Jump to content

Talk:Netherlands in World War II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

I have changed "preamble" to "prelude" because the former only refers to documents and texts (e.g. the introduction to a constitution), and not to events. --Garethhamilton 22:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rise of Nazism

[edit]

Sander1234 changed The poverty caused by the Great Depression helped the rise of Nazism in the Netherlands, saying that it didn't help the rise of nazism, adding that they got few votes. But that doesn't mean it didn't rise. That's determined by how much nazism there was before, and as far as I know nazism (at least under that name) didn't even exist earlier. So I changed that back, but left the addition. DirkvdM 06:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Somewhere it says almost no dutch fought on the side of teh germans. Thats a ridiculous falsification.. the ditch provided teh biggest group of non german combatants in the german army. Not many survivded though. Also teh statement most dutch formed one front against the germans is false. 95% of (military) police and civil authorities have collaborated with teh germans. Often handing lists of jews eg. Notwithstanding all this, resistance against fascism has also been strong and involved most of the rest of the population, esp. the lower classes. Gl with this correction that offcial dutch history won't like. --81.191.62.33 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of illustrations

[edit]

Currently the article has four illustrations: one of a ruined Rotterdam, one of a statue of/for Anne Frank, and two related to collaboration with the occupying force. Somehow this seems totally out of whack for this article? 81.191.62.33 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Refugee Internment Camps

[edit]

According to my history books, Jews that flew Nazi Germany to the Netherlands, were taken into internment camps. Which were happily taken in by the occupying Nazis. The text states rather unnoticed: "an existing internment camp for immigrants". Which brings me to something else. Where I live, we believe the Dutch were somewhat 'less active' in the resistance movements, at least much less then this article and the dutch resistance article mentions. But since it's a perception, it may violate the NPOV, so I'm not editing or something.

Two edits

[edit]

Please clarify 'Nazi Germany's occupation of the Rhineland' in the Interbellum section. The Rheinland was, is and always has been a Land or province in Germany on its border with France, i.e., in Germany, part of Germany, Nazi-era or otherwise. One doesn't 'occupy' one's own country. The Treaty of Versailles had a French-inspired portion that said Germany could not station troops along the border, which Germany then did, but that's not an 'occupation.' Last section on reprisals--Anne Frank and her family were in fact Germans, from Frankfurt am Main, the father having moved his business from Germany to Amsterdam. Interesting to wonder if they then would have been deported by the Dutch post-war.72.81.16.200 00:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied up the misleading comments on the Rhineland. Norvo 17:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans shipped Dutch to Britain?

[edit]

"A German airborne landing at The Hague, intended to capture the Dutch royal family and the government failed and the troops that had not been killed were captured and shipped to Britain " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.149.78.217 (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The German airborn troops were defeated by the Dutch, the surviving German troops were shipped to Britain by the Dutch.Rex 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The German airborne and airlanding troops were not defeated by the Dutch.

The Dutch managed to retake the three seized AFB's and denied the Germans access to prime target the Hague. Save the aforesaid successes the Germans were able to maintain isolated pockets of resistance that the Dutch failed to clean up. Of the captured Germans around the Hague and Rotterdam, as well as about 250 elsewhere in the country (mainly downed Luftwaffe crews), a mere 1,300 were eventually expedited to the UK. A bigger lot was liberated by their comrades after the Dutch armistice. Grebbegoos (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Home demolition

[edit]

I've revised some portions of this article (which appeared to have been written by non-native English speakers), but I'm confused about some of these figures. Here is a current portion from the article:

Some towns, such as Scheveningen, were evacuated because of this. In the Hague, 3,200 houses were demolished and 2,863 were dismantled. 20,000 houses were cleared, and 65,000 people were forced to move.

Is there some kind of distinction between a "demolished" house and a "dismantled" one, or are these two difference sources? In other words, were there 5,794 homes taken down in The Hague, or just 3,200 (or 2,863)?

Also, is the latter figure (20,000) for the Netherlands as a whole? Thanks for anyone who can help. Funnyhat 21:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone vandalised the article.

Hendrik A. Seyffardt

[edit]

The Dutch Lieutenant-General Hendrik A. Seyffardt was called a low-level collaborator. Aoccording to the English Wikipedia he was a former head of the Dutch General Staff and headed the recruiting campaign for the Dutch elements of the Waffen-SS. This also explains the bloody repression that answers his killing. Calling such a person low-level is somewhat unfortunate. I changed the text and added some more context information. Let's hope the rest of the article is better researched.

--Ft93110 (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Some tidying up

[edit]

I tidied up the statements about the Rhineland and also about hyperinflation in Germany. The German Mark had been stablilized in 1923-24. The severe depression of the early 1930s in Germany led to falling prices (as one would expect), not inflation. Norvo 17:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:4SSNL-PGDA1.jpg

[edit]

Image:4SSNL-PGDA1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch weaponary and other May 1940 stuff

[edit]

Grebbegoos (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC) I was little surprised to recognize the following nonsense once again in this lemma: "The German forces faced little resistance at first, but their advance was eventually slowed by the Dutch army, which was mostly fighting with weaponry made before 1900" I deleted the last bit of this sentence.[reply]

This is pure fiction, well preserved by some badly informed yet well read Dutch historians like Brongers.

The Dutch rifle was a 1895 Mannlicher design weapon, which did excellent service in 1940. The German Mauser was a 1898 design, so was the Belgian Mauser, the French Fusil was a 19th century design and the British Lee Enfield [1895].

...and the British Lee Enfield [1895]. The Lee Enfield MkIV was a 1930s redesign issued in 1939. Please don't insert information if you don't have the operational details.74.13.36.31 (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch MG's were 20th century weapons. The mortar was the Brandt Stokes licence, 8.1 cm. AT guns were highly modern, only the few light infantry guns were late 19th century. AAA was 90% modern or even state of the art.

The bulk of the Dutch artillery was 20th century, the main 7,5 cm dramatically modified in the late twenties. The 10,5 cm guns were 1926 make, all howitzers 1918 or 1920 with exception of a few Bofors 12 cm guns from 1908. In total 170 of the artillery pieces in third line defences were indeed 1880 weapons. But all belligerents had their own score of outdated, sometimes obsolete guns.

Please stop the hoax story that the Dutch army was fighting its war as an archaic fraction. That nonsense has clearly been rubbished by scientifically sound publications issued in the last two decades. The Dutch did have a small army and lacked any tanks. That would have been a fair statement.

I also changed the victim quotes. The Dutch did not lose 3,500 KIA (but 2,300) and not 6,000 WIA (but over 7,000). Besides the Germans lost 2,200 (not 2,500) KIA and around 7,000 WIA (not 6,000). There were only a mere 1,300 German POW's expedited to the UK (not 2,000).

Furthermore I added the fact that the Dutch laid down arms at 14 May 1900 hrs.

I added Rotterdam as one of the (now) four main points of resistance and I deleted the hoax that Germany expected the Dutch to yield in one day. That well preserved hoax was only applicable if the operation to capture Royal Family and Army HQ had succeeded. The OKH had calculated a battle of four days. Three to reach Moerdijk and another to decisively penetrate Fortress Holland. Their estimates proved remarkably just. Please read the accurate and true story of the invasion in Holland on http://www.waroverholland.nl Grebbegoos (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when did ana frank died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.243.60 (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ommission: Behavior of German troops

[edit]

This article should state that immediately after the Dutch surrender the German troops behaved surprisingly disciplined and did not harass/steal from/plunder/rape the Dutch population. Things grew gradually worse for the Dutch population, but that is another matter. Andries (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And contrast this with the behaviour of Allied troops. --41.151.69.14 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Germans in 1940 had not recently entered Holland after a long series of bloody-battles all the way from Normandy. In 1940 Holland had been defended by the Dutch army. In 1944 that defending army the Allies had to fight was German and it didn't give up after five days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.221 (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

everybody always complains about Nazi's penchant for mass genocide, but nobody compliments them for how disciplined they were while murdering millions of innocent people.86.7.240.104 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress Holland

[edit]

Hi. When I type Fortress Holland for searching, Wikipedia redirects me to History of the Netherlands (1939–1945) (this article). Does it mean that Fortress Holland is used about the whole country or it is a place anywhere in Netherlands? --Djuneyt tr (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress Holland was the defensive plan in the early 1900s that failed to keep the Germans out in 1940. Maybe you should be redirected to Dutch_Water_Line#New_Dutch_Waterline Preslav (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

The figure states more then 200.000. What is this comprised of? Does that include Jews deported to concentration camps? What about Dutch people killed in Allied bombing raids? --41.151.69.14 (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of Wageningen (1939-1945)

[edit]

I'm considering starting a new article on History of Wageningen (1939-1945), focused on that city's experience and history of WWII. If you have comments, ideas or suggestions for such an article, please make not of them under the appropriate section of Talk:Wageningen. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the War

[edit]

Should include references to numerous stories (especially former Dutch SS) who were used as "counterterrorism" experts in the anticolonial war in the Dutch East Indies in the late 1940s (also many fought in the Korean War, as part of a deal to regain Dutch citizenship).Historian932 (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Netherlands in World War II. Indeed, The Netherlands in World War II is out of touch with WP:THE and other articles that start with "Netherlands in". -- tariqabjotu 03:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


History of the Netherlands (1939–1945) → The Netherlands in World War II – "Country x in war y" is a well-established form on Wikipedia and seems more logical, given that 1939 is an arbitrary date in the Netherlands' case anyway. Given the scope of the article, it would not need to be altered and would give more flexibility in the scope to include the Dutch background to the conflict. As I understand it, these "History of X (1939-45)" articles were created on the understanding that they would form part of several articles (i.e. History of Poland (1918–39)) on the history of a country, which is not true of the Netherlands where it is just confusing. Brigade Piron (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this article could ever be entitled "Occupation of the Netherlands", though I personally think that it could be complemented by a new article with that title that could go into this in more depth:
  1. Invasion and pre-war politics (ditto liberation and aftermath) would not fit or at least could not be looked at in detail
  2. Forces/government in exile would not fit
  3. Mention of the role of the Netherlands' colonies in the war would not be able to get more than a mention etc.
I'm not sure I see your main point though; are you suggesting that the Occupation of these countries equals their entire relevance to the conflict - surely it's just an aspect? I'd also add that the "Country X in War Y" is not restricted to WWII, see New Zealand in the Vietnam War, Soviet Union in the Korean War, Mexico in World War I etc. But I agree, we do need a standard! Still, whatever is decided, I hope we can avoid the title that the article carries currently. Brigade Piron (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Brigade Piron that the "Occupation" title does not work well--it's too narrow. In this case the Neth. govt, merchant marine & Navy & some colonies continued to function. If there was such an article on "XX Occupation" it would mostly be about the what the Germans were doing & their collaborators. Rjensen (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of NL it may well be that "occupation" doesn't work as well, mainly because of the colonies. But I just thought it was an opportune time to point out the inconsistency of nomenclature on these articles, which maybe doesn't matter. For the record I have no problem with the proposed new name. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please note that the war in Dutch popular perception did not start in 1939 but on 10 May 1940. However I personally think it is a good idea to include the war year 1939 in the article. Andries (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! I'd also add that the Dutch language article is entitled nl:Nederland in de Tweede Wereldoorlog which would seem to go in favour of the move! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality of the netherlands is in dispute.

[edit]

According to historian Loe de Jong, there were staff conversation with the Allies. https://archive.org/details/LoeDeJongHetKoninkrijkDerNederlandenInDeTweedeWereldoorlogDeel02Neutraal ; Britain took a strange interest as well: https://archive.org/details/PreparationForBritishInterventionInHollandANDBelgium - I think there is far more in the archives. --154.69.55.10 (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So? "What ifs" aside, the Netherlands did remain neutral. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for the British plans, it is the job of the war planners to think ahead. In this case to figure out what Britain should do if Germany made war on the Netherlands and Belgium (as it did). The answer was to hurt Germany as much is possible AFTER it invaded the neutral countries. Rjensen (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Netherlands in World War II. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Netherlands in World War II. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Netherlands_in_World_War_II&oldid=1207525970"