During World War II, Belgian railway company NMBS / SNCB collaborated closely with the German occupiers. This included the deportation of 230,000 people to concentration and extermination camps using Belgian railway trains. The company is now preparing to issue a formal apology, amongst other initiatives. 

In return, the NMBS / SNCB received approximately 51 million francs, equivalent to about 21 million euros today when adjusted for inflation. The majority of those deported were forced labourers (190,000), but the trains also transported Jews (25,490), political prisoners (16,081), and Roma and Sinti (353). NMBS / SNCB is now preparing to officially apologise for its role in these deportations, De Standaard reports.

This chapter in NMBS’s history came under renewed attention in 2023 following a report by CegeSoma, the Centre for Historical Research and Documentation on War and Contemporary Society. 

A Group of the Wise, composed of twelve experts from diverse backgrounds, was established to provide recommendations on how to address this past. On 11 April 2025, the De Wever government endorsed thirty recommendations from the group, including a formal apology. NMBS / SNCB has already confirmed to De Standaard its intention to follow through.

A new report by the Group of the Wise, published in January 2025, offers a more nuanced view of NMBS / SNCB’s responsibility. The report explains that the company’s leadership adopted what it termed a national policy of the ‘lesser evil’ during the occupation.

A choice?

Historian Nico Wouters of CegeSoma has stated that the NMBS / SNCB may have had limited options. He told De Standaard in December 2023 that halting the deportation trains might not have been feasible. 

These transports formed part of broader military cooperation, which escalated over time. According to Wouters, the absence of a formal framework governing collaboration allowed it to expand unchecked. He pointed to Narcisse Rulot, the railway’s then-director, as having shown a lack of foresight, but also noted the dilemma of when resistance might lead to even greater harm. He referenced the Dutch railway strike of late 1944, which contributed to the ‘hunger winter’ in the Netherlands, questioning whether that course of action had been wise.

The federal government’s endorsement of the Group’s recommendations is largely a formality. 

On 24 January, NMBS’s board of directors already agreed to issue an apology, pending the Belgian State’s approval. Infrabel and HR Rail, successors to the wartime railway operations, were invited to join. HR Rail has confirmed its participation, while Infrabel is still evaluating its position.

29 recommendations

Alongside the apology, NMBS /SNCB  is working on the other 29 recommendations. 

One of the key initiatives is an exhibition entitled ‘Occupied NMBS / SNCB: Between Collaboration and Resistance‘, which will run from September 2025 to June 2026 at the Train World museum. 

The exhibition is being developed in partnership with Kazerne Dossin and the War Heritage Institute. Educational materials will be created to accompany it, and a dedicated website will gather all available sources relating to NMBS / SNCB’s activities during the Second World War.

Belgian Senate

Evaluating the Belgian Railways‘ involvement in the deportation train was an assignment for and of the Belgian Senate. 

• More information.
• Recommendations.

Policy of the lesser evil

The international Hague Convention and the Belgian law on the duties of civil servants in wartime, known as the ‘Bovesse law‘ of 5 March 1936, required civil servants to cooperate loyally with an enemy occupier. The aim was to maintain public life and ensure public order for the benefit of the Belgian population. The Belgian government brought together these obligations in the Civil Mobilisation Booklet.

What later became known in Belgium as the ‘policy of the lesser evil‘ (politiek van het minste kwaad, politique du moindre mal) only took form following the German invasion. It developed in the unique context of the summer of 1940, when Belgian administrators faced severe challenges such as food shortages and rising unemployment. 

At the time, the German occupier acted in a relatively restrained manner and promised to respect international wartime law. In response, Belgian officials sought to preserve continuity as a means of preventing pro-German collaborators from taking over key institutions.

One of the main foundations of this approach was the restart of the Belgian economy, for which the Galopin Committee provided the framework. However, this also meant indirect support for the German war industry. 

A second key element was the cooperation between the German military occupation administration and the Belgian civil service, which led to the administrative structure known as the secretaries-general. The consequence of this cooperation was that German policies had to be implemented by the Belgian administration.

The policy of the lesser evil was not a centrally coordinated or uniform strategy. It was driven by a single underlying idea: the defence of Belgian national interests. 

This required keeping as much administrative control as possible in Belgian hands. The belief was that this approach was always preferable to handing power over to the occupiers or to local collaborators.

It soon became apparent that the policy led to a growing number of concessions to the Germans. By 1941, many of the principles established in 1940 no longer held. 

Nonetheless, the policy continued until the end of the occupation. Over time, it adapted pragmatically and came to include certain forms of covert resistance to the occupier’s policies. The policy of the lesser evil thus evolved into a complex and strategic balancing act, shaped by ongoing tactical decisions.

The term ‘policy of the lesser evil’ was coined by members of the Belgian elite themselves. It reflected a defensive stance, suggesting that cooperation with the occupier was not a matter of choosing between good and bad options, but between different degrees of bad ones. 

Over time, the phrase has acquired a negative connotation, associated with weakness, a lack of democratic resilience, or even moral failure. However, such moral judgement, viewed from a contemporary perspective, is considered ahistorical and overlooks the complex realities of governance under occupation.