{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023993144815766924, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007712082262210797, 'mean_word_length': 4.959183673469388, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Collaboration and Attentism in the Netherlands 1940-41

The verdict of the Czech historian Tomas Pasfak, that every fascist has inevitably been a collaborator, but that not every collaborator has been a fascist,3 is of course also valid with regard to the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands and the reaction of the Dutch populace towards it. But it is exactly here that the problem begins. As far as fascist ideological collaboration is concerned mainly supported and carried out by the National Socialistische Beweging (National Socialist Movement) under its leader Anton A. Mussert the case seems quite obvious. For collaboration with the occupying power was regarded as an ultimate objective, either as a long-term and unlimited co-operation with Germany or as a total absorption into a future Germanic empire which would be newly created under the auspices of Himmler's SS.4 All the same, I consider it debatable whether a linguistic distinction should be made, as suggested by Werner Warmbrunn, Louis de Jong et al., between the 'collaborator' as the non-Nazi or non-fascist, and the 'traitor' as a member of a fascist organization,5 since such a differentiation