Suchergebnisse

What lessons can we learn from history, and more importantly: how? This question is as commonplace as it is essential. Efficient transitional justice policy evaluation requires, inter alia, an historical dimension. What policy has or has not worked in the past is an obvious key question. Nevertheless, history as a profession remains somewhat absent in the multi-disciplinary field of transitional justice. The idea that we should learn lessons from history continues to create unease among most professional historians. In his critical introduction, the editor investigates the framework of this unease. At the core of this book are nine national European case studies (post 1945, the 1970s dictatorships, post 1989) which implement the true scholarly advantage of historical research for the field of transitional justice: the broad temporal space. All nine case studies tackle the longer-term impact of their country's transitional justice policies. Two comparative conclusions, amongst others by the internationally renowned transitional justice specialist Luc Huyse, complete this collection. This volume is a major contribution in the search for synergies between the agenda of historical research and the rapidly developing field of transitional justice.'The most sophisticated study to date of transitional justice. Responding to a thoughtful and well-elaborated conceptual framework, contributors explore transitional justice in nine European countries in the aftermath of civil and interstate wars. The collective findings document the variety of responses, some of the reasons for them, their consequences for justice, healing and democratic reconstruction and the important role played by official and collective memories. This is a must read for academics and policymakers alike.' Richard Ned Lebow, Professor of International Political Theory in the War Studies Department of King's College London and the James O. Freedman Presidential Professor (Emeritus) of Government at Dartmouth College'Surprisingly, we needed the detour of studying faraway tyrannies and wars to rethink in terms of transitional justice the legacy of painful pasts and the persistence of traumatic memories in postwar Europe. This impressive book offers a tableau of incisive country studies inspired by this new approach. Firmly embedded in comparative analysis and theoretical reflection, it should be in the hand luggage of the non-existent but dearly needed Special Rapporteur on Transitional Justice of the Council of Europe.' Antoon De Baets, author of Responsible History, University of Groningen

As the start of the centenary commemoration of the First World War (wwi) in 2014 drew closer, Belgium saw the rise of a bigger 'commemorative competition'. The different governments launched their own commemorative programmes, parallel to (and sometimes against) each other. In the slipstream of this, a huge commercial and business competition erupted in a struggle for funding and visitors. There was also an unprecedented funding of new academic wwi-research. This contribution first makes some remarks on this research, and then looks briefly at the commemorative and memorial policies. On the one hand, current wwi policies confirm (and reinforce) the differences in similar policies related to the Second World War. The narratives, as well as the moral or didactic categories, are clearly distinct. On the other hand however, there are some similarities to be found in the policy frameworks created after 1995. Some characteristics of such policy mechanisms are a more pro-active role (national) authorities adopt in the construction of memories, a strong interconnectedness between public and private interests and an underlying driving meta-narrative of a national duty to remember connected to the target of an emotional and active investment of each individual citizen. This article is part of the forum 'Commemorating War 100 years after the First World War'.

On the surface one might assume Martin Conway's The Sorrows of Belgium. Liberation and political reconstruction 1944-1947 (Oxford, 2012) is exactly what its title implies - a book about the difficult early post-war years in Belgium, and in part this book is exactly that. Conway does offer a detailed cross-sectional analysis of the post-war transition years, ending his story with the Communist departure from the Belgian government in 1947. This book does a lot more than that however, as it attempts to use Belgium to better understand how European state restorations after World War Two in general took shape. In his book Conway confidently merges political, social and economic history that are often still detached schools of research. He brings together elements of institutional reform and the agenda of state elites, social class agency, the fluid dynamics of collective national and regional (or local) identities, changing political norms and cultural values, and the role of several key individuals such as the head of state and the prime minister. Such a holistic approach is a rather un-Belgian one, unfortunately. Perhaps this partly explains why the book – although universally well-received – caused debate among some Belgian historians, for example in a debate session on 6 th September 2012 at the Brussels based CEGESOMA, where ten Belgian historians and two non-Belgian specialists (Peter Romijn from NIOD and Robert Gerwarth from University College Dublin, who had previously worked with Conway on these issues) discussed the book with the author. Some Belgian specialists encountered problems accepting the label 'conservative' used by Conway to define Belgian society in 1945-1947, or to understand why he consciously leaves out the post-war purges (the so-called 'repression' in Belgium), or accepting that Conway uses 1947 as a terminus instead of 1950-1951 (the formal end of the Belgian Royal Question). This last point loomed over the debate in more than one sense, as the periodisation is closely tied to inevitable question on when the cracks in the Belgian nation became ruptures that in the end were bound to cause the gradual disintegration of the national state. It seemed perhaps that Belgian historians could not help but frame this book in their own familiar traditional schemes or debates, although it has to be said Conway purposely wrote his book to challenge just those schemes. Nevertheless, it is clear that many of the book's main methodological or analytical points were meant to be taken outside the Belgian space. This is why Low Countries Historical Review decided it was relevant to do this by asking three different authors to reflect on the book from their own vantage points, with the intention of broadening the scope to a Dutch or European level. Martin Conway himself was asked to respond to the three different texts. Although Belgo-Belgian debates remain visible to some extent, this forum discussion nevertheless does what Conway's book originally intended, which was to take this approach and its results to an international and transnational level.

In his book The Sorrows of Belgium Martin Conway uses the Belgian case to look at the restoration of liberal parliamentary states in Europe between 1945 and 1947. Nico Wouters' contribution focuses on three elements brought to the fore by Conway: 1) the essential yet ambivalent role played by local government (cities and municipalities), 2) the inability to institutionalise Belgian patriotism as binder for the nation-state and finally, 3) the rift between shifts in class relations and political institutional renewal. His contribution comments on each of these elements, by means of superficial comparisons with the Netherlands.As Conway shows, Belgium's larger cities were laboratories for new political currents that in the end strengthened centrifugal, regionalist tendencies. On the other hand, the local level as an institutional part of state organisation had a reverse effect in the shorter term. The restoration after the liberation can only be understood when one takes into account how 'local states' imposed a compelling framework that limited the opportunities for political renewal. As such, Wouters hypothesises that these local states help to explain in part the institutional conservatism of Belgian elites, a core-element in Conway's book. On this point Wouters sees mostly similarities with the Netherlands. A Belgian-Dutch difference on the other hand, is that the Dutch did succeed in seamlessly combining an equally conservative post-war restoration with restarting a revitalised collective national identity. Belgium's failure in this regard was quite evident. Although it is obvious that by 1950 such a renewal had become impossible because of the Royal Question, it is still a question of the extent to which the Belgian state still had some leeway in 1945. The third and most important point is connected to the shifts in social class relations. This concerns mutual power relations, group identities, attitudes and political strategies. The genesis of post-war social reform is merely the tip of the iceberg in this regard. It is clear that there is still a lot of room for research, certainly in a comparative perspective with the Netherlands. This concerns topics such as social class-studies from below, but also their agency vis-à-vis the national state during these crucial years of transition. As such, this contribution primarily underscores the importance of a true social history of Belgium for the 1930s-1940s, a history that would be highly relevant in a comparative framework with the Netherlands, most notably when also analysing the interaction between these social evolutions and political reform in 1945-1947. Sociale hervormingen tijdens transitiejaren. Overwegingen bij Martin Conway's The Sorrows of BelgiumIn zijn boek The Sorrows of Belgium gebruikt Martin Conway de Belgische casus om te kijken naar het herstel van de liberaal-parlementaire staten in Europa tussen 1945 en 1947. Nico Wouters' bijdrage richt zich op drie elementen die Conway zelf aanhaalt: 1) de belangrijke maar ambivalente rol van het lokale bestuur (steden en gemeenten), 2) het onvermogen om het Belgische patriottisme als bindmiddel voor de natiestaat institutioneel te verankeren en tot slot 3) de kloof tussen verschuivingen in klassenrelaties en politiek-institutionele vernieuwing. Via een oppervlakkige vergelijking met Nederland plaatst zijn bijdrage kanttekeningen bij elk van deze elementen.Zoals Conway aantoont, waren de grotere steden in België laboratoria voor nieuwe politieke stromingen die uiteindelijk de middelpuntvliedende, regionalistische tendensen versterkten. Anderzijds echter, had volgens Wouters het lokale niveau als administratief en institutioneel onderdeel van de staatsorganisatie op korte termijn een omgekeerd effect. De restauratie na de bevrijding kan enkel worden begrepen door in rekening te brengen dat 'lokale staten' een dwingend institutioneel raamwerk oplegden en zo de ruimte voor politieke vernieuwing verengden. Hij werpt dus de hypothese op dat deze lokale staten deels het institutionele conservatisme van de Belgische elites – een kernpunt in het boek van Conway – helpen verklaren. Hier zit zijn inziens vooral een overeenkomst met Nederland. Een Belgisch-Nederlands verschil is dan weer de manier waarop Nederland er wel in slaagde een in wezen even conservatieve naoorlogse restauratie succesvol te koppelen aan een hernieuwde doorstart van een collectieve nationale identiteit. België slaagt daar nogal manifest niet in. Hoewel duidelijk is dat dit wat België betreft tegen 1950 (de Koningskwestie) onmogelijk was geworden, blijft het een debat in hoeverre de Belgische staat hier in 1945 misschien nog wel enige speelruimte had. Het derde en meest belangrijke punt betreft de verschuivingen in sociale klassenverhoudingen. Dit betreft zowel de onderlinge machtsverhoudingen, de groepsidentiteiten, de attitudes als concrete politieke positioneringen. De genese van de naoorlogse sociale hervormingen zijn hier slechts het topje van de ijsberg. Zeker in vergelijking met Nederland wordt duidelijk dat hier nog veel ruimte ligt voor onderzoek. Het gaat dan om sociale studies van klassen van onderuit, maar ook hun agency tegenover de nationale staat tijdens de cruciale transitiejaren. Deze bijdrage onderstreept zo vooral het belang van een echte sociale geschiedenis van België voor de jaren 1930-1940. Wouters' bijdrage argumenteert dat een Belgisch-Nederlands comparatief perspectief hier erg interessant zou zijn, met name ook voor de wisselwerking tussen deze sociale verschuivingen en de politieke hervormingen na 1945.

This article argues that four factors between September 1939 and 1940 are crucial for developing a comparative occupation model of Belgium, France and the Netherlands: first, the influence of September 1939; second, the invasion of May 1940; third, the nature of the German and local 'New Order' regimes; and fourth, whether a country had experienced occupation in the First World War. The 'New Order' regimes that were built on the foundations of 1940 took on radically different characteristics with three crucial variables in terms of, first, the political nature of the New Order; second, the reforms of the municipal administrative apparatus; and third, the reforms of the police and judiciary apparatus. The article argues that a combination of these variables led to different models of occupation, in which Belgium and France formed opposites and the Netherlands possessed a somewhat 'hybrid' model. It is argued that until 1943 the centralized French model offered the most advantages for the Germans, while after 1943, it was the Belgium localized model.

The inefficient operation of state institutions – including municipal administration – lay at the heart of Belgium's crisis of legitimacy in the 1930s. In 1940, the German military occupation government opted to keep many of the existing administrative institutions and personnel in place. The collaborating political parties, Rex and the Vlaams Nationaal Verbond (VNV), possessed little legitimacy with either the Germans or the Belgian population. However, this article argues that both parties turned this to their advantage, infiltrating the Flemish municipal apparatus (especially mayors). Yet, as their political programme and legitimation was completely derived from the Germans, their legal position as administrators (especially mayors) was very weak. Both collaborating parties compensated for this with the theory of 'good government'. Their takeover of power was an administrative operation which, the article argues, would bring them legitimacy through everyday 'good government'. The entire 'Neuordnung' in Belgium in 1940–2 was strongly legitimised on administrative, not political grounds. The failure of this tactic lay in the open politicisation of collaborationist local government. As the article shows, the post-liberation authority also faced a problem of legitimacy. Generally speaking, the trauma of occupation had seemed to strengthen Belgians' wishes for the restoration of stability rather than reforms.

This handbook provides the first systematic integrated analysis of the role that states or state actors play in the construction of history and public memory after 1945. The book focuses on many different forms of state-sponsored history, including memory laws, monuments and memorials, state-archives, science policies, history in schools, truth commissions, historical expert commissions, the use of history in courts and tribunals etc. The handbook contributes to the study of history and public memory by combining elements of state-focused research in separate fields of study. By looking at the state's memorialising capacities the book introduces an analytical perspective that is not often found in classical studies of the state. The handbook has a broad geographical focus and analyses cases from different regions around the world. The volume mainly tackles democratic contexts, although dictatorial regimes are not excluded.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, a number of 'didactic trials' against perpetrators of the Holocaust heavily influenced historiography, the construction of memory and historical thinking. The influence of small scale, serial trials immediately following the war is much harder to detect. In this article, we compare post war trials against Dutch and Belgian policemen, denouncers and concentration camp guards between 1944 and 1951. Both countries lacked specific 'trial narratives' with regard to local perpetrators in the Holocaust. Legal procedures against them thus closed off this part of the past. The trials were a legal confirmation of the existing consensus to deny the full responsibility of local perpetrators, a situation which persisted in Belgium for decades. In the Netherlands, however, the 'closed off' past resurfaced when 'memory incidents' came up in the 1950s. The notion of local perpetrators in the Holocaust was linked to a wave of more general social criticism during the 1960s. In de nasleep van de Tweede Wereldoorlog hadden sommige in het oog springende 'didactische rechtszaken' tegen daders van de Jodenvervolging een grote invloed op de geschiedschrijving, de herinneringsconstructie en het historische bewustzijn. De invloed van kleinere seriële processen onmiddellijk na de Tweede Wereldoorlog is veel moeilijker te bepalen. In dit artikel vergelijken we naoorlogse rechtszaken tegen Nederlandse en Belgische politiemensen en geüniformeerde wapendragers, verklikkers en kampbewakers tussen 1944 en 1951. In beide landen ontstonden om diverse redenen geen specifieke 'procesnarratieven' rond het daderschap van Belgische en Nederlandse Jodenvervolgers. De gerechtelijke procedures in beide landen sloten zo dit stuk verleden af. Deze processen vormden een juridische bekrachtiging van een bestaande consensus om de volle eigen verantwoordelijkheid niet onder ogen te zien. In België bleef deze situatie lange tijd bestaan. In Nederland werd dit 'gesloten verleden' toch snel weer opengebroken. Dit laatste gebeurde (onder meer) van onder uit. Het vermeende falen van de Bijzondere Rechtspleging in sommige zaken leidde al in de jaren 1950 tot herinneringsincidenten. Op die manier kon het eigen daderschap in de Jodenvervolging sneller aansluiting vinden bij de bredere golf van maatschappijkritiek in de jaren 1960.