I think that he represents a contrast to his father. Both reprensent two different aspects of ethical consequentialism. The son represents someone who prefers action to inaction because he quickly sees the negative potential consequences of inaction to solve a problem that needs attention. This is in contrast to his father who is paralyzed by indecision becasue he can imagine the potential negative consequences of the likely courses of action to address the problem.

The contrast is the way Peter runs out of the house without heeding his parents pleas that he remain inside. His father on the other hand must be pressures to even think of leaving the house. He then hesitates at the door until it becomes obvious that to leave at that point would certianly be an act of suicide.

We can not be sure but based on the testimoney of Karen it would seem that Peter's leaving the house made it more likely not only that he would die that night but also that that his parents would killed with the other hostages.

Sadly if Peters parents had not died that night then Peter's brother Anton would never have been placed in the prison cell with Trudy. For those readers not familiar with the history of this story Trudy was one of two assassins who carried the assassination of Inspector Ploeg on the small street in Hempsted, where the family of Peter and Anton lived.

If Anton had not been present in Trudy's cell that night we might not have learned the hidden secret of this story. It was not why Karen and her father had moved Ploeg's body in front of the Steenwijk family home. That was only disinformation to conceal the much more inspiring or insidious secret depending on ones political orientation. That is that Ploeg was actually working for the communists. He was using his position to direct the Nazis investigation away from communist members of the undeground and towards those hostile to communism.

We know this because Trudy told Anton in the cell that night that Ploeg had to die because he could have betrayed many more good men. Well one can not BETRAY ones enemies one can only betray ones friends. We also know that Trudy was a communist. It does not make any sense to say that Ploeg was more dangerous than anyother member of the Gestapo when they used the same methods of torture. Furthermore the war against the Nazis was almost over but the struggle between the Capitlaists and the Marxists was just about to begin.

The communists had to kill Ploeg becasue it was clear by December of 1944 that the Russians would not be the ones liberating the Netherlands. It would be just a matter of time before he was captured by the forces of the West. Once that had happened the only card that he would have to play to save his life would be to defect to the west and divulge which people in the leadership of the Dutch underground were actually communitsts. Maybe we would have carried this secret to his grave but it was not a chance that the central committee could take. The stakes were to high.

LIkewise if an attempt was made to try to get Ploeg through to Russian forces in the East the chance that he would make it would be very slim. If he were captured by the Gestapo they would then know that he had been a communist agent all along.

Ploeg's death was a very tragic incident. Especially since it could never be revealed that he was in fact not a collaborator but a heroic member of the true resistence. But as a result of his death humanist eruo communist managed to infiltrate the Dutch security forces after the war and provide key support to those Europeans struggleing to free Europe from its second occupation of the 20th century. They have carried on a struggle as heroic as those who took part in the long march. It is a story that may have to wait a long time before it is told. As Thomas Paine said, the more insidious the enemy is that humans nave to defeat the more glorious the triumph once it is achieved.

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company