Abstract portrait of Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis on a barn
somewhere in the North of the Netherlands
At the end of the First
World War (1914-1918) there was a revolutionary mood in many European
countries, also in countries that had been neutral in this war. I think that
everybody knows about the Russian October Revolution, which actually took place
in November 1917. It led to the establishment of the communist regime. In
November 1918, uprisings broke out all over Germany. The result was the fall of
the Empire and the establishment of the Weimar Republic. There were also
revolutions and attempted revolutions in Hungary and Switzerland and other
countries and, indeed, in the Netherlands (my own country) as well. Most
Dutchmen will have heard of the failed bloodless coup by the Dutch social democratic
leader Pieter Jelles Troelstra on 11 and 12 November, which actually was not
more than a list of radical demands. Less known is the revolutionary atmosphere
in Amsterdam on 13 November.
Although the Netherlands had nothing to do with the First World War and had
stayed neutral, also this country had suffered a lot from the war because of a
kind of blockade in disguise by the fighting countries, who tried to keep all
food, industrial products etc. for themselves. The Netherlands was not only
enclosed by the warring countries, but as a merchant country it was heavily
dependent on the import of food and other products (including fertilizers) and it
was unable to produce enough food for feeding its population. As a result,
first food and other products had to be rationed and at the end of the war
there was a beginning famine. Add to this the already existing poverty in rural
and urban areas, and it was not surprising that there existed a pressure to
change, if not to revolution. Under the influence of the events in Russia and
Germany, also the Dutch leftist leaders made radical demands. On 12 November, the
social democrats had brought them forward in meetings in Rotterdam and in the
parliament in The Hague, and a day later also on a meeting in Amsterdam. On
that 13th November, in the evening, communists, anarchists and other groups
left of the social democrats organized a meeting elsewhere in Amsterdam. The
great anarchistic leader Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis was also there. He was
the most popular radical leader in the Netherlands in those days. He had done much
for improving the miserable situation of the poor, especially for the rural
poor, and therefore he was called “The Saviour”.
During this meeting of the radicals, it was decided to hold a march through
Amsterdam. The mood was rebellious, and many participants thought that the
revolution had now started. The route of the march passed two army barracks. When
the front of the march with the leaders had already passed the first army
barracks peacefully, a group of demonstrators in the middle of the parade
decided to enter its grounds and to seize the weapons. Or at least, it’s what
the guard may have thought. What exactly happened is not clear, but anyway, soldiers
opened fire on the invaders, four demonstrators died and several were wounded. After
this tragic event, some left the demonstration, others continued the march but
the revolution never took place.
What did Domela Nieuwenhuis during the march? 25 years later, one of the demonstrators
wrote: “I can still see this memorable demonstration in my mind … Domela
Nieuwenhuis in a carriage in front of the march …”
However, Jan Meyers, the biographer of Domela Nieuwenhuis, wrote in 1993 that Domela
went in a carriage at the backside of the march.
Domela was an old man, who hardly could walk anymore, so, if he had
participated in the march, probably he would have done so in a carriage.
However, a policy spy who had been present at the meeting before the march
started reported that he was brought home, after having given a speech at the
meeting. So, the march took place without Domela.
What happened really that evening in Amsterdam and especially what did Domela
Nieuwenhuis? Most likely, the version of the police spy is true. Half a year
later Domela was present at another march, and there he was present in a
carriage. So, both marches may have been confused. Nevertheless, it is
reasonable to suppose that the demonstrator, the biographer and the police spy were
in good faith, when they told what Domela did on 13 November. What we see here
are three different representations of the same “fact” that might have been
true. Such things often happen. Often it is afterwards difficult to determine
what is true and what is false, especially when we have only witness statements
that describe an event and no objective evidence. Fake and fact are often difficult
to disentangle, especially when what is fake has not been intentionally
constructed. And look at yourself: How often aren’t you wrong, though you think
to tell the truth?
Source: Wouter Linmans,