The Ambiguity of Virtue: Gertrude van Tijn and the Fate of the Dutch Jews by Bernard Wasserstein (review)

The Ambiguity of Virtue tells the painful story of Gertrude Van Tijn’s work on behalf of her fellow Jews in Nazi-occupied Holland between 1933 and 1944 as the options available to save them became more limited. It also tries to tell the story from the perspective of the actors at the time with the partial and often conflicting information they had, not from the vantage point of retrospective history when the horrific conclusions are already known. Wasserstein avoids facile judgment and moralizing, yet he is willing to question decisions made and options not followed, always careful to provide the context and historical information so the reader can formulate their own opinion about what is just action and what is complicity under the impossible circumstances created by the Nazis in their genocidal policies. Her activity touches on some of the central moral-historical issues faced by Jews in the Nazi era, particularly those who found themselves in leadership positions.

Between 1933 and 1940 van Tijn helped arrange Jewish emigration from Holland. Were it not for her work and the work of her colleagues on the Committee for Jewish Refugees, the great majority of the approximately 22,000 German, Austrian, and Dutch Jews who were able to leave would probably have perished. This was a significant achievement accomplished against enormous obstacles. After the Germans occupied Holland in May 1940, she worked for the Nazi-appointed Jewish Council in Amsterdam and helped many Jews escape. Some viewed her work as heroic and selfless; others denounced her as a collaborator or as someone who unwittingly served as an instrument of the Nazi genocidal apparatus. Hannah Arendt in Eichmann in Jerusalem (New York, 1963) famously critiqued the Jewish Councils for being complicit in the annihilation of their own people. This is a criticism with the benefit of hindsight and has been significantly challenged by scholars, yet there may be some truth to the charge. By most accounts, about 102,000 Jews were murdered in the Netherlands, about 75 percent of the prewar Jewish population, a percentage unmatched in Western Europe. A Jewish population that lacked non-Jewish connections, that deferred to authority and was governed by a Jewish Council (Joodsche Raad), and that promoted obedience and discouraged escape is one of several factors that contributed to this Holocaust. This was particularly problematic beginning in July 1942 when the mass deportations to Poland began. The Joodsche Raad urged the Jews to stay calm and follow the German orders rather than resist them. The structures of the Amsterdam Jewish Council provided no opportunities for organized opposition or escape. Van Tijn had serious disagreements with the leadership of the Council, but the effectiveness of these disagreements is undermined by her own participation in its work during almost the whole of its history. Should she have resigned? Was she a pawn of the Nazis hoping that emigration was still possible? She probably can be criticized for naiveté, Wasserstein effectively argues, but not for a lack of courage and the will to explore every avenue for removing Jews from Nazi Europe. Gertrude van Tijn chose the more morally challenging path of remaining in her post in Amsterdam, rather than resigning or emigrating.

Wasserstein does fault van Tijn for the Wieringen episode in the late spring of 1941 when she turned over the names and addresses of 210 students from the Wieringen farm school to a then little known junior SS officer Klaus Barbie. They had been removed from the school and housed in Amsterdam. She believed the assurances of the Nazis that they merely wanted to return the students to the farm. Instead, the Nazis used the information to round up these and other young Jewish men for deportation. She felt guilty for this decision for the rest of her life.

In contrast, Wasserstein credits van Tijn for her role in helping at least 700...