeindlichen Charakters befinden.”405

In November 1940, the Culture Department published its second internal report, in which the status quaestionis of (higher) education, archives, libraries and museums was discussed and recommendations were made for incorporating Belgium in the German context. The report of November 15, 1940 particularly focused on institutional reforms. Firstly, according to Kulturreferenten Petri and Reese a reform the Ministry of Public Education was necessary. The Culture Department especially aimed at installing a more clear-cut structure of responsibilities, which were, at the time, scattered over several departments or ministries. In this respect, the junction of commercial and technical education and the reform of vocational and popular education was being prepared by the end of 1940. Interestingly, it was argued that the military government could not only rely on the Ministry itself if it wanted to reform the Belgian administration deeply. Therefore, Culture Department argued that:

“Die Neugestaltung muss vielmehr an die im Lande vorhandenen, vielfach zersplitterten und sich befehlenden Volkstumkräfte anknüpfen und jene Elemente in besonderem Masse

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 403 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ, 40/12, ‘Situation politique en Belgique – Problème flamand’, ‘Politische Lage im Belgien, hier Flamenfrage’, July 31, 1940. 404 Ibidem. 405 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 7, August 4, 1940, pages 9-11.

! 134! in den Vordergrund stellen, die zu einer vorbehaltlosen, gemeinsamen Arbeit mit Deutschland bereit sind.”406

For that purpose, the Culture Department proceeded to (re-)establishing bodies of state that supported the introduction of the German cultural policy, such as the Comission for Linguistic Control, the Cultural Boards or the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals, which I have discussed in more detail in the first chapter of this dissertation.

Next to the reform of the Ministry of Public Education and the establishment of three cultural organizations, also the development of German language education was discussed. According to Petri and Reese, the German language had been systematically pushed back in the years before the war. In their view, the situation was quite dramatic:

“Was bisher an Deutschunterricht in belgischen Schulen vorhanden ist, bedarf nur einer kurzen Erwähnung: im Volksschulunterricht handelt es sich um etwa 4500 Kinder, die meist im deutsch-belgischen Grenzgebiet leben und Deutsch als 2. Sprache nu wenige Wochenstunden während ihrer letzten Schuljahre lernen.”407

Kulturreferenten Petri and Reese also lamented the deplorable state of German courses in secondary teacher training. Only a handful of teacher training colleges, located east of the river Meuse, had separate German sections. In many other colleges, German often had an optional character. In secondary education, the situation was not much better. Only in the province of Liège, German was being taught as a second language. In the rest of the country, German was usually being taught as the third or even fourth language, next to English and French.408 Therefore, the Culture Department aimed at replacing courses in favor of German classes. Furthermore, it claimed that “weiterhin soll grundsätzlich der fakultative durch den obligatorischen Unterricht in der 3. Sprache ersetzt werden (...).”409 In principle, the Culture Department aimed at introducing German !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 406 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/15, ‘Rapports d’activité des dr. Petri et Werner dans le domaine de la culture’, ‘Zweiter Bericht über Tätigkeit und Arbeitsziele der M.V. in Belgien auf dem Gebiete der Kultur’, November 15, 1940. 407 Ibidem. 408 Ibidem. 409 Only in the German-speaking districts of Aarlen and Luxemburg, French courses were to be replaced by German language courses, which would make German the first language in education. ANF, Fonds

! 135! as the second language in education, but, already by the end of 1940, Petri and Reese observed many practical problems (such as a lack of German school manuals and qualified teachers) that prevented them from pursuing their plan. Therefore, the acquisition of German textbooks and the promotion of German teachers was to be prepared and introduced in the future. The need for a well-educated teaching staff could be relieved by the existing German language courses at the Deutsche Akademie and the promotion of study stays in Germany for future teachers.410

In the following months, the Culture Department further developed its educational policy. Particularly Reeder’s work reports (Tätigkeitsberichte), and the internal reports of the Culture Department are of great importance in this respect. Not only do these reveal the German aims in relation to education, they also show that the very structure of the Belgian educational system and the Ministry of Public Education would remain a problem throughout the war.

3. Education and Kulturpolitik: the development of a German educational policy, 1940- 1944

From the end of 1940 onwards, the Culture Department further developed the lines of policy set out in the two internal reports by Franz Petri and Werner Reese. Generally, and against this backdrop, the military government’s educational policy was founded and further developed on two basic principles: (i) the establishment and development of an independent network of German schools (Deutsche Schule); and (ii) the reform of the existing pre-war educational network. As the development of an independent network of German schools on itself could form the subject of an entire doctoral research, combined with the fact that this study is limited to the specific development of Catholic secondary education during World War II, I will restrict myself to discussing the Verwaltungsstab’s

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Marbourg, AJ 40/15, ‘Rapports d’activité des dr. Petri et Werner dans le domaine de la culture’, ‘Zweiter Bericht über Tätigkeit und Arbeitsziele der M.V. in Belgien auf dem Gebiete der Kultur’, November 15, 1940. 410 Ibidem.

! 136! work reports and reports of the Culture Department in relation to the reform of the existing Belgian educational network.

Generally, the German plans boiled down to the unification of Belgian education. Prior to a more detailed outline of educational reforms, Löffler formulated a general overview of the structure of Belgian education on March 24, 1941. In this report, he discusses the general division of secondary education in a higher degree (i.e. the state grammar schools for boys and girls, or the private grammar schools), and schools of a lower degree (i.e. the 3-year high schools). Importantly, Löffler pointed to the independence of the private education network:

“Die Mehrzahl der Privatschulen (in Flandern etwa 150, in Wallonien rund 250) sinds ganz frei, werden ausschliesslich aus kirchlichen und privaten Mitteln unterhalten und sind jeder staatlichen Aufsicht und Beeinflussung entzogen.”411

As a result, the Ministry of Public Education had no knowlegde about the number of pupils enrolled or the nature of the schools. Most private school teachers were allied in a separate Féderation de l’Enseignement Secondaire that independently treated general administrative issues and questions. The different dioceses held responsibility over the curriculum and the final exam procedure.412 Hence, Löffler came to the conclusion that “das mittlere Schulwesen in Belgien, d.h. die Mittelschulen und höheren Schulen im deutschen Sinne, zu mehr als der Hälfte der staatlichen Lenkung und Beeinflussung entzogen ist.”413 According to Löffler, there was absolutely no univocal national educational system “ganz abgesehen von den Hemmnissen, die die Zweisprachigkeit des Landes und die Vereinigung zweier verschiedener völkischer Kulturen in den Grenzen eines künstlichen Staatsgebildes einer solchen Nationalerziehung entgegenstellen”, which rooted in the liberal mentality, all-encompassing individualism, deficient community feeling and division that characterised Belgian society. As a way of conclusion, Löffler argued that the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 411 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/25.7, ‘Examens généralités’, ‘Das Mittlere Schulwesen in Belgien’, May 24, 1941. 412 Ibidem. 413 Ibidem.

! 137! German educational policy was only possible if the freedom of education, and with that also the fragmentation of the educational landscape, would be reversed.414

Also the Tätigkeitsberichte (or activity reports of the Military Administration) clearly document the German educational policy to dismantle the freedom of education. At this point it is, however, important to note that particular caution is in order when interpreting or analyzing these documents, since they are punctuated with misrepresentations. As discussed in the previous chapter, it is important to keep in mind that the Tätigkeitsberichte were frequently used to mobilize the Oberkommando des Heeres against the attacks of certain civil services, the SS or the NSDAP. Hence, the reports tend to leave us with the impression of a more powerful Military Administration than it actually was. Still, the reports do illustrate its activities and tasks and were published on a relatively constant basis.415 A first important report on educational matters was published on May 9, 1941. In this Tätigkeitsbericht, the situation of Belgian education was discussed and recommendations for its reform were made. Firstly, and in line with Petri and Reese’s comments on the structure of Belgian education in May 1940, the report reveals that the constitutional freedom of education remained problematic. According to the German Culture Department, the schooling system had become the plaything of political and ideological (read: religious) authorities and parties and formed a true divisive element of “Landes und Volkes”. Illustrative for this state of affairs was the complex and formal character of the school legislation “die die Spuren der verschiedenen Parteiregierungen und Parlamentsmehrheiten und ihres gegenseitigen Misstrauens trägt.”416 This confusing situation opened the door to interpretation and governmental abuse. Secondly, the military authority concluded that the position of the state in educational matters was particularly weak in comparison to that of the Catholic Church. As a result, especially the private network of secondary schools and universities that received little or no state subvention, almost completely fell beyond the state’s boundaries of control. The general curriculum, formulated by the Ministry of Public Education was only implemented

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 414 Ibidem. 415 Teurfs, ‘Het Duits Militair Bestuur’, XII-I. 416 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 16, 'Anlage B2 Zusammenstellung der charakteristischen Kennzeichen des Belgischen Schulwesens', May 9, 1941.

! 138! in some, official schools. As a result, the private network had a great deal of freedom in the organization of its education and curriculum. Thirdly, although the Military Administration was quite pleased about the standardized organization of primary education, technical and vocational schooling were insufficiently developed. More specifically, the fragmentation of responsibilities over five different ministries and the insufficient relation between education and the country’s economy, were criticized. According to the German Culture Department, these three characteristics resulted in the lack of a uniform, national system and the absence of a common spirit:417

“[D]ieser Zustand der Schulwesens ist eine der Hauptursachen für den übergrossen Individualismus und den Mangel an Disziplin und Einfügungswillen, der bei den Bewohnern dieses Landes (Flamen und Wallonen) zu beobachten ist.”418

In response to this complex and confusing situation, the Military Administration aimed at a simplification and standardization of educational legislation, the organization of a central inspection structure that, besides state schools, also controlled private schools and a restriction of episcopal control over religious education in state schools. Furthermore, it aimed at abolishing small schools and uniformizing the curriculum, in order to create a uniform spirit and leave the necessary freedom to the local and regional authorities. Moreover, it envisaged the unification of primary education in the direction of popular education (or ‘education for all’) and the ‘de-formalizing’ of secondary schools and academia. Lastly, it wished to reorient vocational and technical schools towards the nation’s economy.419 In spite of its efforts, the Verwaltungsstab’s annual report of July 15, 1941 shows the many difficulties in implementing these reforms. Particularly the continued fragmentation of the educational landscape stood in the way of a clear, systematic governmental control over the educational system and a the creation of a uniform schooling system, along the lines of univocal national and weltanschauliche ideas:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 417 Ibidem. 418 Ibidem. 419 Ibidem.

! 139! “Bei der Mehrzahl der Schulen aller Art (Volks-, Mittel-, Höhere-, Berufs- und Fachschulen) ist nicht der Staat oder eine kommunale Körperschaft, sondern ein Bischof, ein religiöser Orden oder ein privater Schulverein Träger der Lehranstalt. Die verschiedenen am Schulwesen interessierten Kräfte verhinderten im Spiel der parlamentarischen (sic) Gesetzgebung eine Stärkung der Aufsicht des Staates, so dass dieser seinen Einfluss im wesentlichen nur über finanzielle Zuschüsse geltend machen kann. Schulen, die keine Zuschüsse beanspruchen – besonders im mittleren und höheren Schulwesen eine beträchtliche Zahl – sind also praktisch vollkommen „frei“. Bei den höheren Schulen geben lediglich die Vorschriften über die Zulassung zum Hochschulstudium eine gewisse einheitliche Ausrichtung.”420

Interestingly, the report suggests that this typical constellation of education contributes to the specificity of the Belgian case. In his report, Reeder explicitly compared the Belgian situation with that of France, where the educational system was “einheitlicher und straffer geleitet und den Bedürfnissen des Volkes und der Wirtschaft besser angepasst als das Schulwesen in Belgien.” In contrast to Belgium, the French Vichy-government had initiated educational reforms after the defeat, which had resulted in a stronger orientation towards German educational ideals and ideas. In Belgium, it was precisely the strong position of the Roman Catholic Church that prevented the military occupier from implementing a similar policy. That is the reason why, in its report of July 15, 1941, the military government claimed to have no cause to initiate a school reform that would reinforce state authority in educational matters, as it anticipated the fierce opposition of the Church. In this early stage of the occupation, the Cultural Department was reluctant to antagonize the Church, since this could severely compromise its educational aims in the long run.421 In spite of and taking the aforementioned comments into consideration, the military government did aim at422: (i) Stimulating all schools within their jurisdiction to resume education under strict German control; (ii) Keeping all negative influences, unfriendly to the German Reich or people, out of education, by, amongst others, enhancing the understanding of German !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 420 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/7.1, ‘Tätigkeitsberichte’, ‘Jahresbericht der Militärverwaltung im Belgien und Nordfrankreich fur das erste Einsatzjahr 31/05/1940-31/05/1941’, July 15, 1941. 421 Ibidem. 422 Ibidem.

! 140! education amongst teachers and pupils, slowly instilling them with an aversion for ‘the French example’ and by introducing Germanic/German educational ideals; (iii) Reinforcing a system of Deutsche Schule; (iv) Giving the German and Flemish people the right to use their mother tongue; and (v) Expanding German language education in all Belgian schools.

From these reports, it becomes clear that education served as a leverage of promoting German culture. One important aspect in enhancing and strengthening cultural ties between Germany and Belgium was language education. Firstly, and against the backdrop of a general German Flamenpolitik, the Culture Department aimed at expanding Dutch schools, particularly in the linguistically contested areas (such as Ronse) or in bilingual Brussels. This idea is already to be found in the Vortragnotiz of the OKW of January 15, 1940, which – according to Albert De Jonghe – illustrates the opinion of the party, the SS and the Abwehr, particularly in relation to the Flamenpolitik. According to that note, the linguistic laws of 1932 and 1935 had not resulted in a favorable solution for the Flemings in bilingual Brussels. The right of the head of the family to indicate or choose the child’s mother tongue had consolidated the prevalence of French in primary education. Therefore, the replacement of Francophone by young Flemish teachers was in order in bilingual municipalities.423 The same went for secondary schools. More specifically, the Vortragnotiz foresaw in the abolition of French classes in Flemish cities, such as Antwerp, where many pupils were still raised in French.424 During the occupation, particularly the aforementioned Sprachkontrolkommission was important to this end. In his work report of February 2, 1941, Reeder noted to be very pleased about the fact that, since the establishment of the commission on November 1, 1940, the number of Flemish (Dutch) classes in primary education and in kindergarten in the agglomeration of Brussels had increased from 209 to 378. Moreover, the Verwaltungsstab was pleased to announce that the same results were to be expected near the linguistic border in the (linguistically contested) cities of Ronse and Moeskroen. Furthermore, between February 1 and April 1, 1941, the Verwaltungsstab foresaw the establishment of 550

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 423 De Jonghe, Hitler en het politieke lot van België, 35-6. 424 De Jonghe, idem, 36.

! 141! additional Flemish (Dutch) classes on top of the 720 already existing ones.425 Especially during the first years of the occupation, the creation of new Flemish classes proceeded with great strides. Already in May 1941, a series of Flemish classes were established in Brussels’ schools and a great number of pupils passed on from French to Flemish classes.426 By December 1942, another 60 French classes in primary education had disappeared in the area of Brussels (Groot-Brussel) in favor of Flemish classes. From 1942 onwards, the commission was assigned to apply the linguistic law of 1932 to technical and vocational education as well.427 Yet, the impact of this Flamenpolitik in education is not to be overestimated. Already in 1941, Reeder complained about the imprecise investigations of the Sprachkontrollkommission and the special commission that was established under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education.428 In line with the Flamenpolitik, a lot of Francophone children were transferred to Flemish classes. In response to the many complaints by parents, the Military Administration was forced to transfer some of these children back to their old, French classes.429 As a result, many of its measures were undone. By the end of 1942, and compared to French classes, the number of Flemish classes in Belgian secondary schools was almost negligible: there were 987 schools providing education in Dutch, against 4899 schools providing instruction in French. Although almost all Dutch schools provided some French classes, the organization of Dutch classes in Francophone schools remained the exception, rather than the rule.430 This French ascendency in Flanders, however, did offer the advantage that particularly Francophone schools (and not Dutch schools) would be disadvantaged by the Military Administration’s plan to introduce German language courses:

“Die geplante Einführung des Deutschen als Fremdsprache an den belgischen Volksschulen wird sich hiernach keineswegs als eine Schädigung der niederländischen Sprache auswirken, sondern lediglich das erwünschte Ergebnis haben, dass die französische Sprache zurückgedrängt wird.”431 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 425 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 13, February 2, 1941, page 47. 426 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 16, May 9, 1941, page B15. 427 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 22, December 21, 1942, page B13. 428 For more details on the function of this commission, see Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 165-7. 429 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 18, December 21, 1942, page B36. 430 Tatigkeitsbericht, nr. 22, December 31, 1942, page B14. 431 Ibidem.

! 142! As discussed in the previous section, the development of German language teaching was prepared in 1940. Already in November 1940, discussions about German language courses in education started between the Gruppe Kultur and the inspector at the Ministry of Public Education, De Baere.432 These negotiations were the direct result of the – according to the Military Administration – deplorable state of German as a subject in Belgian education. More specifically, before the occupation, German language was a non-compulsory subject from the fourth year in the classical humanities. Only in the scientific humanities (Moderne Humaniora) and in technical and commercial schools it was the compulsory fourth language.433 In a note to von Falkenhausen, Werner Reese, however, argued that English as the third language in education needed to be replaced by German and was to be made compulsory.434 The secondary education section of the Ministry of Public Education investigated this possibility. By the end of 1940, the latter came to the conclusion that there were no legal stipulations against the German proposition, as long as German was introduced as the third or fourth compulsory language in education. Furthermore, the ministry argued that German was to be gradually introduced in order to give language teachers, who had been teaching English for many years, the possibility of adapting to the new situation. Additionally, English textbooks were to be gradually replaced by German ones.435 Eventually, English classes were officially replaced by German ones on January 13, 1941.436 As a result, German was made the third compulsory language from the fourth year in the scientific humanities, the third year in the classical humanities, the second year in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 432 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/23.11, ‘Enseignement de la langue allemande dans les écoles belges (1940- 1942)’, ‘Vermerk betreff Unterricht in der deutschen Sprache an belgischen Schulen’, November 18, 1940. 433 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/23.11, ‘Enseignement de la langue allemande dans les écoles belges (1940- 1942)’, ‘Nota betreffende het belang van de Duitsche taal in de Rijksmiddelbare onderwijsinstellingen alsook in die instellingen welke door de wet tot regeling van het middelbaar onderwijs beheerscht worden (Provinciale of gemeentelijke instellingen)’, undated. 434 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/23.11, ‘Enseignement de la langue allemande dans les écoles belges (1940- 1942)’, ‘Vermerk betreff Unterricht in der deutschen Sprache an belgischen Schulen’, November 18, 1940. 435 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/23.11, ‘Enseignement de la langue allemande dans les écoles belges (1940- 1942)’, ‘Nota betreffende het belang van de Duitsche taal in de Rijksmiddelbare onderwijsinstellingen alsook in die instellingen welke door de wet tot regeling van het middelbaar onderwijs beheerscht worden (Provinciale of gemeentelijke instellingen)’, undated. 436 See ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/27.11, ‘Généralités et questions divers (1940-1944)’, Circular letter by the directorate of secondary education of the Ministry of Public Education about the introduction of German as the third language in education, December 20, 1940.

! 143! general secondary education and the first year in commercial education.437 This had far- reaching consequences. Firstly, other subjects, such as drawing courses in secondary schools for girls, were abolished. Secondly, the course hours in the second language (French or Dutch) were to be reduced to a maximum of four hours to the advantage of the newly created compulsory German course hours.438 Thirdly, the introduction of German as a compulsory subject in secondary education created the need for well-trained teachers. As will be discussed in the following paragraphs, this was partly relieved by the establishment of German evening classes by lecturers of the Deutsche Akademie and so-called additional Ferienkurse.439 Next to the additional evening or vacation courses, the Culture Department aimed at introducing German as a compulsory subject in Teacher’s Colleges. Yet, the Culture Department’s aims reached further than this. In the context of its Flamenpolitik, it aimed at reducing the importance of French as a language in Flemish schools. Therefore, the introduction of German as the second language in education was being prepared in 1941.440 In a note of October 24, 1941, the Culture Department argued that since German was to be considered an international language, it needed to become the second language in education. At the same time, however, the Kulturreferenten were well aware of the delicate political character of their plan, since “die verordnungsmässige Einführung der deutschen Sprache als zweiter Sprache im gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt in der ganzen Öffentlichkeit als eine Vorwegnahme der Eintscheidung über das künftige politische Schicksal des Landes angesehen würde”.441 As the Culture Department argued, in Flanders, the introduction of German as the second language in education was “einen Kampf zwischen den Deutschfreunden einerseits, den Anhängern des belgischen Staates, welche auf die französische Sprache nicht verzichten wollen andererseits”.442 According to the Gruppe Kultur, however, the introduction of German in Walloon schools was welcomed

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 437 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/23.11, ‘Enseignement de la langue allemande dans les écoles belges (1940- 1942)’, Circular letter of the secondary education section of the Ministry of Public Education, July 18, 1941. 438 Ibidem. 439 Ibidem. 440 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 13, February 2, 1941, Page 50; ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/27.11, ‘Généralités et questions divers (1940-1944)’, Letter of Reese to von Falkenhausen about German education in Belgian schools, January 8, 1941. 441 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/23.11, ‘Enseignement de la langue allemande dans les écoles belges (1940- 1942)’, Untitled document, October 24, 1941. 442 Ibidem.

! 144! since the Walloons preferred German to Dutch. In their view, the radical introduction of German in Walloon schools would encourage the Flemish-nationalists to do the same:

“Die weitgehende Übernahme des deutschen Unterrichts in die wallonischen Schulen würde voraussichtlich bei den flämischen Nationalisten den Druck auf zwangsweise Einführung deutscher Sprache an 2. Stelle verstärken, um damit auch die ablehnenden flämischen Gemeinden in die gleiche Richtung zu zwingen.”443

By the end of 1941, the Military Administration even requested the Ministry of Public Education “ob in den oberen Klassen der Volksschulen, an denen nach den belgischen Schulgesetz Kurse in den zweiten Landessprache abgehalten werden können, statt dieser Deutsch eingeführt werden soll (...)”.444 German was also to become the second language in both private and public primary schools from the fifth year onwards. There were, however, a number of problems that popped up. Firstly, next to the delicate nature of linguistic issues in Belgium, the introduction of German as the compulsory or optional second language in education required a special decree of the Ministry of Public Education. As the Gruppe Kultur anticipated, the cooperation of the Ministry to this end was highly doubtful, since “Sprachenfragen sind in Belgien seit über 100 Jahren eine hochpolitische Angelegenheit”. Particularly in Flanders, the replacement of French by German could give the impression that the occupier aimed at ‘Germanizing’ Flanders.445 Secondly, if German was to be introduced as the compulsory second language in primary education, also secondary education and Teacher’s Colleges had to follow. Thirdly, from a pedagogical point of view, the introduction of German was problematic since “die meisten Volksschulkinder sind den damit gestellten Anforderungen nicht gewachsen”.446 Yet, in spite of all problems, a basic knowlegde of German was considered imperative in both Flemish and Walloon schools.447

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 443 Ibidem. 444 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 18, December, 21, 1941, pages B33-4. 445 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/23.11, ‘Enseignement de la langue allemande dans les écoles belges (1940- 1942)’, Note by Löffler concerning German education in Belgian schools, and particularly in primary schools, September 30, 1941. 446 Ibidem. 447 Ibidem.

! 145! Only in the German-speaking Eastern cantons, German was eventually introduced as the official, first language in education.448 After the incorporation of the German communities north of Liège into the Reich, Belgium still had about 22 German communities in the districts of and Bastogne. Popularity of the German language, however, had decreased in the years before the war, because of a systematic process of ‘Wallonisation’.449 Furthermore, the existing linguistic laws prevented the occupier from introducing German as the first language in both primary and secondary education. As many school children spoke a Luxemburg dialect at home, they insufficiently mastered the German language. Therefore, measures were undertaken to introduce German as an official language in primary education in those cities in the district of Aarlen with a German majority. The Military Administration foresaw in the creation of a German section in the state secondary school (Atheneum) in Aarlen, in order to familiarize youth with the classical German language and culture.450 Eventually, it would take until the end of 1942 for Reeder to report that the systematic reform of German language teaching in the Volksdeutschen districts in Belgium had been fully accomplished, and that the number of German classes in community primary schools had steadily increased. Furthermore, from the start of the school year 1941-1942 onwards, German classes were introduced in secondary schools and academies, as well as in the Teacher’s College of Aarlen:

“Hiernach werden von jetzt ab in den Vorbereitungsklassen und in den untersten Klassen der mittleren und höheren Schüler dieser Stadt 2 Züge geführt; der eine umfasst die Schüler, die aus Gemeinden mit deutscher Sprache stammen, der zweite nimmt die französischsprechenden Schüler auf.”451

The Military Administration’s German language policy, however, was only partly successful. Firstly, although the Gruppe Kultur had succeeded in introducing German as the first teaching language in the district of Aarlen452, the Military Administration concluded by April 1944 that pupils from the villages only frequented the German sections. Most school

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 448 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 10, October, 1940, page 23 and Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 13, February 2, 1941, page 48. 449 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 13, February 2, 1941, page 50. 450 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 16, May 5, 1941, pages B14-5. 451 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 22, December 31, 1942, pages B13. 452 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 25, November 15, 1943, page B24.

! 146! children from the cities still frequented the French sections.453 As a result, the Military Administration did not even succeed in countering the ‘Wallonisation’ of the German- speaking districts. Their policy to introduce German as the second language in education was severely compromised by the lack of well educated teachers.454 Already during the beginning of 1941, the Military Administration had negotiated the establishment of ‘completion courses’ for German language teachers with the Deutsche Akademie and the Ministry of Public Education.455 In a note of January 1941, the Culture Department stated that these courses were to be made compulsory for teachers in official schools and were to be recommended for teachers in private education.456 A first seminar, which was organized from April 5 to 12, 1941, was a success: about 90 primary school teachers and 75 secondary school teachers and professors had participated in the course. According to the Military Administration, the completion courses had the desired result:

“Sie haben dazu beigetragen, die Deutschkenntnisse der Lehrer und Lehrerinnen zu vertiefen und diese für die Verständnis Deutschen Denkens und Handelns aufnahmebereit su machen.”457

That is why the organization of a next seminar week was decided. This time, only a selection of participants would be offered the opportunity to attend a four-week summer school in Munich, and receive a scholarship of the Deutsche Akademie.458 Eventually, 35 teachers left for Munich, and another 20 secondary school teachers of German were offered the opportunity of a long-term study visit.459 Also in the summer of 1942 and fall of 1943, summer courses and long-term stays (of about four months) were organized for primary school teachers.460 In April 1942, about 26 Flemish primary teachers were sent to

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 453 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 27, April 10, 1944, page B31. 454 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 21, September 15, 1942, page B13. 455 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 15, April 7, 1941, page B23. 456 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/23.11, ‘Enseignement de la langue allemande dans les écoles belges (1940- 1942)’, Letter of Reese to von Falkenhausen about German education in Belgian schools, January 8, 1941. 457 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 16, May 9, 1941, page B15. 458 Ibidem. 459 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 17, September 22, 1941, page B29. 460 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 22, September 15, 1942, page B13; and Tätigkeitsbericht , nr. 24, August 1, 1943, page B38.

! 147! Rankenheim near Berlin to attend a three-week seminar by the German Central Institute for Education (Deutsche Zentralinstitut fur Erziehung und Unterricht).461 By 1942, the German courses were further developed by the latter institution, not only serving the purpose of completing teachers’ knowledge of German, but also to spread National Socialist ideas and ‘politically educate’ Flemish teachers.462 In order to promote these courses, von Craushaar stipulated in April 1942 that teachers from official and state subsidized private schools could participate in courses organized by German institutions, without losing their payment.463 Furthermore, the Culture Department also focused on the donation of journals, methodical and scientific contributions for Teacher’s Colleges, popular texts, German editions of classical and contemporary writers and storytellers for secondary schools, as well as donations of recordings that could be used in German language courses and the organization of book prizes for schools.464 Yet, although Reeder reported that the (cultural) exchange of books and teachers were well received, the Tätigkeitsberichte reveal that the impact of these courses on Belgian education should not be overestimated. Firstly, it is important to note that the exchange program was primarily set up for primary school teachers. Many of the teachers who had participated in these courses were assigned as teachers in Deutsche Schule, and not in the Belgian school network.465 The Tätigkeitsbericht of August 1943 even reveals that participating teachers were obliged to serve at least one year in German schools.466 Secondly, towards the final years of the occupation, retraining courses in Germany were jeopardized by the warfare and political problems within Flanders. As the work report of November 1943 suggests, the retraining course in Germany was eventually cancelled because of an insufficient number of inscriptions.467

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 461 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 20, September 15, 1942, page B23. 462 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 21, September 15, 1942, page B 13-4. 463 ADL, Archive of Mgr. Kerkhofs, nr. H ‘Adm. Dioc.’, nr. 53 D, ‘Correspondence avec des pouvoirs publics, 1939-1956’, Letter of von Craushaar to the Ministry of Public Education, April 21, 1942. 464 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/23.11, ‘Enseignement de la langue allemande dans les écoles belges (1940- 1942)’, Letter of the Gruppe Kultur to the Dienststelle des Auswärtigen Amtes about the teaching materials in German education in Belgian schools, January 20, 1942. 465 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 20, June 15, 1942, page B23. 466 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 24, August 1, 1943, page B38. 467 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 25, November 15, 1943, page B 23.

! 148! Another important aspect in breaking the pre-war cultural orientation towards France (and the replacement by “einen inneren Neuaufbau an die Unterstützung dieser Aufgabe durch unmittelbaren deutschen Einsatz”) and the power of political parties and confessional groupings in education (in order to achieve a more “einheitlichen volkspolitischen Ordnung”468), was the pursuit of an appointment policy in schools and a reform of the Belgian Ministry of Public Education.469 The report of the Culture Department of June 4, 1941, shows that particularly the supremacy of “wallonische Elemente” in the Ministry remained a continuous thorn in the German side. The passivity of certain departments was criticized and the plan to assign personalities that were friendly to the New Order was made explicit. Essentially, the Culture Department aimed at creating a Flemish prevalence in the Belgian culture administration.470 Petri and Reese noted that:

“Trotz des vielfach zörgernden und mit dem Mittel bürokratischer Verschleppung arbeitenden wallonischen Generalsekretärs Nyns konte innerhalb der massgebenden Stellen ein flämisches Übergewicht gesichert werden.”471

Furthermore, they aimed at replacing Deutschfeindliche members of staff by German-friendly officials that had expressed their willingness to cooperate with the occupier and implement the German culture policy.472 At the same time, however, Reeder noted in his work report that a far-stretching reform of the Ministry of Education would exceed the Military Administration’s authority:

“Im belgischen Schulwesen, dessen Mängel bereits wiederholt aufgezeigt würden, zeigte das hiesige Unterrichtungsministerium den dringenden Fragen einer inneren und

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 468 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/15, ‘Rapports d’activité des dr. Petri et Werner dans le domaine de la culture’, ‘Jahresbericht der Gruppe Kultur’, June 4, 1941. 469 Ibidem. 470 On May 28, 1941, the secretary-general of Internal Affairs, Gerard Romsée, established a general commission for educational matters, chaired by inspector J. Th. Strauven, which was made responsible for the appointment of municipal school teachers who were in favor of National Socialist ideas. See for instance Roels, Twintig jaar boeman, 196. 471 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/15, ‘Rapports d’activité des dr. Petri et Werner dans le domaine de la culture’, ‘Jahresbericht der Gruppe Kultur’, June 4, 1941. 472 Ibidem.

! 149! äusseren Neuordnung gegenüber auch weiterhin die gewohnte Tatenlosigkeit. Hier seitens der Militärverwaltung eine Initative zu ergreifen, würde über ihre Aufgaben hinausgehen (...)”.473

Next to the personnel policy within the Ministry, the Military Administration also sought to control youth organizations, the establishment and unification of teachers’ bonds and teacher nominations. Firstly, on July 11, 1940 a German decree was published, stating that existing youth movements had to apply for approval for their meetings with the local Feldkommandantur. Furthermore, it was stated that those youth movement leaders that neglected their duty to report to the local Feldkommandantur would be severly punished.474 Secondly, as educational responsibilities were scattered over several ministries, the Military Administration concluded that there was too much diversity in teachers’ unions.475 As a result, the Verwaltungsstab aimed not only at controlling the existing teachers’ organizations, their publications and events, it also would encourage the establishment of one general teachers’ union. In Flanders this teachers’ union would be closely tied with the VNV. In Wallonia, the Rexist Corporation Nationale de l’Education was supported.476 Although the Military Administration could report the successful establishment of two general teachers’ bonds, its impact may not be overestimated. On June 15, 1942, the Military Administration reported that, with the excecption of the Dietsche Opvoedkundige Beweging, all Flemish-nationalist associations resorted under Jeugdopleiding, which fell under the collaborating Unie van Hand- en Geestesarbeiders/Union des Travailleurs Manuels et Intellectuels (UHGA/UTMI)477. Also the aforementioned Rexist Corporation Nationale de l’Education had undergone a similar development. It is important to keep in mind, however, that both associations represented only a fraction of Belgian teachers. The majority of the Belgian

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 473 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 18, December 21, 1941, page B33. 474 ADN, Fonds Mgr. Charue, nr. A 104, ‘Guerre 1940-1945’, File ‘Autorités allemandes’, Letter of the mayor of Namur to the diocese of Namur, July 18, 1941. 475 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 17, April 7, 1941, page B22. 476 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 17, September 22, 1941, page B29-30. 477 The UGHA/UTMI was a Belgian corporation of labor unions, established by the German occupier during the Second World War. For more details, see for instance Wouter Steenhaut, ‘De Unie van Handen- en Geestesarbeiders. Een onderzoek naar het optreden van de vakbonden in de bezettingsjaren (1940-1944)’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1983).

! 150! teaching staff was affiliated to the Ligue des Enseignants Catholiques, which had never taken part in the unification program.478

Since the military government had forced the municipal councils to cease their activities, their responsibilities in relation to education needed to be transferred to other organizations. As the attitude of secretary-general Marcel Nyns was rather ‘uncertain’, the Flemish-nationalist secretary-general of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Gérard Romsée, had assumed this responsibility.479 Therefore, a commission for education was established within the Ministry of Internal Affairs that was responsible for submitting proposals for the nominations of teachers in municipal schools, according to the directives of the Military Administration.480 The nomination policy was not a success, since the number of available and suitable candidates was too limited for thte number of vacant posts. Moreover, the German nomination policy was severely compromised by some conservative exponents of the Ministry of Public Education itself. Particularly Marcel Nyns’ opposition remained a thorn in the German side.481 Generally, the contacts with secretary-general Nyns gradually deteriorated:

“Er verschleppt alle Massnahmen unter formalistischen Vorwänden, beschränkt planmässig den Einfluss und die Wirksamkeit der erneuerungswilligen flämischen Beamten des Ministeriums, schlägt für Stellenbesetzungen häufig Leute vor, die wegen ihrer politischen Haltung für die Militärverwaltung unmöglich sind und vermeidet es peinlich, auch nur die kleinste Verbesserungen und Erneuerung in den erstarrten Schulwesen durchzuführen.”482

Towards the end of the occupation the gap between the Military Administration and Nyns only widened, since the secretary-general increasingly opposed the replacement of certain officials within the Ministry, by arguing that there were not enough alternative candidates.483 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 478 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 20, June 15, 1942, page B23. 479 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 17, September 22, 1941, page B30. 480 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 18, December 21, 1941, page B35. For more details, see also Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 167. 481 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 23, April 15, 1943, page B16. 482 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 24, August 1, 1943, page B37. 483 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 27, April 10, 1944, page 32.

! 151! In conclusion, although the Culture Department drafted several reform plans, the German educational policy was implemented only to a limited extent. More specifically, its educational policy provoked protest in several circles. Next to secretary-general of Education, Marcel Nyns, who – particularly towards the later years of the occupation – revealed himself an opponent of the German educational reform plan, also the Catholic Church could not always reconcile itself with the general lines of the German cultural policy. As the previous sections show, particularly the division of the educational landscape in private and public schools and the relative independence of the Catholic Church (and private schools) were a constant source of frustration for the Military Administration. From the very beginning of the Belgian independence in 1830, the freedom of education was inscribed in the constitution. As a result, at the start of the occupation, the Church held a long tradition of educational liberty. With their educational reform policy, however, the Church’s monopoly and power in educational matters was contested. As a result, the German attempts to control education clashed with the Catholic aims to maintain its (educational) institutions.

4. Tailpiece of the German educational policy: the decrees of August 13 and November 7, 1942

On August 13, 1942, a German decree was published in the Verordnungsblatt, stating that the establishment of new schools required approval of the Militärverwaltung. All requests had to appeal to the local German administration or Kreiskommandantur and explicitly hold the nature and purpose of the school and the main reasons for its foundation. Moreover, the ordinance was also applied retrospectively to all newly founded schools since January 1, 1942, which had to apply for approval before they could reopen their doors after the summer holidays of 1942. Schools that bended this new measure were threatened with compulsory closure. This ordinance caused bad blood in Catholic circles, as it only applied to the private education network, and, thus, not to state, provincial and municipal schools.484 An internal German report of September 11, 1942 from Reeder to Dr. Löffler indeed confirms that the measure was taken with a view on restricting the development of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 484 Verordnungsblatt, 1942 (83-2), pages 1000-1

! 152! Catholic schools in Belgium485, because the unrestrained development of private school was considered undesirable486. The rapid development of private schools was in many cases the result of conflicts over the nomination of teachers between the Catholic Church and the Ministry of Public Education:

“Die Freiheit des Privaten Schulwesens hat in letzter Zeit dazu geführt, das an einigen Orten, in denen der Generalsekretär des Innenministeriums an die Gemeindeschule einen Lehrer ernannt hatte, der den katholischen Geistlichen nicht passte, von diesen mit Hilfe kirchlicher Mittel Privatschulen geschaffen und die Eltern überredet wurden, ihre Kinder aus der Gemeindeschule abzumelden und in die Privatschule zu schicken.”487

Not only had this resulted in a gradual exodus from public community schools, it also further limited the already restricted power of the Ministry of Public Education, since it could not effectively control the private educational network.488 Therefore, the Head of the Verwaltungsstab ordered the Kreiskommandanturen to only approve the establishment of new private schools sous réserve de résiliation, which allowed the military government to unilaterally terminate the procedure at all times and to protect itself against Catholic complaints.489

In spite of these measures, and although the Military Administration did report to Berlin that the ordinance of August 13, 1942 had prevented the establishment of undesirable private schools490, it soon came to the conclusion that the decree did not exclude abuses. Initially, Catholic schools tried to circumvent this restrictive measure by adding classrooms to already existing schools or by establishing small district schools.491 Also in other

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 485 CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 343, ‘Nota bevattende de samenvatting en de vertaling van stukken van de Militärverwaltung, Gruppe Kultur betreffende de toelating tot de oprichting van scholen’, September 11, 1942. 486 Tätigkeitsbericht nr. 21, September 15, 1942, page B13. 487 Ibidem. 488 Ibidem. 489. CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 343, ‘Nota bevattende de samenvatting en de vertaling van stukken van de Militärverwaltung, Gruppe Kultur betreffende de toelating tot de oprichting van scholen’, September 11, 1942. 490 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 22, December 31, 1942, page B12. 491 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 199-200.

! 153! European countries, such as Poland, clandestine schools were set up to perpetuate the training of (Catholic) elites.492 In Belgium, however, these sabotage acts were carried out in the open. As a result, the August decree was further restricted on November 7, 1942. More specifically, Catholic schools could not extend classrooms, nor make changes to the curriculum, without the approbation of the German Kreiskommandantur.493 In a memorandum to the (Ober)Kreiskommandanturen of November 7, 1942, the Militärverwaltungschef legitimized his decision by pointing to the continued establishment of Catholic schools. At the same time, the regional German authorities were ordered to prevent the development of Catholic education in cities or municipalities where an official state, provincial or communal subsidized educational system had already developed. If the local public school could cope with the ‘educational demand’ of the region, the military government saw no reason for establishing additional private schools.494 Next to this, the Militärverwaltung was unhappy about the hostile attitude of the Catholic Church towards Flemish-nationalist teachers appointed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, since it counterbalanced the German Flamenpolitik. Furthermore, Catholic pressure on parents to take their children away from official schools and enroll them in Catholic schools also worried the German Military Administration.495

5. Conclusion: balance of the German educational policy during the Second World War in Belgium

The aim of this chapter was to contribute to the political and institutional history of Catholic education during World War II, by discussing the main educational goals of the German Culture Department. In doing so, this chapter sheds light on the importance of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 492 Vošahlíková, Rochet and Weiss, ‘Schooling as a cultural interface’, 137. 493 Verordnungsblatt, 1942 (83-2), page 1086. 494. CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 346, ‘Brief van de Militärverwaltung, Gruppe Kultur aan de 'Belgische' (Ober)Feldkommandanturen bevattende een aanvulling op de verordening van 13 augustus 1942 inzake de oprichting van nieuwe scholen’, November 7, 1942. 495. CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 347, ‘Nota van de Militärverwaltung, Gruppe Kultur betreffende een noodzakelijke aanvulling op de verordening van 13 augustus 1942 inzake de oprichting van nieuwe scholen’, November 7, 1942.

! 154! education for the success of the German culture policy and the ways in which education was used as a political tool to gain acceptance of the regime and enhance a better understanding of German culture. Generally, the educational policy of the military government paralleled some aspects of the educational reform the Nazis had undertaken during the 1930s in Germany.496 For Nazi Germany, Stephen Pagaard argued that “the Nazis were dedicated proponents of the “modern” notion of curriculum integration, meaning that all subjects were gleichschalted in order to conform to the national-socialist views on nationalism and anti-Semitism”.497 Contrary to the Nazis in Germany, however, the Belgian occupier preferred the gradual introduction of the New Order cultural policy above a radical indoctrination politics and Germanizing strategy, as this would only have antagonized the Catholic people and the powerful Belgian Catholic Church. More specifically, the aim of the German Culture Department was to dismantle the liberal and democratic foundation of schooling and reorient the educational system towards the German model, for instance, by organizing educational study trips for pupils or teachers to Germany. Furthermore, it aimed at unifying (Gleichschalten) the educational system and reorient, particularly primary, schools according to the principle of the Volksschule (education for all). Secondary and higher education needed be disposed of their academism. In order to implement their policy, the German occupier pursued a nomination policy and (re-)established boards and commissions that implemented their educational plans. Although it successfully replaced some anti-German by pro-German civil servants, it was not able to completely sideline the Ministry of Education, as was the case in Germany. The balance of the German educational policy is, however, largely negative. Considering the inertia of the educational system, four years proved too short for implementing far- stretching reforms or conducting an efficient cultural policy. Unsurprisingly, in its last report of 1944, the German Culture Department concluded that its cultural policy had largely failed498, and also that its educational goals proved to be mainly unsuccessful. Firstly, its limited power over the independent private educational network mortgaged the German education project significantly. Its educational goals, as discussed in the third section of chapter one, were translated in ordinnances issued by the Ministry of Public

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 496 For the Netherlands, see for instance René Kok and Erik Somers, Nederland en de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Zwolle: Waanders, 2005). For Nazi-Germany, see Grunberger, The 12-year Reich. 497 Stephen Pagaard, ‘Teaching the Nazi Dictatorship: Focus on Youth’, The History Teacher 38 (2005), nr. 2: 192. 498 Beyen, Oorlog en Verleden, 103.

! 155! Education that had no power over private (secondary) schools. As Löffler already stated in his report of March 1941, the Catholic education network had complete power over its curriculum and had its own teachers’ association. Because of its large financial independence, the private educational network fell almost completely beyond the boundaries of state control, which equally limited the Military Administration’s power. As a result, many of the measures discussed in this chapter were never or only partly implemented in Catholic schools. Secondly, also the resistance of secretary-general for Public Education, Marcel Nyns, who, especially towards the later years of the occupation, increasingly disobeyed German orders499, undermined the German education project. Yet, generally, the implementation of the German educational policy was especially detrimental to the development of private schools in Belgium. Both the Tätigkeitsberichte and the internal reports within the Military Administration and Culture Department reveal that precisely the division of the educational landscape and the liberal foundation of the Belgian constitution formed the biggest barrier in the implementation of their policy. In 1943, for instance, Gerhardt Bennewitz, who was appointed Gebietsführer for the German divisions of the Hitlerjugend in Belgium, concluded that the education of Belgian youth largely remained “belgizistisch, klerikal und oftmals anglophil”.500 The restrictive measures on the development of private education of August and November 1942 fit in with the Culture Department’s aim to dismantle the freedom of education, as constitutionally anchored in article seventeen and reverse the Catholic character of Belgian education. It introduced a policy of precautionary control, which, however, proved too revolutionary for a country like Belgium. The very idea of a precautionary control on private education was unseen in a country that had inscribed the liberty of education in its constitution since its very independence in 1830. Both the Gleichschaltung of the Belgian educational system, in general, and, the German prohibition to establish new private schools, in particular, targeted the Roman Catholic Church right in its heart. Whereas in Germany, the unification of schools and youth movements and, with that, the dismantling of private schools by Hitler in the 1930s implied a breach of his concordat with the Holy See, the introduction of the Military Administration’s restrictive policy was the starting point of contacts with the Belgian episcopacy and negotiations over the future of private schooling in Belgium. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 499 Beyen, idem, 199-202. 500 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/25.6, ‘Ecoles libres – écoles privés de divers responsables (1942-1944)’, Letter of Gerhardt Bennewitz to Eugen Löffler about the issue of education in Belgium, January 6, 1943.

! 156! Chapter 3

Education as an Apple of Discord ... Negotiations over the future of Catholic schools between the German occupier and the archbishopric in Mechelen, 1942-1943

1. Introduction

In many Western European countries, the Roman Catholic Church maintained a strong tradition in education. In some countries, it even occupied a monopoly position in the establishment of new schools. In many ways, the training of teachers and the education of the future confessional and intellectual elites constituted their core business. The establishment of a new, ‘foreign’ regime contested its long constitutional tradition of educational liberty. Particularly after the publication of the restrictive German measure of November 7, 1942, discussed in the previous chapter, the Roman Catholic Church was forced into the defensive. As Martin Conway argued in his introductory article on political Catholicism “the experience of Fascist rule in Italy and Nazism in Germany, as well as of foreign occupation elsewhere in Europe during the Second World War, provided further occasions for Catholics to unite to defend the institutions of the Catholic faith”.501 As I have discussed in my article in the Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis502, negotiations were started between cardinal Joseph-Ernest Van Roey and his right-hand man canon Van der Elst, on the one hand, and the Military Administration led by Eggert Reeder, on the other, in November 1942. Strikingly, these negotiations have been largely neglected in past literature on Church-state relations during World War II.503 As a result, a

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 501 Conway, ‘Introduction’, 11. 502 Sarah Van Ruyskensvelde, ‘Naar een nieuwe ‘onderwijsvrede’. De onderhandelingen tussen kardinaal Van Roey en de Duitse bezetter over de toekomst van het vrij katholiek onderwijs, 1942-1943’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis XL (2010), nr. 4: 603-43. 503 See for instance Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey; Dantoing, ‘La hiérarchie catholique’: 311-30; Dantoing, La “collaboration” du cardinal; Lieve Gevers, ‘Bisschoppen en bezetting. De Kerk in de Lage Landen tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog’, Trajecta 13 (2004): 373-99; Lieve Gevers and Jan Bank eds., Religion under Siege. 1. The Roman Catholic Church in Occupied Europe (1939-1950) (Leuven/Paris: Peeters, 2007); Kempeneers, Le cardinal Van Roey; Joseph Kempeneers, Kardinaal Van Roey en ‘De Nieuwe Orde’ (Gembloux: Duculot, 1982); Leclef,

! 157! study of the cardinal’s conscious choices in his relation towards the German occupier had remained virgin territory. More specifically, literature on the relations between the Catholic Church and the German military government tend to (over)emphasize the less reserved stance and more explicit hostility of cardinal Van Roey towards the military government from July 1942 onwards.504 On the other hand, literature on the development of education during World War II tends to stress that the private (i.e. Catholic) educational network never really suffered from a restrictive German policy:

“les écoles libres auront moins à pâtir de ces dispositions. En effet, l’Èglise, pôle de pouvoir influent et relativement indépendant dans le système scolaire belge, parvient à garder le contrôle de ses institutions. L’Occupant tente d’éviter tout conflit avec ce puissant interlocuteur, domaine de l’instruction inclus. Ainsi, malgré l’insistance de certains de ses partenaires idéologiques, il n’imposera jamais l’introduction de réformes scolaires radicales qui menaceraient par trop l’autorité ecclésiastique établie.”505

In contrast, as I have documented in my article Naar een nieuwe ‘onderwijsvrede’, the Catholic education authorities increasingly felt the Military Administration breathing down their necks from 1942 onwards. In 1942, Mgr. Delmotte, bishop of the diocese of Tournai during the Second World War, for instance, noted that the unification of schools under state management, the introduction of racial education and the increased importance of physical education endangered the Catholic educational project.506 As a result, the occupier’s educational policy and the introduction of restrictive measures on the development of private schools did result in at debates over the future of the Catholic network.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kardinaal Van Roey; Fabrice Maerten, Frank Selleslagh and Mark Van Den Wijngaert, Entre la peste et le choléra. Vie et attitudes des catholiques Belges sous l’occupation (Bruxelles/Gerpinnes/Louvain-la-Neuve: CEGES/Quorum/ARCA, 1999); Etienne Verhoeyen, ‘Tussen verzet en collaboratie: katholieken onder de Duitse bezetting’, Kultuurleven 9 (1988): 787-90. 504 Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey, 52-3. 505 Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 170. 506 ADT, Archive of Mgr. Delmotte, Box B/2/2, File ‘Mgr. Delmotte, Enseignement (1942)’, Report, July 26, 1942.

! 158! 2. The Belgian Roman Catholic Church and the burden of ‘political Catholicism’

Remarkably, upon his arrival in Belgium in May 1940, Militärverwaltungschef Eggert Reeder only visited the papal respresentative, Nuncio Micara, and did not arrange a meeting with the Belgian cardinal.507 In spite of the fact that the Military Administration did realize the importance of good contacts with the Roman Catholic Church in the implementation of their policy, they were deeply suspicious of political Catholicism.508 As von Falkenhausen noted in his report on the Flamenfrage, “lag die reale politische Macht, vond wenigen kleineren Orten abgesehen, auch in Flandern durchaus in der Hand der drei grossen belgischen Staatsparteien: Katholieken, Sozialisten und Liberalen (...)”.509 The Catholic Party was particularly powerful in Flanders:

“Die [katholische] Partei beherrschte Flandern fast völlig. Die ziemlich weit forgeschrittene Entkirchlichung in den grossen Städten wurde wettgemacht durch den straffen und äussert weit durchgebildeten Apparat ihrer zahllosen Wirtschafts- und kulturpolitischen Organizationen, mit denen sie das ganse flämischen Leben durchdrang”.510

Particularly its constitutional liberties and the extensive network of congregations and Catholic schools formed the fundament of its power. In October 1940, the Military Administration reported to Berlin:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 507 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 30. 508 Political Catholicism in this chapter refers to the active involvement of Catholic individuals – in this case mainly former archbishop Ernest Van Roey and canon Van der Elst – in political matters and the use of diplomacy in the relations with civial state authorities. This differs from the definition set out by Tom Buchanan and Martin Conway, who intended political Catholicism “to describe political movements (broadly defined to encompass both political parties and a wide range of socio-economic organizations, as well as groups of intellectuals and others) which claimed a significant, though not necessarily exclusively, Catholic inspiration for their actions”. See Tom Buchanan and Martin Conway eds., Political Catholicism in Europe, 1918- 1965 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 2. 509 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/12, ‘Situation politique en Belgique – problème flamand’, ‘Politische Lage im Belgien, hier Flamenfrage’, July 31, 1940. 510 Ibidem.

! 159! “Ihre Stärke liegt vor allen Dingen in der grossen Zahl kirchlicher Organizationen, Kongregationen (...) und ihrer Einfluss auf das Erziehungswesen.”511

In sum, the Military Administration was very well aware of the power of the Catholic Church in (Flemish) society and was cautious not to antagonize the episcopacy, especially since its moral prestige and power had manifested itself already during the First World War when the German regime had been confronted with opposition of cardinal Désiré- Joseph Mercier.512 Although the Military Administration during World War II was convinced of the importance of stable relations with the Belgian Church, it did fear political Catholicism.513 Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church considered National Socialism hostile to Catholic religion and its institutions.514 Already in November 1935, the bishops had taken a firm stance against totalitarianism:

“Aussi, nous désapprouvons formellement les tendances à l’une ou l’autre forme de régime totalitaire ou dictatorial. Nous n’attendons rien de bon pour l’Eglise catholique en notre pays d’un “Etat totalitaire”, qui supprimerait nos droits constitutionnels, même s’il commençait par promettre la liberté religieuse. Nous voulons le maintien d’un sain “régime de liberté”, qui assure aux catholiques, au même titre et dans la même mesure qu’à tous les citoyens respectueux des lois et de l’ordre public, l’usage de leurs libertés et de leurs droits essentiels, avec la possibilité de les défendre et de les reconquérir par les moyens légaux s’ils venaient un jour à être menacés ou violés.”515

In their report of October 1940, the Military Administration stated that although the Church initially exercised restraint, it did aim at maintaining and securing its institutions and interests. Conversely, the Military Administration itself was cautious not to antagonize the Church because of its moral prestige and power in society. As von Falkenhausen wrote to Berlin:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 511 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 10, October, 1940, page 15. 512Annex to Dantoing, ‘La hiérarchie catholique’: 333. 513 Verhoeyen, ‘Tussen verzet en collaboratie’: 787. 514 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 8, September 3, 1940, page 4. 515 Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, In den dienst van de Kerk: leerstellige en herderlijke geschriften en toespraken (Turnhout: Brepols, 1939), 168 and published in Karel Van Isacker, Herderlijke brieven over politiek: 1830/1966 (Antwerpen: Nederlandse Boekhandel, 1968), 127.

! 160! “Sie liess sich aber im allgemeinen nicht zu Äusserungen oder Handlungen hinreissen, gegen die man hätte vorgehen können, umso weniger, als die Schaffung irgendwelcher Märtyrer unbedingt vermieden werden muss.”516

Very soon, however, the German fear of political Catholicism was confirmed. Already in 1940, difficulties arose over the workings of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals. Although the lists of anti-German books were distributed to several non- subsidized schools and dioceses, the cardinal flatly refused to officially nominate two representatives of private schools that would have been made responsible for the revision of and history textbooks. More specifically, cardinal Van Roey answered the Military Administration by pointing to the idea that:

“this commission has no point, since the role of history is to relate the facts as they happened, and that the teaching of the only acceptable moral, that of the ten commandments, cannot be mutilated or changed”.517

Presumably, apart from the nature of the commission’s assignment, also political reasons played a role in the cardinal’s decision, as he wanted to distance himself from a commission that was favorable to the New Order. More specifically, the cardinal did not want to have anything to do with collaborating personalities, such as Robert Van Roosbroeck or Jan Grauls. Possibly, some of the pre-war conflicts were still apparent, as well as the episcopacy that wanted to distance itself from freemasons, such as Paul Bonenfant, professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. Although the members of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals attempted to change the cardinal’s mind, he did not follow most of their advices.518 In addition, in April 1941, the German Military Administration blamed the cardinal for the prohibition of Catholic students to become members of nationalistic youth organizations or to read nationalistic magazines and journals.519 Since the start of the occupation and with the support of the military government, nationalistic movements, such as Rex in Wallonia or the VNV in Flanders, had been spreading propaganda in schools. According to the former private secretary of the cardinal, Edmond Leclef, they aimed at recruiting new !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 516 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 10, October, 1940, page 16. 517 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 197. 518 Leclef, idem, 199. 519 Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey, 32.

! 161! adherents, spreading their dangerous ideas in schools and – thereby – undermined the authority of teachers and school governors.520 In a circular letter of January 29, 1941, the vicar-general of the cardinal, Mgr. Everaert, reminded schools that it was forbidden for pupils to become members of groupings or movements that the archbishopric did not approve of. In a letter of April 2, 1941, the cardinal stated that wearing distinguishing marks and attending meetings or demonstrations were forbidden.521 Only three months later, the episcopal ban was repeated and it was underlined that pupils were obliged to respect the measures during the vacation period.522 Especially Eggert Reeder and Franz Thedieck did not approve of the cardinal’s prohibition. The issue was brought up during one of Thedieck’s first visits to the cardinal on June 10, 1941. The cardinal argued that he could never approve of political manifestations in churches or schools. Franz Thedieck, however, clearly had ‘misunderstood’ the cardinal, for a couple of days later, the military government announced that it had reached an agreement with the Church. Thedieck had concluded that the cardinal did not approve of active propaganda in schools, but saw nothing wrong in the membership of political organizations. Thedieck concluded that, as a result, Catholic reprisals against (young) members of New Order movements were absolutely out of question.523 Although this ‘misunderstanding’ had severe consequences for schools, Mechelen let the issue take its course, seemingly because it did not want to pressurize the relations with the occupier from the very beginning. Furthermore, Leclef’s publication suggests that he himself might have caused the whole misunderstanding. In his contribution, he notes that he had heard the cardinal giving instructions to school principals to legitimize the exclusion of pupils on disciplinary rather than ideological grounds. Therefore, he decided to ensure Dr. Thedieck that pupils would not be excluded on the mere ground of their membership of political groupings.524 Presumably, Thedieck interpreted Leclef’s rather vague statement in its most positive sense. In the meantime, Catholic measures were taken outside the official scene. Probably, the cardinal wanted to preclude a frontal attack. As Leclef argues in his contribution, “it would have been imprudent to openly attack the military government, for this could have

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 520 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 189. 521 Leclef, idem, 190. 522 Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey, 36. 523 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 190-1. 524 Leclef, idem, 191.

! 162! provoked German measures that could have been dangerous to the schools and pupils”.525 It was not until August 1, 1941, that Leclef – after consulting the cardinal – sent a letter to the Militärverwaltung with the message that the alleged agreement was grounded in a misinterpretation on behalf of Thedieck. Although the military government maintained that the Church had stated that only pupils who provoked political conflict within schools would be excluded, the archbishopric legitimized its position by pointing to the fact that the prohibition had been valid even before the war. Furthermore, in his letter to the Militärverwaltung, Van Roey claimed that the National Socialist or Flemish-nationalist youth movements (because of their political character) transcended the boundaries of episcopal control and gave cause to snitching. Hence, only Christian movements or groupings for physical education were allowed.526 Later that year, Van Roey’s refusal of requiem masses for those who supported the German regime, such as poet Raf Verhulst for instance, was equally criticized.527 The Tätigkeitsbericht of September 22, 1941 stated that although the Church refrained from explicit involvement in political matters, it did de facto influence the Belgian population.528 Furthermore, the Centrale Raad van het Katholiek Onderwijs (Central Board of Catholic Education, CRKO) repeatedly refused to participate or to cooperate in cultural collaborating organizations, such as the Vlaams Nationaal Zangverbond (Flemish-national Singing Convenant).529 As a result, particularly Catholic schools in particular became spearheads of anti-German critique because of the many whispering campaigns against the war or the Reich and the anti-German propaganda of Catholic teachers.530 Hence, the German aim to restrict private education and to control “vor allem die in Flandern reich entwickelte Katholische Aktion und das katholische Vereinswesen”531 does not come as a surprise.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 525 Leclef, idem, 189. 526 Leclef, idem, 193-4. 527 Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey, 32. 528 Cited in Boudens, idem, 41. 529 This was criticized particularly in the collaborating press. See for instance, ADL, Archive of Mgr. Kerkhofs, nr. H ‘Adm. Dioc.’, nr. 75 ‘Administration Diocesane guerre 1940-1945’, Extract from De Nationaalsocialist, December 13, 1941. 530 Tätigkeitsbericht, nr. 11, November 1940, page 8. 531 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/12, ‘Situation politique en Belgique – Problème flamand’, ‘Politische Lage im Belgien, hier Flamenfrage’, July 31, 1940.

! 163! At several occasions, the Roman Catholic Church opposed the creation of a unitary school and youth movement. Within this context, it is important to keep in mind that the plans to unify Belgian education was not a German invention, nor was the Catholic opposition against the creation of a so-called eenheidsschool (unified educational system). Already in March 1941, the CRKO published a document against the plans to unify education that had existed since a long time, but resurfaced during the war. As the document indicates, these unification plans were – at least in some cases – inspired by ‘Flemish motives’. More specifically, the CRKO argued that some societal groups considered the “denationalization work of private schools incompatible with the necessary national unity”. In that sense, the concept eenheidsschool tied in particularly well with the urge to establish a state monopoly over education. Generally, the private educational network opposed the creation of a unitary educational system, on the ground that the Church held the highest educational and parental authority. More specifically, according to the CRKO, the state only had a complementary role to play in the establishment of schools and had to protect and enhance the rights of the family.532 Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church held the same opinion about the plans to unify the youth movement. The Roman Catholic Church considered the establishment of a single unitary youth movement to be inappropriate, or even harmful, especially in the context of an authoritarian state, such as a Communist or National Socialist regime.533 One of the Church’s main issues with a unitary or general youth grouping was its proposed neutral or even anti-religious character or organization in service of the .534 In contrast, as an anonymous document in the archive of Van der Elst stated, “la structure de l’organisme n’est unitaire que par l’esprit national qui anime tous les organes et par la collaboration à des activités et des tâches communes”.535

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 532 CEGESOMA, AA 940, Report of the Centrale Raad van het Katholiek Onderwijs ‘Rond de Beweging naar de Eenheidsschool’, March, 1941. 533 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Anonymous report ‘Organization unitaire de la jeunesse en Belgique’, undated. 534 See for instance ADL, Archive of Mgr. Kerkhofs, nr. H ‘Adm. Dioc.’, Nr. 75, ‘Administration Diocesane guerre 1940-1945’, File ‘Situation des oeuvres et avenir’, Report ‘Le problème de la Jeunesse Belge’, May, 1942. 535 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Anonymous report ‘Organization unitaire de la jeunesse en Belgique’, undated.

! 164! Until the fall of 1942, the Catholic educational authorities succeeded in opposing the unification of the Belgian educational system. More specifically, the Church could easily refuse cooperation with the German occupier. Yet, particularly the publication of the German decree of November 1942, which further restricted the development of private education and, as a result, laid the foundations of a far-stretching unification of Belgian education, touched the power of the Roman Catholic Church straight in its heart. Not only did it severely complicate the development of Catholic schools, the revised ordinance of November 1942 also left no room for circumvention or protest. Hence, the Catholic Church had to alter its strategy from resistance and circumvention to negotiation and compromise.

3. The ‘Miracle Summer’ of 1942? The long process of negotiation over the future of Catholic education in Belgium

In contrast to what is often argued in the literature, it seems that the summer months of June and July 1942 formed an important turning point in the position of the archbishopric in Mechelen with regard to its relation towards the German occupier.536 Already during the end of June 1942, the Belgian archbishopric debated the foundations of its stance towards the German military government. On June 28, 1942, cardinal Van Roey’s personal advisor, canon Van der Elst wrote: “Le Cardinal ne cherche pas de conflit (...) Le Cardinal désire la paix et le calme du pays, ne cherche pas à créer l’agitation (hetze)”.537 Furthermore, in a note of July 1, 1942, the cardinal confirmed that “(l)es principes généraux qui président au gouvernement de l’église catholique excluent de l’activité ecclésiastique toute agitation politique. En conséquence S(on) E(minence) a donné son clergé des directives précises pour que les cérémonies culturelles ne puissent en aucun cas servir les fins de politique quelconques. Le Cardinal souhaite dès lors que l’autorité allemande signale aux autorités religieuses compétentes les prêtres et les œuvres catholiques qu’elle estime se livrer à une activité de nature à troubler l’ordre publique. Le Cardinal veillera à ce que les membres du

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 536 Boudens, for instance, has argued that cardinal Van Roey increasingly displayed his hostility towards the Military Administration from July 1942 onwards. See Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey, 52-3. 537 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Written note of Van der Elst ‘2e visite faite à l’archevêché’, June 28, 1942.

! 165! clergé respectent en toutes circonstances des devoirs de leurs charge."538 In return, however, the archbishop expressed his hope that the Militärverwaltung would use its power to perpetuate religious liberty, would leave the necessary religious freedom to the clergy and to the Catholic people and would guard against episcopal protest.539 The cardinal added in pencil: “MV [Militärverwaltung] veut laisser pleine liberté à l’église – mandat maintenir ordre – occupation – politique allemande. MV peut donner des ordres à ces organismes [et] donnera [l’]ordre général de ne pas attaquer l’église – éviter polémique. Que l’église évite polémiques directes – exposer positivement principes chrétiens."540 It is against this backdrop that the negotiations over the future of Catholic Education need to be seen. In the months following the amendments to the German educational decree, restricting the development of private education, negotiations over the future of Catholic education started between the archbishopric of Mechelen and the Military Administration. Interestingly, the contacts between both parties always passed through intermediaries.541 In the discussion about Van Roey’s position during World War II after the occupation, precisely the fact that he never personally met with von Falkenhausen or his civilian successor Grohé, has often been used as an argument in his defence.542 Particularly canon Van der Elst was regularly ordered to protest against unfair German measures or to demand the release of prisoners.543 On the German side, it was particularly Franz Thedieck (and after his removal from the military government in 1943, Dr. Löffler and von Craushaar) who maintained close contacts with the archbishopric in Mechelen. Remarkably, it remains unclear as to what extent the bishops of the dioceses of Bruges, Ghent, Tournai, Liège or Namur were involved in the negotiation process about the future of Catholic schools. Although the bishops were informed about Van der Elst’s advancements with the German occupier in favor of emprisoned priests or his negotiations

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 538 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Written note of Van der Elst, July 1, 1942. 539 Ibidem. 540 Ibidem. 541 Dantoing, ‘La hiérarchie catholique’: 315. 542 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 7; Kempeneers, Kardinaal Van Roey, 53. 543 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 7.

! 166! about the forced labor of seminarists544, the negotiations about the future of Catholic education were never mentioned in the internal correspondence between several dioceses.

Only a few weeks after the publication of the German measure of 1942, Van der Elst tried to persuade the Military Administration to mitigate the decree. In their conversation, which took place on November 27, 1942, the cardinal’s advisor pointed to the irreconcilability of the German ordinance with the liberty of education, a constitutional principle that, according to Van der Elst, was to be respected in times of occupation. The Verwaltungsstab, however, was not particularly impressed by these arguments. Reeder’s administration claimed that the ordinances had in fact nothing to do with the liberty of education, but were solely meant to put a check on the abuses in the name of this principle, which threatened the order and peace in some municipalities. Furthermore, the Verwaltungsstab argued that the Belgian treasury could not financially support the establishment of new, subsidized schools. Lastly, Reeder made clear to Van der Elst that the Church had to blame itself for the measure of November 1942, which would not have been published if some Catholic schools would not have tried to circumvent it.545 Although Van der Elst admitted that the freedom of education was in some ways or cases superseded, he asked Reeder’s department to mitigate its reprisals against abuses. Moreover, he argued that the population was completely free in its school choice. Again, the démarches of the cardinal’s advisor did not find any hearing. Reeder stood by his opinion that the establishment of a private school was undesirable in those municipalities where a public school already met the local educational demand, again because it could provoke school disputes.546

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 544 See for instance ADN, Fonds La Seconde Guerre Mondiale, nr. S131, ‘Enquêtes, statistiques et listes tenues par le secrétariat’, File ‘1940-1945, divers’, Communication between Van der Elst and Mgr. Charue, November 24 and 23, 1943. 545 CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 348, ‘Verslag opgesteld door de Militärverwaltung, Gruppe Kultur betreffende het bezoek van kanunnik Van der Elst in verband met de verordeningen van 13 augustus en 7 november 1942 inzake de oprichting van nieuwe scholen’, November 27, 1942; CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 347, ‘Nota van de Militärverwaltung, Gruppe Kultur betreffende het bezoek van kanunnik Van der Elst in verband met de verordeningen van 13 augustus en 7 november 1942 inzake de oprichting van nieuwe scholen’, November 27, 1942. 546 Ibidem.

! 167! Interestingly, however, Thedieck adopted another position in the conflict. In his written report to the cardinal about a meeting with Thedieck on December 1, 1942, Van der Elst claimed that the Verwaltungsstab “est fermement décidée à ne pas toucher à l’organization de l’enseigenement catholique en Belgique”. Moreover, Thedieck had assured Van der Elst that the ordinances of August and November 1942 were by no means aimed at restricting the development of Catholic education.547 Some three weeks later, during a meeting with Thedieck on December 21, 1942, Van der Elst tried to solve the issue by assuring that the Church would only aim at the Christian education of Belgian youth and would not pursue any political goals. According to Van der Elst, this guarantee was a sufficient reason for the Military Administration to abandon the German restrictions in relation to private education. Furthermore, he asked the Military Administration to content itself with a notification of the establishment of new schools with the Ministry of Public Education.548 In his view, possible problems could always be individually discussed between a representative of the Church and the Military Administration.549 After a short stop during the Christmas holidays, the negotiations between Van der Elst and Thedieck were resumed on January 9, 1943, during which Thedieck promised a quick and positive settlement of the educational issue.550 The continuation of the negotiations, however, reveals that Thedieck had gone cavalier seul. Not a week later, on January 14, 1943, Van der Elst met with Thedieck, who had to inform him that Löffler could not agree on the Church’s proposition to notify the Ministry of Public Education about the establishment of new private schools.551 An internal report from January 19, 1943, reveals that the Gruppe Kultur could not support the Church’s objections against the restrictive measures on education, primarily because it wanted to keep control over the approbation procedure. Furthermore, the Church’s promise not to pursue political goals was !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 547 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Letter of Van der Elst to the Cardinal, December 1, 1942. 548 CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 351, ‘Nota van kanunnik Van der Elst (afgevaardigde van de kardinaal) aan de Militärverwaltung betreffende de verordeningen van 13 augustus en 7 november 1942 inzake de oprichting van nieuwe scholen’, December 21, 1942. 549 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 200. 550 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Letter of Van der Elst to the Cardinal, January 9, 1943. 551 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst,Letter of Van der Elst to the Cardinal, January 14, 1943.

! 168! contradicted by the many complaints that revealed the, sometimes manifest, anti-German attitude in some Catholic schools. Moreover, the Culture Department had to conclude that ‘forbidden’ textbooks were still used in many Catholic schools and that the unlawful establishment of private schools remained common practice. Catholic priests and school boards still kept convincing parents to send their children to Catholic schools. As a result, the state increasingly subsidized schools over which it had no control.552 As by January 21, 1943, the archbishopric had not received a formal and official answer, Van der Elst telephoned Thedieck explaining him the extreme urgency of the issue. At that time, Thedieck was of course informed about the Verwaltungstab’s position and decision. That is also why he cautiously advised Van der Elst that in case Löffler would reject the Church’s proposition, he needed to re-establish contacts with the Military Administration. In his letter to the cardinal, Van der Elst confirmed his willingness to proceed negotiating, even in the event of a rejection, “car pour nous c’est une question extrêmement importante et épineuse”. Furthermore, he aimed at avoiding “un conflit et des froissements.”553 By the agency of Thedieck, who had promised Van der Elst that he would urge the military top to send a formal answer that same day, von Craushaar informed the archbishopric in Mechelen about the German decision.554 In his letter to Van der Elst, von Craushaar repeated that the German decrees did not prejudice the Church in its rights and that the financial situation of the Belgian treasury left no room for establishing new subsidized schools. Moreover, he argued that Van der Elst’s earlier propositions were unacceptable, since they would leave the control procedure to the Church itself. According to the Military Administration, only the Kreiskommandanturen were able to take into account the local circumstances in deciding upon the permission to establish new schools. Lastly, the letter reveals that the ‘incidents’ with pupils and parents involved in the New Order still did not sit well with the Military Administration, who interpreted this as a political position against Germany.555

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 552 CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 352, ‘Rapport van de Gruppe Kultur betreffende de onderhandelingen met kanunnik Van der Elst over de verordeningen van 13 augustus en 7 november 1942 inzake de oprichting van nieuwe scholen’, January 19, 1943. 553 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Letter of Van der Elst to the Cardinal, January 21, 1943. 554 Ibidem. 555 CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 353, ‘Brief van von Craushaar (Militärverwaltung, Gruppe Kultur) aan kanunnik Van der Elst betreffende de verordeningen van 13 augustus

! 169! Only a few days later, on January 23, 1943, Van der Elst informed Van Roey about Löffler’s decision. In his view, two general sections could be distinguished in the German letter, which both underline the heterogeneity of the Verwaltungsstab:

“La premiere dans laquelle j’entends l’écho des conversations que j’ai eu avec le Dr. Löffler, conversations plus réticentes que celle que j’ai eu à ce sujet également avec Thedieck, lesquelles étaient plus explicitement rassurantes, (...).”556

The second part of the German reply contained von Craushaar’s accusations about the anti-German textbooks and the ill treatment of teachers inspired by the New Order. According to Van der Elst, the German decrees aimed at pressurizing the Church. “Comment échapper à la pression?”, he wrote. In his view, there were two ways of handling the issue: the Catholic authorities could apply for an approbation and discuss every application with the military government, or it could break off all relations with Löffler and his department and “se contourner dans une attitude nette d’opposition en obligeant aussi l’autorité allemande à adopter une attitude ouvertement hostile à l’enseignement catholique [?].”557 Van der Elst was under the impression that it would be better to continue the negotiations “et essayer moyennant la garantie donnée (...) que nous ne commettons pas d’abus de la liberté pour des faits politiques d’obtenir que l’on supprime pour nous le contrôle préventif en ce sens que l’on ne nous oblige pas à introduire des demandes [au]près du Kreiskommandantur et que l’on se contente du bordereau du Ministère de l’Instruction Publique.”558 In his letter to the cardinal, the canon underlined the humiliating character of the German reply. Although he hoped the Church would obtain an exception to the German measure, he was well aware of the fact that a positive outcome of the issue could take a few more months. In the meantime, he was convinced that it would be better to “maintenir un ‘modus vivendi’ (...) qui nous permette d’atteindre la fin de la guerre avec

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! en 7 november 1942 inzake de oprichting van nieuwe scholen en de gevolgen ervan voor de vrije scholen’, January 21, 1943. 556 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Letter of Van der Elst to the Cardinal, January 23, 1943. 557 Ibidem. 558 Ibidem.

! 170! quelques pertes peut-être, mais en évitant la grande casse”.559 With this last sentence, Van der Elst alluded to the end of the war. In this respect, it is important to point to the German losses at the Eastern Front in Stalingrad at that time. This turning point in the war led many people to believe that a complete German victory was improbable. In his letter to the cardinal, Van der Elst advised that the German authorities would have to define the so-called ‘abuses’ of Catholic schools more clearly. This would force the Military Administration to make known its hidden agenda and come up with an exact definition of anti-German behavior. On the other hand, Van der Elst argued that it was still possible to break off all relations with the military authorities “en nous retirant dans l’enseignement actuel: en renonçant aux besoins aux subsides, qui nous seront restitués évidemment après la guerre.”560 Although this would have provoked German reprisals, this stance “ferait apparaître l’église comme le champion de la liberté de l’enseignement: nous aurions souffert pour elle et dès lors nous serions les défendeurs attitrés de cette liberté dans la Belgique nouvelle.”561 Van der Elst’s letter of January 1943 shows that the canon had not yet formed a clear idea about how to handle this case. He did, however, point to the extreme complexity of the situation and the different consequences this or that position could have. Van der Elst held the opinion that the Church needed to avoid compromising its position by performing – what he called – “des gestes spectaculaires”.562 Eventually, it was up to the cardinal to decide which position to take in this case. Still, this choice could have far-reaching personal consequences for Van Roey. In his note of January 23, 1943, Van der Elst advised that, in case the cardinal would opt for a breach with the military authorities, “c’est évidemment votre Éminence qui doit lancer le débat (...) avec toute l’autorité qui s’attache à sa dignité, à sa personne et à son prestige.”563 If, however, the cardinal would decide to continue the negotiations, it would be better for him to withdraw from the debate and leave that responsibility to Van der Elst. The archbishopric in Mechelen knew very well that the prestige of the cardinal had little to gain with open diplomatic relations with ‘the enemy’:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 559 Ibidem. 560 Ibidem. 561 Ibidem. 562 Ibidem. 563 Ibidem.

! 171! “À moins que votre Éminence ne jette dans le débat l’une ou l’autre idée ou principe, (...) soit dans une lettre adressée à [von] Falkenhausen, soit dans des instructions que votre Éminence me donnerai pour des négociations futures et dans une lettre qui serait la réplique de celle de von Craushaar.”564

Interestingly, precisely this attitude or policy forms the basis of the predominant image of the Church in present historical literature. Particularly Edmond Leclef’s correspondence edition conveys the impression that the cardinal only answered letters from the occupier, suggesting that it was in fact the Military Administration that took the lead in the negotiations. The confrontation of this correspondence edition with German source material and the internal correspondence between Van der Elst and Van Roey shows, however, that the Church in fact took the initiative and that the contacts (particularly with Thedieck) took place on a rather informal basis. It is quite clear that in his note to the cardinal, Van der Elst was in favor of the latter solution, since it would leave open the possibility of continuing its contacts with the occupier and attain an acceptable solution for both parties.565 Furthermore, it is safe to argue that this letter is important in evaluating the episcopal position towards the occupier. January 1943 was a pivotal moment in the relations with the Military Administration, as the letter clearly shows that the Church needed to take into account its interests on different levels. It was a permanent balancing act to secure its interests in relation to the military regime, on the one hand, and in maintaining its prestige in relation to the public opinion, on the other hand. First and foremost, the Church aimed at maintaining its institutions, such as its educational system, presumably because it was aware of the fact that it would be much harder, as canon Aubert once put it, “de remettre sur pied ce qui aura été supprimé”.566 Hence, the internal correspondence shows that negotiations with the Military Administration were also partly conducted with a view on maintaining the postwar episcopal power in educational matters. From the report of Van der Elst to Van Roey follows that, by the beginning of 1943, Mechelen did not believe in an entire victory of Germany, although it remains unclear as to what he meant with “La Belgique nouvelle”.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 564 Ibidem. 565 Ibidem. 566 Commentary of canon Aubert, Annex to Dantoing, ‘La hiérarchie catholique’: 336.

! 172! On February 3, 1943, a new meeting took place between Van der Elst and – presumably – Thedieck. Van der Elst’s report from this meeting reveals that Thedieck sided with the Church rather than with the military government. Van der Elst noted:

“[E]n me reconduisant, il m’a demandé si je n’avais pas encore soulevé de nouveau la question de l’enseignement.”567

The cardinal’s advisor had to admit, though, that the negotiations had reached a total deadlock. Thedieck, however, pointed to the fact that the Church had to do with “un département qui désire prendre une attitude à lui.” Van der Elst even sought Thedieck’s advice as to what was the best option for the Church. It was after Thedieck had assured him he needed to “répondre à cette affaire” that Van der Elst urged the cardinal to re- establish contacts in the hope of coming to an acceptable agreement.568 The future developments in the relations between the Church and the occupier clearly show that the cardinal remained close to Van der Elst’s advice. On February 8, 1943, von Falkenhausen received a letter from Mechelen, in which the violation of the constitutional freedom of education was once again denounced. The cardinal drew particular attention to the fact that the official state authorities could always intervene in the event that the establishment of new private schools would locally stir up unrest. Moreover, he underlined that the conflicts the Military Administration was so worried about, were but a mere consequence of the political nominations of the Ministry of Public Education. Besides, he argued that a few disparate conflicts could not legitimize a general prohibition on the establishment of Catholic schools. Also the German argument that the precarious financial situation of the Belgian treasury rendered undesirable the further development of private education, was disposed of. According to Van Roey, the establishment of new private schools had become a necessity because of the steady growth of the school population. In order to meet the official requirements of the inspection, classes in Catholic schools needed to be split up. Furthermore, the state subventions to Catholic schools amounted to about one million Belgian francs, which was, according to Van Roey, nothing compared to the expenses of the military government. Lastly, he concluded his letter by underlining his

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 567 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Letter of Van der Elst to the Cardinal, February 3, 1943. 568 Ibidem.

! 173! discontent about the humiliating and irritating tone of Löffler’s last letter, which he could only interpret as a frontal attack on Catholic education.569 In his correspondence edition of 1945, Edmond Leclef concludes that Reeder had to accept this strong condemnation of the German educational policy and could not do anything different than to put an end to the debate.570 The internal correspondence between Van der Elst and Van Roey, combined with the archives of the Militärverwaltung in Paris, however, tell a somewhat different story.

In an internal report of February 15, 1943, the Gruppe Kultur advocated the precedence of official over Catholic education. Therefore, every municipality was, in accordance with the educational laws, obliged to establish a state municipal school. In principle, private schools could function as a substitute if these were approved and controlled by the official government. The secretary-general of Internal Affairs, Gerard Romsée, however, declared himself incompetent to act against Catholic schools in the event that unrest would arise. He claimed only to be able to deny private schools the necessary subvention, which usually did not leave a strong impression in Catholic circles. The Military Administration knew very well that unsubsidized Catholic schools often tapped other financial sources.571 Also, Löffler complained:

“Die Eltern der betroffenen Kinder werden mit allen Mitteln bearbeitet, ihre Kinder aus der Gemeindeschulde wegzunehmen un in die neue Privatschule zu schicken. Es bilden sich zwei Parteien un der Schulkonflikt ist fertig.”572

The aforementioned ‘abuses’ were considered as a legal offence “gegen solche Auswüches der ‘Freiheit des Unterrichtswesens’” and a consequence of the political aims of the episcopacy to seize power.573 According to the Culture Department, Catholic schools had nothing to do with the mission of ensuring spiritual welfare. As a result, it was concluded !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 569 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 204. 570 Leclef, idem, 205. 571 CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 356, ‘Rapport van de Militärverwaltung, Gruppe Kultur, betreffende de standpunten van de kardinaal over de toepassing van de verordeningen van 13 augustus en 7 november 1942 inzake de oprichting van de scholen’, February 15, 1943. 572 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ 40/22.13, ‘Fondation d’écoles libres, généralités (1942-1943)’, Report of Löffler concerning the German ordinances about the expansion of schools, February 15, 1943. 573 Ibidem.

! 174! that in case the cardinal would stop applying for an approbation of Catholic schools, this would result in the suspension of all state subventions. The Culture Department, however, decided to ignore the cardinal’s harsh letter, since it was to be expected that Van der Elst would present himself to further discuss the issue.574 Interesting here is that, in spite of the harsh undertone of the cardinal’s letter, the Military Administration wanted to avoid an overt conflict with the Belgian Church. Reeder explained in a handwritten note that it would not be expedient to denounce the tone of Van Roey’s letter of February 8, 1943, which demonstrates that even the top of the Verwaltungsstab avoided a clash with the Church.575 A few days later, also Vizemilitärverwaltungschef Harry von Craushaar gave his opinion about the matter. In his view, the conflict was only to be solved by the mediation of canon Van der Elst. He advised to point the Church to the alleged German right to change the country’s constitution with a view on maintaining the order and peace. Of course, he admitted, the ordinance of November 7, 1942, was built on socio-economic reasons rather than on the maintenance of order and peace. Furthermore, he argued that approbation could be granted if the overpopulation of Catholic schools required the splitting up of classes. According to von Craushaar, the Church had no reason to believe the ordinance was geared towards the development of Catholic education in Belgium. As he would argue, the decree was also to be applied to private schools of a non-confessional nature, such as the so-called Pressenschule.576 He continued that since the publication of the ordinance of August 13, 1942, many approbations for the establishment of private schools had indeed been granted. He concluded his note with the suggestion that, in case the negotiations with Van der Elst would tighten, the Military Administration might do a last concession. More specifically, he suggested that the military government could expand the ordinance to include official schools. This tactic would offer the advantage that the Church would not feel targeted. In practice, however, von Craushaar explained, the preventive control would be

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 574 CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 356, ‘Rapport van de Militärverwaltung, Gruppe Kultur, betreffende de standpunten van de kardinaal over de toepassing van de verordeningen van 13 augustus en 7 november 1942 inzake de oprichting van de scholen’, February 15, 1943. 575 Ibidem. 576 Pressenschule were high schools lead by private individuals.

! 175! administratively (and of course without the knowledge of the Church) abolished for official schools.577 Although both Löffler and von Craushaar agreed on the inconvenience of an overt conflict with the Church, Reeder decided to disregard their advice. In a letter of February 19, 1943, to Van Roey, he informed Mechelen that the harsh tone of the cardinal’s last letter shut the door to any further dialogue. 578 Only a few days later, on February 25, 1943, the cardinal’s right-hand man presented himself in Löffler’s office with a new draft plan. Without even mentioning Reeder’s last letter, the canon proposed to bring the permission procedure under the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Education. The investigation would be performed by the Ministry, but leave the final decision to the Military Administration. Again, Löffler disapproved of this plan because, in his view, this procedure could only apply to schools that applied for state subvention and not to those financially selfsufficient, since this would leave them too much space to escape state control. Van der Elst, however, replied that the latter schools were, in his opinion and in accordance with the constitutional liberty of education, free of all state, precautionary control. 579 It would take a few weeks for Löffler to definitively wave aside Van der Elst’s proposal. In his internal note of March 16, 1943, however, he did suggest some modifications for Reeder to take into account, if he was prepared to do some concessions. Löffler argued that the permission applications for state subsidized schools could be presented to the Ministry of Public Education, which would, in its turn, pass on the application to the military government. For all non-Catholic schools, Löffler suggested the same procedure. It was only for Catholic schools that received no state subvention that the aforementioned procedure was modified. In that case,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 577 CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 358, ‘Nota van Vizemilitärverwaltungschef von Craushaar aan Militärverwaltungschef Reeder bevattende zijn standpunt inzake het dreigende conflict met de katholieke kerk als gevolg van de verordeningen van 13 augustus en 7 november 1942 inzake de oprichting van nieuwe scholen’, Febaruary 16, 1943. 578 CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 359, ‘Brief van Militärverwaltungschef Reeder aan kardinaal Van Roey betreffende de toepassing van de verordeningen van 13 augustus en 7 november 1942 inzake de oprichting van nieuwe scholen’, February 19, 1943. 579 CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 360, ‘Rapport van Loefller (Gruppe Kultur) betreffende nieuwe pogingen van kanunnik Van der Elst om te onderhandelen over de verordeningen van 13 augustus en 7 november 1942 inzake de oprichting van nieuwe scholen’, February 25, 1943.

! 176! the archbishopric needed to send the permission application straight to the military government. According to Löffler, this partly met the Church’s wishes.580 This letter was in fact the last to discuss the negotiations about education. As a result, it remains unclear as to how the negotiations ended. It is possible that the discussions remained an open-ended story, for they were compromised by the Catholic episcopal protest letter of March 15, 1943.

4. The protest letter of March 15, 1943: the episcopal negotiation strategy under pressure

From March 1943 onwards, the relations between the Verwaltungsstab and the archbishopric deteriorated. The negotiations over the future of Catholic education were overshadowed by the episcopal protest letter, in which the German decrees on forced labor and the removal of the church bells for the German war industry were contested.581 With this protest letter, the Church aimed at boosting the cardinal’s image, on the one hand, and meeting the increasing public discontent about the German harsh policy on forced labor, on the other. The correspondence attached to the records of the episcopal meetings shows that the episcopacy met on March 13, 1943, to discuss the content of the protest letter. Next to the issue of the church bells and the deportation of Belgian workers, also the future of education was discussed.582 In contrast to other episcopal meetings, however, there are no records to be found about this specific meeting, which complicates a detailed analysis of the position of the cardinal and the bishops on this matter.

Of course, reactions to this episcopal protest letter were bound to come. In his note of March 26, 1943, to the cardinal, Van der Elst described the commotion the letter had provoked in German circles. In his view, a distinction was to be made between the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 580 CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 364, ‘Nota van Loeffler (Gruppe Kultur) bevattende een advies met betrekking tot het voorstel van kanunnik Van der Elst over de toepassing van de verordeningen van 13 augustus en november 1942 inzake de oprichting van nieuwe scholen’, March 16, 1943. 581 Gevers, ‘Bisschoppen en bezetting’: 388. 582 AAM, ‘Briefwisseling bij vergaderingen van bisschoppen’, Meeting of the bishops, July 27 and 28, 1942.

! 177! moderate German circles that actually defended the reaction of the Catholic Church, on the one hand, and a harsher German line of conduct, on the other hand. These so-called moderate German milieus were convinced that the German policy would sooner or later result in a clash of this sort. Still, they could not sympathize with the overtly hostile and agressive tone of the letter, “étant donné la modération que jusqu’ici votre Éminence avait montré dans ses écrits publics et même privés (...)”583, and could not understand as to why the Church “a pu brusquement poser un acte dont elle devait prévoir qu’il briserait les bons rapports et qu’il était un camouflet donné à ceux qui à la Militärverwaltung mènent une politique d’apaisement.”584 Radical National Socialist circles, however, seized the opportunity to condemn von Falkenhausen’s pragmatic policy and used the protest letter as an excuse for Church persecution, as was already the case in Germany.585 In pro-Belgian circles, however, the protest letter was widely approved of. The condemnation had a positive effect on the cardinal’s prestige. Only in liberal circles, the mere focus of the letter on the removal of the church bells and the limited attention to other aspects of the German policy was criticized.586 As mentioned earlier, the Military Administration was not pleased with an overt attack of this sort, which, as some moderate German circles had predicted, resulted in a change of attitude within the Verwaltungsstab. In an internal report of March 26, 1943, the Head of the Culture Department communicated that the tone of the episcopal letter rendered impossible a German concession in the education debate. Initially, communication with Van der Elst ended, although Reeder foresaw that negotiations could be continued in the future.587 In spite of this harsh reaction, the Military Administration responded rather mildly to the episcopal letter, since it did not want to make martyrs out of the bishops. Still, the Catholic pillar had to face the consequences of its actions. A list with the names of anti-German

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 583 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Letter of Van der Elst to the Cardinal, March 26, 1943. 584 Ibidem. 585 Ibidem. 586 Ibidem. 587 CEGESOMA, AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen, Nr. 364, ‘Besluit van Militärverwaltungschef Reeder’, March 26, 1943.

! 178! clergymen was drafted, for instance, and the activities of all Catholic organizations were strongly reduced.588

The question arises as to how the position of the Belgian cardinal, Ernest Van Roey, and his personal advisor, canon Van der Elst, should be understood. In order to answer this question, the negotiations over education need to be put in a broader thematic, geographical and chronological perspective.

5. Negotiating educational peace. An analysis of the strategies of the Belgian archbishopric in dealing with the German occupation

5.1. The Military Administration ‘under siege’?

International literature often draws attention to the Church’s weakness towards National Socialist persecution. In relation to the Holy See, for example, some scholars argued that although the Church of Rome believed that a concordat with Hitler would create a basis for protest in the event that it would be violated589, it was in fact paralysed by it590. To a certain extent, this was also the way in which Van Roey depicted the Belgian Church. In a meeting with the secretary of King Leopold III, Count Capelle, Van Roey argued:

“Ceux qui me reprochent ma discrétion ont bien soin de s’abstenir eux-mêmes de faire quoi que ce soit, si ce ne sont des conversations à huis clos ou des tracts anonymes. D’ailleurs, à quoi serviraient de véhémentes protestations, sinon à surexciter la population à provoquer des révoltes amenant de terribles représailles? On nous admirerait peut-être à l’étranger, mais les Belges y trouveraient-ils quelque avantage? Au surplus, on exagère ce que nous pouvons obtenir. Le Saint-Père lui-même ne peut pas grand-chose.”591

Although even the Belgian Church faced major difficulties and its (educational) institutions lay under fire, I believe that it was not completely ‘paralysed’ by the occupation, precisely

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 588 Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey, 80. 589 Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope, 160. 590 Biesinger, ‘The Reich Concordat of 1933’, 142. 591 Cited in Plavsic, Le cardinal Van Roey, 107.

! 179! because Church leaders reverted to the traditional means of diplomacy as a way to secure their interests and because of the military government’s willingness to reach a modus vivendi. As the previous sections show, the future and further existence of Catholic education was an important subject in these negotiations, as it touched the Church at its very heart. The private correspondence between canon Van der Elst and the cardinal demonstrates, however, that virtually all major issues, such as forced labor, spiritual aid for forced laborers in Germany, the requisitioning of church bells, the statute of Catholic (youth) organizations or the liberation of priests, were the subject of debate or negotiation between the archbishopric and Reeder’s administration. For instance, canon Van der Elst mediated several times in favor of clergymen who were imprisoned by the Gestapo, mostly for having commented unfavorably upon the military regime. Interestingly, the canon usually turned to Militärverwaltungschef Eggert Reeder or to his assistants but never directly to the Gestapo, to demand the release of these clergymen and it was only with Reeder’s or Thedieck’s help that these prisoners were set free. It was only after long negotiations between Van der Elst, Reeder and the Gestapo that high-placed Catholics, such as Jozef Cardijn, founder of the Catholic youth organization Katholieke Arbeiders Jeugd (KAJ), or Honoré Van Waeyenbergh, former rector of the Catholic University of Leuven, were released from prison. It may be clear that Reeder’s administration had become an important interlocutor. Furthermore, the Church knew very well that the further existence of the military government was imperative in securing its interests and maintaining its institutions during, but particularly after, the war. As Van der Elst himself put it in his letter of July 5, 1942, to the cardinal, the interests of the Church partly coincided with some German concerns.592 From the very beginning of the occupation, the military government had been under constant threat of replacement by a civil administration. The role of the German Military Administration was related to the function of the Generalstab des Heeres in the Third Empire. As the power of the latter waned, the Militärverwaltung lost an important ally against the influence of other services in the occupied territory. Already in the first weeks after the Belgian invasion, its power was contested by several instances dependent on the SS, the or the state.593 As the Belgian historian Albert De Jonghe has argued, the eventual installation of a Zivilverwaltung in 1944 was preceded by a sharp battle of many

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 592 Cited in Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey, 64. 593 Teurfs, ‘Het Duits Militair Bestuur’, 128-9.

! 180! years between Hitler, the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW), the Ministries of Internal and Foreign Affairs, the NSDAP and the SS.594 Typical for the exercise of power within the Third Empire, the authority of the Military Administration was undermined and its functions even ignored by several services that were active within the occupied territory, or at least tried to obtain a firm footing. The attempts of the SS or Nazi party to gain control in the occupied territories are usually referred to with the German concept of hineinregieren or durch Einander regieren.595 As Albert De Jonghe rightly underlined, the installation of a new occupational regime was more than a mere administrative matter. More than anything else, it meant the consolidation of power.596 The American historian Werner Warmbrunn has argued that “Hitler probably intended from the outset to institute as soon as practical a civilian administration headed by a high party official on the Dutch, Norwegian and East European models.”597 Active discussion about a possible replacement by a civilian administration took place on four different occasions. Already before the Belgian capitulation, in May 1940, Himmler proposed Hitler to establish a Reichskommissariat in Belgium. In July 1940, Hitler eventually decided not to, probably because he did not want to compromise his plans for invading England, nor give the impression that Germany eventually intended to annex Belgium, which could have endangered the cooperation of Belgian government services.598 However, as Warmbrunn documents, “Rumors about the impending replacement of the Military Command floated about in Berlin and in Brussels throughout 1941 as Hitler grew increasingly disenchanted with the von Falkenhausen regime”.599 Also in October 1942 and December 1943 the possible installation of a civilian administration was discussed in Berlin.600 As the following paragraphs show, especially Reeder was involved in repelling the attacks of the SS. As Albert De Jonghe wrote:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 594 De Jonghe, Hitler en het politieke lot van België, 13. 595 Teurfs, ‘Het Duits Militaire Bestuur’, 5. 596 De Jonghe, Hitler en het politieke lot van België, 13. 597 Warmbrunn, The German Occupation, 96. 598 Ibidem. The Belgian historian Albert De Jonghe argued that Hitler particularly aimed at establishing a civil government in Flanders, which would have resulted in the division of the country. De Jonghe, Hitler en het politieke lot van België, 97. 599 De Jonghe, idem, 97-8. 600 De Jonghe, idem, 98-9.

! 181! “Reeder, enjoying great prestige in Berlin, defended his chef and intercepted all the blows for him: a well-considered tactics of the Militärverwaltungchef to keep the party and the SS outside of the conflict and of the country.”601

The idea that a possible regime change would affect the future of the Catholic Church and its institutions is mostly overlooked in current historiography. For the Church, a regime change would, in the short term, have resulted in a more direct persecution of the population and the Catholic institutions, and a more rigorous application of the German decrees, particularly those on forced labor. In the long term, the disappearance of a regime willing to negotiate the future of Catholic institutions would have endangered the maintenance of the Catholic power over education and youth movements after the war. The internal correspondence between Van der Elst and the Primate shows that the Church was well aware of the threat, and particularly of the devastating consequences its removal could have for its own position. On September 21, 1942, for instance, Van der Elst informed Thedieck “en souriant (...) que je finirais moi-même à Dachau, le jour où les autorités actuelles ne seraient plus en Belgique." He added that “Thedieck m’a répondu en souriant également: "C’est très possible, mais en attendant, nous sommes encore ici" !"602 Already in his letter to the cardinal of July 5, 1942, canon Van der Elst commented on the different attitude he discerned in German circles. Firstly, he distinguished a group of moderate Germans, who were convinced that Germany would be served best if they restricted themselves to preserving the order and peace in the country. Furthermore, Van der Elst argued that they would never aim at radically Nazifying the occupied territory, since this could provoke resistance and incidents. More importantly, this moderate stance that many German anti-Nazis and Catholics shared was the only one to allow the Church to pursue its own activities. Secondly, Van der Elst distinguished a more radical German group that aimed at radically imposing a racial ideology on the occupied nation and violently counterattacking all resistance. The latter stance was especially personified by members of the SS, who gained increasing power in Germany and were supported by several German and Belgian organizations in favor of the Nazi ideology. In the occupied territories, these radical circles had revealed themselves to be true opponents of Catholicism and its institutions. Van der Elst stated that in case this stance would prevail, a !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 601 De Jonghe, idem, 72-3. 602 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Letter of Van der Elst to the Cardinal, September 21, 1942.

! 182! reign of terror against Catholicism was to be expected: all Christian activities would be persecuted and priests would be arrested and sent to concentration camps. Fortunately, the canon ensured the cardinal that the military government in Belgium represented the moderate tendency. Still, as canon Van der Elst pointed out to the cardinal, it was unclear as to how long the military government would be able to fend off the attacks of the radical circles. Considering the Church’s politics of the lesser evil, it could only hope for a continued existence of the military government.603 In order to ‘survive’ the war, the Belgian archbishopric could actively support Reeder’s Military Administration, and eventually did so by publicly condemning the assaults of, mostly communist, resistance movements in January 1943. In a meeting with Van der Elst on January 9, 1943, Thedieck drew attention to the increasing frequency of resistance assaults and their consequences for the country, viz. the fact that the military government felt obliged to violently counteract, for example by executing hostages by a firing squad. More importantly, he pointed at the consequences for the military government, viz. Berlin’s increasing critique of their appeasement politics. In his report to the cardinal, Van der Elst noted that a previous public condemnation of the assaults by the secretaries-general had only had a limited impact in society. Therefore, and in that same letter, Van der Elst requested the cardinal to condemn the assaults, for “le Cardinal représente le Pays tout entier, Il incarne le patriotisme belge; son appui fournirait l’appoint indispensable et probablement suffisant pour écarter la terrible menace qui pèse sur le pays.”604 According to Van der Elst, “une intervention de Votre Eminence est souhaitable", particularly because "l’autorité allemande n’a pas de preuves que ces attentats sont dirigés par le gouvernement anglais ou belge; elle croit qu’ils sont en fait d’organizations communistes opérant en Belgique, de leur propre autorité et initiative."605 Yet, Van Roey initially hesitated, as a possible condemnation implied that the Church only condemned violence against the occupier and abstained from denouncing reprisals committed by the military government.606 Eventually, however, the continued existence of a moderate regime was prioritized and the pastoral letter condemning the assaults by the resistance was read in the churches on

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 603 Cited in Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey, 60-2. 604 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Letter of Van der Elst to the Cardinal, January 9, 1943. 605 Ibidem. 606 Ibidem.

! 183! January 17, 1943.607 This example suggests that the Belgian archbishop was willing to cooperate with Reeder in securing the position of the military government against attacks by the SS, as both parties could come to terms over a public condemnation of a mutual enemy, i.e. Communism. The political equilibrium, however, remained precarious, as, in the eyes of the population, the military government was the enemy. Hence, the Church alternately tried to secure its (moral) interests in both public opinion and towards the occupier. In other words, the importance for the Church to equally maintain its leading moral role in society can partly explain why all Belgian bishops raised their voices on March 15, 1943, to condemn the increasing demand of Belgian men for forced lar and the German requisitioning of church bells for war industry608, only two months after their cooperation with Reeder on the assault issue. Traditionally, this collective pastoral letter is considered a breach in the cardinal’s accommodating attitude towards the occupier.609 As Martin Conway rigthly attested, Van Roey’s “pastoral letters criticizing German policies had a considerable impact (...)”.610 Still, the following section will show that, although the letter of protest indeed compromised the negotiations, neither the Church’s nor Reeder’s political strategy fundamentally changed, and that the difference between the cardinal’s public (in the form of pastoral letters) and private (in the form of internal reports to his bishops and members of staff) position or reaction is to be taken into consideration.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 607 Van Roey, In den dienst van de Kerk, 442-5. 608 This can be concluded from the report of the conversation between Van der Elst and von Bargen on March 29, 1943. "B. (…) exprima l’avis que ce devait être plutôt le désir de répondre à l’opinion publique qui avait mené le Cardinal à exprimer son sentiment en public. Je reconnus tout de suite que c’était là également mon sentiment, mais je soulignais qu’en tant qu’évêque catholique, le Cardinal devait se considérer comme le gardien et l’interprète de la morale et qu’en conséquence il pouvait un moment donné estimer, abstraction faite de tout autre considération et quel puisse être l’effet et les réactions produites par son acte (…)". See AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Letter of Van der Elst to the Cardinal, March 29, 1943. 609 Gevers, ‘Bisschoppen en bezetting’: 389; Mark Van Den Wijngaert, ‘L’église et les catholiques sous l’occupation. L’angle belge’, in Fabrice Maerten, Frank Selleslagh and Mark Van Den Wijngaert, Entre la peste et le choléra. Vie et attitudes des catholiques Belges sous l’occupation (Bruxelles/Gerpinnes/Louvain-la-Neuve: CEGES/Quorum/ARCA, 1999), 15. 610 Conway, ‘Belgium’, 206.

! 184! 5.2. Belgian Church policy between tradition and renewal

The contestation of the Church’s institutes by a foreign, German occupational regime was not ‘unique’, in the sense that (i) other national churches were confronted with similar problems, and (ii) the Belgian Catholic Church had already experienced a similar German occupation during the First World War. The question arises as to what extent the Belgian cardinal explicitly or implicitly drew upon foreign examples or his predecessor’s policy during World War I.

Generally, the cardinal’s public discourse is punctuated with ambiguity about the relation between Catholicism, the Church and National Socialism. At several occasions, he drew attention to the irreconcilability of Catholicism and National Socialism. In an undated note, for instance, Van Roey noted that everything that has the look of an autocratic regime would be rejected.611 On the other hand, he also noted that the Church could easily adapt to foreign regimes, as long as the Church’s liberties were respected. Within this context, it is especially interesting that Van Roey referred to the situation of Catholic institutions in other countries or the policy of other national churches. For instance, in his speech of July 19, 1941, he argued:

“Il y a des régimes qui respectent complètement la liberté religieuse, les lois de la conscience et les droits de l’Eglise, et il y en a autres qui sont moins favorables, bien que tolérables. (…) L’Italie, le Portugal, l’Allemagne ont des régimes autoritaires, mais il y a entre ceux-ci une différence énorme au point de vue catholique. La Belgique, la Hollande, la France, connaissent des régimes que l’Eglise accepte: mais il faut dire qu’il y a une différence considérable quant au profit qu’elle peut en tirer pour le bien des âmes."612

Still, the cardinal’s later writings suggest that, although Van Roey apparently could not reconcile Christian fate with the authoritarian regimes in Germany or Italy, he did not agree with overt public protest. In this respect, a particularly interesting passage is his !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 611 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Scholen’, nr. 12 ‘Interne werking’, nr. 1 ‘Scholen Algemeen’, File ‘Varia documenten sine dato’, Anonymous note, undated. 612 Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, ‘Considération de la foi sur les événements actuels’, Conférence donnée le 19 juillet 1941, à Wavre-Notre-Dame, aux Journées d’études nationales de la Jeunesse Indépendante Catholique Féminine (J.I.C.F.)’, in Au service de l’église: écrits et allocations de doctrine et d’action pastorale/In den dienst van de Kerk: leerstellige en herderlijke geschriften en toespraken, Joseph-Ernest Van Roey (Turnhout: Brepols, 1946), 199.

! 185! speech on the workshop of ‘L’Oeuvre générale des Catéchismes’ in Brussels on November 25, 1941, in which he argued:

“Première hypothèse: victoire complète de l’Allemagne et application à notre pays du régime national-socialiste. Pour en mesurer les conséquences religieuses, regardez ce qui se passe dans le Reich: d’après un document irrécusable – la lettre collective des Evêques allemands du 26 juin dernier – l’enseignement de la doctrine chrétienne est proscrit de toutes les écoles, les feuilles religieuses sont supprimées, il s’agit en ce moment, disent-ils, de l’existence ou de la non-existence du christianisme et de l’Eglise dans leur pays, et on veut forcer les catholiques à choisir entre le Christ et le peuple allemand."613

The cardinal not only drew attention to the state of Catholic social institutions and education in Germany, but also implicitly referred to the negative consequences of the collective protest letter of the German bishops on June 26, 1941, which criticized Nazi euthanasia killings.614 In his pastoral letters and speeches, however, the cardinal does touch upon more ‘positive’ foreign examples, such as the Austrian Church’s concordat in 1938, in which the Church’s rights in relation to education were ensured. From this, Van Roey concluded that:

“(L)’église n’a donc pas seulement le mandat de célébrer la messe, d’administrer les sacrements et d’assurer la prédication de la parole de Dieu, mais elle a, avec les parents, la mission de l’éducation de la jeunesse. Elle peut et doit défendre la foi et la morale contre tout propagande hostile."615

A very similar approach or stance is to be found in the archbishop’s private discourse. Elucidating in this respect is Van der Elst’s meeting with the representative of the German Foreign Office, von Bargen, on March 29, 1943, to discuss the breach with Reeder’s

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 613 Van Roey, In den dienst van de Kerk, 279. 614 See Henry Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the (Chapel Hill/London: The North Carolina University Press, 1995), 114. 615 Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, ‘Considération de la foi sur les événements actuels’, Conférence donnée le 19 juillet 1941, à Wavre-Notre-Dame, aux Journées d’études nationales de la Jeunesse Indépendante Catholique Féminine (J.I.C.F.)’, in Au service de l’église: écrits et allocutions de doctrine et d’action pastorale/In den dienst van de Kerk: leerstellige en herderlijke geschriften en toespraken, Joseph-Ernest Van Roey (Turnhout: Brepols, 1946), 202.

! 186! Military Administration as a result of the collective pastoral letter of March 15, 1943. During this meeting, Van der Elst defended the cardinal’s decision, mainly by pointing to the distinction between the Belgian and Dutch policies:

“(…) les actes du Cardinal jusqu’ici ont montré qu’il poursuivait une politique conservatrice, en ce sens que sa préoccupation constante a été de se tenir régulièrement sur le terrain religieux, de façon à protéger la vie religieuse et les œuvres qui la maintiennent contre tout attaque de la part des autorités allemandes. Toutes ses instructions sont dans ce sens et rien ne prouve que par sa lettre récente il ait voulu changer l’orientation de sa politique religieuse. A ce point de vue son attitude se distingue dans une certaine mesure de celle des évêques hollandais."616

With this last sentence, the canon explicitly distinguished the Belgian conservative policy from the Dutch “expressive policy with public protests against the oppressor and stringent moral appeals to the faithful”.617

Yet again, both the cardinal and his advisor sought to heal the breach with Reeder after the pastoral letter of March 1943. On April 12, 1943, Van der Elst met with von Bargen to discuss the difficulty of the situation. Eventually, it was von Bargen who suggested the Church to condemn the Allied bombardments that distressed large parts of Belgium at that time, in order to re-establish good relations with Reeder’s Military Administration. However, in comparison with the aforementioned condemnation of Communist assaults, the Allied resistance against Germany could not be denounced as explicitly. Interesting is that, in this case, it was von Bargen who drew upon foreign examples, by suggesting a letter of condolences to the mayor of Antwerp, in which Van Roey expressed his regret towards and compassion with the victims of the Allied bombardment of Mortsel, as Pope Pius XII had done in response to the Allied bombardments on Syracuse.618 On April 5, 1943, the United States Air Force had aimed at bombarding the German Erla factory. Due to heavy resistance of German bombers, however, the bombardment claimed nearly a thousand civilian lives. As was suggested by von Bargen, an implicit condemnation would

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 616 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Letter of Van der Elst to the Cardinal, March 29, 1943. 617 Gevers, ‘Catholicism in the Low Countries’, 238. 618 Unfortunately, the condolence letter is not incorporated in the Actes et documents du Saint Siège.

! 187! leave open the possibility for Reeder’s administration to resume contacts with the archbishopric.619 In his report to the cardinal, Van der Elst argued that a letter of condolences could indeed alleviate the tense relations with Reeder’s administration “parce qu'elle serait un fait nouveau qui permettrait au Président Reeder de reprendre avec nous des conversations sur les questions actuellement en litige. Ces conversations donneraient l'occasion d'endiguer les maux que nous subissons déjà".620 The letter of condolences, however, would not remain the only overt, though implicit, condemnation of the Allied resistance. On May 15, 1944, the cardinal would, again, but not with the same intention of alleviating tense relations with Reeder’s administration, denounce the Allied air bombardments. Particularly interesting here is that the cardinal explicitly made a connection with Mercier’s position during World War I. In his pastoral letter he explicitly states:

“Primat de Belgique, successeur du Cardinal Mercier d’illustre mémoire, je me suis efforcé depuis quatre ans, dans la mesure de mes moyens, de remplir comme lui, mon devoir envers ma patrie meurtrie. J’ai élevé la voix quand il l’a fallu. Aujourd’hui également, il doit m’être permis de dire la vérité en toute franchise et loyauté."621

The connection made here between Van Roey’s discourse (implicitly) directed against the Allied Forces and Mercier’s discourse, which was particularly directed against the German occupation during World War I, is remarkable, especially because the memory of the First World War is never explicitly touched upon in the correspondence with Van der Elst. As a result, there is no clear evidence that Mercier’s policy served as an example for Van Roey, or his advisor Van der Elst, for that matter. As Plasvic already noted, both cardinals had different characters and opinions.622 The Tätigkeitsberichte show that the Military Administration knew very well that Van Roey was by no means a second Mercier and that he had a very different temperament, attitude and vision.623

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 619 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Letter of Van der Elst to the Cardinal, April 12, 1943. 620 Ibidem. 621 Van Roey, In den dienst van de Kerk, vol 6, 118. 622 Plavsic, Le cardinal Van Roey, 216. 623 Cited in Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey, 31.

! 188! It was only during the later years of the occupation and immediately after the war that Mercier’s legacy is touched upon in Van Roey's Letters of Credence, with the particular intention of legitimizing the Catholic Church’s stance towards the occupier during the Second World War. Particularly after the liberation, the cardinal’s speeches were punctuated with references to his ‘illustrious’ predecessor Mercier, stating that he had continued his wartime policy, but had modified it to the specific circumstances. On a workshop of the Jeunesse Indépendente Catholique Féminine, in September 1945, the cardinal argued:

“Pendant la guerre mondiale 1914-1918, c’est comme vous le savez, le Cardinal Mercier, d’illustre mémoire, appuyé par tous les Evêques belges, qui opposa à l’envahisseur une résistance publique et opiniâtre. (…) Dans cette guerre-ci, dès le commencement, nous avons pris aussi une attitude nette et claire, attitude qui fut la même que celle de notre glorieux prédécesseur, mais adaptée aux nouvelles circonstances, bien différentes de celles d’alors. Pour adopter cette conduite, les considérations suivantes nous semblèrent décisives. D’abord, l’évidence même de l’injustice commise par l’Allemagne vers notre pays, en l’envahissant une seconde fois et en l’occupant de la façon la plus tyrannique. (…) De plus, comme Evêques catholiques, nous vîmes immédiatement le danger auquel était exposé l’Eglise de Belgique. (…) Pour ces motifs, dès l’abord, il fut évident qu’il fallait prendre une attitude d’opposition ; car, quelle que fût l’issue de la lutte gigantesque qui s’annonçait, il ne servirait à rien d’user de compromis avec l’envahisseur ; on allait en tout cas au-devant d’une persécution religieuse. La seule attitude indiquée était la résistance sans concessions. C’est la ligne de conduite que nous avons suivie."624

This is another illustration of the difficulties involved in using pastoral protest letters, which aimed at legitimizing the position of the cardinal and underlining the Church’s moral prestige to the public, in explaining the diplomatic strategies of Church leaders in their contacts with the German military government during the Second World War.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 624 Van Roey, In den dienst van de Kerk, 214-6.

! 189! 6. Conclusion: balance of the Catholic negotiation strategy during World War II in Belgium

This third chapter discussed the relations between the Catholic Church and the occupier. In line with Martin Conway’s argument, this chapter has shown that “as during the first German Occupation of 1914-1918, the Church emerged as a prominent institution in wartime Belgium.”625 In contrast to the existing literature on the subject, however, I have put strong emphasis on the aspect of negotiation. Although the relation between Catholicism and National Socialism (or Fascism) has been widely debated, more attention should be drawn to the dynamics of the interactions and the peace-making process. Both from a national and international point of view, the literature on the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church during World War II is dominated by a rather ‘traditional’ resistance-collaboration perspective, and remains rather polarized. In Belgium, the subject is approached rather cautiously. In his important contribution, Alain Dantoing speaks about La “collaboration” du cardinal, which refers to the politics of the lesser evil.626 The reason behind this circumspection is the pejorative connotation of the very concept of collaboration. Whereas before 1940, collaboration referred to cooperation, after World War II it became directly and more closely tied to treason, taking advantage of a hostile occupation or at least the suspicion of a compromise with the occupying authorities.627 The question arises whether this predominant image of an accommodating Church holds true in this discussion on the negotiations over education. In his attempt to understand the attitude of French intellectuals, and more specifically that of Jean-Paul Sartre, during the German occupation of France, the American historian Jonathan Judaken introduced the concept of the C-Curve. This curve encompasses a spectrum of eleven, what he defines as, types of action: commitment (in the sense of organized resistance, but also of active opposition), connivance against the enemy, circumspection of the Germans and their institutions, cohabitation, concessions, compromise, compliance, complicity, conviction, collaboration and .628

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 625 Conway, ‘Belgium’, 206. 626 Dantoing, La “collaboration” du cardinal, 317. 627 Philippe Burrin, La France à l’heure allemande (Paris: Seuil, 1995), 9. 628 Jonathan Judaken, Jean-Paul Sartre and the Jewish Question. Anti- and the Politics of the French Intellectual (Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2007), 311.

! 190! Judaken argues that the attitude of French intellectuals depended on so-called turning points during the war and the “particularities of different options in different situations”.629 To a certain extent, this model is also applicable to the attitude of the Belgian archbishopric in the sense that the publication of the German decree of November 1942 can be considered a turning point after which the cardinal’s attitude moved from resistance/circumspection to concession and compromise. The question arises, however, if this model really helps us to gain a better understanding of the reasons behind that choice or position.630 Although Judaken’s model enables us to determine the attitude of the Church more accurately, the second chapter suggests that the attitude of the cardinal and his entourage did not shift in a linear way from resistance to compromise (and back). This already suggests that the explanatory power of Judaken’s idea of ‘turning points’ is rather limited. In that respect, the episcopal ‘choices on the C-Curve’ were determined by factors that transcend the war context. Firstly, the continued battle between modernity and tradition and the view of the Church about its future are to be considered important elements in the explanation of its attitude.631 Many Catholic intellectuals were averse to the pre-war liberal parliamentary democracy and the growing power of the state. As Marnix Beyen argued, “the merciless imposition of processes such as massification, democratisation, internationalisation and industrialisation – in short societal modernisation – had, already in the nineteenth century, called into being a Catholic reversion to an ideal past”.632 Cooperation with or sympathy for (certain aspects of) National Socialism could thus be based on the idea that the new regime could break down this pre-war liberal constellation and enable the re-establishment of the Occident.633 As Martin Conway notes, “the rapid and seemingly irreversible German military victory in the summer of 1940 obliged Catholics in the Low Countries and France to adapt to the new political situation”. Their actions were based on the double premise that (i) the war was at an end, and (ii) the National Socialist regime would grant a certain political freedom to the occupied !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 629 Judaken, idem, 311-2. 630 See also Marnix Beyen, ‘Van Brunclair tot Peleman: cultureel onderhandelen in bezettingstijd’, in Verbrande schrijvers: culturele collaboratie in Vlaanderen (1933-1953), eds. Lukas De Vos, Yves T’Sjoen and Ludo Stynen (Gent: Academia Press, 2009), 21-38. 631 Beyen, ‘Weerbarstige collaboratie’, 68. 632 Marnix Beyen, ‘Nostalgie naar een nieuwe tijd: de Tweede Wereldoorlog en de roep van de traditie: België en Nederland, 1940-1945’, Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire/Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Filologie en Geschiedenis 79 (2001): 467. 633 Beyen, ‘Weerbarstige collaboratie’, 85.

! 191! territories. Very soon, their hopes swung into disappointment and Catholics increasingly retreated from participation in the efforts to construct a New Order.634 In that sense, National Socialism was not the ultimate goal, but rather the vehicle to get rid of the pre- war liberal society. This can also partly explain the ambiguous attitude of the cardinal in relation to the departure of the government, and at the same time, his attachment to a Belgian (authoritarian) state under the rule of King Leopold III.635 Still, the Church’s negotiation politics was mainly determined by a certain expediency, since it feared for the future of its institutions after the war. As Martin Conway has argued for the papal concordats with both Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany, the main goal of these negotiations was to maintain the independence of its network of institutions:

“The concordats concluded with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were, for example, notable for their lack of attention to the protection of the political freedoms of the Catholics of Italy and Germany. Instead, it was the interests of the Church and more especially those of the Papacy, which they sought to protect. The superficial political neutrality represented by the concordat policy was therefore largely illusory. Though the concordats were in part no more than an overdue settlement of the relations between Church and State, they also served the Papacy’s quest for a more centralized and authoritarian Catholic Church able to act largely independently of state interference.”636

In Belgium too, political parties and societal groups that aimed at a far-reaching secularization increasingly contested the 20th century Catholic educational monopoly. The Church feared that the limitation or even abolition of its educational liberties and rights during the German occupation would be ‘capitalized upon’ by the state after the war. Unsurprinsingly, the archbishopric strictly held on to the democratic principles of freedom of education, which it considered reconcilable with the authoritarian state.637 The fact that it took the lead in the negotiations at several points suggests that there was more at stake than the mere maintenance of its educational system. During the 19th and 20th century, the freedom of education had become an important tool in its position or in the negotiations !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 634 Conway, ‘Introduction’, 26. 635 Dantoing, La “collaboration” du cardinal, 314-5. 636 Conway, ‘Introduction’, 17. 637 The same consideration can be found in an undated note of Mgr. Delmotte, bishop of Tournai during the Second World War. ADT, Archive of Mgr. Delmotte, Box B/2/2, File ‘Correspondance et dossiers divers, 1940-1944’, Note, undated.

! 192! with the state. The potential loss of its power conflicted with its aspirations to appoint itself as a defender of the motherland and freedom (of education) after the war, as becomes clear from Van der Elst’s note to the cardinal of January 23, 1943. In order to secure its interests, the archbishopric had no other option than to negotiate with the occupier. This principal willingness to negotiate with the German Military Administration underlines its strong attachment to an independent private educational network, rather than its attachment to National Socialism. In my view, the suggestions that the Catholic Church would have wanted an authoritarian educational system, organized within a Catholic framework638, does not hold true for the Belgian case. On the contrary, as Martin Conway rightly pointed out, particularly Van Roey “made defence of this separate Catholic educational system as a central element of his strategy for the protection of the faithful (...)”.639 Although it did not exclude a possible modus vivendi with the German occupier, the analysis of the first two chapters may illustrate that a far-reaching interference of the military government in Church matters was considered highly problematic, precisely because this would have compromised its position in socio-cultural matters.640 In case the Church would have left the organization of education to the (dictatorial) state, it would not only have lost its authority over education, but also one of the foundations of its relations with the state. As Conway has argued, “as the war progressed, there was a substantial evolution in Catholic political attitudes away from the authoritarian projects of the 1930s and towards a vision of a new, more democratic, political and social order”.641 By the middle of 1942, it became increasingly clear that the archbishop held on to constitutional, democratic principles. At the same time, however, Mechelen did bear in mind a possible compromise peace between England and Germany, as attested by the meeting of the bishops of July 27 and 28, 1942:

“Devant les graves problèmes de l’après-guerre, il importe que tous les évêques aient la même attitude. (…) Pour les écoles, il faut absolument maintenir la liberté à tous les

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 638 Dirk Verhofstadt, Pius XII en de vernieting van de Joden (Antwerpen/Amsterdam: Houtekiet, 2008), 108. 639 Conway, ‘Introduction’, 212. 640 Fabrice Maerten, ‘Le clergé du diocèse de Tournai face à l’occupation, la voie étroite’, in Entre la peste et le choléra. Vie et attitudes des catholiques Belges sous l’occupation, eds. Fabrice Maerten, Frank Selleslagh and Mark Van Den Wijngaert (Bruxelles/Gerpinnes/Louvain-la-Neuve: Ceges/Quorum/ARCA, 1999), 131. 641 Conway, ‘Belgium’, 206.

! 193! degrés, (…), même avec de prétendues garanties. Il faut exiger les subsides nécessaires. (…) Si nous vivons sous un régime autoritaire, les seules garanties possibles sont les garanties constitutionnelles.”642

Although all bishops were present at this meeting, it is not clear as to what their opinion on the matter was. Van Roey did urge his colleagues to take a similar position on this matter.643 Since no one protested, it may be concluded that they all supported Van Roey’s position. Furthermore, it seems that the position of the Church was influenced by the interactions themselves. Although the negotiations took place between two parties, they were essentially multidimensional. In that respect, it is important to keep in mind that the archbishopric not only had to secure its interests towards the occupier, but also had to take into account its position in public opinion. On the part of the Militärverwaltung, it had to take into consideration the demands of Berlin, the presence and position of the secretaries- general and the public opinion. The Military Administration had to continuously seek a balance between keeping the collaborating groupings within Belgian society and Berlin happy, on the one hand, and maintaining its credibility with the mostly non-collaboration minded population, on the other. For the Church, the maintenance of this, often precarious, equilibrium would remain a concern throughout the war, which can explain why cardinal Van Roey denounced the Military Administration’s policy on forced labor only two months after explicitly cooperating with it in the context of the issue of communist assaults. Maintaining its moral status within society was of extreme importance to the Church, especially in light of its aspirations after the war. As Van der Elst put it in his letter of July 5, 1942, to the cardinal, the Church would have to take into account national and political institutions, as well as Christian morals and Catholic institutions. Furthermore, the German interests, economic needs, the national dignity and livelihood needed to be reconciled.644 Consequently, institutions are subject to dynamic processes, which supersede the mere war context. Remarkably, the negotiations and cooperation between Mechelen and the Military Administration were at their peak between January and March 1943. At that time, however, the National Socialist regime was on its way down as a result of the successes of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 642 AAM, ‘Processen-verbaal van de vergaderingen van de bisschoppen’, Meeting of the bishops, July 27 and 28, 1942. 643 Ibidem. 644 Cited in Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey, 63.

! 194! the Red Army at the Eastern Front. For many people, it became increasingly clear that Berlin would not (or at least not entirely) win the war. The Belgian Catholics feared Communism just as much as they did National Socialism, which checked the progress of the Red Danger to an increasing lesser degree. Due to the communists’ important role in the resistance, the Catholic Church anticipated their growing political importance after the war, which presumably forms one of the reasons as to why a public protest remained forthcoming. Chapters two and three show that both the Military Administration (and more specifically the Culture Department) and the archbishopric wanted to avoid an overt conflict. Not only did the Military Administration realize that a relative peace with the Church was necessary in maintaining the order and peace in the country, it also found a willing partner in Van Roey’s administration to defend itself against the increasing attacks of the National Socialist Party and the SS. Conversely, Van der Elst knew very well that an overt protest against the military government would possibly have resulted in a more radical persecution of Catholic institutions. The Belgian cardinal and his advisor felt they could cooperate with this military government, as the latter (i) expressed the will to conclude upon a modus vivendi with the Church over education, the Catholic Action and the like, and (ii) repeatedly expressed their ‘moderating intentions’, which lay at the basis of their so-called appeasement politics. Although the disillusion with the prewar parliamentary democracy and the Catholic fear of Bolshevism are important in this explanation, the Church’s readiness to negotiate with the occupier cannot solely be sought in the Catholic fear of Bolshevism. On March 29, 1943, canon Van der Elst explained to von Bargen that “la meilleure façon pour nous de nous prémunir contre le bolchévisme c’est de nous replier sur nous-mêmes et de nous efforcer de former une nation solide, écarter le bolchevisme par la guerre nous n’en sommes pas capables; la question ne se pose pas pour nous”.645 This illustrates that the Belgian Church did not support the German occupier only because National Socialism fought Communism. Rather, I have argued that the aforementioned ‘moderating’ stance of the military government is central to understanding the reasons behind Van Roey’s strategy. In the short term, the disappearance of the military government would probably have resulted in (i) a more direct persecution of the Catholic population and institutions, and (ii) a more rigorous application of the German measures,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 645 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Letter of Van der Elst to Van Roey, March 29, 1943.

! 195! in particular regarding forced labor. In conclusion, the Church’s main concerns were, in the short term, the protection of the population against a harder and more repressive regime and, in the long term, the maintenance of the Catholic power over education or youth movements, for instance, in the after-war period.

This ‘dynamics’ is further confirmed by the fact that the negotiations did not occur between monolithic blocs.646 Although the negotiation strategy and politics of the archbishop and his advisor were not founded on ideological grounds, there was a significant ideological affinity with certain members of the Militärverwaltung647, and especially with Franz Thedieck, who presumably supported the independence of the private educational network. Conversely, also Van der Elst seems to have had a different opinion on the implications of the cooperation with the occupier than the cardinal. More specifically, the analysis of the internal notes between Van der Elst and the cardinal does suggest that the latter’s belief in a modus vivendi with the Military Administration steadily crumbled. There are clear indications that the cardinal wished to retreat from the contacts with the Culture Department after April 19, 1943. Interestingly, this decision drove a wedge between Van Roey and his right-hand man, who regretted the Van Roey’s change of direction, as he feared that the German concessions would be reversed. In addition, he was convinced that, at the time, the cardinal was the only authority in Belgium “qui puisse éviter que le régime des secrétaires généraux ne saute. Votre Eminence a refusé de le sauver et m’a interdit de le faire à sa place”.648 Again, the fear for the installation of a Zivilverwaltung, or civil regime, is essential here.649 The maintenance of a military government was of prime importance in maintaining the necessary space to manoeuvre, which was not possible under a civil regime.650 It was precisely the heterogeneity of both power blocs that made partial rejection and support to go hand in hand during the negotiations that were conducted with the intention of reaching a compromise. ! As discussed in the second chapter, the German occupation signified a true danger for its power in social and cultural matters, but was by no means an abrupt breach with the past.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 646 Beyen, ‘Weerbarstige collaboratie’, 68. 647 Beyen, idem, 85. 648 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Letter of Van der Elst to Van Roey, May 10, 1943. 649 Dantoing, ‘La hiérarchie catholique’: 317. 650 Gevers, ‘Bisschoppen en bezetting’: 396.

! 196! It was not the first time (and it would certainly not be the last) that the episcopal and state educational interests would clash. Compared to National Socialism, Socialism, Communism or all aimed at a secular and pluralistic school, and, as a result, endangered Catholic interests in a similar way. The cardinal’s statement that the Church, in principle, could adapt to every regime651 shows that the nature of the regime was not of prime importance. For the greater part of the episcopacy, cooperation with the occupier was only justified “dans la mesure prescrite ou autorisée par la loi moral et par les conventions internationales, c’est-à-dire, dans la mesure où la collaboration est ordonnée principalement au bien public de la patrie ainsi qu’aux besoins de la population”.652 For Van der Elst, a modus vivendi was only justified by the fact the Church was confronted with “un adversaire qui veut en toutes choses arriver a ses fins et qui, grâce à la force dont il dispose est capable de les réaliser”. This stance was the only way to “réduire les prétentions de l’ennemi, de retarder leur réalisation, de limiter le mal, en influençant par certains moyens, en usant de procédés divers pour maintenir dans toute la mesure du possible nos avantages et nos droits”. In short, the Church mainly kept the maintenance of its own power position in mind. It ruled out overt protest, since this would have resulted in ‘confusion’, of which only “les éléments pernicieux tireront profit: l’anticléricalisme naîtra et le communisme surgira comme en France”.653 This does not only demonstrate the Church’s dedication to preserve Catholicism, but also underlines how its fear for Communism constituted a factor in its negotiation strategy with the German occupier during the Second World War.

Importantly, the moral prestige and authority of the cardinal in society was never to be compromised by contacts with the ‘enemy’. That is why Van der Elst suggested in his letter of January 23, 1943, that the eventual decision about the continuation or breach of the contacts with the Culture Department was in the cardinal’s hands. As the third chapter documents, the church leaders seized the removal of the church bells and the increasing demand of forced laborers to articulate its discontent with the German policy.654

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 651 Dantoing, La “collaboration” du cardinal, 316; Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey, 19. 652 Maerten, ‘Le clergé du diocèse de Tournai’, 135. 653 AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, Box Canon Van der Elst, Letter of Van der Elst to Van Roey, May 10, 1943. 654 Gevers, ‘Bisschoppen en bezetting’: 388.

! 197! In conclusion, by focusing on both the Culture Department’s educational aims and the reaction of the pre-war educational authorities, this part sheds light on the ways in which institutions interact and respond to external pressure, and the ways in which (at least for the Church) negotiations were used as a strategy to preserve the status quo. In short, by focusing on the development of educational policy and peace making, this first part underlines both the dependence of education on, and its resilience against changing political processes. This part does not, however, answer the question as to the ways in which the German educational policy was translated on the local level and how the German aims to ideologically control education interacted with the aspirations and beliefs of Catholic school boards, teachers, pupils and their parents. Archival documents suggest that some congregations and private school boards ultimately ‘expected’ and anticipated a possible Gleichschaltung of Belgian education, for they could show experience with the persecution of Catholic schools in Germany that were reformed in line with the Führer’s Weltanschauung.655 A confidential document, titled 'Much-dreaded infringements on Catholic education', of November 29, 1940, shows that the Flemish Society of Jesus feared a possible suppression of the Catholic institutions and the unification of the Belgian youth and educational system.656 However, this document, once again, shows that Catholics were no monolithic bloc, as the anonymous author suggested that certain groups in society would seize the German occupation to carry through their own demands. According to the writer, especially a group of lay teachers in Catholic primary and technical education would support the German unification strategy in order to obtain the (financial) parity of the body of teachers in state and private schools. He further predicted that certain Belgian personalities in pursuit of a final solution for the pre-war school controversy would equally support a future unification. In sum, even some of the supporters of Catholic schools aimed at the unification of Belgian education, precisely because they were disillusioned by the inferior treatment of Catholic schools by the state, palpable in the lack of financial state support and allowances for Catholic (secondary) schools, the unfair competition between both education networks and so on.657

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 655 Pagaard, ‘Teaching the Nazi Dictatorship’: 191 656ABSE, COE 17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 2, ‘Communications et directives pour le temps de la guerre 1940-1944’, ‘Empiètements à craindre sur l’enseignement catholique’, November 29, 1940. 657 Ibidem.

! 198! Furthermore, archival research suggests that also some local schools anticipated a possible standardization of Belgian education. In 1941, the board of the episcopal school Institut Saint-Remacle in Marche-en-Famenne (Wallonia) discussed a possible extension of the school buildings. Remarkably, a priest-teacher urged the school board to execute the structural alterations as soon as possible, since he allowed for a future Ministerial Order that would obstruct the extension of the school buildings.658 From this, the question arises as to what extent the German restrictive measures with regard to education really impacted school life. In the following part, precisely the educational developments within Catholic school culture during the Second World War are discussed.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 658 ADN, Fonds Enseignement, P77, ‘Statistiques scolaires pour la province de Namur, tous niveau: 1938- 1945’, Report of the Institut Saint-Remacle, 1941.

! 199!

! 200!

PART II SCHOOLING AND THE WAR. A STUDY OF SCHOOL CULTURE IN BELGIAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY EDUCATION, 1940-1944

! 201!

! 202! Chapter 4 Setting the framework. The development, protagonists and structure of Catholic secondary education in Belgium

1. Introduction

The previous part of this dissertation discussed the attempts of the German occupier to gain control over the (Catholic) educational system in Belgium, as well as the reaction of the educational authorities in Mechelen against the German education measures. In short, the first part focused on development on the level of political decision-making. In contrast, the aim of this second part is different. More specifically, the following chapters aim at mapping developments in Catholic school culture ‘at the chalk face’. As many histories of education are restricted to a study of policy and administration659, a study of the lower levels of the educational pyramid remains in large part virgin territory. This development is also clearly visible in the literature on Catholic school culture in the interwar period. Generally, mainly Paul Janssenswillen has investigated the specificity of the Catholic educational project in private secondary schools during the interwar period, the social background and function of its actors (i.e. principals, teachers, pupils and parents) and the social recruitment basis of private secondary schooling.660 Whereas Janssenswillen geographically restricts his study to the Flemish province of Limburg, this study is broader in approach and deals with general, national developments in Catholic school culture. Yet, the second part of this dissertation does not present a typical study of school culture. Within the history of education, studies on school culture have mainly focused on the unique characteristics of schooling, such as the school timetable or school furniture. Whereas most school culture histories revolve around the idea of continuity or a fixed set of rules and symbols that are deeply rooted in daily life, I, in contrast, focus on the ways in which changes in Catholic school culture occured during the war and how these were ultimately experienced by agents of the lower orders (i.e. principals, teachers or pupils). This difference in approach is a result of the conceptually double definition of school

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 659 Depaepe, Order in progress, 9. 660 Janssenswillen, ‘Bezielde vorming’.

! 203! culture, which I explained in the introduction. More specifically, rather than focusing on the distinct or unique characteristics of the school, I explore the interrelations between the school and political sphere. As a consequence, the developments discussed in the following chapters start from official regulations, which are confronted with everyday reality in schools. As a result, this second part does not present an all-encompassing study of Catholic school culture during the war, but focuses on those sectors of school culture that shed light on the ways in which changes as a result of the war or new political situation were dealt with by agents on the lower levels of the educational pyramid. Before proceeding to a discussion of school culture during the Second World War, the nature of the Catholic educational project at the eve of World War II, as well as its main protagonists are introduced, since not only the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church (as discussed in the first part), but also the nature and characteristics of its educational project were unique. Or, as Marc Depaepe has pointed out, there is no way to go around a discussion of Catholic pedagogy if we want to study the development of education during the Second World War, since the Roman Catholic religion functioned as the main normative instance from which pedagogical theory was shaped.661 More specifically, this introductory chapter focuses on the development of Catholic episcopal and Jesuit schools into bastions of elite culture that aimed at providing pupils from the middle- class a high-standard education, transmitting Catholic religious principles and instilling boys with Christian moral values.

2. Bastions of elite culture: the Catholic educational project in secondary schools and its main protagonists

The development of the prototype of secondary education, the (classical) humanities, goes back to the Latin schools that developed during the 16th century. The intellectual and religous education in these Latin schools was based on a thorough study of Latin and early-

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 661 Marc Depaepe, ‘De Vlaamse katholieke pedagogiek en de nationaal-socialistische opvoedingsleer. Een verkennende studie op basis van het Vlaams Opvoedkundig Tijdschrift (1919-1955)’, in Tweede Wereldoorlog als factor in de onderwijsgeschiedenis.Verkenningen van een onderbelicht domein in België/La Seconde Guerre Mondiale une étape dans l'histoire de l'enseignement. Approches d'un domaine méconnu en Belgique, eds. Marc Depaepe and Dirk Martin (Brussel: Cegesoma, 1997), 79.

! 204! Christian authors, and the creation of an isolated religious environment. Especially the Society of Jesus took the lead in the development of Latin schools and the classical humanities.662 Gradually, however, criticism over the verbosity and formalism of Latin schools increased. More specifically, under the impulse of the flowering of the natural sciences, technical development, the establishment of nation-states and the increased societal importance of the middle class, voices were raised to ‘tune’ schools to the specific needs of the time. Under the impulse of the of the 19th century, the classical humanities increasingly faced the competition of the modern humanities and technical education.663 At the end of the 19th century, the private educational network held a de facto monopoly position in secondary education. The Catholic monopoly over secondary education, however, increasingly met with liberal opposition that insisted on a legal arrangement to ‘protect’ official secondary schools from Church control and interference.664 Eventually, debates and tensions over the control and structure of secondary education in the 19th century ended in the latter quarter of the 19th century, when a new structure for secondary education was drafted. This structure was maintained until after the Second World War. Firstly, the vocational section was renamed into modern humanities, which existed next to the classical humanities. Both humanities branches provided a seven-year education. The modern humanities fell apart in two sections, a scientific and a commercial-industrial section. The classical humanities in their turn were divided into a Greek-Latin section, where the accent lay on literary subjects and that prepared boys for university, and a Latin section that (instead of Greek) included scientific subjects in the curriculum and gave access to specific engineer schools.665 Although the structure of secondary education applied to both official and private schools, the classical humanities generally enjoyed more prestige in private Catholic schools, because of its close connection to religious formation. Latin was the language of the Church and, as a result, the classical humanities were considered an ideal breeding ground for Catholic vocations. This difference is approach or esteem was particularly palpable in a difference in Latin teaching methods. Whereas official schools used the inductive method,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 662 Raf De Keyser and Mark D’hoker, ‘De Geschiedenis van het secundair onderwijs in België’, Nova et Vetera LXII (1984-1985), nr.1/2: 15-6; Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 29-30. 663 De Keyser and D’hoker, ‘De Geschiedenis van het secundair onderwijs’: 17-9. 664 Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 27. 665 De Keyser and D’hoker, ‘De Geschiedenis van het secundair onderwijs’: 21.

! 205! which revolved around the cursory lecture of Latin texts, private schools used a grammatical-deductive method, which centred on conversations and thematic exercises.666 The First World War marked the beginning of a pacification democracy, based on political coalition and concession.667 As a result of the political status quo, the structure and organization of secondary education generally remained unchanged. Yet, critical voices were raised over the methods and curriculum of the classical humanities. The position of the classical languages in secondary education was particularly jeopardized by the introduction of modern languages, such as German or English. Catholic secondary schools did not entirely support these innovations and were late in implementing them. Generally, the Dutchification of secondary education, as well as the expansion of the modern languages and a consequent reduction of the classical languages were implemented later and less general in private Catholic schools.668 Furthermore, the first steps were taken in the direction of the democratisation of secondary education. More specifically, after the First World War, several measures were introduced with the intention of lowering financial barriers for secondary education that, in spite of all efforts, maintained its elitist and selective character. In 1924, for instance, age limitations to access athenea and state secondary schools were abolished. Moreover, as a result of the introduction of scholarships, the recruitment basis of secondary schools expanded.669 One important example of this was the Fonds des Mieux Doués, a fund for the education of gifted children from modest families, which was established in 1921 by the socialist minister of Public Education, Jules Destrée. Yet, the establishment of the Fonds des Mieux Doués only aimed at financially supporting the best students and, as a result, did not really contribute to a drastic democratisation of secondary education.670 In conclusion, although the superiority of the classical humanities was increasingly questioned, secondary schooling maintained its elitist and selective character until after the Second World War. Although Catholic educational authorities had to agree with the establishment of new state secondary schools in 1934 (for which they got state subvention of private technical schools in return), Catholic private education was able to secure its superior position until after the Second World War. As Paul Janssenswillen has

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 666 Ibidem. 667 For more details on conflicts over schooling in the interwar years, see Tyssens, Strijdpunt of Pasmunt. 668 De Keyser and D’hoker, ‘De Geschiedenis van het secundair onderwijs’: 26. 669 Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 310. 670 Grootaers, ‘Cent cinquante ans’, 92-3.

! 206! documented for the 1920s, about 54% of pupils were enrolled in episcopal schools, against a total of 29% in state schools and 17% in Catholic schools of congregations and Catholic orders. As such, the dioceses supervised 54% of Belgian schools, whilst the state and Catholic congregations respectively controlled 32% and 21% of Belgian schools.671

Generally, the Belgian landscape of secondary education was fragmented in different types and categories of schools. Firstly, there were two types of secondary schools: (i) secondary schools of the first or higher degree that provided a seven-year general formation and aimed at preparing boys for university, and (ii) secondary schools of the second or lower degree that only provided a three-year practical education. Most secondary schools also had a so-called voorbereidende afdeling, a pre-secondary section that in fact provided primary education. Secondly, there were three categories of schools: (i) official schools established by public authorities, such as the central government, the provinces or the municipalities, (ii) the so-called gepatroneerde instellingen (patronized schools), which were established by private individuals but to which a municipality assigned its patronage, and (iii) private schools, which depended on a diocese, religious order or congregation.672 This dissertation is restricted to the study of Catholic secondary elite education for boys only and, as a result, only covers private secondary schools of the first or higher degree.

Whereas pupils in official state schools received a profane education to become good citizens, private secondary education was profoundly religious. Already from the 19th century onwards, the moral and intellectual development of boys preferably took place in complete isolation from the outside world. The entire Catholic educational project was founded on religious and moral instruction. Only through a combination of ‘supernatural’ methods, such as the daily attendance of mass, confession and prayer, and ‘natural’ methods of education, discipline and study, boys could be raised to become good Christians. As Paul Janssenswillen has documented, school life was entirely punctuated with religious virtues. The church calendar, religious celebrations, daily mass and iron discipline streamlined the pedagogical climate in Catholic schools, even for non-residents.673

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 671 Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 230. 672 Janssenswillen, idem, 6. 673 Janssenswillen, idem, 119-20.

! 207! As such, Catholic secondary schools did not only prepare boys for university, but also formed an ideal ground for Catholic vocations.674 Although the basic principles and general educational project of Catholic secondary education remained unchanged during the first half of the 20th century, their strict religious and moral instruction was increasingly pressurized after the First World War. During the interwar period, Catholic educational theory was influenced by the Codex Iuris Canonici (1917) and the encyclical Divini Illius Magistri (1929), which remained directional for Catholic secondary education until the 1960s. Traditional Catholic principles mainly centered on the rights and duties of parents and the Church and explicitly prohibited parents to send their children to non-Catholic, state or mixed schools. Although Catholic authorities remained silent about the tasks of official education, the Catholic educational project did start from the idea that the state only had a supplementary role to play. The state could establish its own schools, only to fill the gaps in the private educational offer. The encyclical Divini Illius Magistri was clearly influenced by the political situation in Italy at that time. More specifically, the Holy See aimed at responding to Mussolini’s idea that education essentially was a matter of the official state.675 It was under the impulse of these societal changes that a scientifically and philosophically based Catholic pedagogy was formulated after the First World War. The main architects of this normative Catholic pedagogy in Flanders were Alberic Decoene and Frans Dhovre, two priest who had received a philosophy education at the Catholic University of Leuven. Starting from the idea that the Roman Catholic Church was the only genuine educator, they formulated a militant pedagogy that, as Depaepe has pointed out, resembled a confession of faith rather than a scientific theory. Apart from its militant character, their pedagogy was based on Catholic religion. As Frans De Hovre noted in his 1924 Paedagogische Wijsbegeerte (Pedagogical Philosophy), “God is the centre of the universe, of science and of the only true education”.676 According to De Hovre and Decoene, only Catholic, religion could form the foundation of a true pedagogy.677 In the eyes of these

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 674 Janssenswillen, idem, 229. 675 Benedikte Custers, ‘Het opvoedingsproject en de identiteit van de katholieke middelbare school, 1945- 2000’ (Apprenticeship Report, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2003), 31-2. 676 Cited in Marc Depaepe, ‘Normatief-pedagogisch denken in Vlaanderen. Continuïteit en Discontinuïteit in de katholieke pedagogiek sedert 1918’, Pedagogische Verhandelingen X (2), 1987: 274-5. 677 Marc Depaepe, De pedagogisering achterna. Aanzet tot een genealogie van de pedagogische mentaliteit in de voorbije 250 jaar (Leuven: Acco, 2000), 205.

! 208! Catholic pedagogues, only the Catholic educational project paid attention to what they considered the most important element of education, ‘the soul’. Only a close connection between moral and religious education could contribute to a total and organic formation of man.678 Although Catholic pedagogy did borrow some ideas from other pedagogical thinkers and theories, ‘foreign’ ideas could only be tolerated if they could be reconciled with its basic religious assumptions. Yet, many authors have pointed to similarities between Catholic and Fascist pedagogy, since both provided a strict normative framework in which the only valuable and universal rules for the education of youth were formulated.679 In his article De Vlaamse katholieke pedagogiek en de nationaal-socialistische opvoedingsleer, Marc Depaepe described the relation between Flemish Catholic and National Socialist pedagogy. More specifically, by means of a study of the Catholic pedagogical journal Vlaams Opvoedkundig Tijdschrift (Flemish Journal for Pedagogy, VOT), he documents both Catholic pedagogues’ attraction to and repulsion of National Socialist ideas during the interwar years and the Second World War. More specifically, Depaepe describes how German pedagogy was rejected between the First World War and the end of the 1920s. For the anglophile Catholic pedagogue Frans Dhovre, for instance, Germany embodied the failure of scientific pedagogy, abstract learning and a school system that merely instilled youth with intellectual knowledge and science. At the same time, however, Dhovre borrowed many ideas from the protestant German pedagogue and philosopher Friedrich Foerster, whom he initially praised for his attack against Germany.680 At the end of the 1920s, however, the German discipline, morals, religion and art increasingly attracted Catholic pedagogues. Furthermore, the German Heimat principle, which was defined as “the spiritual atmosphere in which a boy grows up to become a man”, became increasingly popular in Catholic pedagogical circles. More specifically, they cherished the idea that contact with the own language, history and geography would not only result in patriotism, but could also serve the Flemish cause. Unsurprisingly, several aspects of Fascist education for boys and girls in Italy were welcomed by Catholic pedagogy, such as girls’ education for motherhood.681 After 1938, however, when the political implications of National Socialist pedagogy became increasingly apparent and the Roman Catholic Church distanced itself from !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 678 Depaepe, ‘Normatief-pedagogisch denken’: 275. 679 Depaepe, De pedagogisering achterna, 206. 680 Depaepe, ‘De Vlaamse katholieke pedagogiek’, 85-7. 681 Depaepe, idem, 88-93.

! 209! Nazism, the Vlaams Opvoedkundig Tijdschrift sharpened its tone towards New Order pedagogy. Yet, this situation only lasted a couple of years, since during the occupation the journal visibly mitigated its criticism of National Socialist pedagogy (which might have been the result of German censorship) and emphasized connections between Catholic pedagogy and the New Order. Attempts to reconcile its pedagogy with the New Order were mirrored by Catholic pleas for Heimatgeschichte or its rapprochement with biological assumptions of National Socialist population policy, which were debated in the Vlaams Opvoedkundig Tijdschrift between 1940 and 1945.682

The previous discussion of the Vlaams Opvoedkundig Tijdschrift already shows that in spite of Frans Dhovre’s and other Catholic pedagogues’ initial rejection of National Socialist ideology, there were many intrinsic similarities between Catholic pedagogy, Fascism and Nazism during the interwar years.683 Firstly, a non-questionable ideology formed the corner stone of both Catholic and New Order pedagogy. As a result, normative pedagogy changed into an applied ‘ethics’. More specifically, rather than being a philosophy of education, its identity was determined by a radical and absolute philosophy for education, which continuously aimed at justifying itself. Secondly, apart from theoretic similarities, the intrinsic parallels between Catholic mobilisation of the masses and more extreme forms of ideological propaganda are noticeable. By means of several mass adult and youth organizations, the Church, as well as the protagonists of the New Order, conducted a self- glorifying battle against pagan Communism and fought against the moral decay that had affected the European continent since the gay twenties. As Depaepe has argued, particularly in Flanders, this discourse of moral decay functioned as a large pedagogical offensive. Catholic pedagogy propagated an authoritarian education for schools, youth movements and the family. It emphasized maternal fidelity, the ideal of a big family and a clear division of the sexes. It was precisely within this context that Catholic pedagogy resembled New Order pedagogy.684 Thirdly, the Catholic fear of moral decay in the interwar period, directly resulted in the construction of a ‘Christ-centered’ pedagogical praxis, which was based on character, the formation of will power and self discipline. Moreover, the importance of discipline in Catholic pedagogy was in fact a continuation of the late 19th century pedagogical ideology of the Church that feared social emancipation. As !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 682 Depaepe, idem, 96-9. 683 Depaepe, idem, 79-80. 684 Depaepe, idem, 80-1.

! 210! such, the Catholic pedagogical offensive can in fact be considered as a pedagogical civilization ‘defensive’ that cherished nostalgia for pre-industrial rural society. Remarkably, these ideals were equally present within Flemish-nationalist pedagogy and the traditional virtues of the right-wing Dietsch Opvoedkundige Beweging.685 Yet, apart from these similarities there were important differences. More specifically, in contrast to Fascist or National Socialist pedagogy, Catholic normative pedagogy was founded on solidarity. Also notions of the people and the nation (Volk und Staat) were subordinate to the Christian ideal.686

Although society was rapidly changing, during the interwar years and during the Second World War, Catholic secondary education was able to maintain its educational project, which was based on godliness, order and work ethics, purity and beauty, respect and obedience and charity and solidarity. The religious formation of secondary school boys formed the corner stone of the Catholic educational project. More specifically, by means of a fixed structure of religious activities, such as prayer and liturgy, pupils were instilled with Catholic virtues. The school day traditionally started with mass. Apart from these daily celebrations, even masses on Sundays and festive days were celebrated in schools. Particularly as a result of the isolated character of boarding schools, pupils were constantly subjected to the strictly Catholic religious environment. Apart from daily celebrations in the school chapel, religious ‘congregations’ that developed within most Catholic schools, such as the so-called Mariacongregatie (Congregation of Mary), aimed at further reinforcing pupils’ Christian beliefs. Priest vocations were considered the pinnacle of the Catholic educational project and were set as a criterion for the quality of specific schools. As such, episcopal schools served as a tool in the hands of the bishops to stimulate vocations for the diocesan clergy.687 Order and work ethics also played a pivotal role in the Catholic educational project. Daily life in secondary schools was rigidly structured and pupils were urged to strictness. Each activity (be it in class, on the playground, in the refectory or in the school chapel) received a fixed time slot in the school schedule. A large part of the school day was reserved for study, since diligence was considered a parameter of a pupil’s will power. Again, the isolation from the outside world and profane leisure activities encouraged and facilitated study. Particularly the prize-awarding ceremony at the end of the year formed the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 685 Depaepe, idem, 82-3. 686 Depaepe, De pedagogisering achterna, 208. 687 Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 350-5.

! 211! apotheosis of a year of hard work. The achievements and results of individual pupils or groups of students were proudly displayed, and meritorious pupils received a price, usually in the form of a book.688 With regard to moral education of secondary school boys, the will ‘to do good’ was put central. Especially the formation of will power and character helped in shaping pupil’s moral personality. The daily routine in Catholic schools required perseverance and further strengthened pupils’ will power. In order to prevent pupils from exposure to moral dangers, they were ‘protected’ from the profane world and controlled at all times. 689 More specifically, they were kept away from cinemas or their lectures were strictly controlled and even censured. Unsurprisingly, contact with girls was not allowed and in order to prevent boys from exposure to these moral dangers, girl schools in the vicinity often closed earlier.690 Furthermmore, purity and beauty were important in maintaining the moral integrity of schoolboys. The strict discipline that reigned in Catholic secondary schools was used to strengthen pupils’ moral resistance against the dangers lurking in the profane world. Particularly obedience was considered necessary to overcome man’s ‘lower urges’. As a result, a good student showed respect for his fellow man and obeyed his superiors. Solidarity and charity were intertwined with these values and played an important role in Catholic boarding schools.691

The hierarchically structured educational staff propagated these virtues and was expected to set the example for their pupils. On the top of the pyramid in Catholic secondary schools was the principal, who represented the highest authority in the school and was the direct representative of the diocesan or congregational authorities.692 As such, the principal modeled the virtue of obedience, central to the Catholic educational project. More specifically, he had to obey the strict orders of the higher episcopal or congregational authorities, but at the same time enforced obedience from the teaching staff.693 Not only

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 688 Janssenswillen, idem, 361-8. 689 Janssenswillen, idem, 368. 690 Jozef Van Haver, Voor u, beminde gelovigen: het rijke Roomse leven in Vlaanderen 1920-1950 (Tielt: Lannoo, 1995), 166. 691 Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 368. 692 Janssenswillen, idem, 323-5. 693 Janssenswillen, idem, 465.

! 212! was he responsible for the quality of education in his school, he also took care of the internal administration, maintained close contacts both with the higher Catholic authorities and parents, and was responsible for the maintenance of order and discipline in the school. Furthermore, he was responsible for maintaining the religious atmosphere in the school and the daily contemplation of pupils.694 In his duty to ensure a high qualitative education and high moral standards, the principal was assisted by a staff of teachers, which were mostly ordained priests, appointed by the bishop. In contrast to official state education, Catholic schools almost exclusively appointed priests as teachers, since they were the best guarantee for a profound Christian education.695 In the mid-1930s, about 56% of teachers in Catholic secondary schools were clergyman.696 In contrast to their colleagues in official state schools who had completed a higher (university) education and had obtained a license degree or teaching certificate, the majority of teachers in Catholic education had only attended a seminary or novitiate and, as a result, lacked the degrees or scientific or pedagogical training that was required in state schools. The total number of young priests that actually had the opportunity to obtain a university degree was quite low.697 Since individual or personal instruction was pivotal in the Catholic education program, Catholic schools opted for a system of class teachers, rather than a system of subject teachers, as was the case in state secondary schools. Not only did the appointment of class teachers enhance curriculum integration, this system also required less teachers. In contrast to state education, the Catholic pillar considered the teaching profession to be more than a job alone. More specifically, it was seen as a true vocation and full apostolate.698 The encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, for instance, described the teacher as the key figure within Catholic secondary education. Apart from his function in school, the teacher was considered to be an educator, who complemented the family education of the child.699 Whereas in state schools, the degrees and professional skills were required for teachers, Catholic education particularly prioritized moral over professional competence. It was not until after the Second World War that the number of lay teachers increased in Catholic

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 694 Janssenswillen, idem, 323-5. 695 Janssenswillen, idem, 299. 696 Custers, ‘Het opvoedingsproject’, 35. 697 Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 327-8. 698 Janssenswillen, idem, 465. 699 Custers, ‘Het opvoedingsproject’, 36-7.

! 213! schools and that the lack of pedagogical and scientific training of priest-teachers was questioned. After the Second World War, education increasingly became an economic good enhancing social mobility. Due to financial difficulties after the war, Catholic schools increasingly reverted to the state that made a scientific and/or pedagogical training a necessary condition for financial subvention. The Roman Catholic educational authorities were suspicious of these propositions that potentially undermined the specific character of Catholic schooling.700 As a result of their limited scientific and pedagogical training, young priests who were at the beginning of their careers had to turn to self-tuition, and the supervision and counseling of their older and more experienced colleagues. A majority of young priest or seminarians started their educational careers as a surveillant (taskmaster). His task was to superintend pupils during study, on the playground, during meals in the refectory, during the daily walks and during the night in the boarding school. Moreover, the taskmaster was responsible for controlling the pupils’ behavior outside school hours and he had to make sure that pupils took the shortest route home. As Paul Janssenswillen has argued, most pupils considered him a bogeyman. Particularly towards elder pupils, the taskmaster sometimes had difficulties maintaining his authority. Moreover, as his duty was also to superintend pupils outside school hours, he often experienced difficulties integrating in the teaching staff.701 Since moral education was considered equally important as intellectual training, priest- teachers’ piety was of primary importance. They regularly received extra theology training, in order to make sure that they set the proper example for their pupils.702 More specifically, their exemplary function had to raise pupils’ piety. Particularly honesty, a sense of duty, loyalty, humility, sobriety and persistence were considered characteristics of the ideal (priest-)teacher. His personality had to mirror his religious and moral beliefs and he was expected to demonstrate intellectual and moral authority.703

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 700 Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 299 and 327-8. 701 Paul Janssenswillen, ‘De ‘Heeren professors’. Het lerarenprofiel in het middelbaar onderwijs voor jongens in Limburg, 1878-1970’, in “Over het mooie en het nuttige”. Bijdragen over de geschiedenis van onderwijs en opvoeding. Liber Amicorum aangeboden aan Mark D’hoker, eds. Marc Depaepe, Bregt Henkens, Maria Leon, Angelo Van Gorp (Antwerpen/Apeldoorn: Garant, 2008), 111. 702 Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 465. 703 Janssenswillen, ‘De ‘Heeren professors’’, 109.

! 214! Although they remained a minority until after the Second World War, also lay men were appointed as teachers in Catholic secondary schools. They also had to give evidence of high morals, but were still only appointed for specific subject matters, such as art or gymnastics.704 In addition, lay teachers were held responsible for superintending resident pupils on Sundays and during mass. Although the position of lay teachers differed from that of the ordained priests, they also had to keep their dignity and reservation. Because of their moral exemplary function, they were not allowed to visit bars, for instance.705 A remarkable difference between lay and priest-teachers (as well as between official state and private Catholic education) was their salary. Whereas priest-teachers in episcopal secondary schools earned about 2,500 or 3,500 Belgian franc, both lay teachers in Catholic secondary schools and teachers in state education earned two to four times as much.706 In many cases, lay teachers cumulated their teaching assignment with different functions. More specifically, they often combined their assignment in secondary school with a position in the preparatory section of secondary education.707

The pedagogical relationship between teachers and pupils was very distant and based on authority. Teachers reverted to punishment, discipline and control. Yet, teachers and pupils spent much time together. Even outside school hours, teachers and pupils met at extra-curricular events and in youth movements.708 As confessors, some priest-teachers had a special relationship with some of their pupils. Yet, in order to maintain discretion and the integrity of the teaching staff, the relationship between teachers and pupils was subjected to various conditions. Close teacher-pupil relationships were prohibited by the school regulation and it was only during the ten o’clock playtime that teachers could receive pupils in their rooms.709

As Jozef Van Haver has argued, the selection basis of Catholic secondary schools was very specific. Some schools only recruited in higher social classes or only accepted students with

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 704 Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 468. 705 Janssenswillen, ‘De ‘Heeren professors’’, 114. 706 For more exact details on the wages of teachers in official state and Catholic education, see Paul Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 341. 707 Janssenswillen, ‘De ‘Heeren professors’’, 114. 708 Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 465. 709 Janssenswillen, ‘De ‘Heeren professors’’, 110.

! 215! the best grades.710 Yet, until today, a general prosopographic study of secondary school pupils in Belgium is still lacking. The background, education and social profile of pupils in Catholic secondary education in Belgium has, however, been the subject of dissertations or articles published by local history bonds, which usually only cover a limited time frame and geographical area.711 As a result, these studies focus on one specific school or area, which presents problems of generalisation. Yet, by putting some of these case studies together, it is possible to make some general conclusions. Firstly, private Catholic schools used several channels for recruiting pupils. The parochial clergy urged parents from the pulprit to send their children to the nearby private school. Furthermore, private schools sent out so-called prospectussen (prospectusses), or brochures in which the school was presented. Furthermore, private schools relied on the Catholic press and pupils, teacher and parents to advertize the school in their village or town. In order to do so, public activities were organized, and teachers and pupils got involved in youth movements. Also, pupils participated in so-called diocesane wedstrijden (diocesan competitions), which were organized to test pupils’ knowledge of several subjects, raise competition between schools and display the school’s quality.712 Secondly, enrolment in private secondary schools was subjected to certain religious, intellectual and financial conditions of admission. Parents were expected to live and raise their children according to the principles of Catholic religion and Christian virtues. Furthermore, pupils were expected to have successfully completed primary education. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 710 Van Haver, Voor u, beminde gelovigen, 163. 711 See for instance: Lindsay Marien, ‘Prosopografie van de studenten van het Klein-Seminarie te Sint- Niklaas, 1879-1940’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 2004); Bert De Rycke, ‘Herkomst, opleiding en toekomst van de leerlingen in het vrij middelbaar onderwijs: casus het Sint-Lodewijkscollege te Brugge’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 2007); Danny Bauters, ‘Herkomst, opleiding en toekomst van de leerlingen in het vrij middelbaar onderwijs casus: het Jozefietencollege te Melle 1837-1914’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1981); Isabel Blondeel, ‘Aspecten in verband met de opleiding en recrutering der Vlaamse Minderbroeders tijdens het interbellum; op basis van het St.-Antonius- (Lokeren) en het H. Hartcollege (Heusden-Zolder)’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1996); Isabel Blondeel, ‘Het Sint-Antoniuscollege te Lokeren: Franciscaanse recrutering en opleiding’, De souvereinen. Tijdschrift van de Heemkring van Lokeren 29 (1998): 12-21; J. Dufraing, ‘Sociografische studie van de leerlingen van het Klein Seminarie. De geografische herkomst van de leerlingen’, in 150 jaar Klein Seminarie te Hoogstraten, ed. Guido Landuyt (Hoogstraten: Klein Seminarie Hoogstraten, 1985), 115-118; J. Verboen, ‘De sociale herkomst van de leerlingen’, in 150 jaar Klein Seminarie te Hoogstraten, ed. Guido Landuyt (Hoogstraten: Klein Seminarie Hoogstraten, 1985), 119-123. 712 Marien, ‘Prosopografie van de studenten’, 25-33; De Rycke, ‘Herkomst, opleiding en toekomst’, 12-7; Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 465.

! 216! Although the Dutchification of secondary education was implemented in 1932, private secondary schools maintained their Francophone character entirely, or still had French sections besides a Dutch section. Therefore, a sound knowledge of the often was considered a necessary condition to start secondary school. Because the religious and intellectual standards or admission rules were strict, many children first enrolled in the preparatory section of a secondary school, which prepared them for their classical humanities studies. As a result, youngsters or children starting secondary school were usually slightly older than they are nowadays. In her Master’s thesis about the Minor Seminar of Sint-Niklaas, Lindsay Marien, for instance, concluded that on average, children started their first year of secondary school (zesde Latijnse) at the age of thirteen.713 Besides these intellectual and religious conditions for admission, also financial barriers were quite high. A confrontation of several case studies demonstrates that enrolment fees differed in various schools. Generally, it can be concluded from these studies that the cost of private secondary schools could vary from 300 to 3,000 Belgian franc.714 In the assessment of enrolment fees, a distinction was made between non-resident and resident pupils, who spent more time in (boarding) school. Yet, as Lindsay Marien has documented, enrolment fees for interns were not necessarily higher than those for non-residents. Because education was ideally organized in complete isolation, enrolment fees for residents were sometimes lowered in order to promote the boarding school.715 In short, despite the gradual democratisation of secondary education during the interwar period, private schooling was certainly not affordable for everyone. Unsurprisingly, the recruitment basis of private Catholic schools and social profile of teachers and their parents was quite specific. Geographically, most private schools recruited pupils from the cities and suburbs, and to a lesser degree also in the province, where they were established. Furthermore, most pupils were recruited from middle class families.

Another important actor in education was the youth movement, whose activities were closely intertwined with those of the (secondary) school. As Lieve Gevers and Louis Vos already pointed out in the introduction of their historical overview of the development of youth movements in Flanders, there are few countries where the activities and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 713 Marien, ‘Prosopografie van de studenten’, 36. 714 See for instance comparisons of enrolment fees in Marien, idem, 17-22. 715 Marien, idem, 24.

! 217! development of youth movements have been so significant.716 The youth movement developed in the latter quarter of the 19th century and was conceived as a relatively autonomous circle of youngsters who voluntarily and actively engaged in local youth groups. The history of the youth movement in Flanders is founded on (i) the Catholic Flemish Student Movement, (ii) the German Wandervogel movement and (iii) the Anglo- Saxon scouting movement. Since especially these first and last student associations were active in both episcopal and Jesuit schools during the war, I will only introduce the Catholic Flemish Student Movement and scouting movement. Firstly, the Catholic Flemish Student Movement was in fact the oldest and was established around 1875 by Albrecht Rodenbach, a student at the Minor Seminary of Roeselare, who would later become a symbol of the Flemish movement. Initially, the Catholic Flemish Student Movement fell apart in several local pupil, seminarians and student bonds that met during school holidays. These student bonds considered themselves an integral part of the Catholic Flemish movement.717 Secondly, also the development of the English scouting movement, founded by Baden- Powell at the start of the twentieth century, is important in the history of the youth movement in Belgium. Although scouting was conceptually based on nationalist and military principles, it easily adapted to the prevailing norms and values in society. The movement intentionally kept out of political, religious or cultural issues. Since it essentially was a method, it could easily adapt to national, religious and/or cultural particularities of certain countries and periods. In contrast to the Catholic Flemish Student Movement, it was not tied to a specific national constellation. In the beginning, scouting aimed at the integration of its members in society and the formation of ‘good citizens’.718 Belgian youth movements particularly flowered during the interwar years. To a large degree, their success was a result of the dominant rhetoric of moral decay and secularisation of the 1920s. In order to alter secularisation and the decline in Catholic vocations, Pope Pius XI established the so-called Katholieke Actie (Catholic Action).719 As such, the Roman Catholic Church developed into an anti-profane bastion: directed by the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 716 Lieve Gevers and Louis Vos, ‘Jeugdbewegingen in Vlaanderen: een historisch overzicht’, in Op eigen vleugels: liber amicorum Prof. dr. An Hermans, eds. Mark Dhoker and Marc Depaepe (Antwerpen: Garant, 2004), 59. 717 Gevers and Vos, idem, 61. 718 Gevers and Vos, idem, 62. 719 Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 299.

! 218! Catholic hierarchy it positioned itself for battle, in which lay men (and youth in particular) served as ‘soldiers of Christ’. The idea that youth needed to be grouped under the supervision of the Catholic Action resulted in a global shift in the nature of youth movements. More specifically, during the 1920s and 1930s independent youth movements had to make way for youth movements led by the Church or political parties and were set up to influence societal developments.720 As Lieve Gevers has argued, the Flemish movement remained the strongest mobilizing factor in the interwar years. Particularly the Algemeen Katholiek Vlaams Studentenverbond (General Catholic Flemish Student Movement, AKVS), which was founded in the beginning of the twentieth century as the umbrella organization of several student clubs. It developed and maintained strong ties with the Flemish movement.721 After the First World War, the AKVS was active in many Flemish Catholic secondary schools.722 Their Flemish- nationalist viewpoints and reluctance to subject to the authority of the Belgian bishops, however, soon resulted in a conflict within the Catholic Student Movement.723 As a result of continuous disputes, the AKVS made way for the Katholieke Studentenactie724 (Catholic Student Action, KSA) that, in the provinces of East Flanders725 and Limburg in particular, combined a (pro-Belgian!) Flemish-nationalist perspective with a commitment to the Catholic Action. In the province of West Flanders726, the cradle of the KSA, it developed as

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 720 Gevers and Vos, ‘Jeugdbewegingen in Vlaanderen’, 63. 721 Gevers and Vos, idem, 64. 722 Marnix Beyen, ‘Op wacht bij het erf. Jeugdbewegingen en historisch besef in Vlaanderen, 1920-1965’, Bijdragen tot de Eigentijdse Geschiedenis 8 (2001): 14. 723 For more details on the conflicts between the AKVS and the Belgian episcopacy, see Louis Vos, Het AKVS in konflikt met de geestelijke overheid: nationalisme en kultuurflamingantisme in de katholieke Vlaamse studentenbeweging 1919-1932 (Leuven: s.n., 1969). 724 For more details on the history of Catholic student movements in Flanders, see for instance Luk Schokkaert and Luc Vints, Bewogen beweging: 50 jaar KSJ-KSA-VKSJ (Brussel: KSJ-KSA-VKSJ, 1988); Louis Vos, Idealisme en engagement: de roeping van de katholieke studerende jeugd in Vlaanderen (1930-1990) (Leuven: Acco, 2011); Louis Vos, “Want er er komen andere tijden ...”: studerende jeugd in Vlaanderen 1920-1990 (Leuven: Acco, 2011). 725 For more details on the development of the KSA movement in the Province of , see Bert Woestenborghs, Greet De Neef, Peter Heyrman, Luc Vints, Paul Van Beveren, Johan Mahieu eds., De katholieke studentenactie in Oost-Vlaanderen 1928-1992 (Gent: Vanmelle, 1992). 726 For more details on the development of the KSA movement in the province of , see for instance Christophe Loyson, ‘Canens trans terram vagor: KSA Waregem (190-2005)’ (Master’s Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2008).

! 219! a purely religious and militant formation under the supervision of chaplain Karel Dubois and bishop Henri Lamiroy. In the meantime, the Flemish movement was channeled in the Jong Volkse Front (Young Popular Front), approved by the bishops. It was not until 1943 that the five provincial KSA organizations merged and founded the national KSA-Jong Vlaanderen (KSA-Young Flanders).727

As Lieve Gevers has pointed out, debates about the organization of youth in specific youth movements were not limited to the Catholic world. During the 1920s and 1930s several right-wing political parties contested Catholic authority over youth and aimed at integrating youth, together with adults, in one overarching political organization.728 As Depaepe has demonstrated, this resulted in the flowering of youth movements that broke loose from their romantic-nationalistic inspiration and became the ideal working ground for societal polarisations. This resulted in, on the one hand, the establishment of militant youth movements of the Catholic Action, and the establishment of Fascist organizations, on the other.729 In spite of the resistance of certain protagonists of the Catholic youth movement, such as Jozef Cardijn, leader of the Katholieke Arbeidersjeugd (Catholic Workers’ Youth, KAJ), against National Socialism or anti-Belgian , there were striking similarities between strictly Catholic and New Order youth movements, such as their emphasis on authority, leadership and the pursuit of an organic, hierarchical and solidary community.730 During the 1930s, ultra-right political formations, such as Verdinaso, VNV and Rex, established youth sections.731 Already in 1931, the right-wing Verbond van Dietse Nationaal Solidaristen (Verdinaso) established the so-called Knapenvendels, which were later renamed as Jong Dinaso. Furthermore, the Vlaams Nationaal Verbond, which presented itself as the umbrella organization of Flemish-national political parties, established the Algemeen Vlaamsch Nationaal Jeugdverbond (General Flemish-national Youth Movement, AVNJ). Although both movements were not terribly successful before the Second World War, they did attract many AKVS members. As Marnix Beyen has argued, the shift of the AKVS in a right-wing direction came too late for the organization in establishing a monopoly position

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 727 Gevers and Vos, ‘Jeugdbewegingen in Vlaanderen’, 64. 728 Gevers and Vos, idem, 65. 729 Depaepe, De pedagogisering achterna, 195. 730 Depaepe, ‘De Vlaamse katholieke pedagogiek’, 81. 731 Gevers and Vos, ‘Jeugdbewegingen in Vlaanderen’, 65.

! 220! as a Flemish-nationalist youth movement.732 As a result, the previously Flemish-nationalist Catholic Youth Movement, AKVS, merged in the second part of the 1930s into a Dietse youth union, which emphasized its Dietse and popular reorientation and abandoned its religious inspiration.733 As Marnix Beyen has demonstrated, this longing for a Flemish-nationalist romance equally developed within the scouting movement, which traditionally remained neutral and bore a Francophone stamp. More specifically, during the interwar years, the scouting movement established a Flemish Catholic wing. In 1929, the steady growth of this fraction resulted in the establishment of the Vlaams Verbond van Katholieke Scouts (Flemish Union of Catholic Scouting, VVKS). Yet, in spite of their longing for a Flemish-nationalist romance, which culminated in a call to take part in the in 1937, the leader of the VVKS, Maurits Van Haegedoren, remained faithful to the Belgian state and therefore, could count on the support of the Catholic Church. Since 1928, the Belgian Catholic scouting movement and, since 1929, also the VVKS were recognized as youth organizations of the Catholic Action.734

3. Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was to introduce the particular development of secondary education in Belgium and the specific character of the Catholic educational project. This chapter documents that linguistic issues and the power struggle between the Church and the state determine the history of secondary education in Belgium. As a result, alhough state and private schooling were both subjected to similar processes, such as democratization, they developed differently. More specifically, not only the nature of the educational project, but also the social recruitment basis of teachers and pupils, as well as the organization, structure and curriculum in Catholic schools differed from that in official schools. Generally, the Catholic educational authorities were slower in implementing Dutch as a language of instruction in Flemish Catholic schools and resisted against the introduction of financial and social democratization of schooling. Generally, in contrast to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 732 Beyen, ‘Op wacht bij het erf’: 15. 733 Gevers and Vos, ‘Jeugdbewegingen in Vlaanderen’, 65. 734 Beyen, ‘Op wacht bij het erf’: 16-7.

! 221! official schools, Catholic education maintained the superiority of the classical humanities. Furthermore, as private schooling was more expensive, Catholic schools maintained a different selection basis for the recruitment of pupils. As a result, Catholic schools generally developed as bastions of elite culture, revolving around a sound education in the classical humanities and the education of boys to become good Christians. Furthermore, although there were many differences, Catholic pedagogy and its educational project bore some resemblance with authoritarian (Fascist or National Socialist) pedagogy. In the course of the 20th century, flamingant awareness developed in episcopal and Jesuit secondary schools in Flanders. In some schools, this flamingantism radicalized and shifted increasingly in the direction of the New Order. As a result, some Catholic schools were a breeding ground for right-wing ideas. The next chapter investigates how Catholic school culture specifically developed during the German occupation.

! 222!

Chapter 5

Schooling and the war. The development of Catholic school culture during World War II in Belgium

1. Introduction

On October 16, 1940 the principal of the Institut Saint-Louis in Brussels requested cardinal Joseph-Ernest Van Roey to provide “des directives sur l’organization des activités extérieures de nos étudiants. Dès à présent, certains collaborations [nous] sont demandées (volontaires du travail), des initiatives se font pressentir (revues et réunions)”.735 According to the principal, the new political situation of occupation complicated school life, leaving principals undecided about how to answer “les questions de principe et de régler les modalités”.736 As this quote suggests, the occupation of Belgium had created a new context in which schools needed to operate. In addition, the establishment of a new political regime gave rise to new questions that local school administrations needed to respond to. This chapter is specifically concerned both with the issues that local school administrations, principals, teachers, pupils and parents faced as a result of the occupation, such as the introduction the Military Administration’s educational and cultural policy, and with the ways in which the establishment of a new political regime stirred up new dynamics within Catholic school culture.

Firstly, the measures of the German occupier, as discussed in the first part of this dissertation, considerably challenged the Catholic educational project and the development of its school network. As Adolf Quaegebeur, superior of the Minor Seminary of Roeselare, argued in his contribution Waarheen met de Opvoeding? (“Where to Go with Education?”):

“German National Socialism has laid hands on the education of youth. Body culture is prioritized over intellectual culture. The German boy is to become as fast as the wind and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 735 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Briefwisseling Scholen’, Letter of the Institut Saint-Louis to the cardinal, October 16, 1940. 736 Ibidem.

! 223! as strong as the steal of Krupp. The personality of mankind has yielded for the collective thought and will of the state.” 737

In addition to this, both the German racial theory, which was aiming to maintain and develop the Aryan race, and Nazi family policy, endangered Christian principles and its educational project. In a reaction against the ‘mysticism of the soil’, a conference note of the diocese of Tournai of 1940 stated:

“Retour à l’homme sous son aspect physiologique: sang, race, antisémitisme. Nouvelle mesure de valeurs te principe gros de conséquences sur le plan social: développement de la race en favorisant la maternité même hors mariage, en combattant le travail des femmes et le néomalthusianisme en prônant des oeuvres d’hygiène, de santé, de culture physique, en reformant l’enseignement en y accordant moins d’importance au cérébral et davantage au physique et au civique (spécialement éducation de la jeune fille). (...)”738

One of the most significant threats to the Christian education of youth was National Socialism’s anti-religious policy. More specifically, newspapers and pastoral letters regularly informed Catholic educators about the abolition of private schools in the Third Empire and the German indoctrination program of youth. As Quaegebeur stated in a note to the principals of Catholic schools in the diocese of Bruges:

“From newspapers we have learned the brutal ways in which Christian youth has been withdrawn from the care of priests and religious. This has shut the door on the development of private schools. For already a couple of years now, boys and girls of about fourteen years old are being withdrawn from their family and are forced into a year of labor under National Socialist leadership, where (...) they are being instilled with National Socialist theories. Upon their arrival back home, their parents don’t recognize their own children anymore. They are beyond parental authority and have become the slaves of race and blood.”739

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 737 Berichten en Mededeelingen ten dienste van de inrichtingen voor opvoeding en onderwijs van het bisdom Brugge, nr.11, Schooljaar 1939-1940, page 9. 738 APBM, Section 9 ‘Notitiae Provinciae’, nr. 11, box 1, File B, ‘Notes Pastorales’, 1940. 739 Berichten en Mededeelingen ten dienste van de inrichtingen voor opvoeding en onderwijs van het bisdom Brugge, nr.11, Schooljaar 1939-1940, page 10.

! 224! After the installation of a German military regime in May 1940, the German occupier undertook similar steps in this direction. As discussed in the previous part of this dissertation, the Military Administration not only aimed at restricting episcopal power over education, but it also demanded rights for right-wing political formations and youth movements or gained control over the use and content of textbooks. Not only did the requisitioning of classes by German troops interfere with the practical organization of schooling, but their restrictive policy also confronted schools with educational and religious issues, since many strictly Catholic journals used in schools were officially prohibited and the activities and development of strictly Catholic youth movements were halted. Secondly, apart from the German occupier’s attempts to gain control over schooling, also several nationalistic and collaborating (youth) movements competed with the Catholic Church in asserting influence on pupils and teachers and in finding support in educational circles for their ideas. As a war brochure warned Catholic youth:

“Thousands of tongues preach a gospel that is not proclaimed by our Father in heaven. Thousands of pens write in service of a fake Christianity that is not the Christianity of Christ. Press and radio overwhelm you on a daily basis with products whose content is hostile to the Catholic faith and Church and ruthlessly and without any respect damage everything that should be holy to you”.740

The question arises as to how (local) school authorities responded to these challenges and how exactly they tried to continue the education of Catholic youth. To what extent were the measures of the German occupier or the activities and influence of collaborating groups palpable in schools? Was the war present in the classroom and to what extent did teachers, pupils and their parents engage in discussions about the political situation at that time? Furthermore, how did agents of the lower educational orders negotiate their position within the school? Although Belgian historiography has discussed some key aspects of the German educational policy during the Second World War in Belgium, there are few ‘chalk face’ studies on how these measures impacted school culture. In addition, in contrast to the attention primary education has received, secondary education remains the poor cousin of Belgian history of education. Moreover, geographical small entities have generally been !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 740 BDG, Archive of Jozef-Honoré Coppieters, nr. 7.2.2., ‘Bisschoppelijke brieven en Richtlijnen voor de oorlogsperiode’, War brochure ‘Ter Waarheid’, undated.

! 225! neglected. Although there is a wide range of jubilee editions, edited by school administrations themselves, these local studies have a rather hagiographic rather than a scientific character. Lastly, as Paul Janssenswillen has argued, “the context in which schools and education developed has not received enough attention”.741

Before proceeding to the impact of the war on school culture, the ways in which the beginning of the war interfered with the organization of schooling is shortly introduced. The second section of this chapter deals with the questions as to how the German occupier’s attempts to restrict the development of private schools and their textbook policy were received by local school authorities and how these really affected school life. The third and fourth sections of this chapter are respectively concerned with the ways in which politics penetrated the classroom and extra-curricular activities, such as the youth movement that was active in school. The fifth section discusses the engagement of agents of the lower levels of the educational pyramid in the resistance or collaboration. Lastly, the sixth section of this chapter addresses the opinions of Catholic schools towards the Jewish Question and their engagement in helping Jews escape from deportation.

2. Education interrupted: Catholic schooling during the early days of the war

Even before the actual outbreak of the war, the mobilization of troops for the Belgian army in 1939 interfered with the organization of schooling. In the diocese of Bruges alone, about 75 teachers were conscripted by the end of October 1939. As a result, seminarians or university students were ‘mobilized’ to replace conscripted priest-teachers in Catholic secondary schools. Yet, even though the situation was precarious, schools tried to continue their activities as best as they could.742 After the German attack on May 10, 1940, however, schools were closed down and pupils were, sometimes accompanied by a teacher, sent home. The invasion caused chaos and resulted in a wave of refugees fleeing to France, in search of a safer environment. Among those refugees were many pupils and teachers. On May 10, the Belgian government had already asserted that Belgian men between the age of 16 and 35 (the recruitment reserves !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 741 Janssenswillen, ‘‘Bezielde vorming’’, 5. 742 Berichten en Mededelingen ten dienste van de Inrichtingen (sic) voor opvoeding en onderwijs van het bisdom Brugge, nr.11, schooljaar 1939-1940, page 337.

! 226! for the Belgian army) from the provinces of Limburg, Liège, Namur and Luxemburg had to go to the Belgian municipalities of Erquelinnes and Binche, near the French border. As the German army gradually won ground, youngsters from the other Belgian provinces were also ordered to go to cities near the French border, such as Roeselare, Ypres or Rouen. Eventually, when the German advance proved unstoppable, these men between sixteen and 35 were ordered to go to the unoccupied zone in the South of France.743 Many Poësis744 and Rhetorika745 students left for France, often accompanied by their class teachers. The evacuated youngsters were accommodated in camps. In some areas, youngsters between 16 and 19 were allocated to youth companies, whereas the older men between 20 and 35 were allocated to workers companies.746 The situation in the so-called CRAB’s (Centres de Recrutement de l’Armée Belge, Recruitment Centers of the Belgian Army) was poor. As the private secretary of cardinal Van Roey, Edmond Leclef, noted:

“Generally, the provisioning of the CRAB was poor, which often caused raids or burglary. Furthermore, the accommodation was poor: the troops were, as best as they could, accommodated in deserted houses or barns; the majority slept on the bare floor, or on some hay that was seldom refreshed. The clothing wasn’t much better: no reserve clothing, no shoes after marches for weeks, no coats to protect themselves against the cold nights. The health condition, however, generally was good, although many were covered with vermin.”747

Conscious of the difficult situation, some teachers who had stayed in Belgium during the first weeks of the war, tried to reach their colleagues or students in the French camps. Jozef Swolfs, teacher in Mechelen, for instance testified: “I left with a colleague for France, with the intention of helping our boys in the South of France. Yet, due to the German advance in the North of France, we had to return to Mechelen.”748

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 743 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 43. 744 The fifth year in the classical humanities. 745 The sixth and final year in the classical humanities. 746 Leclef, idem, 44. 747 Leclef, idem, 44-5. 748 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting, Diocese of Mechelen’, Questionnaire of Jozef Swolfs.

! 227!

Furthermore, in order to continue the education of Belgian youth in France, some teachers became involved in the organization of schools. These initiatives were soon ceased, because of the capitulation of Leopold III and subsequent installation of a military regime.749

After the capitulation of Leopold III on May 28, the repatriation of youth from France to Belgium was started. The repatriation, however, was difficult and slow. Despite the fact that most schools had resumed their activities by the end of May 1940, many pupils older than sixteen had still not returned. A principal from the province of Hainaut wrote to the cardinal:

“In my desperation about 300 of my students who are still in France, I take the liberty of requesting your mediation. (...) I have had the opportunity to observe the return and talk to hundreds of unfortunates: everything works really slow and there is a risk of ending in failure. I can assure you: Vichy France still regards our soldiers and youngsters as subjects of the French military government and treats them as captives; only the brave that succeed in fleeing, reach the country. Eminence, do not allow men and children (150,000 in number), who left out of duty, to go under in desperation, disgust, laziness and revolutionary ideas. Use your influence so France would not make use of our men and children for I don’t know which German plans.”750

The cardinal wrote several institutions, such as the Papal Nuncio in Vichy and the Spanish ambassador in Paris, hoping to speed up the repatriation. Eventually, it took until September for all students to return to Belgium.751

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 749 See for instance Roels, Twintig jaar boeman, 194. 750 See Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 46-9. 751 Ibidem.

! 228! 3. Under pressure: the impact of the German restriction of private education and the textbook policy of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals on Catholic schools in Belgium

3.1. The impact of the German restriction of private education on schools

As discussed in the previous part of this dissertation, the German occupier undertook several steps in order to gain control and expand its influence over Belgian education. In that respect, the existence of a largely independent network of private Catholic schools was particularly a thorn in the German side. One of the most important elements of its restrictive policy were the measures of August 13 and November 7, 1942, subjecting the establishment and expansion of Catholic schools to an approbation of the German Military Administration. As already explained in the first part, many Catholic school authorities initially circumvented these restrictive measures. Yet, the further restriction of the measures severely complicated the ‘normal’ continuation of Catholic schooling. The negotiations following the publication of these measures were mainly passed off between the archbishopric and the Verwaltungsstab. The question arises, however, if and how local school authorities received these restrictive measures, whether principals actually obeyed these measures and to what extent the German ordinances jeopardized daily school life. Research in the dioceses, Jesuit congregation and school archives cannot give a definitive answer to these questions. Firstly, it is not clear to what extent the cardinal and bishops advised schools under their jurisdiction to actually obey German guidelines. I have only found one reference in a post-war publication to the bishop of Bruges who instructed the Centrale Raad van het Katholiek Lager Onderwijs (Central Board of Catholic Primary Education, CRKO) to advise Catholic schools not to apply for an approbation, since “to apply for an admission would be to acknowledge the legality of the ordinance and the institution that issued it: so do not apply for permission.”752 As a result, after the war the diocese of Bruges proudly announced that not a single school in the diocese had applied for permission to establish a new school or expand already existing classes.753 Furthermore, in the city of (Flanders), problems arose over the extension of a private Catholic

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 752 Berichten en Mededelingen ten dienste van de Inrichtingen (sic) voor opvoeding en onderwijs van het bisdom Brugge, nr.11, schooljaar 1940-1944, page 149. 753 Idem, page 150.

! 229! school. More specifically, in December 1942, the local Feldkommandantur was informed by the VNV mayor of Hasselt, Jef Deumens, that the private school of Hasselt had extended its buildings with two classes, without applying for approbation with the Militärverwaltung.754 In contrast to the previous examples, however, some schools, such as the private primary school for boys in Puurs (Flanders)755, did in fact apply for permission to establish a new school or extend existing classes. More specifically, the Fond Marbourg holds many records of schools that actually applied for permission. Remarkably, however, the records I found always concerned (patronized) private primary schools. In 1942, for instance, a patronized primary school for girls (location unknown) asked the Military Administration a permission to expand its buildings with two extra classes. On October 1, 1942, the application was in fact granted, but Löffler’s response indicates that the approbation was strictly subjected to additional terms and conditions. More specifically, Löffler underlined that the permission could be reversed at any moment. Furthermore, the authorization certificate stated that the further expansion of the classrooms, the material expansion of the school as well as any change within the nature, goal of the school and any change in the school committee was strictly prohibited. In addition, the principal of the school was ordered to ban every demonstration or political manifestation from the classes or (religious) ceremonies at school. This ban did not only include patriotic manifestations or demonstrations, but also those in favor of the New Order. Importantly, these terms and conditions clearly shed light on the political agenda behind the whole application policy: by granting approbation, the Military Administration reserved itself the right to send a delegate without warning in order to inspect the school’s activities and gather information about the direction of the school.756 This example shows that the measures of August 13, 1942 were not only issued to restrict the development of private Catholic schooling in Belgium, but were also used as a way to gain control over the activities and organization of Catholic schools, and to nip (anti-German) manifestations of a political nature in the bud.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 754 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/22.13, ‘Fondation d’écoles libres, généralités (1942-1943)’, Note of the Feldkommandantur 681 to the Militärbefehlshaber, December 1, 1942. 755 See ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/25.6, ‘Ecoles libres – écoles privés de divers responsables (1942-1944)’, Note of the Gruppe Kultur to the Ministry of Public Education about the extension of the private primary school for boys in Puurs, August 30, 1943. 756 Berichten en Mededelingen ten dienste van de Inrichtingen (sic) voor opvoeding en onderwijs van het bisdom Brugge, nr.11, schooljaar 1940-1944, page 149.

! 230! As the previous paragraphs demonstrates the Fond Marbourg only preserves applications concerning the establishment or extension of private primary schools. As a result, the question as to what extent secondary schools obeyed the measures remains unanswered. More specifically, pedagogical reports of principals of Jesuit schools, or the reports of the principals of episcopal schools to the archdiocese between 1940 and 1944, are completely silent on the issue. Enrolment statistics for both episcopal and Jesuit education and the included reports of the principals do indicate, however, that the restrictive measures halting the development of Catholic schools potentially jeopardized the continuation of Catholic schooling and its educational project, since student enrolment generally and steadily increased during the war. More specifically, the chaos at the beginning of the war did have a serious impact on pupil enrolment in Catholic secondary schools. As the last statistics of pupil enrolment in Catholic and official secondary schools date from 1923, there are no general enrolment statistics for the period of the occupation. Yet, in the archives of the archdiocese of Mechelen, the diocese of Tournai, in the bulletin of the diocese of Bruges and the archives of the Flemish Jesuit congregation, I did find pupil enrolment numbers for Catholic secondary education for the period of the occupation. On the basis of these archival documents, I was able to diagrammatize pupil enrolment numbers for episcopal secondary schools in the dioceses of Mechelen, Tournai and Bruges, as well as for Belgian Jesuit schools between 1939-1944/1945. These statistics indicate an initial decline in pupil enrolment in episcopal schools during the first war year 1940-1941. In Flemish Jesuit secondary schools, pupil enrolment numbers kept declining until the school year 1942- 1943.

! 231! 4000!

3500!

3000!

2500!

2000!

1500!

1000!

500!

0!

Pupil enrolment in episcopal secondary schools for boys in the diocese of Tournai, 1939-1946 Source: ADT, Archive of Mgr. Delmotte, Box L/6/1, File ‘Collèges épiscopaux du diocèse de Tournai, 1906-1954’

10800! 10600! 10400! 10200! 10000! 9800! 9600! 9400! 9200!

Pupil enrolment in episcopal secondary schools for boys in the Archdiocese of Mechelen, 1939-1944 Source: AAM, ‘Verslagen van de Colleges en de Lycees’, 1940-1944

! 232! 14000!

12000!

10000!

8000!

6000!

4000!

2000!

0!

Pupil enrolment in the diocese of Bruges, 1939-1944 Source: Berichten en Mededelingen ten dienste van de inrichtingen voor opvoeding en onderwijs van het bisdom Brugge, n°12, schooljaren 1940-1944, page 147.

3100! 3050! 3000! 2950! 2900! 2850! 2800! 2750! 2700! 2650!

Pupil enrolment in Jesuit secondary schools for boys in Flanders, 1939-1945 Source: ABSE, COE 18 ‘Numerus Scolarium I’, nr. 6 ‘1920-1921 – 1974-1975’

! 233! 4900! 4800! 4700! 4600! 4500! 4400! 4300! 4200! 4100! 4000! 3900!

Pupil enrolment in Jesuit secondary schools for boys in Wallonia, 1939-1945 Source: ABSE, COE 21 ‘Numerus Scolarium’, nr. 4 ‘Numerus scolarium PBM’

Yet, despite the initial decline in the first year(s) of the war, the diagrams indicate a general increase in pupil enrolment in both episcopal and Jesuit secondary schools. Next to school statistics, the archive of the Archdiocese of Mechelen also preserves yearly reports that principals sent to the archdiocese, discussing the main developments in their schools. Besides the financial situation of the school, and the intellectual, moral and religious value of its pupils, these reports also shed light on the reasons as that can explain the initial decrease during the first years of the war as well as the general increase in pupil enrolment in private secondary schools from 1941-1942 onwards. Unfortunately, however, I have not found reports for other dioceses or even for the Jesuit school network. Yet, since all diagrams follow a somewhat similar direction, the reports from the diocese of Mechelen are considered exemplary for the rest of Belgium. The principals’ reports in the diocese of Mechelen demonstrate that many parents chose for private schools, which were generally more expensive. This development might seem paradoxical, considering the high enrolment fees for private schooling, on the one hand, and the financial difficulties as a result of the war on the other. The initial drop in pupil enrolment numbers can be explained by the chaos during the early days of the occupation when most schools closed down and many families fled to France. Moreover, the reports of the principals suggest that, in the beginning, the war instilled parents with a feeling of insecurity about the future, and consequently waited to send their children to school. Yet,

! 234! when the majority of refugees had returned to their homes, and the occupation resumed its normal course, their attitudes changed.757 Generally, the principals’ reports point to three different reasons for the gradual increase in pupil enrolment in private Catholic schools: (i) the quality of Catholic private education, (ii) the parents’ general discontent and distrust of official and parochial schools and (iii) the specific conditions of war. Firstly, many principals noted that – especially under the unusual circumstances of the time – parents wanted to ensure a good future for their children. In 1942, the principal of the Instituut Dames van het Christelijk Onderwijs in Antwerp (Flanders), for example, reported to the diocese:

“We have the impression that the increase in student enrolment, particularly for the humanities, can be explained by the present mentality of the parents, who want to – under the influence of the war and the current conditions of life – ensure the future of their children. Most parents are convinced that the best thing to do under the present circumstances is to provide their children – both boys and girls – a proper intellectual education. Therefore, they are convinced the tuition fee is well-spent.”758

As the principal of the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Boom (Flanders) argued, parents wanted to provide their children with an education that gave access to higher education and ensured their future careers.759 As a classical humanities degree was required for some officials’ jobs, many parents wanted to give their children an education in the classical humanities. Secondly, in their reports, a majority of principals noted that the increase in pupil enrolment in private schools had been a result of parents’ diminished confidence in official or parochial education. According to many principals, parents removed their children from official or parochial schools because of their lack of discipline and their discontent with the educational standards. Interestingly, the principals of the diocese of Mechelen also frequently reported that parents allegedly removed their children from state or communal schools, because of teachers’ New Order sympathies. According to the principal of the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 757 AAM, Box ‘Verslagen van de colleges en de lycees, 1940-1944’, Sint-Jan Berchmanscollege Antwerpen, schooljaar 1942-1943. 758 Original Dutch fragment in: AAM, Box ‘Verslagen van de lycees en de colleges, 1940-1944’, Dames van het Christelijk Onderwijs Antwerpen, schooljaar 1941-1942. 759 AAM, Box ‘Verslagen van de colleges en de lycees, 1940-1944’, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege Boom, schooljaar 1942-1943.

! 235! Sint-Jan Berchmanscollege in Mol (Flanders), for instance, “communal schools were too involved in politics”.760 As a result of the alleged greater influence of the New Order and the German occupier in official schools, parents removed their children from municipal or state secondary schools. As the principal of the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Boom (Flanders) noted in his 1943 report, “parents want to withdraw their children from teachers in communal education who cherish peculiar ideas that conflict with those of our people”.761 Thirdly, also the specific war conditions and the German measures interfered with pupil enrolment in private schools. More specifically, principals argued that pupils extended their secondary school studies because they feared being summoned for forced labor, or had not been able to find a job as a result of the poor economic climate. Generally, the increased pupil enrolment in private secondary schools was palpable both in the countryside and in the cities. In the countryside, this was partly due to a change in the social profile of pupils and parents. Due to their importance for the provisioning of the country and their involvement in the black market, some farmers became wealthier and were therefore able to pay for the private schools’ high tuition fees. In the cities, where provisioning was much more difficult, boarding schools faced an increase in applications, as many parents wanted their children to be able to study in a calm atmosphere and in better circumstances than at home where the coal and food situation was often difficult.

The general increase in pupil enrolment numbers rendered the expansion of classes a necessary condition for the ‘normal’ continuation of Catholic schooling. Although many principals complained about the material situation in their school as a result of overpopulation, they never explicitly referred to the German measures of August 13 or November 7, 1942. Yet, I did find one report of 1943-1944, sent by the principal of the Sint-Pieterscollege in Leuven (Flanders) to the archbishopric in Mechelen, in which the headmaster reported his plans to expand the school with three new classrooms, one dormitory and some rooms for the priest-teachers. It remains unclear, however, whether these plans were actually realized during the occupation. Furthermore, I have found many references in the reports of headmasters postponing their expansion plans until after the war. It remains unclear, however, whether they did so because of the German measures or

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 760 AAM, Box ‘Verslagen van de colleges en de lycees, 1940-1944’, Sint-Jan Bermanscollege Mol, schooljaar 1942-1943. 761 AAM, Box ‘Verslagen van de colleges en de lycees, 1940-1944’, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege Boom, schooljaar 1942-1943.

! 236! because of financial difficulties. As the principal of the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Boom (Flanders) noted in his 1943-1944 report to the archbishopric:

“If the school population of the school continues to increase, many new classrooms will need to be build immediately after the war.”762

Although he did not mention as to why he postponed his plans, the fact that he secretly negotiated the purchase of new terrains for the expansion763, could hint at a possible influence of the German restrictive measures.

3.2. The impact of the German curriculum and textbook policy on Catholic schooling

Apart from calling a halt to the development of Catholic schools, the German occupier also aimed at altering the curriculum and unifying and purging textbooks. As discussed in the previous part of this dissertation, Kulturreferenten Petri and Reese discussed the possibility of a German control over school manuals and the school curriculum already in the early months of the occupation. On the one hand, it was their intention to introduce New Order ideas in schools and advance German culture in schools. On the other hand, however, the German occupier feared anti-German propaganda in schools. Before the war, particularly history, geography or language textbooks were punctuated with patriotic references. In chapters on the First World War in history textbooks, for instance, German soldiers were often depicted as barbarians or bloodthirsty devils fighting against a brave army of Belgian soldiers.764 Generally, the occupier’s aims to control or alter the secondary school curriculum had rather limited effects. As discussed in the previous chapter, the Culture Department particularly aimed at making German language classes compulsory, and replacing English language classes in secondary schools. Research in several school archives suggests that, during the war, German was indeed introduced in the curriculum in some schools. The provincial of the Flemish Jesuit Province, John Janssens, wanted to make German

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 762 AAM, Box ‘Verslagen van de colleges en de lycees, 1940-1944’, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege Boom, Schooljaar 1943-1944. 763 Ibidem. 764 De Smedt, ‘De herziening van de schoolboeken’: 177-8.

! 237! compulsory in the secondary schools under his authority. At the same time, however, Janssens also discussed the introduction of English as a compulsory course in secondary Jesuit education.765 Moreover, in the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwecollege in Antwerp (Flanders) German was introduced in the curriculum at the request of pupils.766 Apart from the introduction of German (and English), the curriculum remained virtually unchanged during the war.

Furthermore, the extent to which the German textbook policy and the stipulations of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals were actually implemented in schools is equally hard to determine. From January 1941 onwards, the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals regularly sent lists of forbidden books to schools that were inspected by the Ministry, to the inspectors of primary, secondary and technical education and to Teachers’ Colleges. Yet, the local authorities and boards of governors of private schools only received a written notice of the publication of the list. In their revision of Belgian school manuals, the Commission distinguished between four categories. The category A1 was attributed to school manuals that were to be immediately removed from the curriculum. The category A2 was attributed to school manuals that needed to be removed from the curriculum within ten weeks.767 Only textbooks with an A3 and A4 label could further be used respectively with or without reservation. The first list of January 13, 1941 contained one history textbook with the A1 label, 24 with the A2 label, one Dutch school manual with the A1 label, six with the A2 label and one English textbook with an A2 label. Furthermore, one music and one ethics textbook were labeled A1 and three pedagogy textbooks received the A2 label.768 Yet, the actual implementation of the Commission’s stipulations in schools would remain a problem throughout the war. Firstly, a list of July 1941 indicates that less than a year after the publication of the first list, many schools still used non-approved textbooks in their classes. More specifically, the circular letter of July 16, 1941 stated: “Although the Commission responsible for the revision of school manuals in teachers’ colleges, and secondary and primary education, established by the Ministry of Public !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 765 See for instance ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Aalst, C11/2E, ‘Historische documenten’, nr. 5, ‘Varia bestuursdocumenten’, Correspondence about the curriculum, August 11, 1941. 766 ABSE, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwecollege Antwerpen, nr. 14/2, ‘Oorlogen’, nr. 10, ‘Oorlogsdagboek P.W. Maas’, June, 1940. 767 AAM, Box ‘Commissie belast met de herziening der schoolboeken’, January 13, 1940. 768 Ibidem.

! 238! Education on October 8, 1940, has investigated and labeled a large number of school manuals, it was found that both official and private schools still use a large number of textbooks, which have not been submitted for approval to the Commission. The Military Administration is regularly informed that textbooks, offending the German Empire, the German people or German Army, are still being used in schools or kept by pupils. After the publication of numerous circular letters of the Ministry of Public Education (the last one published on February 28, 1941), urging caution to schools in the choice of school manuals, and proscribing not to commit pupils with textbooks that are offensive to the German Empire, German people or the German Army, these abuses are no longer excusable. As a result, the principals of schools that use those textbooks will be called to account in the future.”769

Secondly, in September 1941, Löffler had already informed the Sicherpolizei in Brussels that the Roman Catholic Congregation of the Brothers of Charity, for instance, neglected the implementation of the stipulations of the Commission.770 Generally, it was stated that principals ignoring the stipulations of the Commission would personally be held responsible in the future. They were obliged to send school manuals, which could give rise to complaints, to depots for old paper. Disobedience was threatened with discharge from their office.771 In October 1941, the Commission concluded that the widespread practice of scratching or pasting over anti-German passages with ink or paper was no longer acceptable, since it had the reverse effect and precisely drew pupils’ attention to these particular passages.772 The following lists that were published during the occupation mainly targeted German, French and Dutch school manuals, as well as history, geography and pedagogy textbooks.773 Initially, the members of the Commission were only permitted to indicate and purge passages offending the German Reich, people or army. In 1941, for instance, all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 769 AAM, Box ‘Commissie belast met de herziening der schoolboeken’, July 16, 1941. 770 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/24.3, ‘Livres scolaires’, Letter from Löffler to the Head of the Sicherheitspolizei about the institutions of the Brothers of Charity, September 12, 1941. 771 AAM, Box ‘Commissie belast met de herziening der schoolboeken’, July 16, 1941. 772 AMSM, Nr. 51, ‘Contacten met kerkelijke en burgerlijke overheden en diverse instanties. Briefwisseling van Superior Fl. Wellens met het stadsbestuur van Mechelen, het provinciebestuur van Antwerpen, het Ministerie van Openbaar Onderwijs en andere overheidsinstellingen’, Circular Letter of the Ministry of Public Education about the removal of anti-German textbooks, October 15, 1941. 773 For more details on the discussions on particular textbooks, see ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/24.3, ‘Livres scolaires (1940-1943)’.

! 239! references to “the dangers of communism, dictatorships and totalitarian states and nationalisms (Fascism and National Socialism) needed to be removed from the interdiocesan program.774As the war progressed, however, even American, Jewish and English writers were targeted.775 As the first part of this dissertation shows, the episcopal authorities were averse to the German textbook control and the establishment and functioning of the Commission. Yet, the lists of labeled textbooks are integrally preserved in the archives of the archdiocese and were forwarded to episcopal schools, precisely because the Military Administration had threatened them with reprisals.776 This is particularly illustrated by an incident that took place in the diocese of Ghent. On April 22, 1943 Monseigneur Coppieters, bishop of Ghent, received a letter from Jan Grauls, chairman of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals, stating that the third volume of Van Cappel’s history textbook Beknopte Schets van de algemeene geschiedenis (Introduction to General History), prohibited by the Commission, was still in use in the episcopal Sint-Bavo Instituut in Ghent (Flanders).777 In the first list, published by the Commission for the Revision of school manuals in January 1941, the third volume of Van Cappel’s history textbook was classified under the A3 category. Although the school manual is not mentioned in the following lists, it did undergo a thorough revision. In the seventh (undated) list of the Commission, the revised version received an A4 label.778 The Sint-Bavo Instituut, however, had claimed that – being a private school – it had not received the circular letters of the Ministry of Public Education. As a result, the principal had confirmed that he had not been informed about the Commission’s decisions. Grauls,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 774 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’, nr. 31 ‘Boekencensuur’, Letter of editor Jozef Van In & Co about the textbook Enseignement Moyen Libre – Humanités Anciennes. Ire partie, Programme des cours interdiocésains (1937), presumably dating from 1941. 775 De Smedt, ‘De herziening van de schoolboeken’: 182. 776 Leclef , Kardinaal Van Roey, 198. Furthermore, in his memoires, the inspector general for primary education at the Ministry of Education, Leo Roels, suggested that many authors or publishers were ready to implement the stipulations of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals. See Roels, Twintig jaar boeman, 211. 777 BDG, Archive of Jozef-Honoré Coppieters, nr. 5.7. ‘Antwoorden voor M. Grauls’, ‘Brief van 22 april 143 aan Monseigneur Coppieters, bisschop van Gent van Grauls betreffende een verboden boek in het Sint- Bavo-instituut’. 778 AAM, Box ‘Commissie belast met de herziening der schoolboeken’, ‘Eerst lijst van schoolboeken onderzocht door de Commissie’, s.d.; AAM, Box ‘Commissie belast met de herziening der schoolboeken’, ‘Zevende lijst van schoolboeken onderzocht door de Commissie’, s.d.

! 240! however, argued that the Commission always sent 600 copies of the lists to the expedition service that distributed the list to all grammar schools. Yet, he had noticed that the secondary school in question had not been included in the address list and as a result had indeed not received the stipulations. Therefore, Grauls requested the bishop of Ghent to urgently send a list of all private boys’ and girls’ schools in his diocese. On May 24, 1943, the vicar-general of the diocese of Ghent, Calewaert, indeed sent a complete list of all episcopal institutions, presumably because they feared German reprisals.779 The question arises as to what extent schools, like the episcopal authorities, complied with the stipulations of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals. Did ‘forbidden’ textbooks really circulate in schools, as the quote of the Commission of July 16, 1941 suggests? Determining the extent to which the stipulations were actually implemented in school curricula and the ways in which eventual German reprisals interfered with education, remains very difficult. Firstly, although I have found some school manuals in archives, I have never found passages that were overwritten, scrapped or pasted over with paper, which could prove a possible implementation of the German control over school manuals. Furthermore, as I document in chapter 6, also former pupils of Belgian Jesuit secondary schools do not have any recollections of German interference in textbooks. Secondly, detailed lists of textbooks that were widely used in secondary education are rare. Yet, the archive of the Jesuit Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Antwerp (Flanders), for instance, does preserve a complete list of textbooks used from the first until the final year of secondary education and, hence, offers an interesting case study to assess the possible impact of the German textbook policy.780 Although the list contains all textbooks that pupils needed to purchase at the beginning of the school year, I have only found the lists for the school year of 1941-1942 and 1942-1943. Interestingly, these lists can be compared to the ‘index’, published by the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals and, as a result, can shed light on the implementation of the stipulations or possible resistance to these measures. Although the ‘index’ of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals did not include every single textbook on the school’s purchase list, I did find that most textbooks used in the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Antwerp were classified under the A4

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 779 BDG, Archive of Jozef-Honoré Coppieters, 5.7. ‘Antwoorden voor M. Grauls’, ‘Brief van 22 april 143 aan Monseigneur Coppieters, bisschop van Gent van Grauls betreffende een verboden boek in het Sint-Bavo- instituut’, May 24, 1943. 780 ABSE, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege Antwerpen, C13/1, ‘College aangelegenheden’, nr. 6, ‘Bericht aan de leerlingen’, ‘Bericht aan de Leerlingen der Humaniora’, schooljaar 1941-1942 and 1942-1943.

! 241! category. In other words, the majority of textbooks – particularly in the domains of Greek, Latin, geography, mathematics and natural sciences – could be further used without any revision. In regards to history or Dutch language, however, I have found some references to textbooks – such as De Baere’s Beknopte Nederlandse Spraakkunst (Introduction to Dutch Grammar), Bauwens’ Dutch textbook Noord en Zuid (North and South) and Schollaert’s contemporary history textbook – that at several stages during the war were subjected to control and revision by the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals. Unfortunately, however, the comparison of both lists can still not provide a definite answer to the question as to whether the school complied with or resisted against the decisions of the Commission, since the school’s purchase list did not include detailed information about specific editions. Depending on the particular edition, De Baere’s Beknopte Nederlandse Spraakkunst, for instance, was classified under different categories. More specifically, the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals temporarily rejected the early 1935 edition (and labeled it “A2”), whilst the later 1940 edition was completely approved (and labeled “A4”).781 The same holds for Bauwens’ Noord en Zuid Dutch language textbook, which was initially temporarily removed from the curriculum. Only the later editions that were “revised according to the remarks of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals” were considered suitable for use in schools.782 Since the textbook list of the Onze-Lieve- Vrouwcollege does not explicitly mention the edition pupils were to buy, it remains unclear whether it complied with or resisted against the Commission’s stipulations. There are reasons to believe, however, that the school in fact did implement the Commission’s stipulations, which is illustrated by the advice about Schollaert’s contemporary history textbook. The 1939 edition of this history textbook was temporarily removed from education, since the Commission had identified passages offending the German nation, people or Army. It was only the revised and republished edition of 1941 that was approved by the Commission.783 Interestingly, the textbook list of 1942-1943 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 781 AAM, Box ‘Commissie belast met de herziening der schoolboeken’, ‘Eerste lijst van schoolboeken onderzocht door de Commissie’, undated: AAM, Box ‘Commissie belast met de herziening der schoolboeken’, ‘Zevende lijst van schoolboeken onderzocht door de Commissie’, undated. 782 AAM, Box ‘Commissie belast met de herziening der schoolboeken’, ‘Zevende lijst van schoolboeken onderzocht door de Commissie’, undated. 783 AAM, Box ‘Commissie belast met de herziening der schoolboeken’, ‘Vierde lijst van schoolboeken onderzocht door de Commissie’, undated; AAM, Box ‘Commissie belast met de herziening der schoolboeken’, ‘Zesde lijst van schoolboeken onderzocht door de Commissie’, undated; AAM, ‘Commissie belast met de herziening der schoolboeken’, ‘Zevende lijst van schoolboeken onderzocht door de Commissie’, undated.

! 242! explicitly mentions that pupils needed to buy “the latest version” (being the 1941 edition).784 Although this conclusion partly remains tentative, it seems that the Onze-Lieve- Vrouwcollege in fact implemented the Commission’s stipulations. Yet, the question arises as to what extent it was really possible to ‘bend the rules’ and to keep using unrevised versions of textbooks. As the book lists of the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Antwerp mention, pupils were sent to an official bookshop (in this case bookshop “Belis” in the Lange Leemstraat in Antwerp) to purchase their textbooks at the start of the school year.785 This had not always been the case. Before 1941, textbooks could be purchased in the school itself at the beginning of every school year. To what extent the war or the establishment of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals interfered with the organization of a ‘school book shop’ remains unclear. Yet, as the first part of this dissertation documents, the German occupier ordered official book shops to keep unapproved and unrevised (text)books locked up. This made it harder to circumvent the stipulations, because another party was involved. So, if schools had used unrevised editions of textbooks, they would have done so with the cooperation of these bookshops.

Although this case study does provide some interesting observations, it is clear that this conclusion cannot necessarily be generalized to other cases or schools. More specifically, I have found some references to principals or teachers that did in fact not comply with the stipulations of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals. In December 1942, for instance, the Minor Seminary of Mechelen refused the city council of Mechelen’s invitation to send a list of all textbooks circulating in their school. According to the principal, as a non-subsidized private school, the Minor Seminary of Mechelen strictly fell under the authority of the archbishop of Mechelen and, as a result, did not have to report its organization or function to the provincial or municipal authorities.786

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 784 ABSE, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege Antwerpen, C13/1, ‘College aangelegenheden’, nr. 6, ‘Bericht aan de leerlingen’, ‘Bericht aan de Leerlingen der Humaniora’, schooljaar 1942-1943. 785 ABSE, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege Antwerpen, C13/1, ‘College aangelegenheden’, nr. 6, ‘Bericht aan de leerlingen’, ‘Bericht aan de Leerlingen der Humaniora’, schooljaar 1941-1942 and 1942-1943. 786 AMSM, Nr. 51, ‘Contacten met kerkelijke en burgerlijke overheden en diverse instanties. Briefwisseling van Superior Fl. Wellens met het stadsbestuur van Mechelen, het provinciebestuur van Antwerpen, het Ministerie van Openbaar Onderwijs en andere overheidsinstellingen’, Correspondence between the alderman of Mechelen and the principal of the Minor Seminary in Mechelen, December 21-4, 1942.

! 243! Furthermore, in November 1941, the principal of the Jesuit Sint-Barbaracollege in Ghent (Flanders) was summoned by the Sicherheitspolizei in Ghent about the use of a modern history textbook by Schollaert and Lauwreys that was temporarily forbidden by the Commission for Revision of School Manuals because of dishonoring references to the First World War. The principal’s reply that the textbook had not been on the ‘index’ of forbidden books at the time it was used met with the Sicherheitspolizei’s remark that every principal was held responsible for the use of demeaning textbooks even if they were not explicitly put on the index of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals. More specifically, the Militärverwaltung stated that it had the right to, without any further investigation or motivation, remove principals from their office if they further used textbooks of the categories A1, A2 and A3, or even those that had not (yet) been subjected to a thorough investigation by the Commission.787 Hence, the Military Administration removed the principal from his office at least until September 1942. Interestingly, apart from shedding light on the concrete consequences that could result from not complying with the Commissions’ stipulations, this case also documents that the Militärverwaltung did in fact attempt to implement a nomination policy in Catholic schools, as it had done in official state schooling or in the Ministry of Public Education. More specifically, in the case of the Sint-Barbaracollege, the Military Administration attempted to gain control over the appointment of a substitute for the dismissed principal. As this was a direct violation of the constitutional principle of freedom of education, the provincial of the Flemish Society of Jesus, John Janssens, sent a letter of protest to cardinal Van Roey.788 This is remarkable, since the cardinal had no authority whatsoever over the Jesuit secondary school in Ghent, which fell under the direct responsibility of the Flemish Province of the Society of Jesus. Presumably, the provincial had hoped that the cardinal’s mediation with the German occupier would result in a reversal of the Military Administration’s decision about the appointment of a successor for the Sint-Barbaracollege in Ghent, which is a possible indication of the fact that the episcopacy and congregations in Belgium were aware of the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 787 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’, nr. 31 ‘Boekencensuur’, ‘Brief van Provinciaal Janssens waarin een zaak voor de kardinaal werd gebracht met betrekking tot de vrijheid van onderwijs’, September 2, 1942. 788 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’, ‘Brief van Provinciaal Janssens waarin een zaak voor de kardinaal werd gebracht met betrekking tot de vrijheid van onderwijs’, September 2, 1942.

! 244! strong position of the archbishopric in the negotiations or relations with the German occupier.

Although the previous paragraphs document that, in some cases, Catholic schools complied with the rules, whilst others did not, the question as to whether teachers did not comment on the war in class, the German occupation or the (inter)national political situation of the time remains unanswered. More specifically, questions can be raised about the possibilities and limitations of curriculum and textbook history. Does the study of the curriculum and school manuals really allow us to penetrate the classroom? Even if I had found altered or censured school manuals in the archive (which I have not), this would not have allowed me to make conclusions about class practice itself. Teachers and principals were not merely the willing executioners of the textbook policy of the central government.789 As Kristel De Smedt has already demonstrated in her Master’s thesis on daily school life during the Second World War, teachers in private Catholic schools often ignored (the censured) school manuals. They often reverted to the same old history, embroidered with patriotic references and anecdotes.790 In addition to this, teachers were often free to fill in the timetable. In their 1942 school timetable, the Jesuit provincial only fixed those classes required for obtaining a certificate and explicitly stated that teachers could freely fill in the school timetable with facultative classes, such as German, English, natural history, physics, chemistry, art or additional mathematics classes.791 Moreover, in many ways, the mere focus on printed school manuals is an anachronism, since the predominance of printed textbooks is a relatively recent development. As Frederik Herman has underlined in his dissertation on school culture during the 19th and 20th century, before the war, “all sorts of exercise books (...) were part of school life, far more so than printed books”.792 As he further claims, even many of his interviewees who

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 789 Particularly Barbara Finkelstein’s work on educational reform is elucidating in this respect, See Barbara Finkelstein, ‘Re-imagining Educational Reform: Public Schools and the Nurture of Consciousness’, Educational Studies. A Journal in the Foundations of Education XIV (1983): 103. 790 De Smedt, ‘Schoollopen in Oorlogstijd’. 791 ABSE, COE5 bis, nr. 9, ‘Grieks-Latijnse Afdeling Lessenrooster’, ‘Grieks-Latijnsche Afdeeling. Lessenrooster en Leerplan’, 1942. 792 Herman, ‘School Culture in the 20th Century’, 55.

! 245! were in primary education in the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s hardly remembered the use of printed books in their (primary) school.793 Precisely because the curriculum or textbooks have long been used as a mirror for actual practices (as if schools “slavishly picked up, incorporated and implemented all newly formulated views”794), educational reality has often been ignored.795 Therefore, it is fruitful to shift focus to sources that offer a window796 on past educational reality (as opposed to mentality), such as principals’ correspondence, school diaries, exercise books, pupil examinations, or class preparations that shed light on the extent to which the war or (inter)national political situation was discussed by teachers and pupils in the classroom or in schools.

4. Politics in the classroom: pupils’ and teachers’ engagement in debates about war and politics

4.1. Introduction

As cardinal Joseph-Ernest Van Roey underlined in his negotiations with the German occupier in 1942-1943, the aim of private Catholic schooling was to give children and adolescents a Christian education. More specifically, in their negotiations with the German occupier, the withdrawal from debates about politics was used by Mechelen as a trade-off in securing episcopal interest in education. In their effort to continue the Catholic educational project, without drawing unnecessary German attention to Catholic schools, both the Roman Catholic Church and the Jesuit order urged principals, teachers and pupils in their schools to maintain neutral positions and abstain from commenting on the political

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 793 Ibidem. 794 Herman, idem, 56. 795 Kristel Dams, Marc Depaepe and Frank Simon, ‘Sneaking into School: Classroom History at Work’, in Silences and Images: the Social History of the Classroom, eds. Ian Grosvenor, Martin Lawn and Kate Rousmaniere (New York: Peter Lang, 1999). 796 The idea of a window on past educational reality was inspired by Anne-Marie Chartier’s ‘Vitrines de la réalité scolaire’. See Anne-Marie Chartier, ‘Excercices écrits et cahiers d’élèves: réflexions sur des pratiques de longue durée’, Le Télémaque 24 (2003): 101.

! 246! situation in school or during class. As Janssens, Head of the Jesuit order in the Flemish Province stated in his letter to the principals of Jesuit schools:

“More than ever, we need to urge our pupils that they have to behave respectably and dignified. If needed, you will have to impose sanctions against rash and out of place expressions of thoughts and feelings that could discredit our reputation and endanger the higher interests of our private education”.797

The same held for teachers, who were also not allowed to comment the political situation in their classes:

“In their classes and in their contacts with pupils, teachers have to withhold from making any remarks on the current international events and have to avoid showing their political preferences. They have to be aware that the smallest imprudence can have serious consequences. They have to remind themselves of the fact that education is only possible within a calm, undisturbed atmosphere. Everything that can give rise to friction or dispute is to be banned. Political propaganda is by no means tolerated.”798

On August 31, 1941, all principals of Flemish Jesuit schools met in Antwerp to further discuss the issue. In their discussion, the abstention from political debates was once again repeated:

“What we don’t do: we totally do not interfere with political issues, with national, nor with international politics. So, we do not discuss our current national political conflicts, parties or ideologies with our boys in or outside of the classroom. Neither do we talk about war related issues, and we are not in favor of either party.”799

As the regulations stated, principals had to distribute this interdiction among the teaching staff and teachers needed to attest that they had taken notice and signed the regulation at

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 797 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijneen studieprefectuur’, nr. 2, ‘Communications et directives pour le temps de guerre’, Letter of J. Janssens to the principals of Jesuit schools, April 9, 1941. 798 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 2, ‘Communications et directives pour le temps de guerre’, Letter of Mgr. Everaert to all principals, May 15, 1941. 799 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 12, ‘Stukken uit de rectorenvergaderingen 1940-1951’, Meeting of the principals, August 31, 1941.

! 247! the beginning of every school year.800 As a result, at the beginning of the school year of 1941, the stipulations of the meetings of the Jesuit principals were distributed among prefects, teachers, housemaster, principals and schoolmasters, reconfirming that “it is strictly forbidden for teachers to discuss, allude to or treat or discuss – both national and international – current political matters both in class and in other exercises. National political disputes, war events, parties involved in war or international prospects will be left untouched.”801 Yet, the stipulations of both the episcopal and Jesuit school authorities defining the boundaries of political discussion and pupils’ and teachers’ freedom of speech in schools or in the classroom, did not always directly find their way into daily school practice. On June 15, 1942, for instance, the vicar-general of the archdiocese of Mechelen, once again reminded teachers in episcopal secondary schools to keep their pupils away from bad influences and advise precaution in their choice of friends, since:

“We come to the conclusion that, in some institutions, pupils take a great deal of liberty on the subject of lectures; and even that some teachers are not picky, yes, even are incautious, in their guidance.”802

Furthermore, the same went for Jesuit secondary schools:

“Apparently, the stipulations, given on August 31, 1941, to the principals of the secondary schools, concerning civic and national education of our youth, have not been communicated everywhere to all parties involved.”803

The question arises as to whether the war or the political situation at that time was completely absent in the classroom, as the episcopal and Jesuit school authorities prescribed? Did teachers really abstain from commenting on the political situation or

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 800 Ibidem. 801 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 12, ‘Stukken uit de rectorenvergaderingen 1940-1951’, Untitled document, September 5, 1941. 802 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 12, ‘Stukken uit de rectorenvergaderingen 1940-1951’, Letter of Everaert to the superiors in the Archdiocese of Mechelen, June 15, 1942. 803 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 12, ‘Stukken uit de rectorenvergaderingen, 1940-1951’, Untitled document, probably dating from July, 1943.

! 248! referring to the war, and to what extent did pupils bring their ideas about politics or those of their parents and family with them into the classroom?

4.2. References to the war and politics in textbooks, course preparations and excercise books

The testimonies of priest-teachers in the 1978 questionnaires, conducted by the Cegesoma (which will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter) seem to support the idea that politics was indeed eschewed in the classroom. Because they ran the risk of being informed on, or would receive an unannounced German inspection visit, priest-teachers generally claim not to have mingled in political debates in class, or at least restrict themselves to implicit or indirect comments on the international political situation of the time. Yet, these testimonies do not seem to be a reliable source in this respect. Generally, priest-teachers tend to overemphasize their resistance against the New Order (which made them a potential victim for ‘black’ pupils in the classroom). When confronted with exercise books, examinations, teachers’ course preparations or internal correspondence, however, it can be concluded that, despite episcopal and Jesuit stipulations, teachers did draw on several practical examples from the war in their classes and often overtly discussed the political situation with their pupils. I have found many references to the war in school examinations, exercise books, teachers’ class preparations and pupil essays. The Poësis mathematics exam of June 1941, for instance, was embellished with specific examples or situations from the war:

“A company of soldiers can be positioned in a quadrate. If they are positioned in a way that only the four outmost rows are occupied, one gets a quadrate of which one flank counts one soldier more than the first quadrate. How many soldiers does that company count?”804

Another particular illustration of the ways in which the war penetrated the classroom can be found in the preparation notes of the catechesis classes of Leo De Vylder, teacher in the episcopal secondary school Sint-Vincentiuscollege in (Flanders) and Sint- Maarteninstituut in Aalst (Flanders), of which the KADOC preserves the written records. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 804 ABSE, COE 110, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’, nr. 3, ‘Proefwerkvragen wiskunde Reto’, ‘Algebra Poësis A’, June 27, 1941.

! 249! More specifically, his pupils’ catechesis exercises are preserved in his archives. At the time, catechesis classes were structured according to a question-answer format. In this case, the pupils formulated questions and, in the margins, the teacher added a reference to a specific relevant section in the catechism, or mentioned the correct answer. These catechesis question lists are interesting because the particular question-answer format left considerable space for interaction between the teacher and the pupil. Unfortunately, however, in most cases, De Vylder’s handwriting is unreadable and his comments in crayon in the margins did not stand the test of time. Yet, although it remains unclear as to how political matters were dealt with and which moral or religious lessons were conveyed, the school exercise books do illustrate the ways in which the Second World War and many political and ethical issues were used as concrete examples in the teaching of Christian principles and ideas, and were used to explain (and legitimize) the position of the Catholic Church and clergy during the war. Firstly, in the catechesis exercise books, the circumstances of war, such as legal and constitutional aspects of international warfare, or the attitude and position of nations, soldiers and citizens and their ethical consequences, are frequently addressed. More specifically, questions as to whether a soldier can be personally held responsible for the killing of another soldier in war, whether England’s food embargo against countries occupied by Germany was justifiable from a religious point of view, whether national leaders had the right “to hand down their government to another, against the will of a majority of citizens of that nation”, or whether "Germany has the right to take Belgian soldiers as prisoners of war” were dealt with in class.805 Clearly, the aim of these classes was to initiate pupils in the Christian doctrine and faith, by drawing upon examples from the war. Marcel Geens, one of De Vylders pupils, for instance, wrote down a question about whether farmers had the right in times of war to sell wheat at an excessive price to smugglers and at a fairly lower rate to the poor. In his comment in the margins De Vylder clearly showed his disapproval of smuggling, which he considered a shameful deed.806 Secondly, the analysis of the Catechesis exercise books demonstrates that political hot potatoes that were being discussed at the level of political decision-making by the episcopal or Jesuit schools authorities, such as the interference of priests in political matters, the position of the Roman Catholic Church towards New Order and collaborating movements

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 805 KADOC, Archive Leo De Vylder, Box 2, Untitled document, undated. 806 KADOC, Archive Leo De Vylder, Box 2, Exercise of Geens Marcel, undated.

! 250! and their members, or the relation between National Socialism and Communism, equally found their way into the classroom. In class, pupil Oscar De Smedt, for instance, wrote down the question as to whether priests could be engaged in politics. Or, as Ph. Van Bombeek wrote:

“Is a priest allowed to interfere in political matters and that he defends one political party against the other? Can he preach about it in Church, by naming one political party, while he warns for another as being bad and contagious?”807

Additionally, in his lesson about the fourth commandment, De Vylder mentioned that, in principle, the Roman Catholic Church could adapt to any governmental regime, be it a monarchy or a republic, a democratic or dictatorial state, a bond of states or even a state based on racial principles, on the condition that Christian principles were respected.808 This shows that, apart from initiating pupils in the Christian doctrine and principles, the Catechesis class was a way of conveying Catholic ideas about the function of priests, but also Catholicism’s ideas about capitalism, National Socialism, Communism or Flemish independence. Jan De Bruyn, for instance, explicitly wrote down the question as to whether the Church or Catholicism “would be better off with National Socialism or Communism?”809 Furthermore, another pupil, G. Thybaert, for instance, demanded as to what could be argued against a defense of Communism:

“What should we answer when some people, in the context of present hard circumstances, feel and utter ideas in favor of Communism? These people = workers who are not to be persuaded of the idea that Communism is heaven for workers, a heaven of equality. What should be argued against this?”810

Furthermore, as Firmin De Cremer’s question states, Flemish independence was equally discussed in class:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 807 KADOC, Archive Leo De Vylder, Box 2, Excercise of Ph. Bombeek, undated. 808 KADOC, Archive Leo De Vylder, Box 3, Course preparation ‘IV Gebod: Eert uw vader en uw moeder’, undated. 809 KADOC, Archive Leo De Vylder, Box 2, Excercise of Jan De Bruyn, undated. 810 KADOC, Archive Leo De Vylder, Box 2, Excercise of G. Thybaert, undated.

! 251! “A country consists out of two tribes: e.g. Flemish and Walloons. Does Flanders has the right to realize independence from a religious point of view?”811

Although in many cases De Vylder’s comments in the margin are unreadable, the undertone of the questions is quite clear. One particular question in one of the exercise books deals with the United States’ motivation to enter the war. By questioning their true motivations, the question mirrors Catholic reservations about capitalism:

“Is it sufficient a reason for America to help England in protecting its citizens or would there be other reasons, for instance to maintain capitalism?”812

Furthermore, particularly the questions dealing with the Church’s stance towards collaborating movements and its protagonists are a reflection of how these Catechesis classes functioned as a way of explaining and legitimizing the Church’s wartime policy. More specifically, not only questions as to whether the ideology of the VNV fundamentally conflicted with Catholic principles or directly combated the Roman Catholic Church were dealt with, but also the reasons as to why the Catholic Church refused to minister Sacraments to members of collaborating movements, or as to why the episcopacy did not speak out more resolutely against their revengeful crimes. In conclusion, the previous paragraphs demonstrate that the episcopal and Jesuit school authorities could not prevent references to the war and political issues from penetrating the classroom. Not only did their stipulations clash with school practice, where principals, pupils and teachers (each with their own ideas and beliefs) interacted on a daily basis, but the regulations also conflicted with the very nature of the Catholic educational project itself, which was to instill pupils with Catholic doctrine, principles and ideas (about Communism, for instance) that are by definition political.

Yet, at this point it is important to keep in mind that particular ideas about the Belgian state or Flemish question were not always considered ‘political’ by the Catholic school authorities themselves. Despite the fact that, during their meeting of August 31, 1941, they pleaded for a withdrawal from politics, principals affirmed that the aim of Jesuit secondary education would be to instill pupils “with respect for the legal, i.e. Belgian state authority,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 811 KADOC, Archive Leo De Vylder, Box 2, Excercise of Firmin De Cremer, undated. 812 KADOC, Archive Leo De Vylder, Box 2, Untitled document, undated.

! 252! for the Belgian flag and the national anthem”. They would also be taught “service for the Belgian state authority” and would have to honor and love the Belgian King.813 This was not considered politics, but a mere aspect of a “healthy and obligatory national education”.814 Their ideas about ‘national education’ were, however, rather ambiguous and their attachment to the Belgian nation and its symbols was far from unconditional. More specifically, in spite of their great attachment to the Belgian King and loyalty to the Belgian state, their dedication to the Flemish cause and attachment to the Flemish past was never far away:

“We teach the boys to learn about and admire their Flemish past. We will instill them with pride for their Flemishness (Italics by author). We teach them sacrifice in service of the . The existing French elements in our Flemish cities are to be Dutchified (Italics by author), by a gradual persuasion in a genuine social-Christian way.”815

Furthermore, although pupils were to be instilled with respect for the Belgian national authority, national anthem, flag and King, the Jesuit school authorities considered it would be “irresponsible to impose so-called duties on them that did not exist, an internal and spontaneous mood is not to be subjected to a duty.”816 More specifically, the Jesuit educational authorities were convinced that the Flemish community was ‘more natural’ than the Belgian community, which essentially was an artificial creation.817 As Marnix Beyen has documented, these ideas were widespread within Flemish Catholic circles.818

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 813 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 12, ‘Stukken uit de rectorenvergaderingen 1940-1951’, Meeting of the principals, August 31, 1941. 814 Ibidem. 815 Ibidem. 816 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 12, ‘Stukken uit de rectorenvergaderingen, 1940-1951’, Untitled document, probably dating from July, 1943. 817 ABSE, Archief Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege Antwerpen, nr. C13/3C, ‘College aangelegenheden’, nr. 2, ‘Vergaderingen’, Report ‘Conferentia Magistrorum Schol. Primar.’, January 23, 1940. 818 Marnix Beyen, ‘”Vlaams zijn in het bloed en niet alleen in de hersenen”. Het Vlaamse volk tussen ras en cultuur (1919-1939)’, in Rasechte wetenschap? Het rasbegrip tussen wetenschap en politiek voor de Tweede Wereldoorlog, eds. Marnix Beyen and Geert Vanpaemel (Leuven/Amersfoort: Acco, 1998), 173-201.

! 253! The ambiguity of these particular ideas about national and civic education could easily be misinterpreted. More specifically, it seems that within the political context of the time, the Jesuit’s attachment to the Flemish past and cause in some cases was misinterpreted as a positive appreciation of the Dietse unification project. In their letter to the principals of July 1943, however, the Jesuit school authorities explicitly stated that the political establishment of Groot Nederland clearly fell beyond the duties and actions of Jesuit teachers. Therefore, it was “not allowed to – in education, in sermons or lectures, or other forms of our ministry – to advance the political idea of Groot Nederland or to mold the general mood in that direction.”819 Yet, although the Jesuit school authorities took a firm stance in these matters, a lecture was organized on November 7, 1943 precisely to assess the relationship between the Jesuit educational project and the Groot Nederlandse idea.820 Again, it was concluded that although priests – at least in their capacity of citizens – had to vote to enhance general national interest, they were not allowed to occupy a position in state administration. Yet, in spite of their non-involvement in politics, priest-teachers were to entrust youth with an insight in the relations between the people and the nation and the general, national welfare. On a practical level, teachers needed to maintain their neutrality. More specifically, in practicing their office, they were to respect the (political or ideological) opinions of people that consulted them in national or political matters.821 Therefore, it was considered important that “boys will be taught to discuss disagreements in a calm, dignified and objective way (...), never to inveigh, never to scold, and always to – open in mind and heart – to respect other people’s opinions and being.”822 Yet, although the Jesuit school authorities theoretically respected the legal state authorities, they clearly prioritized the Flemish-national community, language and identity over that of the Belgian state:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 819 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 12, ‘Stukken uit de rectorenvergaderingen, 1940-1951’, Untitled document, probably dating from July, 1943. 820 It remains unclear, however, who took the initiative in organizing this lecture and who participated. Furthermore, the document does not indicate what the opinions of the individual participants on the matter precisely were. 821 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 12, ‘Stukken uit de rectorenvergaderingen, 1940-1951’, ‘Referaat over de Groot-Nederlandse Gedachte en onze opvoederstaak’, November 7, 1943. 822 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 12, ‘Stukken uit de rectorenvergaderingen 1940-1951’, Meeting of the principals, August 31, 1941.

! 254! “We use the official name of our language and literature: Dutch. We will make sure that in our libraries, Dutch books are not treated in a stepmotherly way, under the pretext that they would be expensive or that they are unknown to us; our entire cultural complex, which was French oriented, is to become Dutch oriented (...)”.823

According to the Jesuit school authorities, only through this reorientation would the history lesson regain its true national character. More specifically, the focus on “history of the population, currently living within Belgian state borders”, was diverted towards a “patriotic history, i.e. the history of our ancestors, thus of the entire ”. It was concluded that the ultimate goal of Jesuit secondary education was to get pupils tuned into Dutch national culture. As a result, Jesuit educators accepted the Belgian state as legal state authority and maintained loyal to it, only on the condition that “the Belgian state authority respects and enhances the general welfare of the Flemish identity.” Essentially, this Flemish nationality was considered an entire part of the Dutch national community and a fundamental cultural entity of Groot-Nederland. As such, the Jesuit school authorities claimed to have no right to impose love for a Belgian state that aimed at unifying the Belgian people. Hence, the Flemish Jesuits’ loyalty to the Belgian state, flag or anthem, as was discussed in the meeting of the principals on August 31, 1941, was to be interpreted in a specific way:

“If we demand respect for the Belgian flag, anthem (Brabançonne is not really an established Dutch word for this Brabant song), the state authorities and so on, this is not to become a enforced confession, of the so-called national community, which would imply love [for the Belgian nation], but only a gesture of civility, which holds for all respectable symbols, or a conditional expression of loyalty in as far as hopes can be cherished for a more national treatment.”824

As a token of their attachment to the Flemish-national community, the Belgian anthem was always accompanied and followed by Flanders’ anthem, de Vlaamse Leeuw, in Jesuit schools.825 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 823 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 12, ‘Stukken uit de rectorenvergaderingen, 1940-1951’, ‘Referaat over de Groot-Nederlandse Gedachte en onze opvoederstaak’, November 7, 1943. 824 Ibidem. 825 Ibidem.

! 255! These ideas particularly fitted in with a Catholic anti-modern and flamingant discourse, reflecting nostalgia to an ideal past and a defense of Flemish or Dutch culture, engrafted on respect for a glorious Flemish past and its ancestors, which prevailed in Catholic Flemish intellectual circles during the interwar period and during the occupation. The anti-modern and anti-democratic idea of “a resurrection of the volkse, natural Flanders (or, preferably, Groot-Nederland), a Flanders that was not corrupted by moral decay, deep-rooted party and group interests, a Flanders that was not governed by Belgian leaders, or by a Jewish- Bolshevist conspiracy”826 originated from the interwar period, when processes of democratization, internationalization or industrialization called into being a reversion to an ideal past. More specifically, this predilection for the past was integrally part of the anti- modern undercurrent that characterized the intellectual and political discourse during the interwar period. Yet, as Beyen has convincingly demonstrated, the Second World War particularly boosted initiatives to revive the past. As Beyen has argued:

“When fixed state boundaries and political structures are threatened or wiped out, a vacuum develops in which historically founded blueprints for a different, better future can flourish.”827

During the war and the occupation, many aspects of modernity surfaced in their most extreme form. More specifically, the destructive power of modern technology, administrative centralization and economic expansion contributed to the dissolving of traditional relations. Unsurprisingly, nostalgia to pre-modern paradise easily rooted in these grounds. The occupier keenly took advantage of this anti-modern undercurrent and presented itself as the herald of a natural and traditional social structure. As such, the occupation formed the catalyst of a anti-modern basic undercurrent.828 In his work, Beyen has particularly investigated the ways in which these anti-modern and anti-democratic ideas surfaced in intellectual circles, in academia or in collaborating organizations during the war, and how several of their initiatives related to the scientific, cultural or educational policy of the German occupier. Yet, these ideas did not only manifest themselves at the central level, but also in exhibitions or remembrance initiatives. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 826 Beyen, ‘Nostalgie naar een nieuwe tijd’: 479. 827 Beyen, Oorlog en Verleden. 828 Ibidem.

! 256! As the following paragraphs demonstrate, schooling was an important vehicle through which these traditionalist Catholic ideas were passed on and successfully internalized by pupils. More specifically, in the archive of the Flemish Province of the Jesuits, I have found essays and written reflections of the annual French or Dutch composition competitions. Remarkably, these speeches and essays are punctuated with the anti-modern, anti- democratic and romantic flamingant discourse that characterized many Catholic Flemish circles. In many essays, pupils inveighed strongly against the decadence and moral decay that characterized the early decades of the twentieth century. The Dutch essay ‘t Zijn sterke beenen die de weelde dragen of Rhetorika pupil Pierre Yzewijn particularly presented the rich bourgeoisie as the scapegoat of the story:

“(...) on a daily basis we see those social jerks parade through our cities, in their fancy Rolls-Royces, in the company of a fine lady or a pedigree dog, which are equivalent in this case.”829

As Jorden Bockaert noted in his Dutch essay, not only the bourgeoisie, but also entire nations suffered from the illness of greed and decadence:

“Principles, character, and will power are totally destroyed or absorbed by the desire for property; only the will of the land possesses him with a lack of will and desire for luxury (...). A nation living in luxury and abundance sooner or later suffers from over culture, it weakens, dilutes and abandons its power and national virtues for pleasure.”830

As Beyen has pointed out, Catholic anti-modernism particularly targeted France, which (as a symbol of secularization, moral decay and decadence) had led its own destruction. As Jorgen Bockaert argued:

“In our contemporary time, France is considered the Second Empire, and after the war of 1914-1918, the nation was flooded with luxury. Germany was in hardship, and yet became

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 829 ABSE, COE 112, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’, nr. 13, ‘Verhandelingen door leerlingen Borgerhout’, Essay of Pierre Yzewijn, December 14, 1944. 830 ABSE, COE 112, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’, nr. 13, ‘Verhandelingen door leerlingen Borgerhout’, Essay of Jorgen Bockaert, undated.

! 257! so powerful that it started a second world war, and then the French nation collapsed as a perished structure. Germany has not destroyed France, over culture has!”831 As discussed in the previous chapter, this discourse of moral decay and decadence served as a large-scale Catholic pedagogical offensive and was adjusted into a Christ-centred pedagogy, revolving around discipline, character and will power.832 Hence, in order for Europe to get out of the crisis, a new elite had to emerge. As André Delvaux phrased it in his composition work:

“There are periods in human life, there are periods in politics, in a war, when everything seems cracked. And if, at that very moment, there are no heroes to save the situation, we are done for. We have, I believe, come to such a period. We do not know what to make of these men who are born and then die fifty years later, after having earned a small fortune, which their children will soon waste. What we need today, are heroes! We do not need that bourgeois mentality that characterizes us so often. We need heroism.”833

It was particularly on this new generation of heroes, “that tomorrow will take over the heavy duty of the leaders of your people from the older ones”, that hopes for a better future were built. “The future bloom or decay of our nation” entirely depended on the ways in which this new elite would acquit themselves from their duties.834 In building this new elite the importance of a sound education was emphasized. As Emiel Lambert noted in his Dutch speech, it was particularly the university that carried the “heavy, but fine duty” to “form and mould an elite “of tough chaps, of firm individuals, into a noble race”. For it was particularly through education that children’s and adolescents’ character and will power was formed and tested:

“The beautiful ideals (...) are chastened and tested in the frontline of the life battle. (...) Our spirit is enlarged, our powers completed and chastened, our character tested.”835

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 831 Ibidem. 832 Depaepe, ‘De Vlaamse katholieke pedagogiek’, 82-3. 833 ABSE, COE 112, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’, nr. 13, ‘Verhandelingen door leerlingen Borgerhout,’ Essay of André Delvaux, May 21, 1943. 834 ABSE, COE 112, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’, nr. 14, ‘Nederlands: Verhandelingen leerlingen Borgerhout’, Essay of Raymond Vandevelde, January 16, 1943. 835 ABSE, COE112, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’, nr. 14, ‘Nederlands: Verhandelingen leerlingen Borgerhout’, Essay of Emiel Lambert, May 1, 1942.

! 258!

Hopes for the future of the nation were built upon an intellectual elite, not only because they had completed their classical humanities and university studies, but also because only intellectuals “had studied the past with its endless implications”.836 Hence, a sound knowledge of the past was considered important, precisely because it manifested itself in everyone and everything:

“In our attitude, we show our boldness and spirit, our eyes beam with the will of our descent. In our art and culture, in our entire civilization lies the education and growth, determined by the past.”837

Interestingly, in the essays and speeches, the image of the natural, pre-modern Flemish society, during its high days of culture and art were evoked. More specifically, the speeches and essays particularly focused on the ways in which “the tiny country near the sea has established itself in the big society of humankind”, and emphasize the ways in which “the Flemish people established its eternal glory, glory that still grows and puts us on top of the list of productive nations.”838 More specifically, it was particularly through art and culture that Flanders had established its glory, for “art vividly reminds us of our ancestry. It is through art that we see the virtues and flaws of our ancestors, consistently before our eyes”.839 Essentially, the idea was promoted that a country’s past makes or breaks the present and future. Through artists, such as Rubens, Flanders had acquired eternal glory:

“And a nation that will never perish, will never avoid the consequences of its history. Aren’t there nations ruined by a godless past? Sodoma has been demolished and the Jew walks eternally for he has betrayed God! But big and small countries, they can pride

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 836 ABSE, COE112, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’, nr. 14, ‘Nederlands: Verhandelingen leerlingen Borgerhout’, Essay of Raymond Vandevelde, January 16, 1943. 837 ABSE, COE112, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’, nr. 14, ‘Nederlands: Verhandelingen leerlingen Borgerhout’, Essay of A.G. Bernaerts, May 12, 1944. 838 ABSE, COE112, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’, nr. 14, ‘Nederlands: Verhandelingen leerlingen Borgerhout’, Essay of Raymond Vandevelde, February 28, 1943. 839 Ibidem.

! 259! themselves on art and culture, and Rubens and Rembrandt will always be the pride of Flanders.”840

In line with what Marnix Beyen has argued, evocations of Flanders’ glorious past particularly drew on images of medieval times. Hence, examples that symbolized pre- modern Flemish society, such as the guilds or monuments that reminded of Flanders’ glory during the Middle Ages were very popular themes in pupils’ essays and speeches. The old Flemish saying Arbeid Adelt (There is nobility in labor), for instance, “that since long has been immortalized by the Flemish guilds in their flapping flags, and evoked in their big works of art of painting, statues and buildings”841 was a recurrent and popular theme in pupils’ Dutch composition works. Pre-modern natural Flemish society was symbolized and glorified by the image of the hard-working farmer, a popular theme in Flemish art:

“Is it not beautiful to see the figure of a farmer portrayed with wrinkled lines in their brow, the dark tanned cheeks that heavily fold around a stiff mouth, whose eyes twinkle of labor?”842

In addition, their work was punctuated with glorifying references to monuments that symbolized Flanders’ Medieval and glorious past. Rhetorika pupil Carlos De Pillecyn, for instance, dedicated his Dutch composition assignment to a glorifying description of Ghent’s Gothic churches:

“Out of the mist, Ghent appeared in dim grayness. (...) Suddenly, Sint-Michiel [Saint- Michaels Church in Ghent, note of the author] appears, cumbersome and cold. We stop under a semi-decayed accolade arch (sic) that immediately displays its Gothic bright space. Late-Gothic style, with flamed windows, finely sculptured capitals and tall naves. Everything breaths medieval perfection here.”843

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 840 ABSE, COE112, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’, nr. 14, ‘Nederlands: Verhandelingen leerlingen Borgerhout’, Essay of A.G. Bernaerts, May 12, 1944. 841 ABSE, COE112, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’, nr.14, ‘Nederlands: Verhandelingen leerlingen Borgerhout’, Essay of Emiel Lambert, October 3, 1941. 842 Ibidem. 843 ABSE, COE112, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’, nr. 14, ‘Nederlands: Verhandelingen leerlingen Borgerhout’, Essay of Carlos De Pillecijn, February 27, 1943.

! 260! Remarkably, in the same Dutch composition assignment, Carlos De Pillecijn explicitly opposed his glorification of Gothic ‘Medieval perfection’ against the bleakness of the Saint- Michaels Church’s Renaissance portal:

“The Renaissance portal stood as a true heresy at the back, with rigid Greek pillars contrasting the upwards impelling nave.”844

As Marnix Beyen has argued, the Middle Ages functioned as a beacon “on which a large part of Belgian Catholics bended their traditionalist lamentations”, as opposed to the individualism, and mechanistic and rationalistic ideals spread since the Renaissance.845

Yet, although these quotes clearly refer to a romantic flamingant discourse, widespread in (radical) Catholic Flemish circles or even collaborating movements such as the VNV, and clearly mirror shared ideals of Catholic and National Socialist pedagogy, they cannot simply be labeled as collaboration. As Beyen has argued, as a result of their principal opposition against the “barely concealed annexationism of National Socialism”, but at the same time their strong attachment to anti-Belgian and anti-democratic sentiments, a broad basis of the Flemish movement that ended up in the collaboration through the VNV, reverted more than ever to the typical characteristics of Flanders.846 Indeed, although some of the Rhetorika pupils’ speeches and essays clearly mirror admiration for German art and culture, their discourse particularly draws on hope for the restoration of a Flemish Catholic Occident, rather than the establishment of a society built on National Socialism and German principles:

“A man can drag his people along the fanaticism of states. The nation declares itself (or is declared) the character nation of the world. Then, national pride, which is good, develops into an abscess of pride. Now, in our current days, German has declared itself the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 844 Ibidem. 845 Beyen, ‘Nostalgie naar een nieuwe tijd’: 472-3. For a more detailed description of these historical stories about Flanders, see also Marnix Beyen, ‘’Spijts de Geschiedenis ...’ Het discours over het nationale verleden in een aantal ‘historische belijdenissen’, verschenen in Vlaanderen tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog’, in Hun kleine oorlog. De invloed van de Tweede Wereldoorlog op het literaire leven in België, eds. Dirk De Geest, Paul Aron and Dirk Martin (Leuven: Peeters/SOMA, 1998), 155-97. 846 Beyen, Oorlog en Verleden, 214.

! 261! Herrenvolk, it is governed by overblown glory and its Volkstum. A nation has again left the path of love and brotherhood, and has fallen for the self-idolatry of the race”.847

The previous example demonstrates that schooling successfully contributed to the spread of an anti-modern and anti-democratic discourse, widespread in Catholic Flemish and Flemish-nationalist circles. Outside of the classroom, and in extra-curricular societies, such as the so-called Lettergilden (Literary Guilds) or Académies Littéraires (Literary Academies) that were established during the nineteenth and twentieth century in several Catholic episcopal and Jesuit schools, contributed to the spread of traditionalist and flamingant ideas. More specifically, these literary societies were established in order to promote self- expression and foster the writing and rhetoric capacities of Rhetorika pupils. Therefore, weekly meetings presided by a proost (dean) were organized, during which pupils’ essays on various subjects were read and presented.848 Additionally, on many occasions, speakers were invited to discuss or explain societal or cultural figures, developments or ideas.

4.3. Pupils’ engagement in political debates in extra-curricular societies: the Literary Guilds and Literary Academies

During my research in various school archives, I have found the reports of the meetings of the literary societies of the episcopal Minor Seminars of Mechelen and Roeselare.849 These reports are a remarkable illustration of the flamingant and, to a somewhat lesser degree, of the anti-modern discourse that was widespread in Flemish Catholic schools in the interwar period and during the war. In the wake of former pupil and famous Flemish writer and poet Albrecht Rodenbach, particularly the Literary Guild of the Minor Seminary of Roeselare developed into a bastion of flamingantism. On the eve of the Second World War, the report of the meeting of October 8, 1939, explicitly stated that the goal of the Literary

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 847 ABSE, COE112, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’, nr. 14, ‘Nederlands: Verhandelingen leerlingen Borgerhout’, Essay of Jorden Bockaert, undated. 848 Minor Seminary Roeselare, http://www.erfgoedkleinseminarie.be/erfgoed-schoolleven1.html (Last consulted, July 17, 2013). 849 For the reports of the Académie Littéraire of the Minor Seminary of Mechelen, see AMSM, nr. 763, ‘De Academie voor Letterkunde en Muziek. Register met verslagen van de bestuursvergaderingen en feestzittingen van de Academie, afdeling letterkunde, 1924-1949’, For the reports of the Literary Guilds of the Minor Seminary of Roeselare, see AMSR, Box 17, ‘Verslagboek der Lettergilde’.

! 262! Guild was “literary and Flemish”.850 More specifically, its aim was to form “conscious Flemings” and to “raise awareness in the whole of Flanders”.851 In order to “again enrich poor Flanders”, as G. Verbeke, teacher at the Minor Seminary of Roeselare and dean of its Literary Guild phrased it: these literary societies were particularly concerned with discussing Flemish culture and its protagonists.852 Even before the war, the life and work of historical protagonists of the Flemish movement, such as the aforementioned Albrecht Rodenbach, the Flemish priest and exponent of cultural flamingantism Hugo Verriest or mystic Jan van Ruusbroec, “the Dietsche Saint”853, were frequently discussed during these meetings. Furthermore, before the war, the relationship between politics and youth and the history of the Groot-Nederlandse movement were discussed during the third and fourth meetings of 1939, respectively. At the Minor Seminary in Roeselare, for instance, this pre-war (cultural) flamingantism was particularly stimulated by the beginning of the Second World War and the German occupation of Belgium. As Jules De Mey stated in his opening speech of the meeting of July 12, 1940, it was important “to gain more Flemish blood”. Furthermore, he argued: “now, more than ever, it is time to gain a new enthusiasm and new pride”.854 Parallel to the previous example of the Xaveriuscollege in Borgerhout (Flanders), the Literary Guild of the Minor Seminary in Roeselare also reverted to the great Flemish cultural past of Rodenbach or Verriest, for instance, since the continuation of that great past would prepare pupils for the important role they were to play in future Flemish Catholic society.855 Although these flamingant expressions cannot simply be labeled as collaboration, the Literary Guild did maintain close relationships with protagonists of Flemish-nationalist collaboration, such as the Flemish-nationalist priest Cyriel Verschaeve. Both before and during the war, Verschaeve (as well as other Catholic protagonists of the Flemish movement, such as the Jesuit Desideer Stacke) were much welcomed speakers in Catholic secondary schools in

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 850 AMSR, Box 17 ‘Verslagboek der Lettergilde’, Report of the meeting of October 8, 1939. 851 Ibidem. 852 AMSR, Box 17 ‘Verslagboek der Lettergilde’, Report of the meeting of September 24, 1939. 853 AMSR, Box 17 ‘Verslagboek der Lettergilde’, Report of the meeting of January 17, 1940. 854 AMSR, Box 17 ‘Verslagboek der Lettergilde’, Report of the meeting of July 12, 1940. 855 See the speech of G. Verbeke, dean of the Lettergilde of the Minor Seminar in Roeselare: AMSR, Box 17 ‘Verslagboek der Lettergilde’, Report of the meeting of September 30, 1940.

! 263! Flanders.856 Before the war, on November 16, 1939, for instance, Verschaeve was invited as a guest speaker for the Literary Guild at the Minor Seminary in Roeselare.857 Moreover, during the war and after his appointment by the German Military Administration as Head of the Cultural Board he was praised as a “high-pitched man, to whom Flanders owes so much”.858

Yet, it was particularly this association between the (radical wing) of Flemish-nationalism and collaboration with the German occupier that in some schools gave rise to conflict. More specifically, I have found examples of the ways in which the German occupation primed a new dynamic within the (pre-war) Catholic Flemish school climate and the way in which the Second World War eventually contributed to the ideological division of pupils and teachers.

4.4. Politics on the playground: a ‘chalk face’ study of conflict between supporters and opponents of the Flemish movement

In the school archives of the Jesuit Sint-Jozefscollege in Turnhout (Flanders), I have found the diary of a Poësis pupil, who described his school experiences between September and December 1940. The archive inventory describes the author as ‘anonymous’, but through the confrontation with different sources from the school archives his actual name could be reconstructed. In his diary, the author mentions his first name, Juliaan, and from the enrolment list that is still preserved I could conclude that his full name was Juliaan Van Acker.859 The retrieval of his full name enabled me to (with the kind help of the school’s administration) find the relatives of Juliaan, who could provide more details on his life. Juliaan, born on January 12, 1925, lived with his parents, three brothers and four sisters in the Flemish town of Lokeren. Juliaan’s father was a shoe factory owner and because many of his clients sent their children to the Jesuit school in Turnhout, Juliaan and two of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 856 Particularly the diaries of the school prefect or principal reveal that Catholic protagonists of the Flemish movement were invited to give lectures in Catholic schools, both before and during the war. See for instance, ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Aalst, nr. C11/9-10A, nr. 23 ‘Diarium Prefectuur’. 857 AMSR, Box 17 ‘Verslagboek der Lettergilde’, Report of the meeting of November 16, 1939. 858 AMSR, Box 17 ‘Verslagboek der Lettergilde’, Report of the meeting of June 13, 1941. 859 ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, C73/2A, ‘Leerlingen en oudleerlingen’, nr. 7, ‘Leerlingenlijsten tussen 1900-1945’.

! 264! his brothers, Herman and Leo, were enrolled there as residents.860 According to his sisters, the school was nationally renowned for its sound educational program, iron discipline and high-quality education in the humanities and classical languages, which were praised in several jubilee editions.861 The family did not know, however, that Juliaan kept a diary between September and December 1940. His personal writings are a combination of three genres. Firstly, the diary relates to his day-to-day experiences in school and at home. Secondly, the diary contains some personal thoughts in particular passages that were added at a later stage. More specifically, during the spring of 1941, Juliaan commented on some of his earlier writings about his conflicts with some of his fellow pupils. Thirdly, the diary includes the religious reflections of Father Gustaaf Van Alsenoy, the headmaster of the Sint-Jozefscollege at that time. Unsurprisingly, it was Van Alsenoy who preserved Juliaan’s diary in his personal archive.862 Afterwards, it was classified in the larger archives of the grammar school863, where it remained untouched until now. Still, it remains unclear how Father Van Alsenoy came into possession of the diary. Did he confiscate it because of its subordinate passages or was it lost and found by the school superiors? The diary touches upon some strikingly ordinary experiences of a schoolboy, which are not unique to wartime periods. At several stages in the diary, Juliaan expressed his frustrations about the difficulty of the lessons, his grades being below par and his anxiety about the consequences this might have for his future. Generally, and in the context of this article, I have paid less attention to those experiences that belonged to the school culture itself, such as Juliaan’s discontent with the discipline, his complaining about bad school results or his homesickness. Interestingly, in his diary, Juliaan also comments on the war, the political situation of the time and the atmosphere in school. Remarkably, the German occupation is not often explicitly mentioned in the diary. More specifically, there is only one paragraph in which the war literally slips into the text and therefore serves as a starting point for the analysis. . On October, 22 the author, Juliaan, mentions a speech of Father Arts in which he argued: !

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 860 Letter of Frank Van Acker to author, January 25, 2011. 861 See for instance the Jubilee edition of the Sint-Jozefscollege Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, 1945-1950 (Turnhout: Sint-Jozefscollege, 1996). 862 ABSE, Personal Archive Gustaaf Van Alsenoy. 863 ABSE, Sint-JozefscollegeTurnhout.

! 265! “Times will be hard for us, we have to toughen our body already (food, etc.) (...) Only leaders have the right to study. Show yourself worthy! ... or go to the factory ... The colleges are overcrowded! It isn’t so much the brain, but rather the “character” that is important. This character we need to find ourselves. We have to understand the lesson of the war.”864

This passage discusses the importance of character and an elitist education and relates to the idea, present in a fair deal of Catholic literature, that the ‘easy’ German victory, after only 18 days of and the failure of parliamentary democracy, had revealed the many weaknesses of society and a lack of character in the Belgian and Flemish population. Although this did not result in sympathies for – in the eyes of the Catholics ‘pagan’ – National Socialism, the Belgian capitulation and German occupation were considered as a point of departure for a new ‘way of living’, founded on discipline, character and good education.865 Depaepe has argued that, particularly in Flanders, the discourse of increasing ‘moral decay’ served as a large-scale pedagogical offensive, as sympathies for the German people, their moral standards, religion and art held a great attraction for many Catholic pedagogues.866 Unsurprisingly, maybe, also some of the speeches of the former headmaster of the Sint-Jozefscollege, Gustaaf Van Alsenoy, were couched with appreciations for Germany. In a speech, probably dating from September 1940, he regretted the fact that most pupils were from “milieus imbued with the spirit of modern times”. Therefore, he added, “we probably have admired the Germans because of their order, discipline, their natural virtues of pride, patriotism and unanimity”. Now, he argued, “we have to learn something from that: we must elevate these virtues into supernatural virtues by means of our religion (...)”.867 This combined with an earlier letter,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 864 ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, C72/1B, ‘Historische documenten’, nr. 3, ‘Dagboek van een leerling uit de Poësis van september tot december 1940’. 865 Lieven Saerens, for instance, discussed the discourse on Körperkultur and Bildung in Catholic circles in the interwar period. See Lieven Saerens, ‘Het “Wendepunkt”, 1933-1940’, in Ast Fonteyne, 1906-1991. Een kwestie van Stijl, Peter Antonissen et al. (Leuven: Kadoc, 1999), 102-3. Moreover, Marnix Beyen argued that order, discipline, style and morality were part of the classical Catholic Flemish-nationalist topos during the war. This discourse was also present in the Jesuit journal Streven. See Marnix Beyen, ‘Grootse plannen, grote desillusies. De Tweede Wereldoorlog en zijn naweeën’, in Ast Fonteyne, 1906-1991. Een kwestie van Stijl, Peter Antonissen et al. (Leuven: Kadoc, 1999), 134. 866 Depaepe, ‘De Vlaamse katholieke pedagogiek’, 82. 867 ABSE, Personal Archive Gustaaf Van Alsenoy, untitled document.

! 266! in which a parent complained that he had not “sent his boy to the Sint-Jozefscollege to turn him into a pro-German, but rather to give him a good education”, can partly illustrate Depaepe’s argument.868 Furthermore, Father Lode Arts who is explicitly mentioned in Juliaan’s diary is known to have had an important influence on the development of a Flemish school climate and on stimulating Flemish-nationalist convictions among pupils in the interwar period.869 In spite of the fact that Arts was no longer in service during the war, he regularly held speeches about his own education at the Sint-Jozefscollege and the ways in which his upbringing had taught him to work and toughened his character.870 Although some of his wartime writings show that Arts did sympathize with some ideas of National Socialism, he – as many other Catholic intellectuals at that time – mainly assessed the possibilities the German regime had to offer in reinforcing Catholic pre-war, anti-modern ideas.871 The Van Acker family recalls that also Juliaan’s Latin teacher, Marcel Brauns – who is also mentioned in the diary, but not specifically in the aforementioned passage – had a great influence on the boys. Brauns was a Poësis teacher in the Sint-Jozefscollege between 1938 and 1941 and a rather controversial figure because of his radical Flemish-nationalist ideas and anti-Bolshevist propaganda, for which he eventually was excluded from the Jesuit order in 1964.872 Juliaan internalized some of these ideas, which possibly forged his own Flemish-nationalist sympathies. During the interwar period, the Jesuit congregation developed and maintained

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 868ABSE, Personal Archive Gustaaf Van Alsenoy, Speech ‘Saamhorigheid en onderlinge verstandhouding’, April 6, 1940. 869 Lode Arts was subprefect of the college between 1926 and 1929. From 1941 onwards, he worked as a lector in Antwerp. ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, C72/26, ‘Varia pedagogica’, nr.3 ‘Taaltoestanden in het M.O.: twee seminarie-opstellen door Herman Verachtert (1976-1977) en Rita Abbeel (1976-1977): allebei met toepassingen op het college van Turnhout (1830-1940)’, page 8. 870 ABSE, Personal Archive Gustaaf Van Alsenoy, ‘Speech Van Alsenoy op het Rectorsfeest’, June 27, 1942. 871 Beyen, ‘Nostalgie naar een nieuwe tijd’: 477. 872 Biographical information about Marcel Brauns can be found in Stijn Vissers, ‘Marcel Brauns 1913-1995. Jezuïet en Vlaamsnationalist’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Antwerpen, 2006); Luc Vandeweyer, ‘“Hoe ik tot de politieke theologie kwam”. Pater Brauns kijkt terug op de beweegredenen voor zijn publieke leven’, Wetenschappelijke Tijdingen (2009), nr. 1: 78-93; Erik Vandewalle and Nele Bracke, ‘Marcel Brauns’, in Nieuwe Encyclopedie van de Vlaamse Beweging, eds. Reginald De Schryver, Bruno De Wever, Gaston Durnez, Lieve Gevers, Paul Van Hees and Machteld De Metsenaere (Tielt: Lannoo, 1998), 595-6.

! 267! strong ties with the radical Flemish movement.873 In the Sint-Jozefscollege in Turnhout, Flemish consciousness particularly developed during the interwar years. Between 1920 and 1930, the number of teachers supporting the Flemish movement that strongly influenced particularly resident pupils, increased. Archival research for the 1930s even suggests that almost all teachers and pupils were sympathetic to Flemish-nationalism.874 Yet, during the war, the pre-war Flemish school climate swung towards Belgian patriotism. The circulation of Belgian patriotic symbols or the organization of Belgian patriotic events particularly illustrates this changed course. More specifically, before the war, pupils overtly practiced their Flemish-nationalist conviction by wearing pins in the shapes of Flemish Lions or by writing the Catholic Flemish slogan “Everything for Flanders, Flanders for Christ” on the left side of their exercise books875, whereas during the war, the principal allowed pupils to wear symbols of Belgian patriotism, such as the rosette. Moreover, on November 11, 1940 a Requiem Mass for the fallen soldiers was organized. Whereas before the war, the diary of the prefecture does not mention any specific festivities on the occasion of Armistice Day, the prefect did refer to the singing of the Belgian national anthem on November 11, 1940.876 Not only were these celebrations forbidden by the German occupier, but also the Jesuit provincials, Janssens and Le Cocq, ordered the principals of Flemish and Francophone Jesuit schools to respect the German prohibition and also abolished the school holiday on Armistice Day, because they feared patriotic manifestations that could draw unwanted German attention to the schools:

“On November 11 our schools will not give a day off. Furthermore, we cannot feign ignorance of the absence of some pupils. Every manifestation is to be prevented. (...)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 873 See for instance Wils, Van Belgische naar Vlaamse natie, 254-5. More details on the relation of the Jesuits with the Flemish movement can be found in Christian De Borchgrave, Eerst Vlaanderen voor Christus: de pionierstijd van het Ruusbroecgenootschap (Altoria: Averbode, 2001). For the development of the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Flemish movement and the importance of education in passing down these ideas, see Gevers, ‘The Catholic Church’, 110-8. 874 ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, C72/26, ‘Varia pedagogica’, nr. 3, ‘Taaltoestanden in het M.O.: twee seminarie-opstellen door Herman Verachtert (1976-1977) en Rita Abbeel (1976-1977): allebei met toepassingen op het college van Turnhout (1830-1940)’, pages 7-12. 875 Idem, page 11. 876 ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, C72/20, ‘Diaria Prefectuur’, nr. 9, 10, 11 and 18.

! 268! Furthermore, it is advisable not to sing a Requiem Mass on November 11. If this does happen, there can be no national flag or anthem.”877 Indeed, Janssens’ fears that the Requiem Mass on November 11 and manifestations of patriotism could give rise to conflict proved pertinent. In the Sint-Jozefscollege in Turnhout, for instance, various pupils – among which also Juliaan Van Acker – did not want to take part in the festivities, precisely because they considered the Requiem Mass an act of Belgian patriotism. On November 11, 1940, Juliaan noted in his diary:

“Almost half of the section is wearing bows and ribbons! Almost all of them have put on their best suits! They are going to save the country! [note the irony here, note of the author(s)] Requiem mass at 7 a.m. for the fallen soldiers. The brochure ‘The 18 days campaign’ that is full of Belgian patriotism is read”.878

In response to the patriotic manifestations, Juliaan and some of his friends, who were also sympathetic to the Flemish cause, decided to form a student bond, ‘The 4’. They regularly held meetings and mainly wanted to react against the prefect’s permission to wear the rosette as a sign of Belgian patriotism.879 This renewed patriotic atmosphere conflicted with Juliaan’s and some of his friends’ expectations: before the war the Sint-Jozefscollege had been a Flemish school, but during the war, Belgian patriotism was openly cultivated. On November 12, 1940 he wrote: “[T]his is a Flemish grammar school, but it is full of Belgian patriots!” In a reaction against the patriotic school climate, ‘The 4’ decided to take action and steal the aforementioned brochure about the 18-days campaign and hide it, which caused great consternation the following morning when a couple of pupils discovered that the book was missing. ‘The 4’ even planned to take further action, for “all four of us are even more determined to withstand everything for the Flemish movement.” They planned to provide

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 877 ABSE, COE 17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 2, ‘Communications et directives pour le temps de guerre’, Letter to the principals of the Jesuit secondary schools’, November 7, 1941. See also, PBM, Section 9 ‘Notitiae Provinciae’, Nr. 11, Box 1, Envelope B, Letter of Victor Le Cocq to the principals of the Jesuit schools in the Walloon Province, November 7, 1940. 878 ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, C72/1B, ‘Historische documenten’, nr. 3, ‘Dagboek van een leerling uit de Poësis van september tot december 1940’, November 11, 40. 879 ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, C72/1B, ‘Historische documenten’, nr. 3, ‘Dagboek van een leerling uit de Poësis van september tot december 1940’.

! 269! pins in the shape of Flemish lions and, if necessary, reveal their opinion by means of placards or posters.880 For their part, the Belgian patriotic pupils, led by a fellow pupil Forges, “one of the worst franskiljons” [term of abuse for pro-French Flemings, note of the author(s)], as Juliaan called him, planned counter actions. More specifically, Forges decided to draw up a petition and ask all pupils to sign it under the pretext of apologizing to the prefect about what had happened. In fact, however, the petition was a way for the pro-Belgian pupils to find out who refused to sign and, therefore, was a Flemish-nationalist. The situation escalated on November 14 when, during breakfast, a couple of pupils mentioned the 18-days campaign again and yelled: “Leve België” (Long Live Belgium). According to Juliaan “all the Flemings started scolding” and two of his friends, Fons881 and Jules Pauwels went outside and were eventually expelled from the school. The exclusion only deteriorated the relationship between the two groups that had formed. Some of the pupils, as Juliaan phrased it, “took it too far and even dragged [the conflict between] England and Germany into the discussion.” “As if this had anything to do with it!”, he commented. Furthermore, the exclusion provoked even more rebellion: Juliaan and two other boys refused to stand up and sing the national anthem during the celebration for Saint-Peter, which resulted in a general punishment. The duty master summoned all pupils to the study and lectured the boys: !

“It is mean! Terribly rude! I fully disapprove! These are the boys that will save Flanders ... [note the ironic undertone here, note by the author(s)] what’s more, they [the Flemish- nationalist pupils, note of the author(s)] are the biggest fools and good-for-nothings of the section. (...) I reproach the three boys for the whole section and they can collect their punishment with the prefect.”

In addition, the prefect did not have a good word to say about what had happened:

“You are not worthy of wearing these lions ... critics ... fanatics ... these are the men who ruin Flanders, these are the future traitors of their nation (...)”. He further commented:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 880 Ibidem. 881 I have not been able to retrieve Fons’ last name.

! 270! “Back in our days, that [Flemish-nationalist militancy] was good. But now that Flanders has acquired its rights, it is mean.” 882

Firstly, the words of Juliaan’s fellow pro-Belgian pupils (viz. “they dragged [the conflict between] England and Germany into the discussion”) and the prefect’s remarks (viz. “these are the future traitors of their nation”) particularly illustrate the ways in which Flemish-nationalism got associated with collaboration, although, in fact and as the following paragraphs will reveal, both were not necessarily linked. Secondly, the prefect’s comments also reveal the diversity within the Flemish movement itself. During the 1920s, a strong Flemish-national feeling arose in Catholic lower middle classes. At the same time, a process of radicalization occurred, particularly among Catholic youngsters, pupils and students. As the Belgian historian and expert on Flemish-nationalism, Bruno De Wever, has argued, this would give rise to a ‘new’ Flemish movement that differed from the ‘old’ one on the basis of its anti-Belgian character. These two wings, however, remained connected through a chain of ‘kinships’.883 The diary illustrates very well how the anti- Belgian undertone of the Flemish-nationalist actions of some of the pupils clashed with the ‘older’ Flemish, though pro-Belgian, convictions of the prefect.

Although Juliaan did regret his rebellion during mass, his reaction to these harsh words of the housemaster and the prefect once again underlines his disappointment with the general patriotic climate.884 In a first letter to his father, which he wrote on November 16, 1940, he noted that he would never forget the words of the housemaster and prefect, “particularly because these came from the Jesuits, who are known as “the educators””. Later that day, he wrote a second short letter to his father, in which he (sarcastically) thanked the house master and prefect for their reaction, as it had made him realize that also school superiors

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 882 ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, C72/1B, ‘Historische documenten’, nr. 3, ‘Dagboek van een leerling uit de Poësis van september tot december 1940’. 883 De Wever, Greep naar de macht, 90-1. 884 On November 15, he noted “I slowly start to realize what these two speeches mean! Traitors of Flanders; and then the words of disgrace and the stinging words of scolding of the housemaster! From now on no priest or boy will have trust in us. We will never be able to put on a little show, we will never be able to do something to promote Flanders, nor bring our section to a higher level. All of our prayers and sacrifices for Flanders are being broken by the housemaster with his stupid words. Who wants to even look at ‘the future traitors of our nation'”. ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, C72/1B, ‘Historische documenten’, nr. 3, ‘Dagboek van een leerling uit de Poësis van september tot december 1940’.

! 271! cleraly could also make mistakes.885 The fact that Juliaan and some of his friends, all sympathizers of the Flemish movement, were disillusioned with this patriotic school climate, which resulted in the contestation of power. The fact that this even resulted in their exclusion particularly elucidates what happens when a school’s belief and value system is questioned from below.

Still, the exclusion of the two Flemish-nationalist pupils, Fons and Juul Pauwels, was undone, although they seem to have held on to their ideas. It is possible that the headmaster was put under pressure, for the two expelled boys were supported by their family and friends, who heavily criticised the Jesuit fathers for the exclusion. Juliaan noted in his diary:

”[A]t home, Fons was received with open arms for the first time”.886

He also related upon his adventures: !

“[F]irst, he went to Adr. Scharpé887 in Antwerp. When he [Scharpé] heard the whole story, he was terribly angry with the Jesuits! He phoned a friend, who had some authority and who advised him [this is Scharpé, note of the author] to send a letter to the Culture Board”.888

According to Juul Pauwels’ and Fons’ stories, some members of the Flemish Culture Board decided to send Scharpé’s letter to their German superiors. As soon as Scharpé

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 885 Ibidem. 886 ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, C72/1B, ‘Historische documenten’, nr. 3, ‘Dagboek van een leerling uit de Poësis van september tot december 1940’, November 21, 1940. 887 Adriaan Scharpé was the son of Lodewijk Scharpé, a professor in German philology and Flemish militant. For more information, see Letterenhuis, ‘Adriaan Scharpé’, http://anet.ua.ac.be/desktop/letterenhuis/core/index.phtml?language=&euser=&session=&service=&robot=&d eskservice=desktop&desktop=letterenhuis&workstation=&extra (Last consulted on January 21, 2014). 888 ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, C72/1B, ‘Historische documenten’, nr. 3, ‘Dagboek van een leerling uit de Poësis van september tot december 1940’, November 21, 1940.

! 272! learned this, however, he ordered the representatives of the Culture Board to send the letter back to him and he eventually tore it apart.889 Firstly, this incident reveals the ways in which ideological conflict influenced social relations both within and outside the school. The Antwerp historian of Flemish collaboration, Aline Sax, has argued that collaborators largely depended on distinct social networks.890 The diary confirms that, to a certain extent, this also holds true for the relations between Flemish and Belgian nationalist adolescents that formed distinct groups in class or on the playground. The interview with the Van Acker family, however, points to a different story. Particularly his sisters and wife argued that some of the Belgian patriotic pupils from the diary eventually became good friends in his later life.891 This already underlines that the diary offers only ‘a snapshot’ and highlights the importance of source contextualization, on which I will return to later in the discussion. Secondly, the incident particularly elucidates the complexity of the situation at that time and underlines once again that the Flemish-nationalist aspirations and beliefs of the boys, their families and social networks did not necessarily result in collaboration with the German occupier. When Flemish-nationalism resulted in an act of collaboration (contact with the German occupier by mediation of the Culture Board), Flemish militants backed out.

As mentioned before, it is not clear whether this incident pressurized the school superiors to readmit the boys, but the diary does reveal that after their return, the school authorities talked about public solidarity, with the intention of “calming the boys. The word ‘Flanders’ was not mentioned”. Still, the remarks that Juliaan added in March 1941 suggest that the conflict did not end in 1940, and that he remained convinced of being right about the Flemish movement: “And I would do it again! It was not a stupidity! A country that ruined

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 889ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, C72/1B, ‘Historische documenten’, nr. 3, ‘Dagboek van een leerling uit de Poësis van september tot december 1940’. 890 Aline Sax, ‘Omdat wij toch allen zwarten waren … Een theoretisch kader voor onderzoek naar de drijfveren van collaborateurs’ (Paper Presentation for the Research Group Political History, Universiteit Antwerpen, July 6, 2010); Aline Sax, Voor Vlaanderen, Volk en Führer: de motivatie en het wereldbeeld van Vlaamse collaborateurs tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog 1940-1945 (Antwerpen: Manteau, 2012). 891 Interview with Van Acker family, February 16, 2011.

! 273! the very best of our Flemish leaders, deserves no respect.”892 This relates to the many Flemish soldiers who had given their lives for the country at the Yzerfront during the Great War. Flemish militants, however, argued that they had never received any credit or respect for it as Flemish-nationalism was associated with activism893 and flamingants were being excluded from national politics.894 It also appears that Juliaan’s discontent with that situation persisted. In particular, a letter which Juliaan wrote on May 8, 1942 to his eldest sister Alice for her twenty-first birthday confirms his strong Flemish-nationalist, though anti-German convictions. To his sister, he wrote: !

“You are a firm Flemish girl, dear Lieske [nick name for his sister Alice, note of the author(s)] and I continuously pray to Jesus that he’d educate you in this struggle to become a lovely, beautiful Flemish mother. Without them, we can give up Flanders and Dietsland and it would be better if they would never talk of “Heil Hilter” or “Staf Declercq”895 in newspapers anymore and that there’d be “Heil our good, real Flemish mothers” on top of every page. I had to get this off my chest, Lieske, so you’d understand what a lovely duty is imposed upon you to blossom into a beautiful yellow flower, (...) Yellow! With the black lion of tough grimness, of the forceful power of our Flemish militants and idealists. (...) We mock the played out, ramshackle 110 years of Belgium. We don’t fear National Socialism! We will be Christians, loyal to God and Nation (...)”.896

Parallel to the speeches and essays of pupils in the Jesuit Xaveriuscollege in Borgerhout, Juliaan’s words are a reflection of hopes for a restoration of a Catholic Occident rather than a dream for the incorporation of Flanders in a National Socialist Empire. The idea that in the minds of the pupils and their families, their Flemish feelings and activities might have had nothing to do with collaboration are clearly illustrated by the incident between

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 892 ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, C72/1B, ‘Historische documenten’, nr. 3, ‘Dagboek van een leerling uit de Poësis van september tot december 1940’. 893 ‘Activism’ relates to the collaboration with Germany of some militants within the Flemish movement during World War I. 894 See for instance Wils, Van Belgische naar Vlaamse natie, 306-7, and Marnix Beyen, ‘A parricidal memory: Flanders’ memorial universe as product and producer of Belgian history’, Memory Studies 5 (2012): 32-44. 895 Staf Declercq was a Flemish-nationalist and national socialist leader of the Flemish National Union between 1933 and his death in 1942. 896 Van Acker family archive, Letter of Juliaan Van Acker to his sister Alice Van Acker, May 8, 1942.

! 274! Adriaan Scharpé and the Cultural Board, as well as the letter from Juliaan to his sister ‘Lieske’. In this respect, the diary can complement the focus of Belgian or Flemish World War II historiography on political collaboration of Flemish-nationalism on the level of political decision-making and its ideological affinity with National Socialism.897 Yet, even if the association between Flemish-nationalism and collaboration with the German occupier during World War II might not have coincided with that of the actors themselves, it did give rise to conflict within the school walls. The fact that Juliaan and some of his friends, all sympathisers of the Flemish movement, were disillusioned with the reorientation of the school climate from explicit Flemish to Belgian patriotism resulted in the contestation of power and also elucidates the consequences of a school’s belief and value system being questioned from below. As such, the diary does not really document ideological conflict between supporters and opponents of National Socialist ideas as a result of the Second World War, but rather precisely sheds light on the ways in which the German occupation and the collaboration of a large fraction of (radical) Flemish- nationalism primed new dynamics within the pre-war Catholic Flemish school environment.!

To conclude, this section particularly underlines the difficulties in keeping politics out of the classroom. The next section particularly underlines the idea that the political engagement of teachers and pupils – although forbidden by the Jesuit and episcopal school authorities – equally plagued the youth movement. !

!

5. Politics outside the classroom. Catholic youth movements and the lure of New Order ideology !

! In his report of 1942 to the archbishopric in Mechelen, the principal of the Sint- Lievenscollege in Antwerp warned for “students who are under the influence of “new

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 897 De Wever, Greep naar de macht; Bruno De Wever, ‘De erfenis van de collaboratie tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog in België (1944-2000)’, Opstellen voor een inspirerende non-conformist. Een huldeboek voor Werner Vandenabeele (1926-2000), ed. Nico Van Campenhout (Lokeren: Stad Lokeren/MasereelFonds/Imavo, 2002), 200-209.

! 275! theories” are escaping from our influence”.898 During the war, the Catholic Church struggled to keep Catholic youth under its influence. Firstly, the German occupier aimed at controlling the activities of youth movements. As a result of the German ordinance, also schools were also requested to hand over the membership lists of the Katholieke Studenten Actie (Catholic Student Action, KSA) or Scouts.899 Additionally, National Socialist and collaborating youth movements severely challenged the Catholic educational project and the Church’s influence over the youth. As a result of their attraction to New Order ideology, some pupils left Catholic youth movements, such as the Katholieke Studenten Actie, for collaborating or National Socialist groupings.! ! 5.1. Contacts between Catholic and New Order youth movements! ! As discussed in the first part of this dissertation, collaborating groupings – such as the Vlaams Nationaal Verbond in Flanders or Rex in Wallonia – organized propaganda in schools in order to win over youth.900 The Belgian cardinal, Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, severely opposed these attempts to withdraw youth from Church control. In a circular letter of January 29, 1941, the vicar-general of the cardinal, Mgr. F. Everaert explicitly forbid pupils and teachers in episcopal schools to become members of movements that were not approved by the cardinal. Furthermore, on April 2, 1941, the cardinal further clarified that it was absolutely prohibited to wear distinguishing marks of (youth) movements that were not approved by the episcopal authorities, nor to attend meetings or manifestations.901 In the summer of 1941, the episcopal stipulations were further extended to the school

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 898 AAM, Box ‘Verslagen van de Colleges en de Lycees’, Sint-Lievenscollege Antwerpen, schooljaar 1941- 1942. 899 See for instance: ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Aalst, nr. C11/2E, ‘Aalst College. Historische documenten’, nr. 5, ‘Varia bestuursdocumenten’, Letter of the city administration of Aalst to the Sint-Jozefscollege requesting the membership lists of KSA and Boy Scouting, July 14, 1941. 900 More specifically, school administrations were often approached by collaborating movements about the spread of propaganda, such as journals, in their school. In 1941, for instance, the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Antwerp was approached by the administration of the DeVlag journal Starkadd. See for instance ABSE, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Antwerpen, nr. 14/2, ‘Oorlogen’, nr. 3, ‘Duitse bezetting’, Letter of the administration of Starkadd to the principal of the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Antwerp, September 15, 1941. 901 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 190.

! 276! holidays. On July 3, 1941, for instance, Everaert urged episcopal schools to make their influence felt during the summer holidays:! ! “They will, in agreement with the parish clergy, do what is necessary on every level: piety, recreation, sport, etc. to protect pupils from negative influences and to keep them out of certain movements that currently do everything to reach and incorporate the youth of our institutions”.902! ! Apart from the cardinal, the Jesuit congregation also explicitly included the prohibition to wear distinguishing marks of non-approved youth movements in their school regulations. More specifically, on the meeting of the principals of Jesuit secondary schools in Brussels on September 6, 1940, it was decided that pupils were not allowed to wear distinguishing marks both in school and on the way home. The principals also decided that pupils would have to behave dignified at all times: ! “Actions that do not agree with the standards of dignity or courtesy (such as tearing off of stamp cards, writing inscriptions on walls or on cars, destruction of objects, damaging uniforms, etc.) must be severely punished by the school authorities. At the beginning of the school year, this will be issued in every class by the headmaster. The prefect always will write down the facts, his investigation and the imposed punishment and keep the written document.”903! ! With the exception of purely religious groupings, such as the so-called Bonden van het Heilig Hart (Bonds of the Sacred Hart), the Jesuit school authorities also stopped granting their approval for pupils' membership of movements that were not active within the school. All permissions granted in the years before were withdrawn.904! The Catholic prohibition to become members of movements or associations that were not approved by the episcopacy or the Society of Jesus, such as the Dietsche Opvoedkundige Beweging (DOB), Jeugdopleiding or the Unie van Hand- en Geestesarbeiders (UGHA), soon resulted in conflicts with civil authorities. In 1942, for instance, a conflict arose over !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 902 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 12, ‘Stukken uit de rectorenvergaderingen 1940-1951’, Letter of Fr. Everaert to the principals, July 3, 1941. 903 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 12, ‘Stukken uit de rectorenvergaderingen 1940-1951’, Meeting of the principals, September 6, 1940. 904 Ibidem.

! 277! teacher membership in New Order movements between the Permanent Deputation of the Province905 of East Flanders and the diocese of Ghent (and by extension the entire Belgian episcopacy). More specifically, the Permanent Deputation of the Province of East Flanders sent a circular letter to all private technical schools receiving provincial subventions, stating that the episcopal prohibition violated the constitutional principle of freedom of association. As a result, in a meeting of September 8, 1942, the provincial administration decided that private technical schools, denying their teachers the right to become members of New Order associations, would lose the financial aids coming from the Province. Moreover, the circular letter stipulated that (i) schools had to post the provincial circular letter in the staffroom, in order to inform teachers about their right to become members of New Order associations; (ii) principals had to abstain from any reprisals against teachers who were members of such associations; and (iii) principals had to agree with a provincial inspection to supervise the actual implementation of these regulations.906! As this provincial circular letter interfered with episcopal stipulations and regulations, the diocese of Ghent considered the Permanent Deputation’s letter a direct violation of the constitutional principle of the freedom of education. In response, canon Calewaert, vicar- general of the diocese of Ghent, pointed out that the prohibition in question had not been issued by the episcopacy as such, but had been distributed by the Centrale Raad van het Katholiek Onderwijs (Central Board of Catholic Education, CRKO) and additionally, that each private school held the right to define its own internal school regulation. He also highlighted that the Permanent Deputation had no authority over private technical schools, even if the Province financially supported them.907 ! Yet, as the Permanent Deputation had threatened schools to take their financial subventions, many principals of private technical schools had in fact posted and implemented the provincial circular letter, without first consulting the diocese of Ghent.908 As a result, the diocese of Ghent needed to respond. In the beginning of October 1942,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 905 It is important to keep in mind that the provincial administrations were entirely infiltrated by the VNV. 906 ADL, Archive of Mgr. Kerkhofs, nr. H ‘Adm. Dioc.’, nr. 75, ‘Administration diocesane guerre 1940-1945’, File 6, ‘Mgr. Kerkhofs’, Circular letter of the Permanent Deputation of the Province of Eastern Flanders to the principals of private technical schools receiving provincial subventions, September 26, 1942. 907 ADL, Archive of Mgr. Kerkhofs, nr. H ‘Adm. Dioc.’, nr. 75, ‘Administration diocesane guerre 1940-1945’, File 6, ‘Mgr. Kerkhofs’, Letter of Canon Calewaert to the Permanent Deputation of the Province of Eastern Flanders, October 15, 1942. 908 Ibidem.

! 278! Calewaert requested the advice of canon Van den Eynde, the vicar-general of the Archdiocese of Mechelen, about possible concessions to solve the issue, since the Permanent Deputation had requested a meeting. By mediation of Van den Eynde, cardinal Van Roey had responded that the episcopacy held on to its earlier stipulations and that no propaganda in favor of the New Order would be allowed in schools, but that it had no intention whatsoever to act against members of the Vlaams Nationaal Verbond (Flemish National Union, VNV) and the Unie voor Hand- en Geestesarbeiders (UGHA). On October 13, 1942, Calewaert indeed met with two representatives of the Permanent Deputation of the Province of Eastern Flanders to discuss the issue. As he describes in his report to Mgr. Kerkhofs, who had also been informed about the issue, he did indeed communicate the cardinal’s decision. Furthermore, according to Calewaert, the two representatives immediately recognized that their circular letter was poorly drafted, since the provincial administration itself was not in favor of extremist organizations, such as the Dietsche Opvoederbeweging, the SS or the DeVlag. Rather than being in favor of German National Socialism, the representatives of the Permanent Deputation underlined their aim of strengthening Flemish-national Socialism, based on Christian principles. Eventually, Calewaert concluded the meeting by arguing that the Church could not do any fundamental concessions, since it could not risk losing credibility in the schools under its supervision.909 Indeed on October 15, 1942, Calewaert sent a circular letter to all private technical schools, explicitly prohibiting the posting of the provincial circular letter in the staffroom and underlining that the episcopacy’s earlier stipulations remained unchanged.910 Interestingly, however, Calewaert proposed that, although his earlier communication to technical schools remained unchanged (i.e. teachers were not allowed to become members of New Order movements and the diocese reserved for itself the right to act against teachers who did), in practice, the diocese would tolerate teacher membership of the UGHA and the VNV.911 This case is particularly interesting because it illustrates how Calewaert’s official firm stance against teacher membership in New Order associations

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 909 ADL, Archive of Mgr. Kerkhofs, nr. H ‘Adm. Dioc.’, nr. 75, ‘Administration diocesane guerre 1940-1945’, File 6, ‘Mgr. Kerkhofs’, Letter of Canon Calewaerts to Mgr. Kerkhofs, October 22, 1942. 910 ADL, Archive of Mgr. Kerkhofs, nr. H ‘Adm. Dioc.’, nr. 75, ‘Administration diocesane guerre 1940-1945’, File 6, ‘Mgr. Kerkhofs’, Confidential letter of canon Calewaerts to the principals of technical schools in the diocese of Ghent, October 15, 1942. 911 ADL, Archive of Mgr. Kerkhofs, nr. H ‘Adm. Dioc.’, nr. 75, ‘Administration diocesane guerre 1940-1945’, File 6, ‘Mgr. Kerkhofs’, Letter of Canon Calewaerts to Mgr. Kerkhofs, October 22, 1942.

! 279! differed from the diocese of Ghent’s officious policy. The Church’s concession to tolerate teacher membership, and their membership of the VNV in particular, is interesting considering the episcopacy’s condemnation of the VNV in the late 1930s. ! To conclude, the episcopal stance towards teacher engagement in New Order groupings was rather ambiguous, not in the least because the episcopacy was rather contradictory in its communication. In response to the aforementioned conflict with the Permanent Deputation, for instance, the bishop of Liège, Mgr. Kerkhofs, who had been informed about the issue, explicitly underlined that the episcopacy’s prohibition to become member of associations that were not approved by the Church, merely had been a preventative stipulation. Essentially, he argued that not a single association had been forbidden. Moreover, he continued, teachers who disregarded the measure and even those teachers that overtly propagated in favor of (political) movements that had not been approved, had not suffered from reprisals by the Roman Catholic Church.912! Furthermore, at several stages during the war, leaders of the Catholic youth movements engaged in contacts with collaborating or New Order organizations that sought Church support or even cooperation for their activities. Already before the war, the Francophone New Order movement Rex approached Jozef Cardijn, founder of the Katholieke Arbeidersjongeren (Young Catholic Workers, KAJ), with the intention of agreeing on a possible cooperation, which, as a result of the episcopacy’s reservations against and condemnation of Rex, eventually never happened.913 During the war, the example of canon Karel Dubois, founder of the Katholieke Studenten Actie (Catholic Student Action, KSA) seeking rapprochement with the youth movement of the collaborating Verdinaso, Dinaso Jeugd, is well described in Belgian historiography.914 More specifically, in the early days of September 1940, canon Dubois and a representative of the Verdinaso met in Roeselare to discuss a possible cooperation between Catholic and Dietsche youth movements. Yet, before an agreement could be concluded, Dubois wanted substantial guarantees that the Verdinaso would respect the religious character and organization of the Catholic Action. Therefore, during their conversation in early September, Dubois was particularly

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 912 ADL, Archive of Mgr. Kerkhofs, nr. H ‘Adm. Dioc.’, nr. 75, ‘Administration diocesane guerre 1940-1945’, File 6, ‘Mgr. Kerkhofs’, Letter presumably written by Mgr. Kerkhofs, undated. 913 See AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Interbellum’, nr. 14.3., ‘Toenadering tussen Rex en Jozef Cardijn in verband met een samenwerking’. 914 See for instance, Maurice De Wilde, België in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Deel 5: De kollaboratie (Kapellen: DBN/Uitgeverij Pelkmans, 1985), 44.

! 280! interested in the Verdinaso’s opinion about Church-state relations or the relation between the individual and the larger community. He was particularly pleased about the representative’s guarantees about the Christian foundation of the Dietsche state. In addition, Dubois was interested in securing the interests of the Catholic Action. As the representative of the Verdinaso reported in his letter to Emiel Thiers, one of the founding fathers of the Verdinaso and leader after the death of his predecessor Joris Van Severen, Dubois asked whether the “Catholic interests of Catholic boys, in the form of chaplains for instance” would be guaranteed and questioned to the extent to which the Catholic Action could continue its activities in the context of a national youth movement.915 ! According to the representative of the Verdinaso, Canon Dubois was quite eager to negotiate and come to an agreement with the Verdinaso about the establishment of a national youth movement. More specifically, Dubois claimed to be “convinced that we will attain complete consent. The way I see it: we are both convinced that we need to reach an agreement. In that way, we can – starting from a common understanding – commonly reach the best solution. By no means do I wish to start negotiations by saying: we demand this or that. We have to investigate everything together. What is important is that the Church has the possibility to continue its evangelization”.916 As the representative further reported, the practicalities of a possible cooperation would have to be further investigated. Yet, according to Dubois, if the issue was successfully settled, Catholic youth would have to be incorporated in the Verdinaso and its youth movement.917! Dubois and the Catholic Church’s choice to negotiate with the Verdinaso was motivated by the politics of the lesser evil, since it offered the best guarantee for the Catholic Action to maintain its Christian character and the organization of its youth movements. As the representative of the Verdinaso claimed in his report to Thiers, Karel Dubois only wanted to negotiate with the Verdinaso for it offered the only guarantee against a total Germanization and Nazification of Catholic youth movements. Although the Verdinaso cherished feelings of “unrestrained pride” for the German occupier and also took advantage of the abolition of democracy, its leaders were well aware of the fact that Germany had not attacked Belgium only to liberate it from democracy. Yet, as the representative of the Verdinaso had stated in his conversation with Dubois, the movement aimed to “live in peace and cooperation” with the German occupier, although they essentially remained strangers. For Dubois, precisely !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 915 CEGESOMA, nr. 162, Archive Verdinaso, Box 2, Letter to Emiel Thiers, September 6, 1940. 916 Ibidem. 917 Ibidem.

! 281! the fact that the movement was not too burdened with collaboration with the German occupier opened up possibilities for further negotiation and cooperation. During his conversation with the representative of the Verdinaso, Dubois had expressed his fear that the collaborating “VNV would start actions in schools, which they would not be able to forbid”.918

Next to the contacts between the leader of the KSA and the Verdinaso, also the Nationaal- Socialistische Jeugd Vlaanderen (National Socialist Youth Flanders, NSJV) approached the Jesuit provincial, Janssens. More specifically, in a letter of October 3, 1941, the staff secretary of the cabinet of the youth leader of the NSJV contacted provincial Janssens in order to arrange a meeting with the head of the NSJV, Edgar Lehembre. Unfortunately, however, there are no further documents about the meeting. Although provincial Janssens did in fact accept Lehembre’s invitation, it remains unclear as to what they actually discussed.919 Furthermore, the Vlaams Verbond der Katholieke Scouts (Flemish Union of Catholic Scouting, VVKS) was approached by several New Order youth movements during the Second World War. Firstly, in August 1940, Hendrik Elias, approached the president of the Catholic scouting movement, Maurits Vanhaegedoren in order to convince him to sign a manifest in favor of the eenheidsbeweging (movement to unify youth and education), discussed in the first part of this dissertation. Although Vanhaegedoren declined the offer, he was again approached by Walter Bouchery and Edgar Lehembre of the Algemeen Vlaams Nationaal Jeugdverbond (General Flemish-national Youth Association, AVNJ) and Remi Piryns of the Dietsch Jeugdverbond (Dietse Youth Association, DJV) in order to find cooperation for the unification of youth movements and education in Belgium. According to Van Haegedoren, the leaders of these New Order youth movements wanted to proceed with the unification plans, “in order to steer the issue in a Christian way and to get before the Germans in their attempts to establish a anti-Christian and Nazistic movement, such as

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 918 Ibidem. 919 ABSE, Fonds Hersteld Sociëteit 19de en 20ste eeuw, nr. 289, ‘Briefwisseling inzake een onderhoud tussen de provinciaal John Janssens en Edgar Lehembre’, Letter of the staff secretary of the cabinet of youth affairs to John Janssens, October 3, 1941 and ABSE, Fonds Hersteld Sociëteit 19de en 20ste eeuw, nr. 289, ‘Briefwisseling inzake een onderhoud tussen de provinciaal John Janssens en Edgar Lehembre’, Letter of the secretary of John Janssens to the cabinet of Edgar Lehembre, October 17, 1941.

! 282! the Hitler Youth”.920 In his defense, Van Haegedoren claimed after the war that these leading personalities of New Order youth movements, at that point, were not (yet) involved in the collaboration with the German occupier. In addition, he argued that he – without doing any concession – had always defended the position of Catholic scouting and had declined any organizational or fundamental change of the movement during the war. According to Van Haegedoren, Lehembre had presumably spread the rumor that the top of the Catholic scouting movement had come to an agreement with these New Order youth leaders. Yet, as Van Haegedoren argues in his report of October 1944 to the provincial of the Flemish Jesuits, John Janssens, he avoided contacts with leaders of nationalistic youth movements, such as Lehembre, as much as possible and as soon as their National Socialist opinions surfaced. More specifically, he claimed that “if I have tolerated that they approached me to a certain degree, I only did so to avoid a larger evil, i.e. that they would insist with the German occupier on our abolition”.921 Moreover, in April 1941, the German special deputy for youth affairs in Brussels, Lt. Hemmesath, approached Van Haegedoren. During their meeting, Hemmesath had proposed that the Vlaamse Jeugd, which had been established in February 1941 in Antwerp and fell under the SS, would become the single youth movement in Flanders. As other nationalistic youth leaders were not in favor of this proposition either, this German plan never panned out. Yet, during the spring of 1941, Hemmesath presented several other unification plans, for which he requested the cooperation of Van Haegedoren. More specifically, Hemmesath proposed the establishment of a ministerial department for youth affairs or the foundation of an umbrella organization, covering several youth movements. As Van Haegedoren argued in his report of October 1944, he categorically refused every proposition. Yet, in June 1941, Van Haegedoren, together with youth leaders of nationalistic youth movements, such as Lehembre, was invited to Berlin. As he stated in his report to Janssens:

“this proposition sincerely deterred me, but at the same time I was attracted to exploring the lion’s cage”.922

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 920 ABSE, COE 14, ‘Opvoedingskwesties + jeugdverenigingen’, nr. 10, ‘VVKS’, ‘Nota betreffende de houding van het Vlaamsch Verbond der Katholieke Scouts, meer bijzonder van den Verbondscommissaris, tegenover de bezettende macht’, October, 1944. 921 Ibidem. 922 Ibidem.

! 283! Although Van Haegedoren understood that accepting the invitation would imply his sympathy for the National Socialist regime, which could be exploited by the German occupier for propagandistic reasons, he eventually accepted the invitation. He did this on his own assessment, for Mr. Weemaes, attaché of the Royal Cabinet had assured him that he could not give him any advice, and that ultimately Van Haegedoren would have to take a decision in good conscience. Van Haegedoren decided that the study trip offered him the opportunity of buying time, avoided a persecution or even abolition of the Catholic Scouting movement and would allow him to better estimate the occupier’s future plans. During their stay in Berlin, Van Haegedoren, Lehembre and others visited the central services of the German youth department of the Reich and a youth leader school in Potsdam. As Van Haegedoren argued in his report to Janssens, he returned from his study trip, completely horrified by the German example.923 Shortly after the study trip to Germany, Lt. Hemmesath again invited Van Haegedoren for a meeting. According to Van Haegedoren, he made it clear during this meeting that he rejected the German reform plans, particularly because the German occupier had taken reprisals against Catholic youth movements. Hemmesath had assured Van Haegedoren, however, that he had never aimed at abolishing the Catholic Scouting movement.924 Yet, as Haegedoren indicates in his report, the German ordinance subjected the youth movement to a duty to report their meetings to the local Feldkommandantur, which was increasingly applied more strictly from March 1943 onwards. In the context of a ‘politics of the lesser evil’, the VVKS, as well as their Francophone counter part, the Fedération des Scouts Catholiques (Federation of Catholic Scouts) submitted to the German ordinances.925

The position of the episcopal and Jesuit school authorities and of the Catholic Action in relation towards New Order or collaborating youth movements was rather ambiguous. On the one hand, Catholic youth leaders entered into conversations and negotiations with right-wing (youth) movements, such as the Verdinaso. At the same time, however, both the episcopal and Jesuit school authorities explicitly forbade pupils and teachers to become members of such organizations.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 923 Ibidem. 924 Ibidem. 925 Ibidem; ADL, Archive of Mgr. Kerkhofs, nr. H ‘Administration diocésaine’, nr. 75, ‘Administration diocesane guerre 1940-1945’, File 6, ‘Mgr. Kerkhofs’, Letter of the provincial commissioner of Scouts to parents, June 22, 1943.

! 284! 5.2. Teachers’ and pupils’ membership of collaborating or New Order youth movements

During their meeting on September 6, 1940 in Brussels, the principals of Belgian Jesuit secondary schools decided that: “Propaganda, be it open or covert, by pupils in our schools with the intention of persuading their friends into this point of our regulation, has to be sanctioned, if necessary with the consilium abendi926 (italics by author) or expulsion.”927

Generally, parents, pupils and teachers who were engaged in the right-wing youth movements were given the choice between withdrawing their children from the Catholic school or resigning from the non-approved youth movement. If they did not resign their membership, pupils were threatened with explusion from the school. One year later, in September 1941, also provincial Janssens reminded that the general prohibition to become members of non-approved youth movements was to be posted in schools and read by teachers in class at the beginning of the year. As Janssens stated, rather than threatening with severe punishments, it was important to actually “demonstrate with actions that our recommendations are sincere.” By no means could the teaching staff feign ignorance of infringements.928 Hence, questions can be raised about the extent to which the episcopal and Jesuit school authorities’ strict regulations about membership in collaborating New Order youth movements were actually implemented in schools. Firstly, archival research reveals that the regulations were indeed sent to all private, episcopal and congregational schools in Belgium. In the majority of the school archives I have consulted, the stipulations were indeed preserved. In addition, the school diaries of the principals, housemasters or prefects, preserved in many school archives, mention the exact dates on which the prohibition was read in class. In sum, most schools indeed brought the episcopal and Jesuit regulations under the attention of teachers, pupils and their parents.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 926 Advise to leave the school 927 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rechtorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 12, ‘Stukken uit de rectorenvergaderingen 1940-1951’, Meeting of the principals, September 6, 1940. 928 ABSE, COE17, ‘Rechtorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’, nr. 12, ‘Stukken uit de rectorenvergaderingen 1940-1951’, Untitled document, September 5, 1941.

! 285! In many cases, the regulations were indeed implemented in schools. In the archbishopric of Mechelen for instance, the archives reveal that particularly the activities of the Algemeen Vlaams Nationaal Jeugdverbond (AVNJ) gave rise to problems and conflicts. Therefore, the principals of some episcopal schools in the archbishopric decided to exclude these young members from the school, in accordance with the cardinal’s stipulations. The principal of the episcopal secondary school Sint-Jan Berchmanscollege in Diest, for example, noted in 1941 that most of the parents accepted this decision and did indeed make their children resign from the forbidden youth movements. Only a couple of parents eventually decided to take away their children from Catholic schools and enrolled them in the neighbouring official secondary schools.929 Furthermore, teachers who were active as youth leaders in Flemish-nationalist youth movements were obliged to resign from their functions in the youth movement. The case of Ast Fonteyne is particularly well known. Ast Fonteyne was a teacher in an episcopal secondary school in Mechelen and, at the same time, a member of the Verdinaso. Eventually, Fonteyne decided to resign from the Verdinaso. The cardinal assured him that he could remain as a teacher in Catholic secondary education, only on the condition that he abstained from commenting on politics during class and did not make his resignation public in the collaborationist press.930 Their strict application of the episcopal prohibition to become members of non-approved youth movements did, however, bring many principals into troubles with the local (Kreis)kommandanturen, collaborating movements and the press. The archives of the archbishopric of Mechelen alone preserves dozens of newspaper articles and letters written by principals dealing with conflicts between local schools and the German administration or collaborating movements. In July 1941, the Sint-Jan-Berchmanscollege in Diest (Flanders), for instance, received a letter from the local Kreiskommandantur, demanding further explanation for the expulsion of several pupils engaged in the AVNJ. The principals’ response that – as principal of an episcopal secondary school - he was obliged to implement cardinal Van Roey’s stipulations, presented many problems with the local German administration. Adjacent to his letter to the Kreiskommandantur, the principal of the Sint-Jan-Berchmanscollege had included an extract from the episcopal instructions of July 3, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 929 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’, nr. 27, ‘Het Katholiek Onderwijs’, ‘Briefwisseling met betrekking tot het toetreden tot politieke organisaties’. 930 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’, nr. 27, ‘Het Katholiek Onderwijs’, Letter of Ernest Van Roey to Ast Fonteyne.

! 286! 1941. As a result, on August 1, 1941, two German Feldgendarmen paid the principal a surprise visit, demanding the originals of the aforementioned episcopal instruction. Since he could only present a version of the text he had written himself, the principal was further interrogated.931 The leaders of the AVNJ also approached the Sint-Pieterscollege in Leuven. Due to his refusal to accept instructions of the ANVJ, the principal was summoned to the local Kreiskommandantur.932 Aside from the issues with German local governments, many parents did not reconcile themselves with the school’s decision and were often backed up by the ranks of collaborating organizations and/or the German occupier. In February 1941, the principal of the Collège Saint-Boniface in Brussels, for instance, reported to cardinal Van Roey that the father of a first-year pupil, who was engaged in a Rexist organization, refused to accept his instruction to withdraw his son from this collaborating youth movement. By arguing that his son’s engagement was not political, he claimed that the principal had no right to sanction him. As the principal further stated, “it is clear that he opposes my decision to use it against Catholic education.”933 Furthermore, in the Sint-Jan-Berchmanscollege in Mol (Flanders), a conflict arose between the principal and Lieven Claeys, a student in the secondary school and his parents, over his participation in a meeting of the Langemarkstichting that recruited combatants for the Eastern Front. Although Lieven Claeys’ parents had signed the school regulation in the beginning of September 1941 and, as a result, were informed about the episcopal instructions about membership and participation in (the activities of) New Order and collaborating organizations, Claeys appeared one day in school with papers of the Langemarkstichting, stating that he was participating in a selection from February 10 to 15. In conforming to the episcopal instructions, the headmaster prohibited his participation in the selection. Claeys, however, skipped school between February 10 and 16, but justified his absence with a letter from his mother. The principal's request to Claeys’ parents for further explanation, however, did not obtain any hearing. As a result, the headmaster eventually sent Lieven home on the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 931 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’, nr. 27, ‘Het Katholiek Onderwijs’, Letter of the Kreiskommandantur 913 to the Sint-Jan-Berchmanscollege in Diest, undated. 932 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’, nr. 27, ‘Het Katholiek Onderwijs’, Letter of the Sint-Pieterscollege in Leuven to the Archbishopric, June 24, 1941. 933 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’, nr. 27, ‘Het Katholiek Onderwijs’, Complaint of the Oberfeldkommandantur about the Institut Saint-Boniface in Brussels and the response of Saint-Boniface, February 1941.

! 287! morning of February 18 because he continued to refuse explaining his absence. On March 1, however, his parents informed the school of being dismayed about their son’s expulsion. Because the headmaster stood firm about his decision, however, the local Feldkommandantur visited the headmaster to request him to undo the expulsion. The headmaster refused to give in, but it remains unclear whether the Feldkommandantur actually took actions against him.934 The firm stance of some Catholic school principals burdened Catholic education with a negative image in the collaborating press. More specifically, many cases of the expulsion of pupils, engaged in collaborating or New Order movements, from Catholic schools were severely criticized in the collaborating newspapers. On June 7, 1941, the newspaper of the Vlaams Nationaal Verbond, Volk en Staat (People and State), published an article in which the expulsion of two brothers of 12 and 14 years old from the Sint-Lodewijkscollege in Antwerp (Flanders) was criticized. The letter of the father of the two boys, in which he overtly enunciated his dismay, was published:

“With regret I have to inform you that I absolutely do not agree with the burden and extortion my sons, Paul and Roger are subjected to, with the implicit, though very clear reason and intention to dispute their membership in the AVNJ-Blauwvoetvendels ... I leave my children in the care of the school, first to make firm students out of them, second to help making good Christians out of them, but I insist to make good, combatant Flemings out of them and I do not wish to deviate an inch from my right to do so. The schools’ prohibition to wear Flemish distinguishing marks has to be made subordinate to a similar prohibition to wear Belgian distinguishing marks.”935

According to the journalist of Volk en Staat, the expulsion was yet another manifestation of political Catholicism. According to the journalist, the cardinal particularly targeted the AVNJ and secretly favored Jong Dinaso, which they had hoped to transform into a Belgian national youth movement “under the political obedience of the episcopacy”.936

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 934 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’, nr. 27, ‘Het Katholiek Onderwijs’, ‘Geval Lieven Claeys in het Sint-Jan-Berchmanscollege in Mol’, 1942. 935 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’, nr. 27, ‘Het Katholiek Onderwijs’, Newspaper article ‘Zit de eenheidsbeweging het episcopaat dwars ? de heroplaaiing van het politiek katholicisme. Knapen van veertien en twaalf jaar uit kollege verbannen wegens hun lidmaatschap van het AVNJ’ published in Volk en Staat, June 7, 1941. 936 Ibidem.

! 288! Furthermore, on September 24, 1942, an article was published in the Gazet van Mechelen (Newspaper of Mechelen) criticizing the Church’s attitude towards the Nationaal Socialistische Jeugd Vlaanderen (National Socialist Youth Flanders, NSJV). The journalist of the article particularly questioned the classic japneus937 methods of Catholic school principals, who were accused of expelling pupils under the false pretext of a student’s bad behavior, appalling school reports or recalcitrance.938

As the previous paragraphs demonstrate, pupils and teachers engaging in collaboration movements were indeed expelled from Catholic schools. Yet, the question arises as to what were the reasons behind the expulsion. In January 1943, for instance, a conflict arose between the principal of the Collège Saint-Louis in Liège (Wallonia) and Gustave Dupont, financial consultant for the collaborationist party Rex over the (re-)admission of the latter’s son, Serge Dupont, who had interrupted his secondary school studies to serve in the Légion Wallonie at the Eastern Front. Dupont’s request to admit his son Serge in Saint-Louis upon his return from Russia was met with the opposition from the principal of Saint-Louis. Interestingly, however, the principal argued that his refusal to admit Serge was not founded on his activities at the Eastern Front. Rather, the main reason behind his stark refusal was that he feared violence of the other students against Serge, since “les points de vue de Rex ne sont pas partagés par la majorité de la population”.939 More specifically, he feared that anti-Rexist pupils would revolt and indulge their anger on Serge Dupont. This incident clearly illustrates that the expulsion of collaborating or pro-German pupils was sometimes motivated by the principals’ fear of incidents, rather than the actual nature of the collaborationist activities of some pupils. As Victor Le Cocq argued in a letter, Francophone Jesuit schools had never actually taken measures of exception against pupils engaged in collaborating organizations or students from collaboration families. Moreover, he even claimed that Léon Degrelle had confirmed that “nos collèges s’étaient abstenus de tout procédé vexatoire à l’endroit des élèves qui eussent été attachés au mouvement”.940

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 937 Term of abuse for clericalists. 938 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’, nr. 27, ‘Het Katholiek Onderwijs’, Newspaper article ‘Bij een klacht. Kerk en Jeugd.’, September 24, 1942. 939 APBM, Section 18, ‘Documentation Profane’, nr. 2, box 1, Letter of the principal of the Collège Saint- Louis to Gustave Dupont, January 7, 1943. 940 APBM, Section 18, ‘Documentation Profane’, nr. 2, box 1, Letter of Victor Le Cocq, January 23, 1943.

! 289! As a result of the possibility of reprisals by the German occupier, conflicts with collaborating organizations or bad publicity in newspapers, some principals only took imposed temporary sanctions on pupils engaged in non-approved youth movements or disregarded the cardinal’s and Jesuit instructions altogether. In his letter to the archbishopric, for instance, the principal of the Minor Seminary of Hoogstraten (Flanders) reported that he had not publicly announced the episcopal instructions, since this would mean that they would actually have to be implemented. According to the principal, the consequences of actual expulsion of some pupils would be incalculable, since he feared reprisals from the father of one of the students who was the head man of the AVNJ and head of the Provisioning Service.941 Furthermore, the Catholic Church struggled to keep its youth and youth organizations out of the influence sphere of National Socialism and the collaboration. More specifically, it seems that the organization and activities of the KSA were hit right in the heart of Catholicism in Belgium, Mechelen.942 On May 20, 1941, for instance, cardinal Joseph- Ernest Van Roey received a letter from a couple of pupils of the episcopal Sint- Romboutscollege in Mechelen (Flanders), complaining about the pro-German propaganda of a teacher and KSA chaplain, Thijs. The pupils particularly deplored that many of their school friends had developed German sympathies by his agency:

“In the classroom, on the playground, everywhere he pointed out to us what we need to be: not only pro-Flemish, but also pro-German.”943

In spite of his overt German sympathies and propaganda, he kept his function as a teacher and chaplain of the KSA Mechelen. According to the pupils, Thijs had influenced every member of the KSA Mechelen with his pro-German propaganda. As the pupils were

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 941 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’, nr. 27, ‘Het Katholiek Onderwijs’, Correspondence between the principal of the Minor Seminary of Hoogstraten and the Archbishopric in Mechelen, undated. 942 For more details on the development of the KSA movement in Mechelen and the , see for instance Michael Deca, ‘”Brabant den Grooten Hertog”: geschiedenis van de Brabantse Katholieke Studentenactie (1936-1948)’ (Master’s Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2006); Guy Gys, René Fouquaet and Johan L. Vanderhoeven, Tussen idealisme en werkelijkheid: geschiedenis van vijftig jaar KSA Sint-Jan Berchmansbond Mechelen (1938-1988) (Mechelen: KSA Sint-Jan Berchmansbond, 1988). 943 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’, nr. 27, ‘Het Katholiek Onderwijs’, ‘Conflict met het Sint-Romboutscollege met betrekking tot een Duitsgezinde leerkracht’, May 20, 1941.

! 290! members of the KSA Mechelen themselves, but did not cherish German sympathies whatsoever, they requested the removal of the teacher in question from the Catholic youth movement. Yet, as there is no further correspondence about this affair, it remains unclear as to whether the cardinal actually granted the pupils’ request. Moreover, before the war, the KSA youth movement active in the Berthoutinstituut (Minor Seminary) in Mechelen (Flanders) developed sympathies for National Socialism. More specifically, during the KSA meeting of January 29, 1939, a two pupils prepared a suprise act, mirroring the Hitler idolatry of a fraction of the youth movement:

“The next act also is particularly practical, and a surprise actually. Now Hitler and his right-hand man Ribbentrop march in the meeting room, to the playing of the Vlaamse Leeuw and amidst the thunderous hurray calls of our Hitler minded KSA members.”944

Remarkably, in the reports of the KSA meetings between 1940 and 1944, references to Hitler, as well as and the pro-German undertone of some of the meetings completely disappears and is replaced by a traditional Catholic and cultural flamingant discourse. On the meeting of October 19, 1941, for instance, the chaplain of the KSA, Van Roy, drew the boys’ attention to the idea that unity could only be found in Christianity. In his speech on the occasion of the Feast of Christ the King in 1941, the chairman of the KSA, Frans Houtheys, stated that:

“Where is Christ the King these days in many families? Where is he in the economic, civic and international sphere? The choice is ours, the new youth: Christ or Nero!”945

Although during the war, the reports of the KSA meetings remained punctuated with a vocabulary inspired by the New Order946, the KSA’s anti-modern, anti-democratic and flamingant discourse cannot simply be labelled as collaborationist. More specifically, in the reports of several meetings, blind sympathies for National Socialism or collaboration with the German occupier were explicitly rejected. In a speech of November 23, 1942, about the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 944 AMSM, nr. 803, ‘Katholieke Studentenactie-Jong Vlaanderen. Verslagboeken van vergaderingen en andere activiteiten. 1934-1947’, Reports of the KSA Meetings, January 29, 1941. 945 AMSM, nr. 803, ‘Katholieke Studentenactie-Jong Vlaanderen. Verslagboeken van vergaderingen en andere activiteiten. 1934-1947’, Reports of the KSA Meetings, October 26, 1941. 946 More specifically, in many reports the chairman of the KSA youth movement in the Minor Seminary was referred to as the Führer.

! 291! political crisis, the leader of the KSA of the Minor Seminary, Jans Moons, pointed out that “we do not have to entirely break with our past, nor do we have to blindly adhere to the new (...).”947 Furthermore, in his speech about the position and role of the Belgian state in June 1942, the chaplain of the Minor Seminary pointed to the prominent role the Flemish could play in Belgian society, but at the same time, rejected Flemish-nationalism to achieve that goal:

“The state also does not have the right to eliminate a national community. So, it is false to claim that the Flemish cannot hold a prominent position in society. We won’t bring our nation and community to grandiosity and power with Flemish-nationalism or Rexism, which the Pope and bishops have criticized without presenting an alternative.”948

6. Fifty shades of gray? Collaboration and resistance in Belgian schools during World War II

6.1. Images about collaboration and resistance in Catholic schools: black schools in Flanders versus white schools in Wallonia?

As the previous section illustrates, Catholic schools were a melting pot of both anti- and pro-German sympathies and engagement. Schools colored ‘many shades of grey’, since both black (collaboration) and white (resistance) (and everything in between) were represented. The situation in the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Antwerp, for instance, is a good illustration of that. On the one hand, many pupils overtly displayed their pro-Belgian sympathies, for instance by wearing ribbons in the national colors. This resulted in conflicts with collaborating organizations and the German occupier. In November 1940, for instance, the Nationaal Socialistische Vlaamse Arbeiderspartij (Flemish Nazi Party, NSVAP) threatened the principal of the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege with severe reprisals if his pupils continued to provoke the German military government and display their sympathies for the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 947 AMSM, nr.803, ‘Katholieke Studentenactie-Jong Vlaanderen. Verslagboeken van vergaderingen en andere activiteiten. 1934-1947’, Reports of the KSA Meetings, November 23, 1942. 948 AMSM, nr. 803, ‘Katholieke Studentenactie-Jong Vlaanderen. Verslagboeken van vergaderingen en andere activiteiten. 1934-1947’, Reports of the KSA Meetings, June 1942.

! 292! ‘old regime’.949 At the same time, however, the Antwerp Jesuit secondary school was – according to the school authorities falsly – accused of allowing pro-Rexist activities in school.950

Yet, images about the position of Catholic schools on the continuum of collaboration and resistance vary in Flanders and Wallonia. In Flanders, particularly the myth of the Catholic secondary school as a breeding ground for anti-Communist engagement at the Eastern Front has survived. More specifically, it has often been argued that, with their overt anti-Communist propaganda, priest-teachers in Catholic schools encouraged pupils to engage in the battle against Russia alongside the German Army at the Eastern Front. This image was particularly popular in the post-war getuigenissenliteratuur (testimonial literature) and the popular press. Notably, after the war, many Flemish collaborators wrote down their experiences with and memories of their engagement in the collaboration, mainly with the intention of legitimizing their involvement in National Socialist or collaborating organizations. Some blamed the Catholic Church and its anti-Communist propaganda for their compliance with National Socialism or (Flemish) collaboration. In his biography Naar het Oostfront voor Outer en Heerd: het ware relaas van een zeventienjarige Vlaming aan het Oostfront, Martin Soors claims that the parish priest and chaplain of his youth movement, in particular, urged him to engage in the battle at the Eastern Front.951 Furthermore, the Belgian Roman Catholic Church’s positive appreciation of the fighters at the Eastern Front was a much-debated topic in the popular press and in Catholic circles. First of all, in 1943, for instance, the Dutch Limburg newspaper Limburger Koerier published an article, claiming that, during his sermon of February 21, 1943, the Belgian archbishop had demanded attention to the particular sacrifices (young) Catholics made at the Eastern Front.952

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 949 ABSE, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege Antwerpen, nr. C14/2, ‘Oorlogen’, nr. 3, ‘Duitse Bezetting’, Letter of the NSVAP to the principal of the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege about patriotic ribbons, November 13, 1940. 950 ABSE, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege Antwerpen, nr. C13/3C, ‘College aangelegenheden’, nr. 2, ‘Juridische en organisatorische problemen voor studie en school’, Report ‘Pour refutter l’Accusation d’action Rexiste au Collège’, undated. 951 Martin Soors, Naar het Oostfront voor Outer en Heerd: het ware relaas van een zeventienjarige Vlaming aan het Oostfront (Antwerpen: Tyr, 1991). 952 ADL, Archive of Mgr. Kerkhofs, nr. H ‘Admin. Dioc.’, nr. 75, ‘Administration Diocesane guerre 1940- 1945’, File 5, ‘Questions politiques flamandes’, Newspaper article ‘Tegen het Bolsjewisme!’ published in the Limburger Koerier, February 23, 1943.

! 293! Additionally, in January 1945, the administrator of the Bondsblad van het Heilig Hart953 received a letter from an internment camp, which related its author’s experiences with the anti-Communist propaganda of Catholic organizations and his witnessing of the fervent pulpit lectures against Communism by Father Lode Arts (cf. section on politics in the classroom). According to the author, many young Catholics had acted upon this advice and had taken up the weapons at the Eastern Front, inspired by the fervent anti-Communist Catholic propaganda.954 Lastly, the Roman Catholic Church presumably partly owes the image of the Catholic school as a breeding ground for Eastern Front fighters to its rather accommodating stance towards collaboration in the post-war. As the following chapter will discuss in more detail, many priest-teachers downplayed the significance of anti- Communist engagement at the Eastern Front as mere idealism, as opposed to ‘real collaborators’, such as economic collaborators, who enriched themselves at the expense of citizens that were starving from hunger. However, the image of the Catholic school as the breeding ground for anti-Communist engagement at the Eastern Front is certainly not limited to the getuigenissenliteratuur of former collaborators. To a certain extent, both academic and popular historiography has picked up on this idea. In his introductory chapter Met welk verleden wil Vlaanderen de toekomst tegemoet, Eric Corijn argued that “undeniably, seventeen-year-olds were sent to the Eastern Front, (...) by fanatic Catholic secondary school teachers”.955 References to support suchlike claims, however, are usually lacking, so it remains unclear as to where these conclusions actually come from. In contrast, the image of Francophone Catholic secondary schools in Wallonia during the Second World War is quite different. More specifically, in regards to the activities and engagement of Francophone Catholic schools, particularly the image of the resistance has survived. As Fabrice Maerten has argued: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 953 The Bonden van het Heilig Hart (Bonds of the Holy Heart) were established in the 19th century in a response to the increasing secularization of society and the upcoming socialism. For more details, see S.n., ‘Algemeen Secretariaat van de Bonden van de Vrienden van het Heilig Hart’, http://www.odis.be/pls/odis/opacuvw.toon_uvw_2?CHK=or_14564 954 ABSE, Fonds ‘De Twee Wereldoorlogen’, nr. A16/1-3, ‘Oorlog 1940-1945’, Letter of a member of the Bond van het Heilig Hart to the administrator of the Bondsblad van het Heilig Hart, January 21, 1945. 955 Original quotation in Dutch: “Het is onbetwistbaar dat vele zeventienjarigen zonder veel zelfstandigheid door fanatieke collegebroeders naar het oostfront werden gestuurd”. Eric Corijn, ‘Met welk verleden wil Vlaanderen de toekomst tegemoet?’, in Collaboratie in Vlaanderen. Vergeten en vergeven?, ed. Eric Corijn (Antwerpen: Manteau, 2002), 17.

! 294! “Dans l’imaginaire lié à la Résistance subsiste, des récits épiques ayant fleuri au lendemain de la libération, la vision d’un combat sans merci mené contre un ennemi implacable par des hommes jeunes sans peur et sans reproche”.956

In recent years, historians have increasingly questioned this juxtaposition of Flemish collaboration versus Walloon resistance in schools. In her doctoral dissertation about the motivation of Flemish collaborators, the Antwerp historian Aline Sax, for instance, claimed that the anti-Communist engagement at the Eastern Front of Flemish youngsters particularly stemmed from a collaboration-minded family context and was not so much inspired by the anti-Communist propaganda of the Catholic Church and its institutions.957 Parallel to this, Fabrice Maerten has nuanced the involvement of Francophone youngsters in the resistance during World War II. More specifically, Maerten investigated both the engagement of youngsters under the age of 25 in the resistance in the province of Hainaut and the instrumentalization of their activities by adults. First, he concludes that adults engaged in armed resistance only sporadically addressed youngsters. In addition, he argued that, although some youngsters under 25 did engage in armed resistance activities, they often did so because they sought adventure or action, and not so much purely out of patriotic or political reasons.958 Yet, in spite of these renewed insights and approaches, the dual image of collaboration in Flemish schools and resistance in Francophone Catholic education partly remains. In Flanders, many local school histories have focused on collaboration of pupils and teachers, such as Hans Blomme’s Master's thesis on ‘black schools’ in Antwerp.959 In contrast, many local studies about Francophone schools, such as Jacques Walraevens’ contribution about daily school life in the Francophone Collège Saint-Stanislas in Mons (Wallonia), merely focus on pupils’ and teachers’ resistance activities, and neglect pupils’ and teachers’ involvement in collaboration movements.960 As the following chapter will address in more detail, this different focus in Flanders and Wallonia mirrors the scattered landscape of World War II memory that characterizes the Belgian context. The aim of this section is to address the question as to what extent these popular ideas about anti-Communist propaganda or collaboration in Flemish Catholic schools or the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 956 Maerten, ‘Jeunesse et Résistance’: 257. 957 Sax, Voor Vlaanderen, Volk en Führer. 958 Maerten, ‘Jeunesse et Résistance’: 301-3. 959 Blomme, ‘Scholen met een zwart etiket’. 960 Walraevens, Le Collège Saint-Stanislas.

! 295! widespread involvement of pupils and teachers in the resistance in Francophone schools reflect historical reality. As a result, it is not my intention to determine exactly how many teachers or pupils were involved in resistance or collaboration organizations, since this requires a different approach and type of research. In order to determine the exact number of educational staff and pupils involved in collaboration organizations, I would have had to trace the names and activities of pupils and teachers in school archives and match them with the court files and orders by the war tribunals. A random sampling of names of priest- teachers from the Enquête Kerk en Bezetting with the database of court orders, available in the Cegesoma, has not yielded any results. Therefore, I have decided not to further elaborate on this investigation, for it would have taken too much time. Furthermore, the results of this type of study would probably contribute more to an investigation about collaboration, rather than a general study about education during the war. Therefore, this section is limited to a general discussion of collaboration and resistance in Catholic schools in Belgium, illustrated by concrete examples.

6.2. Catholic schools and the collaboration

Firstly, the question arises as to what extent Catholic schools were indeed involved in anti- Communist propaganda with the intention of recruiting pupils for the battle at the Eastern Front, and as to what extent Catholic school authorities were confronted with collaborators among pupils and teachers. Generally, collaboration in the Catholic school milieu remains very difficult to investigate. Yet, at this point, there are no reasons to assume that Catholic schools served as a large-scale recruitment channel for young Eastern Front fighters. Apart from Sax’s conclusion about the motivation behind the engagement of collaborators961, it is questionable whether the Roman Catholic or the Society of Jesus would concern itself with organizing propaganda in favor of the German occupier on such a large scale. Firstly, the no-politics-in-the-classroom policy of both the archbishopric in Mechelen and the Society of Jesus would not have been consistent with a similar large-scale ideological- political recruitment project. Secondly, the question remains whether Catholic secondary schools would really have set aside the education of the future elite, in favor of withdrawing them from their Catholic community and sending them to fight at the Eastern Front where they had absolutely no control over them.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 961 Sax, Voor Vlaanderen, Volk en Führer.

! 296! Yet, the general conclusion that there is insufficient (archival) evidence to support the idea that the Catholic Church played an important role in recruiting Eastern Front fighters, does not necessarily imply that there are no examples of priests who did in fact carry on propaganda in favor of the German occupier and/or against Communism or overtly displayed their sympathies for Nazi Germany. Yet, it is important to point out that these examples all come from oral history testimonies and are seldom substantiated by written material from the archives. Marcel Brauns, a Latin teacher at the Sint-Jozefscollege in Turnhout (Flanders), for instance, is generally known for his overt Flemish-nationalist and Groot Nederlands engagement. Allegedly, he would have instigated pupils from the Sint- Jozefscollege in Turnhout to leave for the Eastern Front.962 Moreover, the mathematics teacher at the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Antwerp overtly demonstrated his sympathies for the German occupier during class. As E.R., pupil at the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Antwerp, for instance, remembers:

“Our mathematics teacher in Rhetorika was Engineer Valke. He used to read the Brüsseler Zeitung. That was a German newspaper. Thoroughly pro-German. Later he was accepted in the Labor Service as one of the key figures.”963

Yet, according to E.R. and another respondent, J.C., Valke never actively carried on propaganda in the classroom in favor of the German occupation or National Socialism.964 Furthermore, according to E.R., some Jesuit Fathers of the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege, rather than openly displaying their personal opinions, subtly communicated their convictions or beliefs. More specifically, the respondent remembers that the principal of the Onze-Lieve- Vrouwcollege subtly persuaded him and other Rhetorika pupils to join the Forced Labor Service in Germany. On October 7, 1942, a German decree was published in the Verordnungsblatt, subjecting Belgian men between the age of 18 and 50 to forced labor in Germany or Belgium. 965 Although, theoretically, secondary school pupils were not affected by this measure as they were younger than 18, the German occupier requested all principals of secondary schools to hand in the lists of all final-year pupils. For, if pupils wanted to pursue their studies at the university, they were obliged to work for some time in

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 962 Interview with Van Acker Family, February 16, 2011. 963 Interview with E.R., October 9, 2012. 964 Interview with E.R., October 9, 2012; Interview with J.C., October 6, 2012. 965 Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 439-441.

! 297! Germany or in Belgian industry.966 Although many principals disregarded this measure and flatly refused to hand over the lists, as E.R. remembers, the principal of the Onze-Lieve- Vrouwcollge in Antwerp precisely persuaded his Rhetorika pupils to leave for Germany instead of working in Belgian industry:

“For instance, after the Rhetorika, we had to go to university. Firstly, however, we had to work for a year. Orders of the Germans and the secretary-general of Internal Affairs. (...) So, you had to work for a year and then you could go to university. You had two options: the Labor Service, or work here in the Durmestreek967. (...) We asked the principal “What should we do? To the Labor Service or to the factory.?” You had the choice. “Yes”, the principal said – a real Jesuit – prudently. If he said “Go to the Labor Service”, then he was pro-German. If he told us to go to the factory, he was Anglophile. And what did he say? “The Labor Service equals clean air. That’s clean air. The factory equals sin, because there are girls there”. He didn’t [tell us exactly what to do]. What did we choose? We chose the Labor Service. The elite of our Rhetorika, we all chose the Labor Service.”968

E.R., however, after having served six months in the German Labor Service eventually changed his mind and returned to Belgium to work in Belgian industry, for the Labor Service tried to recruit him for the SS:

“We were in the German Labor Service during six months. (...) After I was positively evaluated, the camp leader summoned me. That camp leader was SS-minded. Camp Leader Bruurs. And he said “You are a wonderful element. We’re recommending you for the Officer School of the SS”.”969

E.R. declined the camp leader’s offer, but some of E.R.’s school friends did in fact end up in the SS and were captured by American Allied troops at the liberation of Berlin.970

Furthermore, the question arises as to whether some ‘black schools’, such as the Sint- Xaveriuscollege in Borgerhout, rightly or wrongly received a pro-German label. Generally, it

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 966 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 160. 967 The Durmestreek is the region around the Flemish town of Lokeren. 968 Interview with E.R., October 6, 2012. 969 Interview with E.R., October 6, 2012. 970 Ibidem.

! 298! seems that the Jesuit congregation did indeed experience significant difficulties in keeping the Jesuit secondary school in Borgerhout out of the influence sphere of New Order ideology or collaborating youth movements that – often with the knowledge of the principal – organized lectures or activities in schools. In November 1943, things even got so bad that cardinal Van Roey – who otherwise had no authority over Jesuit secondary schooling – clearly showed his discontent in a letter to provincial Janssens about lectures that were organized at the secondary school, because “his conscience felt obliged to strongly disapprove of these unhealthy festive programs and to declare that those who organize or have organized these programs are not educators, but are in fact poisoning our Catholic youth”. He informed Janssens that the Xaveriuscollege also sympathized with and supported the Dietsche Studenten Keurfront (DSK), a clandestine dissident student group supporting the idea of Groot-Nederland.971 In spite of the DSK’s instructed dissolution, its activities clandestinely continued in the school. On November 22, 1943, provincial Janssens responded to the cardinal’s letter of discontent, stating that, indeed, the Sint- Xaveriuscollege repeatedly violated the provincial's otherwise clear instructions about loyalty to the Belgian nation and King. Later that year, a lecture about William of Orange, again caused commotion. Considering the many complaints Janssens had received, he decided to investigate the case and interrogate the consultatores of the secondary school. On December 12, 1943, Janssens came to the conclusion, however, that the academic lecture had “only been devoted to the teaching of an objective historical judgement” and had not aimed at politically or ideologically influencing pupils. Yet, the academic lecture remained a touchy issue, since one participating pupil had seized the opportunity to run amok and win over some of his friends for, as Janssens phrased it, “extremist opinions”. Moreover, the secondary school had become talk of the time, since some pupils tried to make outsiders believe that Willem of Orange had been praised as the symbol of the Groot-Nederlandse Beweging. In addition, Janssens concluded that the program that had been distributed was rather unfortunate, since there was a reference to Neerland één (Unified Dutchland) on the reverse side of the folder, which was spontaneously interpreted by some people as a statement in favor of Groot-Nederland.972

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 971 See for instance De Wever, Greep naar de macht, 551. 972 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’, nr. 30, ‘Katholieke Jeugdorganisaties’, ‘Briefwisseling tussen Van Roey en de Pater Provinciaal van de Jezuïeten, John Janssens, met betrekking tot het Sint-Xaveriuscollege in Borgerhout’, November-December, 1943.

! 299! Eventualy, the case was closed, since Janssens had concluded that – although the attitude of the principal of the Sint-Xaveriuscollege had been imprudent and unfortunate – the rumors were worse than the actual facts. Yet, even after the incident, the Sint-Xaveriuscollege continued following its own course. More specifically, Janssens was frequently informed about the Diets minded opinions of some pupils. Interestingly, although this was against the rules he initially set out, Janssens decided not to expel these pupils from the Sint- Xaveriuscollege, since this would only have drifted the boys in the arms of the Dietse community. Instead, he believed that an inpartial education of national history would be more profitable. Furthermore, Janssens decided that the secret activities of the Diets Studenten Keurfront were not particularly dangerous, since many of their viewpoints were reconcilable with the Jesuits’ attitude towards Belgian state authorities. Additionally, Janssens underlined that their organization had been effectively dissolved and their meetings were held outside the school in a house of one of the leaders. Yet, many teachers claimed that the DSK meetings had attracted a large number of pupils and it was even whispered that some teachers had participated in the meetings. Obviously, this was in flagrant contradiction with the general regulation, stating that pupils and teachers could not participate in meetings of a political nature that were not approved by the responsible authorities. As a result, Janssens decided to take action, partly because the political activities of some teachers and pupils harmed the schools’ reputation and that of the overall Jesuit order. More specifically, Janssens urged the principal to be more cautious and well considered in the future and – instead of deciding on his own – urged him to consult the provincial in delicate matters. As problems with the Sint-Xaveriuscollege had persisted from the beginning of the war onwards, Janssens made plans to replace the principal of the Jesuit secondary school in Borgerhout. Furthermore, plans were made to punish or replace those teachers that had participated in the meetings of the DSK. In doing so, Janssens mainly aimed at making a statement, precisely because the Sint-Xaveriuscollege had received the label of a pro-German school.973 Yet, criticism of the attitude of the Jesuits certainly was not limited to the Sint- Xaveriuscollege alone. At many points, the Flemish Province of the Society of Jesus was attacked in the press or by resistance or patriotic groupings. On November 20, 1943, for instance, a brochure written by a Catholic grouping affiliated to the resistance grouping Front de l’Indépendance was distributed. The pamphlet, La verité sur les Jésuites Flamands (The

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 973 Ibidem.

! 300! truth about the Flemish Jesuits) stated that the Flemish Society of Jesus formed the only exception to the general anti-German atmosphere of resistance in Catholic circles. More specifically, the Front de l’Indépendence claimed that the division of the Belgian Province into a Flemish and Walloon Jesuit Province had in fact been a conspiracy to destroy Belgium’s unity. In his view, the division into two separate provinces had been instigated by pangermanist flamingants. Moreover, John Janssens was depicted as a rabid flamingant. Not only was he condemned of systematically expelling Francophone Jesuits out of the Flemish Province, but the Flemish Jesuits were also accused of pursuing an anti-Belgian and anti-French politics that bore much resemblance with that of Joris Van Severen’s Dinaso. The brochure stated that in parallel to Flemish collaborators, such as Staf Declercq or Jef Vandewiele, the Flemish Jesuits envisaged the establishment of a Nieder-Deutsche state. Moreover, the author claimed that in order to realize their Groot Nederlandse dreams, they propagated their ideas within the Flemish bourgeoisie and instilled pupils in their schools with an aversion for France, England, the United States and Russia.974

6.3. Teachers and pupils in the resistance

Besides engagemement in the collaboration, teachers and pupils were equally engaged in activities of resistance or at least demonstrated anti-German sympathies. In general, teachers’ and principals’ resistance activities crystallized around anti-German speeches in class and the requisitioning of pupils for forced labor in Germany or Belgium. The issue of forced labor in Belgium or Germany was discussed in many Catholic schools in Belgium. More specifically, the Belgian episcopacy and Jesuit authorities generally discouraged or forbade principals to hand over the lists of final year pupils to the German occupier. Hence, most principals explained the local Feldkommandantur, requesting the lists of final- year pupils, that only the episcopacy or higher Jesuit authorities were authorized to hand over these lists. As Maurits De Brie, principal of the Sint-Aloysiuscollege in Menen, testified: “Particularly in the final year before the Liberation, I was asked to hand over the list of all last-year pupils. For instance, July 20, 1944: letter of the Feldkommandantur , in name of Mil. Befehlhaber Belgien und Nordfrankreich: names, birth dates and addresses of all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 974 ABSE, Sint-Barbaracollege Gent, nr. C45/4C, ‘Gent College: Litt. Annuae – geschiedenis 4’, nr. 10, ‘Krantenknipsels en brieven: aanvallen op de S.J. in België en ook op het Sint-Barbaracollege om Vlaamsgezindheid, Duitsgezindheid’, Leaflet ‘La verité sur les Jésuites Flamands’, November 20, 1943.

! 301! last-year pupils are demanded. My answer, as usual: not authorized to give that type of information. August 7: visit of two gentlemen of the Werbestelle des Reicharbeitersministerium Kortrijk, not at home. Two days later, second visit: a military official and a civilian (who did not say a word, probably a Fleming) ask for the list, I refuse – they start searching my office, for an hour. I had taken the necessary precautions and all documents were gone. Why did I react like that? 1/ Because the higher [episcopal] authority asked to do so, 2/ I saw it as my duty to protect my students, not to turn them over to the enemy”.975

Some principals argued that this type of request was always denied to every organization, be it political or economic, on principal grounds, for it fell beyond their office as educators. As the principal of the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Antwerp explained to the local Feldkommandant, requesting the enrolment lists:

“We cannot hand over the lists. Parents entrust us with their children, only to train and educate them. It would be a misuse of our office to hand them over to other parties. You don’t ask a merchant to hand over a list of his clients”.976

Most principals and teachers in Catholic secondary schools indeed disregarded the obligation to hand over these lists, actions for which they often suffered (severe) consequences.977 In most cases, the principal or prefect of the school was summoned to the local Feldkommandantur and they were often arrested and condemned.978 The German Feldkommandantur also often conducted a search of the school, in an attempt to find the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 975 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Bruges, Questionnaire of Maurits De Brie. 976 ABSE, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege Antwerpen, nr. C14/2, ‘Oorlogen’, nr. 3, ‘Duitse bezetting’, ‘Vergadering der bestuurders van het Middelbaar Onderwijs’, July 18, 1944. 977 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 160. 978 See for instance the fate of the principals of the Jesuit secondary schools, APBM, Section 9, ‘Notitiae Provinciae’, nr. 11, box 1, ‘Notes sur l’activité des Jesuites belges (Province Meridionale de Belgie) pendant la guerre 1939-1945’, August 24, 1945.

! 302! lists.979 In the diocese of Ghent, for instance, principals’ stark refusal to handing over the lists resulted in their immediate imprisonment.980 In addition, some local school authorities actually tried to circumvent the forced labor ordinances, for instance, by extending secondary education with “a seventh year”. As Leo Casteels, a teacher and later principal of the Sint-Jan Berchmanscollege in Mol, noted:

“After the introduction of forced labor for graduates in secondary school, we organized a “super senior year” in order to extend pupils’ student days – those pupils were admitted on the lists of the ordinary pupils (…). Through a Belgian (who worked for the Gestapo, but secretly was a member of the resistance) we tried to get certificates into the German indexing system in exchange for a schein (exemption for students).”981

These testimonies should be contextualized into the widespread protests against the forced labor measures in Belgian society. Not only did these measures force youths to define their position towards the occupier; but they were also an important factor in the relationship between the Church and the military government. As was the case in France, Germany and Italy, Church authorities in Belgium had reached a modus vivendi with the Militärverwaltung and maintained a pragmatic position. However, because they feared the issue of forced labor might divide Catholics, they were forced to abandon their passive stance. In Belgium, as in other countries, the Catholic resistance against forced labor was mainly motivated on moral grounds982, in that such labor could lead to moral corruption, particularly for girls and young women.983 Furthermore, Catholics feared that young people would disconnect from their Catholic communities.984

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 979 See for instance: ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Aalst, nr. C11/2E, ‘Aalst College. Historische documenten’, nr. 5, ‘Varia bestuursdocumenten’, Untitled handwritten note, August 7-21, 1944. 980 BDG, Archive of Jozef-Honoré Coppieters, nr. 7.2.1., ‘Briefwisseling met de Duitse bezettende macht’, Letter of Mr. Storme to the Oberfeldkommandantur concerning the refusal of handing over the lists of final-year pupils in Episcopal secondary schools, August 30, 1944. 981 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Mechelen, Questionnaire of Leo Casteels. 982 Halls, The youth of Vichy France, 357. 983 Halls, idem, 152. 984 O’Sullivan, ‘An Eroding Milieu?’: 245.

! 303! As in other countries, the Military Administration aimed at unifying school holidays, so Belgian youth could be deployed in German agriculture. In a circular letter of April 1942, Eugen Löffler noted that the summer holidays would be pinned down between August 1 and September 30 so that youngsters from the age of fourteen could volunteer to help with bringing in the harvest in Germany. Youngsters who did not volunteer and children between the age of ten and fourteen, would be deployed in Belgian agriculture.985 Presumably, these stipulations met with protests, for one month later, in May 1942, the Militärverwaltung moderated its previous circular letter, by stating that a uniform regulation of the summer holidays could be renounced on the condition that pupils beginning the new school year too late because of their voluntary engagement in German agriculture could not be disadvantaged with regards to examinations or class passage. This new circular letter had to be applied in official state schools and private schools receiving state financial aids. Unsubsidized private schools were merely invited to implement these new stipulations.986 Apart from these German measures on the youth’s help in harvesting during the summer holidays, pupils were sometimes deployed in planting so-called asparagus (wooden or iron defense constructions that were mainly used by the German Army in the construction of the Atlantikwall in order to stop Allied military vehicles and tanks) in the Belgian Sperrgebiet alongside the Belgian coastline. Compared to other (occupied) countries, however, the German regulations on youth labor in agriculture or defense were still quite moderate, as they were occasional. In contrast, in the Netherlands, for example, the secretary-general of Education, Science and Protection of Cultural Heritage set up a department for youth help in war periods, and sent a circular letter in 1943 to demand the help of pupils in gathering the harvest.987 In Nazi-Germany, children even had to work on the land during lessons. Furthermore, the authorities instituted the so-called Land Year, which was created to extend the education of fourteen- year-old pupils in agricultural camps.988 In France, schools were also forced to discontinue

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 985 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Scholen’, nr. 12.3., ‘Directie en Leerkrachten’, nr. 1, ‘Richtlijnen aan Schooldirecteurs’, ‘Brief van de Algemene Raad voor het Katholiek Onderwijs met betrekking tot twee Duitse verordeningen over de vakantieperiode in 1942’, May 29, 1942. 986 Ibidem. 987 ARA, Archive of Marcel Nyns, Microfilm nr. 6697, nr. 51, ‘Dossier concernant la situation de l’enseignement en Hollande (19411943)’, Newspaper article from the ‘N. Rotterdamsche Courant’, July 12, 1943. 988 Grunberger, The 12-year Reich, 301.

! 304! their education in June so that children could help in destroying the Colorado beetles that devastated the harvest.989

Apart from these testimonies of teachers’ and principals’ resistance against forced labor, I have been able to investigate the resistance activities of the teaching staff in private Catholic schools only to a very limited degree. For Flanders, I have only found references to a couple of names, such as the physics teacher at the Sint-Jozefscollege in Aalst (Flanders) who was engaged as the commander of the local department of the resistance grouping Witte Brigade (White Brigade) in Aalst.990 After the war, Francophone Jesuit schools, in particular, have put considerably more effort into reconstructing their patriotic activities between 1940 and 1944. Yet, most of these reports do not directly address the actual resistance activities of the teaching staff during the war. More specifically, in a note about the activities of the Jesuit congregation of the Walloon Province, it was stated that the main aim of the Jesuit teachers was to “poursuivre, à travers toutes les difficultés des temps, leur travail de professeurs et d’éducateurs”, which the writer of the note described as “leur première obligation envers la patrie”.991 As a result, material from the Francophone school archives remains rather vague about the actual resistance activities of the teaching staff. In contrast, school histories particularly provide detailed descriptions of the resistance activities of teachers. I have been able to investigate the resistance of pupils in private Catholic secondary schools only to a limited extent. Firstly, the resistance activities of pupils in secondary education remain difficult to investigate. An analysis of the lists of (former) pupils engaged in resistance groupings that are preserved in some school archives992 demonstrates that the majority of students had already left secondary school at the time of their activities, in armed resistance groups. This is of no surprise, since adolescents under the age of sixteen were often excluded from admission in armed resistance movements. Secondly, in regards

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 989 Vošahlíková, Rochet and Weis, ‘Schooling as a cultural interface’, 129-30. 990 ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Aalst, nr. C11/2E, ‘Aalst College. Historische documenten’, nr. 5, ‘Varia Bestuursdocumenten’, Report ‘Vaderlandslievende activiteit in het Sint-Jozefscollege te Aalst onder den oorlog 1940-1944’, undated. 991 APBM, Section 9, ‘Notitiae Provinciae’, nr. 11, box 1, File B, ‘Notes sur l’activité des Jesuites belges (Province Meridionale de Belgique) pendant la guerre 1939-1945’, August 24, 1945. 992 See for instance, APBM, Section 5, ‘Les maisons et leurs oeuvres propres’, nr. 73.6 ‘Collège Saint- Stanislas’, Box 2; or APBM, Section 5 ‘Les maisons et leurs oeuvres propres’, nr. 91 ‘Collège Notre Dame’, box 7.

! 305! to the episcopal and Jesuit prohibition to engage in movements that were not approved by the Church or congregation, pupils were not allowed to engage in resistance groupings. On multiple occasions Victor Le Cocq, provincial of the Walloon Jesuit Province, for instance, reminded pupils in Francophone Jesuit secondary schools that they were strictly not allowed to antagonize the German occupier in any way.993 Also the principals of Francophone Jesuit schools explicitly forbade pupils to distribute clandestine leaflets or propaganda “sous les peines les plus sévères”.994 As a result, the information I have found about pupils engaged in the resistance is scattered and scarce. Yet, I did find some examples of pupils active in sabotage networks, such as Louis Ecran, a pupil in the Sint-Xaveriuscollege in Borgerhout (Flanders). Although there is little information available on his actual engagement, Louis Ecran was arrested on July 5, 1943 for illegally possessing firearms and for having stolen ration coupons. A couple of weeks later, on August 19, Ecran was sentenced to death.995 Generally, however, the pupils’ resistance against the German regime or their anti-German sympathies particularly crystallized around minor acts of sabotage, applying anti-German slogans on (school) walls or offending German officials. More specifically, I have found many examples of pupils who wrote “V”-signs on school walls, alluding to the Allied victory, pupils who offended or attacked German soldiers or officers occupying the school, distributed English or Belgian flags in school or insulted pupils from collaboration families.996 In 1941, the Oberfeldkommandanturen of Leuven and Jette reported the Militärbefehlshaber about pro-Belgian slogans and inscriptions of “Belgians, have faith. The

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 993 See for instance, APBM, Section 9, ‘Notitiae Provinciae’, nr. 11, box 1, File B, Letter of Victor Le Cocq to the principals of Jesuit secondary schools in the Walloon Jesuit Province, November 7, 1940. 994 APBM, Section 9, ‘Notitiae Provinciae’, nr. 11, box 1, File B, ‘Avis notifié aux élèves du collège’, November 20, 1940. 995 ABSE, Fonds ‘De Twee Wereldoorlogen’, nr. A16/1-3, ‘Oorlog 1940-1945’, nr. 297, ‘Louis Ecran’, Extract from the former pupil journal of the Sint-Xaveriuscollege in Borgerhout, March, 1945. 996 See for instance, AMSR, Box 10, ‘Libri Memoralis’, Notes about the school year 1940-1941 and 1941- 1942; APBM, Section 9, ‘Notitiae Provinciae’, nr. 11, box 1, File B, ‘Note sure les collèges des Jésuites belges, February 20, 1941; APBM, Section 9, ‘Notitiae Provinciae’, nr. 11, box 1, File B, Letter of the Collège du Sacré Coeur to Victor Le Cocq about a pupil attacking a German soldier, March 7, 1941; APBM, Section 9, ‘Notitiae Provinciae’, nr. 11, box 1, File B, Letter of Rex Wallonie to the principal of the Collège Saint- Servais about pupils insulting rexist pupils, July 9, 1941.

! 306! RAF is coming” in both the Sint-Pieterscollege in Jette and Leuven.997 Generally, the school authorities explicitly prohibited such resistance acts or overt displays of anti-German sympathies, as they were not without danger. More specifically, not only the pupils themselves, but also the principals or teachers were often held responsible for such acts of sabotage or anti-German propaganda. The teacher in the sixth year of secondary education and the principal of the Collège Saint-Servais in Liège (Wallonia), for instance, were summoned at the local Feldkommandantur after one pupil had written slogans on the school walls insulting the German occupier.998

7. Catholicism and the Jewish Question

Internationally, the anti-Semitic policy of the Nazi regime is one of the most well studied aspects of National Socialism. With the installation of a German Militärverwaltung in May, 1940 the gradual exclusion and deportation of Jews in Belgium was prepared and implemented. More specifically, from 1940 onwards, the occupying authorities published a series of anti-Jewish laws curbing the participation of Jews in public life. A German decree of October 28, 1940, for instance, explicitly prohibited Jews to occupy a post in official state, provincial or municipal administrations, organizations or companies. By virtue of these measures, Jewish teachers were officially excluded from official state and private (Catholic) schools.999 More specifically, Jewish teachers were only allowed to teach in so-called Judenschule. By virtue of the German decree of December 1, 1941, the establishment of Jewish primary education was put under the responsibility of the Jodenvereniging van België (Jewish Association of Belgium).1000 The establishment of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 997 ANF, Fonds Marbourg, AJ40/23.8, ‘Collège Saint-Pieters de Jette, propagande hostile d’élèves belges (1941)’, Correspondence between the Oberfeldkommandantur 672 and the Militärbefehlshaber about pro- Belgian inscriptions in the Sint-Pieterscollege in Leuven and Jette, August 10 and 26, 1941. 998 APBM, Section 9, ‘Notitiae Provinciae’, nr. 11, box 1, File B, ‘Note sur les collèges des Jésuites belges’, February 20, 1941. 999. Verordnungsblatt, 1940, pages 288-9. For a testimony about the removal of Jewish teachers in official schools, see Roels, Twintig jaar boeman, 212-3. 1000 In the hands of the SS, the establishment of the Jewish Association in Belgium on November 25, 1941 served as an effecient tool for organizing the exclusion, persecution and deportation of Jews in Belgium. Since all Jews were obliged to register at the Jewish Association, Jewish persecution was in fact organized

! 307! secondary, as well as technical schools and kindergartens was only allowed to meet local demands.1001 These Jewish schools were considered a part of the private schooling system and were put under the inspection and control of the Ministry of Public Education. As such, Jewish primary schools were patronized by local administrations and – like many Catholic primary schools – received state financial aids.1002 By virtue of these measures, not only Jewish teachers, but also Jewish children were excluded from both official and Catholic education and were forced to gather in Judenschule.1003 School administrations were personally informed about the German ordinances and their cooperation was requested via the city administration. On February 6, 1941, the city administration of Antwerp, for instance, received a letter from the Feldkommandantur of Antwerp, requesting the names and total number of Jewish children in Antwerp schools.1004 Subsequently, schools in Antwerp, such as the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege, were invited to send information about Jewish pupils in their schools.1005 Initially, the military government often granted exceptions to Jewish children that prolonged their schooling in non-Jewish schools. From March 1942, onwards, however, two circular letters were distributed, stating that Jewish families had received enough time to withdraw their children from non-Jewish schools and that the military government would no longer grant exceptions.1006

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! with the help of Jews themselves. For more details on the Jewish Association, see for instance Verhoeyen, België Bezet, 439-42; Lieven Saerens, Vreemdelingen in een wereldstad. De geschiedenis van Antwerpen en zijn Joodse bevolking (1880-1994) (Tielt: Lannoo, 2000). 1001 Dickschen, L’école en sursis, 100-1. 1002 Rudy Van Doorslaer ed., Emmanuel Debruyne, Frank Seberechts and Nico Wouters (with the cooperation of Lieven Saerens), Gewillig België: Overheid en jodenvervolging tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Antwerpen, Amsterdam, Brussel: Meulenhoff Manteau, 2007), 488. 1003 Verordnungsblatt, 1940, pages 288-9. 1004 ABSE, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege, nr. C14/2, ‘Oorlogen’, nr. 3, ‘Duitse bezetting’, Letter of the Feldkommandantur 520 to the city administration of Antwerp, February 6, 1941. 1005 ABSE, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege, nr. C14/2, ‘Oorlogen’, nr. 3, ‘Duitse bezetting’, Letter of the city administration of Antwerp to the principal of the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Antwerp, February 10, 1941. 1006 ABSE, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege Antwerpen, nr. C14/2, ‘Oorlogen’, nr. 3, ‘Duitse bezetting’, Letter of the Gruppe Kultur about Jewish schooling, March 23, 1942 and Letter of De Pillecyn to the inspection, official state secondary schools, provincial schools and private schools, July 15, 1942; AMSM, nr. 51, ‘Contacten met kerkelijke en burgerlijke overheden en diverse instanties. Briefwisseling van Superior Fl. Wellens met het stadsbestuur van Mechelen, het provinciebestuur van Anwerpen, het Ministerie van Openbaar Onderwijs en andere overheidsinstellingen’, Letter of Filip De Pillecyn to the inspection, official state secondary schools, provincial and private schools, July 15, 1942.

! 308!

Although the Belgian archbishop never formally or informally protested against the aforementioned anti-Jewish laws, he did discuss the possibility of hiding Jewish children in Catholic schools. More specifically, in September 1942, the cardinal internally discussed the possibility of enrolling Jewish children (under false names of course) in Catholic schools, as long as they would attend Catholic celebrations and fulfil Catholic habits. If, however, these children were detected in spite of all precautionary measures, the cardinal claimed not to be willing to undertake further action to save them from deportation.1007 Historiography on the position of the Catholic Church during the Second World War and Catholic rescue actions for Jewish families also indicates that the bishop of Liège, Mgr. Kerkhofs assisted Jews in his diocese and that the bishop of Namur supported the establishment of underground rescue networks for Jewish children in his diocese.1008 In contrast, the provincial of the Walloon Jesuit Province, Victor Le Cocq, decided that the hiding of Jews in (Francophone) Jesuit secondary schools was too dangerous. More specifically, he feared that the detection of hidden Jews by the German occupier would result in the closure of Jesuit schools.1009

In spite of these initiatives that were set up on the level of the diocese, priests, teachers, principals or religious congregations on the local level conducted a majority of Jewish rescue actions.1010 Despite the fact that Jewish children less frequented Catholic schools, because of their exclusive Catholic religious character, principals and teachers of Catholic schools were in fact confronted with the German anti-Semitic policy of the German occupier. Firstly, many Jewish parents took shelter for their children in Catholic schools or convents, in the hope of saving them from deportation to concentration camps. As such, some Jewish children actually found refuge in Catholic secondary schools under false names.1011 Some priest-teachers actively set up underground rescue networks, arranged fake identity cards and found accommodation for these children in (Catholic) safe houses.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1007 Hellemans, Schimmen met een ster, 70. 1008 See for instance Gevers, ‘Bisschoppen en bezetting’: 389; Henri Haag, Rien ne vaut l’honneur. L’église belge de 1940 à 1945 (Bruxelles: Ed. Universitaires, 1946); and Plasman, ‘Le sauvetage des enfants juifs’: 40. 1009 APBM, Section 9, ‘Notitiae Provinciae’, Nr. 11, Box 2, Letter of L. Renard of the Communauté des Pères Jésuites Notre-Dame de la Paix in Namur, August 22, 1944. 1010 J. De Volder, ‘Katholieken redden Joden’, Tertio 299 (2005), nr. 1-2: 2. 1011 Van Doorslaer ed., Debruyne, Seberechts and Wouters (with the cooperation of Saerens), Gewillig België, 502.

! 309! After the war, some priest(-teachers) received an official recognition for their Jewish help action by the Israeli organization Yad Vashem. Established in 1953 by the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, as Israel’s official memorial of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, Yad Vashem issues honorary documents to non-Jews that risked their lives and, in some cases, gave up their freedom to help rescuing Jews from deportation to the concentration camps. The number of Catholic priests, principals or pupils that received the certificate of Righteous Among the Nation is unknown. My archival research led me to the names of John Janssens and educational staff of the Sint-Jan-Berchmanscollege in Brussels. More specifically, the Jesuit Fathers Henri Van Ostaeyen and Jean-Baptiste De Coster, the economist and secretary of the Sint-Jan-Berchmanscollege, respectively, posthumously received a decoration by Yad Vashem for providing a refuge for Jewish children in the school by means of false baptismal certificates and fake identity cards. 1012 ! Apart from these two examples, I have not found many references in school or diocesan archives to Catholic priest-teachers or pupils involved in rescue networks for Jews. In contrast to this example, many pupils and teachers were directly confronted with the deportation of Jews in their schools or in the city they lived in. One particular example, is that of the Sint-Jozefscollege in Aalst (Flanders) that was used during the war as a transit zone for the deportation of Jews. A pupil of the Rhetorika of 1943, Silveer De Smet s.j., for instance, remembered that Jewish families were accommodated in the school. Furthermore, he clearly remembered that pupils could not speak with the Wehrmacht soldiers that guarded them. According to De Smet, half of the playing ground of the school was fenced off with chicken wire, behind which Jewish families were standing and walking in their best suits. “For us”, De Smet continues, “classes continued as usual. We were horrified, however, to see Jewish families walking up and down on their part of the playing ground.” De Smet also testified that nobody ever mentioned what was going to happen to these Jewish families. Apparently, they only stayed for a few days.1013 Furthermore, teachers and pupils from Antwerp personally witnessed arrests and deportation of Jews. As Gilbert van Dormael, for instance, teacher in the Sint- Edmonduscollege in Antwerp (Flanders), noted in his testimony:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1012 See files in ABSE, Sint-Jan Berchmanscollege te Brussel, C33B, ‘Brussel Sint-Jan Berchmanscollege geschiedenis 4’, nr. 3, ‘Het college biedt hulp aan joodse kinderen 1940-1944’. 1013 ABSE, Sint-Jozefscollege Aalst, nr. C11/2C, ‘Aalst College. Historische Documenten’, nr. 14, ‘Kroniek van de oorlog 1940 door P.R. Giebens’, Email of Silveer De Smet s.j. to P.D. Butaye, Presumably dating from 2005.

! 310!

“I lived in the middle of the Jewish quarter – it’s night, I’ve seen many raids against Jews. I’ve helped many Jewish children, together with the Zusters van Onze-Lieve-Vrouw. Experiences in the Jewish quarter in Antwerp: in 1937 I was appointed teacher in the Sint-Edmondus school in Zurenborg in Antwerp. We witnessed the inhumane deportation of Jews. It usually happened at night. We heard people yelling and screaming on the streets. The Germans (kidnappers) urged us to close the windows again and pointed their guns at us. The Jews were deported with moving vans, where they were pushed into. Men, women, small children ... I witnessed them throwing a small child in the van over their heads. Those poor victims were crying with fear and they were banging the sides of the van. Then they were deported to the barracks in Mechelen (...). At Zurenborg, there was a girls’ school of the Sisters of Hoegaerden. I went there on Thursdays for benediction. They told me that they offered help to Jewish children who were enrolled as residents. Some [Jewish parents, addition of the author] returned after the war and found their children again. Most deported parents, however, did not return.”1014

Pupils frequenting schools in Antwerp have similar memories of anti-Semitism. The memory of E.R, pupil at the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege in Antwerp, of the beginning of the war on May 10, 1940, for instance, particularly revolved around the flight of Jewish diamond dealers:

“It was May 10 and the Germans attacked. And the image that sticks in my mind is the flight of the Jews. Antwerp, a Jewish colony. A lot of diamond. They saw the Germans advancing and they fled. I still see the cars of the Jews before my eyes. They drove away. They fled. That is the image that sticks in my mind. The flight of the Jewish diamond dealers out of Antwerp.”1015

In spite of the examples of priests, teachers or pupils setting up or involved in underground rescue networks for Jewish children, the Catholic stance towards the anti-Semitic policy of Nazi-Germany remains controversial. More specifically, the silence of the Church of Rome and several European churches has been criticized and remains a much-debated topic. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1014 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en clerus tijdens de bezetting’, Diocese of Mechelen, Questionnaire of Gilbert Van Dormael. 1015 Interview with E.R., October 16, 2012.

! 311! Apart from the cardinal’s permission to admit Jewish children into Catholic schools, discussed above, there are few traces of Catholic public protest against the removal of Jews from public life and Jewish children from regular schooling in Belgium. Traces of Catholic protest against the anti-Semitic policy of the German occupier need to be approached with skepticism. In his collection of the cardinal’s correspondence, Edmond Leclef mentions a letter of protest of Van Roey to the former State Secretary of the Vatican, cardinal Maglione, in which the Belgian cardinal allegedly would have deplored the German treatment of (Catholic) Jews.1016 Remarkably, however, this letter of protest is not included in the so-called Actes et Documents du Saint Siège, a collection of letters between the Roman Catholic Church and the German authorities during the Second World War published by the Holy See after the war.1017 The cardinal did in fact send a letter on the day that is mentioned by Leclef, but that letter dealt with the issue of persons who refused to carry out forced labor for the German occupier. As the Vatican Secret Archives remain closed to the general public and researchers interested in the Second World War, it is impossible to verify the existence of Van Roey’s letter to Maglione. In any case, the (Belgian) Church’s inability to protest against the anti-Semitic policy of the German occupier remains controversial. For Germany, Biesinger, for instance, has argued that “had the bishops been willing to lead a public protest, as they had against euthanasia, there is evidence that some mobilization could have occurred, although it is unlikely that the deportation could have been stopped”.1018 Lieven Saerens has made a very similar point for the Belgian Catholic Church.1019 Various authors have explained the reasons behind the Roman Catholic Church’s silence in the Jewish Question very differently. Critics of the Church’s attitude vis à vis the Nazi regime or the German occupier have emphasized the anti-Semitic tradition within the Church.1020 According to the respondents I have interviewed about their wartime experiences as a pupil in Jesuit secondary education, the anti-Semitic atmosphere in Catholic milieus indeed partly

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1016 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 240. 1017 Saerens, Vreemdelingen in een wereldstad, 722. 1018 Biesinger, ‘The Reich Concordat of 1933’, 167. 1019 Lieven Saerens, ‘De houding van de Belgische katholieken tegenover de joden (einde negentiende eeuw – Tweede Wereldoorlog)’, Trajecta 15 (2006), nr. 1-2: 92. 1020 One of the most well-known defenders of that position is Daniel Goldhagen. See Daniel Goldhagen, A Moral Reckoning. The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair (London: Little & Brown, 2002).

! 312! accounted for the limited Catholic attention to the Jewish persecution. More specifically, three former pupils of Jesuit secondary schools in and around Antwerp vividly remember the anti-Jewish atmosphere in Antwerp1021 and in their family environments. J.C., for instance, testified:

“In Antwerp, a double feeling prevailed. We didn’t like the Jews. During my youth, I hadn’t heard anything else in Antwerp. Yes, they’re something special and you have to look out for them. They form a caste of their own.”1022

Even E.R., himself involved in a Jewish rescue network during the war, testified about his mother’s anti-Jewish ideas and vividly remembers the anti-Jewish attitude of the majority of the Antwerp elite:

“There was a movie Jud Suss. Jew Suss. (...) During the war, it was performed in the Rex cinema. (...) And the movie theatre was packed with people from Antwerp. No VNV’ers, just ordinary people. They watched the movie. Jud Suss is an anti-Jewish movie. A German movie. (...) And when the movie was over, everyone in the theatre started applauding. So, the entire audience was anti-Jewish. Audience, purely from Antwerp that was not involved in politics.”1023

L.A, pupil at the Xaveriuscollege in Borgerhout (Flanders), not far from Antwerp, remembered that anti-Jewish propaganda was widespread in Antwerp:

“The deportation of the Jews? Yes, I have seen that with my own eyes. So, every day we drove with our bikes. And we had to cross the Jewish quarter. (...) There were a couple of streets where many Jews lived. Indeed, one day, I saw a moving van in which all those Jewish families were drifted together. (...) We stood there watching for a second. Oddly, we weren’t touched by it. We laid hands on German propaganda sometimes, leaflets with pictures. The Jews were pictured ... (...) There are many poor Jews. They were depicted with long hair, long beards ... Careless. Dirty. And they were depicted as profiteers ... (...)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1021 The existence of an anti-Jewish atmosphere in Antwerp is also described by Lieven Saerens. More specifically, he claimed that in Antwerp many Jews were deported wih the help of moderate Catholic milieus. See for instance Saerens, Vreemdelingen in een wereldstad, and Corijn ed., Collaboratie in Vlaanderen, 42. 1022 Interview with J.C., October 10, 2012. 1023 Interview with E.R., October 9, 2012.

! 313! Now, the propaganda you lay your hands on ... you think “It must be true”. So, I can’t say that we were pro-Jewish at the time. We thought “If they’re all like that, take them away.”1024

Yet, defenders of the Roman Catholic Church have argued that the Church remained silent because public protest would only have worsened the fate of the Jews. In Belgium, for instance, public protest against the deportation was almost non-existent. With the exception of Mgr. Kerkhofs, the bishop of the diocese of Liège who explicitly spoke in favour of the Jews, the Belgian bishops and the cardinal were silent. Lieven Saerens argued that Van Roey’s silence in relation to the Jewish prosecution implied a choice1025, meaning that he consciously decided not to speak in favour of the Jews. As the first part of this dissertation documents, the Belgian cardinal protested against or negotiated several other German measures – such as education, forced labour or the removal of the Church bells– that targeted Catholicism and its institutions. It is conceivable that the Belgian cardinal and bishops did not want to jeopardize its contacts with the German occupier over issues that directly touched the Catholic community by objections about the treatment and deportation of the Jews. Hence, in spite of the anti-Jewish atmosphere in some Catholic communities and considering the underground rescue activities of both the higher and lower clergy, I believe that, apart from the anti-Semitism, rooted in Roman Catholic tradition, the Church’s silence in the Jewish Question is also to be sought in pragmatism.

8. Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was to discuss the development of Catholic school culture during the Second World War. Firstly, this chapter demonstrates that the impact of the German educational policy on Catholic secondary education in Belgium was rather limited. The curriculum of Jesuit and episcopal secondary schools, for instance, largely remained unchanged. The German occupier, as well as the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals, experienced significant difficulties with implementing their policy in Catholic schools, as the Catholic authorities, as well as Catholic schools often refused cooperation.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1024 Interview with L.A, October 26, 2012. 1025 Saerens, ‘De houding van de Belgische katholieken’: 92.

! 314! More specifically, some principals refused to hand over lists of textbooks used in their schools, for instance, by pointing to the independence of Catholic secondary education from state interference. Yet, some schools did in fact implement the stipulations of the Commission for the Revision of School Manuals or did comply with German measures, often because they feared reprisals. Although the impact of the German ordinances of August and November 1942, restricting the development of Catholic secondary schooling, is hard to determine, these ordinances did present significant difficulties for many Catholic schools as pupil enrolment numbers generally increased during the war.

Yet, although the Military Administration was not able to get a firm grip on Catholic schooling during the war, even the Catholic educational authorities found it hard to keep the war and politics out of the classroom. The Jesuit and episcopal policy often was quite ambiguous and – in the context of Jesuit education in Flanders – contributed to the spread of anti-modern and flamingant ideas among pupils. Politics and the war were never far away in youth movements that were active within schools. Again, although the episcopacy and Society of Jesus strictly prohibited membership of movements that it did not approve of, it regularly engaged in contacts with New Order (youth) organizations that were initiated by the leaders of New Order groupings with the intention of finding Catholic support for their (unification) project. Although formally, the Church and Jesuit congregation in fact never cooperated with New Order (youth) movements, such as the Verdinaso or the NSJV, they never rejected contacts with them either. This chapter particularly documents that, in principle, pupils or teachers who engaged in New Order Youth associations were expelled from Catholic schools or forced to resign. At the same time, however, this chapter also demonstrates that the Catholic policy towards membership in New Order associations sometimes was rather ambiguous. The cardinal, as well as the bishop of the diocese of Ghent (Flanders), for instance, informally agreed on tolerating VNV or UHGA membership of teachers. Even the bishop of Liège, Mgr. Kerkhofs, declared at one point that the episcopal prohibition to become member of non-approved (New Order) associations had been a purely preventative measure. Furthermore, this chapter documented that some principals only took temporary measures because they wanted to avoid conflicts with collaborating organizations, feared German reprisals or wanted to prevent Catholic pupils from going to public schools; or that some local divisions of Catholic youth movements were strongly influenced by propaganda of Catholic chaplains in favor of the New Order. Yet, generally,

! 315! pro-German sympathies were much more palpable before the war. The pre-war Hitler sympathies of a part of the KSA, active in the Minor Seminar of Mechelen, for instance, gradually shifted to the background during the war and made way for an anti-modern and flamingant discourse that was widespread in Catholic intellectual circles. As this chapter documents, this anti-modern and flamingant discourse cannot simply be labelled as collaboration. The actual collaboration of teachers and pupils remains difficult to investigate. As a result, this chapter does not give an answer to the question as to what extent Catholic schools were confronted with collaborators in their ranks. The same also holds for teachers’ and pupils’ engagement in the resistance. Yet, this chapter has (partly) refuted some popular images about collaboration and resistance, such as (Flemish) Catholic schools’ involvement in propaganda for the Eastern Front. These popular images have, however, become deeply rooted in post-war memories of the Second World War. Therefore, the next chapter precisely discusses particular patterns of pupils’ and teachers’ war memories.

! 316!

Chapter 6

A (school) trip down memory lane ... Teachers’ and pupils’ memories of World War II in Belgium

1. Introduction

In the previous chapter, I discussed the impact of the Second World War on secondary schooling in Belgium and investigated the extent to which the installation of a new political regime stirred up new dynamics within pre-war school culture. To a large degree, the goal of the second chapter was to, besides discussing the implementation of German educational measures and decrees on the local level, shed light on both teachers’ and pupils’ experiences of schooling during the occupation. More specifically, by analyzing diaries or pupils’ essays, for instance, the fifth chapter not only sheds light on the development of school culture during the war, but also deals with educational actors’ (subjective) experiences of the war. Due to a lack of written archival sources, I frequently reverted to subjective sources, such as pupils’ and teachers’ testimonies, to document issues, such as collaboration or the Jewish Question. Yet, as many historians (of education) have pointed out in the context of the use of personal sources, problems of representativeness and typicality are always lurking. In the context of educational history, Depaepe et al. questioned the extent to which one witness can be a mouthpiece for hundreds of thousands of pupils, particularly when school practices or experiences are discussed.1026 Hence, the question arises as to what extent the diary of one Poësis pupil, describing his experiences of ideological conflict in one school, or the essays of a small group of Rhetorika pupils actually reflect the experiences and ideas of pupils and teachers in Belgian secondary education during World War II. In spite of their limitations of generalization and typicality, a study on pupils’ and teachers’ memories of the Second World War offers an interesting and valuable additional perspective. It enables us to broaden the limited scope on the subjectivity of educational

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1026 Depaepe, Order in progress, 31.

! 317! actors and offers unique insight into the memories of a specific social group that has largely been neglected, both in the field of World War II memory studies and in the history of education. A quick search of library catalogues or overview articles on recent memory and history scholarship, for instance, reveals that, since the “flowering of the oral history movement”1027, many historians of World War II have studied the place of war in both public/collective and individual memory.1028 Generally, scholars have characterized the Belgian landscape of memory as scattered, fragmented or discordant.1029 The fact that “the memory of World War II is inevitably plural, i.e. more diverse, more particular and more contradictory than that of any previous war”1030, combined with the idea that this plurality was anchored in different competing memory communities1031 makes it such an interesting case. Traditionally, these competing communities have been divided according to linguistic border. More specifically, in the past, scholars have mainly stressed the differences between Flemish and Walloon memories of war and their coping with the heritage of collaboration and resistance, thereby largely overlooking the war memories of specific social groups, which are not necessarily limited to memories of collaboration and resistance. Pieter Lagrou, for instance, has advocated that precisely because of the plurality of World War II memories, “the consequences of the Second World War need to be studied in specific groups, identified according to their specific war experience, and not according to pre-established categories of analysis”.1032 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1027 Philip Gardner, Hermeneutics, History and Memory (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010), 90. 1028 See for instance, Francesca Capelletto ed., Memory and World War II: an ethnographic approach (Oxford/New York: Berg, 2005); Susan Ruban Suleiman, Crises of Memory and the Second World War (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2006); Michael Greyer and Michael Latham, ‘The Place of the Second World War in German Memory and History’, New German Critique 71 (1997): 5-40. 1029 Bruno Benvindo and Evert Peeters, ‘Inleiding. Schervan van de oorlog. Het patroon van de herinnering in België’, in Scherven van de Oorlog. De strijd om de herinnering aan WOII, Bruno Benvindo and Evert Peeters (Antwerpen: De Bezige Bij, 2011), 7. 1030 Pieter Lagrou, ‘Memory and National Identity. Myths of Resistance and Martyrdom in Belgium and the Netherlands’, in Het Verzet en Noord-Europa/La Résistance et les Européens du Nord (Paris/Bruxelles: CREHSGM/Institut d’histoire du Temps présent, 1994), 424. 1031 Bruno Benvindo and Evert Peeters, ‘Besluit. Herineren en vergeten langs Belgische lijnen’, in Scherven van de Oorlog. De strijd om de herinnering aan WOII, Bruno Benvindo and Evert Peeters (Antwerpen: De Bezige Bij, 2011), 219. 1032 Pieter Lagrou, The Legacy of Nazi Occupation. Patriotic Memory and National Recovery in Western Europe, 1945- 1965 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

! 318! Furthermore, although scholarship has been concerned with children’s or adolescents’ war memories1033, historians have yet to systematically map teachers’ and pupils’ memories of wartime schooling1034. This is an especially regrettable shortcoming in the history of education and in the historiography of World War II, since research into teachers’ and pupils’ memories would help illuminate and explain the many intersections between education, society and the state. Indeed, not only does World War II play an important normative function in Western democracies1035, in the case of Belgium, historical research has shown that the wartime memories of several societal groups crystallized around specific conceptions of the state.1036

This chapter tackles the issue of teachers’ and pupils’ wartime memories through questionnaires and oral history interviews. More specifically, I have selected questionnaires completed by priest-teachers and pupils, and have conducted interviews with former pupils of Belgian Jesuit secondary schools that shed light on their memories of different aspects of the German occupation, collaboration and resistance, the Jewish Question and retaliation against wartime collaboration. Via these sources, this final chapter not only illuminates how teachers and pupils remembered certain aspects of the war, but also sheds light on their position in the landscape of World War II memory. This chapter also explores the possibilities that a study of teachers’ and pupils’ memories has to offer for (Belgian) historiography of World War II memory.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1033 See for instance Nicholas Stargardt’s most recent book on children’s memory: Stargardt, Witnesses of War. 1034 Internationally, interesting research has been done by Peter Cunningham and Philip Gardner. For a more general introduction, see Philip Gardner, ‘Oral history in education: teacher’s memory and teacher’s history’, History of Education 32 (2003), nr. 2: 175-188; Peter Cunningham and Philip Gardner, Becoming teachers: texts and testimonies 1907-1950 (London: Woburn, 2004). 1035 Hans Blom, ‘Van bron naar beeld?’, Spiegel Historiael 29 (1994): 106. 1036 For a recent overview of World War II memory in Belgium, see Bruno Benvindo and Evert Peeters, Scherven van de Oorlog. De strijd om de herinnering aan WOII (Antwerpen: De Bezige Bij, 2011).

! 319! 2. Teacher and pupil memory of World War II: scraping the surface of a new field?

2.1. Introduction

In many ways, World War II formed a watershed moment in thinking about children, war and violence. In the immediate post-war era, awareness arose over the ways in which children were developmentally hindered by war and moral panic arose over the formation of a ‘lost generation’. This awareness was not limited to psychologists who became increasingly interested in children’s war traumas.1037 Popular media, such as films, triggered public awareness of these issues.1038 At the same time, children and youth were considered an element of hope. As a result, questions were raised as to how education and other ways of formal or informal learning could have contributed to the creation of Fascists during the war and, conversely, could contribute to the re-establishment of democracy in the post- war. Academic scholarship introduced the notion of ‘war children’.1039 Particularly in recent German historiography, the notion is used in a specific way to depict children as victims of war. Apart from some exceptions1040, international research tends to focus on the ways in which children fell victim to a war, sometimes with long-lasting consequences on their development and identity1041. More specifically, as some titles of standard works in the field already suggest, the image of the child as innocent witness of war predominates.1042

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1037 Particularly psychoanalysts were active within this field. Michal Shapira, for instance, has investigated pyschoanalitic research of Jewish child survivors. 1038 A number of European films were produced right after the war, dealing with the (long-term) consequences of war for children. Extensive research on this subject has been done by Anna Holian. 1039 See for instance Phil Robins, War Children. The Second World War in their own words (London: Scholastic, 2005). 1040 Recently, historians, as well as pscychologists and educationalist have taken interest in ‘the child as perpetrator’. See for instance Dan Bruno Bar-On, ‘Holocaust Perpetrators and their Children. A Paradoxical Morality’, Journal of Humanistic Pscyhology 29 (1989), nr. 4: 424-43; Ismee Tames, Besmette jeugd. De kinderen van NSB’ers na de oorlog (Amsterdam: Balans, 2009); Lars Westerlund ed., The Children of Foreign Soldiers in Finland, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Poland and Occupied Soviet (Helsinki: s.n., 2011). See also the literature on children as part of Nazi organizations, such as the Hitler Youth: Guido Knopp, Hitlers Kinder (Munich: Bertelsmann Verlag, 2000); Brenda Ralph Lewis, Hitler Youth. The Hitlerjugend in War and Peace 1933-1945 (Staplehurst: Spellmount, 2000); Kater, Hitler Youth. 1041 Particularly psychology has been concerned with the long-term impact of World War II on children. See for instance, D. Foster, S. Davies and H. Steele, ‘The Evacuation of British children during World War II: A

! 320! This notion of ‘war children’, however, is rather problematic, since what group of children are we precisely pointing at? Are we talking about children that happened to be born during the war and/or lived through it? This is a rather broad category of children with possibly very divergent notions as to the meaning of war. We might expect that Jewish children in Poland who suffered from persecution or lost their families in the concentration camps to have very different notions of the meaning and impact of World War II compared to Catholic children in Belgian elite schools. Furthermore, the question arises as to what extent these ‘war children’ would identify themselves as such. Furthermore, to what extent do we need to include children that were born after the war but experienced the, for instance, difficult reconstruction of European society as a result of World War II? The notion of ‘war children’ is less present in Belgian historiography. Contributions on the subject mainly revolve around child experiences and memories1043 (sometimes discussed as part of family war histories1044). Both historians and so-called ‘war children’ themselves (integrally) published their stories and memories. Some of the titles of these books, such as Wij zijn nooit kind geweest1045 (We Have Never Been Children) by Walter Gansemans or Gaan jullie ons nu doodschieten?1046 (Are You Going to Shoot Us Now?) again illustrate the ways in which children’s victimhood and innocence in a war instigated by adults is underlined. Despite the post-war academic attention to the function education had played during and directly after the conflict, research on pupils’ and teachers’ memories of the war specifically are rather limited. Internationally, Philip Gardner and Peter Cunningham have explored the possibilities of the oral history method for reconstructing teachers’ memories and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! preliminary investigation into the long-term psychological effects’, Aging and Mental Health 7 (2003), nr. 5: 398-408; Philipp Kuwert, Carsten Spitzer, Anna trader, Harald J. Freyberger and Michael Ermann, ‘Sixty years later post-traumatic stress symptoms and current psychopathology in former German children of World War II’, International Psychogeriatrics 5 (2007): 955-61. 1042 Emmy E. Werner, Through the Eyes of Innocents. Children Witness World War II (Oxford: Westview, 1999); Stargardt, Witnesses of War; Tara Zahra, The Lost Children. Reconstructing Europe’s Families after World War II (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011). 1043 See for instance, Jolanda Vanderwal Taylor, A Family Occupation. Children of the War and the Memory of World War II in Dutch Literature of the 1980s (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1997). 1044 See for instance, Bruno De Wever, Martine Van Asch and Rudi Van Doorslaer, Gekleurd Verleden. Familie in oorlog (Tielt: Lannoo, 2010). 1045 Gansemans, Wij zijn nooit kind geweest. 1046 Roland Bergeys, Gaan jullie ons nu doodschieten? Verhalen over de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Tielt: Lannoo, 2010).

! 321! histories.1047 Starting from the observation that teachers form an occupational group about whom we know surprisingly little, they adopted oral history methods to investigate “the ways in which teachers themselves understood and negotiated their professional lives in the past”.1048 Interestingly, on the basis of their interviews with 140 former elementary school teachers born in the early years of the 20th century, they identified “wartime evacuation as a significant turning point in the development of teacher-pupil relationships”.1049 A great number of the respondents who cooperated in their research project ‘The impact of wartime evacuation upon teacher attitude and practice’ attested that their experiences of wartime evacuation “had transformed their attitude to teaching in particular and to working with children in general”.1050 Recently, Machteld Venken has shed light on the particular role of teachers in the nationalization campaigns of early post-war European borderlands, such as Eupen-St. Vith-Malmedy and East-Upper . Venken sheds light on reorientations in education curricula as a strategy to guarantee national reliability of borderland inhabitants and compares the ways in which national authorities selected educational staff for their borderlands, the nationalizing role teachers were to play and the ways in which teachers gave meaning to their professional practices. She concluded that the switch in sovereignty over the borderland regions of Eupen- St. Vith-Malmedy and East-Upper Silesia from the Third Empire to respectively Belgium and Poland at the end of World War II resulted in the expulsion of undesired teachers, because they were considered too partial to the German regime. As Venken argues, these post-war policy measures heavily influenced teachers’ lives. As a result, her oral interviews with Belgian teachers from the borderland region of Eupen- St. Vith-Malmedy mainly voice self-victimization of local teachers affected by purification campaigns.1051

Conversely, educationalists have paid attention to the position of pupils in the context of war, as this is an important element of the ‘Education for All’ agenda of international

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1047 Gardner, ‘Oral History in education’: 175-88; Cunningham and Gardner, Becoming Teachers. 1048 Philip Gardner and Peter Cunningham, ‘Oral History and Teachers’ Professional Practice: a wartime turning point?’, Cambridge Journal of Education 27 (1997), nr. 3: 331. 1049 Gardner and Cunningham, ‘Oral History and Teachers’: 331-2. 1050 Cunningham and Gardner, ‘Saving the nation’s children’: 328. 1051 Machteld Venken, ‘Nationalisation Campagins and Teachers’ Practices in Belgian-German and Polish- German Border Regions (1945-1956)’, Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Etnicity (2013): 1-19.

! 322! organizations, such as the United Nations. On the basis of the assumption that pupils are “important stakeholders in building an understanding of children, learning and the war”1052, Julia Dicum, for instance, used oral history interviews of Eastern European and German survivors of the Second World War, in order to “generate a historical text against which deeper comparisons on the nature of learning during war and conflict can be made”.1053 In her research, she distinguishes five themes of learning during the war: (i) maintenance, or efforts to retain pre-war structures or practices; (ii) adaptation, (iii) resilience, (iv) politicization or resistance, that refer to a need for survival; and (v) identity that was affected by the war. Dicum uses these oral histories to gain insight in the curriculum, daily life during the war, and the relations between pupils and teachers. In doing so, she presupposes that pupils’ war memories are in a one-to-one relationship with past reality. As Assmann argued, “what individuals remember are repeated representations which are rarely preserved over the years in a state of fixed stability and uncontaminated purity.”1054 In her work Fighting Different Wars, Janet Watson has convincingly argued that there is an important difference between respondents’ memories after a war and their experiences during the conflict.1055 Although Watson reduces this difference mainly to a distinction in sources, she did draw attention to an important point that memory might actually tell us more about the present than it does about the past.

2.2. Belgian teachers’ and pupils’ memories of World War II: sources and methodology

In spite of the fact that Belgian historiography paid considerable attention to memory (or should we say memories) of World War II, one cannot help but notice that the majority of studies are rather general in approach. Most studies deal with memories of resistance and collaboration in respectively Wallonia and Flanders, which are usually depicted as

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1052 Julia Dicum, ‘Learning, War, and Emergencies: A study of the Learner’s Perspective’, Comparative Education Review 52 (2008), nr. 4: 620. 1053 Dicum, idem: 619. 1054 Aleida Assmann, ‘Re-framing memory. Between individual and collective forms of constructing the past’, in Performing the past. Memory, History and Identity in modern Europe, eds. Karin Tilmans, Frank Van Vree and Jay Winter (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010), 49. 1055 Janet Watson, Fighting Different Wars. Experience, Memory, and the First World War in Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

! 323! diametrically opposed. This idea of two different landscapes of memories stems from the 1950s Belgian historiographical and Flemish literary devotion to the subject and heritage of World War II. As scholars such as Bruno De Wever or Marnix Beyen have convincingly advocated, early work played a pivotal role in the genesis of stereotypes of collaboration and resistance that became deeply rooted in public memory.1056 Exemplary for the traditional historiography before the 1980s were the Flemish Encyclopedie van de Vlaamse Beweging (Encyclopedia of the Flemish movement), first published in 1973 and Twintig Eeuwen Vlaanderen (Twenty Centuries of Flanders), published in the mid-1970s.1057 Both works explain Flemish-nationalist collaboration as a mere consequence of the discrimination of the Dutch speaking population. According to the authors, the collaboration of Flemish-nationalist militants was a result of their increasing disappointment with the Belgian state.1058 As a result, the motives behind their collaboration could be explained in patriotic, rather than treacherous terms: their loyalty to the Flemish cause took precedence over the artificial Belgian state.1059 In this manner, one of the most persistent myths in Flemish World War II commemoration culture entered Flemish Catholic public opinion: according to many Flemish Catholics, the Belgian state’s punishment of collaborators just after the war was unnecessarily harsh and essentially ‘anti-Flemish’. It was widely believed that the post-war trials were not so much (if at all) geared towards punishing collaboration with the enemy but were in fact intended to break Flemish-nationalism and its proponents.1060 This image particularly originated in the early post-war years, when sentences were severe for the small collaborators who had

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1056 De Wever, ‘De erfenis van de collaboratie’, 200-209; Marnix Beyen, ‘’Zwart wordt van langs om meer de Vlaamsgezinde massa”. De Vlaamse Beeldvorming over bezetting en repressie, 1945-2000’, in Het gewicht van het oorlogsverleden, eds. José Gotovitch and Chantal Kesteloot (Gent: Academia Press, 2003), 105-20. 1057 De Wever, ‘De erfenis van de collaboratie’, 200 and 204-5. 1058 De Wever, idem, 201. 1059 Martin Conway, ‘Problems of Digestion. The Memory of the Second World War in Flanders”, Arts and Society in Flanders and the Netherlands XIII (2005): 114. 1060 Beyen, ‘“Zwart wordt van langs om meer de Vlaamsgezinde massa”’, 107-9; Rudi Van Doorslaer, ‘Steeds wordt een andere oorlog beschreven. Recente tendensen in de oorlogshistoriografie in België’, Spiegel Historiael 29 (1997): 150.

! 324! not fled to Germany and were sentenced in the early days after the liberation. It was not until 1945 and 1946 that penalties softened.1061 Moreover, the founding fathers of these entrenched images were the victims of persecution themselves. The two aforementioned works were either edited or scientifically supported by former Flemish collaborators.1062 In the 1973-1975 edition of Encyclopedie, for instance, Hendrik Elias, who had been leader of the collaborationist party Vlaams Nationaal Verbond (Flemish National Union) since 1942, wrote an introduction ‘Short History of the Flemish movement’. As Bruno De Wever, specialist of Flemish collaboration has argued, Elias and many of the early contributors to the historiography of World War II were responsible for the extenuated image of Flemish-nationalists’ collaboration with the German occupier during the Second World War. The accusation was facilitated by the Flemish-nationalists’ rapid and relatively easy reintegration in Belgian society.1063 Also, popular resentment against the Belgian state and its retribution policy arose in the prisoner camps where thousands of former collaborators were confined. As Marnix Beyen has shown, outside prison walls, this resentment would form the cement of a subculture of ‘victims’ of the so- called repressie. Catholic youth movements, politicians, and public opinion supported this resentment.1064 The historiography of the last 20 to 30 years has refuted these old images and has questioned the predominant focus on the linguistic border as a defining category of memory. In their recent study, Luminet et. al. literally questioned the extent to which Belgium consists out of two collective memories. As Marc Reynebeau elucidates, “Does the emphasis on linguistic relations result in a underestimation of deeper social, cultural and ideological differences?”1065 Since the 1980s, the victimhood of Flanders has lost plausibility as a result of its increasing political dominance and economic prosperity.1066 Recent scholarship stresses the ideological ties between Flemish-nationalism and National Socialism. As Bruno De Wever !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1061 De Wever, ‘De erfenis van de collaboratie’, 203; Kris Hoflack, Luc Huyse and Peter Romijn, ‘Het spook van de collaboratie. De bestraffing en de perceptie van het onvaderlands gedrag in België en Nederland’, Spiegel Historiael 29 (1994), nr.3-4: 123. 1062 Bruno De Wever, ‘Idealistische oostfrontstrijders’ en ‘flaminboches’. De collaboratie in België: onverwerkt verleden?’, Spiegel Historiael 29 (1994), nr. 3-4: 139. 1063 De Wever, ‘De erfenis van de collaboratie’, 205. 1064 Beyen, ‘”Zwart wordt van langs om meer de Vlaamsgezinde massa”’, 107-9 and 117. 1065 Olivier Luminet ed., België-Belgique. Eén staat, twee collectieve geheugens? (Kortrijk: Snoeck, 2012), 8. 1066 Conway, ‘Problems of Digestion’: 117.

! 325! convincingly argues, the pre-war ideology of National Socialism and that of radical Flemish-nationalism formed a perfect match. Consequently, National Socialism with its racist, anti-Semitist, imperialistic and totalitarian aspirations and consequences were actually supported and endorsed.1067 Luc Huyse and Steven Dhont have demonstrated that there is little evidence to support the idea that the post-war retribution trials were essentially anti-Flemish.1068 Furthermore, in his doctoral dissertation, Koen Aerts has put forward a more nuanced answer to the popular belief in retributions ‘zonder maat of einde’.1069 Nonetheless, it is fair to say that the image and perception of collaboration have remained the predominant focus of historical scholarship about Flanders. Although local histories of the resistance exist, a comprehensive study on Flemish resistance is still lacking.1070 Also, it is not until recently that historians have broadened their scope to address the question of persistant patterns in Flemish memories of the resistance. First and foremost, the resistance in Flanders mainly was Belgian-patriotic, and to a large extent carried out by a bourgeoisie that was Flemish in origin but Francophone in language.1071 Bruno De Wever has argued that the absence of a Flemish-nationalist resistance contributed to the negative image of the resistance in the post-war. Armed resisters were depicted as bandits or Communists, trying to seize political power.1072 Also, the resistance was increasingly associated with the punishment of collaborators and the unwillingness to show mercy.1073 Furthermore, the resistance was identified with attacks on collaborators that, during the war, had resulted in

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1067 De Wever, ‘De erfenis van de collaboratie’, 202. See also De Wever, Greep naar de macht. 1068 Luc Huyse and Steven Dhont, Onverwerkt verleden: collaboratie en repressie in België 1942-1952 (Leuven: Kritak, 1994). Dirk Luyten has argued the same for economic collaboration, Dirk Luyten, ‘De vervolging van de economische collaboratie’, in Het gewicht van het oorlogsverleden, eds. José Gotovitch and Chantal Kesteloot (Gent: Academia Press, 2003), 75-104. 1069 Koen Aerts, ‘’Repressie zonder maat of einde?’ De juridische reïntegratie van incivieken in de Belgische staat na de Tweede Wereldoorlog’ (Doctoral Dissertation, Universiteit Gent, 2011). 1070 Bruno De Wever, ‘Het verzet in de publieke herinnering in Vlaanderen’, in Tegendruk: Geheime pers tijdens de tweede Wereldoorlog, eds. Bert Boeckx, Gert De Prins, Bruno De Wever, Jan Laplasse, Fabrice Maerten, An Renard, Lieven Saerens, Karolien Steen, Roel Vande Winkel, Rudi Van Doorslaer and Martine Vermandere (Antwerpen/Gent/Brussel: Amsab-ISG/SOMA, 2001), 25. 1071 Bruno De Wever, ‘”Septemberweerstanders”, “flaminboches” en “idealistische oostfrontstrijders”: de collaboratie in België: onverwerkt verleden?’, in Het Verzet en Noord-Europa/La Résistance et les Européens du Nord (Paris/Bruxelles: CREHSGM/Institut d’histoire du Temps présent, 1994), 388-9; Conway, ‘Problems of Digestion’: 116. 1072 De Wever, ‘”Septemberweerstanders”’, 388-9. 1073 De Wever, ‘Het verzet in de publieke herinnering’, 22.

! 326! reprisals by the German occupier. As such, resisters were held responsible for the death of many citizens.1074 The most persistent image in post-war Flemish memory of the resistance probably is that of the so-called septemberweerstander, i.e. the “fake” resisters of the final hour who only showed bravery to purge collaborators when the danger was already over, in September 1944.1075 As De Wever argues, this image of the resistance is not limited to circles of former collaborators, but is widespread in pro-Flemish Catholics milieus.1076 Whereas in several European countries, the public memory formed around myths of a heroic resistance, Belgian resistance was a source of discord rather than unity.1077 The situation in the Francophone part of the country was quite different. Whereas public memory in Flanders revolved around collaboration, in the French-speaking part of Belgium (i.e. Brussels and Wallonia) it was Belgian nationalism, anti-fascism and the social liberation battle that prevailed in post-war commemoration culture.1078 Walloon politicians used the heritage of the war in the establishment of a Walloon collective identity.1079 As Bruno De Wever has argued, the main difference with Flanders is that there was a Wallingant resistance.1080 Indeed, Walloon national identity succeeded in integrating the victims of the German occupation as Walloon heroes and martyrs.1081 For a long time, this predominance of heroic resistance memories in Wallonia went hand in hand with the focus on the Flemish nature of collaboration in Francophone World War II historiography, thereby overlooking collaboration in Brussels and Wallonia. Already from its very establishment, Walloon opponents aimed at discrediting the Flemish movement, its proponents and its demands, which it considered to be essentially anti-Belgian. After the First World War, the Flemish movement was identified with aktivisme, or treason against the Belgian state. As Colignon and Kesteloot have documented, after the Second World

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1074 De Wever, ‘”Septemberweerstanders”’, 388-9. 1075 De Wever, ‘’Idealistische oostfrontstrijders’’: 138. 1076 De Wever, ‘”Septemberweerstanders”’, 389. 1077 Bruno Benvindo and Evert Peeters, ‘La mémoire de la seconde guerre mondiale comme régulation sociale’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis XLIII (2012), nr. 2-3: 15. 1078 Van Doorslaer, ‘Steeds wordt een andere oorlog beschreven’: 148. 1079 De Wever, ‘De erfenis van de collaboratie’, 207. 1080 De Wever, ‘”Septemberweerstanders”’, 391. 1081 Pieter Lagrou, ‘Herdenken en vergeten. De politieke verwerking van verzet en vervolging in België na 1945’, Spiegel Historiael 29 (1997): 121.

! 327! War, this was translated into treason against both the state and democracy.1082 Recently, however, historians have increasingly paid attention to Walloon collaboration.1083 For instance, Jonathan Litell’s essay Le sec et l’humide1084 analyzed the discourse of Léon Degrelle’s war report La campagne de Russie 1941-1945, breaking the taboo on Walloon collaboration. As the previous paragraphs show, the occupation drew the country apart, divided left and right, and manipulated tensions between the two linguistic communities.1085 In Belgium, different commemoration communities had their own heroes and victims that continuously negotiated their position in the landscape of memory. As Evert Peeters recently observed, most national memory studies still find it hard to think beyond ‘good and evil’.1086 The question arises as to what extent limiting our research to a certain side of the linguistic border is not to reproduce the existing dominant patterns in public memory in both linguistic communities. Do we not present a rather zero-sum image of collective memory on World War II? Does the fact that a respondent born and raised in, say, a Walloon Catholic family necessarily imply that he identifies with the dominant patterns of memory in Walloon society? I believe that the use of more specific categories, parallel to what Lagrou has done in his study on patriotic memory for instance, can be illuminating for it enables us to research the ways in which respondents can identify with and belong to various memory groups at the same time. As Maurice Halbwachs already observed:

“(...) these various modes by which memories become associated result from the various ways in which people can become associated. We can understand each memory as it occurs in individual thought only if we locate each within the thought of the corresponding group. We cannot properly understand their relative strength and the ways

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1082 Alain Colignon and Chantal Kesteloot, ‘’Nazis durant les guerres’. De visie op de Vlaamse collaboratie in Wallonië en Brussel’, in Het gewicht van het oorlogsverleden, eds. José Gotovitch and Chantal Kesteloot (Gent: Academia Press, 2003), 121-3 and 135. 1083 See for instance, Flore Plisnier, Ils ont pris des armes pour Hitler. La collaboration armée en Belgique Francophone 1940-1944 (Bruxelles: Editions Luc Pire, 2008). 1084 Jonathan Litell, Le sec et l’humide (Paris: Gallimard, 2008). 1085 Lagrou, ‘Memory and National Identity’, 426. 1086 Evert Peeters, ‘Het gevecht tegen de tijd. Patriottische oorlogsherdenkingen als vorm van contestatie, 1945-1965’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis XLIII (2012), nr. 2-3: 20.

! 328! in which they combine within individual thought unless we connect the individual to the various groups of which he is simultaneously a member”.1087

Or, As Assmann has put it:

“(...) we must not forget, however, that human beings do not only live in the first person singular, but also in various formats of the first person plural. They become part of different groups whose ‘we’ they adopt together with the respective ‘social frames’ that imply an implicit structure of shared concerns, values, experiences, and narratives. The family, the neighbourhood, the peer group, the generation, the nation, the culture – each of these are larger groups to which individuals refer as ‘we’. Each ‘we’ is constructed through specific discourses that mark certain boundary lines and define the principles of inclusion and exclusion. To be part of the identity of such a group is to participate in the group’s history, which often exceeds the boundaries of one’s individual life span.”1088

Therefore, I believe that the analysis of the memories of teachers and pupils, independent of linguistic borders or predefined categories of collaboration or resistance, can contribute to the current lacuna in the history of education and can provide nuanced insights for the largely polarized Belgian historiography of World War II memory.

Fortunately, there are sources that make research into those questions possible. As discussed in the introduction, in 1977, three researchers of what is now the Centre for Historical Research and Documentation on War and Contemporary Society (CEGESOMA) in Brussels organized a national questionnaire to collect and archive World War II memories of (retired) Belgian priests. Furthermore, a similar questionnaire was organized in 1998 by the Confédération Francophone des Associations des Anciens Elèves des Pères Jesuites (Francophone Confederation of the Associations of Former Pupils of Jesuit Schools), aiming at collecting and archiving Francophone pupils’ memories in relation to their Jesuit education before, during and after the Second World War. Lastly, to complement the questionnaires that were organized in the 1990s, I conducted various oral history interviews with former pupils. More specifically, I sought to investigate whether

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1087 Quoted in Alan Confino, ‘Collective Memory and Cultural History: Problems of Method’, The American Historical Review 102 (1997), nr. 5: 1399. 1088 Assmann, ‘Re-framing memory’, 37-8.

! 329! and to what extent Francophone pupils’ wartime memories have developed over the past two decades and how they correspond to memories from Flemish pupils’ testimonies.

2.3. Teachers’ and pupils’ memories of World War II in Belgium: testimonies of a failed German educational policy?

“Boys, the headmaster began, Germany has violated Belgium’s neutrality and our soldiers are already fighting. Our government is taking every possible measure. There is no reason to be frightened. I am counting on you to show the greatest calm and discipline during these critical moments. We will now go to the chapel to have our mass and morning prayers. His words were listened to with the greatest attention. Every boarding student in Saint Servais, one of Liège’s outstanding prep schools, felt that a new manly responsibility was being placed on his young shoulders. Never were morning prayers said with more devotion.”1089

As this quote from Pierre Nys illustrates, the German attack on May 10, 1940 left a profound impression on pupils and their teachers. In my interviews with former pupils in Flemish and Francophone Jesuit schools, for instance, the beginning of the war surfaced as a defining experience. As soon as I put my recorder on and before I even got the chance to ask the first question, many of them started talking about the German attack. A majority could even remember the precise circumstances of the attack or their whereabouts at that critical moment. As I discussed in the previous part of this dissertation, the German attack resulted in a wave of Belgian refugees, in search of a safer environment for their family in France. About ¼ of priest-teachers participated in the flight to France, often accompanying a group of Poesis or Rhetorica students. The rest was either mobilized as chaplain or stretcher-bearer in the Belgian Army or stayed in Belgium. Also, about 57% of Francophone pupils still vividly remembered the day and circumstances of the attack. Of notable mention in the testimonies are the declaration of war on May 10, 1940, the “exodus” to France and the capitulation of King Leopold III on May 28, 1940. Remarkably, pupils’ answers present a combination of fear and sorrow, but also of excitement. Their memories of the declaration

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1089 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Annex to the questionnaire of Pierre Nys (Extract from Pierre E. Nys’, ‘Escape from Nazi Europe’).

! 330! of war and the flight to France were not exclusively negative. Although pupils seem to hold a particularly strong recollection to the heavy bombardments, in which they sometimes lost school friends or family members, they often saw the declaration of war as a way to escape the examinations. Also, many of them experienced the flight to France with their family or school friends as an exciting adventure or holiday, rather than a trauma of war. The fact that Henri Heylen, former pupil of the Collège Saint-Michel, for example, entitled his testimony about the beginning of World War II Une aventure de guerre – J’avais 18 ans en 1941 (A War Adventure – I was 18 in 1941) is illustrative in this respect. In many cases, negative experiences with the beginning of the war revolve around the negative reception of the Belgian capitulation in France. In his radio speech, the French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud openly and severely criticized the Belgian capitulation, which often resulted in exclusion of Belgian refugees in France:

“A Father had enrolled my brother and me in a grammar school in Blois (...). On May 28, we were shaven and beaten by our class friends ... as dirty Boches. We did not return to that grammar school, and we certainly did not forget the shameful capitulation of the French government only one month later!”1090

After the capitulation, teachers and pupils that had left for France returned to a different country. In light of the late-May military government installation, aiming at controlling all sectors of Belgian society, the question arose as to whether the German occupation impacted the organization of the Belgian educational system. Interestingly, both the researchers of the Cegesoma and the confederation of Jesuit schools paid special attention to education in their surveys of priests’ and pupils’ war memories. More specifically, on the third page of the teacher questionnaire the respondents were asked whether they had “personally experienced German interference in primary or secondary education”. 39,2% of respondents remembered direct German interference in secondary education. Only 9,6% of priest-teachers did not answer the question or claimed to have no recollection of such matters; 51,1% claimed never to have personally experienced German interference in education. The analysis shows that there are no significant differences between Flemish and Walloon priest-teachers in respect to this question.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1090 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Questionnaire of Laurent De Wasseige.

! 331! Generally, three main channels of German interference, are present in the volunteered memories of (retired) priest-teachers: (i) the full or partial occupation of the school by German troops; (ii) changes in curriculum and pedagogy, as well as German inspection of classroom practices; and (iii) the request of lists of all final-year pupils (for purposes of forced labor). Interestingly, there is a significant overlap between the respondents’ memories and the main measures taken by the German occupier between 1940 and 1944. Although German educational policy was much broader than just these three restrictive measures, changes in curricula, summoning of pupils and occupation of classrooms were most prevalent at the lower educational levels. Firstly, 29,8% of priest-teachers who vividly remember German interference in education claim to have personally experienced the occupation and billeting of their schools or classrooms. A comparison between Belgium’s two linguistic regions suggests that occupation of schools left a slightly more prominent impression in Flemish than in Walloon memory: respectively 32% and 26% of Flemish and Walloon priest-teachers remember being confronted with billeted German soldiers. The individual memories of priest-teachers particularly center on the ways in which the occupation of their classrooms hindered school life. The memories also revolve around stories of conflict between pupils and German billeted troops. Jean Mairy, a teacher in the Collège Saint-Thérèse in Herve (Wallonia), testified:

“In December 1940, the grammar school was partly occupied by Germans (an artillery unit) and, in spite of our efforts and recommendations, the pupils harassed the Germans. On December 6, the grammar school was closed down and the pupils were manu militari thrown out. Also, the principal and a German language teacher were arrested. I was arrested in the afternoon. We all went to the prison of St-Leonard in Liège and I had to appear before a German court, but was acquitted on April 1, 1941. (…)”.1091

Although this particular example illustrates the, sometimes far-reaching, consequences of the German occupation, the importance of the individual stories and testimonies should not be overemphasized. Indeed, it should be kept in mind that only about 30% of the respondents appear to remember the billeting of troops and requisitioning of schools,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1091 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Liège, Questionnaire of Jean Mairy.

! 332! although the majority of schools were indeed occupied at some point, be it by German, Belgian or Allied soldiers. Secondly, with regard to changes in school curricula and pedagogy, many of the teachers of history (particularly contemporary history), geography and languages remembered German interference in their classes. For example, the German occupier required that passages concerning the French-German war of 1870, the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles be removed from history textbooks. French and English language teachers remember their courses being reduced and sometimes even abolished in favor of German language courses. Furthermore, they remember that works by Jewish writers were being cut from literary textbooks1092, and geography teachers were not allowed to comment on the current geographical European constellation. As I discussed in the previous parts of this dissertation, the German occupier adopted several means of control over school curricula and teaching packages. Although it remains a minority, some priest-teachers attested that they felt closely watched. As Frans Doms, a teacher in the Sint-Jozefscollege in Herentals, noted:

“We needed to mind our words during class, particularly in the three highest classes when I had to discuss the Latin writers that paralleled with the present political situation. There were always pupil members of New [Order] youth movements. During history class, the situation was even worse. Two times a German officer came into class to examine our history textbooks and ordered the teacher to alter certain passages to present Germany in a positive way, particularly in relation to contemporary history (war ‘14-‘18, Treaty of Versailles).”1093

The individual memories of the respondents, similar to that of Frans Doms, present teachers’ indirect ‘resistance’ against these measures by indirectly commenting on Nazism or the political situation of the moment, and teachers’ urgent sense not to antagonize so- called ‘black pupils or parents’. Conrad De Meulenaere, teacher in the Onze-Lieve- Vrouwcollege in Oostende (Flanders), for instance, explained:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1092 Roels, Twintig jaar boeman, 210 and 212. 1093 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Mechelen, Questionnaire of Frans Doms.

! 333! “We could feel that we were closely watched. (…) During class, I could allude to the German occupation, for instance by referring to Roman or Greek history. These allusions were well understood by many of my pupils and, although some of them were proponents of the New Order, I was never tattled on.1094

As De Meulenaere’s testimony already alludes to, the majority of priest-teachers claim to have been scared of being informed on. As the memories of former teachers reveal, particular care was necessary concerning students involved in collaborating youth movements. As Robrecht Stock, a teacher and inspector of the Sint-Lodewijkscollege in Bruges, noted, unfavorable comments about the German occupier or the occupation could have severe consequences:

“In my classes, I was devoted to combating the basic principles of Nazism. Some pupils (and although small in number, but enough to inform the German occupier) notified the military administration. In June, 1941, some colleagues of mine were summoned by the German Secret Service and were then asked for information about me.”1095

Remarkably, the fear of “pupil spies” in the classroom even led six Flemish teachers to claim, either implicitly or explicitly, that they had experienced more trouble with collaborators than with the German occupier. This particular stance seems to have been specific to the Flemish context, since I have not found this in any of the French questionnaires. Thirdly, out of 171 respondents who had clear memories of German interference in education, 27 (or 15,7%) claimed to have personally experienced consequences of the forced labor measures. As I discussed earlier, the German occupation authorities issued a decree on October 7, 1942, subjecting all eligible Belgians to forced labor in Germany. The ordinance permitted the occupier to conscript into forced labor any man between the ages of 18 and 50, and any woman between the age of 21 and 35.1096 Secondary school pupils were in theory not affected by this measure, as they were usually under 18. However, if they wished to enroll for university education, they were obliged to work for a time in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1094 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Brugge, Questionnaire of Conrad De Meulenaere. 1095 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Brugge, Questionnaire of Robrecht Stock. 1096 Aron and Gotovitch, Dictionnaire, 439-441.

! 334! German or Belgian factories. Towards this end, the German occupier demanded secondary school principals to hand over lists of all final year-pupils. As discussed in the previous chapter, resistance to the handing over of enrolment lists was widespread, and the majority of principals and teachers in Catholic secondary schools disregarded it, actions for which they were sometimes jailed.1097 The individual memories of priest-teachers all revolve around stories of resistance, ways to circumvent the measures, involvement in the organization of safe houses or provision of fake identity cards. As the testimony of Leo Casteels, teacher and later principal of the Sint-Jan-Berchmanscollege in Mol, for instance, illustrates, one way to circumvent forced labor of students was the establishment of a ‘super senior year’ (or, literally translated, ‘seventh year’). The majority of testimonies of teachers and principals drew on the protection of final-year pupils against deportation to Germany. Some principals even attested to have created excuses or starkly refused to hand over the lists of their final-year pupils.

Furthermore, the questionnaire organized by the Confédération Francophone des Associations des Anciens Elèves des Pères Jesuites also pays attention to pupil memories of German interference in their schools. A majority of former pupils of Jesuit schools did not answer the question or have no recollections of German interference. About 13% of respondents claimed that soon after the start of the war in May 1940, school life resumed its normal course. Respondents seem almost to reduce their World War II experiences to the material conditions of war, as most of them deal with bombardments at the end of the occupation (1944), the requisitioning of the school or some classes by the German or Allied Army or the compulsory closure of schools as a result of that. More specifically, about 30% of respondents claim to have witnessed and experienced the perturbation of school life, but mainly as a result of bombardments – and not so much as a consequence of German interference – towards the end of the war. A majority of testimonies revolves around stories of bombardments in 1944, making the continuation of schooling impossible. Parallel to the memories of priest-teachers, pupils relate on their school or class having to seek refuge in another school or congregation. Also, many pupils still remember the exceptional circumstances under which the courses and examinations took place. As Jean-Claude Quintart, pupil of the Collège Notre-Dame de la Paix in Tournai noted:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1097 Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey, 160.

! 335! “Classes were interrupted during the third trimester of 1944. Classes and homework were organized via correspondence. (...) There were a couple of inspections and an exam organized in a village school. Assisted by particular courses in Latin, Greek, French and Flemish (paid by my parents) I have written these homeworks by correspondence, which helped me with learning to work on my own.”1098

Also, as I discussed in the previous part of this dissertation, the billeting of troops and the requisitioning of classrooms hindered school life, which about 12% of respondents still vividly remembers. Again, their individual stories run parallel to those of priest-teachers. More specifically, pupils’ stories relate to their conflicts with the billeted Italian or German troops and their teachers’ warnings to keep out of mischief. Although most Jesuit Fathers advised pupils “d’ignorer leur présence, de ne pas provoquer et de ne pas manifester d’intérêt”1099, many respondents recall their rogue behavior towards the troops. Jean-Marie Lechat, pupil in the Collège Saint-Michel in Brussels, for instance, remembers:

“On the playground, we threw balls or stones towards the windows, where the faces of Germans appeared. One day, they were angry and I still recall running through the garden in order to escape them. (...) The Jesuit Fathers needed a lot of diplomacy to save the oldest pupils from reprisals”.1100

Remarkably, only six respondents seem to remember actual German interference in the curriculum or the revision of school manuals. Their stories are rather vague and provide limited details. Respondents particularly claim to have witnessed the abolition of certain subjects, such as English, or the purge of history textbooks dealing with the Great War. Although the previous parts of this dissertation revealed the foundations of the German education reform plan, the questionnaire shows that these were not widely experienced or !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1098 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Questionnaire of Jean-Claude Quintart. 1099 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Questionnaire of André Warny. 1100 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Questionnaire of Jean-Marie Lechat.

! 336! remembered by pupils themselves. For many respondents, the impact of the occupation was much more apparent in the context of family life, as opposed to the school, which they often remember as a ‘protected cocoon’.

In conclusion, both teachers’ and pupils’ memories of German interference are rather limited, which might be illustrative of the general failure of the implementation of the German educational reform program. Pupils’ war memories relate to the ways in which school life suffered from the material conditions of war, rather than German interference in schools or classes.

2.4. Teacher and pupil memory of World War II in Belgium: a fragmented landscape of memory?

Apart from these aspects of German interference in education or material deprivations as a result of war, both pupils’ and teachers’ war memories revolve around collaboration and resistance. In regard to pupils’ engagement in the resistance, 40 respondents (or 13%) attested to have been involved in armed resistance groupings, whereas 28 or (9%) testified about their involvement in unarmed resistance. These numbers are, however, only an indication of their actual engagement. Firstly, it is important to keep in mind possible overlaps, since some pupils were active in both armed and unarmed resistance at the same time. Hence, these pupils are represented twice in these percentages. Also, the majority of pupils had already left secondary school at the time of activities such as armed resistance groups, since adolescents under the age of sixteen were, in principle, not eligible for admission in armed resistance movements. As a result, the questionnaire only presents an indication of the resistance activities of (former) students of Jesuit schools. Although the questionnaire suggests that the actual involvement of pupils in Jesuit high schools was rather limited, respondents strongly emphasized the existence of an anti- German atmosphere of resistance within their school. More specifically, these memories of the resistance particularly crystallize around specific schools or ‘heroic’ teachers, such as Father Magnée or Father Deschamps of the Collège Sacré Coeur in Charleroi (Wallonia) or Father Lange of the Saint-François-Xavier grammar school in Verviers (Wallonia). This illustrates the function of schools or teachers in the establishment of a particular memory community that gathers around a heroic-patriotic history of their school. This predominance of the resistance is equally present in the memories of Catholic schoolteachers in Francophone dioceses. About 59% of Francophone priest-teachers

! 337! claimed to have been indirectly or directly involved in the resistance. A majority of them did so out of patriotism (21%). 18% wanted to bring an end to the German occupation of Belgium and facilitate an Allied liberation, and 12% of teacher respondents were involved in the resistance because of Christian solidarity and charity. In contrast, only 12% of Flemish priest-teachers claim to have been indirectly or directly involved in the resistance.

At first sight, the identification of Francophone memories with heroic stories of the resistance coincides with the dominant emphasis of Belgian historiography that focuses on the prevalence of anti-fascism, resistance and Belgian patriotism in Walloon post-war commemoration culture and – to a lesser degree – the denial of Walloon collaboration. Yet, a closer inspection and analysis of the memories of one specific group (i.e. Catholic teachers and pupils) demonstrates that the differences between both linguistic communities (i.e. Flanders and Wallonia) might in fact not as big as Belgian historiography has sometimes suggested. More important than teachers’ and pupils’ memories of their actual involvement in the resistance or that of their colleagues or fellow pupils, are their opinions about the resistance, collaboration and the retribution for wartime collaboration. It is particularly in this respect that Wallonia and Flanders have been put diametrically opposed. In order to investigate the differences or similarities between both linguistic communities, I have analyzed priest-teachers’ testimonies in the questionnaire that was organized by the Cegesoma in 1977/8. The questionnaire on pupils’ memories of the Second World War did not specifically ask respondents to give their opinions on resistance or collaboration, but rather aimed to collect their involvement experiences and memories or that of fellow pupils and teachers. It is only in relation to retribution for wartime collaboration that some pupils explicitly shared their opinion.

Firstly, the question arises whether the ideas or opinions about the resistance really are so different in the memories of Walloon and Flemish priest-teachers. Of a total of 269 Flemish respondents, only 21 (retired) priest-teachers were positive about the resistance. The majority (or 73%) shared their – to a larger or lesser degree – negative opinions about the resistance, or were at least highly critical about the actions of resistance fighters. Generally, their appreciation of the resistance depended on (i) the nature of the resistance acts, (ii) the ideological background of resistance groupings and (iii) the form of the involvement of resisters themselves and their assessment of collaboration.

! 338! More specifically, priest-teachers only agreed with acts of sabotage and condemned the murder of German soldiers or collaborators, as they often resulted in reprisals on behalf of the German Military Administration. Gilbert Nollet, teacher in the Catholic grammar school of Poperinge (Flanders) testified:

“In a whim of patriotism, I almost engaged in the resistance, thinking they were idealists who were committed for the good cause. Fortunately, a wise priest prevented me from taking that step. At the liberation, we came to realize these guys were not completely ok. If I had become engaged in the resistance, I would have been ashamed of myself for the rest of my life. There were exceptional actions undertaken by the resistance, such as the liberation of deported prisoners or the protection of bridges against armed attacks. Yet, the majority were acts of villainy: the killing of innocent German soldiers who walked unsuspectingly on the streets, which solved nothing and endangered the life and welfare of civilians. (...)”.1101

Also, not only did they condemn certain resistance acts, they also condemned certain resistance groupings. For example, Communist resistance groupings, such as the Front de l’Indépendance/Onafhankelijkheidsfront (Independence Front), form the scapegoat in their testimonies:

“We only had confidence in the Witte Brigade (White Brigade, italics added by the author), not in the Partisans”.1102

Furthermore, many respondents distinguished between so-called ‘true and false’ resisters and resistance. They particularly criticized the idea that the resistance did not differentiate between genuine collaboration, which respondents mainly understood in terms of economic collaboration, on the one hand, and collaborators’ idealistic participation in political and military collaboration (i.e. participation in the battle at the Eastern Front), on the other hand. Also, many priest-teachers cherished the idea that armed resistance was in fact plain murder and villainy, conducted by resisters of the final hour who only engaged when the war was almost over. For many of them, ordinary people conducted true resistance by !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1101 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Brugge, Questionnaire of Gilbert Nollet. 1102 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Hasselt, Questionnaire of Felix-Jacobus Vanderwegen.

! 339! engaging in acts of non-armed resistance. Stefaan De Paepe, teacher in the Sint- Lievenscollege in Ghent (Flanders), for instance, claimed:

“At the end of the war, I was averse to many of the attacks plotted by men who had never heard of real resistance, but suddenly walked around with guns in their hands when the Germans moved out. I had much more respect for unarmed resisters who helped people hiding. Helping people out with ration or hiding Jewish children fits much better with the idea of Christian charity. Under the then present circumstances, armed resistance only provoked more violence on behalf of those who were stronger, viz. the Germans”.1103

In conclusion, Flemish priest-teachers’ opinion about the resistance, as a group of (Communist) bandits, fake resisters or murderers committing attacks against collaborators that only resulted in German reprisals and, as a result, were responsible for the death of many innocent citizens, largely coincides with the predominant image of the resistance in Flanders that has been described in historiography. Bruno De Wever has argued that the absence of a Flemish-nationalist resistance contributed to the negative image of the resistance in the post-war. Armed resisters were depicted as bandits or Communists, trying to seize political power.1104 Also, the resistance was increasingly associated with the punishment of collaborators and the unwillingness to show mercy.1105 Furthermore, the resistance was identified with attacks on collaborators that, during the war, had resulted in reprisals by the German occupier, and the holding of resisters responsible for the death of many citizens.1106 The analysis of the testimonies of Francophone priest-teachers, however, shows that Walloon appreciation of the resistance is not necessarily much different. Although generally Francophone respondents’ answers are less harsh, 74% of priest-teachers in Francophone schools criticized the resistance for the exact same reasons Flemish priest- teachers did. Parallel to their Flemish colleagues, Francophone priest-teachers only showed appreciation for passive acts of resistance or acts of sabotage that had material consequences and did not jeopardize the welfare of innocent civilians. Robert Philoppot,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1103 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Gent, Questionnaire of Stefaan De Paepe. 1104 De Wever, ‘”Septemberweerstanders”’, 388-9. 1105 De Wever, ‘Het verzet in de publieke herinnering’, 22. 1106 De Wever, ‘”Septemberweerstanders”’, 388-9.

! 340! teacher in the diocese of Namur (Wallonia), for instance, argued that there was a difference to be made between:

“(1) attacks that had military goals (such as the destruction of bridges, for instance). Those were good because they were well-prepared and well thought through. (2) other actions were rather incautious because of their consequences for the population. Certain acts seemed to be rather close to villainy.”1107

Furthermore, like their Flemish counterparts, Francophone priest-teachers had little good to say about the “Front de l’Indépendance and the crimes they committed”1108, as Alfred- Joseph Focant, teacher in the Institut Saint-Remacle in Marche-en-Famenne noted. Although some priest-teachers were involved in the resistance themselves, they could show no respect for Communist resistance and even intervened against them:

“There were resistance fighters and resistance fighters. The resistance fighters of the Armée Secrète (, italics by the author), in the region between the Ourthe and Houffalize and the Amblève, Stavelot, where I was appointed principal chaplain in April 1944, have never committed attacks. Quite on the contrary, their intervention against certain irresponsible gangs that showed no patriotism at all, succeeded in calling a halt to criminal attacks in the region”.1109

Until very recently, Belgian historiography has mainly emphasized the prevalence of Belgian nationalism, anti-fascism and the social liberation battle in Walloon memories of the war.1110 My analysis of Catholic Francophone memories of the resistance is, however, not so different from the prevailing images of the resistance in Flanders.1111 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1107 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Namur, Questionnaire of Robert Philoppot. 1108 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Namur, Questionnaire of Alfred-Joseph Focant. 1109 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Namur, Questionnaire of Arthidor Catteau. 1110 Van Doorslaer, ‘Steeds wordt een andere oorlog beschreven’: 148. 1111 It is important to keep in mind that these observations specifically refer to Catholic memories of World War II. More specifically, Catholic aversion of Communist resistance movements was widespread and also is well-described in Belgian historiography. The question arises, however, whether linguistic tensions are more visible in the memories of former pupils of official state schools.

! 341! Remarkably, the questionnaire analysis also shows that equally present in the memories of Francophone teachers is the idea of the so-called Septemberweerstander, or the “fake” resisters of the final hour who only showed bravery in September 1944. Historiography often considers this idea to be one of the most persistent myths in Flemish post-war commemoration culture. Yet, it is equally present in the memories of Francophone teachers. Paul Van Puyvelde, born in the Francophone village of Vorst (Brussels) argued:

“I admire the resistance, but unfortunately in ’44-’45, when the German defeat became apparent, many engaged or acted as if they engaged in the resistance, because the danger was over and they could have claimed decorations after the war”.1112

Similarly, Victor Deschamps, educator in the Francophone diocese of Tournai (Wallonia), claimed that his “sympathy goes to real resistance fighters, not to Communists and even less to the ‘resistance fighters’ after the liberation”.1113 In conclusion, the analysis demonstrates that some ideas, in this case about the resistance, belonged to Catholic war commemoration culture, and do not only stem from a specific linguistic community.

The same holds for priest-teachers’ opinions about retribution for wartime collaboration, which are not really different in both linguistic communities. Firstly, the low response rates on both sides of the linguistic border are remarkable and indicative for the very touchy nature of the repressie, especially in Francophone provinces. Whereas response rates usually vary between 80 to 95%, only 29% of Francophone and 51% of Flemish priest-teachers answered the specific questions about retribution or wanted to give their opinion on the issue. Of those respondents who did, only 2 Flemish and 1 Francophone priest-teacher were/was positive about the so-called volksrepressie (popular retribution). More specifically, many respondents were convinced that the population ought not to judge and that the official justice authorities better did this job. Also, both Francophone and Flemish priest- teachers argued that it was better to forgive than to condemn collaborators for what they had done:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1112 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Malines, Questionnaire of Paul Van Puyvelde. 1113 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Tournai, Questionnaire of Victor Deschamps.

! 342! “Indulgence is the most Christian and genuine attitude. Priests and religious involved in collaboration have been punished enough by the very defeat of Nazism. Why should we condemn them and dismiss them in the temptation of self-contempt. Forgiveness always remains an act of esteem and confidence that gives those guilty a sense of dignity”.1114

Furthermore, popular retribution was criticized because, according to the respondents, it totally missed its initial purpose. More specifically, they claimed that popular retribution targeted idealists, whom they did not consider real collaborators:

“When we heard something about the possibility of retribution, I considered this completely normal. Collaborators deserved it. I was, however, convinced that there was a distinction to be made between 'opinion' and real crimes. People with certain ideas but who had done nothing wrong, had to be left alone”.1115

The excesses of popular fury were criticized precisely because they, according to both Flemish and Francophone priest-teachers, targeted idealists and small collaborators, leaving the ‘real collaborator’ completely undisturbed. Also, many priest-teachers accused Communist or leftist resistance groupings of using extreme violence as a way to seize power. Rene Delbove, teacher in the Collège Saint-Vincent in the Walloon village of Soignies claimed that:

“Popular, spontaneous retribution was in fact, in large part, a maneuver of Soviet Fascism. Fortunately, the English General Erskine1116 has prevented the 'resisters' of the final hour to cause more harm.”1117

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1114 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Namur, Questionnaire of Arthidor Catteau. 1115 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Mechelen, Questionnaire of Jean-Baptiste Verreydt. 1116 George Erskine was a British Army officer during the Second World War. In 1944, Erkine was appointed Head of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force Mission (SHEAF) to Belgium. 1117 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Tournai, Questionnaire of Rene Delbove.

! 343! Yet, especially Flemish respondents (13%, against 4% Francophone respondents) openly criticized the cardinal and bishops for their abstinence in condemning the excesses of the resistance or their late intervention in favor of affected collaborators. Moreover, patterns in priest-teachers’ answers to the questions as to what were their opinions of the official retaliation trials against wartime collaboration largely coincide with their appreciation of popular retribution. Only two Flemish and four Francophone respondents were positive about the retaliation against collaborators by the state. About 46% of Flemish and 20% of Francophone teachers were critical about the official military court trials.1118 Only a small number of teachers (7% of Walloon and 3% Flemish teachers) accepted the idea of retribution. A majority questioned the organization of the military courts and their assessment of the penalties for collaborators. On both sides of the linguistic border, teachers claimed that the punishment for political collaboration did not fit the crime, since – in their view – idealism was not really a crime and the official military courts overemphasized political collaboration, leaving undisturbed ‘real collaborators’, such as economic collaborators who got rich at the expense of the Belgian population. As a result, the penalties missed the mark. In Flanders, 56 respondents defined the official retaliation against wartime collaboration by the Belgian state as essentially anti-Flemish and/or anti-Catholic. Also, high penalties for political collaboration were often linked to a Belgian or leftist conspiracy against Flemish emancipation or Catholicism. As August Vandeplas argued:

“Because of the existence of a Flemish majority in Belgium and their battle for emancipation, they [the Belgian state] aimed at suppressing that emancipation and crush Flemish feelings and rights. This battle to liberate ourselves from this servants’ position continues today.”1119

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1118 It should be kept in mind that a majority of respondents did not (wish to) answer the question as to what was their opinion of the official retaliation trials. More specifically, about 78% of Walloon and 51% of Flemish priest-teachers did not answer this particular question. 1119 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Mechelen, Questionnaire of August Vandeplas.

! 344! Furthermore, it was argued that it was “Red that blackened yellow”.1120 As a result, according to some Flemish respondents, particular leftist or Communist organizations were to be held responsible for the alleged committed misuse of authority:

“Many people in my entourage (civil servants, teachers, executives of big companies) have been disturbed by official, semi-official or non-official retribution committees that were organized in their company or administration. They often looked at certain political sympathies, rather than actions during the war. I know cases of people that were forced to take a decision: or we continue with our investigation, or you should join the leftist trade union, because that would clear suspicion”.1121

In conclusion, many of the ideas that have been identified as specific for Flemish war commemoration culture, such as the idea of stern penalties, which excessively targeted idealists who had not (or at least in the eyes of Catholic teachers) committed real crimes of collaboration or the idea that popular retribution had been led by Septemberweerstanders or was instigated as a leftist conspiracy to seize power, are equally present on both sides of the linguistic border. Differences in appreciation of retribution for wartime collaboration are much more apparent when comparing the answers of priest-teachers to those of pupils. Although only 35% of pupils gave an opinion on the issue, 12% (of that 35%) of respondents were positive about popular and/or official retribution for collaboration, mainly because they considered only collaborators should be punished for their actions during the war. The explanation for their more positive appreciation of retribution may be found in their different experience of the war and the particularity of Jesuit war memory culture. Firstly, the questionnaire and my interviews with former pupils of Jesuit schools suggest that a majority considered the war to be an adventure, rather than an ordeal. Some pupils were thrilled with sensational events, such as the persecution of collaborators. Secondly, I believe that pupils’ more positive appreciation of retribution and negative opinion about collaboration stems from a particular (Francophone) Jesuit commemoration culture that crystallized around sentiments of Belgian patriotism. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1120 This particular statement points to the idea that it was Communism (represented by the color red) in particular that blackguarded Flanders (represented by the color of the Flemish flag, yellow). CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Ghent, Questionnaire of Marcel Vandorpe. 1121 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Mechelen, Questionnaire of Gustaaf Vermandere.

! 345! Yet, about 23% of pupils raised still objections, because they considered the penalties not to fit the actual crimes or they condemned the excesses of popular fury in the early days of the liberation. As a result, there are remarkable parallels between pupils’ and teachers’ objections against various forms of retribution. More specifically, pupils attested that there was no distinction made between the anti-Communist motivation of some idealists and ‘real collaboration’. Achilles Degryse, pupil in the Jesuit grammar school Notre-Dame de la Paix in Tournai (Wallonia) noted:

“There was too much exaggeration in legal convictions. There was not enough distinction made between anti-Communism and real collaboration. I have seen the starting of a fire in a castle by so-called resisters, just because the owner was a Catholic and anti- Communist”.1122

As this quote already suggests, the idea of the fake resister of the final hour, who besmirched the whole resistance, is equally present in Francophone pupils’ memories of resistance and retaliation:

“I have only known resisters of the final hour (...), who were the authors of arrests, often arbitrary, and their behavior towards women accused of having been together with the Boches (...) was infamous (...)”.1123

Or, as Pierre Guérin, pupil in the Jesuit grammar school Saint-Louis in Brussels argued:

“A lot of the resisters (of the final hour) besmirched the image of the resistance. All in all, I have the impression that there are idealists and criminals on both sides. It was the triumph of a justice of revenge”.1124

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1122 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Questionnaire of Achilles Degryse. 1123 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Questionnaire of Pierre Dassonville. 1124 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Questionnaire of Pierre Guérin.

! 346! Although the oral history project I conducted was limited to only 5 respondents in the Francophone region, restricting the possibilities of comparison, I have not been able to identify large differences in their answers to the 1998 questionnaire with their memories of retribution today.

Secondly, the question arises whether teachers’ and pupils’ opinions about collaboration are different in Wallonia and Flanders. The analysis of the questionnaire, organized by the confederation of Francophone Jesuit schools, shows that 72% of pupils cannot remember any collaboration within their Jesuit school, or do not even consider collaboration within a Jesuit environment. In other words, a majority of pupils testified that no one had been in favor of the New Order and that an atmosphere of patriotism and resistance had reigned in their Jesuit school. Jean-Marie Lechat, former pupil of the Collège Saint-Michel, for instance attested:

“The body of teachers and especially the Jesuit teachers were anti-German, but they urged us to remain prudent (...) Some teachers (...) told us their stories of their war of ’14 or ‘40, their anti-German sentiments were beyond doubt.”1125 (Italics added by the author)

In contrast, only 28% of respondents attested to have known pupils or teachers that were sympathetic to the occupier, National Socialism or collaborationist movements, or were actively involved in the collaboration. Generally, there are two main patterns to distinguish in pupils’ memories of fellow pupils or teachers who collaborated. On the one hand, a group of respondents explicitly distanced themselves from the actions of their fellow pupils, emphasizing the harassment of teachers who collaborated or claiming that the Jesuits immediately took action against collaborators in their midst. Xavier Dallemagne, pupil in the grammar school Saint-Servais in Liège, claimed:

“Our Flemish teacher wore a German uniform in class. I have had many troubles with him, because I treated him like a dirty Boche”.1126

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1125 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Questionnaire of Jean-Marie Lechat. 1126 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Questionnaire of Xavier Dallemagne.

! 347! On the other hand, one group of respondents underlined that they still maintained friendly relations with fellow collaborating pupils and even tried to dissuade them from their Nazi sympathies. Jacques Sadzot, pupil of the Saint-Louis grammar school in Liège, claimed:

“Some pupils (idealists-anti-communists) were engaged in the Légion Wallonie. Their friends vainly tried to persuade them from their mistake, but there was no hostility towards them”.1127

Furthermore, the idea that cooperation with the occupier consisted of isolated cases of mostly pupils prevails in their answers. Remarkably, when it comes to collaboration activities of teachers, respondents often attested that it was only lay teachers and not the ordained Jesuit Fathers that collaborated or sympathized with the New Order. Of 27 testimonies of collaboration by teachers, 8 pupils explicitly referred to the fact that it was only lay teachers who collaborated. Possibly, this particular emphasis might have functioned as a way to banish collaboration from the Catholic-Jesuit sphere of the grammar school. As Clement Dessart, pupil in the Saint-Servais grammar school in Liège still remembered:

“Among the lay teachers in Saint-Servais, there was one who compromised himself with the occupier, by a collaboration that was 100% alien to his activities at the grammar school. After the war, I testified on this specific point before a military court”.1128

I am convinced that stories of collaboration had to make way for a more dominant war memory of patriotism in Jesuit schools. Illustrative in this respect is the testimony of an anonymous respondent who had collaborated during the war and who anticipated that, because of his collaboration involvement, his testimony ‘would probably not fit the general picture of the survey’:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1127 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Questionnaire of Jacques Sadzot. 1128 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Questionnaire of Clement Dessart.

! 348! “My story practically does not fit within the scheme of the questionnaire at hand, since I was – what they still call – a “collaborator”, (...).1129

Furthermore, the structure of the questionnaire, which was organized by the confederation of pupil bonds of the Jesuit schools themselves, demonstrates very well how the Jesuit community built its war memory culture around resistance/patriotism axis: six questions in the entire questionnaire deal with issues of resistance or patriotism, against a total of three interrelating questions, assessing the involvement of mainly pupils in collaborationist groupings. Remarkably, in the section that specifically deals with the German occupation itself (cf. supra), the respondent is only asked to share his memories of the resistance or patriotic manifestations of Jesuit schoolteachers, pupils or former pupils.

The question arises, however, whether these patterns of memory stem from a Walloon collective war memory. Although the limited number of interviews in Flanders (i.e. eight in total) hampers far-stretching comparisons, the answers of pupils from Jesuit schools in Flanders about collaboration in their midst indeed differ from those of Francophone pupils. The majority (i.e. 5 respondents) claimed that they did know pupils or teachers that were sympathetic to Nazi Germany or were involved in collaboration with the German occupier. Remarkably, however, parallel to the responses of Francophone Jesuit school pupils, the emphasis on a pro-English atmosphere equally predominates in the war memories of Flemish pupils of Jesuit schools. As a result, the contradiction between these questionnaires, organized by the confederation of former pupils of Jesuit schools, and the interviews I have conducted in Flanders and Wallonia, and the answers of priest-teachers to the questionnaire, organized by the Cegesoma in 1978, demonstrate that these results stem from a particular Jesuit commemoration culture, which crystallized specifically around ideas of patriotism. Hence, these ideas do not necesarily or uniquely belong to Walloon commemoration culture. Conversely, there was one pupil, L.A. from the Sint-Xaveriuscollege in Borgerhout, who claimed the exact opposite of pupils in other Flemish Jesuit schools. More specifically, he argued that “he did not know a single teacher who was anti-German”.1130 Although this

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1129 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Anonymous Questionnaire. 1130 Interview with L.A., October 26, 2012.

! 349! does not necessarily mean that all teachers were pro-German, he did testify about the widespread Flemish-nationalism and even the involvement of some of his classmates in the Nationaal-Socialistisch Jeugdverbond (National-Socialist Youth Movement, NSJV). Also, L.A. alluded to the glorification of their pro-German involvement that persisted, even after the war:

“I’m telling you, there was a good friendship, also with H.S., who was involved [in the NSJV]. And also with others. Not that much, but still, pupils of Xaverius who were engaged in the NSJV. And at the moment of the liberation, I remember that H.S. was arrested. He was locked up in a lion’s cage in the zoo. I think he was absent for about three to four weeks. And then he came back. And in our view, he was a hero”.1131

It is important to keep in mind that the situation in Jesuit schools was quite complex, since the majority of Jesuit schools in Flanders was bilingual. In those bilingual schools that had a Dutch and French section, memory is built around Belgian patriotism, which suggests that the research results for Francophone pupils are not unique to Wallonia, but originate from a particular Jesuit community that built its war memories around patriotism. The glorification of collaboration, which is considered unique to Flanders, is highly case- or school-dependent, rather than widespread in all Flemish schools. It was only within the Sint-Xaveriuscollege, which Hans Blomme identified as a school with a ‘black label’ (because it particularly welcomed children from collaborationist or pro-German milieus1132) that pupil memory crystallized around heroic stories of collaboration.

Compared to the war memories of pupils in Jesuit schools, priest-teachers’ memories present a somewhat different image of memories of collaboration in Flanders and Wallonia. More specifically, I have investigated teachers’ answers to the question, included in the 1978 questionnaire organized by the Cegesoma, of whether they knew collaborators in their ranks or knew people who had sympathies for the German occupier. About 52% and 58%, respectively of Flemish and Walloon priest-teachers claim that they knew sympathizers of the German regime. Respondents on both sides of the linguistic border still reduce the nature and impact of collaboration by arguing that there were isolated collaboration cases, mostly by sympathizers of the regime or opportunists. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1131 Interview with L.A., October 26, 2012. 1132 Blomme, ‘Scholen met een zwart etiket’.

! 350! Also, parallel to pupils’ war memories of collaboration, eleven respondents in Flanders and three Walloon teachers underlined the involvement of lay teachers (and thus certainly not of priests) in collaboration. Benedictus Paesmans, teacher in the Sint-Jozefscollege in Hasselt, for instance, noted:

“Priests did not sympathize [with the German regime]. Some lay teachers, even ‘athenaeum’ teachers sympathized with the Germans because of a hope to gain Flemish independence. Some of the older students and young intellectuals went to the Eastern Front to fight Bolshevism”.1133

In conclusion, both the memories of priest-teachers and pupils bear the stamp of the traditional patriotic discourse in Belgian World War II memory. As discussed earlier, in this patriotic rhetoric, the memory of the Jewish victims of anti-Semitism was absent. The analysis of both questionnaires also demonstrates priest-teachers’ and pupils’ particular silence about the Jewish Question. Firstly, there is quite a difference between Wallonia and Flanders when it comes to teachers’ direct or indirect involvement or knowledge about Jewish rescue actions. About 10% of Flemish priest-teachers attest to have been directly or indirectly involved in relief action for Jews, versus a total of almost 47% of teachers in Francophone schools. Yet, their opinion about the attitude of the Church during the Second World War, particularly in relation to its public silence about Jewish deportations, shows striking similarities rather than differences. In Flanders, a large part of respondents abstained from giving their opinion on the position of the Church, particularly because they were convinced that they did not need to judge their superiors or because they claimed to have had no idea about the real impact of the systematic extermination of Jews and the concentration camps. In total 36% of Flemish priest-teachers and 50% of Francophone respondents were positive about the actions of Catholic bishops and the cardinal, mainly arguing that the Catholic Church had done all it could for the Jewish people. 20% of Flemish and 30% of Francophone teachers specifically claimed that the Church’s silence had been in the best interest of the Jews, since they were convinced that a public protest would only have worsened their fate and that of Catholics and would only have resulted in harsh German reprisals: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1133 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Hasselt, Questionnaire of Benedictus Paesmans.

! 351! “The question was: would protest prove helpful? Those who raised their voices against the enemy in the occupied territory were silenced! As a result, it would have been of no avail for the Jews and to the detriment of the Church”.1134

In the interviews I conducted with thirteen respondents, I have paid attention to these memories of Jewish victimhood. Generally, pupils’ memories of Jewish persecution are limited to their memories of the Star of David. A majority (i.e. nine out of thirteen respondents) claimed to have never witnessed deportations or violence against Jews. Memories of Jewish victimhood are particularly present within the memories of pupils that lived or went to school in Brussels and Antwerp, two Jewish centres in Belgium. Apart from memories of the Star of David, they particularly remember anti-Jewish resentment in both Antwerp and Brussels. J.M.L., pupil of the Collège Saint-Michel in Brussels, for instance, assured me that “clearly, it should be kept in mind that the Catholic world was not pro-Jewish”.1135 Although the 1990s witnessed the evolution from a closed patriotic discourse to a more open human rights discourse, in which the fate of the Jews during World War II received wide attention, the questionnaire on pupils’ war memories, organized in 1998 by the Jesuit Confédération, almost completely overlooks the Jewish Question. As I argued earlier, although the Jewish Question does form the subject of one of the checkboxes in the first question, the open questions in the second section of the questionnaire completely neglect pupils’ memories of Jewish victimhood. As a result, the questionnaire (although it was organized in 1998) remains an example of the closed patriotic discourse, rather than of an open human rights discourse.

3. Conclusion

The aim of this chapter has been to discuss priest-teachers’ and pupils’ memories of World War II in Belgium, on the basis of two surveys conducted in the 1970s and 1990s among teachers in episcopal schools and pupils in Jesuit schools, and interviews conducted in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1134 CEGESOMA, AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’, Diocese of Mechelen, Questionnaire of Gustaaf Heylen. 1135 Interview with J.M.L, October 3, 2012.

! 352! 2012 with both Dutch speaking and Francophone pupils of Jesuit schools. Despite the large body of historical research on World War II memory and the experience and memories of so-called ‘war children’, research into the specific category of teacher and pupil memory remains largely virgin territory. Firstly, the analysis of the questionnaire and interviews shows that German interference in education found its way to pupil and teacher war memory only to a limited extent. More specifically, less than half of the respondents recalled German interference in education, which might be illustrative of the general failure of the German restrictive educational policy. The German measures that did find their way into the war memories of teachers mainly concern changes in the curriculum, the requisitioning and occupation of schools and classrooms and forced labor, that directly and severely impacted school life. Aspects of the German educational policy that impacted daily schooling less directly are not mentioned. Also, I concluded that pupils’ memories of the war mainly crystallized around the material conditions and deprivations of war, such as bombardments or food and coal shortages. Secondly, this chapter on teacher and pupil memory of World War II also provided a more nuanced discussion and a new perspective on the old debate of memory of collaboration and resistance in Belgium. More specifically, in contrast to some Belgian World War II scholarship, this study moves away from the idea that the linguistic border was dominant in the creation of a war commemoration culture. More specifically, this chapter demonstrates that teachers’ opinions and discourse about collaboration, resistance and retribution for wartime collaboration run parallel in both linguistic communities. Reception of the involvement of (Communist) resistance fighters, as well as the nature of resistance acts was negative in both Flanders and Wallonia. Also, both Dutch speaking and Francophone teachers voice ideas that have been identified as specific or unique to Flemish commemoration culture. One striking example is the idea of the septemberweerstander, which is equally present in the memories of Francophone respondents. Their ideas of the repressie or retribution for wartime collaboration are also quite similar. Both Francophone and Dutch speaking respondents point to the idea that the ‘fake resisters of the final hour’ showed no mercy in popular retribution right after the liberation and that both popular fury and military courts targeted idealists, leaving the ‘real collaborators’ undisturbed. Yet, the idea that official retributions for wartime collaboration were essentially anti-Flemish, remains an important leitmotiv in Flemish teachers’ war memories. These results illustrate that, as Maurice Halbwachs already observed, respondents belong to several social groups each with their specific war memories at the same time. As a result, their memories do not

! 353! only relate to a discourse that is unique to the linguistic community to which they belong, but, at the same time, are also defined by ideas that reigned within a specific Catholic community.

Since the questionnaire organized by the Confédération des associations des anciens élèves des Pères Jesuites focused on the actual involvement of pupils, teachers and former pupils in Jesuit schools in, for instance, the resistance, and does not so much assess their opinion on these matters, I have been able to compare pupils’ and teachers’ memories only to a limited extent. I did find, however, that although pupils voice similar concerns or opinions about retributions for wartime collaboration, pupils from Jesuit schools particularly gathered around memories of Belgian patriotism. Their testimonies crystallize around memories of particular schools or ‘heroic teachers’. This predominance of the resistance as a defining experience in their war memories goes hand in hand with the downplaying of collaboration and a more positive opinion about retribution for wartime collaboration, especially in Francophone pupil memory. In line with Assmanss’ idea that “each ‘we’ is constructed through specific discourses that mark certain boundary lines”, the questionnaire on Jesuit pupils’ war memories allowed me to identify patriotism as a pattern of memory defining “the principles of inclusion and exclusion”.1136 The testimony of Jean Marie Thieffry, former pupil of the Collège Saint- Michel is illustrative in this respect:

“In our rhétorique we had the son of Gerard Ellebout, who engaged to fight at the Eastern Front. The son suffered a lot from the treason of his father. For the fiftieth anniversary of our rhétorique in 1995, we traced him and he was still afraid to join us for dinner. After the war, the Jesuits chased him out of the grammar school, in front of the whole rhétorique section”.1137

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1136 Assmann, ‘Re-framing memory’, 37-8. 1137 CEGESOMA, AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’, Questionnaire of Jean Marie Thieffry.

! 354! This example demonstrates Assman’s point that “to be part of the identity of such a group is to participate in the groups’ history, which often exceeds the boundaries of one’s individual life span”. 1138 To a lesser degree, Flemish pupils’ war memories also crystallize around patriotism and Belgian patriotism. I found that the glorification of collaboration (i.e. the fact that collaborators were considered or welcomed as heroes, rather than resistance fighters), which sometimes is considered typical for the Flemish context, was only present within the memory of a pupil of the Sint-Xaveriuscollege in Borgerhout, which, as Hans Blomme argued, bore a ‘black stamp’. As a result, I found that the idealization of either resistance/patriotism or collaboration was case-dependent, and not necessarily unique to one linguistic community.

In conclusion, this study of one specific social group’s war memories (i.e. teachers and pupils in respectively episcopal and Jesuit education) contributes to the history of education because they illustrate how a particular school culture plays a role in the construction and development of a specific war memory culture. At the same time, the focus on this specific social group contributes to historiography of World War II memory in Belgium, as this study can complement and nuance its majority focus on dominant patterns of memory in each of Belgium’s linguistic communities. Generally, both pupils’ and teachers’ memories are an example of a traditional patriotic discourse, in which there was no particular attention to Jewish victimhood. This chapter presents a more complex image of World War II commemoration, by demonstrating that respondents’ memories of the Second World War exceed mere linguistic boundaries and that their testimonies equally stem from a specific Catholic or Jesuit identity or community.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1138 Assmann, ‘Re-framing memory’, 37-8.

! 355! ! 356! Conclusion

Catholic secondary education during World War II. Victim of a German indoctrination program?

The aim of this doctoral dissertation has been to investigate the impact of the German occupation on Catholic secondary education during the Second World War in Belgium. The first part of this thesis discussed developments on the level of political decision- making, whereas the second part dealt with the development of school culture during the occupation. More specifically, the first part mainly focused on the cultural and educational policy of the German Culture Department, and discussed its relations with the pre-war educational authorities, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church. Generally, the educational policy of the German military government boiled down to a unification of the social center field. Although many aspects of its educational policy, such as the removal of Jewish teachers and pupils out of education, were unique to National Socialism, its educational policy can equally be considered an exponent of the secularization process. More specifically, some facets of its educational policy, such as the deformalization of secondary education or the reform of (primary) ‘education for all’, were already discussed before the war and would resurface after the war in the context of democratic school reforms. One specific tail end of the Military Administration’s cultural policy was the limitation of the Roman Catholic Church’s authority and power over society. National Socialism’s anti- Catholic policy and the dissolution of the institutions over which only the Roman Catholic Church held authority was a necessary condition for establishing total control over society. To this end, the National Socialism (and by extension also that of the German Culture Department in Belgium) aimed at restricting episcopal power over education. Yet, in Belgium the situation was quite different from that in Germany or even to that in other occupied European countries, such as the Netherlands. More specifically, the German military occupier in Belgium was confronted with a particularly strong Church that enjoyed a great deal of moral esteem and prestige in society and, in large part, derived its power and independence from constitutional guarantees, such as the liberty of education. In the short term, the German military regime aimed at controlling the educational system, with the intention of eventually gaining full control over it in the long run. The Church on the other hand, aimed at maintaining its authority and power over schooling and sought to

! 357! continue its educational project during the war. The maintenance of episcopal power of education in the short term (i.e. during the war) was imperative in maintaining its negotiational position towards the secular state in the long run (i.e. in the post-war). The negotiations that resulted out of the clash of Church-state interests, was beneficial to both. On the one hand, the German military regime held state power as a means of coercion. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, held the enticement of order and peace. As the Military Administration’s relative accommodating stance presented the lesser of many evils, the archbishopric did not exclude the possibility of cohabitation and cooperation with the newly installed military regime in advance. As a result, the archbishopric in Mechelen was a full-blown actor in the relations with the military government and not merely a victim of its anti-Catholic policy. The dynamic peace-making process discussed in the first part of this dissertation, can be seen in the context of a maximalization of interests and goals. More specifically, the Culture Department aimed at controlling (and not so much taking over) education, whereas the archbishop aimed at maintaining authority over the organization, structure and curriculum of Catholic schooling. Yet, although the cardinal generally held on to the Church’s constitutional rights, he was willing to do some procedural concessions. In order to come to an agreement, both parties used arguments of a technocratic, rather than of an ideological nature.

One particular argument in the negotiations with the Military Administration was the Church’s withdrawal from politics. This principle, which also lay at the basis of the Holy See’s concordat with Hitler in 1933, for instance, is present on all levels of the educational pyramid. More specifically, not only the cardinal and his advisor considered the Church’s withdrawal from politics a sufficient guarantee for the Militärverwaltung to drop its restrictive policy against Catholic education, even educational authorities on the lower levels championed a neutral school culture. It is particularly within this context that both the Jesuit provincials Janssens and Le Cocq, as well as the episcopacy explicitly prohibited teachers and pupils to comment on the political situation during class and to become members of (youth) movements that were not approved by the Catholic Church. The main reasons behind this no-politics-in-schools-policy were of a pragmatic, rather than of an ideological nature. More specifically, both for the Jesuit and episcopal educational authorities and for principals of Catholic schools, the preservation of order in their institutes and the peaceful continuation of their educational project was of prime

! 358! importance. Therefore, everything that could endanger the further existence or continuation of Catholic schooling was to be prevented. This can, for instance, partly explain the limited engagement of Catholic educational authorities in favor of the Jews. Cardinal Joseph-Ernest Van Roey adopted a rather passive stance. Although he was willing to accommodate Jewish children in Catholic schools, he did not want to interfere when the German occupier detected them. Also, Victor Le Cocq, provincial of the Francophone Jesuit province, considered accommodation of Jewish children in Jesuit Francophone schools too dangerous, since it could jeopardize the continuation of the Jesuit educational project. The willingness to maintain order and peace in schools also partly explains principal’s different attitudes towards pupils that were engaged in youth movements that were not approved by the Catholic authorities. Although some principals actually expelled pupils for their engagement in New Order youth movements, they did often do so because they caused agitation in the classroom or on the playground. Also, some principals only took temporary measures, since they did not want to lose pupils to public schools or because they feared German reprisals or did not want cause consternation in local collaborating circles. The example of the Sint-Jozefscollege in Turnhout, for instance, is a good illustration of the ways in which principals of Catholic secondary schools continuously had to negotiate their position within civil society.

Generally, however, Catholic schools were able to maintain their educational project. More specifically, the German Culture Department struggled with the implementation of its educational policy on the local level. Firstly, this was partly due to the very structure of Belgian education and, more specifically, to the limited authority of the state over the largely independent network of private schools. As a result, the German educational policy collided with Catholic principals’ aims to continue their educational project as best as they could in times of war. In spite of the fact that some principals in fact did implement some aspects of the German educational policy in their schools, mainly because they feared reprisals, the military government was continuously confronted with authority conflicts that arose over the implementation of its policy. Many prinicpals of Catholic schools refused to hand over lists of textbooks or the lists of final-year pupils to the local city administration or local German government. As a result, local resistance considerably hampered the German educational project. Yet, the grammar of schooling equally jeopardized the German Culture Department’s educational program. More specifically, the

! 359! intrinsic inertia of education deadlocked German efforts to control education and implement changes in the curriculum, school manuals or even class practice and clashed on the collection of rules to which pedagogial practice obeys. In that sense, there was a yawning gap between the German educational reforms and ideas and the implementation context that restrained those reforms.1139 Yet, the fifth chapter documents changes in Catholic school culture during the war. Precisely because Catholic schools succeeded in keeping out of the German influence sphere, the changes that unfolded on the local level were instigated from below. The German military government did not have to totally control education to find support for some authoritarian ideas. As the fourth chapter discusses, the Catholic pedagogical project (next to many differences) demonstrated some striking similarities with Fascist pedagogical ideas. Yet, the fifth chapter demonstrates that support for the New Order ideas was generally greater before the war than during the occupation. More specifically, during the 1930s adoration for the German art and culture and for authoritarian principles, such as character, will power and discipline found support in Catholic educational circles. During the German occupation, however, many of these ideas became burdened with collaboration with the ennemy. As a result, many teachers, principals or pupils increasingly refrained from refering to these ideas. In some Francophone schools, for instance, support for the collaborationist party Rex was generally more widespread before than during the war. At the same time, this revertion to Belgian patriotism as a result of the occupation was a source of frustration and conflict. For example, in the Jesuit Sint-Jozefscollege in Turnhout (where flamingantism rapidly developed during the interwar years) the ‘sudden’ revival of Belgian patriotism fell on deaf ears with supporters of Flemish-nationalist ideas and resulted in conflicts between pupils ‘on the playground’. In the minds of the pupils supporting Belgian patriotism, Flemish-nationalist pupils’ engagement often became associated with the collaboration. In reality, however, pupils with Flemish-nationalist sympathies remained far from direct references to National Socialism or a direct engagement in the collaboration. Direct references to National Socialism or Hitler also disappeared in the context of extra-curricular associations, such as the youth movement or the Literary Guilds. As the reports of the meetings of these associations demonstrate, members instead reverted to an anti-modern flamingant discourse, which cannot simply be labelled as collaboration.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1139 See for instance, Depaepe, Orde in Vooruitgang, 13-4.

! 360! Lastly, these developments equally influenced the image of the position of Catholicism and Catholic schools, both during and after the war. During the war, Catholic schools were often perceived as bastions of resistance, due to the Catholic Church’s efforts to protect its particular identity and its resistance against any form of (German) interference. During the war, the cardinal’s refusal to implement German ordinances and his subsequent conflicts with the occupier often received much attention, especially in the collaborating press. After the war, however, this image soon made way for that of the Church as an accomplice of the National Socialist regime. One particlar example of this, is the persistent myth, particularly popular in Flanders, that Catholic schools played a pivotal role in the propaganda machine for the battle at the Eastern Front. From these particular examples follows that the Second World War particularly stirred up a new dynamics within Catholic school culture.

! 361! ! 362!

Epilogue

In September 1944, the larger part of Belgium was liberated from what had been four years of German occupation. The liberation brought relief, happiness and joy, but at the same time grief about the loss of loved ones. The end of the occupation did not immediately put an end to the tragedy of war. As Pieter Lagrou noted “the presence of allied forces, the food and fuel situation and the deep incursion in Belgian territory of the German von Rundstedt counter offensive in December 1944 reminded the population constantly and dramatically of the ongoing war”.1140 Also, shortly after the liberation, war and political prisoners that had survived the concentration camps returned. With their return, the magnitude and full impact of the repressive regime and judeocide was revealed. To quote Lagrou:

“the arrival of the trains of repatriates caused onrushes of spectators to the train stations to see who returned, and the indignation at the sight of the walking skeletons returning from the camps turned to mass revenge actions against collaborationists, vandalizing of houses and spontaneous arrests in a wave of popular fury comparable to that immediately after the liberation”.1141

In the immediate post-war era, the horrors of the war and the burden of collaboration also plagued the Roman Catholic Church, its institutions and congregations. Generally, the Roman Catholic Church’s compliant stance towards wartime collaboration and post-war retaliation against collaboration was criticized. More specifically, although the Roman Catholic Church attempted to underline its patriotic attitude during the war in several brochures and reports1142, it received a great deal of criticism. Remarkably, whereas during

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1140 Lagrou, ‘Memory and National Identity’, 436. 1141 Lagrou, idem, 437. 1142 After the war, many Catholic institutions, such as schools, edited reports about patriotic activities of the teaching staff and/or pupils that had engaged in the resistance. See for instance, APBM, Section 5, ‘Les Maisons et leurs oeuvres propres’, nr. 73.6, ‘Collège Saint-Stanislas’, box 2. Moreover, brochures were published dealing with the mobilization or resistance of priests; and the total number of priests that had given their lives for the nation or had died in concentration camps. See for instance, APBM, Section 18,

! 363! the war the German military government, collaborating organizations or even parents considered Catholic education as a bastion of anti-German protest, the Roman Catholic Church and many of its institutions were crucified for helping or defending collaborators after the war. More specifically, the bishops, such as Mgr. Charue of the diocese of Namur, received small notes of protest from citizens, criticizing the Church’s attitude during the war.1143 In many cases, popular critique came from patriotic or resistance organizations. In May 1944, for instance, Mgr. Charue received a letter from a Belgian patriotic organization, expressing its concern about Van Roey’s pastoral letter of May 21, 1944, denouncing Anglo-American bombings in the early days of the Allied offensive. More specifically, this particular patriotic organization disagreed with Van Roey’s statement that Allied bombs were conducted in a blind, haphazard and thoughtless manner. According to the author, the war situation allowed the Allied Army to bomb military targets. Also, he could not understand as to why Van Roey, contrary to his ‘illustrious’ predecessor Mercier, denounced Allied bombings, but had failed to publicly protest against Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality in 1940, against German bombings in the early days of the war, against the killing of hostages or the early deportations of forced laborers or prisoners to Germany. Furthermore, the patriotic organization in question feared that “l’aide apportée par le Primat de Belgique aux ennemis de son pays, (...) aujourd’hui connue au monde entier” would jeopardize the maintenance of Catholic institutions and interests in post-war democratic Belgium.1144 Also, the Society of Jesus and its institutions did not escape from similar criticism coming from resistance or patriotic organizations. Remarkably, protests particularly targeted the Flemish Jesuit Province and Flemish Jesuit schools. The management of the Jesuit secondary Sint-Barbaracollege in Ghent, for instance, received protest notes from former pupils or resistance organizations. On an old issue of the collaborationist newspaper Volk en Staat, members of the Communist resistance organization Front de l’Indépendence wrote:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ‘Documentation Profane’, nr. 2, box 1, Brochure edited by Casterman ‘A travers la résistance du clergé catholique pendant la seconde guerre mondiale’, April 1947. 1143 ADN, Fonds La Seconde Guerre Mondiale, S 131, ‘Enquêtes, statistiques et listes tenues par le secrétariat’, Farde ‘1940-1945 – divers’. 1144 ADN, Fonds Mgr. Charue, A 104, ‘Guerre 1940-1945’, Farde ‘Autorités allemandes’, Letter of a representative of a patriotic organization to Mgr. Charue, May 31, 1944.

! 364! “Bientôt viendra votre tour sales Flamboches. Au lieu d’enseigner à vos élèves des chants de combats pangermanistes flamingants, vous feriez mieux de leur apprendre la Brabançonne et la Marseillaise”.1145

In contrast, however, only the Francophone Jesuits, who were praised for their patriotic attitude and engagement in the resistance, were received as “les pères de la foi” in the post- war press.1146 As these paragraphs demonstrate, apart from the Francophone part of the Society of Jesus, the issue of collaboration distressed the Catholic Church and its schools to a large extent. Although difficult to investigate, the fifth chapter demonstrated that the Roman Catholic Church, congregations and their (educational) institutions had to deal with collaborators in their ranks. Immediately after the liberation, the Ministry of Public Education undertook steps in the direction of a systematic purge of teachers in official state schools, who had collaborated with the occupying German regime or – at least – had overtly displayed sympathies for the National Socialist regime.1147 The purge of authoritarian tendencies in education was considered imperative in rebuilding the democratic state. More specifically, it was believed that “someone who had adopted an unpatriotic attitude cannot be made responsible for the upbringing and education of children”.1148 Therefore, committees were established in every province that investigated the collaboration of primary and secondary school teachers and formulated advices about a possible punishment.1149 Penalties for

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1145 ABSE, Sint-Barbaracollege Gent, C45/4C, ‘Gent College: Litt. Annuae – geschiedenis 4’, nr. 10, ‘Krantenknipsels en brieven: aanvallen op de S.J. in België en ook op het Sint-Barbaracollege om Vlaamsgezindheid, Duitsgezindheid’, Protest note to the management of the Sint-Barbaracollege from the Front de l’Indépendence, undated. 1146 See for instance the newspaper article that was published in December 1944 in the Francophone newspaper La Libre Belgique, APBM, Section 9, ‘Notitiae Provinciae’, nr. 11, box 2, Newspaper article ‘Les pères de la foie’, published in La Libre Belgique, December 14-15, 1944. 1147 ADG, Archive of Jozef-Honoré Coppieters, nr. 5.1., ‘Centrale Raad voor het Katholiek Onderwijs’, ‘Bulletin 21. Vragen ter tafel gelegd en antwoorden van de ministeries. Vraag nummer 54 van den Heer Bracops’, November 7, 1946. 1148 ADB, Folder B 506, ‘Eereraad voor leerkrachten’, Newspaper article ‘Militaire Rechtsmacht. Strafmaatregelen en hunne gevolgen’ published in an unknown newspaper, undated. 1149 ADB, Folder B 506, ‘Eereraad voor Leerkrachten’, Newspaper article ‘De uitzuivering in het onderwijs’ published in an unknown newspaper, May 5, 1945. See also the testimony of Leo Roels who was involved purge of ‘unpatriotic’ primary school teachers after the war: Leo Roels, Twintig jaar boeman (Lier: Van In, 1966), 219-20.

! 365! wartime collaboration varied according to the committed crimes or degrees of ‘unpatriotic behavior’. Teachers who had become members of collaborating organizations, for instance, such as the Unie van Hand- en Geestesarbeiders/Union des Travailleurs manuels ou intellectuels (Union of manual and intellectual workers, UHGA/UTMI), were – depending on whether their involvement had caused ‘agitation’ – suspended for a couple of days, weeks or months. Generally, membership of the collaborating cultural organization DeVlag or the political collaborating party VNV was punished more severely and often ended in a permanent removal from schools. Also, many teachers were suspended, forced to resign or removed for having accompanied children to Germany or for having spread propaganda in their school.1150 According to post-war reports, the provincial committees made an inquiry into the wartime collaboration activities of 852 secondary school teachers, of which a total of 215 secondary school teachers were eventually forced to resign or removed from education.1151 Yet, these numbers only cover the official state school network, since the Ministry of Public Education only held responsibility over official state schools. As such, the Minister of Public Education was only partly involved in the purge of patronized primary schools. More specifically, the Minister was informed about the disciplinary punishments of teachers in patronized primary schools and decided whether the punishment was applied according to procedure to purge of the teaching staff in official state schools. If the Minister considered the punishment too soft, he could determine a more proper penalty himself. Also, the Minister could deny patronized primary schools further state financial aids.1152 The internal reports of the diocese of Bruges, for instance, document that the Ministry of Public Education generally envisaged a stricter application of punishments for wartime collaboration than the Catholic educational authorities did. In a letter of October 1946, the Centrale Raad van het Katholiek Lager Onderwijs (Central Board of Catholic Primary education, CRKLO) alerted the vicar-general of the diocese of Bruges, canon Mahieu, to the frequent protests of the Ministry of Public Education about the soft punishments of Catholic primary school teachers for their wartime collaboration. As a result, the Ministry often

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1150 ADB, File B 506 ‘Eereraad voor Leerkrachten’, ‘Brief met tuchmaatregelen en de schaal van toepassing’, undated. 1151 ADB, File B 506, ‘Eereraad voor Leerkrachten, Newspaper article ‘De epuratie in het onderwijs’ published in an unknown newspaper, undated. 1152 Ibidem.

! 366! used its power to impose additional administrative sanctions, even if the military court had decided that there were no reasons to further prosecute the primary school teacher in question.1153 Yet, the implementation of the disciplinary punishment against teachers for ‘unpatriotic’ behavior during the war was substantially hampered by the Ministry’s limited authority over private Catholic schools that were completely (financially) independent and fell under the responsibility of the dioceses or congregations. As the Ministry of Public Education responded to a question in parliament about the purge of the teaching staff in Belgium, “the Ministry of Public Education did not take part in the purge of the teaching staff of private secondary schools, or in recognized Teacher Training Colleges or even in institutions for higher education”.1154 Apart from those teachers that were officially prosecuted for wartime collaboration by the military courts, the episcopacy and congregations were to a large extent free in the punishment or removal of (priest-)teachers that were suspected of collaboration. During my research, I have only found reports about the removal and punishment of teachers in the diocese of Bruges. More specifically, after the war, the bishop of Bruges established a so-called Eereraad voor Leerkrachten (Honorary Council for Teachers) responsible for investigating the unpatriotic behavior of teachers in the diocese and taking disciplinary measures against former collaborators. Firstly, these reports show that the episcopacy in Bruges particularly envisaged a purge of primary school teachers. As a result, it remains unclear whether and how secondary school (priest)-teachers were actually punished for pro-German activities, engagement or sympathies during the war. As a result, the question as to whether pupils and teachers, who had actively or passively engaged in collaboration during the Second World War, were punished for their engagement remains difficult to answer. Also, historical literature on post-war retaliation against wartime collaboration is silent about the punishment of priests in the post-war period. As a result, it is hard to determine to what extent priest-teachers who collaborated during the war were removed from Catholic secondary schools, and, conversely, how many teachers from public education who had collaborated ended up in Catholic schools after the war.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1153 ADB, Folder B 506, ‘Eereraad voor leerkrachten’, Letter of the Centrale Raad van het Katholiek Lager Onderwijs to Canon Mahieu, vicar-general of the diocese of Bruges, October 24, 1946. 1154 ADG, Archive of Jozef-Honoré Coppieters, nr. 5.1., ‘Centrale Raad voor het Katholiek Onderwijs’, ‘Bulletin 21. Vragen ter tafel gelegd en antwoorden van de ministeries. Vraag nummer 54 van den Heer Bracops’, November 7, 1946.

! 367! Apart from a purge of collaborating teachers (and pupils) after the war, plans were also drafted to reform education. In the spring of 1945 a commission was established to investigate the issue of re-education in the liberated territories, such as Belgium. More specifically, the Allied Ministers of Education set up a commission of enquiry to discuss the issue of re-education of pupils and teachers that had been subjected to the “efficacious pedagogy” of the German occupier with the intention of winning over children “to unadulterated Nazism”. In order to counter the effects of Nazism on children’s education, “appropriate teaching methods”, based on the scientific results of psycho-technique, as well as “counter propaganda”, such as educational films or radio needed to be introduced. Apart from these general measures that were introduced in the liberated territories, each nation had the task of “facilitating the national civil feeling”.1155 In Belgium, the re-education of youth particularly presented problems in the German speaking parts of Belgium, such as Eupen-Malmedy that had been annexed by Germany during the Second World War. The Commission launched plans of de-nazification and counter propaganda for these particular territories, with the intention of fostering “faith in the reasonableness and good will of human beings, love of freedom, deep and abiding respect for individuality, a generally humane and tolerant attitude”.1156 Yet, the post-war educational reform plans did not stop at the border of the German speaking territory. After 1944, plans to drastically reform the entire Belgian education system were drawn up in several circles. Although questions about educational reforms were raised already before the occupation, the war regenerated the call for change. The Belgian Catholic representative Charles Bus de Warnaffe, noted in his report Education et Enseignement. Problèmes posées – Solutions proposées that:

“Non que le problème de l’éducation ne fût pas virtuellement posé déjà avant la guerre et n’eût pas, bien avant 1940, alerté les esprits clairvoyants; mais parce que les moins pénétrants eux-mêmes à leur tour, au contact de l’évidence, sont amenés à constater que

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1155 UNESCO Archives, Allied Plan for Education, The Belgian Memorandum submitted at the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education, Spring 1945. 1156 UNESCO Archives, Allied Plan for Education, The Belgian Memorandum submitted at the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education, March 23, 1945.

! 368! les alarmes exprimées naguère n’étaient pas vaines, et que vraiment quelque chose doit être changé dans la formation de la jeunesse, et dans celle de ses éducateurs”.1157

As in other countries, a feeling of moral decay and material deprivation dominated post- war Belgian society. In Catholic educational circles, for instance, the moral decay of the school population, the decline in the number of communions and confessions or the passivity of pupils were widely discussed.1158 As Bus de Warnaffe put it:

“l’enseignement ait été obsédé par la hantise de l’information plus que par le souci de formation, encore que ainsi fait au profit de l’intelligence et au détriment du caractère ne paraisse pas avoir profité grandement à l’instructrion véritable de l’enfance et de la jeunesse.”1159

As in other countries, education was considered the solution to the material deprivations and moral decay the war had instigated. The educational reforms that were a result of that, responded to the post-war demands of economic reconstruction and a humanistic renewal that left behind the horrors of the war.1160 Unsurprisingly, moral and civic education that aimed at the formation of character and civic duties came to play an important role in post- war educational discourse. Generally, the post-war reform plans aimed at the democratization and unification of Belgian education. More specifically, plans were formulated to secularize primary education and to make private primary schools dependent of state subvention. With regard to secondary education, plans were drawn up to modernize the classical humanities. In that context, Greek was only to be taught from the fourth year of secondary education onwards and was no longer a requirement for

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1157 ADN, Fonds Enseignement, P16, ‘Questions traitées par le vicaire général A. Collard (1931-1949)’, Envelop ‘Enseignement 1943-1953’, Note ‘Education et Enseignement. Problèmes posés – solutions proposées’; ADG, Archive of Jospeph-Honoré Coppieters, nr. 5.2., ‘Briefwisseling met vicariaat onderwijs andere bisdommen’, Note ‘Education et Enseignement. Problèmes posés – solutions proposées’. 1158 See for instance AAM, Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Briefwisseling Scholen’, ‘Brief met betrekking tot de toestand na de oorlog op allerhande vlakken’. 1159 ADN, Fonds Enseignement, P16, ‘Questions traitées par le vicaire général A. Collard (1931-1949)’, Envelop ‘Enseignement 1943-1953’, Note ‘Education et Enseignement. Problèmes posés – solutions proposées’; ADG, Archive of Jospeph-Honoré Coppieters, nr. 5.2., ‘Briefwisseling met vicariaat onderwijs andere bisdommen’, Note ‘Education et Enseignement. Problèmes posés – solutions proposées’ 1160 Moens, Simon and Tyssens, ‘”De dag van de opvoeders is nu op komst”’, 37.

! 369! university education. Also, the prolongation of compulsory education was prepared and official state schooling was made completely free of tuition in the immediate post-war period. The idea was to establish an école unique (unified school system) that aimed at providing 'education for all'. Lastly, it was argued that technical education needed to be rationalized and adjusted to the national industry.1161

Although episcopal authorities were theoretically not averse to educational innovations or reforms, the Catholic pillar was in favor of a reform of the existing network or curriculum, rather than radically restructuring the national education system as a whole. Yet, it did reject the measures to democratize and unify education, which were considered to be detrimental for private education. Consequently, the German enemy of the ‘liberty of education’ made way for a new one after the war. Or as the president of the General Council of Primary Catholic Education, Paul Hanquet, described it, the reform plans presented 'a double danger': on the one hand, they aimed at strengthening the position of official state schools, and, on the other hand, the socialists aimed to restrain financial support for private schools.1162 As a result, the post-war context in which private schools had to function became increasingly hostile. After the liberation, Catholic schools faced problems of a particularly practical nature, such as overpopulation as a result the requisitioning of classrooms and material damage as a result of bombardments. During the war years, the population in Catholic education had steadily increased. After the war, however, the flowering of Catholic education came to a standstill.1163 Because of the precarious financial situation of Belgian society many parents preferred sending their children to official state schools, free of tuition, rather than to expensive private schools. As a result of an active building and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1161 More details on educational reforms in Belgium during and after the war can be found in Moens, Simon and Tyssens, idem, 17-61; Dominique Grootaers, Histoire de l’enseignement en Belgique (Bruxelles: CRISP, 1998); Jeffrey Tyssens, ‘De vermaledijde staat ? Overheid en onderwijsverstrekking in België’, in Geen trede meer om op te staan: de maatschappelijke positie van onderwijzers en onderwijzeressen tijdens de voorbije eeuw, eds. Marc Depaepe and Maurits De Vroede (Kapellen: DBN/Pelckmans, 1993), 60-71; Tyssens, ‘Onderwijsconflict en –pacificatie’, 39- 86. 1162 ADN, Fonds Enseignement, P16, ‘Questions traitées par le vicaire général A. Collard (1931-1949)’, Envelop ‘Enseignement 1943-1953’, Note ‘Education et Enseignement. Problèmes posés – solutions proposées’. 1163 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Scholen’, nr. 12.3.1., ‘Réunions des directeurs’, 1946-9.

! 370! distribution policy of the state, combined with the lowering of financial barriers, official schools were catching up with private schools.1164 Also the general idea of the introduction of an école unique, the establishment of 'education for all' and the reorientation of technical schools towards the nation’s economy bore reminiscence of the German anti-Catholic education policy. As had been the case during the Second World War, the episcopal authorities strictly held on to the principle of freedom of education and reverted at multiple occasions to the memory of war in order to defend its position in education and maintain the pre-war status quo. In his speech on the conference about secondary education in 1946, cardinal Ernest Van Roey argued that no political regime, and especially not a democratic one, was entitled to claim the educational monopoly.1165 He even went further to claim that the experience of war had revealed the many dangers of touching the principle of educational liberty that, in his view, constituted the very source of human culture. Had the German occupier during the war not started the destruction of civilization by rejecting the principle of (educational) liberty? 1166 By putting the post-war educational reform plans of the Belgian state on an equal par with the restrictive educational policy of the German occupier, the archbishop aimed at maintaining the pre-war status quo and the strong position of private Catholic education:

“Les dictateurs récents, comme les dictateurs de toujours ont voulu réaliser leurs rêves de domination en formant à leur image, en attachant à leur char la jeunesse tout entière. (...) Aucun régime politique, et moins que d’autres, un régime démocratique ne peut prétendre au monopole de l’enseignement et de l’éducation. En effet, ou bien un gouvernement possède une idéologie qu’il entend imposer ou bien il n’en possède pas. S’il a une doctrine à lui, le monopole qu’il s’arrogerait est contraire aux droits de la personne humaine et des familles, et les funestes conséquences de pareil monopole se trouvent inscrites en lettres sanglantes dans le sol ravagé de l’Europe. S’il n’a pas de doctrine qui lui est propre, son devoir consiste à laisser aux citoyens et aux familles le droit et la liberté d’élever leurs

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1164 Tyssens, ‘De vermaledijde staat ?’, 60-71. 1165 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Briefwisseling Scholen’, nr. 11.2.1., ‘Nationaal verbond voor het Katholiek Middelbaar Onderwijs’, Newspaper article from De Nieuwe Standaard ‘Een opmerkelijke toespraak tot een Congres. Z. Em. Kardinaal Van Roey over de hooge roeping van het Vrij Middelbaar Onderwijs’, May 1, 1946. 1166 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Briefwisseling Scholen’, nr. 11.2.1., ‘Nationaal verbond voor het Katholiek Middelbaar Onderwijs’, Newspaper article from Le Libre Belgique ‘Le Discours du Cardinal’, May 1, 1946.

! 371! enfants comme ils l’entendent, pour autant évidemment qu’ils respectent le bien supérieur de la société et de la patrie.”1167

Furthermore, particularly within the context of the civic education debate, the episcopal authorities drew attention to the privileged position of private schools in post-war educational reforms. The idea of a general patriotic atmosphere in schools and the resistance of bishops, Catholic teachers and principals during the occupation came to function as a legitimization of the privileged position of private schools in the post-war era. It was argued that the ordeal of the German occupation "a mis lumineusement en relief l’esprit civique et patriotique le plus pur, qui régna pendant ces sombres années dans nos institutions libres d’enseignement moyen”.1168 Furthermore, despite the pressure of the German occupier, private, Catholic schools were kept out of the influence of the New Order, due to the firm stance of the cardinal and the patriotic attitude of teachers and principals.1169 Because of its irrefutable patriotism, the Catholic Church and private schools knew few collaborators in its ranks.1170 As a result of their resistance against the German occupier and their loyalty to the Belgian state during the war, only Catholic schools were truly ‘national’:

“Quand alors on entend dire que l’enseignement de l’état est le seul enseignement “national”, on croit rêver. Si la population scolaire de nos établissements d’enseignement moyen s’est accrue d’années en année, si la confiance des familles s’est manifestée si abondamment à leur égard, il est indubitable que c’est en grande partie grâce à leur attitude patriotique, claire, franche et ferme, au milieu de la tourmente”.1171

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1167 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Briefwisseling Scholen’, nr. 11.2.1., ‘Nationaal verbond voor het Katholiek Middelbaar Onderwijs’, Newspaper article from Le Libre Belgique ‘Le Discours du Cardinal’, May 1, 1946. 1168 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Briefwisseling Scholen’, nr. 11.2.1., ‘Nationaal verbond voor het Katholiek Middelbaar Onderwijs’, Newspaper article from Le Libre Belgique ‘Le Discours du Cardinal’, May 1, 1946. 1169 Ibidem. 1170 Ibidem. 1171 AAM, Archive of Jozef-Ernest Van Roey, File ‘Briefwisseling Scholen’, nr. 11.2.1., ‘Nationaal verbond voor het Katholiek Middelbaar Onderwijs’, Newspaper article from Le Libre Belgique ‘Le Discours du Cardinal’, May 1, 1946.

! 372! To conclude, after the war, Europe saw the need to (re-)build an educational system ‘for democratic citizenship’ on its Fascist ruins. The trauma of war and the burden of collaboration crystallized in a renewed attention for democratic education and served as a starting point for a school reform.1172 These post-war educational reform plans mainly revolved around the unification of Belgian education and the establishment of a system of 'education for all'. Catholic circles only partly endorsed these ideas, which presumably reminded them of the anti-Catholic cultural policy of the German occupier during World War II. The National Socialist enemy of the freedom of education soon made way for a democratic enemy that increasingly contested the longstanding power of the Roman Catholic Church in educational matters. In their efforts to maintain their privileged position of private schools, cardinal Van Roey reverted to both the ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ memory of the Second World War. Both by putting the post-war reform plans of the Belgian state on an equal par with the anti-democratic German educational reform policy and by underlining its important place in resisting the National Socialist attack on democracy, Van Roey argued for the maintenance of the pre-war status quo. In that sense, this epilogue does not only document the conflict between totalitarianism and democracy, but also demonstrates how the memory of a National Socialist past came to play a role in post-war democratic reconstruction.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1172 See also Tessa Lobbes, ‘Verleden zonder stof. De gedaanten van het heden in het Belgische geschiedenisonderwijs (1945-1989)’ (Doctoral Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2012); Els Witte, Voor Vrede, democratie, wereldburgerschap en Europa. Belgische historici en de naoorlogse politieke-ideologische projecten (1945-1956) (Kapellen: Pelckmans, 2009).

! 373! ! 374! Suggestions for future research

Education during World War II. Exploring the virgin territory of the history of education?

Since long, this subject begged for a more comprehensive approach. Although different aspects of wartime schooling have been investigated, a general overview of the history of education during World War II in Belgium was still lacking. This study aimed at filling this gap by presenting an encompassing study of wartime schooling on different levels of the educational pyramid. Yet, the introduction already sets some boundaries to the results of this research. Because of the magnitude of the available source material and the divergence in possible approaches and research questions, I have decided to only discuss general secondary elite education for boys. Also, as part of this study are primarily based on archival research in specific schools or localities, which all had their own ways of dealing with the war, some of the results are highly case dependent. As a result, if we want to gain full insight in the development of education during World War II and its mechanisms to respond to a war of such magnitude, there is much more work to be done. In this short appendix, I will set out some possible courses for further research.

Firstly, this study only covers the Catholic secondary education network. I concluded that thanks to the constitutional liberty of education and their independence from the Ministry of Education, the negotiation strategy of the archbishop in Mechelen and the headstrong attitude of some of principals and teachers, Catholic secondary schools were to a large extent able to fend off German interference. The question arises, however, to what extent the German occupier was able to implement its educational policy and program in official state schools that fell under the direct supervision and responsibility of the Ministry of Public Education in Brussels. Were these official schools more liable to German interference and propaganda because of their public character? At the end of the war, Marcel Nyns, secretary-general of the Ministry of Public Education, proved a fervent adversary of the German regime. Yet, it remains unclear which strategies lay behind his attitude. Hence, how did his position and that of the staff of the Ministry of Education, the inspectors, principals and teachers in official schools develop during the war? What were

! 375! their dynamic strategies to maintain the official school network in the face of the National Socialist regime? Answering these questions requires a more thorough study of the archives of the Ministry of Public Education and those of several protagonists involved in the organization of official state education. Research into the developments in official state education could not only serve to complete our image of wartime education, but compared to developments in Catholic education, it could also shed light on the ways in which (in this case educational) institutions respond when subjected to external (political) pressure and what the relative importance of their responses and strategies was.

Secondly, this study concerns only a very specific segment of the school system, viz. secondary schools. Although the first part of this dissertation is rather general in nature, and also discusses some aspects of German educational policy that affected schools at every level, it does not touch on the development of school culture in primary, special, vocational or teacher education, or even in schools for girls between 1940 and 1944. As a result, this study answers the question as to what extent the German occupier was able to implement its educational policy only to a certain degree. Yet, international research on, for instance, children’s drawings of (German) soldiers, their experiences of war or the portrayal of ‘allies and enemies’ in school textbooks has focused on the many ways in which the National Socialist regime targeted children under the age of twelve to gain acceptance of the regime. As Wayne Sengstock and Sieglind Ruttgardt have argued for Germany “the corruption of education values and the destruction of an outstanding educational system for children with mental retardation during Nazi rule in Germany necessitated a complete revamping after World War II”.1173 Yet, the development of special education in Belgium largely remains under-researched, for instance. Did the German occupier’s aspirations to reform education also target special education? Belgium can offer an interesting case study in this respect, since many institutes for children, adolescents and adults with disabilities resorted under the responsibility of Catholic dioceses or congregations. Considering the Catholic resistance against the T4 program in Germany, it would be interesting to see whether the issue affected Catholic-German relations. As I discussed in the first section, the Military Administration never aimed at fully dismantling Belgian education in part because they did

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1173 Wayne Sengstock and Sieglind Ruttgardt, ‘Rebuilding Special Education in Germany after World War II’, Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 29 (1994), nr. 1: 69-81.

! 376! not want to antagonize the Catholic Church. Although I have not found traces of negotiations over education for the disabled between the archbishopric in Mechelen and the German Military Administration, this subject deserves special attention, since a focus on the developments in special education and investigate the extent to which the Military Administration aimed at dismantling special education would shed light on its relative position towards Berlin and the priorities in its (educational) policy. Furthermore, teacher education is only partly and indirectly addressed in this dissertation. Yet, it is to be expected that the political-educational aspirations of the Military Administration would directly and profoundly manifest themselves in teacher education. If the German occupier aims at controlling youth and education, it seems logical that it would target its propaganda strategies to (future) teachers at a very early stage. As the second part of this dissertation suggested, control over the classroom (and thus also over the teacher who manages the classroom) is a necessary condition for control over education. Also, considering their educational function both inside and outside the school, control over the teaching body offered many possibilities. Taking into consideration that teachers were not only engaged in formal education, but were also involved in youth care, extra- curricular (youth) movements or as parish priests, their influence manifested itself in many ways. The discussion of the German educational program as developed in the Verordnungsblatt clearly supports the importance of control over teacher training. Therefore, this subject deserves more thorough research.

Thirdly, this dissertation only focuses on a Catholic elite schools, entirely leaving out other forms of private education. As I discussed in the first part of this manuscript, the German occupier invested a lot of time and effort in the development of Deutsche Schule. Although the Verordnungsblatt discusses these private schools in much detail, little is known about their organizational structure and development during the war. Also, the development of SS-Schule or DeVlag schools is not addressed here. Yet, since we are dealing here with private schools that were established from scratch and, hence, were not burdened with Belgian legislation or educational traditions, research into the history of these schools offers many possibilities. Not only would it shed light on the Military Administration’s vision of ideal education or schools, it would also illuminate the role of collaborationist groupings, such as DeVlag or Verdinaso in education and the importance they attached to education in their cultural collaboration.

! 377! ! 378! List of abbreviations

AAM: Archive of the Archdiocese of Mechelen ABSE: Archivum Provinciae Belgicae Septentrionalis ADB: Archive of the Diocese of Bruges ADG: Archive of the Diocese of Ghent ADT: Archive of the Diocese of Tournai ADL: Archive of the Diocese of Liège ADN: Archive of the Diocese of Namur AHS: Adolf Hitler Schule AKVS: Algemeen Katholiek Vlaams Studentenverbond AMSM: Archives of the Minor Seminar of Mechelen AMSR: Archives of the Minor Seminar of Roeselare ANF: Archive Nationale de France ANT: Actor-Network Theory APBM: Archivum Provinciae Belgicae Meridionalis ARA: Algemeen Rijksarchief AVNJ: Algemeen Vlaams Nationaal Jeugdverbond BDM: Bund Deutscher Mädel BK: Bundesarchiv Koblenz CEGESOMA: Center for Historical Research and Documentation on War and Contemporary Society CIBI: Centre d’instruction des brancardiers-infirmiers CRAB: Centres de Recrutement de l’Armée Belge CRKLO: Centrale Raad voor het Katholiek Lager Onderwijs CRKO: Centrale Raad voor het Katholiek Onderwijs DeVlag: Deutsch-Vlämische Arbeitsgemeinschaft DOB: Dietse Opvoedkundige Beweging DSK: Dietsche Studenten Keurfront HJ: Hitler Jugend KADOC: Documentation and Research Center for Religion, Culture and Society KAJ: Katholieke Arbeidersjeugd KK: Kreiskommandantur

! 379! KLV: Kinderlandverschickung KSA: Katholieke Studenten Actie NLB: Nationalsozialistische Lehrersbund NSDAP: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei NSJV: Nationaalsocialistische Jeugd Vlaanderen NSV: Nationaalsozialistische Volkswohlfart NSVAP: Nationaal Socialistsche Vlaamse Arbeiderspartij OHK: Oberkommando des Heeres OK: Orstkommandantur OFK: Oberfeldkommantanur SA: Sturmabteilung Sipo-SD: Sicherheitspolizei – Sicherheitsdienst SS: Schutzstaffel UGHA/UTMI: Unie van Handen- en Geestesarbeiders/Union des Travailleurs Manuels et Intellectuels Verdinaso: Verbond van Dietsche Nationaal Solidaristen VOT: Vlaams Opvoedkundig Tijdschrift VNV: Vlaams Nationaal Verbond VVKS: Vlaams Verbond der Katholieke Scouts

! 380! References

Primary source material

1. Archives and unpublished sources

Archive of the Archbishopric of Mechelen, Varkensstraat 6 BE-2800 Mechelen

• Archive of Joseph-Ernest Van Roey (classification according to the old inventory)

- Box Canon Van der Elst - File ‘Scholen’ o Nr. 11, ‘Overlegorganen’ o Nr. 12, ‘Interne werking’: . Nr. 12.1., ‘Scholen algemeen’, . Nr. 12.2., ‘Lijst van scholen en statistieken’ . Nr. 12.3., ‘Directie en leerkrachten’ o Nr. 13, ‘Schoolgebouwen’ . Nr. 13.2., ‘Oprichting’ - File ‘Briefwisseling scholen’ - File ‘Interbellum’ - File ‘Tweede Wereldoorlog’ (classification according to the new inventory) o Nr. 27, ‘Het katholiek Onderwijs’ o Nr. 30, ‘Katholieke Jeugdorganisaties’ o Nr. 31, ‘Boekencensuur’

• Box ‘Verslagen van de Colleges en de Lycees, 1940-1944’ • ‘Processen-verbaal van de vergaderingen van bisschoppen’ • ‘Briefwisseling bij de vergadering van bisschoppen’ • Box ‘Commissie belast met de herziening der schoolboeken’

Archive of the Diocese of Bruges, Heilige Geeststraat 4 BE-8000 Brugge

• Folder B 506, ‘Eereraad voor Leerkrachten’

Archive of the Diocese of Ghent, Bisdomplein 1 BE-9000 Gent

• Archive of Joseph-Honoré Coppieters - Nr. 5.1., ‘Centrale Raad voor het Katholiek Onderwijs’ - Nr. 5.2., ‘Briefwisseling met het vicariaat onderwijs en andere bisdommen’ - Nr. 5.7., ‘Antwoorden voor M. Grauls’

! 381! - Nr. 7.2.1., ‘Briefwisseling met de Duitse bezettende macht’ - Nr. 7.2.2., ‘Bisschoppelijke brieven en richtlijnen voor de oorlogsperiode’ - Nr. 7.2.23., ‘Varia Oorlogsdocumentatie’

Archive of the Diocese of Tournai, Place de l’Evêché 1 BE-7500 Tournai

• Archive of Mgr. Delmotte - Box B/2/2: o File ‘Mgr. Delmotte, Enseignement (1942)’ o File ‘Correspondance et dossiers divers, 1940-1944’ - Box L/6/1: o File ‘Collèges épiscopaux du diocèse de Tournai, 1906-1954’

Archive of the Diocese of Namur, Rue du Séminaire 11b BE-5000 Namur

• Fonds Mgr. Charue: - A 104, ‘Guerre 1940-1945’ • Fonds Enseignement: - Nr. P 16, ‘Questions traitées par le vicaire général A. Collard (1931-1949) - Nr. P 77, ‘Statistiques scolaires pour la province de Namur, tous niveau: 1938 – 1945’ • Fonds La Seconde Guerre Mondiale - Nr. S 131, ‘Enquêtes, statistiques et listes tenues par le secrétariat’

Archive of the Diocese of Liège, Rue de L’Evêché 25, BE-4000 Liège

• Archive of Mgr. Kerkhofs: - Nr. H ‘Administration Diocésaine’ o Nr. 53 D, ‘Correspondance avec les pourvoirs publics, 1939-1956’ o Nr. 75, ‘Administration diocesane guerre 1940-1945’

KADOC, Vlamingenstraat 39 BE-3000 Leuven

• Archivum Provinciae Belgicae Septentrionalis – Archive of the Society of Jesus, Flemish Province (Classification according to the old inventory)

“COE Funds”

- COE 5 bis o Nr. 9, ‘Grieks-Latijnsche Afdeeling, lessenrooster en leerplan 1942’ - COE 14, ‘Opvoedingskwesties + jeugdverenigingen’ o Nr. 10, ‘VVKS (1940-1949)’ - COE 17, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen – richtlijnen studieprefectuur’ o Nr. 2, ‘Communications et directives pour le temps de la guerre 1940-1944’ o Nr. 12, ‘Rectorenvergaderingen’ - COE 18, ‘Numerus Scolarium I’

! 382! o Nr. 6, ‘1920-1921 – 1974-75’ - COE 21, ‘Numerus Scolarium’ o Nr. 4, ‘Numerus scolarium PBM’

- COE 110, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’ o Nr. 3, ‘André Van Steene s.j.: proefwerkvragen wiskunde Reto: 1938-1941’ - COE 112, ‘S.J. Cursussen Humaniora’ o Nr. 13, ‘Verhandelingen door leerlingen Borgerhout (Reto-leraar was Robert Caron s.j. die ze bewaarde). Jaren 1939-1949’ o Nr. 14, ‘Nederlands: verhandelingen door leerlingen Borgerhout (Reto-leraar was Robert Caron s.j. die ze bewaarde). Jaren 1942-1949’

“Jesuit school archives”

- Sint-Jozefscollege, Aalst: o C11/2C, ‘Aalst College, Historische documenten’: . Nr. 14, ‘Kroniek van de oorlog 1940 door P.R. Giebens’ o C11/2E ‘Aalst College, Historische documenten’ . Nr. 5, ‘Varia bestuursdocumenten, resp. II (1935-1940) en III 1940- 1944, oorlogsjaren’ o C11/9 – 10 A, ‘Diaria van de prefectuur of van de studiemeesters, internaat, externaat’ . Nr. 23, ‘1941-1944’

- Onze-Lieve-Vrouwcollege, Antwerpen: o C13/1, ‘College aangelegenheden’ . Nr. 6, ‘bericht aan de leerlingen: 1941-1942 (oorlogsjaren), lijst van de klashandboeken’ o C13/3C ‘collegeaangelegenheden’ . Nr. 2, ‘studieaangelegenheden, vergaderingen’ o C14/2 ‘oorlogen’ . Nr. 3, ‘Duitse bezetting 1940-1945’ . Nr. 10, ‘oorlogsdagboek P.W.Maas, 18 mei 1940 tot 15 aug. 1940’

- Sint-Jozefscollege, Turnhout o C72/1b, ‘historische documenten’ . Nr. 3, ‘dagboek van een leerling uit de Poësis van september tot december 1940’ o C72/20, ‘diaria prefectuur (1899-1947)’ . Nr. 11, ‘diarium prefect internaat 1940-1941’ . Nr. 12, ‘diarium prefect internaat 1941-1942’ . Nr. 13, ‘diarium prefect internaat 1942-1943’ . Nr. 19, ‘diarium externaat 1940-1943’ o C72/26, ‘varia pedagogica’ . Nr. 3, ‘taaltoestanden in het M.O.: twee seminarie-opstellen door Herman Verachtert (1976-1977) en Rita Abbeel (1976-1977)’ o C73/2a, ‘leerlingen en oudleerlingen’

! 383! . Nr. 7, ‘leerlingenlijsten tussen 1900-1945’

- Sint-Barbaracollege, Gent o C45/4C, ‘Gent College: Litt. Annuae – geschiedenis 4’ . Nr. 10, ‘krantenknipsels en brieven: aanvallen op de S.J. in België en ook op het Sint-Barbaracollege om Vlaamsgezindheid, Duitsgezindheid’

- Sint-Jan-Berchmanscollege, Brussel o C33B, ‘Brussel Sint-Jan Berchmanscollege geschiedenis 4’ . Nr. 3, ‘Het college biedt hulp aan joodse kinderen 1940-1944, zo blijkt uit de litterae annuae van 1944-1945’

“Fonds ‘De Twee Wereldoorlogen’”

- A 16/1-3, ‘Oorlog 1940-1945’ o Nr. 289, ‘Briefwisseling inzake een onderhoud tussen de provinciaal John Janssens en Edgar Lehembre (leider van de Nationaal-Socialistische Jeugd in Vlaanderen), 1941 o Nr. 297, ‘uittreksel uit het oud-leerlingenblad van het Xaveriuscollege te Borgerhout met het relaas van de terechtstelling van Louis Ecran, leerling van de Tweede Moderne, door de Duitsers op 3 september 1943’

“Personal Archive Gustaaf Van Alsenoy”

• Archivum Provinciae Belgicae Meridionalis – Archive of the Society of Jesus, Walloon Province

- Section 5, ‘Les maisons et leurs oeuvres propres’ o Nr. 73.6, ‘Collège Saint-Stanislas’ o Nr. 91, ‘Collège Notre-Dame’ - Section 6, ‘Enseignement’ o Nr. 10 - Section 9, ‘Notitiae Provinciae’ o Nr. 11 - Section 18, ‘Documentation profane’ o Nr. 2

• Archive Leo De Vylder (BE/942855/211)

! 384! CEGESOMA, Luchtvaartsquare 29 BE-1070 Brussel

• Nr. AA 278, Archive of Alexander von Falkenhausen • Nr. 162, Archive Verdinaso • Nr. AA 940, Report of the Centrale Raad van het Katholiek Onderwijs ‘Rond de Beweging naar de Eenheidsschool’ • Nr. AA 1217, ‘Enquête Kerk en Clerus tijdens de Bezetting’ (for a detailed list of the names of the respondents, see attachment 1) • Nr. AA1640, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’ (for a detailed list of the names of the respondents, see attachment 2)

Archive of the Minor Seminary of Roeselare, Zuidstraat 27 BE-8800 Roeselare

• Box 17, ‘Verslagboek der Lettergilde’

Archive of the Minor Seminary of Mechelen, Bleekstraat 3 BE-2800 Mechelen

• Nr. 51, ‘Contacten met kerkelijke en burgerlijke overheden en diverse instanties. Briefwisseling van Superior Fl. Wellens met het stadsbestuur van Mechelen, het provinciebestuur van Antwerpen, het ministerie van Openbaar Onderwijs en andere overheidsinstellingen’ • Nr. 763, ‘De Academie voor Letterkunde en Muziek. Register met verslagen van de bestuursvergaderingen en feestzittingen van de Academie, afdeling letterkunde, 1924-1949’ • Nr. 803, ‘Katholieke Studentenactie-Jong Vlaanderen. Verslagboeken van vergaderingen en andere activiteiten. 1934-1947’

Belgian State Archive, Ruisbroekstraat 2 BE-1000 Brussels

• Archive of Marcel Nyns, o Microfilm nr. 6697, . nr. 51, ‘Dossier concernant la situation de l’enseignement en Hollande (19411943)’

Archive Nationale de France, 11 Rue des Quatres Fils 75003 Paris (France)

• Fonds Marbourg - Nr. AJ40/7.1, ‘Tätigkeitsberichte’ - Nr. AJ40/12, ‘situation politique en Belgique – problème flamand’ - Nr. AJ 40/15, ‘Rapports d’activité des dr. Petri et Werner dans le domaine de la culture’ - Nr. AJ 40/22.13, ‘Fondation d’écoles libres, généralités (1942-1943)’ - Nr. AJ40/23.8, ‘Collège Saint-Pieters de Jette, propagande hostile d’élèves belges (1941)’

! 385! - Nr. AJ 40/23.11, ‘Enseignement de la langue allemande dans les écoles belges (1940- 1942)’ - Nr. AJ40/24.3, ‘Livres scolaires (1940-1943)’ - Nr. AJ40/25.6, ‘écoles libres – écoles privés de divers responsables (1942-1944)’ - Nr. AJ40/25.7, ‘examens généralités’ - Nr. AJ 40/27.11, ‘Généralités et question diverses (1940-1944)’ - Nr. AJ40/37.3, ‘Rapports du bureaus (sujets divers)’

Bundesarchiv Koblenz, Potsdammer Straße 1 56075 Koblenz (Germany)

• Nachlass Thedieck - N 1174/54, Letter from Heydrich to Reeder - N 1174/55, ‘Anlage 2 zu Fragebogen Thedieck’ - N 1174/55, ‘Thedieck an den Deutschen Entnazisierungs-Hauptausschuss des Regierungsbezirks Köln’ - N 1174/57, Letter from Victor Leemans to A.E. De Schrijver - N 7411/136, ‘Stellingnahme von Reeder’

UNESCO Archives, 7 Place de Fontenoy 75352 Paris 07 (France)

• Allied Plan for Education, The Belgian memorandum submitted at the conference of Allied Ministers of Education

Interviews

• Interview with the Van Acker family, February 11, 2011 • Interviews with former pupils of Flemish Jesuit secondary schools - G.C., September 11, 2012 - L.V., September 12, 2012 - J.P.A, September 25, 2012 - P.H., October 8, 2012 - E.R., October 9, 2012 - J.C., October 10, 2012 - A.B., October 25, 2012 - L.A., October 30, 2012 • Interviews with former pupils of Francophone Jesuit secondary schools - A.P., October 2, 2012 - J.M.L., October 3, 2012 - H.D., October 10, 2012 - A.B., October 11, 2012 - P.L., October 26, 2012

! 386! Correspondence

Letter of Frank van Acker to the author, January 25, 2011

2. Published sources

Joseph-Ernest Van Roey, In den dienst van de Kerk: leerstellige en herderlijke geschriften en toespraken (Turnhout: Brepols, 1939).

Berichten en Mededelingen ten dienste van de inrichtingen voor opvoeding en onderwijs van het bisdom Brugge (1939)

Berichten en Mededelingen ten dienste van de inrichtingen voor opvoeding en onderwijs van het bisdom Brugge (1940-1944)

Tätigkeitsberichte der Militärverwaltung (1940-1944)

Verordnungsblatt des Militärbefehlshabers in Belgien und Nordfrankreich für die besetzen Gebiete Belgiens und Nordfrankreichs (10/5/1940-19/7/1944)

Literature

1. Books

Paul Aron and José Gotovitch, Dictionnaire de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale (Bruxelles: Versailles, 2008).

Ramon E. Arrango, Leopold III and the Belgian Royal Question (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1961).

David Barnouw, Van NIVO tot Reichsschule. Nationaal-socialistische onderwijsinstellingen in Nederland (’s Gravenshage: Staatsuitgeverij, 1981).

Anne Bäumer, NS-Biologie und Schule (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995).

Guy Beaujouan, Anne-Marie Bourgoin, Pierre Cézard, Marie-Thérèse Chabord, Elisabeth Dunan, Jean-Daniel Pariset and Christian Wilsdorf, La France et la Belgique sous l’occupation allemande, 1940- 1944. Les fonds allemands conservés au Centre historique des Archives nationales (Paris: Centre historique des Archives nationales, 2002).

Bruno Benvindo and Evert Peeters, Scherven van de Oorlog. De strijd om de herinnering aan WOII (Antwerpen: De Bezige Bij, 2011).

Roland Bergeys, Gaan jullie ons nu doodschieten? Verhalen over de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Tielt: Lannoo, 2010).

! 387!

Marnix Beyen, Oorlog en Verleden: nationale geschiedenis in België en Nederland (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2002).

Simon Blackburn, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

Robrecht Boudens, Kardinaal Van Roey en de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Averbode: Altoria, 1997).

Jacques-Olivier Boudon, L’épiscopat français à l’époque concordataire (1802-1905): Origines, formation, nomination (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1996).

Rainer Brämer and Armin Kremer, Physikunterricht im Dritten Reich (Marburg: Soznat, 1980).

Tom Buchanan and Martin Conway eds., Political Catholicism in Europe, 1918-1965 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).

Michael Buddrus, Totale Erziehung für den totalen Krieg. Hitlerjugend und nationalsozialistische Jugendpolitik (München: Saur, 2003).

Philippe Burrin, La France à l’heure allemande (Paris: Seuil, 1995).

Francesca Capelletto ed., Memory and World War II: an ethnographic approach (Oxford/New York: Berg, 2005).

John Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope. The secret history of Pius XII (New York: Viking, 1999).

Peter Cunningham and Philip Gardner, Becoming teachers: texts and testimonies 1907-1950 (London: Woburn, 2004).

Alain Dantoing, La “collaboration du cardinal”. L’Eglise de Belgique dans la guerre 40 (Bruxelles: De Boeck, 1991).

Christian De Borchgrave, Eerst Vlaanderen voor Christus: de pionierstijd van het Ruusbroecgenootschap (Altoria: Averbode, 2001).

Michel de Certeau, L’invention du quotidien. Part I Arts de Faire (Paris: Gallimard, 1980).

Albert De Jonghe, Hitler en het politieke lot van België (1940-1944): de vestiging van een Zivilverwaltung in België en Noord-Frankrijk: koningskwestie en bezettingsregime van de kapitulatie tot Berchtesgaden (28 mei – 19 november 1940) (Antwerpen: Nederlandse Boekhandel, 1972).

Gita Deneckere and Bruno De Wever, Geschiedenis van België (Gent: Academia Press, 2007).

Alain Deneef, Xavier Dusausoit, Christophe Evers, Maurice Pilette s.j. and Xavier Rousseau, Les Jésuites belges 1542-1992: 450 ans de Compagnie de Jésus dans les Provinces belgiques (Bruxelles: AESM éditions, 1992).

Marc Depaepe, Orde in Vooruitgang. Alledaags handelen in de Belgische Lagere School (1880-1970) (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999).

Marc Depaepe, De pedagogisering achterna. Aanzet tot een genealogie van de pedagogische mentaliteit in de voorbije 250 jaar (Leuven: Acco, 2000).

! 388! Marc Depaepe, Order in progress: everyday school practice in primary schools, Belgium, 1880-1970 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000).

Marc Depaepe and Dirk Martin eds., Tweede Wereldoorlog als factor in de onderwijsgeschiedenis.Verkenningen van een onderbelicht domein in België/La Seconde Guerre Mondiale une étape dans l'histoire de l'enseignement. Approches d'un domaine méconnu en Belgique (Bruxelles: Cegesoma, 1997).

Maurits De Vroede and An Bosmans-Hermans, Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van het pedagogisch leven in België in de 19de en 20ste eeuw. 4 Tweede Stuk: De Periodieken 1914-1940 (Leuven: KUL, 1973).

Bruno De Wever, Greep naar de macht: Vlaams-nationalisme en Nieuwe Orde: het VNV 1933-1945 (Gent: Perspectief, 1994).

Bruno De Wever, Martine Van Asch and Rudi Van Doorslaer, Gekleurd Verleden. Familie in oorlog (Tielt: Lannoo, 2010).

Maurice De Wilde, België in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Deel 5: De kollaboratie (Kapellen: DBN/Uitgeverij Pelkmans, 1985).

Barbara Dickschen, L’école en sursis: la scolarisation des enfants juifs pendant la guerre (Bruxelles: Didier Devillez, 2006).

Reinhard Dithmar, Schule und Unterricht im Dritten Reich (Neuwied: Luchterhand Verlag, 1989).

Charles Dorn, American Education, Democracy, and the Second World War (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).

Kurt-Ingo Flessau, Schule der Diktatur. Lehrpläne und Schulbücher des Nationalsozialismus (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1979).

J. Gallant, Archief J. Grauls (Brussel: Studie- en Navorsingsinstituut voor de Geschiedenis van de Tweede Wereldoorlog, 1973).

Walter Gansemans, Wij zijn nooit kind geweest. Opgroeien tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Leuven: Davidsfonds, 2006).

Philip Gardner, Hermeneutics, History and Memory (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010).

Jean Gérard-Libois and José Gotovitch, L’an 40: la Belgique occupée (Bruxelles: CRISP, 1971).

Lieve Gevers, Kerk, onderwijs en Vlaamse Beweging. Documenten uit kerkelijke archieven over het taalregime en Vlaamsgezindheid in het katholiek middelbaar onderwijs (Leuven: Editions Nauwelaerts, 1980).

Lieve Gevers and Jan Bank, Religion under Siege. 1. The Roman Catholic Church in Occupied Europe (1939-1950) (Leuven/Paris: Peeters, 2007).

Anthony Giddens, A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Vol. 1 Power, Property and the State (London: Macmillan, 1981).

Robert Gildea, Olivier Wieviorka and Anette Warring, Surviving Hitler and Mussolini: Daily life in Occupied Europe (Oxford/New York: Berg, 2007).

! 389! Daniel Goldhagen, A Moral Reckoning. The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair (London: Little & Brown, 2002).

Peter Gosden, Education in the Second World War: A Study in policy and administration (London: Methuen, 1976).

Dominique Grootaers, Histoire de l’enseignement en Belgique (Bruxelles: CRISP, 1998).

Richard Grunberger, The 12-year Reich: a social history of Nazi Germany, 1933-1945 (New York: Da Capo Press, 1995).

Guy Gys, René Fouquaet and Johan L. Vanderhoeven, Tussen idealisme en werkelijkheid: geschiedenis van vijftig jaar KSA Sint-Jan Berchmansbond Mechelen (1938-1988) (Mechelen: KSA Sint-Jan Berchmansbond, 1988).

Henri Haag, Rien ne vaut l’honneur. L’église belge de 1940 à 1945 (Bruxelles: Ed. Universitaires, 1946).

Wilfred Halls, Les jeunes et la politique de Vichy (Paris: Syros Alternatives, 1986).

Hanne Hellemans, Schimmen met een ster: het bewogen verhaal van joodse ondergedoken kinderen tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog in België (Antwerpen: Manteau, 2007).

Luc Huyse and Steven Dhont, Onverwerkt verleden: collaboratie en repressie in België 1942-1952 (Leuven: Kritak, 1994).

Ruth Inglis, The Children’s War: Evacuation, 1939-1945 (London: Collins, 1989).

Carlton Jackson, Who Will Take Our Children: The Story of Evacuation in Britain, 1939-1945 (London: Methuen, 1985).

Jonathan Judaken, Jean-Paul Sartre and the Jewish Question. Anti-antisemitism and the Politics of the French Intellectual (Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2007).

Isaac Leon Kandel, The Impact of the War upon American Education (North Carolina: The University of North Carolina University Press, 1948).

Michael H. Kater, Hitler Youth (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004).

Wolfgang Keim, Erziehung unter der Nazi-Diktatur. Antidemokratische Potentiale, Machtantritt und Machtdurchsetzung (Darmstadt: Primus Verlag, 1997), vol. 1.

Joseph Kempeneers, Kardinaal Van Roey en de “Nieuwe Orde” (Gembloux: Duculot, 1982).

Joseph Kempeneers, Le cardinal Van Roey en son temps 1874-1961 (Gembloux : Duculot, 1971).

Chantal Kesteloot, Mouvement wallon et identité national (Bruxelles: CRISP, 1993).

Robert Wm Kirk, Earning Their Stripes. The Mobilization of American Children in the Second World War (New York: Peter Lang, 1994).

Guido Knopp, Hitlers Kinder (Munich: Bertelsmann Verlag, 2000).

René Kok and Erik Somers, Nederland en de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Zwolle: Waanders, 2005).

! 390! Pieter Lagrou, The Legacy of Nazi Occupation. Patriotic Memory and National Recovery in Western Europe, 1945-1965 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

Charles Lansing, From Nazism to Communism. German schoolteachers under two dictatorships (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010).

Bruno Latour, Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Martin Lawn and Ian Gosvenor eds., Materialities of schooling. Design – Technology – Object – Routine (Oxford: Symposium Books, 2005).

Edmond Leclef, Kardinaal Van Roey en de Duitsche bezetting in België (Brussel: Goemaere, 1945).

Placide Lefèvre, In Memoriam. Mgr. André-Marie Charue 1898-1977 (Leuven: Peeters, 1978).

Brenda Ralph Lewis, Hitler Youth. The Hitlerjugend in War and Peace 1933-1945 (Staplehurst: Spellmount, 2000).

Seymour-Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan, Party Systems and Voter Alignments (New York: The Free Press, 1967).

Jonathan Litell, Le sec et l’humide (Paris: Gallimard, 2008).

Emile Lousse, De Leuvensche Universiteit tijdens den Tweeden Wereldoorlog (Brugge: Desclée De Brouwer, 1945).

Roy Lowe ed., Education and the Second World War. Studies in Schooling and Social Change, (London/Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press, 1992).

Olivier Luminet ed., België-Belgique. Eén staat, twee collectieve geheugens? (Kortrijk: Snoeck, 2012).

Fabrice Maerten, Frank Selleslagh and Mark Van Den Wijngaert, Entre la peste et le choléra. Vie et attitudes des catholiques Belges sous l’occupation (Bruxelles/Gerpinnes/Louvain-la-Neuve: CEGES/Quorum/ARCA, 1999).

Ralf Maslowski, School culture and school performance: an explorative study into the organizational structure of secondary schools and their effects (Enschede: Twente University Press, 2001).

Gisela Miller-Klipp ed., ‘Auch du gehörst dem Führer’: die Geschichte des Bundes Deutscher Mädel (BDM) in Quellen und Dokumenten (Munich: Juventa Verlag, 2002).

Elke Nyssen, Schule im Nationalsozialismus (Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer, 1979).

Mordecai Paldiel, The path of the righteous: gentile rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust (Hoboken: KTAV Publishing House, 1993).

Lisa Pine, Education in Nazi Germany (Oxford/New York: Berg, 2010).

Wladimir S. Plavsic, Le Cardinal Van Roey (Bruxelles: Labor, 1974).

Flore Plisnier, Ils ont pris des armes pour Hitler. La collaboration armée en Belgique Francophone 1940-1944 (Bruxelles: Editions Luc Pire, 2008).

! 391! Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks: a series of Political Conversations with Adolf Hitler on his Real Aims (London: T. Butterworth, 1939).

Max Rehm, Eggert Reeder. 22 Juli 1894 – 22 November 1959 Preussischer Regieringspräsident, Militärverwaltungschef, Staatsburger (s.l.: Personal publication, 1976).

Phil Robins, War Children. The Second World War in their own words (London: Scholastic, 2005).

Leo Roels, Twintig jaar boeman (Lier: Van In, 1966).

Palmer Ruysschaert, Drie Vlaamse Pioniers (Antwerpen: VVVG, 1998).

Lieven Saerens, Vreemdelingen in een wereldstad. De geschiedenis van Antwerpen en zijn Joodse bevolking (1880-1994) (Tielt: Lannoo, 2000).

Aline Sax, Voor Vlaanderen, Volk en Führer: de motivatie en het wereldbeeld van Vlaamse collaborateurs tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog 1940-1945 (Antwerpen: Manteau, 2012).

Luk Schokkaert and Luc Vints, Bewogen beweging: 50 jaar KSJ-KSA-VKSJ (Brussel: KSJ-KSA- VKSJ, 1988).

Harald Scholtz, NS Ausleseschulen. Internatschulen als Herrschaftsmittel des Führerstaates (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1973).

William H. Sewell, The Logics of History. Social Theory and Social Transformation (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2005).

Sint-Jozefscollege, Sint-Jozefscollege Turnhout, 1945-1950 (Turnhout: Sint-Jozefscollege, 1996).

Martin Soors, Naar het Oostfront voor Outer en Heerd: het ware relaas van een zeventienjarige Vlaming aan het Oostfront (Antwerpen: Tyr, 1991).

Nicholas Stargardt, Witnesses of war. Children’s Lives Under the Nazis (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2006).

Renate Strien, Mädchenerziehung und –Sozialisation in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus und ihre lebensgeschichtliche Bedeutung (Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 2000).

Susan Ruban Suleiman, Crises of Memory and the Second World War (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2006).

Ismee Tames, Besmette jeugd. De kinderen van NSB’ers na de oorlog (Amsterdam: Balans, 2009).

William M. Tuttle Jr., “Daddy’s gone to war”. The Second World War in the lives of America’s children (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).

Jeffrey Tyssens, Strijdpunt of Pasmunt. Levensbeschouwelijk links en de schoolkwestie, 1918-1940 (Brussel: VUBPress, 1993).

Mark Van Den Wijngaert, Het beleid van het comité van de secretarissen-generaal in België tijdens de Duitse bezetting 1940-1944 (Brussel: Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, 1975).

! 392! Mark Van Den Wijngaert, Een Koning geloofd, gelaakt, verloochend: de evolutie van de stemming onder de kathlieke bevolking ten aanzien van Leopold III tijdens de bezetting (1940-1944) (Leuven: Acco, 1984).

Mark Van Den Wijngaert, Schoolopen in Oorlogstijd. Het dagelijkse leven van middelbare scholieren tijdens de Duitse bezetting (1940-1944) (Brussel: UFSAL, 1988).

Jolanda Vanderwal Taylor, A Family Occupation. Children of the War and the Memory of World War II in Dutch Literature of the 1980s (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1997).

Herman van de Vijver, België in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Deel 8: het cultureel leven tijdens de bezetting (Kapellen: Uitgeverij Peckmans, 1990).

Rudy Van Doorslaer ed., Emmanuel Debruyne, Frank Seberechts and Nico Wouters (with the cooperation of Lieven Saerens), Gewillig België: Overheid en jodenvervolging tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Antwerpen, Amsterdam, Brussel: Meulenhoff Manteau, 2007).

Angelo Van Gorp, Nelleke Bakker, Sjaak Braster and Marjoke Rietveld-van Wingerden, Materiële schoolcultuur. Over artefacten als bron in de onderwijsgeschiedenis. Jaarboek voor de geschiedenis van opvoeding en onderwijs van de Belgisch-Nederlandse Vereniging voor de Geschiedenis van Opvoeding en Onderwijs (BNVGOO) (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2009).

Jozef Van Haver, Voor u, beminde gelovigen: het rijke Roomse leven in Vlaanderen 1920-1950 (Tielt: Lannoo, 1995).

Karel Van Isacker, Herderlijke brieven over politiek: 1830/1966 (Antwerpen: Nederlandse Boekhandel, 1968).

Anton Van Wilderode, J.L. de Belder, Fernand Van de Velde, Koenraad De Meulder eds., 100 jaar Filip De Pillecyn (Gent: Academia, 1992).

Jan Velaers and Herman Van Goethem, Leopold III: de koning, het land, de oorlog (Tielt: Lannoo, 2001).

Etienne Verhoeyen, België bezet 1940-1944 (Brussel: BRTN, 1993).

Etienne Verhoeyen, La Belgique occupée. De l’an 40 à la libération (Bruxelles: De Boeck, 1994).

Dirk Verhofstadt, Pius XII en de vernieting van de Joden (Antwerpen/Amsterdam: Houtekiet, 2008).

Astrid von Busekist, La Belgique Politique des langues et construction de l’État, de 1780 à nos jours (Paris/Bruxelles: Duculot, 1998).

Max von Rehm, Harry Georg von Craushaar. 10 Juli 1891- 7 April 1970 (Nürtingen: Senner-Druck, 1978).

Louis Vos, Het AKVS in konflikt met de geestelijke overheid: nationalisme en kultuurflamingantisme in de katholieke Vlaamse studentenbeweging 1919-1932 (Leuven: s.n., 1969).

Louis Vos, Idealisme en engagement: de roeping van de katholieke studerende jeugd in Vlaanderen (1930-1990) (Leuven: Acco, 2011).

Louis Vos,“Want er er komen andere tijden ...”: studerende jeugd in Vlaanderen 1920-1990 (Leuven: Acco, 2011).

! 393! Suzanne Vromen, Hidden children of the Holocaust: Belgian nuns and their daring rescue of young Jews from the Nazis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

Jacques Walravens, Le Collège Saint-Stanislas à Mons Pendant les Années de Guerre, 1940-1945 (Mons: Debruxelles, 2011).

Werner Warmbrunn, The German Occupation of Belgium 1940-1944 (New York: Peter Lang, 1993).

Janet Watson, Fighting Different Wars. Experience, Memory, and the First World War in Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Emmy E. Werner, Through the Eyes of Innocents. Children Witness World War II (Oxford: Westview, 1999).

Lars Westerlund ed., The Children of Foreign Soldiers in Finland, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Poland and Occupied Soviet Karelia (Helsinki: s.n., 2011).

Lode Wils, Van Clovis tot Happart. De lange weg van de naties in de Lage Landen (Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant, 1992).

Lode Wils, Van de Belgische naar de Vlaamse Natie: een geschiedenis van de Vlaamse Beweging (Leuven: Acco, 2009).

Els Witte, Voor Vrede, democratie, wereldburgerschap en Europa. Belgische historici en de naoorlogse politieke- ideologische projecten (1945-1956) (Kapellen: Pelckmans, 2009).

Els Witte, Jan Craeybeckx and Alain Meynen, Politieke Geschiedenis van België, van 1830 tot heden (Antwerpen: Standaard Uitgeverij, 2010).

Bert Woestenborghs, Greet De Neef, Peter Heyrman, Luc Vints, Paul Van Beveren, Johan Mahieu eds., De katholieke studentenactie in Oost-Vlaanderen 1928-1992 (Gent: Vanmelle, 1992).

Tara Zahra, The Lost Children. Reconstructing Europe’s Families after World War II (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011).

2. Chapters in books

Aleida Assmann, ‘Re-framing memory. Between individual and collective forms of constructing the past’, in Performing the past. Memory, History and Identity in modern Europe, eds. Karin Tilmans, Frank Van Vree and Jay Winter (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010), 35-50.

Roger Austin, ‘Political surveillance and ideological control in Vichy France: a study of teachers in the Midi’, in Vichy France and the Resistance. Culture and ideology, eds. Roderick Kedward and Roger Austin (London: Croom Helm, 1985), 13-35.

Bruno Benvindo and Evert Peeters, ‘Inleiding. Scherven van de oorlog. Het patroon van de herinnering in België’, in Scherven van de Oorlog. De strijd om de herinnering aan WOII, Bruno Benvindo and Evert Peeters (Antwerpen: De Bezige Bij, 2011), 7-18.

! 394! Bruno Benvindo and Evert Peeters, ‘Besluit. Herineren en vergeten langs Belgische lijnen’, in Scherven van de Oorlog. De strijd om de herinnering aan WOII, Bruno Benvindo and Evert Peeters (Antwerpen: De Bezige Bij, 2011), 219-26.

Marnix Beyen, ‘’Spijts de Geschiedenis ...’ Het discours over het nationale verleden in een aantal ‘historische belijdenissen’, verschenen in Vlaanderen tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog’, in Hun kleine oorlog. De invloed van de Tweede Wereldoorlog op het literaire leven in België, eds. Dirk De Geest, Paul Aron and Dirk Martin (Leuven: Peeters/SOMA, 1998), 155-97.

Marnix Beyen, ‘”Vlaams zijn in het bloed en niet alleen in de hersenen”. Het Vlaamse volk tussen ras en cultuur (1919-1939)’, in Rasechte wetenschap? Het rasbegrip tussen wetenschap en politiek voor de Tweede Wereldoorlog, eds. Marnix Beyen and Geert Vanpaemel (Leuven/Amersfoort: Acco, 1998), 173-201.

Marnix Beyen, ‘Grootse plannen, grote desillusies. De Tweede Wereldoorlog en zijn naweeën’, in Ast Fonteyne, 1906-1991. Een kwestie van Stijl, Peter Antonissen et al. (Leuven: Kadoc, 1999), 127-66.

Marnix Beyen, ‘”Zwart wordt van langs om meer de Vlaamsgezinde massa”. De Vlaamse Beeldvorming over bezetting en repressie, 1945-2000’, in Het gewicht van het oorlogsverleden, eds. José Gotovitch and Chantal Kesteloot (Gent: Academia Press, 2003), 105-20. Marnix Beyen, ‘Weerbarstige collaboratie: Uitgeverij De Lage Landen’, in Inktpatronen: De Tweede Wereldoorlog en het boekbedrijf in Nederland en Vlaanderen, ed. Hans Renders (Amsterdam: Bezige Bij, 2006), 64-86.

Marnix Beyen, ‘Van Brunclair tot Peleman: cultureel onderhandelen in bezettingstijd’, in Verbrande schrijvers: culturele collaboratie in Vlaanderen (1933-1953), ed. Lukas De Vos, Yves T’Sjoen and Ludo Stynen (Gent: Academia Press, 2009), 21-38.

John Biesinger, ‘The Reich Concordat of 1933. The Church’s struggle Against Nazi Germany’, in Controversial Concordats : the Vatican’s relations with Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler, ed. Frank J. Coppa (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 120-81.

Rik Bostoen and Olaf Moens, ‘Herman De Vleeschauwer’, in Nieuwe encyclopedie van de Vlaamse Beweging, eds. Reginald De Schryver, Bruno De Wever, Gaston Durnez, Lieve Gevers, Paul Van Hees and Machteld De Metsenaere (Tielt: Lannoo, 1998), 3513-5.

Robrecht Boudens, ‘Henri Lamiroy (1931-1952)’, in Het bidsom Brugge (1559-1984): bisschoppen, priesters, gelovigen, Michel Cloet, Boudewijn Janssens de Bisthoven and Robrecht Boudens (Brugge: Westvlaams verbond van Kringen voor Heemkunde, 1985), 389-400.

Robrecht Boudens, ‘Honoré Coppieters (1927-1947)’, in Het bidsom Gent (1559-1991): vier eeuwen geschiedenis, Michel Cloet and Ludo Collin (Gent: Werkgroep Geschiedenis van het bisdom Gent, 1992), 367-80.

Lammert Buning and Karen Van Hoorick, ‘Filip De Pillecyn’, in Nieuwe encyclopedie van de Vlaamse Beweging, eds. Reginald De Schryver, Bruno De Wever, Gaston Durnez, Lieve Gevers, Paul Van Hees and Machteld De Metsenaere (Tielt: Lannoo, 1998), 2477-9.

Ronald D. Cohen, ‘Schooling Uncle Sam’s children: Education in the USA, 1941-1945’, in Education and the Second World War. Studies in Schooling and Social Change, ed. Roy Lowe (London/Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press, 1992), 47-58.

! 395! Alain Colignon and Chantal Kesteloot, ‘’Nazis durant les guerres’. De visie op de Vlaamse collaboratie in Wallonië en Brussel’, in Het gewicht van het oorlogsverleden, eds. José Gotovitch and Chantal Kesteloot (Gent: Academia Press, 2003), 121-47.

Martin Conway, ‘Belgium’, Political Catholicism in Europe, 1918-1965, eds. Tom Buchanan and Martin Conway (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 187-218.

Martin Conway, ‘Introduction’, in Political Catholicism in Europe, 1918-1965, eds. Tom Buchanan and Martin Conway (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 1-33.

Frank J. Coppa, ‘Mussolini and the Concordat of 1929’, in Controversial Concordats : the Vatican’s relations with Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler, ed. Frank J. Coppa (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 81-119.

Eric Corijn, ‘Met welk verleden wil Vlaanderen de toekomst tegemoet?’, in Collaboratie in Vlaanderen. Vergeten en vergeven?, ed. Eric Corijn (Antwerpen: Manteau, 2002), 11-28.

Aline Coutrot, ‘Quelques aspects de la politique de la jeunesse’, in Le gouvernement de Vichy, 1940-1942 (Colloque: FNSP, 6-7 mars 1970), 245-84.

Kristel Dams, Marc Depaepe and Frank Simon, ‘Sneaking into School: Classroom History at Work’, in Silences and Images: the Social History of the Classroom, eds. Ian Grosvenor, Martin Lawn and Kate Rousmaniere (New York: Peter Lang, 1999), 13-46.

Karel De Clerck, ‘The ‘Dietsch Opvoedkundige Beweging’ in Flanders’, in Values in Education: topical issue in honour of Prof. dr. M.-L. Van Herreweghe, ed. Marc Spoelders (Gent: Rijksuniversiteit Gent, 1988), 258-66.

Marc Depaepe, ‘De Vlaamse katholieke pedagogiek en de nationaal-socialistische opvoedingsleer. Een verkennende studie op basis van het Vlaams Opvoedkundig Tijdschrift (1919-1955)’, in Tweede Wereldoorlog als factor in de onderwijsgeschiedenis.Verkenningen van een onderbelicht domein in België/La Seconde Guerre Mondiale une étape dans l'histoire de l'enseignement. Approches d'un domaine méconnu en Belgique, eds. Marc Depaepe and Dirk Martin (Brussel: Cegesoma, 1997), 79-106.

Marc Depaepe, ‘Struggling with the Historical Attractiveness of Psychology for Educational Research: Illustrated by the Case of Nazi-Germany’, in Between Educationalization and Appropriation. Selected Writings on the History of Modern Educational Systems, ed. Marc Depaepe (Leuven: Leuven, University Press, 2012), 407-34.

Marc Depaepe, ‘The School, Cornerstone of Modern Society’, in Between Educationalisation and Appropriation: Selected Writings on the History of Modern Educational Systems, ed. Marc Depaepe (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2012), 23-34.

Marc Depaepe, Frederik Herman, Melanie Surmont, Angelo Van Gorp and Frank Simon, ‘About Pedagogization: From the Perspective of the History of Education’, in Educational Research: the Educationalization of Social Problems, eds. Paul Smeyers and Marc Depaepe (Dordrecht: Springer, 2008), 13-30.

Bruno De Wever, ‘”Septemberweerstanders”, “flaminboches” en “idealistische oostfrontstrijders”: de collaboratie in België: onverwerkt verleden?’, in Het Verzet en Noord-Europa/La Résistance et les

! 396! Européens du Nord (Paris/Bruxelles: CREHSGM/Institut d’histoire du Temps présent, 1994), 384- 94.

Bruno De Wever, ‘Het verzet in de publieke herinnering in Vlaanderen’, in Tegendruk: Geheime pers tijdens de tweede Wereldoorlog, eds. Bert Boeckx, Gert De Prins, Bruno De Wever, Jan Laplasse, Fabrice Maerten, An Renard, Lieven Saerens, Karolien Steen, Roel Vande Winkel, Rudi Van Doorslaer and Martine Vermandere (Antwerpen/Gent/Brussel: Amsab-ISG/SOMA, 2001), 17-32.

Bruno De Wever, ‘De erfenis van de collaboratie tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog in België (1944- 2000)’, Opstellen voor een inspirerende non-conformist. Een huldeboek voor Werner Vandenabeele (1926-2000), ed. Nico Van Campenhout (Lokeren: Stad Lokeren/MasereelFonds/Imavo, 2002), 200-9.

Barbara Dickschen, ‘L’AJB et l’enseignement’, in Les Curateurs du Ghetto. L’association des Juifs en Belgique sous l’occupation nazie, eds. Jean-Philippe Schreiber and Rudi Van Doorslaer (Bruxelles : Labor, 2004), 233-60.

Rudy Dierickx, ‘De Eerste Kommissie voor Taaltoezicht en de Brusselse onderwijsproblematiek onder Duitse bezetting (mei 1940 – december 1941)’, in Het probleem Brussel sinds Hertoginnedal, vol. 1, ed. Els Witte (Brussel: VUB Press, 1989), 47-65.

J. Dufraing, ‘Sociografische studie van de leerlingen van het Klein Seminarie. De geografische herkomst van de leerlingen’, in 150 jaar Klein Seminarie te Hoogstraten, ed. Guido Landuyt (Hoogstraten: Klein Seminarie Hoogstraten, 1985), 115-18.

Johan Fleerackers, Marc Le Bruyn and Bruno De Wever, ‘Cultuurraden’, in Nieuwe encyclopedie van de Vlaamse Beweging, eds. Reginald De Schryver, Bruno De Wever, Gaston Durnez, Lieve Gevers, Paul Van Hees and Machteld De Metsenaere (Tielt: Lannoo, 1998), 825-9.

H. Genschel, ‘Geschichtsdidaktik und Geschichtsunterricht im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland’, in Gesellschaft, Staat und Geschichtsunterricht, eds. Gerhard Schneider and Klaus Bergmann (Dusseldorf: Pedagogischer Verlag Schwann, 1982), 261-94.

Lieve Gevers, ‘The Catholic Church and the Flemish movement’, in Nationalism in Belgium: shifting identities, 1780-1995, eds. Kas Deprez and Louis Vos (Houndmills: Macmillan, 1998), 110-9.

Lieve Gevers, ‘Catholicism in the Low Countries During the Second World War. Belgium and the Netherlands: a Comparative Approach’, in Religion under Siege I. The Roman Catholic Church in Occupied Europe (1939-1950), eds. Lieve Gevers and Jan Bank (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 205-42.

Lieve Gevers and Louis Vos, ‘Jeugdbewegingen in Vlaanderen: een historisch overzicht’, in Op eigen vleugels: liber amicorum Prof. dr. An Hermans, eds. Mark Dhoker and Marc Depaepe (Antwerpen: Garant, 2004), 59-70.

Idesbald Goddeeris, ‘The Catholic Church in Poland under Nazi Occupaton (1939-1945) and the first Years of Communism (1944-1948)’, in Religion under Siege I. The Roman Catholic Church in Occupied Europe (1939-1950), eds. Lieve Gevers and Jan Bank (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 1-38.

Dominique Grootaers, ‘Cent cinquante ans d’instruction publique à la poursuite de l’intégration sociale et de la promotion individuelle’, in Histoire de l’Enseignement en Belgique, ed. Dominique Grootaers (Bruxelles: Crisp, 1998), 86-108.

! 397! Paul Janssenswillen, ‘De ‘Heeren professors’. Het lerarenprofiel in het middelbaar onderwijs voor jongens in Limburg, 1878-1970’, in “Over het mooie en het nuttige”. Bijdragen over de geschiedenis van onderwijs en opvoeding. Liber Amicorum aangeboden aan Mark D’hoker, eds. Marc Depaepe, Bregt Henkens, Maria Leon, Angelo Van Gorp (Antwerpen/Apeldoorn: Garant, 2008), 105-21.

Carey Jewitt and Ken Jones, ‘Managing Time and Space in the New English Classroom’, in Materialities of schooling: design, technology, objects, routines, eds. Ian Grosvenor and Martin Lawn (Oxford: Symposium Books, 2005), 201-14.

Heidemarie Kemnitz and Frank Tosch, ‘Zwischen Indoktrination und Qualifikation Höhere Schule im Nationalsozialismus’, in Erziehungsverhältnisse im Nationalsozialismus. Totaler Anspruch und Erziehungswirklichkeit, eds. Klaus-Peter Horn and Jörg-W. Link (Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt Verlag, 2011), 109-136.

Martin Kipp, ‘Privilegien für “alte Kampfer” – Zur Geschichte der SA-Berufschulen’, in Erziehung und Schulung im Dritten Reich, ed. Manfred Heinemann (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1980), 289-300.

Anke Klare, ‘Nationalsozialistische Ausleseschulen. “Stätten konzentrierter und auserlesener Menschenforschung”’, in Erziehungsverhältnisse im Nationalsozialismus. Totaler Anspruch und Erziehungswirklichkeit, eds. Klaus-Peter Horn and Jörg-W. Link (Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt Verlag, 2011), 137-62.

Christoph Kleßmann, ‘Die Zerstörung des Schulwesens als Bestandteil deutscher Okkupationspolitik im Osten am Beispiel Polens’, in Erziehung und Schulung im Dritten Reich, ed. Manfred Heinemann (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1980), 176-92.

Josef Krasuski, ‘Education as Resistance: the Polish Experience of Schooling During the War’, in Education and the Second World War. Studies in Schooling and Social Change, ed. Roy Lowe (London/Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press, 1992), 128-38.

Pieter Lagrou, ‘Memory and National Identity. Myths of Resistance and Martyrdom in Belgium and the Netherlands’, in Het Verzet en Noord-Europa/La Résistance et les Européens du Nord (Paris/Bruxelles: CREHSGM/Institut d’histoire du Temps présent, 1994), 424-43.

Bruno Latour, ‘On recalling ANT’, in Actor Network Theory and After, eds. John Law and John Hassard (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 15-25.

Jörg-W. Link, ‘”Erziehungsstätte des deutschen Volkes”. Die Volksschule im Nationalsozialismus’, in Erziehungsverhältnisse im Nationalsozialismus. Totaler Anspruch und Erziehungswirklichkeit, eds. Klaus- Peter Horn and Jörg-W. Link (Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt Verlag, 2011), 79-108.

Roy Lowe, ‘Introduction’, in Education and the Second World War: studies in schooling and social change, ed. Roy Lowe (London/Washington: The Falmer Press, 1992), 1-3.

Roy Lowe, ‘Education in England during the Second World War’, in Education and the Second World War. Studies in schooling and social change, ed. Roy Lowe (London/Washington: The Falmer Press, 1992), 4-16.

Alf Lüdtke, ‘Introduction: What is the history of everyday life and who are its practitioners?’, in The History of Everyday Life: Reconstructing Historical Experiences and Ways of Life, ed. Alf Lüdtke (Translation by William Templer) (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 3-40.

! 398! Dirk Luyten, ‘De vervolging van de economische collaboratie’, in Het gewicht van het oorlogsverleden, eds. José Gotovitch and Chantal Kesteloot (Gent: Academia Press, 2003), 75-104.

John Macnicol, ‘The effect of the evacuation of schoolchildren on official attitudes to state intervention’, in War and Social Change: British Society in the Second World War, Harold L. Smith (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986), 3-31.

Fabrice Maerten, ‘La participation du personnel enseignant hennuyer à la Résistance’, Tweede Wereldoorlog als factor in de onderwijsgeschiedenis.Verkenningen van een onderbelicht domein in België/La Seconde Guerre Mondiale une étape dans l'histoire de l'enseignement. Approches d'un domaine méconnu en Belgique, eds. Marc Depaepe and Dirk Martin (Brussel: Cegesoma, 1997), 107-44.

Fabrice Maerten, ‘Le clergé du diocèse de Tournai face à l’occupation, la voie étroite’, in Entre la peste et le choléra. Vie et attitudes des catholiques Belges sous l’occupation, eds. Fabrice Maerten, Frank Selleslagh and Mark Van Den Wijngaert (Bruxelles/Gerpinnes/Louvain-la-Neuve: Ceges/Quorum/ARCA, 1999), 127-63.

Olaf Moens, Frank Simon and Jeffrey Tyssens, ‘”De dag van de opvoeders is nu op komst”. Onderwijshervormingsvoorstellen rond de Tweede Wereldoorlog’, in De Tweede Wereldoorlog als factor in de onderwijsgeschiedenis. Verkenningen van een onderbelicht domein in België/La Seconde Guerre Mondiale une étape dans l'histoire de l'enseignement. Approches d'un domaine méconnu en Belgique, eds. Marc Depaepe and Dirk Martin (Bruxelles: Cegesoma, 1997), 17-62.

Guy Naeve, ‘War and educational reconstruction in Belgium, France and the Netherlands, 1940- 1947’, in Education and the Second World War. Studies in Schooling and Social Change, ed. Roy Lowe (London/Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press, 1992), 84-127.

Vilna Narkute, ‘The Catholic Church in Lituania under Two Occupying Regimes’, in Religion under Siege I. The Roman Catholic Church in Occupied Europe (1939-1950), eds. Lieve Gevers and Jan Bank (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 173-204.

Dagmar Reese, ‘Mädchen im Bund Deutscher Mädel’, in Geschichte der Mädchen- und Frauenbildung, vol. 2, Elke Kleinau and Claudia Opitz (Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, 1996, 271-82.

William Roberts, ‘Napoleon, the Concordat of 1801, and its Consequences’, in Controversial Concordats: The Vatican’s Relations with Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler, ed. Frank J. Coppa (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 34-80.

Lieven Saerens, ‘Het “Wendepunkt”, 1933-1940’, in Ast Fonteyne, 1906-1991. Een kwestie van Stijl, Peter Antonissen et al. (Leuven: Kadoc, 1999), 99-126.

Norbert Schausberger, ‘Intentionen des Geschitsunterrichts im Rahmen der nationalsozialistischen Erziehung’, in Erziehung und Schulung im Dritten Reich, ed. Manfred Heinemann (Stuttgart: Klett- Cotta, 1980), 251-62.

Deborah Thom, ‘The 1944 Education Act: the ‘art of the possible’?’, in War and social change. British Society in the Second World War, Harold L. Smith (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986), 129-48.

! 399! Jeffrey Tyssens, ‘De vermaledijde staat ? Overheid en onderwijsverstrekking in België’, in Geen trede meer om op te staan : de maatschappelijke positie van onderwijzers en onderwijzeressen tijdens de voorbije eeuw, eds. Marc Depaepe and Maurits De Vroede (Kapellen : DBN/Pelckmans, 1993), 60-71.

Jeffrey Tyssens, ‘Onderwijsconflict en –pacificatie vanuit een comparatief perspectief: België, Nederland, Frankrijk’, in Het Schoolpact van 1958. Ontstaan, grondlijnen en toepassing van een Belgisch compromis, eds. Els Witte, De Groof and Jeffrey Tyssens (Brussel-Leuven: VUBPress-Garant, 1999), 39-86.

Bernard Van Causenbroeck, ‘Jan Grauls’, in Nieuwe encyclopedie van de Vlaamse Beweging, eds. Reginald De Schryver, Bruno De Wever, Gaston Durnez, Lieve Gevers, Paul Van Hees and Machteld De Metsenaere (Tielt: Lannoo, 1998), 1352-3.

Mark Van Den Wijngaert, ‘Tussen vijand en volk. Het bestuur van de secretarissen-generaal tijdens de Duitse bezetting 1940-1944’, in België in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Het minste kwaad, ed. Etienne Verhoeyen (Kapellen: Uitgeverij Pelckmans, 1990), 9-22.

Mark Van Den Wijngaert, ‘L’église et les catholiques sous l’occupation. L’angle belge’, in Entre la peste et le choléra. Vie et attitudes des catholiques Belges sous l’occupation, eds. Fabrice Maerten, Frank Selleslagh and Mark Van Den Wijngaert (Bruxelles/Gerpinnes/Louvain-la-Neuve: CEGES/Quorum/ARCA, 1999), 9-20.

Erik Vandewalle and Nele Bracke, ‘Marcel Brauns’, in Nieuwe Encyclopedie van de Vlaamse Beweging, eds. Reginald De Schryver, Bruno De Wever, Gaston Durnez, Lieve Gevers, Paul Van Hees et Machteld De Metsenaere (Tielt: Lannoo, 1998), 595-6.

Sarah Van Ruyskensvelde, ‘De school in oorlogstijd. Het katholiek middelbaar onderwijs tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog in België’, in Pedagogische Historiografie, eds. Angelo Van Gorp, Pieter Dhont, Frank Simon and Marc Depaepe (Leuven/Voorburg: Acco, 2011), 123-48.

Henk Van Stetten, ‘Opvoeding in volkse geest. De onderwijsideologie van het ‘Opvoedersgilde’ van de NSB’, in Comenius. Thema 15. Pedagogiek en nationaalsocialisme (s.l.: SUN, 1984), 250-71.

J. Verboen, ‘De sociale herkomst van de leerlingen’, in 150 jaar Klein Seminarie te Hoogstraten, ed. Guido Landuyt (Hoogstraten: Klein Seminarie Hoogstraten, 1985), 119-123.

Karolina Vidović-Kristo, ‘The Catholic Church in Croatia’, in Religion under Siege I. The Roman Catholic Church in Occupied Europe (1939-1950), eds. Lieve Gevers and Jan Bank (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 39-92.

Antonio Viñao, ‘History of education and cultural history: possibilities, problems, questions’, in Cultural History and Education: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Schooling, eds. Thomas S. Popkewitz, Barry M. Franklin and Miguel A. Pereyra (New York/London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2001), 125-50.

Antonio Viñao, ‘The School Head’s Office as Territory and Place: location and physical layout in the first Spanish graded schools’, in Materialities of schooling: design, technology, objects, routines, eds. Ian Grosvenor and Martin Lawn (Oxford: Symposium Books, 2005), 47-70.

Pavla Vošahlíková, Benedicte Rochet and Fabrice Weiss, ‘Schooling as a Cultural Interface’, in Surviving Hitler and Mussolini: Daily Life in Occupied Europe, eds. Robert Gildea, Olivier Wieviorka and Anette Warring (Oxford/New York: Berg, 2007), 129-52.

! 400! Paul Wynants and Martine Paret, ‘Ecole et clivages au XIXe et XXe siècles’, in Histoire de l’Enseignement en Belgique, ed. Dominique Grootaers (Bruxelles: Crisp, 1998), 13-85.

John Zeender, ‘Introduction’, in Controversial Concordats : the Vatican’s relations with Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler, ed. Frank J. Coppa (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 1-33.

3. Journal articles

Alison Assiter, ‘Althusser and structuralism’, British Journal of Sociology 35 (1984), nr. 2: 272-96.

Nicholas Atkin, ‘Church and teachers in Vichy France, 1940-1944’, French History 4 (1990): 1-22.

Dan Bruno Bar-On, ‘Holocaust Perpetrators and their Children. A Paradoxical Morality’, Journal of Humanistic Pscyhology 29 (1989), nr. 4: 424-43.

Bruno Benvindo and Evert Peeters, ‘La mémoire de la seconde guerre mondiale comme régulation sociale’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis XLIII (2012), nr. 2-3: 10-9.

Marnix Beyen, ‘Op wacht bij het erf. Jeugdbewegingen en historisch besef in Vlaanderen, 1920- 1965’, Bijdragen tot de Eigentijdse Geschiedenis 8 (2001): 31-68.

Marnix Beyen, ‘Nostalgie naar een nieuwe tijd: de Tweede Wereldoorlog en de roep van de traditie: België en Nederland, 1940-1945’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Filologie en Geschiedenis/Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 79 (2001): 465-506.

Marnix Beyen, ‘Wetenschap, Politiek, nationaal-socialisme. De cultuurpolitiek van het Duits militair bezettingsbestuur in België, 1940-1944’, Bijdragen tot de Eigentijdse Geschiedenis 11 (2003): 47- 70.

Marnix Beyen, ‘A parricidal memory: Flanders’ memorial universe as product and producer of Belgian history’, Memory Studies 5 (2012): 32-44.

Hans Blom, ‘Van bron naar beeld?’, Spiegel Historiael 29 (1994): 106-8.

Isabel Blondeel, ‘Het Sint-Antoniuscollege te Lokeren: Franciscaanse recrutering en opleiding’, De souvereinen. Tijdschrift van de Heemkring van Lokeren 29 (1998): 12-21.

Anne-Marie Chartier, ‘Excercices écrits et cahiers d’élèves: réflexions sur des pratiques de longue durée’, Le Télémaque 24 (2003): 81-110.

Michèle Cointet-Labrousse, ‘Le gouvernement de Vichy et la jeunesse: sources nouvelles et nouveau éclairages’, Bulletin de la Société d’histoire moderne 2 (1976): 13-21.

Alan Confino, ‘Collective Memory and Cultural History: Problems of Method’, The American Historical Review 102 (1997), nr. 5: 1386-1403.

Martin Conway, ‘Problems of Digestion. The Memory of the Second World War in Flanders’, Arts and Society in Flanders and the Netherlands XIII (2005): 110-20.

! 401!

Peter Cunningham and Philip Gardner, ‘Saving the nation’s children: teachers, wartime evacuation in England and Wales and the construction of national identity’, History of Education 28 (1999), nr. 3: 327-37.

Alain Dantoing, ‘La hiérarchie catholique et la Belgique sous l’occupation allemande’, Revue du Nord LX (1978), nr. 237: 311-30.

Pol Defosse, ‘A propos de quelques directives de l’occupation aux établissements scolaires (1940- 1944)’, Histoire et Enseignement 1 (2008): 15-20.

Raf De Keyser and Mark D’hoker, ‘De Geschiedenis van het secundair onderwijs in België’, Nova et Vetera LXII (1984-1985), nr.1/2: 15-40.

Marc Depaepe, ‘Normatief-pedagogisch denken in Vlaanderen. Continuïteit en Discontinuïteit in de katholieke pedagogiek sedert 1918’, Pedagogische Verhandelingen X (1987), nr.2: 270-91.

Kristel De Smedt, ‘De herziening van de schoolboeken tijdens de bezetting (1940-1944)’, Bijdragen tot de Geschiedenis van de Tweede Wereldoorlog 14 (1991): 177-202.

J. De Volder, ‘Katholieken redden Joden’, Tertio 299 (2005), nr. 1-2: 1-3.

Bruno De Wever, ‘Idealistische oostfrontstrijders’ en ‘flaminboches’. De collaboratie in België: onverwerkt verleden?’, Spiegel Historiael 29 (1994), nr. 3-4: 384-92.

Julia Dicum, ‘Learning, War, and Emergencies: A study of the Learner’s Perspective’, Comparative Education Review 52 (2008), nr. 4: 619-38.

Tessa Dunseath, ‘Teachers at war: Norwegian teachers during the German Occupation of Norway, 1940-45’, History of Education 31 (2002): 371-83.

Betty Eggermont, ‘The choreography of schooling as a site of struggle: Belgian primary schools, 1880-1940’, History of Education 30 (2001): 129-40.

Frederick Erikson, ‘Conceptions of School Culture: An Overview’, Educational Administration Quarterly 23 (1987): 11-24.

Barbara Finkelstein, ‘Re-imagining Educational Reform: Public Schools and the Nurture of Consciousness’, Educational Studies. A Journal in the Foundations of Education XIV (1983): 103-11.

D. Foster, S. Davies and H. Steele, ‘The Evacuation of British children during World War II: A preliminary investigation into the long-term psychological effects’, Aging and Mental Health 7 (2003), nr. 5: 398-408.

Philip Gardner, ‘Oral history in education: teacher’s memory and teacher’s history’, History of Education 32 (2003), nr. 2: 175-88.

Philip Gardner and Peter Cunningham, ‘Oral History and Teachers’ Professional Practice: a wartime turning point?’, Cambridge Journal of Education 27 (1997), nr. 3: 331-42.

! 402! Lieve Gevers, ‘Bisschoppen en bezetting. De Kerk in de Lage Landen tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog’, Trajecta 13 (2004): 373-99.

Peter Gosden, ‘From Board to Ministry: the impact of the war on the education department’, History of Education 18 (1989): 183-93.

Michael Greyer and Michael Latham, ‘The Place of the Second World War in German Memory and History’, New German Critique 71 (1997): 5-40.

Hanne Hellemans, ‘Tot wie behoort de ziel van het kind? De herintegratie van kinderen in de joodse gemeenschap na de Tweede Wereldoorlog’, Bijdragen tot de Eigentijdse Geschiedenis 13/14 (2004): 187-222.

Eric Hopkins, ‘Elementary education in Birmingham during the Second World War’, History of Education 18 (1989): 243-55.

Luc Huyse and Peter Romijn, ‘Het spook van de collaboratie. De bestraffing en de perceptie van het onvaderlands gedrag in België en Nederland’, Spiegel Historiael 29 (1994), nr.3-4: 123-30.

Dominique Julia, ‘La culture scolaire comme objet historique’, Paedagogica Historica 1 (1995): 353- 82.

Chantal Kesteloot, ‘Tendences récentes de l’historiographie du Mouvement Wallon (1981-1995)’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis XXV (1994), nr. 3-4: 539-68.

Aura Korppi-Tommola, ‘War and children in Finland during the Second World War’, Paedagogica Historica 44 (2008): 445-55.

Philipp Kuwert, Carsten Spitzer, Anna trader, Harald J. Freyberger and Michael Ermann, ‘Sixty years later post-traumatic stress symptoms and current psychopathology in former German children of World War II’, International Psychogeriatrics 5 (2007): 955-61.

Pieter Lagrou, ‘Herdenken en vergeten. De politieke verwerking van verzet en vervolging in België na 1945’, Spiegel Historiael 29 (1997): 109-22.

Fabrice Maerten, ‘Jeunesse et Résistance. Entre mythe et réalité. Le cas du Hainaut, 1940-1944’, Bijdragen tot de Eigentijdse Geschiedenis 8 (2001): 257-305.

Edmond Mailard, ‘La réforme de l’enseignement’, Revue d’histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale 56 (1964): 43-64.

Joe Moran, ‘History, Memory and the Everyday’, Rethinking History 8 (2004), nr. 1: 51-68.

Dietrich Orlow, ‘Die Adolf-Hitler-Schulen’, Vierteljahrhefte für Zeitgeschichte 13 (1965): 272-84.

Michael E. O’Sullivan, ‘An eroding milieu ? Catholic youth, Church authority, and popular behavior in Northwest Germany during the Third Reich, 1933-1938’, The Catholic Historical Review 90 (2004): 236-59.

Stephen Pagaard, ‘Teaching the Nazi Dictatorship : Focus on Youth’, The History Teacher 38 (2005), nr. 2: 189-207.

! 403! Evert Peeters, ‘Het gevecht tegen de tijd. Patriottische oorlogsherdenkingen als vorm van contestatie, 1945-1965’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis XLIII (2012), nr. 2-3: 20-47.

Pierre-Luc Plasman, ‘Le sauvetage des enfants juifs dans le diocèse de Namur’, La revue générale. Pour l’humanisme des temps nouveau 12 (2007): 33-45.

Wladimir S. Plasvic, ‘L’Eglise et la politique en Belgique’, Res Publica 10 (1968), nr. 2: 211-51.

A.M. Preston, ‘The evacuation of school children from Newcastle-upon-Tyne: an assessment of the factors which influenced the nature of educational provision in Newcastle and its reception areas’, History of Education 18 (1989): 231-41.

Lieven Saerens, ‘De houding van de Belgische katholieken tegenover de joden (einde negentiende eeuw – Tweede Wereldoorlog)’, Trajecta 15 (2006), nr. 1-2: 76-93.

Harald Scholtz, ‘Die “NS Ordensburgen”’, Vierteljahrhefte für Zeitgeschichte 15 (1967): 269-98.

Frank Seberechts, ‘’Geheel het schoolstelsel in den dienst van de volksgemeenschap’. Filip De Pillecyn als directeur van het Middelbaar Onderwijs (1941-1944)’, Filip De Pillecyn Studies III (2007): 105-21.

Wayne Sengstock and Sieglind Ruttgardt, ‘Rebuilding Special Education in Germany after World War II’, Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 29 (1994), nr. 1: 69- 81.

Brian Simon, ‘The 1944 Education Act: A conservative measure?’, History of Education 15 (1986): 31-43.

Joan Simon, ‘Promoting educational reform on the home front: the TES and The Times 1940- 1944’, History of Education 18 (1989): 195-211.

S.n., ‘Longing for the Present in the History of History of Education’, Paedagogica Historica 48 (2012), nr. 6.

Luc Vandeweyer, ‘“Hoe ik tot de politieke theologie kwam”. Pater Brauns kijkt terug op de beweegredenen voor zijn publieke leven’, Wetenschappelijke Tijdingen op het Gebied van de Geschiedenis van de Vlaamse Beweging (2009), nr. 1: 78-93.

Rudi Van Doorslaer, ‘Steeds wordt een andere oorlog beschreven. Recente tendensen in de oorlogshistoriografie in België’ Spiegel Historiael 29 (1997): 144-50.

Sarah Van Ruyskensvelde, ‘Naar een nieuwe ‘onderwijsvrede’. De onderhandelingen tussen kardinaal Van Roey en de Duitse bezetter over de toekomst van het vrij katholiek onderwijs, 1942- 1943’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis XL (2010), nr. 4: 603-43.

Machteld Venken, ‘Nationalisation Campagins and Teachers’ Practices in Belgian-German and Polish-German Border Regions (1945-1956)’, Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Etnicity (2013): 1-19.

Etienne Verhoeyen, ‘Tussen verzet en collaboratie: katholieken onder de Duitse bezetting’, Kultuurleven 9 (1988): 787-90.

! 404! Etienne Verhoeyen, ‘Een Duits netwerk bij de voorbereiding van de Militärverwaltung in België (1939-1940)’, Wetenschappelijke Tijdingen op het Gebied van de Geschiedenis van de Vlaamse Beweging LXIX (2010), 4: 289-305.

Antonio Viñao, ‘Do Education Reforms Fail? A Historian’s Response’, Encounters on Education 2 (2001): 27-47.

Raymond Wallace, ‘The origins and authorship of the 1944 Education Act’, History of Education 10 (1981): 265-307.

Svenja Weers and Marnix Beyen, ‘Een anti-politieke “Homo Politicus”. De naoorlogse correspondentie van “Militärverwaltungschef Eggert Reeder (1948-1959)’, Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis XLIII (2013), nr. 1: 46-77.

Gregory Wegner, ‘Schooling for a New Mythos: Race, Anti-Semitism and the curriculum Materials of a Nazi Race Educator’, Paedagogica Historica 27 (1992): 188-213.

Holger Wilken, ‘Zwischen Kommando und Kerker. Alexander von Falkenhausen – Deutscher Militärbefehlhaber in Brüssel 1940-1944’, IFDT- Zeitschrift für Innere Führung (2002), nr. 2: 64-71.

Lode Wils, ‘Flor Grammens, de man van de daad’, Wetenschappelijke Tijdingen op het Gebied van de Geschiedenis van de Vlaamse Beweging (1999), nr. 1: 35-40.

4. Unpublished dissertations and reports

Dirk Aerts, ‘Het bestuur van de Leuvense universiteit tijdens de bezetting (1940-1944)’ (Master’s Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2000).

Koen Aerts, ‘’Repressie zonder maat of einde?’ De juridische reïntegratie van incivieken in de Belgische staat na de Tweede Wereldoorlog’ (Doctoral Dissertation, Universiteit Gent, 2011).

Danny Bauters, ‘Herkomst, opleiding en toekomst van de leerlingen in het vrij middelbaar onderwijs casus: het Jozefietencollege te Melle 1837-1914’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1981).

Hans Blomme, ‘Scholen met een zwart etiket. Sint-Lutgardisschool, Sint-Lievenscollege en Sint- Xaveriuscollege te Antwerpen, 1940-1945’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 2010).

Isabel Blondeel, ‘Aspecten in verband met de opleiding en recrutering der Vlaamse Minderbroeders tijdens het interbellum; op basis van het St.-Antonius- (Lokeren) en het H. Hartcollege (Heusden-Zolder)’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1996).

Benedikte Custers, ‘Het opvoedingsproject en de identiteit van de katholieke middelbare school, 1945-2000’ (Apprenticeship Report, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2003).

Nancy Custers, ‘Filip De Pillecijn. Een bijdrage tot de kennis van zijn leven, persoonlijkheid en scheppend oeuvre’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1972).

! 405! Michael Deca, ‘”Brabant den Grooten Hertog”: geschiedenis van de Brabantse Katholieke Studentenactie (1936-1948)’ (Master’s Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2006).

Peter De Graef, ‘Het jouralistieke werk en de politiek-kulturele activiteit van Filip De Pillecijn, katholiek Vlaams-nationalist 1891-1962’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1986).

Bert De Rycke, ‘Herkomst, opleiding en toekomst van de leerlingen in het vrij middelbaar onderwijs: casus het Sint-Lodewijkscollege te Brugge’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 2007).

Kristel De Smedt, ‘Schoollopen in Oorlogstijd: het dagelijkse leven in de middelbare scholen tijdens de Duitse bezetting (1940-1944)’ (Master’s Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1990).

Frederik Herman, ‘School Culture in the 20th Century. Mentality and Reality History of the Primary School’ (Doctoral Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2010).

Paul Janssenswillen, ‘’Bezielde vorming’: schoolbeleving in het middelbaar onderwijs voor jongens in de provincie Limburg, 1878-1970’ (Doctoral Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2007).

Tessa Lobbes, ‘Verleden zonder stof. De gedaanten van het heden in het Belgische geschiedenisonderwijs (1945-1989)’ (Doctoral Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2012).

Christophe Loyson, ‘Canens trans terram vagor: KSA Waregem (1990-2005)’ (Master’s Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2008).

Lindsay Marien, ‘Prosopografie van de studenten van het Klein-Seminarie te Sint-Niklaas, 1879- 1940’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 2004).

Dirk Martin, ‘De Rijksuniversiteit Gent tijdens de bezetting, 1940-1944, levend met de vijand’ (Master’s thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1985).

Laurence Petrone, ‘‘Sind das Alles Nazis?’ Eggert Reeder (1894-1959) : aspectbiografische studie van de 'Militärverwaltungschef' in België (1940-1944)’ (Master Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 2009).

Bénédicte Rochet, ‘Les Universités belges pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Le cas particulier de l’Université catholique de Louvain et de l’Université d’Etat de Gand’ (Seminar Paper, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1998).

Bénédicte Rochet, ‘La vie quotidienne au Collège du Sacré-Coeur de Charleroi sous l’occupation allemande (1940-1944)’ (Master’s Thesis, Université Catolique de Louvain, 1999).

Aline Sax, ‘Omdat wij toch allen zwarten waren … Een theoretisch kader voor onderzoek naar de drijfveren van collaborateurs’ (Paper Presentation for the Research Group Political History, Universiteit Antwerpen, July 6, 2010).

Lionel Schafer, ‘L’église catholique sous Vichy: analyse comparative avec l’église belge sous l’occupation’ (Master’s Thesis, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1993).

Wouter Steenhaut, ‘De Unie van Hand- en Geestesarbeiders. Een onderzoek naar het optreden van de vakbonden in de bezettingsjaren (1940-1944)’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1983).

! 406! Patrik Teurfs, ‘Het Duits Militair Bestuur tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog in België en Noord- Frankrijk. Een beschrijving en analyse van de struktuur en de bevoegdheden vanuit militair- organisatorisch oogpunt’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1997).

Maria Vandeweerd, ‘Grammens en de Kommissie voor Taaltoezicht 1940-1944: haar ontstaan en werking op het onderwijsvlak’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Gent, 1974).

Stijn Vissers, ‘Marcel Brauns 1913-1995. Jezuïet en Vlaamsnationalist’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Antwerpen, 2006).

Thomas Verhasselt, ‘Rijksschool Vlaanderen: Een nationaal-socialistische school tijdens Wereldoorlog II’ (Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Antwerpen, 2007).

5. Newspaper articles

Frank Tallet and Michael Biddis, ‘Professor Nick Atkin: Celebrated scholar of French and Catholic history’, The Independent, 20 November 2009, Obituaries.

6. Conference Proceedings

L’histoire du mouvement wallon. Journée d’étude de Charleroi, 26 février 1976 (Charleroi: Institut Jules Destrée, 1978).

7. Websites

Letterenhuis, ‘Adriaan Scharpé’, http://anet.ua.ac.be/desktop/letterenhuis/core/index.phtml?language=&euser=&session=&service=& robot=&deskservice=desktop&desktop=letterenhuis&workstation=&extra

Minor Seminary Roeselare, http://www.erfgoedkleinseminarie.be/erfgoed-schoolleven1.html

Patricia Quaghebeur, ‘Thomas-Louis, Heylen’, http://www.odis.be/pls/odis/opacuvw.toon_uvw?CHK=PS_28947&p_modus=O&P_DOC_TYPE_ ID=HTM&refresh=undefined

Patricia Quaghebeur and Gerrit Vanden Bosch, ‘Willem Petrus Van der Elst’, http://www.odis.be/pls/odis/opacuvw.toon_uvw?CHK=PS_6413&p_modus=O&P_DOC_TYPE_I D=HTM&refresh=undefined

Province BML, ‘Aperçu des fonds historiques’, http://www.jesuites.be/Apercu-des-fonds- historiques.html

! 407! S.n., ‘Algemeen Secretariaat van de Bonden van de Vrienden van het Heilig Hart’, http://www.odis.be/pls/odis/opacuvw.toon_uvw_2?CHK=or_14564

S.n., ‘Lodewijk-Jozef Kerkhofs’, http://www.odis.be/pls/odis/opacuvw.toon_uvw?CHK=PS_3660&p_modus=O&P_DOC_TYPE_I D=HTM&P_FILTER=Kerkhofs&refresh=undefined

Societas Jesu, ‘Archief van de Vlaamse Jezuïeten. Geschiedenis’, http://www.jezuieten.org/html/geschiedenis/archief/geschiedenis.html

! 408!

Attachment 1

List of respondents, ‘Enquête Kerk en clerus tijdens de bezetting

Diocese of Mechelen/Malines

Aertssens, Pieter Fleerackers, Jozef Polspoel, Gaston Arnould, Roger Ghenne, Etienne Putzeys, Willem Jozef Baeyens, Gaston Glibert, Georges Rabau, Jean Bambust, Jan-Baptist Goosens, Melchior Reynders, Louis Gerard Henderickx, Firmin Rolin, Guy-Alberic Billiaux, Jozef Herickx, Maurice Sepulchre, André Bosmans, Gustave Hermans, Jozef Servais, Francis Buisseret, André Heuvelmans, Jacques Simons, Alfons Callebaut, Maurice Heylen, Gustaaf Sterckx, Albert Casteels, Leo Heyvaert, Jan Stevens, Willy Ceuppens, René Hulselmans, Johan Stockx, Paul Claes, Carlo Huybrechs, Frans Striels, Gabriel Claesen, Albrecht Jacobs, Albert Swolfs, Jozef Daem, Jules Victor Janssen, Albert Theeuws, Paul D'aout, Georges Janssens, Aimé Theys, Jozef De Backer, Louis Lalemand, Georges Tombeux, Jean-Marie De Block, Jozef Cyriel Laloire, Ferdinan, Torfs, Roger De Groof, Emiel Lamot, Karel Tydgat, Henri De Pauw, Frans Leens, Frans Van Aelst, Emiel De Raedt, Hendrik Lenaerts, Maurits Van Aelst, Hendrik De Vocht, Jozef Lepoutre, Franz Van Alphen, Jan De Wael, Roger Leyniers, Paul Van Brabant, Jozef De Winter, Victor Leyniers, Urbain Van Bree, Jozef De Wit, Maurice Leytens, Paul Van Camp, Achilles Decerf, Paul Lhoir, Pierre Van Camp, Jean Defourny, Pierre Lust, Pierre Van Campenhout, Dehon, Marcel Maes, Frans Johannes Dellicour, Martin Manderveld, Michel Van Damme, Herman Delpierre, Rene Marcelis, Frans Van De Ven, Albert Descotte, Franz Marlier, Albert Van De Weghe, Joris Desmedt, Albert Merlin, Jan Van Den Bogaert, Albert Dessain, Jozef Mertens, Paul Van Den Bosch, August Dierckx, Albert Michielsen, Rene Van Den Brouck, Albert Dobbeleer, Jean Nelis, Jean Van Den Eynde, Jozef Dockx, Karel Onsea, August Van Dommelen, Eddy Docx, Arthur Peeters, Albert Van Doorslaer, Albert Doms, Frans Peeters, Louis Van Dormael, Gilbert Draulans, Frans Peeters, Raoul Van Dun, Joseph Duysburgh, Kamiel Peigneur, Thiodore Van Frausum, Desire Eggers, Albert Raymond Penninckx, Louis Van Gorp, Bert Eggers, Armand Petre, Edouard Van Nuffel, Albert Eskens, Gommaar Peytier, Alfons Van Nuffelen, Albert Everaet, Ward Pirson, Paul Van Oekel, Ludo Fabri, Maurits Platteau, Jozef Van Pelt, Jan Faes, Albert Plissart, Pierre Van Put, Emile Ferrière, Fernand Poelman, Roger Van Puyvelde, Paul

! 409! Van Tichelen, Henri Vanros, Edmond Verschueren, Karel Vanden Eynde, Frans Verbert, Jan Waelkens, Robert Vandeplas, August Verbiest, Victor Wellewaert, Jean Vander Kerken, Emiel Verbist, Jan Winderickx, Edouard Vanderhaeghen, Robert Verlooy, Jan Wynants, Albert Vangenechten, Konstant Vermandere, Gustaaf Wynants, Hendrik Vanhamme, Jean-Marie Vermoesen, Emiel Vanhoebroeck, Jozef Verreydt, Jean-Baptiste

Diocese of Hasselt

Beankens, Jozef Keunen, Jozef Schalenbourg, Victor Bollen, Guillaume Lambrechts, Petrus Thoelen, Jan Bouveroux, Mathieu Martini, Louis Van Aken, Gerard Ceyssens, Albert Meertens, Frans Van Riet, Emiel De Haene, Georges Megens, Albert Van Vrecken, Petrus Driessen, Hubert Moors, Hubert Vandervelden, Leopold Engelbos, Camille Nommaerts, Albert Vanderwegen, Felix- Geusens, Pieter Paesmans, Benedictus Jacobus Govaerts, Trudo Pasquasy, Jos Vanvinkenroye, Joseph Hanuset, Antoon Peters, Lambert Vloeberghs, Albert Ingebos, Andre Poelmans, Petrus Voets, Gerard Jacobs, Jaak Pollemans, Ferdinand Jeurissen, Clement Rutten, Jan

Diocese of Brugge

Ampe, Jozef Debaeke, Louis Peel, Jozef Anckaert, Antoon Deblauwe, Jules Pollet, Adriaan Jozef Beeckman, Jaak Deblonde, Adolf Pringiers, Georges Beugnies, Jozef Debrie, Jan Robert, Oscar Bevernage, Joris Declerck, Albert Seynaeve, Gerard Billiet, Godfried Delbeke, Jozef Stock, Robrecht Blieck, Rene Deleersnyder, Reiner Supply,G. Bossaert, Frans Denys, Camiel Teerlynck, Marcel Bourgeois, Remi Dermauw, Gerard Thiers, Franz Cappoen, Albrecht Desomer, Marcel Tyberghien, Frans Carlier, Henry Dobbelaere, Andre Van Besien, Omer Carron, Arsene Dotte, Carlos Van Callie, Clement Cauwe, Jacques Duflou, Albert Van Dorpe, Leopold Cheroutre, Marcel Duhein, Albert Van Elslande, Maurits Clarebout, Jan Endriatis, Maurice Van Kersschaever, - Cools, Jozef Goetghebuer, Walter Van Massenhove, Maurits Cordy, Jozef Hoevraet, Wilfried Van Parys, Omer Cornette, Kamiel Holvoet, Roger Vanbelle, Lucien Cottenier, Robert Labeeuw, Antoon Vanden Abeele, Firmin D Hoore, Jozef Lambrecht, Octaaf Vandenbussche, Andries De Brie, Maurits Lamote, Marcel Vandermeersch, Jozef De Cuyper, Andre Legrand, Gerard Vanheule, Lodewijk De Meester, Marcel Loncke, Joseph Vergauwe, Andre De Meulenaere, Conrad Matthys, Maurits Verhack, Etienne De Pestel, Joris Mercier, Marcel Verhaeghe, Louis De Poorter, Frans Naert, Ant Oon Verhelle, Michel De Prest, Jose Nollet, Gilbert Verkinderen, Oscar

! 410! Vervaeke, Joris Vuylsteke, Frits Wybaillie, Jozef

Diocese of Ghent

Allegaert, Jozef Dobbelaere, Alphonse Rombaut, Jozef Anonymous Geldof, Eduouard Schaillee, Paul Anonymous Gyselinck, Cyriel Smet, Jozef Bogman, Remiel Hens, Frans Tirez, Clement Bosteels, Jozef Huyck, Arthur Ulenaars, Jozef Bracke, Edmond Huygens, Siegfried Van De Moortel, Remi De Bruyne, Juul Hye, Andre Van Der Donckt, Gilbert De Muynck, Paul Joos, Albert (Pseudonym) Van Dorpe, Marcel De Paepe, Stefaan Joos, Arthur Van Melckebeke, Jozef De Pauw, Alfons Kohn, Marcel Van Ooteghem, Abel De Pillecyn, Leopold Lissens, Petrus Van Poeck De Kruyf, De Smet, Irenee Martens, Pieter Jozef De Sutter, Ignace Matthys, Carolus Vander Stricht, Gaston De Vos, Constant Mestdagh, Roger Vanderhaegen, Antoon De Wolf, Andre Mets, Kamiel Waterinckx, Oscar Dewulf, Albert Pieters, Lucien Weemaes, Richard Dierickx, Petrus Frans Poelvoorde, Hilaire Weemaes, Urbain

Diocese of Liège

Becker, André Laruelle, Julien Pirenne, Joseph Bernard, Lambert Lazarus, Jean-Joseph Renard, Louis Bodart, Alexandre Lepage, Henri Rensonnet, Albert Chapelier, Pierre Liben, Paul Schifflers, Joseph Delchambre, Jules Lochten, Henri Schils, François Demolin, Jean Mairy, Jean Schoonbroodt, Victor Dewaide, Lambert Mathieu, Louis Shalenbourg, Victor- Dewonck, Leon Meyers, Gerard Joseph Ernotte, Eugène Monville, Pierre Thonon, Nicolas Evrard, Aimé Nollet, Albert Willimès, Florent Geboors, Albert Peturkenne, Joseph Xhoris, Charles Lambrecht, Albert Peuskens, Nicolas Xhoris, Robert

Diocese of Namur

Boeur, Maximilien-Joseph Focant, Alfred - Joseph Lebrun, Charles Brichaux, Clement Fraselle, J.M.F. Martin, Jacques Burnet, Louis Garraux, Albert Mawet, Jean Cat, Eugene Godenir, Eugène Pastuer, Marcel Catteau, Arthidor Gustin, Raymond Pessleu, Albert Croonenberghs, Louis Heintz, Alphonse Philoppot, Robert Delait, Robert Huberty, Jean Pirlot, Jules Delforge, Jean Jamar, Charles Thiry, André Delvaux, Victor Lambert, Edouard Weber, Raymond Fabry, Jean Leboutte, Auguste Woitrin, Jacques

! 411! Diocese of Tournai

Bernard, Ferdinand Gille, Arthur Pluquet, Louis Biernaux, Armand Goret, Léon Pollet, Jean Bodson, Raoul Hanuise, René Reumont, Charles Bracaval, Albert Henry, Albert Spinet, Louis Carlier, Pierre Hermant, Edouard Sprumont, Albert Cassart, Jean Joos, Paul Temperman, Henri Clément, Paul Kaiser, Raymond Thiery, André Defontaine, Albert Lemaître, Joseph Van Sint, Jean-Pierre Degallaix, Edouard Leroy, Jean Vandercammen, Henri Delbove, Rene Lhost, Maurice Delcourt, Albert Lietar, Germain Delmée, Edouard Massigner, José Depauw, Leon Materne, Albert Deroubaix, Bénomi Mogenet, Joseph Descamps, Victor Moureau, Ferdinand Doneux, Paul Navez, Paul Dujardin, Marc Piron, Armand

! 412! Attachment 2

List of respondents, ‘Enquête auprès des anciens élèves Francophones des collèges jésuites de Belgique relative à leurs souvenirs du temps de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1930-1950)’

Allaer, André Dallemagne, Paul Dermine, Pierre Allard, Victor Etienne Dallemagne, Xavier Dessart, Clément Amory, Baudouin Dara, Charles Destrée, Fernand Alphonse Andri, Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Carlo Dizier, Henri Anonymous Dasnoy, Jean René Marie Donnet, Marc Barbay, Hubert Dassoneville, Pierre Dopchie, Henri Bassine, Jean-L. Daubechies, Jacques D'Oultremont, Henri Bastin, René De Beer De Laer, Douxchamps Segesser, Bebelle, Jean Emmanuel Henri Benoit, Jacques De Clercq, Robert Drabs, Robert Berryer, François De Crombrugghe, Olivier Drouillon, Jacques Bertieaux, Raymond De Cuyper, Jacques Du Ry, Jean-Pierre Beyl, Emile De Droog, Jacques Dubrunfaut, Marc Blondiau, Jacques De Herdt, Arthur Dubuissone, Francis Bouchat, André De Marneffe, Etienne Dufäy, Gerard Boucquiau, André De Meeûs d'Argenteuil, Dupont, Claude Boucquiau, André Jacques Duquesne de la Vinelle, Bovy, Jean-Jacques De Meyer, Guy Xavier Boxho, José De Moffarts, Leopold Duquesne, Paul Brabant, Willy De Neuville, André Durant, Henri Breuer, Fernand De Ranter, René Dusausoit, Henri Bruwier, Maurice De Ruyck, Georges Duthoit, Robert Bureau, Guy De Ruyttere, Roger Duveiller, Jean Burnet, Maurice De Viron, Christian Erpicum, Georges Cambier, Jean Robert de Walqui, Michel Etienne, Michel Carbonelle, Gustave De Wasseige, François- Everbecq, Jacques Carlier, Fernand Louis Evers, Emanuel Carlier, Jean De Wasseige, Laurent Falise, Charles Carton, Xavier Debiève, Jean Falise, Pierre Cassiers, Léon Decamp, Roger Falisse, Emannüel Castin, Franz Dechamps, Fernand Falyse, Jean Charlier, André Decharneux, Bernard Fasbender, Billy Chevremont, Paul Deckers, Simon Fischer, Raymond Cobut, Robert Defoux, Max Fontaine, Auguste Cochaux, Etienne Defrere, Daniel Fournier, Jacques Collard, Albert Defrère, Robert Gailly, Charlers Comte du Chastel, Henri Degryse, Achille Galand, Pierre L. Coppens, Marc Delcourt, Jean Louis Gallez, Jean Counet, Emile Delvigne, Jean-Marie Gaudissart, Michel Crucifix, René Demeur, Jean Gaudissart, Pierre

! 413! Germeau, Pol Leloux, Pierre Parmentier, Christian Ghysselinckx, Jean Lenaers, Albert Pauchet, André Gielis, Pierre Leroy, Claude Pevenasse, Jean Gile,t René Lethé, Georges Pilette, Maurice Gilis, Jacques Levecque, Max-Gabriel Pirard, Jean Gillain, André Lewalle, Jean Pirlot de Corbion, Gillet, Albert Libert, Joseph Christian Gobbe, André Libion, Pol Pocis, Olivier Goetghebuer, Herman Licoppe, Guy Portier, Jean-Jacques Goffart, Claude Lieben, Raymond Quaghebeur, Pierre Gosse, Jean-Pierre Lieffrig, Pierre Quintart, Jean Claude Gregoire, André Liesenborghs, Roland Raats, Albert Grognard, Christian Lietart, Maurice Renoirte, Pierre Guérin, Pierre Loix, Julien Rihon, Guy Guilmot, Jacques Louvegny, Philippe Robert, Georges Guilmot, Pablo Lozet, Jean Robert, Georges Gustin, Georges Maes, Raymond Rogister, Lucien Chieton Guyot, Louis Magnee, Jean M Rosart, Roger Jean Habran, Théo R.J. Magos, Etienne Ghislain Hanin, Pierre Majois, Jean Rose, Georges Hardy, Jean Malou, François Xavier Roucoux, Omer Hennau, Paul Marchal, Richard Rousselle, Leopold Henrotte, Yves Martin, Leon J.J. Rutot, Frederic Heylen, Henri Massion, Jacques MPL Sadzot, André Heynen, Fernand Masson, André Sadzot, Jacques Heynssens, Jacques Mathieu de Wynendaele, Sagaert, Henry Hoffer, Leon Jean-Jacques Sauwens, André Huson, Jean Matthys, Jules Schmetz, André-Théodore- Huvelle, Pierre Mayence, Pierre Justin Jacquemin, Georges Melis, Robert Seret, Gaston Jadot, Etienne Mercken, Jacques Servé, Guy Jadot, Rene Michel, Hubert Sevens, Robert Jadoul, Jean-Marie Michel, Jacques Sibille, Alexandre Jadoul, Luc Michel, Jean Simon, Jacques Jamar, Michel Michel, Yvon Beyens Simon, Jean-Claude Kelecom, Jean Mortiau, Jacques Siraut, André Kerkhof, Raymond Motte, Christian Solé, Victor Kervyn de Meerendré, Nauwelaers, Guy Springuel, René Etienne Naveau, Jacques Stainier, Charles Kinzinger, Hector Nazé, Paul Stellian, Jacques Lambert, Joseph Nissen, Robert Steven, Roger Lambrecht, Georges Noël, André Teichmonn, Paul Lardinoit, Willy Nondonfaz, Victor A.J. Thieffry, José Marie Lebeau, Paul Nys, Pierre Thissen, Roger Lechat, Jean-Marie Olijnyk, Arhtur Tihon, Paul Lechat, Louis Orban, Paul Tricot, Jacques Lejeune, Jacques Oury, Jacques Troquet, Gustave Leloux, Joseph Paffen, Maurice Van De Merckt, Jacques

! 414! Van den Branden de Reeth, Van Ruylen Van Nyevelt, Vincart, Jacques M.O.A. Jean Henri Voiturier, Michel Van Der Heyden, Georges Van Vlasselaer, Rene Vossen, Robert Van der Putten, Maurice Van Yve, Luc Warny, André Van Derton, Paul Vasseur, Jacques Warny, Désiré Van Gompel, Thierry Verbruggen, Alain Warrant, Alphonse Van Landuyt, Désiré Verbruggen, Léon Weber, Jacques Van Nuffel d'Heynsbroeck, Verheyden, Jacques Wilbaux, André Vincent Vermeulen, Jean-Marie Wilkin, Pierre J.M Van Ohelsen, Georges Vicomte, Jolly Hubert Winandy, Jean Vicomte, Jolly Réginald Zevers, Jacques

! 415!