Pragmatism Or Collaboration?

[Lonan3]

TIMES ARTICLE

 

A new book which suggests that the German occupation of France encouraged the sexual liberation of women has shocked a country still struggling to come to terms with its troubled history of collaboration with the Nazis.

Like a recent photographic exhibition showing Parisians enjoying themselves under the occupation, the book’s depiction of life in Paris as one big party is at odds with the collective memory of hunger, resistance and fear.

Many might prefer to forget but, with their husbands in prison camps, numerous women slept not only with German soldiers but also conducted affairs with anyone else who could help them through financially difficult times: “They gave way to the advances of the boss, to the tradesman they owed money to, their neighbour. In times of rationing, the body is the only renewable, inexhaustible currency.”

Cold winters, when coal was in short supply, and a curfew from 11pm to 5am also encouraged sexual activity, says Buisson, with the result that the birth rate shot up in 1942 even though 2m men were locked up in the camps.

The book has stirred painful memories. One French reviewer called it “impertinent” and another accused Buisson of telling only part of the story by focusing on the “beneath the belt” history of the occupation. Le Monde, the bible of the French intellectual elite, chided the author, who is the director of French television’s History Channel, for painting life under the occupation as a “gigantic orgy”.

 

The question being, of course, whether anyone really believes that the Brits would have behaved differently if they'd been invaded.

[VinnieK]

The article seems to contradict itself in places. In one half it refers to Paris as one big party, but then goes on to state that the inhabitants had to contend with financial deprivation, cold winters (suggesting a lack of basic comforts) and curfews, which provided some of the incentive to so called "horizontal collaboration".

 

Whether Britain would have been any different is an impossible question. Certainly there would have been some form of collaboration, if only from those sympathetic to the Nazi ideology, but to what degree and how prevalent it would have been is difficult to answer. However, a possible indication of how things might have panned out in the UK is the near complete faliure of the attempts to recruit British prisoners of war into a specifically British Waffen SS formation (the British Free Corps). Compared with similar units (for instance the predominantly French Charlemagne Division, consisting of over 7000 troops), British interest was limited (no more than 27 men).

[Jimcalagon]

The question being, of course, whether anyone really believes that the Brits would have behaved differently if they'd been invaded.

 

From what I gather, it wasn't hugely different in Britain, except in place of a German invasion, it was a US invasion - and the price of a quickie for a GI wasn't just food, it was a pair of nylons. A program I saw last week gave an astounding figure of 80,000 GI Brides by the end of the war.

[bluemonday]

The Channel Islands.

[VinnieK]

The Channel Islands.

 

It's not really a fair example though. Opportunities for resistance are much more scarce on a tiny island a few miles off the coast of German occupied France than a large nation.

[bluemonday]

Nor is it really fair to judge the conduct of an occupied country with hindsight some 60 years later based on the conduct of a section of that society

 

As regards the CI, I believe the BG line was to advise a policy of "passive co-operation" which I also believe was open to criticism particularly as regards the subsequent treatment of members of the Jewish faith resident in the Islands.

 

Many Jews and people of other faiths resisted even in the concentration camps.

[Freggyragh]

Yes, resistance is difficult for small islands when an aggressive, imperialistic neighbour attacks. It is not impossible to know how the Manx would have reacted if it had been a long term invasion though. We know that the Manx would have done their level best to be more German than the German, ditching their language, swearing allegiance to the German head of state, contributing troops to quell rebellions, adopting the education, religion and culture (including the genecidal dogma) and ridiculing any other culture (even their own native one) as inferior. The collaboration would be so complete that Manx youth would, after a couple of hundred years, almost think they were Germans themselves and think of the Isle of Man as almost a county of the Reich itself. In fact, as the Reich itself came to an end and the other regions of the British Isles rediscovered themselves and their freedom the Manx would still be building mock-Bavarian style estates and naming then after Die Statthalter.

[Skeddan]

Freggyragh, you might have added that they would have re-written their history to show it wasn't an invasion and occupation, but a liberation from independence - one brought about by a national hero who overthrew the national government and assisted the liberators to free the nation.

 

However it is a really valid point that opportunities for resistance in a small island (CI, IOM) are much more scarce than in a large nation. In fact there is an interesting comparison between IoM and the US Colonies in 1765, when as Burke noted, both were subjected to almost identical imposed laws and taxes. However in the one case it led to revolution and a war of independence, and in the other to a few fishing nets being vandalised.

 

The interesting thing also is that some of the first agitators in the US in 1765, like Col. William Christian and his brother-in-law Paul Henry ("give me liberty or give me death!") had Manks and Scots connections. Maybe the lesson is that most Manks with any gumption had departed to the Americas, or that resistance was futile in a small island - or perhaps that resistance could more effectively be mounted in a large territory under the same yoke than on home ground. IMO 'passive co-operation' at home while covertly agitating rebellion and resistance in the colonies makes sound sense, particularly given the aftermath of Culloden, even if it would give the impression Manxies were wusses compared to Yankies. (Not that I'm saying that's what happened, but just a thought on why maybe Americans got feisty when Manx didn't).

 

Anyhow in small island like IoM, resistance would have to be covert, at arms-length, and circumspect, with passive co-operation being the norm, and as bluemonday says, it may not be fair to judge the conduct of an occupied country based on the conduct of a section of that society. Though sympathetic to the sentiment, if it were as you wryly suggest Freggyragh, then we'd expect the Manx would celebrate 'Revestment Day' and the anniversary of when the union jack was first hoisted over the island.

[Freggyragh]

Well, Skeddan, some would say the annual celebration of British militarism that accompanies the Tynwald ceremony is just the sort of thing you mean.

[Skeddan]

Freggyragh, it hardly compares to jackbooted soldiers marching through the streets in front of the flag of the dominant (occupying) power.

 

(note the happy people cheering and waving their flags).

 

(but the Lieutenant Governor's Flag does rather look like that of a colonial governor for the UK)

[pongo]

Yes, resistance is difficult for small islands when an aggressive, imperialistic neighbour attacks

 

Some of the old celtic revivalist in these islands were so vehemently weird that they flirted with Berlin during the 1930s and even during WW2. De Valera, for example, famously visited the German embassy in Dublin to express his official condolences on the death of Hitler (even though thousands of Irish men had volunteered to fight with the British).

[Skeddan]

This is a strange story of German stormtroopers visiting IoM as guests of the Douglas Branch of the British Legion.

 

http://www.george-broderick.de/ns_docs/ns-...isit_to_man.doc.

 

MONA'S HERALD 21.07.1936, p.7c

 

As the buses, decorated with the Nazi symbol of the swastika, passed through the town and village, crowds gave the visitors a warm welcome.

 

At the Douglas War Memorial, the party laid a wreath, and with the swastika flag fluttering from the standard, "Deutschland Auber [i.e. Über] Alles" was sung.

 

During the afternoon, a party of officers and men from the liner, wearing the brown uniforms of the storm troopers, came ashore, and also laid a poppy wreath on the Memorial, in the presence of an enormous crowd.

 

Captain Hopfner, of the "Monte Pascaol" expressed the satisfaction of the party for the way in which the arrangements had been made for them, and we noticed that when he went back to his ship he carried with him a box of Manx kippers.

 

I don't know that the Douglas branch of the British Legion would count as 'celtic revivalists' or 'vehemently weird', but it could be evidence that the Manx gave material support to the Nazis (if only a box of kippers).

[bluemonday]

Fascinating. Thanks for unearthing that Skeddan.

[Freggyragh]

Yes, resistance is difficult for small islands when an aggressive, imperialistic neighbour attacks

 

Some of the old celtic revivalist in these islands were so vehemently weird that they flirted with Berlin during the 1930s and even during WW2. De Valera, for example, famously visited the German embassy in Dublin to express his official condolences on the death of Hitler (even though thousands of Irish men had volunteered to fight with the British).

 

Yeah, but some of the British Royal Family were so vehemently weird that they ... oh, lets not go there. If you're interested in another view you could try; http://www.irishdemocrat.co.uk/anonn-is-anall/royalty/ (but I doubt you are).

 

At this stage of the thread can we, bearing in mind Godwin's Law*, just accept that most civilian populations living under occupation opt for peace on any terms and armed resistance (such as that led by De Valera) is the exception, and not necessarily the best course of action.

 

 

*Godwin's Rule states that: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

[pongo]

If you're interested in another view you could try; http://www.irishdemocrat.co.uk/anonn-is-anall/royalty/ (but I doubt you are)

 

Well I was interested enough to have a look. The history is very interesting. The article does not add anything new and is badly written.

 

The Royal Family is a political anachronism. That is more significant than them having German relatives. That website is over - focused on issues about race and nationality.

 

*Godwin's Rule states that: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

 

It's going to be hard to avoid the Nazis on a thread about how some people reacted to Nazi occupation.