How a Dutch Fascist Marketed the Empire in Pemandangan: Mussert’s Indonesian Interview

Pictured: Anton Mussert (front, middle) at the temporary quarters at Opakstraat, Soerabaja, Indonesia, during his visit in July & August 1935. From: Beeldbank WO2 – Collectie: NIOD.

Mitchel Stuffers, PhD Candidate in History, University of Exeter & Assistant Editor at CIGH Exeter

Anton Adriaan Mussert, the leader of the Dutch fascist National Socialist Movement(Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging, NSB), took a 2-month trip to the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) in 1935. While there, he agreed to an interview by the colony’s nationalist newspaper Pemandangan, wherein Mussert, remarkably, sought to sell the empire to its anticolonial-leaning readership.

I uncovered the interview while researching my PhD, which integrates imperial & colonial studies and comparative fascist studies by examining how organisations like the Dutch National Socialist Movement(NSB) built, justified, and executed their visions of fascist international worldbuilding. It also draws on Holocaust & Genocide Studies and Intellectual History to gain a more holistic overview of its origins and aims.

Over the last year and a half, I engaged with materials not only from the Netherlands but also pieces from some of its former colonies, like Indonesia, to engage with those inquiries.

Dutch colonial rule over Indonesia, especially before the outbreak of World War Two, was of enough interest to the NSB that its leader had decided to visit it and create an inter-imperial branch to operate from it. The NSB’s efforts to establish a foothold in the colony have led to various arguments among historians. Some claim that Mussert sought to use the Dutch East Indies as a steady stream of funds, and that the Indonesian NSB operated as a mere extension of the motherland’s metropolitan interests.[1] Another scholar reasoned that the NSB had held an “inclusive culturalist notion” of pan-imperial cooperation in its outlook on the colonies, whereby the organisation at large was genuinely impacted, until ethnonationalist chauvinism eventually ended it.[2] The existence of an interview wherein Anton Mussert was transcribed into Indonesian, rather than Dutch, thereby sways us to lean towards the latter hypothesis and examine its peculiarities, wherein an appeal to the colony may reveal its pre-war PR strategies.

Examinations on the NSB more broadly start with insightful works such as those by Edwin Klijn and Robin te Slaa, which, when discussing the NSB’s colonial & imperial aspects, argue that the urge for Lebensraum (Living space) was essentially nullified for the Dutch fascists due to the presence of the colonies before World War Two.[3] More recent historiography includes Tessel Pollman,[4] Jennifer Foray,[5] Geraldien von Frijtag Drabbe Künzel,[6] and Nathaniël Kunkeler.[7] However, it was a note in an older work, from 1968, that led to this short article. Simon L van der Wal briefly mentioned the existence of an interview with the NSB’s Leader, Anton Adriaan Mussert, by a leading Indonesian newspaper;[8] one with anti-colonial, pro-independence leanings.[9] The existence of this interview thereby challenges the way we understand the outreach of ultranationalist groupings to their non-white audiences. It moves us to ask how inter-imperial organisations like the NSB appealed to the wider sphere of colonised subjects, beyond the organisation’s perceived exclusivist dimensions, as has widely been the case in popular memory in the Netherlands following the NSB’s downfall.

Continue reading “How a Dutch Fascist Marketed the Empire in Pemandangan: Mussert’s Indonesian Interview”

7. Australia & the Fascist Idea of Greater Britain

Editor’s Note: In the weeks leading up to the new year, please help us celebrate 2015 at the Imperial & Global Forum by checking out the past year’s 10 most popular posts.

7. Australia & the Fascist Idea of Greater Britain

Oswald Mosley at a BUF parade, 1936.

Oswald Mosley at a BUF parade, 1936.

Evan Smith
Flinders University
Follow on Twitter @Hatfulofhistory

‘Our world mission is the maintenance and development of the heritage of Empire,’ the leader of the British Union of Fascists (BUF), Sir Oswald Mosley, declared in the BUF’s journal, Fascist Quarterly, in 1936. Although often overlooked by scholars of British fascism, this pro-imperial sentiment was central to the ideology of the BUF. For the BUF, the maintenance of the British Empire was imperative – key to keeping Britain’s place within the world and ensuring living standards in the domestic sphere.

Britain formed the metropole of the Empire, but the settler colonies (achieving Dominion status just prior to the inception of the BUF) were also seen as integral to the preservation of the Empire. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa were viewed by the BUF as bastions of the imperial spirit that would help revive Britain at the core of the Empire and create what Mosley described as a ‘Greater Britain’, resurrecting a term that had first appeared in the late Victorian period. [continue reading]

Anticolonialism, Antifascism, and Imperial History

 Antifascist demonstrators in London, October 1935. Photo: National Media Museum/SSPL
Antifascist demonstrators in London, October 1935. Photo: National Media Museum/SSPL.

John Munro
Saint Mary’s University[1]

There’s a lot to be said for emphasizing the structuring role of colonialism and anticolonialism across the twentieth century. To contextualize the world wars, the Cold War, and contemporary global capitalism as embedded in a larger set of imperial continuities is to offer an indispensable corrective to the overemphasis of 1945 as epistemic break; the embellishment of US history as an empire-free zone; or the exaggeration of the distance between imperialism and free trade. Fredrik Petersson’s astute Versailles-to-Bandung emplotment of transnational anticolonial activism is thus a very compelling one, especially when read alongside several concurring periodizations.[2] But how we might conceive of antifascism in this empire-centered genealogy requires further attention. Whether antifascism was itself an anticolonialism, in other words, matters much for how we make sense of the twentieth century. Continue reading “Anticolonialism, Antifascism, and Imperial History”