Helen Grevers – Recent developments in the history of the camps

Expert meeting ‘Legacies of collaboration: trajectories of integration and exclusion’, 4 - 5 June 2009 NIOD, Amsterdam.

During the occupation there was an extreme form of exclusion and, as Geraldien made clear, camp Amersfoort is a distinct example hereof. After the liberation of the Netherlands in 1944-45 the perspective of exclusion shifted: now former national socialist were locked up under severe conditions in the more than hundred internment camps. Camp Amersfoort was also used for this purpose: since 19 April 1945, 4000 former collaborators were detained here.

The manner, underlying ideas and goals of these two different phases of exclusion can’t be compared of course. But what can be compared is the way how these camps functioned and how this can be studied. Comparisons with different times and other camps can help to broaden our understanding of the history of the camps, as for example the French historian Peschanski demonstrated by studying the continuities and ruptures in the history of the French camps between 1938 and 1946.

The German concentration camps are often studied from a top down perspective, like the recent study Der Ort des Terrors on German camps. On the other hand there are studies which only make use of oral history. An analytic approach is hereby often neglected. So there is a need for more in-depth studies on the life in the German concentration camps. This is also the case for studies in the history of the internment camps after World War II. The Legacies project tries to fulfill this need. Within this project I will be studying the phase of the internment camps. I will do this in a comparative way by looking at different internment camps in the Netherlands and Belgium between 1944 en 1950.

Although there is a lack in studies, one cannot say that nothing has been done. Since 1945 different testimonials of former detainees have been published and the media and public opinion was, and maybe still is, strongly influenced by these testimonials. It’s striking that these documents are still very prominent in the different kind of studies at the internment camps in the last couple of years. In Belgium the historians Seberechts, Rzoska and Bruyneel made use of the diaries of the former collaborators Brouns, Swerts and Laplasse and in the Netherlands the jurist Belfinfante used the voucher of the former Dutch national socialist Van der Vaart Smit to tell the story of the life in the internment camps. And also Dutch journalist and children of former collaborators often follow back on this voucher.

In the Dutch and Belgian testimonials there are recurrent themes. Most prominent is the perspective on mistreatment and injustice in the different camps. In the first year of the internment camps there were poor conditions and the camps were overcrowded which led to ill-treatment. Because of the ill-treatment, a lot of former collaborators have presented themselves as victims of the judicial system after the period of internment. Afterwards they looked for recognition of the ill-treatment in politics and in the public sphere. More specifically in the case of Belgium for instance there was the belief that the government used the punishment for the breakup of the Flemish movement. So in both the Netherlands and Belgium this interment phase made that the legacies of collaboration was hard in the following phase of integration and also for the children of former collaborators.

When researching the internment camps, one cannot ignore these ego documents. But what is the value of these kind of documents in studying the period of internment? The sources may not tell us what really happened in the camps, but they can tell us something of the experience of internment of the detainees. Experience and memory and their social consequences are important in the Legacies project. For instance, a question in the research project is how the memory of the mistreatment in the camps influenced the period of integration in the 1950’s and 60’s. And furthermore, how the memory influenced the children of former collaborators.

But the published memories don’t cover all the aspects of camp life and are problematic for the mentioned reasons. So it is important to broaden the viewpoint, like Geraldien did in here publication on camp Amersfoort. Next to the viewpoint of the prisoners, she highlights the viewpoint of the German authorities and the outside world. In this way the broader and nuanced context becomes clear. I think that highlighting different perspectives is also a good way in which one should study the history of the internment camps. There is room for new insights on different levels. I would like to highlight three interconnected themes on which my PhD research is now set up:

1) First of all, the new approach by which Geraldien set up here research is inspiring for new research on internment camps. The sociology of camp life may offer new insights in the way the phase of internment was experienced. This approach is in line with current studies of the penitentiary system and the German concentration camps in the Netherlands, for example Marieke van Meeuwenoord on Vught. The different elements of camp life which are identified in the ego documents can be studied more in-depth. A theme like the relations between the detainees, with the guards and with the outside world is important. Working inside or outside the camps is also an interesting topic to study. Furthermore the specific programs for education and recreation are interesting to look at. By researching these themes we will gain a better understanding of how daily life looked like in the camps. How did the stay in the camps affected the moral? What was the perspective on release? Looking at these themes is helpful for the question how the stay in the camps influenced the later return into society. Next to the published memories I will gather information from a multitude of documents with information on the detainees: daily reports, reports on conduct, attempted escapes and ill-treatment. Also personal documents like seized letters from detainees and unpublished diaries are valuable. Furthermore, it is important to focus on specific groups, like women and young political delinquents. More case studies should be made on for example women camps, like Machteld De Metsenaere did on the women camp in the Wollestraat in Ghent.

2) Second, just like Josje pointed out yesterday one can focus on the concepts of inclusion and exclusion. In researching the phase of internment thoughts about crime and punishment are interesting here. What I discovered so far, is that these thoughts changed rapidly during 1944 and 1950. Directly after the liberation the former collaborators were collectively removed from society. They were seen as unworthy citizens. In this period exclusion of collaborators was the dominant perspective, and integration seemed very distant. But nevertheless, soon preparations were made to achieve encompassment of former collaborators into ‘good citizenship’. Both in the Netherlands and Belgium special programs were set up to achieve this goal. Special probation services attempted to re-educate and rehabilitate former collaborators by placing them in special working programs. Education was also set up in the camps, just as different forms of recreation. Furthermore, detainees also got social and clerical accompaniment. How can this swift from exclusion to a policy of inclusion be explained? To answer this, one of the main features in my research is the way in which the internment of former national socialists produced new ways of thinking about the regime of imprisonment procedures for release and preparations for re-integration into society. And this topic brings me to my last research theme.

3) That is the relation of the functioning of the internment camps with regime change. In the search for legitimacy and recovery, and when emotions ran high, former collaborators were violently excluded from society. Ill-treatment should be studied in this context. But regime change also gave way for a new begin on different levels. This is also applicable on the internment camps. In Belgium there was off course the experience of World War I with collaborators and punishment, but in the Netherlands this experience was lacking. The Department of Justice was faced with 100,000 new prisoners in the excising prison system, and this system was not adequate enough. So camps were improvised and former collaborators were locked up together in different barracks, a way which reminded of the German system. This made an end to centuries of cellular imprisonment. Next to the experiment of collective imprisonment, the common labor, sometimes in a system of ‘open camps’ which meant there were no guards, was also a new way in the prison system. These innovations would profoundly influence the regular criminal justice system for years to come. It is therefore interesting to look at these mechanisms. This approach was already used by the Belgian historian Ghistelinck, who looked at camp Beverlo in the mining region as a breach or evolution in the penitentiary system. An expansion of the number of camps and a comparison with the Netherlands can lead to a better understanding of the different processes.

To conclude: So far, the different testimonials of former detainees played an important role in writing the history of the internment camps. This made that it was often argued that the regimes of the various camps were severe and conditions inhumane. Looking at the daily life of the detainees in the camps by a sociological approach, linked with the evolution in thoughts about inclusion and exclusion and looking at the innovations in the regular criminal justice system, is a new way of looking at the history of the internment camps and can contribute to a better understanding of this period and the different mechanisms. On the basis of this information we can answer the question of what daily life looked like and under what conditions the return to society was realized.