The German occupation and the persecution of the Jews in Diemen

The role of the municipal administration, collaboration and labour camp Betlem

Roos Smit

5957249

MA thesis in History - Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Amsterdam

Supervisor: Dr. K. Berkhoff

Second reader: Prof. Dr. Johannes ten Cate

June 2018 2 Content

1. Introduction 2 2. The Municipality Diemen: the mayor 7 2.1 Mayors 8 2.2 Mayor de Geer van Oudegein before the occupation 10 2.3 In charge of mayors: secretary-General K.J. Frederiks 12 2.4 Mayor de Geer van Oudegein during the occupation 14 2.5 The destruction of the Diemerkade 17 2.6 Mayors of Diemen after de Geer van Oudegein 19 3. The Municipality Diemen: the municipal secretary 21 3.1 The diary of Mr. van Silfhout 21 3.2 Other acts by Mr. van Silfhout 25 4. Mr. F.B. Schröder 28 4.1 Mr. Schröder 1879-1940 28 4.2 Mr. Schröder 1940-1945 29 4.3 Mr. Schröder 1945-1949 35 5. Betlem 42 5.1 Labour camps 42 5.2 Labour camp Betlem 48 6. Conclusion 55 7. Bibliography 58 7.1 Resources 58 7.2 Literature 59

1 2 1. Introduction

Diemen, a small municipality under Amsterdam, believes that they have always had a special relationship with the Dutch Royal House of Orange. Queen Wilhelmina loved to meander in Diemen and Prince Bernhard crashed his car there. From 1899 onwards Diemen held the Oranjefeesten: multiple days of festivities mostly for the Diemer children.1 In this thesis, we will see that many protagonists from Diemen share that loyalty to the house of Orange. Within the Diemer municipality many loved the house of Orange and supported it openly. This is perhaps one of the reasons that many within the municipal administration supported the resistance in Diemen, direct or indirect. Both the mayor and the municipal secretary were known orangists. The other municipal civil servants gave the mayor a drawing of Diemen with a patriotic text saying that they hoped the mayor could soon receive the good wishes for the Royal House.2 Diemen today is a municipality of around 35.000 inhabitants.3 In 1935 that number was around 5500. Both today and in 1940 life in Diemen was tied to the proximity of Amsterdam. Most of the inhabitants came from Amsterdam originally, especially after the steam train to the Gooi had a stop in Diemen. Furthermore two important transport canals the Muidertrekvaart and the Weespertrekvaart pass Diemen. Pillarization could be seen in the education in Diemen: Diemen had two catholic schools, one protestant and one secular.4 Life in Diemen was enriched by a healthy amount of organizations to spend ones leisure time. Diemen boasted several secular organizations, such as an ice club, an orchestra and a committee for children's parties. In the 1920s the pillarization of Dutch society could also be seen in the leisure organizations in Diemen: several catholic and some protestant organizations were started. The catholics started a temperance society, a theater society, several youth organizations, a mens singing choir, a library, a construction workers union, a sports association, a housing association and a small firms and traders association. At the same time the new protestants organizations were similar: a singing choir, a girls, boys and a mens organization. Then the secular group founded a checkers club, a sports club, a pigeon enthusiasts club, three theater societies, a cabaret and a show band. As one can see, leisure time for the 5500 inhabitants of Diemen was filled with a variety of different activities. As different as the activities and clubs were, the love for the house of Orange could be felt in Diemen everywhere. It is perhaps due to this love that many key 1 https://pubblestorage.blob.core.windows.net/16c0059b/pdf/diemernieuws18jul13.pdf, Diemer Newspaper, (Consulted 1 of May 2018) 2 Historische Kring Diemen, Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Drie burgemeesters in oorlogstijd, (2015), 262-263 3 http://www.diemerkrant.nl/2017/05/27/diemen-groeit-naar- 35 -000-inwoners/, Diemer Newspaper, (Consulted 26 of December 2017) 4 C. van der Heijden, Grijs Verleden: Nederland en de Tweede Wereldoorlog (2008), 220 3 figures in the Dutch resistance could be found in Diemen as well, and that the municipal organization indirectly supported them.5 To discuss Diemen during the Second World War, we are going to use some standard works in Dutch history. Loe de Jong’s het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog and Jacques Presser’s Ondergang are both useful for general information about the German occupation. Mr. Presser received the assignment to document the persecution and mass murder of the Jews from the RIOD [Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, later NIOD, Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie]. The book was based on hundreds of files and dozens witnesses.6 A similar enormous task was Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. While this multi- volume book is a more general academic overview of the occupation, it also has a less moralistic tone than Ondergang. As this thesis will focus more on the regional level I needed academic information about this aspect as well. Marnix Croes and Peter Tammes wrote Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan, in which they compare Dutch municipalities and the survival rates of Jews. Peter Romijn focused on the mayors of the Netherlands in Burgermeesters in Oorlogstijd, besturen onder Duitse bezetting. He shows the pressures that a mayor faced during the occupation and criticizes the stay-to-prevent-worse attitude of many mayors and Secretary-General of home Affairs Frederiks. We will use this book for our chapter about the mayor of Diemen and the situation that was trust upon him when the Germans attacked. As for Diemen itself, we will rely on J.F. Reurekas, author of Diemen 1940-1945, Diemen in oude ansigten and Kent u ze nog…de Diemenaren. Diemen 1940-1945 is our main source and was written as an assignment for the municipality Diemen in 1985. Mr. Reurekas was a historian who lived in Diemen and collected pictures of Diemen during the Second World War in his own time. 7 The second main source for Diemer history is Diemens oorlog: Dorp bij Amsterdam onder Duitse bezetting by the Historische Kring Diemen. Written by a number of amateur and professional historians, most notably Taco ten Dam, Alfred Bakker, Jaap Haag and Henk Teiwes, the book uses information from the Diemer archives and the inhabitants of Diemen itself. The superintendent of the Diemer archives, Tamme Stallinga, assisted the writers. Diemens oorlog has wildly varying chapters concerning everything from inundation to doctors and religion: the link connecting them all are the memories from old Diemer residents.8 Naturally I will also extensively use the Diemer Archives which are placed inside the city hall of Diemen under supervision of Mr. Stallinga. I

5 C. van der Heijden, Grijs Verleden, 246 6 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/1999/05/14/j-presser-ondergang-1965-7446883-a560587, article in the NRC, by Roelof van Gelder, 14th of May 1999, (Consulted 17 of May 2018) 7 J.F. Reurekas, Diemen 1940-1945, (1985), 64 8 Historische Kring Diemen, Willy Bulterman-Hartsink, Ellen van Meurs, Diemens oorlog: Herinneringen van enkele Diemenaren, (2015), 41 4 looked into archive numbers 3146, 3167, 3170, 3735, 3755, 3756, 4473 and most of all the diary of M. van Silfhout. Mr. van Silfhout was municipal secretary from 1925 until 1964 and his diary spans from 1938 until 1945.9 The same archives are used in chapter 4: archive number 3756 concerning the behaviour of residents is invaluable. These archive pieces detail the correspondence that Mr. Schröder has had with the Diemer municipality after the war. Moreover, they hold police statements and evidence concerning Mr. Schröder’s behaviour during the occupation. The diary of Mr. van Silfhout is used as well, as the municipal secretary had meetings with Mr. Schröder. In chapter 5 this thesis concentrates on the land plot Betlem first, which can be found in an article made by the Historical Society of Muiden. As such a society focuses mainly on local history we can use their article concerning Betlem because Muiden is very close to the area as well. For the general information about labour camps I use the previously mentioned Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog by L. de Jong and Ondergang by J. Presser. Another often used source is Diemens Oorlog from the Historical Society in Diemen, from which we will use the chapter concerning Betlem: Een joods werkkamp op de plaats van het voormalig paradijselijke ontspanningsoord. As this thesis also tells the story of two inmates from labour camps Betlem, Max Nunes Nabarro and Levie de Lange, we need sources on their lives as well. For Max Nunes Nabarro, most information came from the website of the Jewish Monument in the Zaanstreek. For this subject I also used Diemens Oorlog. As we continue with history on a local level we will look at another primary source as well: Levie de Lange wrote a book about his time before, during and after the war. This book, Het verhaal van mijn leven, is used extensively in chapter 5. The purpose of this thesis is to look at the different aspects of the German occupation and the subsequent persecution of the Jews in Diemen. To do this, we need to discuss both the inhabitants of Diemen that resisted and the ones that collaborated with the Germans. Moreover, it is important to look at the Jewish people themselves: Diemen had a labour camp at Betlem where Jewish people were put to work on building a dike. By doing this, we hope to answer several questions: 1. How did the Diemer municipality respond to the occupation and persecution of the Jews. 2. How did the German Mr. Schröder navigate through both collaboration and resistance and 3. How was life at the Labour camp Betlem. By answering these questions I hope to give a detailed summary of the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ of Diemer during the occupation. The word ‘good’ in this context usually means a person or group that worked directly or indirectly against the German occupation, and ‘bad’ is the opposite. In its conclusion, this thesis will answer the main question: how did Diemen experience the German occupation and subsequent persecution of the Jews during the Second World War.

9 Municipal Archives Diemen 1813-1987 (1991) 5 This thesis consists of 6 chapters. In this introduction basic facts about Diemen, the historiography, the purpose of the thesis and the structure are discussed. I decided not to create one large chapter about the municipality of Diemen, but instead to split it up into two parts: chapter 2 is focused on the mayor and chapter 3 on the municipal secretary. We can see these two actors come back in chapter 4, which details the experience of Mr. Schröder in Diemen. A different aspect of life during the occupation in Diemen, the labour camp Betlem will be researched in chapter 5. Chapter 6 will be the conclusion, in which I will summarize the chapter and answer the main question. In the first two chapters of this thesis I am going to delve in the municipal structure of Diemen and its key protagonists during the occupation: the mayor and the municipal secretary. This is done to explain my first research question: How did the Diemer municipality respond to the occupation and persecution of the Jews. The first chapter focuses on the mayor by first introducing the municipality Diemen and then explaining the role of mayor. After this, we introduce two key figures: mayor de Geer van Oudegein and secretary-general of Home Affairs K.J. Frederiks whow as in charge of the mayors in the Netherlands. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein was indirectly involved with the Diemer resistance and purposely failed to report several illegal activities at the city hall. Paragraph 4 is dedicated to the activities of the Mayor during the occupation. He was fired during the war for not agreeing to destroy an entire Diemer neighbourhood, which will be explained in paragraph 5. To close the chapter I explain the mayors of Diemen between 1942 and 1949: mayor de Geer van Oudegein did come back, but not until after the German administration had chosen two sympathetic mayors and the war had ended. The second chapter is reserved for the mayors main coworker, municipal secretary van Silfhout kept a diary during the war. We use this to get a peek into his thoughts about the war and the persecution of the Jews. Mr. van Silfhout was also firmly anti-German as can be seen in his actions: he helped to arrange ration stamps for people in hiding and organized illegal funerals for Jews.10 The third chapter is reserved for a person in Diemen known for collaboration with the Germans: Mr. F.B. Schröder, who sold Jewish houses and properties. The purpose is to explain the second research question: How did the German Mr. Schröder navigate through both collaboration and resistance. As we see in the chapter, history is never black and white. He did work with the Germans but also helped people imprisoned by them and liberated several other Dutch citizens. In this chapter, we can see evidence from both sides and try to conclude whether or not he was a collaborator.11

10 Historische Kring Diemen, Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Het kwam voor dat onderduikers jaren leefden naast NSB’ers, (2015), 173-175 11 Municipal Archives Diemen 1813-1987 (1991), 3756, Gedragingen ingezetenen 6 In chapter 4 we are going to research the labour camp Betlem in Diemen. We aim to answer the third research question: How was life at the Labour camp Betlem. The chapter will first give an introduction about Betlem itself and then focus on the implementation of the labour camps in the Netherlands. Then I will explain the labour camp that was placed at Betlem in Diemen with an eyewitness account from Mr. L. de Lange. We will follow two inmates: Max Nunes Nabarro and Levie de Lange. In the last chapter of this thesis I collect all the data concerning German occupation and the subsequent persecution of the Jews in Diemen. We will look again at the municipality, Mr. Schröder and labour camp Betlem to answer the main research question: how did Diemen experience the German occupation and subsequent persecution of the Jews during the Second World War.

7 8 2. The municipality Diemen: the mayor

The job of mayor is the only job named as totally necessary for a municipality in Dutch law. However, the basic requirements for a normal municipality in the Netherlands consists of a mayor, between two and six municipal executives and a city council with seven or more members. However, the size of both the executive board of the municipality and the city council depends on the size of the municipality itself. The day to day administration is handled by the board of the mayor and the municipal executives, where the mayor does have a vote. The mayor alone has responsibilities, for instance the law and order and disaster management. He also monitors the local application of national and provincial law.12 Diemen had several municipal officials in the 1930s. Some individual important officials are going to be discussed in this chapter and the next. Aside from the mayor and municipal secretary Diemen also employed:

1. A treasurer, who was also concerned with the mortgages, the labour in the region and the administration of the housing in Diemen 2. A messenger 3. Three officials in the clerk’s department 4. Three laborers 5. An architect 6. A road worker 7. A garbage collector 8. A patrolman 9. A policeman 10. A fire commander13

During the 1930s the catholic and the protestant parties got enough votes to supply city council members. These council members worked together more often than not, even when the socialists received enough votes for council members.14

12 P. Romijn, Burgemeesters in oorlogstijd, 85 13 https://archief.amsterdam/inventarissen/overzicht/30546.nl.html, Archive Amsterdam, (Consulted 26 of December 2017) 14 C. van der Heijden, Grijs Verleden, 246 9 Several of the mayors of Diemen played an important role before, during and after the occupation of The Netherlands. I will research the role of the mayor during the occupation in this chapter.

2.1 Mayors

The job of mayor was a special one: he was a representative of the national government and president of the city council, where he has an advisory vote. He shared his power with the municipal executives. The mayor was chosen by the Queen, usually through mediation of the Queen’s Commissioner (Later provincial governor). 15 The mayor also led the local police.16 As we will see in this chapter the man in the position of mayor could shape it however he liked. But the consequences were his to carry as well: if a mayor failed to comply with the German administration he could be fired. If a mayor was overzealous in his persecution of the Jews his fate after the war could be unsure.17 In 1907 in the Code for Land War of The Hague [Haagse Landoorlogreglement from 1907] it was decided that in case of occupation the international law was to protect the Dutch civilians. Local administration had the duty the protest when international law was violated. New regulations were added in a new policy document in 1915, and then again new instructions were made around 1935. The ideas in it were the same: in case of an occupation the local administration had to keep working to the best of their abilities with the goal to protect the civilians. Civil servants had to decide for themselves when something was of more weight to the occupiers, and when to the civilians. The new instructions were finished, approved and then sent to mayors in the Netherlands in 1938. 18 When the war started, the Germans changed the role of mayor from a democratic shared responsibility to a authoritarian leader of the local government. The autonomous powers of the municipal executives and other municipal commissions were transferred to the mayor. However, the mayor himself was heavily controlled from above: he was the person that had to execute the orders from the provincial boards, the ministries and the German authorities. During the war a growing number of pre-war mayors were replaced with national socialist mayors.19

15 P. Romijn, Burgemeesters in oorlogstijd, 24, 95 16 M. Croes & P. Tammes, ‘Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan’ een onderzoek naar de overlevingskansen van Joden in de Nederlandse gemeenten, 1940-1945, 288 17 M. Croes & P. Tammes, ‘Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan’, 297-303 18 P. Romijn, Burgemeesters in oorlogstijd, 122-127 19 P. Romijn, Burgemeesters, 24-26 10 The purpose of reforming the Netherlands to a national socialist state meant that even on a lower governmental level changes were made by the German occupation. This nazification could be seen in two types of events: first, by assigning and firing personnel (as seen above) and second, by imposing national socialist policies. At first, the choice of replacement for unwanted officials was given to German sympathizers, but because their Dutch leaders allowed this they were complicit as well. The same counts for the new policies: because the local administration was forced to carry out the commands of the Germans they themselves became a part of the national socialist administration.20 Some mayors became a part of the resistance by their actions, or refusal to cooperate with the Germans. For instance, some mayors still conducted mixed wedding ceremonies, even after this was made illegal. A couple of mayors failed to post a search notice, or they failed to give an search order, for people in hiding, making it easier for them to stay hidden. This was not without danger: when mayor J.P. Drost of Borculo refused to cooperate with the arrest of Jews on the night of 17 November 1942 he was fired. Other mayors forbade the police from arresting Jews, informed Jews of incoming arrests, helped them hide, gave them money or gave out false personal records. 21 On a national level the Netherlands was governed by Reichskommissar A. Seyss-Inquart from the 29th of May 1940 onwards. To transform the Netherlands into a national-socialist state Mr. Seyss-Inquart dictated regulations. These regulations then were executed by the secretary-generals of the ministries. The Reichskommissar had four Generalkommissare to help him: Mr. Fischböck of finance, Mr. Rauter for public order and safety, Mr. Schmidt for public opinion and associations and Mr. Wimmer for judicial authorities and government. They discussed the regulations with the secretary-generals. Mr. Seyss-Inquart maintained the position of provincial governor (formerly Queen’s commissioner) who had to work together with a Beauftragte. The secretary-generals, German authorities and the provincial governor and the provincial board all gave orders to the mayors.22 The provincial governor was indirectly involved with the persecution of the Jews: the mayors had to follow his orders from September 1941. Moreover, the provincial governor monitored the mayors in his province. If the provincial governor was a member of the NSB, the mayors were watched more carefully. This was for instance the case in Groningen, where the mayor of Leek was pressed by the provincial governor to take an subscription to the Deutsche Zeitung. Furthermore, the provincial governor of Noord-Holland checked if his mayors supported the Germans. It also could be the other way around: the provincial governor of Utrecht protested against the firing of Jewish civil servants and their removal from representative bodies to secretary-

20 P. Romijn, Burgemeesters, 34-38 21 M. Croes & P. Tammes, ‘Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan’, 288-297 22 M. Croes & P. Tammes, ‘Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan’, 288 11 general of Home Affairs Frederiks.23 He was removed from his position in February 1941 and his successor appointed by Generalkommissar Müller was antisemitic and a member of the NSB.24 Afterwards, when the mayor of Utrecht protested to the new provincial governor about rowdy Nazi- sympathizers he was ignored. The German administration used the same method in Overijssel: they switched out the pre-war provincial governor for a NSB governor when the former criticized the NSB for forcing antisemitic signs on bar owners. The new provincial governor then pressured local mayors that their police should be vigilant concerning violations of the anti-Jewish laws. During the occupation the provinces of Drenthe, Groningen, Limburg, Noord-Holland, Overijssel, Utrecht and Zuid-Holland had national-socialist governors.25

2.2 Mayor de Geer van Oudegein before the occupation

The man who had been mayor the longest during the war was orangist jonkheer [Junker] Lodewijk Eduard (Eddy) de Geer van Oudegein. As were many other mayors, he was of noble descent. Mr. de Geer van Oudegein, son of statesman Dirk Jan de Geer, became mayor of Diemen in 1937 when he was 30 years old and married to Dame [jonkvrouw] Annie Herminie Roëll. He had studied Dutch Law at the University of Utrecht, after which he worked at the secretary of the municipality Jutphaas and as the chief editor of the newspaper De Arnhemmer.26 Directly after Mr. de Geer van Oudegein became mayor of Diemen he was tasked with arranging the air protection service. His orders were that nothing could emit light, windows needed to be darkened and street lamps were extinguished. In the event of an air-raid alarm, vehicles needed to go to the side of the road and switch off their lights. Furthermore, he delegated the important municipal services. First, the fire department and assistant fire department were responsible for any air protection. Secondly, doctors organized the Public Health Service at a local hospital at the Burgemeester Bickerstraat, 13 first-aid stations scattered in Diemen, a decontamination post at the Raadhuisstraat and a clothing disinfection post at the laundry service at the Diemerkade. Finally, the mayor assigned several small responsibilities: an observation post at the reformed church, two cleanup squads, public shelters and courses for the protection of families. On the 12th of April 1939 the first soldiers encamped in Diemen at the fort Diemerdam, in schools and in the Soap factory at the Diemerkade. Members of staff stayed at civilian houses, in

23 M. Croes & P. Tammes, ‘Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan’, 295-296 24 https://www.parlement.com/id/vg09llz4rlwd/l_h_n_bosch_ridder_van_rosenthal, (Consulted 4 of May 2018) 25 M. Croes & P. Tammes, ‘Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan’, 297-303 26 http://www.parlement.com/id/vg09ll0wgqzl/l_e_eddy_de_geer_van_oudegein, Parlementair Documentatie Centrum of the Universiteit Leiden, (Consulted 2 of May 2017) 12 the Boerenleenbank at the Ouddiemerlaan and in bar De Kroon. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein arranged for the horses, field artillery and air artillery to billet at garages and at cattle farms. On 30 April 1940, he accepted a telegram from the Home Secretary that mayors needed to be present in their municipality at night: the mayor moved into the city hall at the Hartveldseweg. 8 days later he received an order to call upon his citizens for digging the inundation of the area between the Amsterdam-Rijnkanaal and the IJsselmeer.27 Before the capitulation the mayor’s father, Dirk Jan de Geer became Prime Minister of the Netherlands but was stripped of his title because Queen Wilhelmina lost faith in him due to his defeatist attitude.28 Meanwhile the mayor of Diemen received his orders from secretary-general K.J. Frederiks, who was in charge of the general affairs at the Ministry of Home Affairs. Mr. Frederiks was convinced that the occupation would be short and advised the mayors to stay in their position: mayor de Geer van Oudegein did so, to “prevent worse”.

2.3 In charge of mayors: secretary-general of Home Affairs K. J. Frederiks

Mr. K. J. Frederiks had been head of the committee Agriculture in the Ministry of Home Affairs from 1928 onwards, where he worked for the ministers of Home Affairs and Agriculture Mr. Ruys van Beerenbrouck (1929-1933), Mr. de Wilde (1933-1937) and Mr. van Boeijen (1937-1940). Mr. Frederiks was married with two sons and two daughters and lived in The Hague.29 Before the war his role was unimportant, but it is said in the Dutch government that while ministers come and go, officials stay and are therefore responsible for the continuity of the administration.30 After the occupation however, he was responsible for the de facto leadership of the ministry of Home Affairs.31 Even though commander-in-chief H. Winkelman did not think that Mr. Frederiks was up for it, the other former ministers refused or withdrew after one day. After taking on the responsibilities of secretary-general, Mr. Frederiks tried to restore the administration: he proclaimed that city councils could reconvene. He stipulated however, that mayor should be watchful of their tone and content for they should not give offense. The secretary-general believed that a powerful central administration would be most beneficial for keeping rights and liberties in the country. If this was not the case, then a provincial action could result in rejection. The provincial governors of 27 J.F. Reurekas, Diemen 1940-1945, (1985), 6-7 28 http://www.parlement.com/id/vg09ll0wgqzj/d_j_dirk_de_geer, Parlementair Documentatie Centrum of the Universiteit Leiden, read of the 2nd of May 2017 29 P. Romijn, Burgemeesters in oorlogstijd, 108-250 30 https://www.volkskrant.nl/cultuur-media/politici-komen-en-gaan-ambtenaar-blijft-bestaan~b4fd09b1/ article in the Volkskrant by Gijs Herderschee from 19 June 2007, (Consulted 27 of June 2018) 31 P. Romijn, Burgemeesters in oorlogstijd, 108-250 13 Groningen, Overijssel, Zeeland, Noord-Holland and Noord-Brabant wrote back with their agreement to his ideas. Mr. Frederiks became the central contact point for all higher civil servants: the mayors as well. When the German regulation of 27th of May was read, the civil servants were concerned that they were asked to give an oath of obedience to the German administration, and to state that they would not do anything to harm the German Empire or army. Their chief concern was that according to the Code for Land War of The Hague [Haagse Landoorlogreglement from 1907], any declaration under oath could not be asked. After several internal discussions, the secretary-general decided to not pursue the matter and eventually only new civil servants needed to sign a statement. He showed the same acceptance of a new situation when Reichskommissar Seyss-Inquart decided that communists and radical socialist could not be a member of representative bodies, and when the occasional NSB-member [Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging: National Socialist Movement, the Dutch Nazi party] was appointed in the administration. Mr. Frederiks did make the decision to advice against opening the meetings of the Provincial States in the name of the Queen in the beginning of June 1940. 32 When the first reports of anti-German attitude were reported to the secretary-general, he instructed the provincial and municipal boards to stimulate a correct and loyal attitude towards the Germans. Otherwise, he feared, the relative goodwill showed by the German occupiers would soon come to an end. Moreover, both sides needed to work together and this collaboration would be jeopardized with Dutch resistance. Mr. Frederiks himself noticed the difference between the German attitude in Belgium and in the Netherlands when he visited Zeeuws- Vlaanderen and came to the conclusion that the food supply was more dire in Belgium.33 It was clear that the secretary-general walked a fine line between giving orders that harmed and protected citizens at the same time. This became clear when the German police demanded the names and addresses of Jewish citizens and political opponents from the mayors and their municipal administrations. Mr. Frederiks stated that the Germans would not object to information about the composition of the population given to German administrators by Dutch mayors, and therefore the mayors should not have to resist. The thought was that mayors would be the most knowledgeable about these number and it was better to give correct information than to let the Germans find incorrect information on their own.34 In the Diemer archives we can see that mayor de Geer van Oudegein sent the information about Jewish inhabitants in Diemen to the provincial governor of Noord-Holland on several occasions.35 The provincial governor then sent the files to the state administration of population registration. After the first lists, Mr. Lenz, head of the state

32 P. Romijn, Burgemeesters in oorlogstijd, 300-340 33 Ibid., 355-380 34 Ibid., 390-400 35 Municipal Archives Diemen 1813-1987 (1991), 3735 14 administration, asked for information about Jewish citizens three times more. The first request was for personal record card from completely Jewish heads of families. The second request was for information about changes that the mayors might have added without asking for permission. The final request was for declarations of mixed marriages between Jews and Aryans.36 Secretary-general Frederiks tried to protect the mayors as well: after the mayor of Borculo was fired for refusing the cooperate with the arrest of Jews he tried to shift the responsibility of arresting Jews away from the mayor. In smaller municipalities, the mayor was charged with the orders which was not the case in the 8 largest cities. However, Generalkommissar Rauter refused to give the responsibility of arrest to the German police, so the request was denied. 37 As shown above the position of Mr. Frederiks was difficult: he had to comply with the German orders and believed this was for the best, but he tried to make life better for the mayors under his command at the same time. As a result, he is remembered as an Dutchman without any character.38

2.4 Mayor de Geer van Oudegein during the occupation

Back in Diemen the occupation had started and the civil servants proclaimed their support of mayor de Geer van Oudegein. The mayor received a drawing of Diemen and an orange bouquet of flowers on the 29th of June 1940 [the birthday of Prince Bernhard]. The drawing was accompanied by a letter which stated that the civil servants loved the House of Orange and wished for them to be in their midst again soon. Moreover, they wished that their mayor as head of the municipality would receive the honor to applaud their House of Orange. The letter ended with a poem [freely translated]:

Only unity makes us powerful The slogan always said A tricolor with orange bow The symbol of freedom Bravo! Bravo! For The Netherlands bravo! For the Royal House and The Netherlands this boy joins the guard.

36 M. Croes & P. Tammes, ‘Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan’, 290 37 M. Croes & P. Tammes, ‘Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan’, 294 38 L. de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog deel 5 (1974), 804 15 Beneath the poem sixteen civil servants put their autographs, including the municipal courier Van Kleef, Chris Bührmann and the head of public services Ruigrok van der Werve. These men later joined the resistance.39 On the 20th of May 1940 the resistance group started in Diemen, first as a member of the O.O. [Oranje onder Ons] from Bussum. They made contact with England via a secret transmitter in the tower on the cemetery Gedenk Te Sterven in Diemen. After ten days the Germans located the transmitter and stopped it. The resistance group then joined the Legion of Former Front Fighters [L.O.F., Legioen voor Oud-Frontstrijders] in Diemen. The L.O.F. was actually a collection of separate clubs of Dutch military personnel and notables, including mayor de Geer van Oudegein. Even though the mayor executed the regulations concerning meetings given by secretary-general Frederiks he also left it out of account when the city hall was used for illegal activities. Moreover, the mayor noticed that his friend Chris Bührmann harbored anti-German feelings and introduced him to the L.O.F. Mr. Bührmann later became an important figure in the Diemer resistance.40 The L.O.F. quickly evolved into the OD, the Ordedienst, who stored their files in the basement of the city hall. This was dangerous, because the municipal doctor was a member of the NSB. Another important address was the Ouderkerkerlaan 7 where the printing office of Mrs. A. de Wild was the contact address of the underground in Diemen. Mr. Bührmann convinced Mrs. de Wild, also known as Aunt Jeanne, to join the resistance. The municipal officials Ruigrok van der Werve and Van Kleef brought the administration of the OD back and forth from the city hall to Aunt Jeanne, sometimes in wheelbarrows or trash cans.41 Later, when the illegal newspaper Vrij Nederland needed a place to stencil, Mr. Bührmann linked them to Aunt Jeanne and her nephew Mr. IJsendijk and from September 1941 the newspaper was stenciled at the Ouderkerkerlaan in Diemen. In 1942 Mr. IJsendijk printed the first truly copied number of Vrij Nederland, and he was involved in forging identification cards. 42 In addition to his membership of the L.O.F and concealing the meetings in the city hall of the OD, mayor de Geer van Oudegein was also more directly involved in the resistance. He chose the members of the distribution office for ration stamps: he chose among others Arie Nieuwpoort who later worked together with the municipal secretary van Silfhout to distribute ration stamps among people in hiding.43 Mr. de Geer van Oudegein knew about the illegal activities of Mr. Ruigrok van der Werve and Mr. Bührmann: the city hall was used with his permission as storage for the archives of the OD and for the illegal newspapers as well until 1944.44 The storage was halted 39 Historische Kring Diemen, Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Drie burgemeesters in oorlogstijd, (2015), 262-263 40 Historische Kring Diemen, Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Drie burgemeesters in oorlogstijd, (2015), 263 41 J.F. Reurekas, Diemen 1940-1945, (1985), 13-16 42 Historische Kring Diemen, Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Principiële en moedige mensen in Diemen, (2015), 153 43 Historische Kring Diemen, Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Het kwam voor dat onderduikers jaren leefden naast NSB’ers, (2015), 173-174 44 Historische Kring Diemen, Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Principiële en moedige mensen in Diemen, (2015), 158 16 because the situation became too dangerous: there were simply too many Germans in the city hall. It was moved to the house of Mr. Van Kleef, also at the Ouderkerkerlaan. 45 As mayor of Diemen, Mr. de Geer van Oudegein was responsible for all his civil servants signing the Aryan declaration [Ariërverklaring] in 1940. Everyone in the city hall did so and there were no Jewish people working in Diemen.46 In the beginning of January 1941 O. Schumann, leader of the Ordnungspolizei, decided that mayors needed to report disorderliness if German soldiers were involved. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein decided to send such a report to Mr. Frederiks: in Diemen a conflict had risen between members of the NSB and colporteurs of the Union, in which the Weerbaarheidsafdeling (WA) of the NSB stood against the crowd. The mayor had sent in the police. After many such reports in few days, Mr. Schumann decided to withdraw his instruction, stating that he no longer needed information from the local authorities.47 In July 1941 the mayor was tasked by the Germans to collect metals at companies in Diemen.48 One month later, in August, the Germans dismissed the elected city council as well as the executive board of the municipality [College van Burgemeester en Wethouders]. The municipal executives J. Staal and G.C. Hendriks stayed in function, but the executive board was a meeting of the mayor and civil servants.49 Another change was that street names were no longer allowed to bear the names of living members of the House of Orange. When the mayor did not respond quick enough he received a letter from NSB member J.M.P. Droog, reminding him that the Wilhelminakade and the Julianakade were not yet changed. Moreover, the citizen remarked that on the wall of the city hall there still was a memorial stone for “members of the previous Royal House”. The stone was removed and the streets were named the Staalstraat and the Venserkade.50 Mayor de Geer van Oudegein also cooperated in handling the registration of Jewish citizens of Diemen: the majority of the Jews filled in the forms and the list was sent to the Germans. He received 100 registration forms, and 91 of them are filled in. On the 31st of March 1941 there were 36 men, 28 women,12 boys and 15 girls that were partially or fully Jewish registered in Diemen. Most of these citizens were born in Amsterdam, but several of them came from Germany, Poland or the Czechoslovak Republic. Moreover, the mayor reported that in Diemen there were no Jewish clubs, associations or societies. When asked for children that needed to be sent to a Jewish school, the mayor replied with the information about four children that lived in Diemen (with dispensation)

45 J.F. Reurekas, Diemen 1940-1945, (1985), 16 46 Historische Kring Diemen, Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Drie burgemeesters in oorlogstijd, (2015), 263-264 47 P. Romijn, Burgemeesters in Oorlogstijd, 89 48 Historische Kring Diemen, Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Drie burgemeesters in oorlogstijd, (2015), 263-264 49 M. van Silfhout, M.C., Diary Second World War, Municipal Archives Diemen, 5 50 Municipal Archives Diemen 1813-1987 (1991), 1469-1470 17 that were considered Jewish: I. Bronkhorst, born in 1929, B. Plukker, born in 1932 , S. Teitler, born in 1928 and S.E. Verduin, born in 1929. They would be sent to Jewish schools starting from September 1941. On the 29th of April 1942 the Jews of Diemen were removed. In 1943, when mayor de Geer van Oudegein was asked whether he had Jewish citizens left without dispensation, he responded that the Jewish community of his municipality was led away to Amsterdam a while ago. He remembered that Jewish people were removed from public life: on the 22nd of June 1942, he sent a note to the principal of the primary school at the Ouddiemerlaan reminding him that Jewish photographers were not allowed at schools.51 However, the mayor stood his ground on other topics. When asked which civil servants could be sent to Germany for work he replied that not one nor two of his civil servants were to be considered for removal into captivity. The reply from secretary-general Frederiks was that three civil servants needed to be named, but that mayor de Geer van Oudegein could try to report the civil servants he wanted to keep to the provincial placement office. On the 9th of June 1943 the provincial placement office decided that three civil servants need to work in Germany: Mr. Arends, Mr. Poster and Mr. IJsenbout.52

2.5 The destruction of the Diemerkade

In the beginning of December 1943 the German authority decided that the neighbourhood near the Diemerkade needed to be destroyed because they wanted a clear line of sight from a new bunker at the Harteveldsebrug.53 According to the Germans, this was a crucial place in the defense of Amsterdam which was to be primarily natural borders (which sometimes could be man-made) like the Amstel, the Ringvaart and the Diemerzeedijk. Diemen was situated in the defense sector between the Amstel and the Buiten IJ, where the Germans could find natural borders in the small rivers the Vecht, Smalweesp, Gein, Holendrecht and the Bullewijk. To improve these natural borders, the Germans built several concrete barricades and bunkers. They built barricades next to the access routes to Amsterdam: first the railroads from Weesp and Duivendrecht, second at the Westelijke Merwedekanaaldijk and third at the Harteveldseweg.54 The last barricade proved to be problematic: from the Diemerkade to the Jan Bertsstraat 430 houses, 36 shops, 2 cafes, 9 companies, 2 doctor’s offices and 1 consultation bureau needed to be

51 Municipal Archives Diemen 1813-1987 (1991), 3735 52 Municipal Archives Diemen 1813-1987 (1991), 3170 53 J.F. Reurekas, Diemen 1940-1945, (1985), 28-30 54 Historische Kring Diemen, Alfred Bakker, Diemens oorlog: De vernietiging van 32% van de Diemense woningen in 30 dagen, (2015), 201-202 18 evacuated. 1731 inhabitants were going to be transferred to the Transvaalbuurt in the east of Amsterdam as there were empty houses there that previously belonged to Jewish families. The municipal secretary, Mr. M. van Silfhout, as well as the German citizen Mr. F. D. Schröder and Jewish people in hiding needed to move. The people in hiding were transported by municipal officer Mr. Ruigrok van der Werve, Mr. P. Saan and Mr. F. Saan, by hiding them in rolls of linoleum. Inhabitants received a letter on the 3rd of December that they needed to be evacuated by the 31st of that same month. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein sent a letter on the 13th to the Räumingskommissar asking if the order was a mistake, but was dismissed. The work on the evacuation was supposed to start on the 15th.55 The mayor consulted secretary-general Frederiks, who asked his senior civil servant Mr. Kan to ask an expert. Mr. Kan went to professor in international law of the ministry of Foreign Affairs J.P.A. François. Mr. François looked to the distiction that British professors Mr. Oppenheim and Mr. Lauterpacht had made between military operations and military preparations. The professors had said that while cooperation on ‘acts of war’ could not be asked of the population, their cooperation in ‘military preparations’ could. Therefore, Mr. Kan concluded that while the destruction of the Diemerkade was harsh, it was allowed.56The mayor of Diemen the discussed the matter with a different professor in international law, Mr. Verzijl who determined that the destruction clashed with international law. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein then decided he could not execute the orders on the destruction of the neighbourhood.57 His view was that “he had always aimed for a loyal attitude towards the authorities, but that he could not agree with the destruction of houses of his civil servants, considering that these were acts of war”.58 On the 17th of December 1943 he was fired because he refused to cooperate with the Germans. This case was the determining factor for secretary-general Frederiks in deciding what to advise mayors in the case of civilian interaction with acts of war. According to article 52 of the Code for Land War of The Hague [Haagse Landoorlogreglement from 1907], citizens were protected from certain collections and it forbade them from being directly involved with acts of war, including the construction of military installations.59 When de Geer van Oudegein was fired because of his refusal to cooperate, secretary-general Frederiks realized that article 52 was not efficient in helping the case of the mayors towards the German occupation. According to the Germans, the mayor simply misinterpreted the article and was therefore defying the law. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein was replaced with acting mayor E.J. Voûte.60 As it turned out,

55 J.F. Reurekas, Diemen 1940-1945, (1985), 28-30 56 L. de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog deel 7 (1974), 1332 57 J.F. Reurekas, Diemen 1940-1945, (1985), 28-30 58 M. van Silfhout, M.C., Diary Second World War, Municipal Archives Diemen, 15 59 P. Romijn, Burgemeesters in Oorlogstijd, 215-217 60 Ibid., 217-220 19 it was not the his anti-German tendencies that led to his resignation, but a direct act of defiance concerning the general population of Diemen.

2.6 Mayors of Diemen after de Geer van Oudegein

In accordance with the German policy to gradually put more like-minded mayors into important positions, the succeeding mayor of Diemen would be one with NSB-membership or something similar.61 The next mayor of Diemen, Mr. Voûte was born in a noble family in 1887 and did not become a member of the NSB but instead became a member of the German SS in 1940.62 From the 3rd of March 1941 onwards Mr. Voûte was installed as mayor of Amsterdam, and he was well-liked by the Germans. In most cases he obeyed the orders of the Germans with fervor, but he also fought to stop the establishment of a ghetto in Amsterdam. On the 17th of December 1943, Mr. Voûte also became acting mayor of Diemen. Reichskommissar A. Seyss-Inquart believed him to be loyal, but did not honor his requests when Mr. Voûte tried to stop German demolitions in the port of Amsterdam.63 The first order that acting mayor Voûte of Diemen received was to oversee the demolition of the Diemerkade, and he did so in December 1943.64 In January 1944 he wrote to secretary-general Frederiks that he believed that it was a good idea to add Diemen to Amsterdam, as there were many residents of Diemen who worked in Amsterdam, and many people from Amsterdam who lived in Diemen. Before he received an answer he was discharged as acting mayor of Diemen.65 His replacement was F. P. Guépin, a member of the NSB with good connections in Germany. Mr. Guépin had been a member of the city council in Amsterdam under mayor Voûte, but applied for mayor positions in Arnhem and Apeldoorn. Despite endorsement from NSB leader A. Mussert, he did not get the position.66 Eventually, on the 8th of January 1944 Frans Guépin became acting mayor of Diemen, while keeping his position as city council member in Amsterdam. In August 1944 Mayor Guépin was doubtful that the good intentions of the members of the NSB were going to be recognized after the war, because the people would be too influenced by the Jewish- Communist effort. He asserted that he did his duty and that legality was not criminal. On the 8th of May he wrote that he was waiting for his arrest. Later, he stated that the occupation would have been more difficult without the mayors that adhered to the New Order.67 On the 23rd of May mayor 61 Ibid., 412 62 Ibid., 130 63 http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/bwn1880-2000/lemmata/bwn5/vote, Huygens Institute of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences [KNAW], (Consulted 2 of May 2017) 64 P. Romijn, Burgemeesters in Oorlogstijd, 220 65 Historische Kring Diemen, Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Drie burgemeesters in oorlogstijd, (2015), 267 66 Letter J. Verkuylen to J.H. Carp, head of the management, 12 Novemrber 1942, NIOD NSB RvM, inv. 94A 67 Dagboek Guépin, NIOD, 244 Europese dagboeken en Documenten, 714 F.P. Guépin 20 Guépin was arrested and detained at internment camp Levantkade. Former acting mayor Voûte was arrested three times, and eventually convicted to six years in prison, later reduced to three years and six months. He died in 1950.68 L.E. de Geer van Oudegein was reinstated as mayor in 1945 and left again to become mayor of Vreeswijk on the 16th of November 1946. On the 7th of April 1947 he was succeeded by Mr. H. Dallinga of the PvdA.69 When looking back after the war it is clear that Diemen did not blame the destruction of the Diemerkade on mayor de Geer van Oudegein. Moreover, they looked back at his tenure as mayor with such pleasure that he was reinstated after the war. Of course, this is linked to his behaviour during the war. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein was well known within the Diemer resistance: he introduced important members to the L.O.F., kept his mouth shut about the storage of the OD in the city hall. Moreover, he did what he could for his civil servants. When his hour of reckoning came, the mayor consulted experts and his own conscience and decided he could not destroy an entire neighbourhood. Afterwards, two decidedly pro-German mayors led Diemen throughout the war. It is safe to say that these two never received orange bouquets for the Royal House filled with autographs of their civil servants. However, the municipality was not led by the mayor alone: one of the constants in Diemen during the war was its municipal secretary Mr. van Silfhout. He was close coworkers with mayor de Geer van Oudegein but stayed more under the radar of the Germans. As we will see in chapter two, Mr. van Silfhout also had his acts of resistance similar to the mayor. Together, these small acts characterize the Diemer municipality during the occupation.

68 http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/bwn1880-2000/lemmata/bwn5/vote, Huygens Institute of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences [KNAW], (Consulted 2 of May 2017) 69 J.F. Reurekas, Diemen in oude ansichten deel 4 (1983), 4 21 22 3. The Municipality Diemen: the municipal secretary

Marinus van Silfhout was, for all accounts, a normal man. He enjoyed making pictures and regularly did so for the municipality. In 1972 he wrote the first part of Diemen in oude ansichten, which J.F. Reurekas continued.70 Later, when possible, Mr. van Silfhout also made short films, which can still be found on the Facebook of the municipality Diemen today.71 He stayed municipal secretary from 1925 until 1964 when he retired.72 In this chapter we will look at how the municipal secretary of Diemen lived through the war. His diary can be found in the Diemer Archives and tells us he is a well-read, educated man. He spoke Dutch, English, German and a bit of French. For obvious reasons, he did not write down his small acts of resistance, only his thoughts about the German occupation. Mr. van Silfhout was an orangist who spoke with reverence about the Queen and the Royal House.73

3.1 The diary of Mr. van Silfhout

When M. van Silfhout became municipal secretary in 1925 that also marked the first time in Diemen that the job of mayor and municipal secretary were separated.74 The first sentences of his diary tell a lot about the first man who had this job. The sentences are mostly in English, and they talk about what he would like most in life, and what he believed what his reality was like:

“I slept and dreamt that life was beauty. I woke and found that life was duty. Life is duty,. Leven is plicht.”75

70 M. van Silfhout, Diemen in oude ansichten deel 1 (1972), 34 71 https://www.facebook.com/gemeentediemen/, Facebook of the Municipality Diemen, post on the 5th of May 2018, 02:00 ‘Canadezen over de Muiderstraatweg in 1945’ shot by municipal secretary M. van Silfhout 72 M. van Silfhout, Diemen in oude ansichten deel 1 (1972), 35 73 M. van Silfhout, M.C., Diary Second World War, Municipal Archives Diemen, 132 74 M. van Silfhout, Diemen in oude ansichten deel 1 (1972), 34 75 M. van Silfhout, M.C., Diary Second World War, Municipal Archives Diemen, 2 23 Mr. van Silfhout expected life to mostly continue and him to continue his job: as seen above, his duty is also what he believed was important. He started his journal with a list of dates in 1938 which relate to the war: correspondence about mobilization and him being an exception because of his job as a municipal secretary. The journalizing started on the 6th of April 1939 when he wrote down about his memories of 1938. He believed Europe to be a volcano, soon to erupt. The hour- long speeches of Hitler were broadcasted on the radio and he believed that even some Dutch civilians agreed with them.76 On May the 14th Mr. van Silfhout noted that while the occupation was to be expected we would not lose our freedom or the existence of the Dutch people. He did not believe we would become German.77 However, only 15 days later his opinion changed completely when the German civil administration was introduced and the Reichskommissar Seyss-Inquart together with the Generalkommissare Mr. Fischböck, Mr. Rauter, Mr. Wimmer and Mr. Schmidt started. The municipal secretary believed that the Netherlands could not have gotten a worse fate. He thought these men are crooks who would ruin his country. Furthermore, he believed their purpose was to destroy the Dutch people. Mr. van Silfhout did stay positive: he asserted that the doom would not come because the Dutch were too resilient. He knew that there were people that wanted to help the Germans and he derogatory calls them Nazi servants, ‘moffenknechten’. However, he stated that the Dutch belief in eventual liberation was strong. 78 This harsh attitude towards the German administration was consistent in Mr. van Silfhout: later, he referred the German occupation as a tyranny. He also felt sorry for the Jewish population. He stated that they were defenseless victims of the excessive anger of a brute force. According to him, the camps Vught and Amersfoort and the prisons Scheveningen en Amstelveenseweg were witnesses to the suffering of his fellow Dutch people. But before it even came to that point, Mr. van Silfhout listed two events in October 1940 which had an effect on the Jews population of Diemen. The first one was the introduction of an identification card on the 17th. The secretary-generals and the head of the population registration were in favour, which our municipal secretary interprets as both good and bad. The good could be that these men were trying to do their job and that this regulation made it easier. The bad could be that the Germans wanted it for a different purpose. For Mr. van Silfhout, the other purpose became clear with the second regulation on the 22nd of October when Jewish enterprises had to be reported. In this regulation, the concept Jew was explained as well, into 4 groups. The municipal secretary added his own thoughts as well: first the attack on Jewish property begins, then on the Jewish person. Diemen has Jewish property as well.79

76 Ibid., 3 77 Ibid., 85 78 Ibid., 99 79 M. van Silfhout, M.C., Diary Second World War, Municipal Archives Diemen, 99-110 24 According to the writer, the large-scale attack on the hated Jewish people continued on the 10th of January 1941. A new regulation decided that people with full or partial Jewish blood had to register. The Jewish people needed to have a black mark in the registers with the letter J in it. 80 Quite often Mr. van Silfhout used his diary to comment on speeches by Reichskommissar Seyss-Inquart or other authorities. On the 13th of March 1941 he gave his thoughts about the battle that the Germans were fighting. According to Mr. Seyss-Inquart, the battle was not against the Dutch population, but against the Jews and anyone that associated with them. These people needed to be attacked and the Jewish role in Europe would be finished. Mr. van Silfhout interpreted this speech as the moment where the Reichskommissar dropped his masks and showed the true German feelings. He believed that this was good, and therefore the speech that Mr. Seyss-Inquart gave was also positive for the Netherlands. Now our country could see that Mr. Seyss-Inquart was our biggest enemy, together with the Dutch people that support him as well. For Mr. Seyss-Inquart asserted in his speech that the fate of Germany and the Netherlands would be connected and that he wants to secure the Dutch future. However, Mr. van Silfhout countered this with the argument that the Germans served violence and were only capable of subjugation. Thus, the Germans and their friend should be driven from our soil.81 Life continued in Diemen: Mr. van Silfhout remained sympathetic towards small acts of resistance in his diary. In June 1941 the V-sign, for victory and freedom [vrijheid], became popular as a symbol for the negative feelings concerning the Germans. He noted that the Germans tried to take over the symbol by spreading pamphlets that the V-sign meant victory for the Germans on all fronts. However, according to the municipal secretary, this soon became useless as the Dutch transformed the Germans V-signs into W-signs, for Wilhelmina, or they wrote ‘1 april’ next to it. Mr. van Silfthout also notes that the sign OZO, which meant Oranje zal Overwinnen, was used in conversations around him and even written in the sky by airplanes.82 In the summer of 1941 new German plans to fix their shortages led to a regulation concerning the collection of metals. The municipal secretary noted that almost everyone in Diemen was forced to hand something in, but it was less than 30 grams per head and people’s old junk metal. The municipal secretary seemed delighted in these small acts of defiance. He claimed that there was only one order, the order of the resistance.83 In January 1942 he protested against the regulation concerning the inspection of education. Books from Jewish and communist writers were removed, but Mein Kampf was added. This led to mass spread protests amongst the youth which Mr. van Silfhout felt was a shame

80 Ibid., 112 81 Ibid., 115-117 82 M. van Silfhout, M.C., Diary Second World War, Municipal Archives Diemen, 120 83 Ibid., 122 25 because it held their education back. He felt sorry that children were the victims of the deterioration of the curriculum.84 In some instances the municipal secretary became lyrical concerning the fate of the Jews. In the beginning of 1943 he talked about a scenery of blood, where a painter would dip his brush in the same pot over and over and there would always be red stripes in his art. He explained this statement with a metaphor of a liege lord who wanted to paint the walls of his main hall with new decorations which had to depict courage. A painted offered his services against a fair price and went to work: soon the walls were all painted completely red. The liege lord asked what this meant, and the painted answered that it depicted the crossing of the Rea Sea by the children of Israel. The liege lord was surprised and asked where he could see the children of Israel. “They all drowned”, answered the painter. Municipal secretary van Silfhout linked this story to Hitler, who always painted red as well. Hitler’s red meant the blood of millions who were sacrificed for his foolish imperialistic thoughts. According to him the Jews were the first victims.85 Mr. van Silfhout imagined the fate of the Jews as heartbreaking: driven together with hundreds at the Plantage Schouwburg in Amsterdam. The Jews from Diemen were taken with a coach from the Gooische Trammaatschappij. The municipal secretary said the Diemer Jewish family van Gelder was taken away together with other Jewish families in early 1942. Reichskommissar Seyss-Inquart kept his word to strike the Jews where he could find them, but Mr. van Silfhout was not invigorated by the sight as he believed it was a sad event. He believed that the Jews were marked by their Star of David, because it identified them as Jews and thus made them outlaws. According to him, the Jews were then dragged to Germany where an awful torture awaited them. They did not get a lawsuit and could not escape easily due to the guards of Anton Mussert. Mr. van Silfhout claimed that the events that happened to the Jews in Germany cannot be described. He painted the perpetrators as bloodhounds, who were a disgrace to the nation. As stated by him, the fate of the Jews should be a lesson: they came as guests in our countries, were integrated and therefore worthy of the freedom that other peoples have had as well.86 Mr. van Silfhout did not mention the Jews during the rest of the war. However, on the 15th of May 1945 he mentioned those who did not make it through the war and the ones whose fate was still unknown. The people in prisons and concentration camps could be on their way home, or not. Then after the war was over, he was happy to conclude that the Jewish problem was not solved despite the attack by Hitler. He did foresee problems in Palestine between the Israelites, the Jews, and the Ismaelites, the Arabs. According to him, it was logical that many Jews would search a way towards Palestine but that the Arabs would not like this. It was said that Great Britain would help

84 Ibid., 145 85 Ibid., 159 86 M. van Silfhout, M.C., Diary Second World War, Municipal Archives Diemen, 160-161 26 the Jews to find their way to the land given to Abraham and his children by God. He agreed: he stated that Israel was the heir to the Canaan, via Isaac and Jacob. Moreover, he also agreed with the creation of a Jewish state, as suggested by U.S. president Truman. As stated by Mr. van Silfhout, this will bring relief of the Jewish situation.87 The municipal secretary finished his diary in October 1945 with comments about the newly-established United Nations. While he believed that the small nations had too little power, he did believe that is supported a lasting peace. Mr. van Silfhout was mildly optimistic as he stated that the UN at least made it difficult to go against its peace without punishment.88

3.2 Other acts by Mr. van Silfhout

In June 1940 Mr. Arie Nieuwpoort was assigned to the distribution office in Diemen by mayor de Geer van Oudegein. The office was placed in two classrooms at a school at the Ouderkerkerlaan: Mr. Nieuwpoort worked there with Mr. Lap, Verkerk and Westerbeek. These men had a system in place whenever a person in Diemen died. First, municipal secretary van Silfhout withheld the declaration of death from the registry office. Second, municipal courier van Kleef registers the name of the deceased at the distribution office for ration stamps. Third, Mr. Nieuwpoort divided the stamps among houses where people were hiding Diemen and they are delivered there by among others himself, Mr. Verkerk or Piet Saan. In this way the municipal administration worked together with the Diemer resistance to make sure the people in hiding could get food. The municipal administration also made sure that Mr. Nieuwpoort did not have to hand in his bicycle in 1942.89 Piet Saan was a well known figure in the Diemer resistance, and he and Mr. van Silfhout worked together with the ration stamps. Mr. Saan was a mover and owned a number of trucks which were useful for the transportation of people, food, furniture and files. He also worked together with municipal courier Van Kleef and the head of public services Ruigrok van der Werve to move Jewish people in hiding from one place to another. 90 Another time where Mr. van Silfhout helped the Diemer Jews was when one of them had died. The local doctor, Mr. Hartman was a person of trust for the Jewish community: he and his wife hid valuables and money for Jewish families. When an old lady at a pension at the Ouddiemerlaan became unwell, the landlady called upon doctor Hartman to examine her. He

87 Ibid., 345-346 88 Ibid., 347-348 89 Historische Kring Diemen, Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Het kwam voor dat onderduikers jaren leefden naast NSB’ers, (2015), 173-175 90 Ibid., 181 27 recognized the old lady as a Jewish woman in hiding and wanted to arrange a funeral.91 The doctor called upon Mr. van Silfhout to secretly, but officially, bury her at the Oosterbegraafplaats in Amsterdam [Now called de Nieuwe Ooster].92 He did not mention this act in his diary. During the Hunger Winter in 1944, Mr. Saan and Mr. van Silfhout worked together to get 42000 kg potatoes from Holwerd in Friesland to Diemen. The Diemer reverend Diepersloot had worked there before and had been able to buy them. However, the first plan by Mr. Saan and Mr. van Silfhout to ship them across the Ijsselmeer failed because the captain did not have the right papers. The municipal secretary then had the ask the mayor of Diemen, then Mr. Guépin, to ask for trucks from Diemen. The mayor took some convincing but eventually Mr. van Silfhout’s argument that the people in his municipality were dying sealed the deal.93 Meanwhile, Mr. Guépin wrote in his diary that this fine collaboration was a democratic element in his national socialistic administration.94 When the bureau that was originally given permission by Seyss-Inquart to start these transports demanded 2/3 of the cargo space Mr. van Silfhout reacted angry. He believed that it was abuse of their position, and afterwards tried to bypass them whenever possible.95 Reverend Diepersloot also managed to organize foster homes in Holwerd for hungry children from Diemen during the Hunter Winter. From November 1944 onwards there was a truck with children leaving from the garage of Mr. Saan. Mr. Saan himself used this opportunity to remove people in hiding from Diemen, for instance in the case of Mrs. Fontijn. In Holwerd were more people in hiding: the Diemer Henk Teiwes stayed in a foster home with several Jewish people.96 When summarizing the role of the municipal secretary during the war one can see that Mr. van Silfhout tried his best to help wherever he could without being in great danger. While his thoughts concerning the Jewish persecution were convincingly anti-German, his actions speak even louder. Small acts such as arranging a burial place can be construed a a human kindness. However, failing to register deceased people in Diemen and then giving that information to Mr. van Kleef is downright resistance against the German occupation.

91 Historische Kring Diemen, Jaap Haag, Diemens oorlog: Doktoren in Verzet, (2015), 117-121 92 Historische Kring Diemen, Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Het kwam voor dat onderduikers jaren leefden naast NSB’ers, (2015), 175 93 Historische Kring Diemen, Henk Teiwes & Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Holwerd bood Friese gastvrijheid en liefdevolle verzorging, (2015), 285-286 94 Dagboek Guépin, NIOD, 244 Europese dagboeken en Documenten, 714 F.P. Guépin 95 M. van Silfhout, M.C., Diary Second World War, Municipal Archives Diemen, 265 96 Historische Kring Diemen, Henk Teiwes & Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Holwerd bood Friese gastvrijheid en liefdevolle verzorging, (2015), 287-288 28 4. F.B. Schröder

The case of Mr. Schröder is a complicated one: was he a collaborator of part of the resistance? On the surface these two seem completely black and white, but in the following paragraphs evidence for both can be found. To answer this question I will research and state evidence from both sides of the story. Meanwhile, more insight is gained in the daily life of residents of Diemen, whether Jewish, German and/or Dutch.

4.1 Mr. Schröder 1879-1940

Friedrich Bernhard Schröder was born on 15 January 1879 in Leer, Germany. He moved to the Netherlands at age 12 and started to work from the age of 14 as a baker. In 1926, when Schröder was 47, he bought three properties: two in the Van Hogendorpstraat (no. 140 and 142) and one bakery in the Oostenburgervoorstraat (no.9) in Amsterdam. He lived off the rental profits. In 1932 Mr. Schröder bought a house on the Diemerkade 26. Four years later he was questioned by the Dutch border patrol in Nieuweschans: he had a membership card of the National Socialist Movement (NSB) with him. He became a member of the NSB in Amsterdam on 25 January 1934. He was described as white-blond man of average height, with an average face, grey- blue eyes and a deep horizontal wrinkle in his forehead. Mr. Schröder visited his family in Germany once a year for one/two weeks and wrote letters. He was unmarried, but had a fiancée who visited him four times every week to cook and clean. He was engaged to Sofia Agneta Meijboom, born in Amsterdam in 1898. She was a seamstress and a widow of Hermanus Cornelis Hoogendijk. She lived in Amsterdam at the Sibogastraat 15II and had a Dutch nationality. The border patrol specifically wrote that Mr. Schröder gave a good impression but that he was inclined towards National Socialism. On 19 December 1936 the mayor of Nieweschans informed the police superintendent of Amsterdam of the meeting with Mr. Schröder. He stressed the fact that the German carried a membership card of the NSB and was thus apparently involved in political action in the Netherlands. Mr. Schröders opinion can be read in his letter to the mayor of Diemen on 28 December 1936. The German claimed to leave his host country because he had been harassed and persecuted by blackmailers, even though he had always behaved like a proper protestant. He does not want to

29 talk about the details of his misery, but adds a letter from the public prosecutor Mr. Wassenberg. Mr. Schröder stated that he would like the letter back, because it was a source of support for him, as was the counsel from Mr. Wassenberg. Friedrich Bernhard Schröder and Sofia Agneta Meijboom married in 1937 in Diemen. He was then 58, she was 39 and received the German nationality.97 Public opinion in Diemen was unfavorable of the German. Johannes Baart, who lived close to him, saw him selling the NSB newspaper Volk en Vaderland in the Linneausstraat, close to Diemen.98 In 1937 Mr. Schröder threatened the respected principal of the elementary School met den Bijbel, F. Meima. Meima had had a discussion with Schröder about whether or not ministers in Germany could speak without restrictions.99

4.2 Mr. Schröder 1940-1945

Many of the Diemer inhabitants have given their testimonies about Mr. Schröder during the war: they can be found at the Diemer Archives. Moreover, the municipal secretary van Silfhout met Mr. Schröder in the first few days after the Netherlands was invaded. Mr. van Silfhout was surprised to notice that Mr. Schröder was not arrested with the other known NSB members.100 During the destruction of the Nieuwe Buurt in November 1943 the Diemerkade was also targeted. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein tried to find another accommodation for the former inhabitants, for instance in the Transvaalbuurt or Betondorp in Amsterdam. However, Mr. Schröder claimed to be a Block Leader of the Deutschen Arbeitsfront (DAF) of the NSDAP and therefore the Reichskommissaris had ordered a house in Diemen for him. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein stated that this house then had to be abandoned by the original owner of the house, Mr. Kooperdraat, and from December 1943 onwards, Mr. Schröder and his wife could live at the Raadhuisstraat 33 in Diemen. Ms. Steltman, interpreter at the Kommandantur at the Museumplein 9 in Amsterdam, regularly saw Mr. Schröder there. She witnessed the German giving information about the inhabitants of Diemen to the German authorities: who lived where, who wanted to work for the Germans and who was unreliable and should be investigated. For example, Mr. Schröder suspected

97 Municipal Archives Diemen 1813-1987 (1991), 3756, Gedragingen ingezetenen. 98 Historische Kring Diemen, Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: de aalgladde bewegingen van een nationaalsocialist, (2015), 274 99 J.F. Reurekas, Kent u ze nog… de Diemenaren deel 1, (1981), foto 26 100 M. van Silfhout, M.C., Diary Second World War, Municipal Archives Diemen, 3 30 Mr. Alderbaes of cutting cables in Diemen and conferred this information. In exchange he got a job stripping and selling Jewish houses and property. This was confirmed by his wife, Mrs. Meijboom. Lina Meinders was the wife of Heinrich Janssen who was born in 1906 in Weener, Germany. She testified on 10 September 1946 against Mr. Schröder in a document for the police and mayor of Diemen. During the occupation, Mr. Schröder was involved in selling Jewish houses that were abandoned: he carried a list of Jewish houses and offered them, furnished or not, to Mrs. Meinders. Prices ranged from 7.000 guilders (fl.) to fl. 50.000 in the neighbourhood of the Plantage Middenlaan, the Joodsche Invalide at the Weesperplein and the Plantage Kerklaan. If she was interested, she could come to him and assess the property: he would arrange the key. In 1944 he offered Mrs. Meinders a house in the neighbourhood of the Olympic Stadium in Amsterdam for fl. 23.000. When Mr. Janssen and Mrs. Meinders did buy a farm at the Stammerdijk, it was a former Jewish property and they were assisted by Mr. Schröder. He had wanted a share in the farm, but the couple refused because they did not want to be dependent on him. The German also helped Mr. den Toorn buy a Jewish house at the Keizersgracht and arranged the mortgage. In exchange for his services, he received a commission and a personal gift of fl. 500. When the liquidation of Jewish possessions started, Mr. Schröder sought to be a fiduciary commissioned by the Duitsche Huis at the Sarphatistraat. He persuaded the Germans in Diemen to buy a German flag: if they refused he would write down their names and the Duitsche Huis would send them a flag. He believed the Germans would need a flag when victory came. Furthermore, Mr. Schröder supervised the stripping of furnished Jewish houses. That Mr. Schröder supervised the emptying out of Jewish houses is confirmed again in a 1946 statement by Mr. P.J.W. Kaskens, who lived at the Ouddiemerlaan 24 in Diemen. In 1942 Mr. Kaskens lived at the Hartveldseweg 69 in Diemen when his Jewish upstairs neighbour Lijzor Nadel was forced to relocate to Amsterdam. Mr. Kaskens was interested in the house but Mr. Nadels furniture was left behind. Mr. Kaskens learned he had to talk to Mr. Schröder about the abandoned possessions and after doing so the furniture was taken away. However, Mr. Schröder refused to hand over the keys because there were still ‘some worthless pieces of rubbish’ left.101 Eventually, Mr. Kaskens received the keys and Schröder put the responsibility of cleaning the property on Mr. Kaskens. Another document from 1946 gives more details on the case of the Jewish property at the Harteveldseweg 69. W.H. Martens who lived in Diemen at the Ouddiemerlaan 39, testified that he was asked by Mr. Kaskens to take over responsibility concerning the ‘Jewish rubbish that was left behind’. However, Mr. Martens refuses, after which the rubbish was locked is a closed closet: Mr.

101 Municipal Archives Diemen 1813-1987 (1991), 3756, Gedragingen ingezetenen 31 Kaskens kept the key. Mr. Martens gave a list: an old hat, an old scarf, an old bucket, a couple of old plates and some printed matter. Mrs. Leeuwendaal-Kramer lived in the same street as Mr. Schröder: from August 1937 to December 1943 she lived at the Diemerkade 35. She testified in 1946 that Mr. Schröder regularly received uniformed German visitors at his house. Mrs. Leeuwendaal-Kramer states that he used to sing “Wir fahren gegen England” and other German soldier songs. In the summer of 1942 Mr. Schröder visited her with the information that he would report her daughter (living at the same address) to the German police for threatening him. He stated that Mrs. Leeuwendaal-Kramers daughter had said that she kept a sharp axe ready to use on Germans and NSB members. Alarmed, she sent her daughter to Mr. Schröders house: when her daughter returned she stated that he kept a portrait of Hitler in his living room. Later, Mr. Schröder apologized for scaring Mrs. Leeuwendaal- Kramer. Furthermore, Mrs. Leeuwendaal-Kramer stated that she and Mr. Schröder had a bet: she believed that the Germans would eventually lose the war, he claimed that they would win. When the German advance was successful Mr. Schröder would find her and boast that he was about to win the bet. Finally, Mrs. Leeuwendaal-Kramer stated that both she and her daughter were mocked and provoked by Mr. Schröder between 1940 and 1943. She believed him to watch her daughter for anything that he could report her with, and as such they felt unsafe in his vicinity. Mrs. Schröder-Driehuis (not related) lived in Diemen at the R. Kastelijnstraat 22 from 1928 until December 1943. On the 26th of September, 1946, she stated that Mr. Schröder was a customer of the dairy store of her husband. She lived across from a Jewish family Teitler. After the Teitler family was forced to relocate to Amsterdam their house, with all the furniture in it, was sealed. One afternoon she saw Mr. Schröder together with three other men go into the house after which he scribbled into a booklet. She believed Mr. Schröder was taking stock of the pieces of furniture in the house. During another summer morning he visited the dairy store where Mrs. Schröder-Driehuis was working and he got into an argument with a customer named Mr. Bussel. Mr. Schröder claimed the war would be over in September and Mr. Bussel retorted he would lose his head if this was the case. Hours later, he returned to the store and wanted to know where Mr. Bussel lived because he wanted to report him for threatening him. Mrs. Schröder-Driehuis refused to give the address and Mr. Schröder went to the police. In her conclusion, she stated that she considered him to be a true mof, who clearly fully cooperated and sympathized with the Germans. She claimed that she was very afraid to be reported by Mr. Schröder because her family listened to the English broadcasts. Another statement from 1946 was given by Mrs. J.M.H. Vonk-Franzmeier on 30 September 1946. She lived at the Diemerkade 35 from August 1937 until December 1943 and confirmed the claim of Mrs. Leeuwendaal-Kramers daughter that Mr. Schröder had a portrait of Hitler in his living 32 room in 1944. Mr. Schröder also told her that he was a member of the German Wehrmacht and regularly visited the Kommandantur in Hilversum for meetings. She noted that the German was in possession of a radio. A different testimony concerning the matter of Mr. Schröder involvement in Jewish houses was given by Mr. J. Wolters, who lived in the Arent Krijtstraat until 1943. He had to evacuate because his house and grocery were destroyed by the German occupiers. Mr. Wolters wanted to continue his grocery in Diemen and found a suitable empty shop at the Ouddiemerlaan 12. However, the NSB member H. Bedorf also wanted to buy the property for his chocolate store. The neighbour of the empty shop, the German Mr. Borngräber, did not want a NSB member next to his store. Mrs. Wolters and Mrs. Borngräber both went to the Kommandantur in Hilversum and heard that because Mr. Schröder was cooperating with Mr. Bedorf the property would go to him. Furthermore, Mr. Wolters testified that his upstairs neighbours at the Arent Krijtstraat, the German family Bolz, were often visited by Mr. Schröder who collected money for ‘de Partei’.102 Finally, Mr. Wolters saw him in the winter of 1944 in a carriage with a German soldier who drove him home. He was convinced Mr. Schröder collaborated with the German occupier. Mr. J. Diekema, who lived at the Diemerkade 52 from 1927 until December 1943 regularly saw Mr. Schröder with a membership badge of the NSB. In 1942 when Mr. Diekema travelled to het Gooi to get vegetables, the German citizen saw him and threatened him with the Grüne Polizei. Mr. Diekema stated that he repeatedly said that the war would be won by Germany and that this was a good thing. The father of Mr. J. Diekema, Mr. G. Diekema, confirms that Mr. Schröder wore the membership badge of the NSB. He gave his opinion of Mr. Schröder: he believed him to be a threat, a spy, unreliable and completely on the side of the Germans. He stated that Mr. Schröder was known as ‘de schrik van de kade’, the scare of the waterside. On the 3rd of October 1946, Mr. J.P.M. Klein declared that he lived in the neighbourhood of Mr. Schröder and repeatedly saw him acting friendly with German soldiers at the café of the widow van der Vuurst. Mr. Schröder brought the soldiers coffee and greeted them as friends. Mr. J.H. Baart lived at the Diemerkade until 1941 when he moved to the Schoolstraat 39 in Diemen. He stated that before the war, Mr. Schröder kept a portrait of the Dutch Queen Wilhelmina in his living room but replaced it with Adolf Hitler. When asked about the switch, he stated that a Queen who ran away was not worth hanging on the wall. Mr. Baart saw Mr. Schröder be present at razzias in Amsterdam, for instance at the Postzegelbeurs at the Nieuwezijdse Voorburgwal. When the Grüne Polizei shot at people in the streets during the disturbance in the Kinkerstraat Mr. Schröder said he was well known and the Germans would not shoot at him. According to Mr. Baart,

102 Municipal Archives Diemen 1813-1987 (1991), 3756, Gedragingen ingezetenen 33 he visited the S.D. in the Euterpestraat and the Grüne Polizei at the Koloniaal Instituut almost daily. Mr. Baart concluded that he believed Mr. Schröder worked for the Gestapo. After the war had ended, Mr. Schröder and his lawyer, Mr. de Bruyn, collected their own testimonies concerning his behaviour during the war. According to Mr. de Bruyn, his client had in no way approved of or cooperated with the German occupation. Moreover, Mr. Schröder had rejected the National Socialistic German regime and was unwilling to join or have a relationship with the NSDAP. On the contrary, Mr. Schröder did use his German nationality to help many Dutch and especially Jewish citizens with advice and good deeds. An example is the declaration of Mr. A.J. Aalders, who stated on the 8th of September 1945 that Mr. Schröder helped him during the war when both his brothers were arrested by the S.D. They travelled multiple times to Arnhem and Eindhoven together to try and liberate the brothers of Mr. Aalders. He stated that Mr. Schröder was altruistic and tried his best in the interest of his brothers. The arrest of the brothers Aalders is confirmed in the archives of Diemen, as well as the meeting Mr. Schröder had with the commander of the Sicherheitspolizei in Arnhem on the 17th of August 1944. Moreover, Mr. Aalders stated that he owed 7 cooking pots of 300 litre to Mr. Schröder, which he used as the leader of the Central Kitchen of Diemen to feed the entire municipality. Mrs. F. Bakker also testifies that Mr. Schröder helped her during the war. He assisted her in trying to get her fiancé liberated from Germany. Mrs. Bakker hoped Mr. Schröder would receive the Dutch nationality as he surely deserved it. Another testimony from 1945 was that of Mr. C.T. Brandes from Amsterdam, who stated that Mr. Schröder helped him track down and liberate his wife Marianne Brandes-Brilleslyper. She had helped people in hiding and participated in illegal work for which she had been sent to a concentration camp in Germany. Mrs. G. Gerritsen-van Benthem argued in favour of Mr. Schröder because he helped her husband get out of a remand centre at the Amstelveenscheweg. Mr. Gerritsen was accused of listening to radio Orange, but because the German vouched for him he was freed. Small declarations followed: Mr. J. Buitenhuis from Diemen declared that Mr. Schröder did a lot of work in liberating his son who was held by the landwacht. Mr. J. Calllenfels wrote that Mr. Schröder helped him with “Jewish business” during a visit to Dr. Calmeyer in The Hague. Mr. Bruys stated that Mr. Schröder tried to free his son from the Arbeitseinsatz in Germany in February 1945. Mr. Bootsma, district leader from Amsterdam Centre from the National organisation for help to people in hiding, signed a note: he stated that Mr. Schröder assisted them with a number of unspecified tasks. Mr. H. Richter Jr. thanked Mr. Schröder for taking care of his interests during his German time, as well as for supporting his wife.

34 Two small notes did not directly state that Mr. Schröder helped them, but they asked for help. Mr. Dieter asked for help concerning the people in camp Vught: in 1944 he wanted to know where these people were taken so he could send mail. Another letter from Mrs. J. Kooper states that her friend S. was arrested on the station of Amersfoort and that she would take care of her rye bread. A follow up letter asked that Mr. Schröder kept her posted, while proclaiming the innocence of her friend S. As a result, S. was sent to a hospital in Germany to work: Mrs. Kooper was happy with this solution.103

4.3 Mr. Schröder 1945-1949

Mayor de Geer van Oudegein wasted no time after the war ended and stated on the 30th of August 1945 that Mr. Schröder and his wife were undesirable people and that they were going to be confined in internment camp [interneringskamp] Levantkade in Amsterdam. In response, Mr. Schröder enlisted the help of lawyer Mr. de Bruyn to get his residence permit. They gathered declarations from Dutch citizens concerning Mr. Schröder and Mr Schröder wanted to become a member of the V.D.S.A, the association of German and displaced persons against fascism. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein wrote a letter to the association. He explained that Mr. Schröder placed himself in the house of a resident of Diemen because of his association with the NSDAP and the Deutschen Arbeitsfront. According to the mayor, Mr. Schröder and his wife should not be able to become members of the V.D.S.A. After learning about the intended residence permit, mayor de Geer van Oudegein wrote a letter to Acting Commander Captain A.A. Berteling of the internment camp Levantkade. He explained that in 1943 30% of the population of Diemen had to evacuate including Mr. and Mrs. Schröder. The Ger,am then claimed to be a local representative of the Deutsche Arbeitsfront and the NSDAP which meant he had to live in Diemen. The mayor stubbornly resisted this but was overruled by both German civil and military authorities. Before relocation to camp Levantkade, Mr. Schröder still lived in this house, and the original owner still had to accommodate his father, for whom the house was meant. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein conclusion was threefold: first, that Mr. Schröder worked for the NSDAP during the occupation. Second, that he used his German nationality and his side project to better himself at the expense of a Dutch person. Finally, that 5 months after the liberation, he still continued to enjoy the illegitimate benefits from 1943. The mayor asked that Mr. Schröder and his wife be interned and sent back to Germany. During the

103 Municipal Archives Diemen 1813-1987 (1991), 3756, Gedragingen ingezetenen 35 confinement in kamp Levantkade, the mayor of Diemen emptied this house at the Raadhuisstraat 33 and gave the keys to the original owner, Mr. Kooperdraat. The furniture was stored at the Municipal Bureau of Movable Property of Enemies and Collaborators [Gemeentelijk Bureau Roerende Goederen van Vijanden en Landverraders]. The answer of mayor de Geer van Oudegein to Mr. Schröders request for a residence permit was short: he was not willing to fulfill his request. However, the Political Investigation Service [Politieke Opsporingsdienst, POD] released Mr. Schröder and his wife after three weeks from the camp Levantkade. The German wrote to the department of legal affairs of the POD on the 22nd of November. He explained the situation from his point of view: the keys from his house were taken by the POD and given to the police. His furniture was taken and the original owner moved into the house. After 20 days at the Levantkade, he was heard and afterwards released without a reporting obligation. The police said they did not know where his keys were, but Mr. Schröder was aware that the mayor had handed them over to Mr. Kooperdraat at the Weesperzandpad in Diemen. Mr. Schröder explained that in 1943, when his house at the Diemerkade was destroyed, he requested the house at the Raadhuisstraat 33. The inhabitant at the time was Mr. Plas, who bought Jewish houses and had a different house in Amsterdam. Mr. Schröder stated that he was a contributor to the resistance and the National Organisation of Help to People in Hiding [Landelijke Organisatie voor Hulp aan Onderduikers]. In this position he saw many decent Dutch citizens in Diemen evacuated and their houses taken over by members of the National Socialist Movement [Nationaal Socialistische Beweging, NSB]. Mr. Kooperdraat asked Mr. Schröder to move out several times, but he refused and only wished to move if the mayor relocated him to another house in Diemen. The German ended with the statement that at that time he lived in the same location where he hid Jewish refugees during the occupation, Prins Hendrikkade 72-boven. He asked that the department of legal affairs of the POD help him get his house and furniture back. The next day Mr. A. A. van Seventer, head of the POD and director of General Affairs replied with a letter to the officer of district arrests [Districtsarrestatie officier] Mr. D. Prasing in Diemen. Mr. van Seventer expected every cooperation to restore the rights of Mr. Schröder from the police. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein responded on the 29th of November with a letter towards the Acting Commander Berteling at the Levantkade. The mayor stressed that in previous meetings they both had agreed that Mr. Schröder would not be released in the Netherlands. Moreover, the mayor stated that even though Mr. Schröder could produce letters in favour of his character, he had found damning evidence in Mr. Schröders house. The evidence was a note from Mr. Schröder from the 27th of December 1943, which said that if the new mayor [Acting mayor E.J. Voûte] would be “on our side”, then he would definitely be obliging towards him. According to mayor de Geer van Oudegein this phrase made it perfectly clear on which side Mr. Schröder was. The mayor then asked 36 Acting Commander Berteling to complete the file on the German. In the following correspondence the mayor stated that he was still waiting for the results of Mr. Bertelings investigation into the file of Mr. Schröder. He needed to convey his results to the head of the Immigration and Naturalisation Service [rijksvreemdelingendienst]. On the same day, he sent another letter stating that Mr. Schröder had been involved in German acquisitions of Jewish possessions. The mayor mentioned the case concerning the Harteveldseweg 65-I, where the Jew Dembitzer had lived. His furniture was taken by the moving company Saan because Mr. Schröder had tasked them to. The furniture was stored and taken away by a German officer on the 16th of June 1942. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein sent more letters to complete his case on Mr Schröder and to find the reason behind his early release from camp Levantkade. He wrote to the chief constable of the department immigration of the police with an overview of the known facts concerning the German: he had been a representative of the NSDAP, the DAF and the Duitsche Wehrmacht. Moreover, he had a hostile attitude towards the Dutch people during the war. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein expressed disappointment at his early release from camp Levantkade and asked for known reasons why. Moreover, he sent multiple letters concerning the behaviour of Mr. Schröder to the head of the State Immigration and Naturalisation department to prove that Mr. Schröder should be deported. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein believed that he had collected a number of favorable declarations from Dutch citizens and was thus released from the camp, but that he afterwards was laughing in silence at “the stupid Dutch people”104 The mayor continued: he asked the head of the police in Diemen to request his receipts from the Postal Giro Service [Postchèque- en Girodienst] in The Hague. However, the answer was negative: the Postal Giro Service did not have a corresponding account number, could only give information from accounts from 1943 onwards and would need to see permission from the public prosecutor. The final correspondence of 1946 was between mayor de Geer van Oudegein and Mr. Schröders attorney Mr. A.C.G. van Proosdij. Mr. van Proosdij stated that he wrote to the municipal board of Diemen on behalf of the Stichting 1940-45. He claimed that Mr. Schröder, as a worker for the National Organisation of Help to People in Hiding [Landelijke Organisatie voor Hulp aan Onderduikers] could claim the help of this foundation. The attorney asserted that Mr. Schröder did not receive the house at the Raadhuisstraat 33 in Diemen with help of the Germans, but that the property was vacated voluntarily because the former resident moved to the Amstellaan 225. He noted that the situation was not special but just a person searching for a new house and finding one that was vacant. The Evacuation Bureau appointed his new house, the mayor of Diemen gave the evacuation notice and the acting mayor of Diemen assigned the house at the Raadhuisstraat 33. However, Mr. Schröder did not want to return to this house as he had found new housing in

104 Municipal Archives Diemen 1813-1987 (1991), 3756, Gedragingen ingezetenen 37 Amsterdam. To complete this house Mr. van Proosdij asked the municipal board for his missing items: a sewing machine and floor covering for four rooms. The sewing machine, according to civil servant Kortes, had been given to an institution who had needed it. The floor covering was still present in the house at the Raadhuisstraat 33 with Mr. Kooperdraat. Mr. van Proosdij asked the municipal board to return the missing items to Mr. Schröder, as well as kitchen utensils from the house. The response of mayor de Geer van Oudegein was that he forbade Mr. Kooperdraat to return the floor covering. After the war in the Netherlands was over, most municipalities in the Netherlands needed an official police force to oversee public order and the return to normal life. In Diemen, Mr. N.L. Wind was made constable of the new State police. Mr. Wind heard the official message that Germany had capitulated on the English radio on the 4th of May in 1945. He was instructed by Mr. Lap, official of the distribution office in Diemen, that the extra ration stamps of Volksdeutsche and members of the NSB needed to be taken in. He received a list with relevant names and Mr. Schröder, living in the Raadhuisstraat in Diemen, was on it. Mr. Schröder was not present when Mr. Wind came to collect his ration stamps, but his wife handed them over. On the 6th of May at 11 o’clock Mr. Schröder met the constable at his house and asked at what grounds he had taken in his ration stamps. Mr. Wind replied that Germany had capitulated and that the extra ration stamp needed to be collected. The German then replied that he did not have the right to take his stamps as the war was not over yet and Germany had not capitulated. Mr. Wind reiterated that he received the message on the 5th of May 1945. In reply, Mr. Schröder informed him that he would turn to a German Authority in Amsterdam and they would investigate the right of Mr. Wind to collect his stamps. The constable referred Mr. Schröder to Mr. Lap, and in response Mr. Schröder repeated that the war was not lost yet and Mr. Wind had no right to take his food. In the following two days, Mr. Wind stayed inside out of fear that he would be arrested by the Feldgendarmerie who still held the watch at the police in Diemen. He believed that it was Schröders intention to have him arrested. Another member of the State police, chief sergeant group commander [Opperwachtmeester- groepscommandant] Bouman, made his report on the 10th of December in 1949 in Diemen. He stated that he instituted an examination into the behaviour of Mr. Schröder, to be executed by sergeant van de Weerdhof. On the 11th of November 1949 after Mr. Weerdhof questioned several persons he invited Mr. Schröder to come to the bureau of the State police, which was at the city hall in Diemen. The next day at 09:00 Mr. Schröder appeared at the bureau and was escorted to a hearing chamber by Mr. Bouman. The hearing was witnessed by Mr. van de Weerdhof, Mr. Bouman, who at some point was replaced with Mr. H. F. Buizert, deputy chief sergeant group commander of the State police, and Mr. A. J. van der Spek, sergeant first class of the State police. Mr. Bouman stated that during the entirety of the interrogation the German was not insulted or 38 mistreated. During the hearing, Mr. van de Weerdhof told Mr. Schröder that he should not repeat that every declaration Mr. van de Weerdhof read to him was false or a lie. When the sergeant stated that the Dutch police did not use lies to uncover the truth anymore, in contrast to the Germans, Mr. Schröder agreed and said he was happy and thankful for this change. After the interrogation, he waited to speak to Mr. Bouman once more and plead his case. Mr. Bouman stressed that he did not hit Mr. Schröder in his face during this talk. He did, however, escort Mr. Schröder out of the building after a talk of about one hour. According to Mr. Bouman, he kept discussing irrelevant affairs. He left the building at 15:00. Mr. Buizert, deputy chief sergeant group commander of the State police lived in Diemen at the Harmonielaan 10 and made his statement on the 10th of December of 1949. His story confirmed the statement given by Mr. Bouman: the members of the State Police present at the interrogation on the 12th of November 1949 did not hurt or insult Mr. Schröder in any way. Mr. Buizert added that he was very annoyed by Mr. Schröders constant denial and lies. Another sergeant first class of the State police and honorary State patrolman, Mr. Brouwer, also gave a statement on the 10th of December of 1949. Mr. Brouwer witnessed Mr. Boumans talk with Mr. Schröder around 15:00 on the 12th of November 1949. The talk lasted for 20 minutes, and was not characterized as an interrogation. Mr. Brouwer stated that Mr. Bouman repeated the evidence brought against Mr. Schröder in a sharp way, but that he did not insult or hurt him Mr. Schröder seemed confused and was looking for an answer, but then switched to a different subject. The sergeant first class then told Mr. Schröder that he only twisted and turned because he knew Mr. Bouman wouldn’t treat him as the Germans would treat a suspect during the occupation of the Netherlands. Mr. Schröder confirmed that Mr. Bouman treated him well, and even thanked him. After he heard that he was free to leave, he dropped his glasses and then left. In his statement on the 10th of December, Mr. A.J. van der Spek, sergeant first class of the State police, repeated that Mr. Schröder was not harmed or insulted. He confirmed that Mr. Schröder called all the declarations against him false or a lie. Mr. van de Weerdhof, sergeant of the State police and honorary State patrolman, was the policeman who conducted the research into Mr. Schröder. Mr. van de Weerdhof started in June 1949 after the the public prosecutor in Amsterdam asked him to investigate a record owned by Stichting 1940-45, a Dutch foundation for the victims of the Second World War. The record showed that Mr. Schröder had carried out very good work during the occupation. The statement on which the record was based was made by Mr. Johannes Cornelis de Waal, alias Bootsman, living in Amsterdam at the Oudezijds Achterburgwal 196 III. Mr. de Waal directed the sergeant to other people who convinced Mr. van de Weerdhof that these statement were worthless. He then contacted Mr. Rovers of Stichting 1940-45 to ask if it was possible that a mistake had been made. It was soon discovered 39 that Mr. Schröders record of good work was indeed given by mistake, and it would be rectified soon. Mr. Rovers then sent his file to a Mr. A.C.G. van Proosdij for advice. Mr. van de Weerdhof and Mr. van Proosdij contacted each other and decided that Mr. van Proosdij could act as a witness and they would meet at a later time. On the 12th of November in 1949, Mr. van de Weerdhof was also present during the interrogation of Mr. Schröder at the bureau in Diemen. Mr. van de Weerdhof repeated the statements of Mr. Bouman, Mr. Brouwer, Mr. van der Spek, Mr. Wind and Mr. Buizert concerning the treatment of the German. The interrogation lasted from 09:00-10:15 and from 10:45-12:00. On the 26th of November, Mr. van de Weerdhof contacted Mr. van Proosdij again, but now the attorney acted very reserved. The reason was that Mr. van Proosdij did not agree with the treatment that Mr. Schröder had received at the bureau during his interrogation. When asked about details, Mr. van Proosdij stated that he had sent a complaint to the public prosecutor about the less than stellar treatment. The meeting was not discussed, but Mr. van de Weerdhof did ask for the eventual result of the research of Stichting 1940-45. Furthermore, he asked for the date of the appeal concerning the “de-enimization” of Mr. Schröder, as the research of Mr. van de Weerdhof would certainly be relevant.105 Mr. van de Weerdhof stated that if Mr. Proosdij mentioned the tone of the conversations with him on the phone, then Mr. van de Weerdhof no longer considered Mr. Proosdij to be impartial. When accused of being influenced by mayor M.L.E. de Geer van Oudegein, Mr. van der Weerdhof replied that he only met the mayor once and that was at the hearing during the case of Mr. Schröder. The first time Mr. van der Weerdhof visited Diemen was in March 1948. Furthermore, he stated that the character of mayor M.L.E. de Geer van Oudegein during the occupation was undoubtedly considered “Good”.106 As this chapter shows, there is undoubtedly evidence that Mr. Schröder was a collaborator. The acts that are most noticeable are his active membership of the NSB and his job stripping and selling Jewish houses and property. However, after the war Mr. Schröder collected his own evidence stating that he was a ‘good’ citizen. Among his evidence is his assistance in liberating residents of Diemen from the S.D., Germany and the remand center at the Amstelveenscheweg. However, it is striking that the Diemer residents that Mr. Schröder helped were not Jewish. Meanwhile, there is overwhelming evidence that the German benefited from his job of stripping specifically Jewish houses. Moreover, the accusation that he was mistreated by the police after the war was contradicted by overwhelming evidence. Therefore, Mr. Schröders attempts to clear his name fall short. It is quite clear that he cooperated with the German authorities during the war for his own gain.

105 Municipal Archives Diemen 1813-1987 (1991), 3756, Gedragingen ingezetenen 106 Ibid., 3756, Gedragingen ingezetenen 40 5. Betlem

In between the railway from Amsterdam to Weesp (built in 1873), the Amsterdam-Rhine Canal (1892) and the highway from Amsterdam to Amersfoort (1930) there was a recreational center called Betlem. It sounds idyllic with its biblical name, but this was the site of a German labour camp where Jews and other unwanted people worked during the occupation. The piece of land rested exactly between the municipal borders of Diemen and Muiden and was first made because of the digging of the Merwede Canal in 1892. Two provisional harbours were built for the hopper barges who could dig the canal. After the canal was finished the piece of land came up for sale. It was bought by Walter Hethey in 1910 who turned it into an summer estate with exotic trees and a chalet. In 1927, Hermanus Betlem bought the estate after renting it several times from Mr. Hethey. He rebuilt the chalet into a inn and surrounded it with a tea garden. Mr. Betlem restored the grounds: he planted more trees, cleaned up the lanes and the ponds, started a deer park and had a pool dug. The official name was ‘Merwede Paviljoen’ but it was widely known as ‘Betlem’s ontspanning’. Visitors came from the surrounding villages, either by bicycle or using the Gooische steam train. There were dance bands every weekend and in 1928 Mr. Betlem bought three gondolas. However, in 1933 a new bridge was built across the Merwede Canal, which brought other popular recreational centers in Muiderberg and Oud-Valkeveen closer: Mr. Betlem was forced to sell the estate to the Dutch State in 1938.107

5.1 Labour camps

After the occupation of the Netherlands legal immigration was possible for Jewish people. A Jew needed an entry visa of a country that was not at war and prepared to take him/her in. Then, the person needed a German Ausreisvisum: permission to leave an occupied country. However, some countries had exceptions: for the United States one would also need a transit visa for Spain and Portugal. Moreover, to get an American entry visa that person would need either enough financial reserves or American family members who could support them. Legal immigration was an exception, however optimism reigned with the remaining Jews in charge. Both the Jewish Council and notables Edelstein and Friedmann believed that they would eventually be freed. Therefore, it 107 S.C. van Diest, Betlem, Villa Amuda, Historische Kring Stad Muiden, oktober 1999, nr 28, jrg 13, nr 1, 12 41 was important to cooperate and to play for time. From the fall of 1940 to the spring of 1941 several measures to isolate and rob the Jews came unto effect which were the start of deportation and extermination of the Jewish population. In the summer of 1941 Generalkommissar of Political Affairs and Propaganda Schmidt proposed the idea of transferring the unemployed Jews to camps on the Dutch-German border to Mr. Seyss-Inquart. The concentration of Jews in camps was linked to the deportations from the beginning. The Jewish Council had to arrange 67 workers to prepare camp Ommen for bigger groups to come. They opened an office in the diamond cutting factory of president Asscher, but every Jew they asked refused. Many of them had heard of the deaths in labour camp Mauthausen and did not want to suffer the same fate under a Nazi leadership. On the 25th of September 1941 Mr. Seyss-Inquart and Mr. Schmidt met with Hitler and discussed the persecution of the Jews. As a result, the NSB would receive more facilities, the German Jews would be deported first and eventually the entire country had to be judenfrei. Mr. Seyss-Inquart had senator Böhmcker make an inventory of the measures that had to be taken before the deportations could begin. This rapport, together with Böhmcker’s propositions, was finished on October the 2nd.108 One of the problems posed in the rapport was that the Jewish people in Muiden, Diemen and the surrounding villages were mostly transported to the Jewish areas in Amsterdam and were not allowed to work. The Nazi command was afraid that uprisings were going to break out. On the 8 th of October 1941 Mr. Seyss-Inquart, Mr. Böhmcker, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Fischböck held a meeting about the subject. On the 10th of October it was decided that the unemployed Jews should be put to work isolated from the others. The Jewish Council was going to assist in putting the unemployed to work.109 Several ‘work facilitation camps’ were set up:

Diever A and B (each 96 persons) 192 persons Mantinge 210 persons Vledder 180 persons Orvelte 96 persons Gijsselte 210 persons Stuifzand 96 persons Gijsbrug 210 persons Kremborn 208 persons

The plan was that the Jews would be transported to these camps in January, in the winter. Moreover, the Jews had to perform forced labour and there were no beds present.110 Mr. Guépin, member of

108 L. de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog deel 5 (1974), 1001-1027 109 J. Presser, Ondergang, (1965), 181-182 110 J. Presser, Ondergang, (1965), 185 42 the city council of Amsterdam, did not agree: he believed that the Jews should be transported to camps in Drenthe and Groningen. Another member of the State service of Work Facilitation agreed and stated that the Jewish contact with the Aryan population would persist if they would stay near to Amsterdam. The Jews would then tell dramatic stories and incite the Dutch population. The subject of wages came up in a different meeting between the senator Böhmcker, head of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration in Amsterdam Aus der Fünten and several civil servants. It was decided that the wages of these Jewish laborers would be 20% below the wages of the Aryan people. 111 On the 20th of December 1941 Generalkommissar of Finance and Economy Fischböck wrote a letter to the secretary-general Verwey concerning the labour camps for Jews. It was now important to get as many Jews as possible into the camps. First, the Bureau for Housing and Settlements would assign the projects where the Jews would work. Second, the State Service for Work Facilitation would request the number of workers needed with the Employment office in Amsterdam. Third, the Employment office would contact the Jewish Council to make sure that the workers would be present when needed. In practice, this would mean that the Jewish Council had to make sure that 1402 Jewish unemployed persons were present at Amsterdam Central Station on the 10th of January at 10 o’ clock. Mr. H. Rodegro, member of Böhmcker staff who was specialized in the Arbeitseinsatz, gave the command. The Jewish Council refused five days before the transport. While they did agree that it was good that the unemployed would get work, they protested against the transport on the Sabbath and stated that it was a job for the State and the municipality. These two called on 2600 Jewish unemployed persons on the 6th of January to be inspected at the diamond cutting factory. The Jewish council wrote a letter to the persons called upon asking them with emphasis to react to this call, otherwise strict measures were to be expected from the authorities. These measures were centainly going to be a serious threat to the person who refused to answer the call. They closed the letter with the statement that the working conditions and leadership would be the same as in camps for Dutch unemployed. On the 7th of January, the president of the State employment office wrote a letter to the presidents of the regional employment offices stating that 1400 Jews from Amsterdam would leave to labour camps and that a second group was expected to leave on the 20th of January. The regional offices were asked to provide a list of registered Jews who were eligible for placement into a labour camp. One day after, a second letter was sent asking for a second list of approved work conditions for the individuals. The president of the employment office in Hengelo declined, stating that there was no reason to send the Jews from his region to a different camp as they would be sent to normal employment projects. The reaction was to put emphasis on the previous order: the State employment office stated that it was urgent and that this decree was not up for debate but needed to be obeyed only. Therefore this decree was not the responsibility of the

111 Ibid., 181-182 43 regional directors.112 Meanwhile in Amsterdam, the police picked up Jewish peddlers and took them to the diamond cutting factory to be approved for transport.113 Three German warnings were sent: the first though the Jewish Weekly. It said that the Jewish people were urgently adviced to go the camps as it was in their own self-interest. The second warning was to Jewish people with peddling permission. This group was told to hand in their permission, otherwise there would be serious measures from the government. This piece was headed by the words: A FINAL WARNING. Finally, the Germans prompted all male Jews between age 18 and 65 to sign themselves up for this kind of labour in the Netherlands in January 1942.114 These threats worked: 1075 persons were approved in the diamond cutting factory, among them Jews who were picked up from nearby areas.115 The transports started that same January. On the 10th 905 Jews left for camps in Drenthe. In March the Jewish Council received a new command from Mr. Rodegro stating that from then onwards both unemployed and employed Jews could be called upon.116 He then proceeded to command the Jewish Council to provide him with 3000 Amsterdam Jews. To make up this number, 600 unemployed could be called upon, but the rest had to come from the employed.117 The council decided that they would provide names of unmarried Jews from age 18 to 40 with the exception of clerics, teachers, doctors and trained technical personnel.118 Mr. Rodegro inquired about the large number of Jewish marriages in the last week before the deadline: these people wanted to stay out of the camps. However, the deadline stayed March the 1st so the marriages did not help them.119 Despite protests the transports with unemployed and employed Jews persisted. By the 1st of April 1942 more than 2100 Jews were sent to Jewish labour camps. That same month Mr. Rodegro commanded to the Jewish Council that another thousand Jews needed to be sent as well. In May he stated that no Jew below 65 who could work was going to stay in Amsterdam. The Jewish labour camps were now situated in Groningen, Friesland, Overijssel, Gelderland and Noord-Brabant. Moreover, several camps were placed around Amsterdam. 120In May 1942 the German occupation decided to place another Jewish labour camp for the Jews from Amsterdam and its surrounding villages at Betlem.121 Public opinion in the Jewish society was unfavorable: more and more people refused to heed the call sent by the Jewish Council. Moreover, the introduction of the Star of David on May 2nd increased the perception of threat against the Jewish population. As a result the Jewish doctors who were supposed to inspect the Jews forged the results from their examination. Persons

112 J. Presser, Ondergang, (1965), 183-185 113 L. de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog deel 5 (1974), 1054 114 J. Presser, Ondergang, (1965), 185-188 115 L. de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog deel 5 (1974), 1054 116 Ibid., 1055 117 Presser, Ondergang, (1965), 190 118 L. de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog deel 5 (1974), 1056 119 Presser, Ondergang, (1965), 191 120 L. de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog deel 5 (1974), 1055-1057 121 S.C. van Diest, Betlem, Villa Amuda, Historische Kring Stad Muiden, oktober 1999, nr 28, jrg 13, nr 1, 13 44 who were completely healthy were rejected based on tampered medical grounds. At the end of May the Germans stopped using Jewish doctors for the examinations in the entirety of the Netherlands. From then on, the doctors were mostly members of the NSB. What is more is that in Amsterdam the regional employment office took over the preparations from the Jewish Council. In July every male Jew between 18 and 55 from Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe was called for work in the labour camps. In Groningen only 16 of the 880 people were rejected. Among those approved were Jews with artificial limbs, heart diseases and diabetics.122 From January 1942 onwards 7500 Jews were sent to labour camps. Permission to leave was given once from the end of March to the beginning of May. Until the 11 of April there was hardly any work in the labour camps: the ground was too cold for any digging. Most of them hung around during the day and enjoyed performances during the evening. There was enough food as workers were fed for hard labour. However, the antisemitic weekly De Misthoorn devoted an article to this discrepancy so the extra food stopped around the time that the hard labour started. Moreover, from April onwards laborers were not allowed to receive extra food from home and they could not leave the camp anymore. No permissions to leave were given after the 15th of May 1942, whereas non- Jewish laborers could leave once every three weeks.123 Reactions from the media were varied. Some, like de Misthoorn were decidedly antisemitic. Other sources however, mostly from the illegal media, criticized the developments and warned about their consequences. The paper from the communistic union Spartacus had warned about the David Star in Germany in September 1941. In November of that same year an article was written in Vrij Nederland which described how Jews were deported from Berlin. It stated that their possessions were sold and that even elderly were transported. The newspaper Het Parool warned the Jews to not build their own ghettos. Jews should not cooperate with their own concentration but instead fight back. Het Parool cautioned the Jews that the Germans wanted to exterminate them. They called upon the Jewish Council to withdraw itself, as they were an instrument of the Germans. Later that month, the newspaper stated that while they understood that the Jewish Council was in a precarious position, their actions were unforgivable. The cooperation with the Germans to prevent a worse fate was not solid reasoning. Had the Jewish Council been replaced with the Gestapo then relations with the Jewish community would have soured and less Jews would have been transported. However, the anti-Jewish measures were easier to implement because of the cooperation of Jewish Council. The Jewish people were implored to ignore the Jewish Council and the Jewish Weekly both. Finally, het Parool pointed out that the transports were a new form of pogrom.124 The illegal communistic institution De Vonk produced a manifest in January 1942 with

122 L. de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog deel 5 (1974), 1057-1058 123 L. de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog deel 5 (1974), 1059-1060 124 Ibid., 1061 45 critique towards the labour camps. It stated that the Jewish laborers were already in a concentration camp. De Vonk proclaimed that the endgame of the Germans was to deport all Jews to Poland and exterminate them. They called the forced labour a facade for the concentration of the Jews.125 The chief editor of Vrij Nederland, Mr. van Randwijk, wrote a brochure in February 1942 about the deportations. According to him, the German Jews were being transported to Poland to die either during the transport or in the camps. The Dutch Jews would not be treated any better: the camps were hypocrisy. At first, the Germans removed the Jews from the workforce and them moved them to unemployment camps. Van Randwijk stated that this showed the real purpose of the Germans: not the employment of the Jews but their deportation and incarceration. Moreover, they were using the Jewish Council to mask their eventual sinister purpose.126

5.2 Labour camp Betlem

In total, 305 forced laborers worked at Betlem from May to October 1942. Their primary work was raising and leveling the dike of the Merwede Canal. Of the total number of deported laborers only two survived: Levie de Lange and Max Nunes Nabarro.127 Max Nunes Nabarro was born on the 18th of March 1918 in Amsterdam. He became a telegrapher for the PTT [Dutch Royal Mail] and met Beppie Ephraïm in the Linneausstraat in 1937. They married in February 1940. Mrs. Ephraïm was Jewish as was Mr. Nunes Nabarro, but they were not practicing. At first they lived in the Linneausstraat but they moved after three months to Betondorp. He heard on the 4th of November 1940 that all Jewish workers would lose their jobs. The family received a reduced pay for some time and afterwards he found odd jobs at the Albert Cuypmarkt and in a lamp store. In February 1942 Mrs. Nunes Nabarro-Ephraïm became pregnant with their first child. In May 1942 Mr. Nunes Nabarro was forced to work at labour camp Betlem where he kept working until the 2nd of October. On that day all the laborers from Betlem were picked up by armed German soldiers and sent to the guarded station yard at the Polderweg by boat. One day later, he was sent to Westerbork Transit Camp. After Westerbork, he was sent to eight more labour, transit, and concentration camps.128 Mr. Nunes Nabarro refused to tell his complete story to reporters or historians because it was not just inconceivable but also indescribable. He stated that people who were not present in the

125 J. Presser, Ondergang, (1965), 189 126 L. de Jong, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog deel 5 (1974), 1074 127 Historische Kring Diemen, Taco ten Dam, Diemens oorlog: Een joods werkkamp op de plaats van het voornamelige paradijkselijke ontspanningsoord, (2015), 110-113 128 W. Gruner, Jewish Forced Labor Under the Nazis: Economic Needs and Recial Aims, 1938-1944, (2006), 212, 219 46 camps could never completely imagine what happened. Beppie Nunes Nabarro-Ephraïm died on the 27th of February in 2011 and Max Nunes Nabarro followed on the 22nd of July in that same year.129 On Mr. Nunes Nabarro’s obituary was written “mij krijgen ze niet klein” [they won’t bring me to my knees].130 On the 2nd of October 1942 a neighbour of the family had warned Mrs. Nunes Nabarro- Ephraïm that she saw Mr. Nunes Nabarro getting arrested. The couple had talked this possibility through and decided that the then very pregnant Mrs. Nunes Nabarro-Ephraïm would go into hiding. On the 28th of November 1942 she gave birth to a daughter, Carine Marion Nunes Nabarro. Through the help of Piet Bosboom and Gerrit Dekker of the Dutch resistance they found hiding places in The Netherlands. She visited her daughter in Westzaan with forged documents: a German non-commissioned officer arranged for her to become Mrs. Magdalena de Vries-Hazewinkel. Mr. Bosboom asked her to become a delivery man for the Resistance. With a wooden bike she supplied coupons and groceries to other people in hiding in Zaanstad, Zaandam and Haarlem. One day Mr. Bosboom needed to deliver pistols for the Resistance but they received a message that the men were being checked. Mrs. Nunes Nabarro-Ephraïm then delivered the guns and got through the checkpoints without problems. She stated that this time was very scary as the risks of capture were high and she was sure that as both a Jew and a member of the resistance she would be sent to a concentration camp.131 In 1944 Mrs. Nunes-Nabarro-Ephraïm left for a house at the Wilhelminastraat 34II in Zaandijk together with another Jewish family Drukker. Their new house had no gas or light and was very dirty. Mrs. Drukker asked if she wanted to go to Mrs. de Wit who had a market with her husband. Mrs. de Wit gave them a broom, a mop and groceries, which she repeated a week later. However, Mrs. de Wit stated that Jews were different: in her experience they were stuck-up and greedy. On the 5th of May 1945 Mrs. Nunes Nabarro-Ephraïm heard people singing and shouting that the war was over. She met Mrs. de Wit again to tell her that she was a Jew, and her daughter as well.132 Mother and daughter then moved to the Veeteeltstraat 63II in Amsterdam; Mr. Nunes Nabarro arrived on the 6th of June.133 Levie de Lange was born on the 20th of February 1904 to Israel de Lange and Mietje Pachter. His parents were poor: they lived at the Rode Leeuwengang in Amsterdam and Mr. de

129 https://www.joodsmonumentzaanstreek.nl/nunes-nabarro-ephraim-beppie/, Jewish Monument Zaanstreek, Pim Ligtvoet and Erik Schaap, (Consulted 2 of July 2017) 130 http://niwdigitaal.nl/archief-2/2011-3/1142-2, page 34, Archives of the Nieuw-Israëlietisch Weekblad, (Consulted 2 of July 2017) 131 https://www.joodsmonumentzaanstreek.nl/nunes-nabarro-ephraim-beppie-2/, Jewish Monument Zaanstreek, Pim Ligtvoet and Erik Schaap, (Consulted 2 of July 2017) 132 https://www.joodsmonumentzaanstreek.nl/nunes-nabarro-ephraim-beppie/#toggle-id-1, Jewish Monument Zaanstreek, Pim Ligtvoet and Erik Schaap, (Consulted 2 of July 2017) 133 https://www.joodsmonumentzaanstreek.nl/nunes-nabarro-ephraim-beppie-2/, Jewish Monument Zaanstreek, Pim Ligtvoet and Erik Schaap, (Consulted 2 of July 2017) 47 Lange dit not receive an education. He started working at an early age as a porter and met Henriëtte Turfreijer at age 17. Mrs. Turfrijer was one year younger than Mr. de Lange and worker as a factory girl at a matzo bakery. They got married on the 25th of July 1923. They had 15 children: Israel (1923), Mina and Rachel (1924), Esther (1926), Simon (1928, Judith (1929), Samuel (1930), Naatje (1932), Abraham (1933), Dora (1935), Reina (1936), Greta (1937), Jacob (1939), Philip and Leendert (1942). At its poorest the family lived off of 15 cents per person per day. Because of his job as a porter at the vegetable market at the Marnixstraat Mr. de Lange could bring home old food. He also worked as a bottle filler at the Vereenigde Amsterdamsche Melkinrichtingen at the Prinsengracht. The rent of 3 guilders for their house at the Valkenburgerstraat 175 soon became too high and they moved to a house with one chamber for fl. 1,80. Mr. de Lange regularly asked for help at the Civil Board for the poor and went to the plant in Amsterdam Noord to find usable coal. When their house was demolished in 1927, the family were assigned a new home at the Cliviastraat 21 in Amsterdam Noord. They received fl. 15 per week from the Civil Board for the poor in 1928 and accepted help from family and friends in the from of used clothing and goods. When the land of the Cliviastraat was demolished again the family de Lange moved to the Lange Distelstraat 29, and then again to the Distelvoorstraat 28 across the street. Mrs. de Lange-Turfreijer received soup three times per week from the Jewish Board for the poor at the Groenburgwal, which she diluted with water so the family could eat for six days. In 1936 Mr. de Lange arranged a place at the technical school at the Meeuwenlaan for his eldest son, Israel. He learned how to make furniture, but once qualified it was hard to find a position. However, the eldest two girls were also able to work in 1938 and they found jobs at a factory and in housekeeping. Meanwhile Mr. de Lange had to do unemployment relief work and the children Israel and Esther found a job. After the Germans occupied the Netherlands the children had to go to a Jewish school. From 1941 onwards it became forbidden that Jewish children received food from the municipality, so the children had to get their school lunch from the Jewish community. In that year, Esther was saved from an SS raid at her work by co-workers who hid her. Several days later Israels work was raided and he was taken to the Hollandse Schouwburg, but he was freed the next day.134 In May 1942 Mr. de Lange was sent to work at Betlem. He stated that he only realised later that the purpose of the transfer of Jewish workers to Betlem was to get them all together so it would be easier to arrest them all. His job was to help with the raising and leveling of the dike of the Merwede Canal. According to Mr. de Lange the work was really easy and only intended to keep them occupied. Once he and the other workers arrived at Betlem, the supervisor told them that their

134 L. de Lange, Het verhaal van mijn leven, (1964), Amsterdam, 1-60 48 salary would be 20% less. Mr. de Lange revealed that most of the laborers did not care: they only got fl. 13 per week and did not have enough money as it was. He earned fl. 24 as his rank was foreman. The team was tasked with emptying barges of sand onto the dike with wheelbarrows. The laborers came from surrounding villages and Amsterdam and commuted by motorboat from Amsterdam Noord, by tram trough Diemen or by bike. After a couple of weeks the non-Jewish finishers [afwerkers] were gone and he was asked if he wanted the position. The job meant that Mr. de Lange had to work on the slope of the dike and level it out. It also meant more pay and solitary work. He accepted, but he soon found out that he was not very good at leveling the dike. He stated that he spent hours fishing when there was no supervisor in sight: he brought a line with him and made a rod out of a branch. On the 2nd of October 1942 one of the new supervisors came to him and said there was going to be no fishing from tomorrow onwards. 135 On the 2nd of October the workday Mr. de Lange spent his workday in a normal fashion, until he saw men with guns and helmets around 5 o’clock. The SS-soldiers came from both sides of the dike, so he figured there was no way he could escape. Around 300 workers were surrounded. A couple worked across the Merwede Canal and could run away as soon as they saw the soldiers. However, these laborers were picked up at their house at night as the personal information was registered at the employment office. One laborer, Mr Goudsmit, jumped into a ditch and tried to hide in the waterfront but he was noticed when trying to breathe and picked up. The laborers were put into queues of five along the canal and their names were called to check if they had everyone. The SS-soldiers herded them on the motorboat with one guard at the front and one at the back. There was no conversation and Mr. de Lange stated that he had no illusions about what this meant for him. When the boat reached their destination between Carré and the Sarphatistraat the laborers were sent to the guarded station yard at the Polderweg. Mr. de Lange was locked in with several thousand other Jewish prisoners. People kept arriving throughout the night. Later Mr. de Lange heard that his family was arrested the same night, by a police officer he knew from soccer. His wife and 15 children were brought to the Polderweg as well, where they met their father. Transport to Westerbork had already begun. During the night, the Germans asked the Jews with a exemption from deportation to report themselves. Because of his work, Mr. de Lange his eldest son Israel was exempt. Mr. de Lange adviced his son to report himself, as the rest would surely be sent to Poland and would not come home. Israel reported himself and could go home. The rest of the family was sent to Westerbork in the early morning, where they stayed for 10 days in block 59. Transport to Poland was scheduled twice per week, and on the night of 9 to 10 October Mr. de Lange his name was called. The entire family had to be prepared the next morning to be sent to Auschwitz. Mr. de Lange pretended that his wife was sick and their transport was postponed.

135 L. de Lange, Het verhaal van mijn leven, 60-80 49 They received food in Westerbork, but he stated that this was too little to live off, but too much to die. The transport to Auschwitz could not be postponed again and on the 12th of October the family was put on the train with 2000 others. Mr. de Lange asserted that only 11 of the 2000 survived the war. During the journey, they received little food but Mr. de Lange begged for more and got two loaves of bread for his entire family. They travelled for two days and two nights until they reached a train station at half past three in the night. The 401 men from 17 until 50 had to stand on the left of the tracks, and the rest on the right. The women, children and elder men there put of trucks, driven off and died in the gas chambers of Auschwitz on the 15th of October. The men had to walk to camp Auschwitz, guarded by SS-soldiers who begged them for cigarettes. They were brought to a big barn where they had to stand and wait until it was day. The 401 men were lined up in the courtyard and again 151, including Mr. de Lange were selected to work in the coal mines. The rest were transported to another camp: two of them survived. One of these men had a difficult Portuguese name and then the SS-soldiers who wrote the names down could not write it down, he stabbed the pencil in the cheek of the Portuguese Jew. Other men who could not remember where family lived were beaten. After the selection Mr. de Lange and his group were taken to showers, their possessions were taken and they were given the striped suits and hats. They were shaved and given a number and a triangle. Mr. de Lange was number 67865. The group received the message that they were going to be brought to another camp, and they were fed soap from rutabaga. Before the group left, every man was given an empty straw bag, two blankets and a pillow.136 The transport went to Jawiszonice, which the Germans called Jawischowitz. Jawiszonice was a sub-camp of Auschwitz where the men had to work in coal mines. Mr. de Lange stated that he was used to hard labour on little food, but that he was still exhausted at night. They were supervised by the kapos, prisoner functionaries, who were mostly professional criminals with a black triangle. Mr. de Lange had to greet them according to strict guidelines, and regularly saw prisoners punished, beaten and tortured. Punitive drills were considered normal, even during the night. The job of the prisoners was working in the mines but afterwards they had to work in the camp: peeling potatoes, cutting cabbages and washing the laundry. On the 16th of October 1942 the camp director, a doctor and a high SS-commander came to visit the camp. The roster was changed: the toughest men had to work below the ground, and the weaker ones work had to work in the shafts above the ground. Mr. de Lange, together with 26 other men, was selected for the below ground team in the mine Breszce. The work was hard, there were many accidents, little food and beatings were constant. Mr. de Lange built the tunnels, operated the

136 L. de Lange, Het verhaal van mijn leven, 83-120 50 concrete mixer and shoveled coal. Prisoners were given 200 gr. bread in the morning, a liter of soup during the day when water was available and 200 gr. bread with margarine, sausage and cheese in the night. Work lasted from 8 in the morning to 10 in the night, every day of every week: Mr. de Lange was the only survivor of his team of 27. Mr. de Lange stated that only the hope that his eldest son Israel was still alive kept him going. On the 16th of January 1945 the guards told the prisoners that there was no mine work for the next few days. Two days later the prisoners had to take two or three blankets, soap, bread and margarine. The entire administration of the camp was burned and then the prisoners saw a big column of people walked past: the prisoners from Auschwitz. An hour later the prisoners from Jawiszonice walked the same route. If a person could not walk anymore they were shot. The group walked to a train station close to Wroclaw and was put on a train to Buchenwald. There Mr. de Lange was locked behind fences to wait for his lysol bath. Afterwards the group got a hot shower, bread and half a liter of soup. After a short stop in Buchenwald he was brought to Schwalbe in the city Berga on the 30th of January. He had to work in stollen, halls below the ground where secret weapons were being built. On the 11th of April the marches started again until after 17 days the Western European prisoners were split from the Eastern European prisoners. The former group walked towards the west, the latter towards the east. Eventually, the groups of Mr. de Lange reached a city where they stopped outside a factory. Every Jew was called upon to step out of the queue, but Mr. de Lange did not listen. He estimated that 40 Jews stayed in the queue, and the 60 that did not, did not return. The marches continued and meanwhile the group heard that Mussolini had died and later Hitler as well. On the morning of the 7th of May 1945 the SS-soldiers told the 90 prisoners that were left that they were free and then they left. The group walked further until they met American soldiers and were taken to barracks in Plauen. The four Dutch men who were left were put on a train to Jena and then to the Netherlands. On the 4th of June 1945 Mr. de Lange returned to Amsterdam where he soon heard that three sisters of his wife were still alive, as well as one of his own sisters. He travelled to her and heard that his eldest son had been taken away as well. Israel had visited his uncle and his family: they were all picked up, transported to Auschwitz and gassed on the 4th of June 1943.137 Mr. de Lange remarried to Marianne Stokvis-Piller who survived the medical experiments at Auschwitz. He regularly visited the grave of his mother at the Jewish cemetery in Diemen. He laid flowers there for his entire family. Of his next of kin, 87 of 88 people died. Mr. de Lange died on the 16th of December 1973.138

137 L. de Lange, Het verhaal van mijn leven, 124-160 138 Ibid., 2-5 51 While certainly not the worst part of his life, Betlem overall did not contain happy memories for Mr. de Lange. If we compare Betlem to Jawiszonice, it was a paradise. During his stay in labour camp Betlem, Mr. de Lange could fish and do nothing for several hours. The fish he caught meant extra food for his struggling family. However, during his stay in Jawiszonice he had to deal with the fact that the majority of his family were dead. Moreover, he had to work 14 hours per day on little food, constant beatings and repeated accidents. But Betlem was the first step in this terrible journey, and there its significance cannot be understated. The labour camps was used to round up the Jews, as was the case in the stories of Mr. de Lange and Mr. Nunes-Nabarro. Labour camp Betlem did not represent the worst of the occupation, but it remains an important piece of history and evidence of the brutal efficiency of the Nazi regime.

52 6. Conclusion

The influence of the Dutch Royal House of Orange on the inhabitants of Diemen could be seen throughout this thesis. For mayor de Geer van Oudegein, the Queen was both a source of joy and sadness. His father, Dirk Jan de Geer was stripped of his title by Queen Wilhelmina because she lost faith in him. However, the mayor did receive an orange bouquet from his civil servants. It also contained a poem stating that our unity made us stronger and that they joined the guard of the Royal House. His own love for the house of Orange could be seen when the mayor did not remove the street names with living members of the Royal House until prompted. Mr. van Silfhout was a admirer of Queen Wilhelmina, in contrast to Mr. Schröder who removed Wilhelmina’s portrait because she ran away from the Netherlands. These ties, or absent ties to the Royal House can be linked to the answers of the main questions of this thesis. In this thesis the main point was the German occupation and subsequent persecution of the Jews in Diemen. As we saw the occupation in Diemen had many different aspects, ranging from zealous anti-German resistance to collaboration and betrayal. We met the key protagonists mayor de Geer van Oudegein, municipal secretary van Silfhout and Mr. Schröder. Moreover, this thesis introduced the printing office of Aunt Jeanne, the Diemerkade, the city hall of Diemen and labour camp Betlem. These individuals and places gave insight into the Diemer experience during the German occupation and subsequent persecution of the Jews during the Second World War. The Diemer municipality responded to the German occupation with obedience first. Mayor de Geer van Oudegein implemented the German regulations with hesitation, but he did turn in the lists of Jewish citizens and stated that there were no Jews working at the municipality. This registration was invaluable for the Holocaust, and therefore the mayor of Diemen played his part. However, it was very difficult for a mayor to be insubordinate: these individuals were replaced upon discovery. While the mayor obeyed the German commands regarding the Jews without protest, he did resist against the occupation. Mr. de Geer van Oudegein recognized the anti-German feelings of his friend Mr. Bührmann and introduced him to the predecessor of the resistance in Diemen. The same resistance could store their illegal newspapers and have meetings in the city hall. It was clear to the Diemer citizens that their mayor protected them: he refused to send his civil servants to Germany and refused the destruction of the Diemerkade. After his dismissal, Diemen was led by two NSB mayors, Mr. Voûte and Mr. Guépin.

53 Mr. van Silfhout did continue with his task as municipal secretary when confronted with the German regulations. Privately he was fiercely anti-German and sympathized with the Jews. As is the case with mayor de Geer van Oudegein, the municipal secretary aided the resistance in small ways: obtaining ration stamps for people in hiding, burying a deceased Jewish lady. Similar as well is the protection of the Diemer residents: Mr. van Silfhout arranged food transports from Friesland for the hungry citizens. Both the mayor and the municipal secretary linked their disobedience to the German occupation to their love of the Dutch Royal House. Mr. Schröder stood on the opposite side of the spectrum: an active member of the NSB who berated other German residents if they were not nationalistic enough. Moreover, he industriously made himself useful to the German administration by stripping and selling Jewish possessions and accommodations. While Mr. Schröder may have also helped individual Diemer residents, it is entirely possible that this was done to clear his own name towards the end of the war. The effect of the German administration is displayed in labour camp Betlem. The former recreational center fulfilled its own, albeit small, role in the Holocaust. Two witnesses of Betlem were later sent to concentration camps and although they survived, their testimony is horrifying. Mr. de Lange told his story in detail and makes Betlem seem like a holiday camp in comparison, while Mr. Nunes-Nabarro´s silence regarding his past speaks volumes in itself. Even in 1942 it was clear to newspapers like Vrij Nederland (coincidentally printed in Diemen) that labour camps like Betlem were points of access for the extermination of the Jews. Concluding, the German occupation in Diemen was varied: most of the inhabitants obeyed the new authority and continued with their daily tasks, while privately supporting the Dutch Royal House. The Diemer municipality assisted the organized resistance in Diemen in small ways, but they did not do anything to stop the deportation of the Jewish citizens. Meanwhile, Mr. Schröder benefited from these deportations. He cooperated with the Germans to strip and sell the Jewish furniture and houses: part of that money went towards himself and part of it went towards the German administration. In this way, he played his small role in the persecution of the Jews. When we follow those Jewish people to labour camp Betlem in Diemen we see their fate. While Betlem was a simply place where the Jewish people were forced to work, the prisoners were sent to concentration camps and likely death afterwards. In these three ways, Diemen played its small role in the German occupation and persecution of the Jews. The city and its inhabitants helped the Germans with one hand, and opposed with the other. In the future more research could be done towards labour camps in the Netherlands. There is a Facebook page which attempts to collect all stories and information regarding the lesser known camps in the Netherlands. It is connected to the website www.werkkampen.nl: https://www.facebook.com/werkkampen/. However, it is tied to its medium: Facebook is restrictive 54 in its access and therefore many people can not navigate the site. Attention could also go towards the diary of Mr. van Silfhout, which could be transcribed in its entirety and printed. It is a fascinating read, because it combines the bureaucratic daily life of a municipal secretary with Mr. van Silfhout passionate thoughts concerning the occupation. It is an accurate representation of the German administration in the Netherlands.

55 56 7. Bibliography

7.1 Resources

Consulted archives:

Gemeente Amsterdam Stadsarchief (te Gemeente Diemen)

- 30546 Archief van de Gemeente Diemen 1813-1987

1469, 1470, 3146, 3167, 3170, 3735, 3755, 3756, 4473

NIOD Instituut voor Oorlogs-, Holocaust- en Genocidestudies

- 244 Europese dagboeken en egodocumenten

714 Guépin, F. P

- 123 Nationaal Socialistische-Beweging

94A J. Verkuylen aan J.H. Carp

57 7.2 Literature

- Archive Amsterdam, at https://archief.amsterdam/inventarissen/overzicht/30546.nl.html (Consulted 26 December 2017).

- Bakker, A., ‘De vernietiging van 32% van de Diemense woningen in 30 dagen’ in Alfred Bakker, Willy Bulterman-Hartsink, John Cuijpers, Taco ten Dam, Ronald van Gelder, Jaap Haag, Josje Kronenberg-Heijne et al. (ed.), Diemens oorlog: Dorp bij Amsterdam onder Duitse bezetting (2015), 201-214.

- Bulterman-Hartsink, W. & Meurs, E. van, ‘Herinneringen van enkele Diemenaren’ in Alfred Bakker, Willy Bulterman-Hartsink, John Cuijpers, Taco ten Dam, Ronald van Gelder, Jaap Haag, Josje Kronenberg-Heijne et al. (ed.), Diemens oorlog: Dorp bij Amsterdam onder Duitse bezetting (2015), 41-50.

- Croes, M. & Tammes, P., Gif laten wij niet voortbestaan. Een onderzoek naar de overlevingskansen van Joden in de Nederlandse gemeenten 1940-1945 (Amsterdam 1999).

- Dam, T. ten, ‘De aalgladde bewegingen van een nationaalsocialist’ in Alfred Bakker, Willy Bulterman-Hartsink, John Cuijpers, Taco ten Dam, Ronald van Gelder, Jaap Haag, Josje Kronenberg-Heijne et al. (ed.), Diemens oorlog: Dorp bij Amsterdam onder Duitse bezetting (2015), 273-280.

- Dam, T. ten, ‘Drie burgemeesters in oorlogstijd’ in Alfred Bakker, Willy Bulterman-Hartsink, John Cuijpers, Taco ten Dam, Ronald van Gelder, Jaap Haag, Josje Kronenberg-Heijne et al. (ed.), Diemens oorlog: Dorp bij Amsterdam onder Duitse bezetting (2015) 261-272.

- Dam, T. ten, ‘Een joods werkkamp op de plaats van het voormalige paradijselijke ontspanningsoord’ in Alfred Bakker, Willy Bulterman-Hartsink, John Cuijpers, Taco ten Dam, Ronald van Gelder, Jaap Haag, Josje Kronenberg-Heijne et al. (ed.), Diemens oorlog: Dorp bij Amsterdam onder Duitse bezetting (2015), 110-115.

- Dam, T. den, ‘Nieuw tijdschrift Historische Kring Diemen met thema Oranje,’ Diemer Nieuws, 18 July 2013.

- Dam, T. ten, ‘Principiële en moedige mensen in Diemen’ in Alfred Bakker, Willy Bulterman- Hartsink, John Cuijpers, Taco ten Dam, Ronald van Gelder, Jaap Haag, Josje Kronenberg-Heijne et al. (ed.), Diemens oorlog: Dorp bij Amsterdam onder Duitse bezetting (2015), 149-168.

58 - Dam, T. ten, ‘Het kwam voor dat onderduikers jaren leefden naast NSB’ers’ in Alfred Bakker, Willy Bulterman-Hartsink, John Cuijpers, Taco ten Dam, Ronald van Gelder, Jaap Haag, Josje Kronenberg-Heijne et al. (ed.), Diemens oorlog: Dorp bij Amsterdam onder Duitse bezetting (2015), 173-190.

- ‘Diemen groeit naar 35.000 inwoners,’ Diemerkrant.nl, 27 May 2017, http://www.diemerkrant.nl/2017/05/27/diemen-groeit-naar-35-000-inwoners/ (Consulted 26 December 2017).

- Diest, S.C., ‘Betlem’ in Historische Kring Stad Muiden, Villa Amuda 28, 13, 1 (1999) 12-13,

- Facebook of the Municipality Diemen, post on the 5th of May 2018, 02:00 Canadezen over de Muiderstraatweg in 1945 shot by municipal secretary Silfhout, M. van, at https://www.facebook.com/gemeentedieme n/ (Consulted 6 May 2018)

- Gelder, R. van, J. Presser – Ondergang, NRC of 14 May 1999, (Consulted 17 May 2018)

- Gruner, W., Jewish Forced Labor Under the Nazis: Economic Needs and Recial Aims 1938-1944 (2006).

- Haag, J., ‘Doktoren in Verzet’ in in Alfred Bakker, Willy Bulterman-Hartsink, John Cuijpers, Taco ten Dam, Ronald van Gelder, Jaap Haag, Josje Kronenberg-Heijne et al. (ed.), Diemens oorlog: Dorp bij Amsterdam onder Duitse bezetting (2015) 116-123.

- Heijden, C. van der, Grijs Verleden: Nederland en de Tweede Wereldoorlog (2008).

- Herderschee, G., Politici komen en gaan Ambtenaar blijft bestaan, Volkskrant of 19 June 2007, (Consulted 28 June 2018).

- Huygens Institute of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences [KNAW], Voûte, Edward John (1887- 1950), consulted May 2017 at http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/bwn1880-2000/lemmata/bwn5/vote.

- Jong, L. de, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, (Den Haag 1974).

- Nieuw-Israëlietisch Weekblad, Overlijdensadvertenties, 29 July 2017, (Consulted 2 of July 2018).

- Parlementair Documentatie Centrum of the Universiteit Leiden, D.J. Dirk de Geer, consluted 2 May 2017 at http://www.parlement.com/id/vg09ll0wgqzj/d_j_dirk_de_geer.

- Parlementair Documentatie Centrum of the Universiteit Leiden, L.E. Eddy de Geer van Oudegein van Oudegein, at http://www.parlement.com/id/vg09ll0wgqzl/l_e_eddy_de_geer_van_oudegein (Consulted 2 May 2017).

59 - Parlementair Documentatie Centrum of the Universiteit Leiden, L.H.N. Bosch Ridder van Rosenthal, at https://www.parlement.com/id/vg09llz4rlwd/l_h_n_bosch_ridder_van_rosenthal (Consulted 2 May 2017).

- Presser, J., Ondergang, 2 vols (S-Gravenhage 1965), 181-182.

- Lange, L. de, Het verhaal van mijn leven, (Amsterdam 1964).

- Ligtvoet, P., Schaap, E., Jewish Monument Zaanstreek, Beppie Nunes Nabarro-Ephraïm, at https://www.joodsmonumentzaanstreek.nl/nunes-nabarro-ephraim-beppie/ (Consulted 2 July 2017).

- Ligtvoet, P., Schaap, E., Jewish Monument Zaanstreek, Beppie Nunes Nabarro-Ephraïm, at https://www.joodsmonumentzaanstreek.nl/nunes-nabarro-ephraim-beppie-2/ (Consulted 2 of July 2017).

- Reurekas, J. F., Diemen 1940-1945, (Diemen 1985).

- Reurekas, J.F., Diemen in oude ansigten deel 4, (Diemen 1983).

- Reurekas, J.F., Kent u ze nog… de Diemenaren deel 1, (Diemen 1981).

- Romijn, P. Burgemeesters in Oorlogstijd. Besturen onder Duitse bezetting, (Amsterdam 2006).

- Silfhout, M. van, Diemen in oude ansigten deel 1, (Diemen 1972).

- Teiwes, H. & Dam, T. ten, ‘Holwerd bood Friese gastvrijheid en liefdevolle verzorging’ in Alfred Bakker, Willy Bulterman-Hartsink, John Cuijpers, Taco ten Dam, Ronald van Gelder, Jaap Haag, Josje Kronenberg-Heijne et al. (ed.), Diemens oorlog: Dorp bij Amsterdam onder Duitse bezetting (2015), 285-291.

60