Resistance and Collaboration in Hitler's Empire

Vesna Drapac, Gareth Pritchard

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781137385345
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9781350307292
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: European History
• Index: History

This new study provides a concise, accessible introduction to occupied Europe. It gives a clear overview of the history and historiography of resistance and collaboration. It explores how these terms cannot be examined separately, but are always entangled.

Covering Europe from east to west, this book aims to explore the evolution of scholarly approaches to resistance and collaboration. Not limiting itself to any one area, it looks at armed struggle, daily life, complicity and rescue, the Catholic Church, and official and public memory since the end of the war.

1 Hitler’s Empire

Because both resistance and collaboration were shaped by the nature of Nazi rule, we begin by discussing three key issues which pertained to people’s experiences of living in Hitler’s empire. Firstly, we outline the methods used by the Nazis to administer and govern the territories that fell under their control. Secondly, we look at the impact of Nazi rule on the everyday lives of Hitler’s subjects. Finally, we explore the terminology and concepts that are used by academics who write about the social history of World War II.

The administration of Hitler’s empire

By the end of 1941, Hitler’s empire stretched from the Atlantic coast of France to the gates of Moscow, and from the Arctic Circle in Norway to the deserts of North Africa (see Map 1). At its height, some 244 million Europeans lived under its sway, 90 million of whom were ethnic Germans.¹ How these people experienced Nazi rule varied considerably. One reason for this was the complexity of the administrative arrangements that were made by the Nazis for ruling their empire. For analytical purposes, we can divide the territories that made up Hitler’s empire into four categories.

The first category comprised the lands which were governed directly from Berlin and which the Nazis regarded as the ‘Greater German Reich’. The core of this territory was made up of Germany within the borders established in 1919 by the Treaty of Versailles. Between 1938 and 1942, the Nazis extended these borders through the piecemeal annexation of neighbouring lands. These included Austria (annexed in March 1938), the Sudetenland (taken from Czechoslovakia in October 1938), western Poland (October 1939), the French territory of Alsace-Lorraine (June 1940), the Belgian district of Eupen-Malmédy (June 1940), northern Slovenia (April 1941), and Luxembourg (August 1942).

The second category in Hitler’s empire consisted of lands under direct German occupation. By the autumn of 1942, the German armed forces (Wehrmacht) had occupied much of Europe, including northern France, Belgium and Denmark, as well as large parts of Yugoslavia, Greece and the Soviet Union. Other territories were placed under the control of Nazi civilian governors (Reichskommissare), who had been hand-picked by Hitler. The most important were Josef Terboven (Norway), Arthur Seyss-Inquart (the Netherlands), Hinrich Lohse (the Baltic states and parts of Belorussia), and Erich Koch (parts of Ukraine). A rump of Polish territory called the Generalgouvernement was ruled as a private fiefdom by Hans Frank. The Czech lands of Bohemia and Moravia were incorporated into the Greater Reich but run by Nazi-appointed governors, the best known of whom was Reinhard Heydrich. Throughout occupied Europe, military commandants and Nazi governors enjoyed considerable autonomy. This led to variations in how they approached their task. Koch was hostile to any degree of local self-administration beyond what was unavoidable. Lohse, by contrast, was willing to tolerate a degree of self-governance by agents of the local population. Military commandants generally adopted a more pragmatic approach to ruling subject populations than the Reichskommissare.²

A third category of territory consisted of client states which were created in the wake of German military action. These states were notionally independent, but they only existed on German sufferance and were subject to increasing German domination. The most important of these were the Slovak Republic (established in 1939), the Vichy regime in France (1940), the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) and the Government of National Salvation in Serbia (both 1941), the Italian Social Republic (1943), and Hungary after the fascist coup of 1944. The politicians at the apex of these client states were either leaders of local fascist parties, who collaborated out of ideological conviction, or authoritarian conservatives, who collaborated because they thought that it was in the national interest. Frequently referred to by historians as ‘puppets’, these satellite regimes were more than lifeless marionettes. Though attached to Berlin by numerous strings, the puppets had agendas of their own and a degree of autonomy. Historians normally describe these client regimes as having engaged in ‘state collaboration’. The names, dates and political orientation of these regimes are summarised in Table 1.

The fourth category of territory comprised those independent states which aligned themselves with the Third Reich and which fought on its side during the war: Italy (up to 1943, when the Fascist regime collapsed), Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Finland (up to 1944). In 1940 Mussolini entered the war on the side of the Germans. However, as a result of the inadequacy of the Italian armies, he became ever more reliant on German support. In 1941 Bulgaria participated in the invasion and occupation of Greece and Yugoslavia, while Romania, Hungary, and Finland joined the Germans in the assault on the USSR. With the exception of Finland, all Hitler’s allies found themselves in a relationship with Nazi Germany that became increasingly unequal over time. Their domestic policies were brought into line with those of Germany, in particular in terms of the implementation of the Holocaust. The degree to which the governments of these countries collaborated with or resisted the Nazis is still the subject of controversy.⁴

Table 1Sample of client regimes of Nazi Germany.

³

If the territorial organisation of the Nazi empire was complicated, the structures that the Germans set up for administering it were more so. Despite the fact that they had long dreamed of a German empire in Europe, the Nazis had made few concrete plans for how they were going to run it. They made up the rules as they went along. No single body was responsible for managing the empire. Instead, a range of organisations and individuals with overlapping jurisdictions competed for domination. Access to Hitler was a key factor that determined which of his Nazi barons, generals, foreign vassals and allies were able to get what they wanted.⁵ These complex administrative arrangements were important because they led to substantial differences in how Nazi rule was experienced by Hitler’s subjects. Three examples will suffice to give a sense of the diversity of Nazi power structures.

Greater Germany

The arrangements made by the Nazis for the governance of Greater Germany were elaborate. Superimposed on to the pre-existing regions of Germany – such as Prussia, Saxony, and Bavaria – were a series of new administrative units called Gau (see Map 2). Each Gau was governed by a Gauleiter who had been appointed by Hitler, and who had significant power in his territory. Alongside the traditional structures of the German state, including the ministries of government and the German armed forces, Hitler created other bodies which exercised state functions. There were two paramilitary formations, the SA (Sturmabteilung) and the SS (Schutzstaffel), both controlled by Heinrich Himmler. There were mass (or ‘capillary’) organisations, the purpose of which was to mobilise Germans in the service of the state and indoctrinate them according to National Socialist principles. These included the Hitler Youth (Hitler Jugend), the German Labour Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), German Women’s Welfare (Deutsches Frauenwerk), and the mass leisure organisation Strength through Joy (Kraft durch Freude). There were economic agencies such as the Office of the Four-Year Plan under Hermann Goering (which was supposed to prepare the German economy for war), and the Todt Organisation (which constructed roads, border defences and military installations). Where their roles overlapped, these agencies competed with each other for power. There was no single administrative unit to coordinate policy or make rational decisions about the allocation of resources. It is for this reason that the Third Reich is sometimes referred to as a ‘polycratic’ state. The key to success, generally, was winning Hitler’s favour.⁶

The occupied territories of the Soviet Union

The polycratic style of government that had been introduced in Germany after 1933 was subsequently imposed on other countries. After the German invasion of the USSR in 1941, for instance, the territories that had been conquered by the Wehrmacht were parcelled out to different stakeholders (see Map 3). The Baltic states, large parts of Belorussia and most of Ukraine were placed under Reichskommissare. But about half the occupied territory remained under the control of the Wehrmacht. South-western Ukraine was placed under Romanian occupation. The region around Lviv was attached to Frank’s Generalgouvernement.

The governance of the occupied territories in the USSR was further complicated by the large number of overlapping administrative units that were involved in the formulation and implementation of policy. In theory, the occupation of the whole region was coordinated by the East Ministry (Ostministerium) of Alfred Rosenberg. Despite the grandiose title of his ministry, Rosenberg did not enjoy much real power because he was not a member of Hitler’s inner circle. The SS, under Himmler, was more important. Not only was the SS responsible for policing behind the lines and implementing racial policies, but it also took control of substantial economic assets. Another leading Nazi who played a major role in the occupation was Fritz Sauckel who, from 1942 onwards, was responsible for rounding up civilians and deporting them as slave labourers to the Reich. Additionally, German business corporations participated in the economic exploitation of the occupied territories. For instance, an organisation made up of representatives of German business interests and the Nazi state, the Berg-und Hüttenwerksgesellschaft (BHO), worked to align the industrial infrastructure of the occupied territories with the needs of the Nazi war economy.⁷

Between these various bodies there was constant rivalry. Some of the Nazi stakeholders – including many of the military commandants and the technocrats of the BHO – were relatively pragmatic in their approach to occupation. Despite his reputation as the Nazis’ chief ideologue, Rosenberg was rather flexible on issues such as local self-government. The ‘pragmatists’ believed that the rational exploitation of the occupied territories in the interests of winning the war should take priority over ideological considerations. They were sometimes in favour of making concessions to win the loyalty of local populations. For example, they initiated efforts to introduce land reform to give the land back to the peasants.⁸ They allowed Orthodox and Greek-Rite churches to reopen their doors and reinstated religious instruction in schools.⁹ They attempted to recruit local troops in order to help alleviate the manp...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• A note on names and terms
• Glossary
• Maps
• Introduction
• 1. Hitler’s Empire
• 2. The Evolution of the Historiography
• 3. Armed Resistance and Collaboration
• 4. Resistance and Collaboration in Everyday Life
• 5. Genocide and Rescue
• 6. Beyond Resistance and Collaboration
• 7. Resistance and Collaboration in Official and Public Memory
• Conclusion
• Suggestions for further reading
• Index