Prestige, Authority, and Insecurity in the Occupied Rhinelands, 1918-1923 and 1945-55
Félix Streicher, Maastricht University and Drew Flanagan, University of Pittsburgh at Bradford
The problem of gaining and maintaining authority over a conquered population is a central one for occupiers. Military occupations can test the limits of a nation or a military’s prestige – especially when an occupier is materially weak or psychologically insecure. Since the effective authority and control by foreign rulers over occupied populations ultimately rests on violence – or the threat thereof – considerations of power and powerlessness take centre stage in every military occupation. Such considerations become even more important during ‘peacetime’ occupations.
This panel brings together three papers that consider the challenges that different small, vulnerable, or weakened Allied occupying powers faced in establishing authority and projecting prestige in the occupied Rhineland during Europe’s two post-war periods. The concept of prestige is often used in vague and contradictory ways. It has been variously understood as a quality performed for and perceived by the occupied population, as a spiritual quality of the occupying forces themselves, and/or as a quality arising from the occupying nation’s history and culture. Through our three case studies, we will explore the role of the concept of prestige in the military cultures of France and Luxembourg and work toward a better understanding of the relationship between prestige and military occupations in general.
The Rhineland holds a prominent place in Western Europe’s history of military occupations in the twentieth century. As Germany’s industrial powerhouse, this densely populated and prosperous border space west of the river Rhine experienced two post-war occupations by the victorious Allied powers between 1918–30 and 1945–55, a period of interwar demilitarization, as well as a German surprise military re-occupation in 1936 which nearly triggered a major diplomatic crisis.
At the same time, the consecutive post-war occupations in the German Rhineland were time and again accompanied by annexationist or separatist claims as well as actual territorial changes. The Saar region as well as the areas of Eupen and Malmedy figured as objects of bitter dispute and repeatedly changed hands between France (respectively Belgium) and Germany in the years between 1920 and 1955. The French and Belgian occupiers’ support of Rhenish separatist movements in the interwar period, as well as the (largely unsuccessful) French, Dutch and Luxembourg annexationist politics in the occupied Rhineland after 1945 created socio-political conditions on the ground that were marked by political and daily unpredictability, tense everyday relations between occupiers and occupied, and a heightened attention on both sides to national symbols and demonstrations.
The fact that these military occupations and territorial adjustments were carried out by neighbouring, often smaller or weakened states only added fuel to the fire. France, Belgium, as well as Luxembourg entered the Rhenish stage as a sort of “second-class” occupiers who not only suffered from inferior military or material resources to carry out their occupations and impose their authority, but whose fragile position was also the direct result of previous wartime occupations of (parts of) their own national territory by German occupying forces (both in 1914–18 and 1940–45). As French, Belgian, and Luxembourg forces entered Germany, they effectuated a triumphant role reversal from occupied to occupiers that symbolically and effectively propelled them back into power, yet their insecurity as occupiers in enemy territory remained. As the three papers in this panel will show, the French and Luxembourg occupiers remained highly sensitive to any German contestation of their authority, power, and prestige, and therefore frequently overcompensated for their perceived-to-be fragile position through harsh and punitive ruling strategies.
James E. Connolly’s (Associate Professor of Modern French History, University College London, UK) paper “Patriotism and Prestige in the French-occupied Rhineland, 1918-23” considers France’s efforts at cementing symbolic authority over the occupied Rhinelanders after the First World War. During that period, France was the dominant occupying power with what became the largest occupation zone and a pre-eminent role within the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission. Despite their position of strength, the French occupiers showed a great deal of concern about ensuring that the Rhinelanders would view them as legitimate victors and that they would be convinced of their own defeat. In addition to addressing material threats to their occupying forces, the French showed a preoccupation with addressing symbolic threats to the prestige of their occupation such as the display of German patriotic symbols, the performance of banned patriotic songs, and vandalism aimed at French symbols and flags. Connolly argues that the behavior of the French occupiers should be understood in light of French colonial ideas about the relationship between prestige, dignity, and authority, as well as French insecurity about their nation’s role in the occupied territory and the wider world.
Drew Flanagan’s (Assistant Professor of History, The University of Pittsburgh at Bradford, USA) paper “Prestige and Contempt in Baden-Baden, 1945-55” addresses the French occupation of southwest Germany after the Second World War in light of France’s relative weakness and status as a second-class occupier. Postwar France found itself a diminished power, its economy weakened and its authority (in both Europe and its global empire) badly shaken by the 1940-45 German occupation of France and by Vichy’s collaboration. In response to these weaknesses, the French army and civilian administration in the French Zone feared that they would be seen as illegitimate occupiers arriving in the baggage of their stronger allies. In light of these concerns, the French occupiers showed a near-obsessive preoccupation with prestige. For French soldiers and civilian administrators, particularly those with experience in France’s colonial empire, prestige was a technical term that referred to France’s power of attraction for foreign peoples, its ability to gain their respect and to get its way without recourse to (too much) violence. Drew’s paper considers the French occupiers’ understanding of prestige and its impact on their counterinsurgency practices, strategies of rule, and the behavior of the French occupiers toward the German population. It puts those efforts in the context of prestige-jeopardizing events in France’s colonial empire, including the outbreak of wars of decolonization in Indochina (1946) and Algeria (1954)
Félix Streicher’s (Ph.D in history 2025, Maastricht University, NL) paper “Second-Class Occupiers?: Legitimacy, Authority and Power(lessness) in the Luxembourg Occupation Zone in Germany (1945–49),” considers issues of power and legitimacy from the perspective of the small occupation zone accorded to Luxembourg, including the districts of Bitburg and Saarburg. In occupied Germany, Luxembourg’s forces were subordinate to the French military government, a factor that intensified their concerns about the perceived legitimacy of their presence and their ability to exercise authority over the Germans. The Luxembourg Army also lacked recent experience with military occupation, further undermining their stature in the eyes of the German population. Félix’s paper considers the performative aspects of military occupation, the ground-level practices of foreign rule, and the methods and strategies of rule applied by the Luxembourg occupiers in Germany. His focus is the Luxembourg occupiers’ struggle for legitimacy and authority over the German population. He does so by considering the behavior of Luxembourg’s troops over the course of the occupation, the changing nature of Luxembourg’s policy toward the population over the course of the occupation, and the relationship between the experience of occupation and the policies applied in Luxembourg’s zone.
Commentary will be provided by Ludivine Broch (Senior Lecturer in History, University of Westminster, UK), an expert in the history and memory of the world wars in France and specialist in Holocaust and genocide studies and the history of emotions. Her comments will knit the three papers together and help us to draw broader historical and theoretical conclusions.
Panel speakers and presentations
Chair/discussant: Ludivine Broch (University of Westminster)
James E. Connolly (University College London), Patriotism and Prestige in the French-occupied Rhineland, 1918-23
Drew Flanagan (University of Pittsburgh at Bradford): Prestige and Contempt in Baden-Baden, 1945-55
Félix Streicher (Maastricht University): ‘Second-Class Occupiers? Legitimacy, Authority and Power(lessness) in the Luxembourg Occupation Zone in Germany (1945–49)’
Photo credits:
Cover picture: Cérémonie où le Régiment d’Infanterie Coloniale du Maroc est décoré de sa 10e citations avec la croix de guerre 1914-1918 avec palmes le 5 février à Mayence par le général Mangin. (The 5ème regiment of the French Moroccan colonial army receiving the Croix de guerre in Mainz, in the French Occupation Zone of Germany, from General Mangin, February 1919.)
Source: Wikipédia Commons
Recent Comments