Historical story

Farms in the Second World War:Bearers of Identity, Tradition and Status

Thousands of farms in the Netherlands were destroyed during the Second World War. Farmers lost their living space as a result, but also their livelihood. Sophie Elpers is doing PhD research at the Meertens Institute into the reconstruction of these farms. At the beginning of this month, a database went online with information about more than 7000 reconstruction farms in the Netherlands.

More than 8,000 farms were destroyed during World War II. In the May days of 1940, some 300 farms went up in flames in the Grebbe Line alone. These were set on fire on the orders of the Dutch army. In this way the army deprived the enemy of the possibility of entrenchment. But most farms were destroyed during combat at the end of the war, especially in Gelderland, Limburg and North Brabant. Farmers lost their living space as a result, but also their livelihood. And also a substantial part of their identity. Because a farm is a carrier of identity, tradition and status, says PhD candidate Sophie Elpers. She conducts research into the reconstruction of farms at the Meertens Institute.

Daily life

In recent years, a great deal has been written about the reconstruction of cities after the Second World War. But little attention has been paid to what has happened in the countryside. And that is remarkable, according to Elpers, since the destruction of all those farms had a huge impact on rural life. With the construction of new farms, a modernization was started, which meant a break with the past. Not only the daily life of the peasants took on different forms, the collective memory was also affected. Elpers is conducting research into these facets of the reconstruction period.

The many interviews conducted by the PhD student in recent years show that the reconstruction period had a major impact on the lives of the farmers affected. Some of these interviews were filmed with a subsidy from the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (War Heritage Programme). They took place in the Grebbe Line and the surroundings of Nijmegen. Such as in Groesbeek, where more than 200 farms were destroyed. Emergency houses were built during and after the war to provide shelter for the homeless farmers. Many of these houses were made from the scaffolding timbers of the trenches. The period in which the farmers found shelter in these emergency homes is deeply rooted in the memory of many farmers. If only because of the stench of the carboleum, which came from the wood.

Modernization and tradition

Both collective and individual interests played a role in the reconstruction of the farms destroyed in the war. The Dutch government saw the reconstruction primarily as an opportunity to modernize agriculture. And because the resources were limited at the time, a cost-saving picture was assumed. All this had consequences for the blueprints for the newly built farms. Nevertheless, the wishes of the farmers also had to be taken into account. In order to look after all these different interests, an agency was already established in 1940:the Bureau Wederbouw Boerderijen (BWB).

The government considered it important to preserve traditional forms in architecture. In this way, regional characteristics were preserved. But to cut costs, not everything could stay the same. This led to some rooms having to give way. This applied, for example, to the traditional show room – the room that was traditionally used to receive visitors – which disappeared from the building plan. Many farmers took a creative approach to this new situation. They turned the living room into a show room and went to live in the kitchen themselves.

Country women

That the farmers had a right to participate in the reconstruction is apparent from the advisory committees that were heard by the BWB. The farmers' wives also had their own participation body. Through the Rural Women's Association, they conducted surveys among female farmers throughout the country. Questions were asked about the living area of ​​the farm. The results of these surveys were eventually distributed in two brochures. The farmers' wives, for example, argued for better water supplies, for indoor toilets, but also for the abolition of the box bed.

To what extent the government has taken the farmers' wishes into account is one of the questions that Elpers has yet to answer. What is certain is that the new situation did not turn out unfavorable for some farmers. The size of the reconstruction farms was determined by the size of the plot of land owned by the farmer. And that sometimes meant that a larger farm was resurrected than it had originally been. In addition, the reconstruction farms met the modern demands of agriculture. That also caused envy. There are stories of farmers who helped the destruction of their farm.

Second and third generation

In her research, Elpers makes use of the archive of the BWB, which is located at the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands. It consists of more than 7000 construction drawings for farms, as well as damage forms and reconstruction sketches. But in addition to diving into the archives, Elpers will also conduct more interviews in the coming years. And especially among the second and third generation farmers. Because although they did not experience the war, it is precisely with these generations that you can see the legacy of the reconstruction period. These can be very concrete things – objects saved from the fire sometimes become important family heirlooms – but also stories. Forms of heritage that all come together in Elpers' ethnological research.

Database Reconstruction farms in the Netherlands