WEEK 4 German Wartime Control over Western Europe, Scandinavia, and the Balkans: Implications for Jews Prepared by Tony Joel and Mathew Turner Week 4 Unit Learning Outcomes ULO 1. evaluate in a reflective and critical manner the consequences of racism and prejudice ULO 3. synthesise core historiographical debates on how and why the Holocaust occurred ULO 4. recognise important linkages between the Second World War and the Holocaust, and question Hitler’s role in these events Introduction Following its invasion and occupation of Poland in September 1939, Hitler’s Germany next extended its sphere of influence in the northern spring of 1940 by attacking Scandinavia and western Europe. All attacks culminated in quick and decisive German victories. Less than a year later, Germany defeated the Balkan states of Greece and Yugoslavia. The conquests in western Europe, along with subsequent military successes across the Balkans and eastern Europe, ultimately created what Raul Hilberg describes as “a vast semicircular arc” under Hitler’s control “extending counterclockwise from Norway to Romania.”1 While Jews in each of the newly- occupied states from Scandinavia, through western Europe, and into the Balkans suffered the consequences of Nazi persecution, there were significant differences from country to country and over time. To explain why there was so much spatial and temporal variation, this learning module has three core aims. First, it outlines the policies that the Germans put in place to deal with Jews who came under their control. Second, it considers the extent to which local populations cooperated with or resisted against Nazi attempts to persecute Jews. Third, it examines how different forms of German administration in occupied countries impacted on the implementation, nature, and timing of anti-Jewish policies, including the eventual extermination of Jews. With these aims in mind, the learning module is divided geographically, with sections devoted to western Europe, Scandinavia, and the Balkans. In completing this learning module, you will continue your evaluation, in a reflective 1 R. Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, vol. 2. (Holmes & Meier, New York, 1985). p. 543. LEARNING MODULE 4. Section 1: Western Europe 2 and critical manner, the consequences of racism and prejudice. Furthermore, you will grapple with and synthesise core historiographical debates on how and why the Holocaust occurred. Along the way, you will recognise important linkages between the Second World War and the Holocaust, and question Hitler’s role in these events. Section 1. Western Europe This section focuses on western Europe and the various forms of German administration that were established in countries defeated and controlled by Nazi Germany. It asks why Hitler invaded western Europe and provides a timeline of this early phase of the war. Section 1 also considers why Germans showed far greater restraint towards Jews in western Europe than in occupied Poland. It examines the anti-Jewish policies that were introduced, specifically in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. USHMM map of the German invasion of western Europe, 1940 Source: "German Invasion of western Europe, 1940," USHMM. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_nm.php?ModuleId=10005429&MediaId=367 [Accessed 15 March 2017] In the absence of any overarching plan for administering occupied western Europe, a variety of administrative arrangements evolved. The specific form they took was determined partly by social and partly by military strategic considerations. The Nazi leadership assumed that the administrative arrangements put into place in this period were only temporary, preceding more permanent structures that would emerge once they won the war and cemented their “Thousand Year Reich.” The Nazis regarded groups such as the Scandinavians and the Dutch as likely being racially sympathetic, believing they would willingly identify with Hitler’s racial goals. In addition, Berlin supported independent, collaborationist states in the west, so long as they did not resist Nazi occupational objectives. France and Belgium (whose “racial” LEARNING MODULE 4. Section 1: Western Europe 3 makeup was considered to be rather more ambiguous than that of the “Germanic” peoples of the Netherlands and Scandinavia) were viewed as areas of potential economic exploitation while their longer-term fate remained unclear. a) Forms of German Administration in Western Europe Michael Marrus and Robert Paxton point out that Hitler oversaw the formation of a “variety of administrations.”2 They differed from each other in their level of independence from direct Nazi rule, in their reliance on prewar local bureaucracies, and on whether they were subject to civilian or military administration. Beyond those areas that were directly incorporated into the expanded German state, the Nazis devised three forms of administration in western Europe: • civil administration under a Reichskommissar • direct military rule • government by a nominally independent but collaborationist régime Civil administration under a Reichskommissar The state was governed by a civilian administration headed by a Reichskommissar (a gubernatorial title meaning a Nazi commissioner/governor of an occupied territory) who reported directly to Hitler. In contrast to the Generalgouvernement in Poland, western European states’ prewar civil service remained intact and were charged with implementing Nazi policy through local officers. (l) Arthur Seyss-Inquart standing next to Adolf Hitler, with the SS chief Heinrich Himmler and his deputy Reinhard Heydrich in the background. (r) Josef Terboven, third from left, is flanked by SS chief Heinrich Himmler and the German army general Nikolaus von Falkenhorst, while Norwegian puppet leader Vidkun Quisling also sits alongside Himmler. Sources: “Nazis take Austria,” The History Place. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-austria.htm [Accessed 15 March 2017] “Norway’s Role in the War against the Soviet Union,” Encyclopedia of Safety. http://survincity.com/2012/07/norways-role-in-the-war-against-the-soviet-union/ [Accessed 15 March 2017] 2 Michael Marrus and Robert Paxton, “The Nazis and the Jews in Occupied Western Europe 1933-44,” The Journal of Modern History, vol. 54, no. 4. 1982, p. 689. LEARNING MODULE 4. Section 1: Western Europe 4 Both the Netherlands (Holland) and Norway (where a puppet government, headed by Vidkun Quisling, gave an appearance of independence) were ran as a Reichskommissariat governed by a Nazi Reichskommissar. In the case of the Netherlands, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, a high-ranking Nazi from Austria, served as the Reichskommissar. In Norway, the role was filled by Josef Terboven. (Whereas Terboven committed suicide at the end of the war, Seyss-Inquart was hanged after being found guilty of crimes against humanity during the Nuremberg trials.) Direct military rule Germans divided occupied France and Belgium into two military districts: “Belgium and Northern France”; and “France.” In “Belgium and Northern France” the Belgian civil service, based in Brussels, carried out German orders. The German administration of “France” was centred in Paris, although the Vichy government was responsible for providing the bureaucratic infrastructure necessary for the administration of the area directly controlled by the military. Map showing how conquered France was divided into two zones, with the northern part of the country (along with Belgium and the Netherlands) occupied by German military forces, whereas the southern part of the country remained unoccupied. The unoccupied zone in the south became known as Vichy France. Source: “The Jews of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia,” Yad Vashem. http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/education/newsletter/25/algeria_marocco.asp [Accessed 15 March 2017] LEARNING MODULE 4. Section 1: Western Europe 5 Collaborationist states Vichy France continued to operate as a nominally independent state with its own diplomatic service until Germany occupied it at the end of 1942. Its government, headed by the French WWI hero Marshal Philippe Pétain, was based in the southern regional town of Vichy. Pétain was convinced that, through collaboration, he was protecting the interests of French citizens even if this meant that his régime cooperated with the implementation of German policy such as the persecution of Jews. The Vichy régime assumed that open opposition to German interests would result in direct occupation. WWI hero and leader of Vichy France Philippe Pétain meets Hitler in 1940. Source: "The British General who planned to arm Vichy France," BBC. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17390290 [Accessed 15 March 2017] These various forms of administration had a number of advantages for the Germans. The relatively low investment of resources meant that Germany governed a large area at comparatively little cost. Cooperation of local administrations facilitated compliance by local populations who were far more likely to take orders from familiar faces in their native language and, because key figures among the occupied local communities were cooperating with Germans, it was difficult for those under occupation to organise resistance without fear of betrayal. On the other hand, dependence on local authorities meant that bureaucratic procrastination or resistance could subvert German orders. Additionally, the fragmentation of German forms of administration worked against the implementation of a coordinated policy throughout western Europe. LEARNING MODULE 4. Section 1: Western