The Conflict Van Heutsz-Van Daalen of 1907 was the breakdown of the relationship between Governor-General Van Heutsz and Governor of Atjeh Van Daalen, culminating in Van Daalen’s request for relief from the Atjeh governorship on 28 December 1907. The conflict’s correspondence was published posthumously by Van Daalen’s children in a brochure titled Het Conflict Van Heutsz-Van Daalen (1907), containing letters from Van Heutsz, Van Daalen, Van der Maaten, Snouck Hurgronje, H. M. Neeb, and Kamerling, along with citations from Joh. Langhout’s Vijftig jaren Economische Staatkunde in Atjeh, a memorial word from the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant of 25 February 1930, and a passage from Van Heekeren’s article in De Indische Gids of 1914.
The brochure and its purpose
The brochure, a 65-page publication available for 60 cents, had a stated dual purpose: first, to assist historians; second, to do justice to Van Daalen. Damsté noted in his review that the postscript suggested other intentions as well. The publication of Van Heutsz and Snouck Hurgronje’s correspondence with Van Daalen could be justified, but the inclusion of Van der Maaten’s letters — containing damning accounts of a fellow officer who was still alive — had been published without Van der Maaten’s prior knowledge.
The relationship before the conflict
Damsté noted that the brochure’s assertion of a good intimate understanding between Van Heutsz and Van Daalen “in the days of before the conflict” did not actually exist. Before September 1907, Van Heutsz had never written unofficially to Van Daalen, although such informal correspondence between Buitenzorg and Koetaradja had previously been the rule. Van Heutsz’s annotations on Van Daalen’s official letters and reports of 1905/1906/1907, preserved at the general secretariat in Buitenzorg, were not friendly. Van Daalen only became aware of these annotations many years later, when he was army commander.
Van Daalen’s press problem
The brochure claimed that the 1908 Atjeh report had compelled Van Daalen to request relief. Damsté corrected this: Van Daalen’s bad press had already led him to request relief on 28 December 1907 — before the report appeared. The explanation for that bad press, found on page 16 of the brochure from Van Heutsz’s own pen, was that Van Heutsz kept the war correspondents under control while Van Daalen ignored them, and consequently the correspondents “sprang out of band.” Special indignation that they were not as well served by Van Daalen as by Van Heutsz contributed to the hostile coverage.
Van Daalen’s own assessment
Van Daalen himself, at Sigli in 1901 when his star was still rising, confided to Damsté how “widig” (unseemly) he found a duel between two generals before the public, such as had previously occurred between Van Swieten and Verspijck. On the 1908 Atjeh report published in June 1908, Van Daalen had been able to remain silent.
Damsté’s judgment
Damsté assessed the brochure as follows: viewed as a historical source, it was gain, though not “pure” gain; viewed as a monument to honour Van Daalen, the general deserved better, but the attempt was praiseworthy.
See Also
- Joannes Benedictus van Heutsz
- G. C. E. van Daalen
- C. Snouck Hurgronje
- Van der Maaten
- H. M. Neeb
- Kamerling
- Gouvernement Atjeh
- H. T. Damsté
- Atjeh-oorlog (1873-1904)
- Atjeh-rapport (1908)
Source
H. T. Damsté, review of Het Conflict Van Heutsz-Van Daalen: Toelichtende bescheiden uit de nalatenschap van generaal van Daalen, in Kolonial Tijdschrift, No. 4, 26e Jaargang (1937), pp. 439–441.