Abstract
While the booming field of memory studies is characterised by a lack of uniform and consistent methodology, Dat nooit meer [Never Again] seems to reject any theoretical analysis whatsoever. The author, Chris van der Heijden, relies on the journalistic motto ‘show, don’t tell’. Such a vision provides both the strength and the weakness of the argument. On the one hand he manages to dig up a wealth of empirical information; on the other hand, the evidence of his thesis is solely dependent on the selection of sources by the author. This book therefore is not only a challenge for Dutch war historiography, but also indirectly an urgent call for self-reflection on the international research on collective memories. To what extent is its associative and anecdotal argument a relevant interpretation of how Dutch society remembered and rewrote the past World War II? To what extent can we develop an epistemologically justified and adequate methodology that allows the analysis of the genesis of a collective memory? This review is part of the discussion forum 'Dat nooit meer' (Chris van der Heijden).
Highlights
In the 1950s was a more or less generally accepted fact
It is a bold and courageous thesis that is completely at variance with the strict national image of the war that Frank van Vree and Rob van der Laarse still thought to distinguish in De dynamiek van de herinnering [The Dynamics of Memory] in the first decades after 1945.8 By anecdotal association Van der Heijden did create some caesuras in the development of the legacy of World War II
Does Dat nooit meer or any other national case study not provide a contribution to the international historiography of the politics of memory? Or, in a wider context, does this signify the bankruptcy of an international comparison? No, not at all
Summary
In the 1950s was a more or less generally accepted fact. Once again a challenging proposition but one which, even with the enumeration of a selection of likeminded people, does not say more than that Kortenhorst & co thought that ‘the transition from good to bad was seamless’.6 That opinion existed – which is a creditable finding – but it manifestly cannot be shown anywhere that this view was supported by the entire or even a significant part of the community. This book is a challenge for Dutch war historiography, and indirectly an urgent call for self-reflection on the international research on collective memories.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
