Resistance, Collaboration or Third Way? Responses to Napoleonic Rule in Germany

  • Michael Rowe

Abstract

The terms ‘resistance’ and ‘collaboration’ are evocative, and are generally applied to Nazi-occupied Europe. The characteristics of the collaborator are uniformly negative: somebody motivated by cowardice, malice or even ideological affiliation with the invader who betrays his country and fellow citizens. The resister is a hero, courageous, patriotic, fighting against the odds. These are the popular images. Of course, theorists of ‘collaboration’ and ‘resistance’, be they political scientists, sociologists or historians, are dissatisfied with such a simple dichotomy. Stephen Gilliatt, in his recent exploration of the dynamics of the phenomenon, notes that the term collaborazionistas, when it first appeared in an Italian dictionary in 1922 as a descriptor for socialists wanting to work with the bourgeois government, initially carried with it no negative connotations.1 However, it quickly gained these even before World War II, when its current emotive meaning became widespread. Works of scholarly detachment, in contrast, view ‘collaboration’ as a political strategy, not pathological behaviour: it is a possible way of managing conflicting interests, as indeed is resistance. Beyond that, they fail to agree on any definitions, but tend to recognise that both ‘collaboration’ and ‘resistance’ are blanket terms covering various forms of behaviour and motivation. Typical is the following, from Peter Davies’s recent book on wartime France: ‘… an act of resistance was, basically, anything that, in the mind of the person or group executing the act, felt like an act of resistance’.2

Keywords

Europe Expense Gall Stein Egypt 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    S. Gilliatt, An Exploration of the Dynamics of Collaboration and Non-Resistance (Lewiston, NY, 2000), p. 131.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Davies, France and the Second World War. Occupation, Collaboration and Resistance (London, 2001), p. 49.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    For example, L. Taylor, Between Resistance and Collaboration. Popular Protest in Northern France, 1940–45 (Basingstoke, 2000), passim.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Though it should be noted, at this point, that a strand of the current German historiography of the Holy Roman Empire now views that entity less as an incoherent, loose collection of essentially sovereign territories and more as a ‘state’ in its own right — indeed, a precursor of the German nation state. See especially G. Schmidt, ‘Das frühneuzeitliche Reich — komplementäres Staat oder föderative Nation’, Historische Zeitschrift, CCLXXIII, no. 2 (October, 2001), pp. 371–99; andGoogle Scholar
  5. H. Schilling, ‘Reichsstaat und frühneuzeitliche Nation der Deutschen oder teilmodernisiertes Reichssystem: Überlegungen zu Charakter und Aktualität des Alten Reiches’, Historische Zeitschrift, CCLXXII, no. 2 (April, 2001), pp. 377–95.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    For a brief survey of the territorial order in the pre-revolutionary Rhineland, see M. Rowe, From Reich to State: the Rhineland in the Revolutionary Age, 1780–1830 (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 14–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 6.
    This would become dramatically apparent when the French revolutionaries attempted to impose their new republican calendar and festivals on the region in the late 1790s. For more on this, cf. M. Rowe, ‘Forging “New-Frenchmen”: state propaganda in the Rhineland, 1794–1814’, in B. Taithe and T. Thornton (eds), Propaganda (Stroud, 1999), pp. 115–30.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    The current historiography of the Holy Roman Empire (referred to in note 4) marks the culmination of a longer process of rehabilitation that began at least as early as the 1960s. For a review of the early revisionism, cf. G. Strauss, ‘The Holy Roman Empire revisited’, Central European History, XI, no. 4 (December, 1978), pp. 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 8.
    For the military potential of the Reich, see P. Wilson, German Armies: War and German Politics, 1648–1806 (London, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 9.
    Plenty of examples of the civic pride (and indeed arrogance) of Cologne’s burghers are provided by J. Hashagen, Das Rheinland und die französische Herrschaft: Beiträge zur Charakteristik ihres Gegensatzes (Bonn, 1908), pp. 9–24, 29–45, 47–50, 72.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    For a relatively accessible indication of the kind of role imperial institutions played in the preservation of urban privilege, see C. Friedrichs, ‘Urban conflicts and the imperial constitution in seventeenth-century Germany’, Journal of Modern History, LVIII (1986), supplement, pp. 98–123. For much more detailed examinations of the imperial courts, seeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. B. Diestelkamp, Rechtsfälle aus dem alten Reich: denkwürdige Prozesse vor dem Reichskammergericht (Munich, 1995), and alsoGoogle Scholar
  13. H. Gross, Empire and Sovereignty: a History of the Public Law Literature in the Holy Roman Empire, 1599–1804 (Chicago, 1975).Google Scholar
  14. 11.
    T. Nipperdey, Germany from Napoleon to Bismarck 1800–1866 (Dublin, 1996), pp. 272–3. The German national anthem of Hoffmann von Fallersleben was also a product of this crisis.Google Scholar
  15. 12.
    U. Möllney, Norddeutsche Presse um 1800. Zeitschriften und Zeitungen in Flensburg, Braunschweig, Hannover und Schaumburg-Lippe im Zeitalter der Französischen Revolution (Bielefeld, 1996). For a classic analysis of the rise of the public sphere, seeGoogle Scholar
  16. J. Habermas, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit (6th edn, Neuwied, 1986). See also the works of H. Bödeker, and in particular,Google Scholar
  17. H. Bödeker, ‘Prozesse und Strukturen politischer Bewußtseinsbildung der deutschen Aufklärung’, in H. Bödeker and U. Hermann (eds), Aufklärung als Politisierung — Politisierung als Aufklärung (Hamburg, 1987), pp. 10–31.Google Scholar
  18. 13.
    Frederick’s victory over the French at Rossbach in 1757 appears to have had an especially big impact throughout Germany. Cf. D. Showalter, The Wars of Frederick the Great (London and New York, 1996), p. 191.Google Scholar
  19. 14.
    Two recent contributions include, W. Hardtwig, ‘Vom Elitebewußtseins zur Massenbewegung. Frühformen des Nationalismus in Deutschland 1500–1800’, in W. Hardtwig (ed.), Nationalismus und Bürgerkultur in Deutschland 1500–1914. Ausgewählte Aufsätze (Göttingen, 1994), pp. 34–54;Google Scholar
  20. Winfried Schulze, ‘Sua cuique nationi discrimina: nationales Denken und nationale Vorurteile in der Frühen Neuzeit’, in S. Krim and W. Zirbs (eds), Die Deutschen und die Andern: Patriotismus, Nationalgefühl und Nationalismus in der deutschen Geschichte (Munich, 1997), pp. 32–66.Google Scholar
  21. 15.
    M. Schnettger, ‘Impero romano — Impero germanico: Italienische Perspektiven auf das Reich in der Frühen Neuzeit’, in M. Schnettger (ed.), Imperium Romanum — Irregulare Corpus — Teutscher Reichs-Staat: das Alte Reich im Verständnis der Zeitgenossen und der Historiographie (Mainz, 2002), pp. 53–75.Google Scholar
  22. 16.
    Readers of English are well-served when it comes to the Rhineland in the 1790s, with T.C.W. Blanning, The French Revolution in Germany: Occupation and Resistance in the Rhineland, 1792–1802 (Oxford, 1983).Google Scholar
  23. 17.
    The Rhenish press’s initial response to news of the Bastille’s fall is well documented in J. Hansen (ed.), Quellen zur Geschichte des Rheinlandes im Zeitalter der Französischen Revolution, 1780–1801 (Bonn, 1931–8), I, pp. 380–5.Google Scholar
  24. 26.
    This investigation is brought to light by K. Wegert’s fascinating study, German Radicals Confront the Common People: Revolutionary Politics and Popular Politics 1789–1849 (Mainz, 1992), pp. 26–37, upon which the remainder of this paragraph is based.Google Scholar
  25. 27.
    The author is mindful of the danger of believing everything spouted by Napoleonic sources on the preceding Directory, a régime the new rulers of France had a vested interest in denigrating. That said, with respect to the occupied territories, and especially the Rhineland, the Consulate represented a definite improvement over what had preceded. For a positive assessment of the Directory’s achievements in France proper, see M. Lyons, France under the Directory (Cambridge, 1975); and, more recently,Google Scholar
  26. M. Crook, Napoleon Comes to Power: Democracy and Dictatorship in Revolutionary France, 1795–1804 (Cardiff, 1998).Google Scholar
  27. 29.
    There has been a considerable amount of research into the secularization process in the Rhineland. Especially important, in terms of the sheer amount of scholarship it is built upon, is W. Schieder (ed.), Säkularisation und Mediatisierung in den vier rheinischen Departements 1803–1813: Edition des Datenmaterials der zur veräussernden Nationalgüter (Boppard am Rhein, 1991).Google Scholar
  28. 32.
    T.C.W. Blanning, Joseph II (London, 1994), p. 203.Google Scholar
  29. 33.
    Much has been published on the Republic of Mainz. One of the best books remains F. Dumont, Die Mainzer Republik von 1792/93: Studien zur Revolutionierung in Rheinhessen und der Pfalz (Alzey, 1982).Google Scholar
  30. 34.
    For the relative success of Napoleonic propaganda in the Rhineland, see Rowe, ‘Forging “New-Frenchmen”. For Napoleonic propaganda more generally, consult R. Holtman, Napoleonic Propaganda (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1950).Google Scholar
  31. 35.
    J. Breuilly, ‘Napoleonic Germany and State-formation’, in M. Rowe (ed.), Collaboration and Resistance in Napoleonic Europe: State-Formation in an Age of Upheaval, c.1800–1815 (Basingstoke, 2003), p. 125.Google Scholar
  32. 36.
    S. Potter, ‘British Overseas Expansion’, in S. Ellis (ed.), Empires and States in European Perspective (Pisa, 2002), pp. 125–6.Google Scholar
  33. 38.
    W. Herborn, ‘Der Graduierte Ratsherr. Zur Enticklung einer neuen Elite im Kölner Rat der frühen Neuzeit’, in H. Schilling and H. Diederiks (eds), Bürgerliche Eliten in den Niederlanden und in Nordwestdeutschland: Studien zur Sozialgeschichte des europäischen Bürgertums im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit (Cologne, 1985), pp. 337–74.Google Scholar
  34. 39.
    Though even here there were underlying rural-urban tensions. Cf. F.G. Eyck, Loyal Rebels: Andreas Hofer and the Tyrolean Uprising of 1809 (Lanham, New York, 1986), pp. 1–17, 27–35, 37–41, 68–9, 109, 158–9.Google Scholar
  35. 40.
    M. Sobania, ‘Das Aachener Bürgertum am Vorabend der Industrialisierung’, in L. Gall (ed.), Vom alten zum neuen Bürgertum. Die mitteleuropäische Stadt im Umbruch 1780–1820 (Munich, 1991), pp. 218–22.Google Scholar
  36. 41.
    Cf. especially R. Porter and M. Teich (eds), The Enlightenment in National Context (Cambridge, 1981).Google Scholar
  37. 42.
    J. Ellul, Propaganda: the Formation of Men’s Attitudes (New York, 1968), pp. 15, 30, 62–70.Google Scholar
  38. 43.
    The French did the same in the northern, Hanseatic departments, annexed in 1810. Cf. A. Joulia, ‘Der Departementalverein Ober-Ems (1812): ein Erbe der Aufklärung oder ein Produkt des napoleonischen Dirigismus?’, Osnabrücker Mitteilungen, LXXVIII (1971), pp. 151–9.Google Scholar
  39. 44.
    For more on this, cf. Rowe, Reich to State, pp. 139–42. Also, W. Dotzauer, Freimaurergesellschaften am Rhein: Aufgeklärte Sozietäten auf dem linken Rheinufer vom Ausgang des Ancien Régime bis zum Ende der napoleonischen Herrschaft (Wiesbaden, 1977). For the same theme, but with reference to one of the German satellite states, cf.Google Scholar
  40. H. Gürtler, Deutsche Freimaurer im Dienste napoleonischer Politik: die Freimaurer im Königreich Westfalen 1807–1813 (Struckum, 1988).Google Scholar
  41. 45.
    R. Dufraisse, ‘La contrebande dans les départements réunis de la rive gauche du Rhin à l’é poque napoléonienne’, Francia, I (1973), pp. 508–36.Google Scholar
  42. 47.
    For the national balance within the Napoleonic judiciary, cf. S. Graumann, Französische Verwaltung am Niederrhein. Das Roërdepartement 1798–1814 (Essen, 1990), pp. 182–8, 192–3.Google Scholar
  43. 49.
    G. Vallée, Le Compte Général de la conscription de A.A. Hargenvilliers (Paris, 1937).Google Scholar
  44. 51.
    A. Forrest, Conscripts and Deserters: the Army and French Society during the Revolution and Empire (Oxford, 1989), pp. 135–6.Google Scholar
  45. 52.
    F. Ponteil, Napoléon Ier et l’Organisation Autoritaire de la France (Paris, 1956), passim.Google Scholar
  46. 53.
    The above paragraph on Rebmann is based on K. Faber, Die Rheinlande zwischen Restauration und Revolution: Probleme der Rheinischen Geschichte von 1814 bis 1848 im Spiegel der zeitgenössischen Publizistik (Wiesbaden, 1966), pp. 46–55. For more on Bavaria’s propaganda drive, designed to counter accusations in the Prussian-backed nationalist press that it and the other southern states had betrayed Germany through their allegiance to Napoleon, cf.Google Scholar
  47. W. Piereth, Bayerns Pressepolitik und die Neuordnung Deutschlands nach den Befreiungskriegen (Munich, 1999).Google Scholar
  48. 54.
    M. Rowe, ‘The Napoleonic legacy in the Rhineland and the politics of reform in Restoration Prussia’, in D. Laven and L. Riall (eds), Napoleon’s Legacy: Problems of Government in Restoration Europe (Oxford, 2000), pp. 129–50.Google Scholar
  49. 55.
    H. von Treitschke, History of Germany in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1915), pp. 31–2, 59, 73, 107, 138, 146, 149, 200–3, 219.Google Scholar
  50. 56.
    For the concept of an inner and outer Napoleonic empire, cf. M. Broers, Europe under Napoleon 1799–1815 (London, 1996).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Rowe

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations