Talk:De Groene Amsterdammer

Removed a statement that paints a very strange picture when presented without any context
I just removed this from the article:


 * During the German occupation De Groene Amsterdammer recommended its readers not to resist the German forces.

While this may be true (I can't access the source), when presented alone it suggests that De Groene was a pro-nazi magazine. It wasn't, and I'm sure the source provides a reason for this recommendation. Before the war, De Groene was one of the few periodicals that actually warned about the nazi threat at a very early stage (see ). FNAS (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Luckily, G. Books allows me to read the relevant page in the source. It is about the ‘defeatist attitude’ of the legal press in general in the early phase of the occupation and then gives the Groene as an example of a ‘remarkable change of opinion’ in the first edition after the actual military defeat in May 1940. It “recommended the readers to accept defeat because a continuation of the fight would only be harmful”.
 * This may be regarded as typical of a prevalent mood at the time: that it was useless for civilians to clash with such a seemingly overwhelmingly powerful regime, even while hating the Nazis and their invasion at the same time. The government instructed the civil servants likewise when it went in exile.
 * One could not foresee if the occupation would last forever or that one could sit it out, but in any case, many people hoped that avoiding open conflict would lead to less damage. The first resistance groups, in 1940, lacked experience and were quickly crushed by the Germans. Examples of open resistance a little later were the protest address by Cleveringa (November 1940) and the February Strike in the next year.
 * The ‘grey area’ between collaboration, resistance and attempts to keep ‘business as usual’ are a hot topic in Dutch historiography. But in any case, the Green Amsterdammer cannot be pictured as grey based on one editorial in May 1940.

"Newsmagazine"
In good English this should be two words - a typical Dutch error is to join such words together, as they would be in Dutch - but I can't change it without activating or damaging the link, so I hope someone with the necessary technical skills can do it.89.212.50.177 (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)