Ga direct naar: Hoofdnavigatie
Ga direct naar: Inhoud


Openbaarheid: The archive is largely open to the public. Only inventory numbers 72; 75; 76; 87; 101; 144-146; 157; 161; 166; 168; 195; 199; 209; 237-239; 255-261; 263, 265, 290 and 306 require written approval from the director of the NIOD. Researchers can apply in writing to the director of the NIOD.
History Establishing and organising the Jewish Council for Amsterdam

The Jewish Council for Amsterdam: with his arms crossed sitting at the table is Asscher, on his left is Cohen.

Unrest in Amsterdam Cause for establishing the Jewish Council were continuous riots in Amsterdam, provoked and caused by WAs

Extensive overview of the increasing unrest in the capital described by Sijes, Februaristaking... p. 62-89. Also see Presser, Ondergang... deel I p. 78-81 & De Jong, Het Koninkrijk... deel 4 p. 876-881.

. Late January 1941 groups of WA-men went from Vondelpark into the city centre to hang up signs with "Jews not wanted" in hotels, cafés and restaurants. They caused a disturbance by removing Jewish passengers from trams. WAs in uniform marched singing through Jewish neighbourhoods, abused passer-by's and forced entry into Jewish homes to destroy furniture or loot belongings. The owner of café-cabaret Alcazar on Thorbeckeplein refused to hang the sign "Jews not allowed" and had to watch how some WAs threw a bicycle through his window and destroy the furniture on 9 February. During subsequent fights dozens of people were injured. It quickly escalated into a battleground between Jewish thugs and the WA. The Jews were supported by people from the workers neighbourhoods Jordaan and Kattenburg; the WA was supported by German military who fought alongside them sometimes. Dutch police and military police attempted to come between them, some even used their service guns, but they were stopped by the German police.

During a fight on Waterlooplein on Tuesday evening 11 February, WA-man Hendrik Koot was heavily wounded

Part of the statements have been published by

and died three days later. The German occupation authorities immediately exploited Koot's death and exaggerated the circumstances. Höhere SS- und Polizeiführer Hanns Albin Rauter reported to his Berlin chief Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler that a Jews bit through Koot's artery and sucked him dry

Letter from 20 February 1941 from Rauter to Himmler; cited in Sijes, Februaristaking... p. 89.

. His subordinate, Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD Wilhelm Harster, wrote in his weekly report of happenings that "ein Jude in viehischer Weise in die Kehle seines Opfers verbissen hatte"

Meldungen aus den Niederlanden no. 33 van 18 februari 1941; NIOD-archief 077 Höhere SS- und Polizeiführer 354.

. And Hans Böhmcker, Beuftragte für die Stadt Amsterdam, told Reichskommisar Seyss-Inquart that a Jew completely sunk his teeth into Koot's face

According to Böhmcker a Jew had "vollkommen in das Gesicht Koot's festgebissen und gebärdete sich wie ein wildes Tier"; cited in in Sijes, Februaristaking… p. 88.


Reaction of the occupier The German reaction came fast: the next morning at six o'clock Böhmcker sealed the Jewish neighbourhood. Bridges were raised and streets barricaded with barbed wire. That same Wednesday, at four thirty in the afternoon, he summoned three prominent people from the Jewish community to his office: Chief Rabbi D. Francès of the Portuguese Israeli municipality, Chief Rabbi L.H. Sarlouis of the Dutch Israeli Church Association and the chairman of that church association, Abraham Asscher. That latter was a diamond industrialist and member of States-Provincial of Noord-Holland for the Liberal State Party since 1917. Political cloud for these measures came from Fritz Schmidt, in occupied the Netherlands the representative of the National Socialist Workers Party, who got permission from Seyss-Inquart

De Jong, Het koninkrijk… deel 4 p. 882.


Böhmcker ordered the establishment of a "Judenrat", who would be responsible for the peace and order in the Jewish neighbourhood. He immediately gave his first decree: Jews had to be summoned to hand their weapons over to the police. Both Rabbis withdrew but Asscher was prepared to act as chairman, and requested professor in ancient history David Cohen to be appointed as co-chairman. They knew each other from their years in boards of directors and committees and were "always at the front of all relief efforts". Because of this role both Asscher and Cohen saw themselves as "leaders of the Jewish municipality"

De Jong, Het koninkrijk… deel 4 p. 885.

. It was, like Cohen stated after the war, "a continuation of our work, that we have done our entire lives"

De Jong, Het koninkrijk… deel 5 p. 518.


Establishment of the Jewish Council At a meeting Böhmcker stated that the "Judenrat" was allowed to consist of twenty members. Asscher and Cohen approached people they knew from their previous positions by telephone. Seeing as these contacts were mainly rooted in the upper middle class, most of the possible members consisted of Jewish notables. The only two representatives from the working class were only on the council for a few months: chairman I. Voet of the General Dutch Diamond Cutters Association stepped down for health reasons and butcher A. Quiros from the Jodenbreestraat soon stepped down as well.

Thursday morning 13 February 1941 at eleven o'clock twenty men assembled in Asscher's factory. Besides chairmen Asscher and Cohen the following people came to the building on Tolhuisstraat 127-129

Lindwer, Het fatale dilemma... p. 229 & De Jong, Het koninkrijk... deel 5 p. 519 noot 2. Of the people present only professor Frijda refused on principle to take part in the Jewish Council. Besides butcher Quiros and union leader Voet, Mr. I Kisch also left the Jewish Council in 1941. A year later doctor dr. I.H.J. Vos and attorney A. van den Bergh had joined the Council. After July 1942 some members disappeared from the Council due to deportations. In February 1942 Mr. L.N. Kan quit, in the summer of 1943 Krouwer and Van Lier left the Council because they were not fully Jewish according to the Germans. In spring 1943 chief Rabbi Dasberg from Groningen joined the Council. In summer 1943 the Jewish Council only had eleven members besides Asscher and Cohen.

: dr. J. Arons (doctor) mr. N. de Beneditty (judge) H. Frijda (professor) mr. A.B. Gomperts (lawyer) I. de Haan (manufacturer) A. de Hoop (director Cinema Association) mr. L.N. Kan (chairman Dutch Zionist Association) mr. I. Kisch (university teacher) A. Krouwer (president trading company Europe-Asia) mr. S.J. van Lier (city manager Amsterdam) A.J. Mendes da Costa (former secretary Portuguese-Israeli Municipality) prof.dr. J.L. Palache (professor and chairman Portuguese-Israeli Church Association) mr.dr. M.I. Prins (lawyer) A. Quiros (butcher) chief rabbi A.L. Sarlouis (chief rabbi Dutch-Israeli Main Synagogue) dr. D.M. Sluys (secretary Dutch-Israeli Main Synagogue) A. Soep Bzn. (diamond cutter) I. Voet (chairman General Dutch Diamond Cutters Association)

Initially the company thought to name it the Committee for the representations of the Amsterdam Jews. The focal point of the committee would be "that it mainly would have an executive and communicational task, but not be responsible for the orders they have to communicate, and not go as far as accepting tasks that are dishonourable for Jews"

Notes Jewish Council 13 February 1941; archief 182 Joodse Raad inventarisnummer 3.

. The twenty founders saw themselves as a local committee with limited authority, which was contrary to Bömcker's intention in establishing a "Judenrat", "damit für alle Amsterdamer Juden eine verantwortliche Vertretung vorhanden sei"

Sijes, Februaristaking… p. 91.

. Neither of the committee's principles could be maintained. Late October Asscher and Cohen were told that the committee's work area had to be expanded to encompass the entire country

Announcement from Bömcker and Lages on 27 October 1941. In the same conversation they stated that the Jewish Council would not be given formal statutes; Presser, Ondergang... p. 170.

, after which provincial bureaus were established.

Expansion of the Jewish Council By that time the power and influence of the Jewish Council had grown significantly, not least of all through German measures. The ban on other Jewish organisations in the autumn of 1941 was one of the causes for the strengthened position

Due to this the Jewish Coordination Committee was banned. The Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung solidified the position of the Jewish Council by consciously handing over authority to the council; Michman, "De oprichting van de Joodse Raad voor Amsterdam…" p. 90.

. The Jewish Council controlled schools where Jewish children could follow education and provided vocational education for unemployed Jews. Financial and social support of poor Jews was supplemented by offering practical help with forced moves. Later, guiding Jews who were summoned for deportation was added as well. In the end the Jewish Council would grow to be an administrative machine with thousands of employees who regulated the life of Jews in detail on German orders

Lindwer, Het fatale dilemma… p. 20.


The Jewish Council also got more involved with the preparation and execution of anti-Jewish measures and had to let go of the intention to not accept dishonourable tasks. The council was controlled by the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung led by Willy Lages and Ferdinand aus der Fünten. The Zentralstelle forced the Jewish Council to compile lists of non-Dutch Jews and later also of unemployed Dutch Jews. The distribution of the yellow badges also went through the council

It was so quickly and efficiently executed that it garnered German admiration; Michman, "Controversy surrounding the Jewish Council…" p. 254.

. German orders and ordinances were made public to the Jewish community via the Jewish Weekly. As the deportations gained momentum, the Jewish Council gained more influence in handing out exemptions from transport. A German memorandum established in 1942: "es konnte vor allem mit Hilfe dieser Befehlsübermittlungsstellen und mittels Weisungen im zensierten Jüdischen Wochenblatt die Evakuierung gelenkt werden"

Memorandum of Willy Zöpf in 1942; cited in Michman, "Controversial stand…" p. 25 n. 28.

. Lages' comment "Ohne diesen Judenrat hätten wir es nie geschafft" was aimed at these evacuations, which was used as a veiled term for e.g. deportations in the memorandum

Witness statement of W. Lages in autumn 1947; cited in Lindwer, Het fatale dilemma... p. 14.


From the on 13 February 1941 hastily assembled committee of twenty men, the Jewish Council grew to an organisation with dozens of departments and local and regional representatives all over the country. Chronicler of the persecution of Jews in the Netherlands, Jacques Presser, likened the Jewish Council to a ministry size wise, and called it "a swarming mess of people, functions, bureaus with matching paperwork". He spoke of a "rampant growth": early April 1943 the Jewish Council had eight thousand employees just for Amsterdam. Another 560 people were employed in the provinces Noord- and Zuid-Holland and Utrecht and big cities The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht. The big raids of May and June 1943 had an "altered bureau list" as a consequence. Mid July there were less than 1.100 employees and late August the Jewish Council only had 92 left

Presser, “Ondergang…” p. 453-455.


Dissolution of the Jewish Council Unwanted and unknowingly the Jewish Weekly announced the end of the Jewish Council with the announcement that the bureaus would be closed on 30 September and 1 October because of the Jewish holiday Rosh Hashanah

Joodsche Weekblad 3e jaargang no. 25 van 24 september 1943;

. On 29 May 1943 the last raids took place in Amsterdam where the last prominent members of the Jewish Council were taken to Westerbork from the Hollandsche Schouwburg

De Jong, Het Koninkrijk… deel 7 p. 311; only Cohen was not arrested, he arrived a day later at Westerbork.

. Even after Rosh Hashanah the offices of the Jewish Council stayed closed.

The Jewish Council in international perspective

Vienna and Prague The first concepts for a representative institution for the Jewish community were already on the desks of German authorities in April 1933. A draft design for the "Stellung der Juden" contained a mandatory membership of a "Verband der Juden" and an election of a "Judenrat" of 25 people

Michman, "“De oprichting van de Joodse Raad voor Amsterdam…" p. 77.

. But that was where the plan stopped; it wasn't until after the Anschluss of Austria with the German Reich in 1938 that the Gestapo and Sicherheitsdienst had the opportunity to implement their, more detailed, plans. Within a month Adolf Eichman had placed all Jewish organisations under the Jüdischer Kultusgemeinde Wien. This newly created organisation had no legal base but fell under the specially established Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung. The Kultusgemeinde had to stimulate the, by Germans set, goal of Jewish migration and was allowed to decide over education, culture and social care for Jews. Because eighty percent of Austrian Jews lived in Vienna, other Jewish communities soon became dependent on the organisation in the capital. A similar locally oriented Jewish representation was established in Prague

Michman, "De oprichting van de Joodse Raad voor Amsterdam…" p. 78-80. The Reichprotektorat Bohemen and Moravië were given "ein ähnliches System wie in Wien", namely a "reorganisierte örtliche jüdische Gemeinde ohne besondere Rechtsgrundlage, die einer Zentralstelle


Berlin The situation in the German Reich was different than in Czechoslovakia and Austria. In the Altreich the Jewish population was not mainly centred in the capital but had spread across the country. Since 1933 there was a national organisation which Jews could join on a voluntary basis. This Reichsvertretung der deutschen Juden was established without pressure from the national-socialist government but came from the Jewish community

Esh, “Reichsvereinigung der Juden…” p. 20.

. Even though the Nazis started making plans for a mandatory Jewish organisation right after coming to power, it wasn't established until after the Kristallnacht of 10 November 1938. Almost all religious and non-religious Jewish organisations were merged into the Reichsvereinigung der Juden in Deutschland. State minister Göring decreed on 24 January 1939 to prepare a "verstärkten Auswanderung" for Jews by e.g. a "geeignete jüdische Organisation ins Leben zu rufen"

Michman, “Judenräte...” p. 298.

. The only permitted Jewish paper, the Jüdisches Nachrichtenblatt reported that the conversion of the Reichsvertretung into the Reichsvereinigung was almost complete on 17 February 1939. The chairman was Rabbi dr. Leo Baeck, his replacement was Heinrich Stahl, the leader of the Jewish community in Berlin

Esh, “Reichsvereinigung der Juden…” p. 25-26.

. The goal was formally recorded during the ordinance of 4 July 1939. The Reichsvereinigung had to stimulate the migration of Jews and provide education and social support

Esh, “Reichsvereinigung der Juden…” p. 30.


The Gestapo, which was charged with settling Jewish affairs, dissolved the Reichsvereinigung on 10 June 1943. At that time there were less than ten thousand Jews left of the three hundred thousand that were living in Germany in 1939

Esh, “Reichsvereinigung der Juden…” p. 32, 34, 37-38. Only a Restvereinigung der jüdischen Mischehepartner continued to exist to hand over property of old organisations to the state.


Poland In Poland, the first country conquered by force, the Germans established Jüdische Ältestenrat in almost every Jewish community, consisting of Rabbis and other notables. The intention behind this was recorded by chief of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt Reinhardt Heydrich in an order to the commanders of the Einsatzgruppe

Schnellbrief from 21 September 1939 from Heydrich to the commanders of the Einsatzgruppen; cited in Berenstein, Faschismus, Getto, Massenmord… p. 37-41.

. With explicit warning that the "geplanten Gesamtmassnahmen" had to be kept secret, Heydrich said that housing Polish Jews in the large cities was the most important prerequisite for the "Erfüllung dieses Endzieles". He put the Judenräte in charge of registering the Jewish population and their departure to the cities. Once arrived, the Ältestenräte had to ensure a "geeignete Unterbringung". Finally, Heydrich told the Jewish councils that they were completely responsible for the immediate and precise execution of his orders.

The established Jewish council were generally a continuation of the traditional Jewish organisations that already existed before the war, or originated from civil committees during the battles of September 1939

Trunk, Judenrat… p. 14-16. Part of the Judenrat for Lublin consisted of members from a pre-war Jewish city council. Most members of the Jewish Citizen Committee, that was established during the siege of Warschau, later took part in the Judenrat of the city.

. In other cities the Rabbis were charged with establishing a Jewish council, or the Germans appointed random people to establish a Jewish council

Trunk, Judenrat… p. 24-25.


The size of Jewish councils could vary. A large city like Lwow with 150.000 inhabitants had a Jewish council of initially eight and later twelve members. A provincial town with seven thousand inhabitants on the other hand had twenty four members in the Jewish council

Trunk, Judenrat… p. 29. In the town of Wadowice there were two thousand Jews that were represented by a Jewish council of four members. In the nearby village of Andrychów there was a Jewish council of six members for a Jewish population of five hundred.

. In some instances overarching Jewish councils at district or regional level were established. Such an Oberjudenrat could appoint or fire members of local Jewish councils and maintain contact with the German authorities

Trunk, Judenrat… p. 36-37. The "Zentrale der Ältestenräte der jüdischen Kultusgemeinden in Ostoberschlesien" by March 1941 had the authority over 32 municipalities spread across ten districts.

. The German administration was not uniform and unambiguous either. The civil management fought with the SS-institutions about control of the Jewish people. The Sicherheitsdienst tried assume power over the Jewish councils and Jewish affairs. Befeglshaber der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD Bruno Strechenbach claimed that the SD developed the idea of a Jewish council because they had a large interest in Jewish affairs for "known reasons"

Trunk, Judenrat… p. 5, 264 passim.


France and Belgium The Jewish councils in France and Belgium were established nine months after the Jewish Council in Amsterdam and was given a legal base. On 21 November 1941 the Union Générale des Israélites de France (UGIF) was established. Existing Jewish organisations were dismantled or were absorbed into the UGIF. It was recorded by law that the work area of UGIF would cover both the German occupied part of France as well as the French Vichy controlled part. Chairman Albert Lévy was responsible for the Vichy-area, vice-chairman André Baur resided in occupied Paris. This managerial divide lasted until mid February 1943, three months after the Germans occupied the Vichy-area. Besides the social, financial and medical support, the UGIF also arrange education within the Jewish community. From early June 1943 the UGIF was also charged with collecting special taxes from Jews

Szajkowski, "Glimpses on the History of Jews…" p. 134, 136, 145. Before the war, Chairman Albert Lévy was involved with helping Jewish refugees as chairman of the Comité d' Assistance aux Refugiés.


Similarly, late November 1941 the military commander in Belgium ordered the establishment of the Vereinigung der Juden in Belgien (VJB), The establishment decree established that the "Jewish Association" was given statutes and was supervised by the Ministry of the Interior and Health. The goal was firmly recorded as "stimulating the emigration of Jews"

Michman, "De oprichting van de VJB…" p. 41-42.

. Not only is the name of the VJB similar to the German Reichsvereinigung, also the text of the establishment order shows a clear relationship with the Reichsvereinigung. Chief of the Sicherheitsdienst in Belgium Ernst Ehlers reported in January 1942 that the "Vereinigung der Juden in Belgien nach dem Muster der Reichs-Vereinigung gebildet wird. Sie hat insbesondere den Zweck, Träger der jüdischen Wohlfahrtpflege, der Vorbereitung der Auswanderung und des jüdischen Schulwesens zu sein"

Sonderbericht das Judentum in Belgien; cited in Klarsfeld, Die Endlösung der Judenfrage… p. 12-13.


Judenrat and Judenverein In the countries surrounding the Netherlands there were roughly two models for Jewish councils. In Vienna, Prague and Poland there were locally oriented Judenräte established without a legal base. This model was mainly found in areas where the SS-organisations were strong

Michman, "Judenräte…" p. 300; Also the Soviet Union, Hungary, the Greek Salonica, and to a certain extend Tunesia were exposed to this model.

. In areas where the SS was involved in a battle for power with other Reichs organisations there were mainly Judenvereiningungen established after German example. These were given a legal status and had a work area across the entire country, like in Belgium and France

Michman, "Judenräte…" p. 299-300; Also Romania and Algeria fell in this group, as well as Danzig to a certain extend.


The Netherlands The Netherlands was given a civil occupation authority run by Reichscommissar Arthur Seyss-Inquart, where the SS could exert more power than in France or Belgium. The strong position of Höhere SS- und Polizeiführer Hanns Albin Rauter reflects this. Furthermore, he was from Austria, just like Seyss-Inquart and the Generalkommissare Hans Fischböck and Friedrich Wimmer

Blom, "The persecution of the Jews…" p. 338

. They experienced first hand how Eichmann treated Jews from Vienna. Besides that, Seyss-Inquart was the second in command in occupied Poland from September 1938 until May 1940. Also Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD, Wilhelm Harster, brought his experience in Austria and Poland to the Netherlands

After the Anschluss in March 1938 Harster was transaferred to Austria and from October 1939 he was Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei in Poland; Michman Uniqueness... p. 375-376.


The Jewish Council that saw the light in the Netherlands shows some similarities to the Polish model, like the absence of a legal base, the initial task to maintain peace and order and at the beginning local authority

Other corresponding elements could be the name Judenrat (contrary to Judenvereinigung), the personal order of the German authorities to Rabbis and notables, the number of members and authority of a central council over regional councils; Michman, "De oprichting van de Joodse Raad voor Amsterdam…" p. 88, 91 and 93.

. There are significant differences though. The most noteworthy being that the Jewish Council was not initiated by a SS-organisations but through orders from civil authorities Böhmcker and Schmidt. Contrary to Jewish councils in Vienna, Prague and Poland, the Jewish Council of Amsterdam was not established immediately after occupation but nine months later. These difference are partly due to the specific Dutch circumstances: within the Riechskommissariat there was a competency battle between the SS-representatives (Rauter, Harster) and the NSDAP-delegates (Seyss-Inquart, Schmidt, Böhmcker)

For an extensive analysis of the competency battle between the German authorities in occupied the Netherlands see Houwink ten Cate, "Heydrich's Security Police…" and Michman, "Planning for the final solution…"


It is remarkable that in this case Seyss-Inquart attempted to establish a representative Jewish organisation that was like the Reichs-Vereinigung in Germany itself. By doing so, he went directly against the hard line Rauter and Harster supported. Seyss-Inquart had plans developed for a "jüdische Zwangsorganisation" that would regulate and control the social and cultural life of Jews. Besides the "Reinigung des Kultur- und Vereinswesens von artfremden Einflussen", "Förderung ihrer Auswanderung" was also in his plan. This plan, that mainly was a move in the chess game for power, never outgrew its concept status

Michman, "Planning for the final solution…" p. 149 noot 8. & Michman, "Jüdenräte…" p. 302.


Within the unrest of the power struggle within the Reichskommissariat, chairmen Asscher and Cohen were looking for leeway. With the terrible image of young Jewish men who were arrested in February 1941 and some months later deported to Mauthausen, they chose to cooperate with Böhmcker over the strict regime of the SS and Sicherheitsdienst

Houwink ten Cate, "The security police..." p. 389-390.

. Because of the many dilemmas posed to the Jewish Council, the task of Asscher and Cohen was once compared to a difficulty journey on foot through the desert with "ahead nothing but a fata morgana, a reflection of optimism against a sky of hope"

Herzberg, Kroniek… p. 151.


The cooperative attitude of the Jewish Council corresponds with the cooperative attitude of the Jewish community in general. Because of their long tradition of integration and assimilation in the Dutch society, the Jews responded similarly to the German occupation as most of the Dutch citizens: with acceptance and cooperation

Blom, "The persecution of the Jews…" p. 348-349 states that a well organised Jewish Council would seamlessly fit with the more or less cooperative and docile attitude of the Jewish community in the Netherlands.


dates of accumulation

The archive covers the period 1941-1943.

custodial history/transfer to the RIOD

The archive of the Jewish Council has not been preserved in its entirety. During the occupation the Germans confiscated and destroyed parts. Also, reports and conversations of chairman D. Cohen with the German authorities have likely been lost. Cohen secretly dictated these reports to his secretary miss F.D. de Lange. Minutes of the Jewish Council from 13 February until 24 June 1941 are also missing

Compare Houwinck ten Cate, "Security police..." note 3.


The archive that employees and departments of the Jewish Council made has never been stored in one central place. First off, that is because the departments of the Jewish Council were spread across different locations in the city. Secondly, the provincial representatives kept their archives in their own secretariat.

The consequences of this decentralised storage system are felt when they were received by the RIOD. In most cases it is not possible to find out when the RIOD received these documents. As far as can be traced, the following documents were transferred to the RIOD over a period of twenty years. The first transfer was in 1953 by former chairman David Cohen. He bestowed the archive to the chairmen "with a few other documents". In the annual report of that year "preserved pieces" were mentioned which indicates that the archive was incomplete. Nevertheless, the chairman archive was characterised as an "acquisition whose value to the documentation of the persecution of the Jews cannot be mentioned enough". A year later, Cohen supplemented his gift with annotations of his conversations with representatives of the Sicherheitspolizei. In 1962 the RIOD received for packets with documents from the department Groningen which was followed three years later by three quarter of a meter of material from the department Zutphen. Lastly, the annual report of 1975 mentions receiving a map of newsletters over the period August 1942 till January 1943.

The archive consists of correspondence, newsletters and financial documents from the chairmen of the Jewish Council and various departments and bureaus. The documents give insight into German policy and the fate of individual Jews.
Ontvang onze nieuwsbrief
Tweewekelijks geven we je een overzicht van de meest interessante en relevante onderwerpen, artikelen en bronnen van dit moment.
Ministerie van volksgezondheid, welzijn en sportVFonds

Herengracht 380
1016 CJ

020 52 33 87 0info@oorlogsbronnen.nlPers en media