De razzia van Rotterdam. 10-11 november 1944 - KNAW

264 SUMMARY
deported; also with Germans imprisoned in the Netherlands. The data thus gained
were compared with letters, diaries, notes for diaries and documents available at the
Institute.
One problem was the extent to which the men interviewed might give a false picture
of the events as a result of the influence exerted by the interviewer. The author
believes this factor to be of little importance. His starting point was material received
as a result of publications in the Rotterdam press, which had not been influenced by
the author. Moreover, in carrying out the interviews care was taken to let the man
interviewed speak his mind freely.
In arranging the interviews a choice had to be made from thousands of people
whose lives had been afïected by the razzia. In making the choice an attempt was
made to interview as many people as possible of different occupations, religions, and
age. The interviews were, of course, hampered by the fact that they were held five
years after the razzia. Many details were not remembered, and the nature of people’s
characters determines what they remember and how. In many cases, however, the
author was able to assist the man interviewed with his knowledge of analogous
situations. This knowledge enabled him also to determine the value of each person’s
communication.
One year after the research began a large amount of material had been collected.
It had been made available by 250 people. This was but a small percentage of the
total number of men deported. It was therefore decided to distribute questionnaires.
By this means many more people could be approached. The result of the questionnaire,
however, is not entirely satisfactory. The questions have to be short, and the answers
are usually brief also. The man who fills in a questionnaire can only give answers
to specific questions, he has no chance to give free rein to the thought associations
in his mind. Similarly the author is unable to ask for further information when the
answer is not entirely clear or to explain a question which has not been properly
understood. Finally, he is unable to study the man supplying the data. In many cases
this would be of obvious importance. The author for example tried to determine
how the men feit, while they were in the holds of the ships in which they were trans-
ported from Rotterdam. A man of a melancholy nature might have said they “feit
fine”, whilst a man of sanguinary temperament might have answered “as usual” .
In cases like this the interview has advantages over the questionnaire.
The questionnaires, nevertheless, formed an invaluable link. The event studied was
of a mass nature. The data collected from a relatively small number of witnesses had
to be supplemented and controlled by making use of many more reports. In order
to facilitate control the questionnaire included certain questions which had also been
used during the interviews, such as: what motives determined the witness concerned
to obey or not to obey the German order? Were there any machine-guns or other
weapons installed in the streets or in the squares? What was the behaviour of the
Germans like in searching the houses or during the marches through the town? How
did the men feel during transport?