Historical research on abrasive topics regularly leads to blind spots. When history touches the Dutch personally, we get on the defensive en masse. No guilt here as with our German neighbours. Murder, rape and torture? The Dutch don't do that.
Recently I was amazed at a historic debate afternoon. The subject:soldier testimonials in the media about the police actions in Indonesia (1945-1949). The book 'The burning kampongs of General Spoor' by historian René Limpach about the use of extreme violence during this colonial war had also just been published. The reactions from the audience to this book were emotional, mostly negative and negative. When asked whether they had read the book at all, the standard answer was a 'no'.
Now that is somewhat understandable, because it is a thick pill of almost 800 pages, but it does say something about the view of our own history, especially if it is not so fresh. The closer we are to the past, the less we want to believe horrific research results. Or even consider it. Of course there were bad apples, but in general, 'the Dutch don't do such a thing' is the tendency.
Politically played
Dutch politics itself has also been to blame for this. Shortly after the liberation of the Germans, the military and political top deliberately wanted to keep the crimes in Indonesia out of the media. When in 1969 for the first time a veteran, Joop Hueting, publicly cries out about the atrocities committed by Dutch soldiers, the country is in shock. There was a short-term investigation from politics that concluded that crimes had indeed been committed but that they were excesses, and also only carried out by special units such as the intelligence service and the commandos. This soothing report is called the Excess Memorandum and this choice of words was deliberate. Mass violence or war crimes sound a lot worse than 'excesses'.
Shocking interview with veteran Joop Hueting about war crimes, appeared on television at the Vara in 1969.
However, Limpach does not say that all veterans were animals that afternoon, on the contrary. In historiography it is not about 'the accusing finger'. He only brings out the misery swept under the rug with previously unused sources and empirical research. They were not 'excesses', but structural mass violence, committed by soldiers from all units and ranks. He also explains how that could have happened and why it was kept secret. Young boys who were structurally asked too much, who were not properly trained, were misinformed about who the enemy was and had to figure it out in the jungle. You have to be damn strong to refuse orders from your superior.
Fear of reputation
Historical research should not be held back out of fear. In this case, fear of reputational damage from Defense or angry veterans. Neutral historical research actually helps to understand the lesser sides of our history and to learn to deal with them. And that starts in the classroom:the Netherlands has become rich on the backs of others, we have subjugated and exploited countries and peoples. Schoolchildren and students need to see more of this side in order to eliminate that collective blind spot for national wrongdoing.
Until now, politics has not shown a shining example in this; apologies to victims for specific crimes in Indonesia took until 2011 and needed a lost trial as a driver. Why not take responsibility for our history? There is simply no such thing as right or wrong. Personally, I also wouldn't know what I would do in wartime, when the thin layer of civilization disappears. Doesn't everyone then at least turn into a binocular to save his own skin or that of his family? In any case, admit that we too are capable of atrocities instead of looking away or burying our heads in the sand afterwards.