Van Heutsz’s vernietzend oordeel (devastating judgment) on the Staatscommissie was a private but publicly aired condemnation of the Commission’s defense report, delivered through his son-in-law at meetings of the Vereeniging ter Beoefening van de Krijgswetenschap in early 1914.
Background
The Staatscommissie voor de Verdediging van Nederlandsch-Indië (State Commission for the Defense of Netherlands Indies) issued its report in 1913. J. B. van Heutsz had declined to serve on this Commission, dismissing its work as monnikenwerk (monk’s work) — a characterization that was widely reported in Indian newspapers by mid-1912 and that had already undermined the Commission’s credibility before it concluded its deliberations.
The Judgment
On 9 January 1914, at a meeting of the Vereeniging ter Beoefening van de Krijgswetenschap, J. B. van Heutsz authorized his son-in-law J. Van der Weyden to quote his private judgment on the Commission’s report. Van Heutsz’s words, as relayed by Van der Weyden, were:
Het is mijn vaste overtuiging, dat, bij uitvoering van de voorstellen der S. C., Nederland — hoewel echt Nederlandsch langzaam en zuinigjes — zal wegwerpen veel geld voor: Een vloot, die niet vechten zal — en Een leger, dat niet vechten kan.
(It is my firm conviction that, if the proposals of the S. C. are carried out, the Netherlands — though truly slow and frugal — will throw away much money for: A fleet that will NOT fight — and An army that CANNOT fight.)
Van Heutsz added: Ik ben blijde, dat mijn naam niet onder dat Staatsrapport staat. (I am glad that my name is not under that State report.)
The Follow-Up Meeting and Rebuttal
On 27 February 1914, at a follow-up meeting of the Vereeniging ter Beoefening van de Krijgswetenschap, Van der Weyden acknowledged that Van Heutsz’s expression of “gladness” could logically have been omitted, since Van Heutsz would never have signed such a report, making the sentiment illogical. Van der Weyden further stated that the “least pleasant” consequence of the proceedings for Commission members would be Van Heutsz’s devastating judgment.
Van der Maaten’s Criticism
Van der Maaten argued that Van Heutsz had no right to issue such a devastating judgment, since he himself, as Governor-General (1904–1909), had been unable to accomplish anything substantive on the question of defense. Van der Maaten noted that the Commission included no kwajongens (troublemakers) and observed that Van Heutsz, in his capacity as Adjutant-Generaal of the Queen and Groot-Officier of the Kroon, owed a duty of loyalty. Van der Maaten characterized this episode as part of a broader pattern in which Van Heutsz misused his name and prestige to advance his post-governorship defense advocacy.
Significance
The vernietzend oordeel illustrated the depth of division within Dutch military and political circles over the defense of Netherlands Indies. It demonstrated that Van Heutsz, even in retirement, retained the capacity to shape public debate and to undermine official commissions whose conclusions he disagreed with. The episode also revealed the willingness of critics such as Van der Maaten to challenge Van Heutsz’s authority and to question whether his past record entitled him to such sweeping condemnations.
See Also
- J. B. van Heutsz
- Staatscommissie voor de Verdediging van Nederlandsch-Indië
- Vereeniging ter Beoefening van de Krijgswetenschap
- J. Van der Weyden
- Van der Maaten
- Van Heutsz’s Bond van Vrije Liberalen defense speech (13 January 1917)
- Atjeh-enquête
Source
K. van der Maaten, Z. E. De Oud Gouverneur-Generaal J. B. van Heutsz en de Defensie van Nederlandsch-Indië (‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1917).