Church leaders justified extreme violence of Dutch soldiers in Indonesia
New research reveals that Dutch military clergy not only justified but often endorsed extreme violence during the colonial war in Indonesia. According to historian Koos-Jan de Jager's new book Oorlog zonder Genade (War Without Mercy), priests and pastors were deeply involved in supporting the war effort and remained silent about war crimes, despite witnessing them firsthand, Trouw reports.
The role of clergy in Indonesia's independence war (1945-1949), often depicted as peripheral, has now been re-examined. De Jager’s work is the first extensive study of the approximately 400 military chaplains, revealing how they legitimized extreme violence and ignored war crimes, including executions and the destruction of villages.
Indonesia had been a Dutch colony for centuries, and the Netherlands responded to Indonesia's independence movement with brutal "police actions." De Jager's research sheds light on how clergy, many of whom served alongside soldiers, played a crucial role in framing the war as a righteous battle. The narrative they promoted positioned the Dutch army as divinely ordained, with religious leaders reinforcing the idea that their soldiers were acting in God's name.
“Violence was often seen as the only way to counter the Indonesian resistance, who were also committing atrocities,” De Jager explained Trouw. “This was part of a colonial mentality where the ‘East’ was seen as a place where different moral standards applied.”
“Many of them were war hawks, defending not only the war but justifying extreme violence,” De Jager added. “One pastor argued that Indonesians should only be trusted ‘when they are forty centimeters underground.’”
Dutch army commander Simon Spoor famously stated that Christ came to bring peace, and the soldiers were doing the same. The moral framework developed during World War II, which framed it as a fight between good (the Dutch) and evil (the Indonesians), was transferred directly to the conflict in Indonesia.
Clergy were not distant from the violence; they were present at nearly every military action, providing spiritual care to soldiers and witnessing atrocities firsthand. Many military chaplains observed war crimes—such as executions and the burning of villages—yet failed to report them.
"I have numerous examples of chaplains witnessing war crimes, such as a prisoner being shot right in front of them, or villages being torched," De Jager said.
Why did they stay silent? De Jager argues that clergy were deeply loyal to the military and viewed the violence as necessary in the fight against an enemy they saw as morally inferior. They accepted colonialist assumptions that justified the use of extreme force in the East.
The clergy's loyalty to Dutch soldiers also made it difficult for them to acknowledge the wrongdoing within their ranks. Their failure to speak out represents a broader societal tendency to ignore or justify war crimes, De Jager suggests.
De Jager’s findings challenge the official narratives, calling for a reckoning with the role religion played in justifying violence. He argues that churches need to confront this part of their history more openly. While churches offered apologies for their involvement in the war in 1995, these were seen as insufficient as they only acknowledged excesses, not the systemic violence.
"Apologies alone are not enough if there's no broader recognition of the violence that was committed. This isn’t just a matter for veterans; it concerns all of Dutch society," De Jager concluded.
