Red Week (Netherlands)

Red Week
Part of the revolutions of 1917–23
Cartoon of the aftermath of the Red Week from De Amsterdammer
Date	9–14 November 1918
Location	Netherlands
Caused by	Aftermath of World War I
Goals	Revolutionary socialism
Resulted in	No revolution
Parties
Dutch government Social Democratic Party Revolutionary socialists
Casualties
Death(s)	4

The Red Week (Dutch : Ro(o)de Week) was a period from 9 to 14 November 1918 when socialist revolution was anticipated in the Netherlands. ^[1] The Red Week anticipation stemmed from the end of the First World War and revolutions elsewhere in Europe.

The most prominent call for revolution came from Pieter Jelles Troelstra, leader of the Social Democratic Workers' Party (SDAP). However, the majority of his party's leadership opposed a revolution and sought to calm their base. Meanwhile, the government took steps to prevent a revolution by strengthening security and implementing social measures. A counter-movement was formed by Catholic and Protestant groups.

On 13 November, revolutionary socialists led by David Wijnkoop and Henriette Roland Holst organized a demonstration in Amsterdam, which turned violent and resulted in the deaths of four protesters. The protest had no follow-up, and it soon became clear that no revolution was materializing. At the end of the week, Troelstra admitted he had misjudged the situation, which is why it became known as Troelstra's mistake (Dutch : Vergissing van Troelstra).

Background

World War I

Main article: Netherlands in World War I

The Netherlands remained neutral during the First World War through careful diplomacy. Despite this neutrality, conscripts were mobilized, and food was rationed due to shortages, occasionally resulting in unrest, such as the 1917 Potato riots in Amsterdam. ^[2]

Revolutionary wave

Starting in 1917, a series of revolutions occurred around the world, most notably the Russian Revolution of 1917. ^[3] Main inspiration for the Netherlands was the German Revolution of 1918–1919, which began with minor mutinies in the navy on 28 October 1918 ^[4] and the Kiel mutiny on 3 November 1918. This led to the formation of workers' and soldiers' councils. German Emperor Wilhelm II left Germany for exile in the Netherlands on 10 November 1918 and an interim national revolutionary government was formed, led by the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the German sister party of the SDAP.

Socialism in the Netherlands

Main article: Socialism in the Netherlands

Pieter Jelles Troelstra (around 1912)

The Social Democratic Workers' Party (SDAP) was established in 1894 by a reformist faction that opposed the anarchist majority within the Social Democratic League (SDB). ^[5] One of its prominent founders was Pieter Jelles Troelstra, who served as the party's leader from its inception. In 1909, a group of orthodox Marxists led by David Wijnkoop left the party to establish the Social Democratic Party (SDP). ^[6] Unlike the SDP and SDB, the SDAP sought to achieve its objectives through parliamentary methods, but did not rule out a revolution. ^[7]

Most political parties, including the SDAP, set aside their differences to maintain Dutch neutrality in the war. Following the Pacification of 1917, universal male suffrage — a long-standing demand of the SDAP — was introduced. The SDAP had high expectations for the general election of 3 July 1918, but their representation only increased from 15 to 22 seats (out of 100). In contrast, the General League of Roman Catholic Electoral Associations (ABRK) won 30 seats and formed the right-wing first Ruijs de Beerenbrouck cabinet together with the Anti-Revolutionary Party (ARP) and the Christian Historical Union (CHU). ^[8]

Harskamp riots

A burned down barrack after the Harskamp riots

On 22 October 1918, General Cornelis Jacobus Snijders requested the mobilization of additional troops and the suspension of periodical leave, fearing that the German retreat from Belgium might lead some German forces to cross the border into Limburg. ^[9] On 25 October 1918, soldiers at the Harskamp military camp  [ nl ] rioted due to their conditions, ^[10] particularly the withdrawal of leave. ^[9] The riot was quickly suppressed, although some unrest spread to other military camps, raising concerns about the reliability of the army. ^[11]

The relation between Snijders and the cabinet was already bad, when another conflict arose over the inquiry into the riots. The cabinet had wanted to fire him for a while, but the queen supported him and prevented his removal. The cabinet finally announced on 6 November that he would step down, after public support for his removal had grown. ^[12]

Events

Internal SDAP discussions

The SDAP board was organising a party conference and met on 2 November to discuss a manifesto written by Troelstra for the conference about the international events. The manifesto contained a call to revolution: "that we will accept the revolutionary situation here and in Europe as the basis for our further work". Troelstra no longer believed socialism could be realised by exclusively parliamentary means. Only Goswijn Sannes  [ nl ] and Franc van der Goes  [ nl ] supported his proposal. Most others believed it was nonsense to call the situation in the Netherlands revolutionary. Some believed that if a revolutionary situation arose, the SDAP should lead it. Party chair Willem Vliegen called revolution in a democracy foolish and noted "I did not fight for 25 years for universal suffrage, only to abolish it a few months after its introduction." ^[13]

They decided to meet again the next day with related organisations, including the board of the Dutch Confederation of Trade Unions (NVV) and the editorial board of Het Volk . ^[14] The trade union supported preparations for a revolutionary situation, but primarily to prevent a destabilizing general strike. The other attendees mostly opposed revolutionary language. A meeting with the trade union for conscripts on the same day had also revealed that there was no revolutionary sentiment among conscripts. Consequently, they decided to have a small group — including Troelstra, Amsterdam alderman Floor Wibaut, and NVV leader Jan Oudegeest — rewrite the manifesto without the controversial passages. The version published on 4 November invited members to attend the conference on 24 November "to determine the stance that the proletariat must adopt in this great struggle". ^[15]

Early statements

During a debate about military policy on 5 November, Troelstra had requested Snijder's removal. The fact that his removal was announced the next day, was celebrated as a victory for the SDAP. During the debate, Troelstra also said, without coordination with his party:

Are you standing firm? Do you not gradually feel, due to the events of recent times, that you are standing on a volcano? [...] Do not forget, when the time comes that you can no longer keep your footing, other forces will come to take your place. Then the time of the bourgeois government system will be over, and the working class, the newly emerged power, will ask you to step down and leave the place, which is her future, to her. [...] We are not your friends, we are your opponents, we are, if you will, your most bitter enemies

Troelstra's revolutionary words initially received little attention. A demonstration in Amsterdam on 7 November led by SDP member Henriette Roland Holst was attended by only a few hundred people and was stopped by the police. ^[16] Meanwhile the parliamentary group of the ABRK met to discuss the potential for a revolution and the need for unity within the Catholic pillar. The same day, two private secretaries of Bataafse Petroleum Maatschappij CEO and ARP prominent Hendrikus Colijn, Carel Gerretson and Horace van Gybland Oosterhoff  [ nl ], sent a note to CHU leader Alexander de Savornin Lohman, urging them to take precautions against a possible revolution. ^[17]

Plans for revolution in Rotterdam

Arie de Zeeuw  [ nl ] (1933 or before)

Troelstra's words received more attention after the German Emperor abdicated on 9 November. Fearing a revolution, chair of the Rotterdam shipping association Paul Henricus Nijgh, who had always been open to dialogue with trade unions, met with trade unionists and SDAP municipal councillors Arie Heijkoop and Johan Brautigam to give the trade union more influence over working conditions. Rotterdam mayor Alfred Rudolph Zimmerman  [ nl ] met with Heijkoop and Brautigam as well the same day. Zimmerman believed the revolution would come to the Netherlands as well and wanted to cooperate with the SDAP to ensure a peaceful transition. ^[18]

The next day, Troelstra met with Heijkoop and Brautigam, as well as MPs Goswijn Sannes and Willem Albarda, and local SDAP chair Arie de Zeeuw  [ nl ]. Together, they devised a plan to initiate the revolution in Rotterdam, aiming to preempt a potential revolution in Amsterdam, where communist influence was stronger. In the afternoon, local SDAP and trade union leaders convened to discuss the plan, which included a list of demands and the proposal for a soldier's council to assume control of the police, army, and postal services. However, several attendees, including Jan ter Laan and Suze Groeneweg, opposed the plan, arguing that there were no indications of a revolution and that Nijgh and Zimmerman's stance did not suggest they would willingly transfer power. It was decided to review the plan further that evening with local and national leaders of the SDAP and NVV. ^[19]

In the evening meeting, where at least 64 people were present, De Zeeuw and Troelstra received little support. Local politicians from Amsterdam also saw no revolutionary mood in the capital. The meeting decided that only a party conference could decide on a revolution. The party conference would be brought forward to 16 November. A commission led by Oudegeest would write a manifesto with demands. Troelstra, disappointed by the meeting, decided not take part in the commission. ^[20]

Demands for reform

On 11 November, the commission led by Oudegeest published a list of 15 demands, which included immediate demobilisation, women's suffrage, abolishment of the Senate, eight-hour work days and state pensions at age of 60. While Troelstra said after reading it "Such a program is revolution", Oudegeest replied that they were reforms, not revolution. De Zeeuw's call for a constituent assembly for new state institutions was not included, nor did the manifesto call for the formation of workers' and soldiers' councils. ^[21] The liberal Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant (NRC) called the demands "not unreasonable" the same day and even supported some reforms. ^[22]

The Catholic and protestant unions kept supporting the cabinet, but also demanded reforms which they announced on 12 November. These demands partially overlapped with the social-democrats, such as legal regulation of collective labor agreements, insurance against unemployment, illness, and incapacity for work, and state pensions. ^[23]

Calls for revolution

In the evening of 11 November, meetings were held in Rotterdam, one of which included a speech by Troelstra. Inspired by NRC's positive commentary, Troelstra included revolutionary language in his speech: ^[24]

Do not tarnish this great time with undignified actions; let it be said once and for all: the Dutch proletariat proved itself capable of its task, the Dutch proletarian revolution was the highlight in the history of the Netherlands! ^[25]

While newspapers paid little attention to Troelstra's speech, SDAP leaders were concerned about its language. Before the parliamentary session on 12 November, Jan van den Tempel critized Troelstra's speech in a parliamentary group meeting. ^[26]

During the parliamentary session, prime minister Charles Ruijs de Beerenbrouck officially announced the removal of Snijders and elaborated on the demobilsation which was announced the evening before. He also announced that the daily bread ration would be increased from 200 grams (7.1 oz) to 280 grams (9.9 oz). Ruijs de Beerenbrouck noted that violence would be disruptive to the food supply. ^[27]

In his reply, Troelstra argued that it was too late for small reforms or the increase of bread rations, and that the time had come for political power. In his hours long speech he said:

I give you my word of honor – I speak on behalf of our entire party and the modern labor movement –: we must have nothing to do with violence. However, it is our duty to use this historic moment for the political elevation of the working class, and whatever personal dedication and self-sacrifice may be required of us, even if it should cost us our lives, we will gladly and jubilantly give it to fulfil the demands of this historic moment. ^[28]

Countermeasures

The Council of Members met after the debate. They decided not to give into the SDAP's demands, although had Minister of Justice Theo Heemskerk had proposed to compromise. Instead they reinforced troops in The Hague, Rotterdam and Amsterdam, the only places where they expected riots. They also mobilised he voluntary Landstorm. Minister of Finance Simon de Vries Czn  [ nl ] was sent to Rotterdam, to prevent Zimmerman from capitulating. ^[29]

Violence in Amsterdam

Henriette Roland Holst speaking at an event (1909).

The Revolutionary Socialist Committee, a cooperation between extreme left organisations dominated by the SDP, met on the afternoon of 13 November. Speakers such as Roland Holst called for a revolution and held a demonstration despite the ban on demonstrations. A group of soldiers entered the meeting and pledged their support. ^{[a] [7]} In the evening, the organisations met in the Diamantbeurs. Former leader of the SDB, Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis, was also present in a wheelchair. ^[30]

David Wijnkoop (around 1935)

After this event, they demonstrated led by Roland Holst, Wijnkoop and leader of the League of Christian Socialists Willy Kruyt. ^[31] They walked towards the Amsterdam Cavalry Barracks  [ nl ] on Sarphatistraat, where they sung and tried to convince the soldiers to join them. A group of anarchists meanwhile tried to enter the barrack by smashing the lock of the gate with an axe. Suddenly, lights were turned on at the gate and the gendarmerie opened fire. 4 protesters died and 16 were wounded. ^[32]

A part of the demonstration then moved to the nearby Oranje-Nassau Kazerne, where soldiers were order to fire if protesters wanted to enter. In front of the gate, Roland Horst held a speech, while according to stories, Wijnkoop fainted from shock and asked bystanders for a glass of water. The protest continued to Beursplein, where Wijnkoop called for a general strike and for workers to meet the next morning on Damrak. ^[32]

When Wijnkoop arrived at Damrak the next day, only around 20 people were present. ^[31] Soldier's councils were created in some places, but undertook nothing significant. ^[33]

Troelstra backtracks

Despite Troelstra's claims that he spoke on behalf of his party, many of its MPs were shocked. ^[34] Public criticism was only voiced by Henri Polak, but internally many party leaders criticized Troelstra's words. The SDAP help meetings throughout the country where they used radical, but not revolutionary language. The party line remained to wait for the conference 16 November. During in the morning of 14 November, the parliamentary group wanted Troelstra to distance himself from calls for revolution, which he refused. However, during a debate in the afternoon Troelstra replied to accusations from other parties: ^[35]

The word 'coup' was not used by me at all. The gentlemen have spent a few days getting worked up about representations that in no way correspond to what I explicitly said in this Chamber [...] I explicitly said several times in my speech that I do not want to know about violence. ^[36]

The next day, SDAP MP Jan Schaper  [ nl ] was tasked with damage control in a debate. He downplayed the most radical statements by Troelstra and emphasized SDAP's democratic character, without abandoning his party leader. During the party conference in Rotterdam on 16 and 17 November, most speakers made it clear that they did not want a revolution, but they maintained their demands for reform.. At times, speakers critized Troelstra's actions. Troelstra himself was absent in an effort to maintain party unity. However, a telegram was sent on the first day urging him to attend, which he did on the second day, receiving a warm welcome with applause. In his speech, he acknowledged that he had misjudged the power dynamics but stated that he had never intended to seize power through violence or terrorism, against the will of the majority. The conference concluded in the afternoon in a calm and orderly manner. ^[37]

Aftermath

Troelstra's mistake enlarged differences between the SDAP and other parties. The board of the ABRK wanted to prohibit government cooperation with the SDAP in 1922, which was changed to only in "utmost necessity" by its parliamentary leader Willem Hubert Nolens (the so-called Nolens Doctrine). The SDAP would therefore not govern for the first time until 1939. ^[38]

The Central Intelligence Services (CI) was founded in 1919 in response to the Red Week.

See also

• Socialism in the Netherlands
• Loppem Coup, Belgium, in November 1918

Notes

1. Newspapers reported on varying numbers of soldiers, ranging from 8 to 400. ^[7]

Citations

1. Vossen, Koen (24 September 2015). "Waarom de socialistische revolutie in Nederland niet aansloeg". Historisch Niewsblad (in Dutch). Retrieved 1 January 2025.
2. Hartmans 2018, pp. 22–24.
3. Hartmans 2018.
4. Hartmans 2018, p. 12.
5. Hartmans 2018, pp. 37.
6. Linmans 2024, p. 27.
7. Linmans 2024, p. 26.
8. Hartmans 2018, pp. 28–29.
9. Hartmans 2018, p. 53.
10. Hartmans 2018, p. 49.
11. Hartmans 2018, pp. 51–53.
12. Hartmans 2018, pp. 54–55.
13. Hartmans 2018, pp. 57–59.
14. Hartmans 2018, pp. 59–60.
15. Hartmans 2018, pp. 60–62.
16. Hartmans 2018, pp. 65–67.
17. Hartmans 2018, pp. 71–76.
18. Hartmans 2018, pp. 76–77.
19. Hartmans 2018, pp. 87–89.
20. Hartmans 2018, pp. 89–91.
21. Hartmans 2018, pp. 97–98.
22. Hartmans 2018, p. 99.
23. Hartmans 2018, pp. 121–122.
24. Hartmans 2018, pp. 99–102.
25. Hartmans 2018, p. 102.
26. Hartmans 2018, pp. 106–107.
27. Hartmans 2018, pp. 107–109.
28. Hartmans 2018, p. 112.
29. Hartmans 2018, pp. 117–120.
30. Hartmans 2018, pp. 127–128.
31. Linmans 2024.
32. Hartmans 2018, pp. 128–129.
33. Hartmans 2018, p. 139.
34. Hartmans 2018, pp. 115–116.
35. Hartmans 2018, pp. 139–143.
36. Hartmans 2018, p. 143.
37. Hartmans 2018, pp. 146–154.
38. Gradus, Raymond; Harinck, George; Hoentjen, Karin; Van Kessel, Alexander; ten Napel, Hans-Martien (2012). "De uiterste noodzaak". Canon van de Christendemocratie (PDF) (in Dutch). Wetenschappelijk Instituut voor het CDA. ISBN   978-90-74493-79-6.

References

• Hartmans, Rob (2018). De revolutie die niet doorging[The revolution that didn't happen] (in Dutch). Omniboek. ISBN   978-94-019-1340-9.
• Linmans, Wouter (2024). Revolutiekoorts[Revolution fever] (in Dutch). Amsterdam: Athenaeum-Polak & Van Gennep. ISBN   978-90-253-1355-5.