A social psychological perspective on World War II collaboration in the 21st century: A Belgian case

Abstract

On the night of May 8-9, 1945, after a first signature on May 7 in Reims, German and Allied military representatives signed the capitulation of the Third Reich. This act marked the end, on the western front, of the deadliest war of the twentieth century: World War II (WWII). While the time had come for popular celebrations among the winners, the purge of those who had collaborated with the Germans was on its way. Belgium, which was liberated by the allies a few months earlier, was no exception. Indeed, 0.64% of Belgians were condemned for collaboration: 1 0.73% of Flemish and 0.56% of Francophones. Together with this penal procedure, alternative sanctions such as deprivation of civil rights and administrative exclusions 1 Collaboration during WWII covered a very different range of activities. Strictly speaking, collaborating means working voluntarily to achieve German policy and objectives. In Belgium, collaboration has taken many forms: political (Wouters, 2006), military and repressive (De Wever, 2003), economic (Nefors, 2000), artistic and intellectual (Devillez, 2003; for an overview, see Van den Wijngaert et al., 2015). At the national level, widespread forms of collaboration were political and military (e.g., some 40,000 Belgians were sentenced for carrying weapons, which is the most important form of collaboration). At the regional level, collaboration, although not widespread, is part of a broader movement in Flanders than in French-speaking Belgium. In this case, the collaboration is linked to a broader Flemish movement mixing anti-Belgian nationalism and Flemish Catholicism (De Wever, 1994). On the French-speaking side, there is no regionalist movement comparable to the Flemish one. There are also fewer collaboration movements than in the north. Nevertheless, some members of the far-right party "Rex", in favor of a new order, collaborated strongly with the occupier at the military and repressive levels. In addition, politicians from this party were placed in responsible positions by the occupier (Conway, 1993).

Social representations of European history by the European youth: A cross-country comparison

“…Alongside a national perspective, community dynamics coexist that develop alternative narratives of the past centered on the history of the community members (Liu et al, 2021). These alternative narratives exist side by side with the national memory, leading here and there to a set of frictions (Bouchat et al, 2020). They provide alternative 'prisms' for interpreting national interests in crisis.…”

Intergenerational transmission of World War II family historical memories of the Resistance

“…Yet, studies have shown repeatedly that WWII is still seen as one of the most (if not the most) critically important event in recent history, regardless of respondents' age (Bobowik et al, 2014;Liu et al, 2009;Schuman & Scott, 1989). If collective remembering of historical events can have major impacts on groups and individuals in terms of identity (Assmann & Czaplicka, 1995;Liu & Hilton, 2005), political attitudes and preferences (Bouchat et al, 2020;Rimé, Bouchat, Klein, & Licata, 2015), and their interpretation of the world around them (Schuman & Rieger, 1992), it is crucial to understand what different generations know about the war as they continue to list it as a historically important event.…”