Tvg Nr 4-Bw 2011.Indd
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Hiding place near Westerbork used by the Westerweel group. This organisation assisted Jewish fugitives to escape from the Netherlands. Source: WO2-Beeldbank NIOD Guest (guest) IP: 170.106.202.226 On: Sat, 02 Oct 2021 01:46:33 493 Jewish Self-Help and Rescue in the Netherlands during the Holocaust in Comparative Perspective Bob Moore Amongst historians it its widely acknowledged that the Jews in the Netherlands were in a more per- ilous position than their co-religionists else- Nazi’s exterminated a significantly larger proportion of the where in the West. The nature of German rule, the prominent role of the SS, the con- Jewish population in the Netherlands than in France and formity and collaboration of the Dutch bu- reaucracy and the disadvantageous circum- Belgium during the Second World War. Studies of self-help stances for the Jews more generally have all be cited as salient issues. More recently, some and rescue of the Jews, however, have been largely confined scholars have attempted to find more preci- sion in the debate by using localised quanti- to national historiographies. This article aims to further tative data to assess the importance of par- ticular factors – in the process marginalising investigate this issue by comparing the organisational some and highlighting others.4 That said, this is not an attempt to reopen the whole debate structures of the Jewish communities and the groups that on Jewish survival in the Netherlands but to look specifically at the incidence of self-help tried to help them in the three countries. and rescue through escape or through hiding in a Western European comparative context that can help in understanding their impor- tance in the Dutch case. Discussion about the roles of self-help and Jewish Self Help rescue in the survival of Jews during the Nazi It is widely acknowledged that the Dutch occupation of Western Europe has been were singularly ill-prepared for the realities largely confined to the national historiogra- of Nazi occupation.5 Whether the Jewish phies of the Second World War and there community had bought into the idea of neu- have been only limited attempts to provide a more nuanced comparative analysis.1 This is 1 See, for example: Helen Fein, Accounting for Genocide: National perhaps most pertinent in the Netherlands Responses and Jewish Victimization during the Holocaust (New York where the mortality rates were appreci- 1979); J.C.H. Blom,‘The Persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands: A Comparative Western European Perspective’, European History Quarterly ably higher than in neighbouring Belgium 19 (1989) 333-351; Michael R Marrus and Robert O. Paxton, ‘The Nazis or France, and where the reasons for this and the Jews in Occupied Western Europe 1940-1944’, Journal of Modern marked difference has been more extensively History 54 (1982) 687-714. 2 Most recently: Pim Griffioen and Ron Zeller, Jodenvervolging in 2 debated than elsewhere. In the Dutch case, Nederland, Frankrijk en België (Amsterdam 2011); Bob Moore, Survivors. the fundamental insight provided by van der Jewish Self-Help and Rescue in Nazi-Occupied Western Europe (Oxford 2010). Leeuw still holds good; namely that unlike 3 A.J.van der Leeuw,‘Meer slachtoffers dan elders in West-Europa’, Nieuw other countries, there was no ‘favourable fac- Israëlitisch Weekblad, 15 November 1985. tor’ that could be seen to have assisted Jews 4 Marnix Croes and Peter Tammes, “Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan”: Een 3 onderzoek naar de overlevinskansen van joden in de Nederlandse gemeen- in escaping Nazi persecution. Whether one ten, 1940-1945 (Amsterdam 2004); Marnix Croes, ‘The Holocaust in the examines the nature of the persecutors, the Netherlands and the Rate of Jewish Survival’, Holocaust and Genocide Studies 20 nr. 3 (2006) 474-499. position of the victims, or the circumstances 5 H.W. von der Dunk,‘The Shock of 1940’, Journal of Contemporary History 2 that pertained during the occupation, the (1967) 169-82. Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis - 124e jaargang, nummer 4, p. 492-505 Guest (guest) IP: 170.106.202.226 On: Sat, 02 Oct 2021 01:46:33 494 Bob Moore trality as a protective shield any more fer- France and Belgium on the other can be seen. vently than their Christian counterparts can Unlike the Netherlands, both France and only be guessed at. Neither their religious Belgium played host to Jewish migrants from leaders nor their secular organisations were the later nineteenth century onwards. This equipped to deal with what befell the coun- meant that there were appreciable foreign try in May 1940. Thus the practical response Jewish communities in both Brussels and was characterised by a last-minute rush to Paris long before the Nazis came to power escape the oncoming Germans – across in Germany. Their numbers were then aug- the North Sea to Britain, or southwards to mented by refugees who fled from increasing the presumed safety of France. Numbers levels of persecution in the Third Reich in the also took refuge in suicide,6 but the major- 1930s. These discrete immigrant groups also ity of Jews in Amsterdam and elsewhere in gave rise to working class (political) and wel- the Netherlands had to take the same prag- fare organisations that were separate from matic view as their non-Jewish neighbours the existing Jewish communal institutions. – that they had neither the opportunity nor For example, in France, the Main d’Oeuvre the resources to go on the road and become Immigrée (MOI) was created by the commu- refugees. In the first months of occupation, nists, but there were other groups allied to the worst fears of what Nazism would mean the Bundists or the Zionists and the commu- failed to materialise and the community was nity as a whole was large enough to sustain a allowed to continue largely unhindered, save thriving Yiddish press.8 After the armistice of for some minor initial discriminations and June 1940 and the flight of many Jews south- restrictions. Again, this may have served as wards, only the Jewish Communist Party and reassurance that would serve to stifle any at- the MOI had remained active in Paris, albeit tempt at more proactive contingency plans underground, as leaders of the Jewish com- within an overwhelmingly law-abiding and munity’s Central Consistory decided to stay gezagsgetrouw population.7 While this char- in Vichy. This vacuum saw the creation of the acterisation undoubtedly held good for the Amelot Committee, made up from Bundists, Dutch Jews in the Netherlands, the same the left and right wings of Poale-Zion, and should not necessarily have been true for the two other organisation, the Fédération des 20,000 or so non-Dutch Jews in the country, Sociétés Juives de France (FSJF) and the many of whom had come as refugees from Colonie Scolaire both of which had operated Germany and Austria in the 1930s and thus in the field of Jewish welfare before the oc- already had first-hand experience of Nazism. cupation.9 As with many other immigrant Yet it is here where the greatest contrasts be- organisations, its leading lights Léo Glaeser, tween the Netherlands on the one hand, and Yéhuda Jacoubovitch and David Rapoport had all been politically active in Tsarist 10 Russia long before they arrived in France. 6 W. Ultee, F. Van Tubergen, et al., ‘The Unwholesome Theme of Suicide: Forgotten Statistics of Attempted Suicides in Amsterdam and Jewish Similarly in Belgium after the occupation Suicides in the Netherlands for 1936-1943’ in: C. Brasz and Y. Kaplan eds., began, the Main d‘Oeuvre Étrangère (MOE) Dutch Jews as perceived by Themselves and by Others (Leiden 2000) 325- and Solidarité Juive were amalgamated into 354. 7 This has become contentious, with Croes suggesting that the idea of ge- a single organisation, the Comite de Defense zagsgetrouwheid cannot be seen as a worthwhile variable when applied des Juifs (CDJ) under the auspices of Hertz to comparatives between municipalities. However his test of this is a very narrow one that does not necessarily engage with the idea of being Jospa, a Polish Jewish immigrant who even- law-abiding. Croes, ‘The Holocaust in the Netherlands’, 488-9. tually succeeded in welding these disparate 8 Lucien Lazare, Rescue as Resistance (New York 1996) 17-18; Camille groups into one coherent national body which Ménager, ‘Le Sauvetage des Juifs à Paris 1940-1945 Histoire et mémoire’ (Unpublished Masters Thesis, Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris, 2005) was in turn closely tied to the Independence 7 cites David Weinberg, Les Juifs à Paris de 1933 à 1939 (Paris 1974) 8. Front (FI) resistance organisation.11 In both 9 Béatrice le Douairon, ‘Le Comité “Rue Amelot”, 1940-1944 à Paris. Assistance aux Juifs et Sauvetage des Enfants’ (Maitrise, Paris 1 – cases, these semi-clandestine organisations Sorbonne, 1994) 1-2; 8. were rooted in pre-war welfare and left-wing 10 Le Douairon, ‘Le Comité “Rue Amelot”, 10; 25. political groups and provided an alternative 11 CEGES-SOMA R123 232.159, 8 Ans au Service du Peuple, 4; Steinberg, 1942 Les Cent Jours de la Déportation, 60-1; Steinberg, Le Comité de Défense focus and source of support for Jews when des Juifs, 39; CEGES-SOMA AB2167 De Lathower, Comité de Defense des faced with the German-inspired Union Juifs, 2; Saerens, ‘Die Hilfe für Juden in Belgien’ in: Wolfgang Benz and Juliane Wetzel eds., Solidarität und Hilfe für Juden während der NS-Zeit Générale des Israélites de France (UGIF) and Vol.2 (Berlin 1998) 250. the Association des Juifs de Belgique (AJB). Guest (guest) IP: 170.106.202.226 On: Sat, 02 Oct 2021 01:46:33 Jewish self-help and rescue in the netherlands during the holocaust in comparative perspective 495 In contrast, the Dutch Jewish commu- ‘lest something worse befall’, meant that nity was dominated by a commercial and there could be no collusion with attempts to intellectual elite that had worked with a avoid being called up for ‘labour service in government keen to suppress any form of the East’.