Volume 4 No 1 - Journal for the Study of Antisemitism

2012] DOUBLE GERSTENFELD 317
restitution process. It also attempts to create a perspective about the interaction
between the Jewish community and the Dutch government, as well
as with other powerful segments of Dutch society: the banking sector, the
insurance world, and the stock exchange . . . The description of the
essence of the research findings of the commissions of inquiry and the
ensuing negotiations with their counterparts is one main aspect. This
book, however, also deals with issues concerning the Jewish community.
Another aim was to show the actions and feelings of those involved and
how they expressed themselves. 6
Given Gerstenfeld’s extensive agenda for this volume, and his accompanying
documentation, it is certainly not surprising that he skewers the
“myth” of the supposedly positive attitude of the Dutch toward the Jews,
buttressed by the fact that “the Netherlands—relative to its population—had
the highest number of Waffen SS volunteers in Western Europe” (24), and
further buttressed by its vaunted parading of the Anne Frank story but without
reflecting Dutch reality at all, explicitly stating instead that “the vast
majority of the nation accommodated itself to circumstances” (27). Following
Presser and others, Gerstenfeld also concludes that “The Dutch government
in exile made little effort to help the Jews. Nor was it prepared to ease
the plight of returning Jews after the war” (25).
Assessing and documenting the work of the Kordes Commission
(1997), the Scholten Commission (1999), and the Van Kemenade Commission
(1999), coupled with the weakness and lack of unity of the surviving
Jewish community and its hesitancy and reluctance to involve international
Jewish organizations in its situation (e.g., the World Jewish Congress and
the World Jewish Restitution Organization [WJRO]), it is not surprising
that years later the Jews remained vulnerable and somewhat at risk, not only
from the government but powerful banking, insurance, and stock exchange
interests as well. Though commenting directly on the Kordes Commission,
Gerstenfeld’s conclusion applies equally well to the other two: “How coldly
the surviving Jews were treated by the Dutch postwar governments and
other authorities” (65). Earlier, his summary conclusion is equally transparent:
“The renewed restitution process of the late 1990s underlined that the
Dutch government had no intention of taking full responsibility for the
shortcomings of its wartime and postwar predecessors toward the Jews”
(19).
Expanding his reach, Gerstenfeld devotes significant chapters to the
cases of the insurance industry (Chapter 10) and the banking industry and
the stock exchange (Chapter 13), all of which derived significant financial
benefits from the plight of the Jews and their own collaboration/accommo-
6. Gerstenfeld, Judging the Netherlands, 16-18.