Talk:Dutch resistance

Fact template

I've added to the sentence "most of the initial resistance came from Social Democrats, Catholics and Communists", because my (Dutch) history teacher taught me that the initial resistance came from communists and protestants, social democrats and catholics coming into resistance only much later. I unfortunately have no written source to back this. Qwertyus 15:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit made, "Discovery by the Germans of involvement in the resistance often meant an immediate death sentence." Added "often", as it did not always result in death. There were many arrested resistance men and women who survived the war, though quite often they were killed or sent to concentration camps. The book "To Save a Life" by Ellen Land-Weber (ISBN 0-252-02515-6) sourced. 24.137.105.8 17:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

English game

Other articles refer to the "English Game", whereby the German intelligence penetrated and compromised Dutch Resistance. Any info? Folks at 137 08:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You are referring to the [Englandspiel] in which the germans used a captured agent to request additional agents and supplies, it wasn't so much a infiltration in the 'dutch' resistance as an infiltration into an SOE (British) operation Remko2 (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation of 'onderduikers'

The word 'onderduikers' has been literally translated to 'under-divers' and then in the organisation section not translated at all. I have changed all 3 to "people in hiding". (I'm a Dutch speaker so I can confirm that's the best translation possible - there's no single English word to describe onderduikers) Oplossing is duidelijk 20:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro Dutch pov?

Modern critics seriously doubt the efficacy of the dutch resistance, as well as its support in the general population. I think the article as it is now is fairly positive;and I would be very careful to take on the criticism on the Dutch when further developing this article. Arnoutf (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you be specific? Some modern critics names or documentation concerning the matter? 99.240.198.86 (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Communist Resistance

The article states that the communist resistance is not mentioned, this is entirely correct, as the RVV (Raad van verzet) was comprised for a large part of Communists i.e. Hannie Schaft, Jan Bonekamp, Truus en Freddie Oversteegen. Remko2 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The RVV was a combination of several resistance groups, in which also the communist party participated. The RVV was founded at the end of the war when most communist resistance partiicpants were already arrested and murdered. Right wing resistance groups did not want to cooperate with the RVV and used the argument that it was communistic. Howaever, this was a falsification for propagandistic reasons.Robvhoorn (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In answer to the remarks by Radeksz: The reference to the CIA-description is pointing to a cold war lie. Unfortunately, due to the cold war there are no good sources for the importance of the communist resistance. The communist resistance started on May 15th 1940 and not after the invasion in the Soviet Union. From the first anti-Jewish measurements by the German the communists protested and gave support to the Jews. Other resistance groups reacted in the beginning hardly against the anti-Semitic measurements; they had sometimes even an anti-Semitic nature by themselves (cf. the gruesome murdering of the Jewish social-democratic alderman De Miranda in the concentration camp Amersfoort by members of the resistance group De Geuzen). The major part of the Jewish resistance was communist resistance. Already in August 1940 there was a special branch of the German GESTAPO that was fighting the communist resistance. Catholic resistance was non-existing until 1943. Of the social democrats only a small group started resistance in August 1940 and only in the course of 1942 it became important. Except the national railway strike in the fall of 1944, all major strikes were organised by the communists. Right wing resistance was very small in the beginning, the major groups were the Stijkel group of about 70 persons en the Geuzen of about the same size, compared to the communist resistance existing of 2000 persons. In the first year of the war the resistance existed for 90% of communists. Non-communist resistance became important from 1943 and grew enormously in September 1944 when allied armies entered The Netherlands. At that time the most of the communist resistance participants were murdered or disappeared in concentration camps. After the liberation the population appreciated the communist resistance such that the communist newspaper became the biggest newspaper and in fear of a communist election victory the government delayed the national election for more than a year. Because of the support of the Dutch communists to the dominance of Stalin over Eastern Europe resulted in the loss of support of the population. The policy of Wikipedia requiring sources results in hiding the truth and resulting in the use of cold war sources like that of the CIA. In the present article the importance of the communist resistance is strongly undervalued, the importance of the other resistance is overvalued. Due to a lack of written sources I will not change the article, I will wait until the appearance of more adequate literature.Robvhoorn (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When did Communist engage into resistance. Was there a difference between those servile to Moscow and for example Trotsky supporters? 41.150.237.92 (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ad Paulen

Although it is often said that Ad Paulen was a participant in resistance, accept his own statement there is no independent source for it. Actually, he was at the beginning of the war a member of the board of the fascistic Black Front, which changed its name in National Front. The Fuehrer of that group was the well-known fascist Arnold Meijer. It supported the ideas of Mussolini, which differed slightly from the ideas of Hitler. At the beginning of the war Ad Paulen supported the idea of an in name independent Netherlands under German Leadership. The National Front was very anti-Semitic. One of the members was General Seyffardt, founder of the East Legion that fought togetehet with the Germans against the Soviet Union; Seyffardt was later murdered by the famous communistsic oriented resistance group CS6. Confusion is understandable becaus Paulen received the highest military decoration. But as many opportunists, Paulen switched sides after the German defeat near Stalingrad. Therefore, I remove Paulen. Robvhoorn (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

"Prior to the German invasion, the Netherlands had adhered to a policy of strict neutrality." That statement isn't exactly true. While the Netherlands did proclaim neutrality they at least gave passive support to the German war effort by allowing Allied planes to fly over their territory. I've also heard they allowed British agents and troops to move through the Netherlands, but can not confirm the validity right now. --41.18.153.104 (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this one is true either "Despite strict neutrality, even going so far as shooting down British as well as German warplanes over Holland". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.49.241 (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Error under the header activities?

Under the header activities theres this: The next day city hall in Amsterdam was blown up in order to destroy all records.

I believe this to be an error. City hall in Amsterdam was not the subject of a sabotage / resistance attack that day as far as I know and could find back in a quick search on the internet. According to for example this stub article on the Dutch wikipedia: the 'bevolkingsregister' (municipal records on persons) were attacked by resistance members. Perhaps this fact somehow got into this article in the wrong (i.e. factually incorrect) manner. There was an attempt to bomb the national house of records, which held copies of the information on 'persoonsbewijzen' (personal identification cards) but that house of records was a house named Kleykamp in Den Haag (the Hague). Later on that was succesfully bombed by the RAF, killing 61 people. I wrote this last bit here to provide some background into what I believe may also be the source of that quoted sentence.

Should we remove the sentence? Mlodewijk (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to sign the above statement, so I did it now. On top of that I made a mistake myself in the above statement. The attempt to burn a bevolkingsregister (population register) was in Amsterdam according to this Dutch languaged website: , but it was in 1943, this therefore can in no way have been the described event in the article, nor was it related to the Februaristaking, which is also described in that paragraph.

I am so sorry, I forget to sign again, so now I do Mlodewijk (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Names removed

After the war a million people claimed to have been member of Dutch resistance. In reality several ten thousands were involved in resistance and only a few thousand participated in organized resistance. Maybe hundreds of them are important enough for mentioning in an encyclopaedia. I removed a few names, because these persons are completely unknown in The Netherlands. One can only add persons when notable resistance acts are known, i.e. they should have a lemma in either the English or the Dutch Wikipedia with description of resistance acts. Vandermeersche was a Belgian resistance persons and should not mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvhoorn (talk • contribs) 10:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I know I don't have a reliable source, but when my father was alive, he told me that three of his relatives who didn't immigrate to the US were in the Dutch Resistance. Two of them died from non-combat related deaths (one was specifically from a heart attack), and the other was still alive in the post-WW2 period. I don't know if the mane is dead or alive now. I'm sure neither of them are worthy of being listed here, but it would be nice if people could find a way to look up some members.---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

About people without own article

User Freshacconci removed some names of people that did not have an own article in Wikipedia. That is understandable. However, it concerned the names of the most important people in Dutch resistance. They were communists and due to cold war attitudes Dutch historians have refused to describe their real importance in history books. Maybe I will in nearby future create articles in the English language Wikipedia. Sally Dormits was the leader of a communist-Jewish sabotage group in Rotterdam. It counted more than 100 members. Most of them died. Paul de Groot was the leader of the Dutch communist party, just before the war, the first few years during the war and many years after the war. He was the leader of the communist resistance in the first few years and that resistance was more tha 90% of the resistance in the first three years of the German occupation. Daan Goulooze was the central figure in The Netherlands of the West-European espionage group Rote Kapelle. Via Goulooze the Dutch communist resistance kept radio contact with Moscow. Gerrit Kastein was a very important figure in the national communist resistance and one of the founders of the communist resistance in The Hague. Beside that he founded the so-called medical resistance by the doctors and the student resistance. Furthermore, he was involved in espionage activities and sent a lot of informtion to the Dutch government in exile in London. Especially Kastein, De Groot and Goulooze are far more more important members of Dutch resistance than all other mentioned persons. Robvhoorn (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the names that either did not have an article or were unsourced. As a list, these names are useless as there is no information as to why they are included. Either create articles for those individuals or provide informative links so a reader not familiar with this history can learn more. This is an encyclopedia and we need to assume the reader does not know the history you provide above and we cannot expect a reader to turn to this talk page for further information. freshacconci talktalk 15:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should provide information and not only refer to articles in itself. The encyclopedia is not complete and will never be, so, alway articles about interesting persons will lack. The major persons of resistance should be mentioned to give people the opportunity to look further. A source might be the Dutch language Wikipedia (although an article about Sally Dormits, who committed suicide after arrest, is still lacking there). Without these names the neutrality of the article ios in very serious danger, because the most important members of resistance then wil be lacking and with that all memebers of the by far most important resistance group in The Netherlands and all communists. Remval of these names is a kind of censorship and a complete destruction of the neutrality of the article.

Robvhoorn (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Superlatives

There seems to be a lot of use of superlatives in this article. Some examples:

- The assertion that the Dutch general strike was the only one in Europe during the occupation period except for the one in Luxemburg - but wasn't there one in Denamrk also?

- The excuse-making for the success of the German invasion. It is enough to say that the Germans attacked in overwhelming force and the Dutch were defeated almost everywhere with great rapidity. To say that a bridge was "successfully defended until the capitulation by the Dutch Marines" is to say that it was not successfully defended.

- The assertion that the LO was the most successful illegal organisation in occupied Europe. Not to put too fine a point on things, I think Tito's partisans, to name just one example, may have had a little more success.

I'm sorry to say that, taken all in all, whilst there were shining examples of bravery and rectitude amongst the Dutch people in the years 1940-45, the reception given by many Dutch people to the Germans seems to have been one of arms (and other limbs) open - but this is not so much the impression you get from reading this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 10:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Literary and cinematic treatments

I'd like to see a section added to mention films and fiction on this topic, particularly (for the EN WP) those that reached the English-speaking audience and readers, such as Paul Verhoeven's Soldier of Orange and Harry Mulisch's The Assault (De Aanslag). (I don't know the style of the Level 2 heading.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

English

The grammar of this article is atrocious and should be looked at as soon as possible. A lot of "dutch-isms" and dutch phrasing has crept in, and it noticeably detracts from the overall quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.110.38 (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Corrections

There are quite a few examples of potential confusion here:

1.In the 'Reprisals under 'Operation Silber' section, para 4 "...attacked Rauter's car on 6 March 1945". Is this year correct?
2.In the 'England-farers' section, para 1 "...named after some 200 who had traveled by boat across the North Sea, most of the other 1,500 went across land." This gem refers to Dutch people fleeing to Great Britain, but the last time I looked GB is an island, so how did the "other 1,500 went[travel] across land" ??
3. Is the 'Dutch women' photo appropriate ? The picture shows female collaborators about to get their heads shaved amongst other things, but they look rather happy, indeed at least one of them is smiling (they obviously don't know what's in store for them). I think it should be deleted or replaced.

I have to agree with 81.71.110.38; this article needs a lot of work done on it.

RASAM (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

de Geuzen

the link in the first paragraph that should lead me to a Dutch resistance group, brings me to a Belgian comic from 1985 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.201.250.19 (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dutch resistance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090208153559/http://www.hw.com:80/academics/ushistory/independent/Resistance.htm to http://www.hw.com/academics/ushistory/independent/Resistance.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100822204525/http://www.hw.com:80/academics/ushistory/independent/Genocide.htm to http://www.hw.com/academics/ushistory/independent/Genocide.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050215192847/http://www.homepages.hetnet.nl:80/~pa3geg/Memwoestehoeve.htm to http://www.homepages.hetnet.nl/~pa3geg/Memwoestehoeve.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111110061540/http://verzetsmuseum.org/kinderen/nl/voorkant/gewapend_verzet,lo_en_lkp to http://www.verzetsmuseum.org/kinderen/nl/voorkant/gewapend_verzet,lo_en_lkp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060203025021/http://www.webster.edu:80/~woolflm/netherlands.html to http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/netherlands.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

"England-Voyagers"

Specific discussion of the US film "The Great Escape" seems unrelated to the discussion of Bram van der Stok's escape from Stalag Luft III.

"In the Hollywood movie this pride of place is hijacked by a gung-ho American escapee who crosses the Swiss border on a motorbike. The reality of the war was much more sobre: not a single American was involved, and only the two Norwegians and the Dutchman had the skills to escape and survive, because they could speak German."

The film is based on the true events surrounding van der Stok's escape, but it is heavily fictionalized. Stating that Steve McQueen doing a stunt in an essentially fictional movie hijacks the real historical events doesn't add anything to the article. Furthermore, American officers were involved in digging the actual tunnels and saying "not a single American was involved" is disingenuous. And finally, the "gung-ho American" fails to cross the Swiss border in the film. I think mention of the film should be removed completely and replaced with discussion and a wikilink to the article on the actual Stalag Luft III escape.