Preliminary Programme

In post-war Belgium circa 53.000 persons were convicted for collaborating with the
enemy. In about 3.000 cases the military courts, entitled to judge collaborators,
pronounced the ultimate punishment: death by firing squad. Since 1863, with a few
exceptions, all death sentences had been almost automatically commuted into a lesser
sentence. Nevertheless, confronted by a large number of defendants sentenced to
death Belgium finally carried out 242 executions between 1944 and 1950. Once the
perception was developed among the decision-makers that the purge of wartime
collaboration was not always being implemented equitably the majority however
avoided the death penalty by the use of the right of clemency. In 1950 the Christen-
democratic minister of Justice Ludovic Moyersoen eventually decided to reestablish
the Belgian tradition of commuting every death sentence, despite the fact that not
every death sentence of both political responsible collaborators as of the so-called
tueurs (killers) was carried out. To grant even the most serious cases clemency he
created the “motivated decree”. It was no more or less a judicial fiction to provide an
official justification of his decision, with the promise that those who dodged their
punishment by a “motivated decree” would no longer be considered eligible for a
reduction in their subsequent sentence. This paper seeks to measure the effectiveness
of this “motivated decree”. Of the about 60 persons granted clemency in this way,
how many actually never left prison? It appears that most of them were released on
parole in the 1960s. How could this happen, taking into account the original aim of
the “motivated decree”? On which condition did they get free? How did the patriotic
and resistance organizations respond to this policy? And important, how to explain
this leniency? After all, the responsible ministers of this re-integration policy were to
be sought on the leftwing, the Liberal Party and especially the Social-Democratic
Party. They had always opposed to earlier measurements favoured by the Christen-
democratic party to liquidate the consequences of the post-war purge. (Show less)

In Norway, there has been a striking lack of reconciliation between the war-time adversaries. Former members of the collaborationist movement Nasjonal Samling (NS) - and their children - are in many cases bitter still today. In my presentation I will argue that the post-war settlement did not promote reconcilation but had quite the opposite effect. Under the provisional statutes drafted by the resistance movement in occupied Norway and issued by the exiled London government in 1944 ("Landssvikanordningen") members of the NS should lawfully be deprived of normal citizen’s rights. This loss-of-trust ranged from the loss of the right to vote, to do military service, to hold - or even obtain in the future - a position in the public service, to obtain public authorisation to act in certain professions, the loss of licence to do certain business/work, the loss of the right to hold – or obtain - elected positions in companies, associations, clubs etc, and finally the loss of right to possess private, economic property, financial shares, real estate etc. As declared by Prime Minister Nygaardsvold in 1943, these statutes were intended to put the former NS-members completely outside society. (Show less)

After the liberation of the Second World War collaborators were sent to internment camps in both the Netherlands and Belgium. In this period exclusion of collaborators was the dominant perspective, and integration seemed very distant. It has often been argued that the regimes of the various camps were severe and conditions inhumane. But nevertheless, preparations were made to achieve encompassment of former collaborators into 'good citizenship'. Both in the Netherlands and Belgium special programs were set up to achieve this goal. Special probation services attempted to re-educate and rehabilitate former collaborators by placing them in special work programs - detainees could for example work outside the camp. Education was also set up in the camps, just like different forms of recreation.
This paper will try to explore the role the special probation services played in the preparations for integrating the former collaborator and his family in society. How did the services formulated its goals and how were the programs set up? What was 'good citizenship' and how could detainees achieve this? Also, did good behavior and participation in the different programs affect the arguments for early release? Looking at the similarities and differences of the re-education and rehabilitation programs in the Netherlands and Belgium is interesting: the probation service in the Netherlands was already set up in 1945 and is considered successful. The special probation service in Belgium, which was set up in 1946, was less flourishing and considered as a failure. How can this difference be explained? And how did it influence the complex reintegration process that followed after release? (Show less)