France, Belgium and the Netherlands faced the same fundamental challenge in 1945. In spite of differences in institutional setting, chronology or demography, their experience of Nazi occupation had been traumatizing and humiliating. Their national reconstruction required a self-confident image of the recent past. Nonetheless, the contours of the policies of memory pursued in the three countries diverged in a striking measure. In the Netherlands, post-war governments deliberately constructed a forced national consensus around the myth of a unanimous resistance, at the expense of veterans’ movements and all forms of associative memory. However, the latter dominated the commemorations in France and Belgium, continuing a post-1918 tradition. The conflicts between different categories of war veterans and victims and between different political families characterized the conflicting memories in these two countries. Rather than a monolithic resistance myth, different memories of Nazi persecution were rivals for public attention. In France, neither de Gaulle nor the Communist party succeeded in monopolizing the heroic legacy of the resistance. In Belgium, the Royal question, the left–right divide and subsequently the regional tensions between French and Dutch speakers, estranged part of opinion from the memory of the resistance and even ended up favouring, in some quarters, the rehabilitation of collaboration with the Nazi occupier.