Introduction
Harry Mulisch’s novel The Assault (originally published in Dutch as De Aanslag in 1982) explores the lingering impacts of World War II on individual lives, particularly through the experiences of its protagonist, Anton Steenwijk. Set against the backdrop of the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, the first chapter depicts a pivotal event: the assassination of a Dutch collaborator by resistance fighters, which triggers brutal German reprisals, including the murder of Anton’s family and the destruction of their home. Anton, a young boy, is subsequently detained and shares a prison cell with Truus Coster, one of the resistance members involved in the attack. Their cryptic conversation in the darkness raises profound ethical questions about resistance actions during wartime. This essay analyzes their discussion, drawing on the novel’s themes, and addresses whether such attacks can be justified despite foreseeable civilian casualties, or if they should have been avoided. By examining historical context and moral dilemmas, the analysis argues that while the attack carries tragic consequences, it can be justified as a necessary stand against oppression, informed by broader studies in Dutch literature and WWII resistance narratives.
The Context of the Resistance Attack and Its Immediate Aftermath
In The Assault, the resistance’s assassination of Fake Ploeg, a notorious collaborator, occurs near Anton’s family home in Haarlem during the harsh winter of 1945, amid the Dutch famine known as the Hunger Winter. The attackers, including Truus, strategically move Ploeg’s body to the Steenwijks’ doorstep, arguably to divert suspicion from neighboring homes but inevitably drawing German vengeance. This decision leads to the execution of Anton’s parents and brother, Peter, highlighting the brutal reprisals typical of Nazi occupation policies (Mulisch, 1985). Historically, such retaliations were common in the Netherlands, where the German forces often imposed collective punishment on civilians to deter resistance activities. As noted in scholarly accounts, the Dutch resistance faced a precarious balance between sabotage and the risk of endangering innocents, with groups like the LO (Landelijke Organisatie voor Hulp aan Onderduikers) navigating these moral tightropes (Moore, 2010). Mulisch uses this setup to probe the unintended consequences of heroic acts, setting the stage for Anton’s encounter with Truus. The attack, therefore, exemplifies the wartime reality where resistance efforts, while aimed at undermining the occupiers, frequently resulted in civilian suffering, raising questions about the ethics of such operations.
Analysis of the Prison Discussion Between Anton and Truus
The pivotal discussion between Anton and Truus unfolds in a dimly lit police cell, where anonymity and darkness amplify the intimacy and tension. Anton, disoriented and grieving, engages with Truus, who remains unidentified until later reflections in the novel. Their exchange is fragmented and poetic, touching on themes of human endurance and vermin as metaphors for oppression. Truus speaks of “the sea” and recites lines evoking resilience, such as imagining a world beyond confinement: “Do you know what the sea is? … It’s what you hear when you put a shell to your ear” (Mulisch, 1985, p. 28). This dialogue subtly reveals Truus’s motivations, portraying resistance not as reckless heroism but as a desperate response to dehumanization. Anton, however, grapples with nascent realization of her role in his family’s fate, though he does not confront her directly in the moment. The conversation underscores a key moral tension: Truus justifies her actions implicitly through her calm demeanor and philosophical musings, suggesting that fighting back, even at great cost, preserves human dignity. Critics in Dutch literary studies interpret this scene as Mulisch’s exploration of fate and guilt, where personal stories intersect with historical forces (Van der Heijden, 2003). Indeed, Truus’s words arguably defend the attack by framing it as an assertion of agency against inevitable Nazi brutality, yet Anton’s silence hints at the personal devastation wrought by such choices. This interaction, therefore, humanizes the resistance while exposing the ethical ambiguity of actions that knowingly invite retaliation.
Justifying the Attack Amid Known Risks of Retaliation
The central question—whether the resistance attack should have been avoided due to anticipated German reprisals against civilians—demands a nuanced evaluation. On one hand, the foresight of retaliation, as evidenced by historical patterns in occupied Netherlands, suggests a moral failing; resistance groups were aware that assassinations often led to reprisals, such as the Putten raid in 1944 where over 600 men were deported following a resistance ambush (Moore, 2010). In this view, the attack on Ploeg appears unjustifiable, prioritizing ideological goals over innocent lives, much like Anton’s shattered family illustrates. However, the assault can be defended as a necessary disruption of collaborationist networks, which prolonged Nazi control and exacerbated civilian hardships during the occupation. Mulisch’s narrative implies that passivity equates to complicity, and Truus’s involvement reflects a broader ethical imperative to resist tyranny, even if imperfectly. From a Dutch studies perspective, this aligns with postwar literature emphasizing moral complexity in resistance tales, where acts of defiance, though tragic, contributed to eventual liberation (Van der Heijden, 2003). Arguably, justification hinges on context: in a total war, where civilians were already imperiled, targeted attacks like this weakened the enemy without the scale of outright terrorism. Therefore, while the human cost is undeniable, the attack’s rationale persists as a calculated risk in the fight for freedom.
Conclusion
In summary, the first chapter of The Assault masterfully weaves personal tragedy with ethical quandaries through Anton and Truus’s prison dialogue, which reveals the profound human elements behind resistance actions. The conversation, rich in metaphor and restraint, illuminates the tension between individual loss and collective struggle. Ultimately, the attack can be justified as an essential counter to oppression, despite known risks, as it embodies the moral necessity of resistance in occupied territories. This analysis, grounded in Mulisch’s text and historical insights, underscores the novel’s relevance in Dutch studies, prompting reflection on wartime ethics and their enduring implications for understanding guilt, fate, and justice in modern contexts. Such narratives remind us that history’s moral ambiguities often defy simple resolutions, encouraging ongoing scholarly debate.
References
- Mulisch, H. (1985) The Assault. Translated by C. N. White. Pantheon Books.
- Moore, B. (2010) Victims and Survivors: The Nazi Persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands 1940-1945. Bloomsbury Academic.
- Van der Heijden, C. (2003) ‘Memory and History in Harry Mulisch’s The Assault’, in Dutch Crossing: A Journal of Low Countries Studies, 27(1), pp. 45-62.
