The Occupation Of The Rhineland

New Inquiry Perspectives on the Allied Occupation of the Rhineland after the First World War

Benedikt Neuwöhner, University of Duisburg-Essen

In the aftermath of the Showtime Earth War the victorious armies of the Allies marched into the High german Reich and occupied the left banking company of the Rhine including 4 bridgeheads on the right banking company around Cologne, Mainz, Koblenz and Kehl. Hence the Rhineland was divided into an American, Belgian, British and French zone of occupation. During the armistice period, the occupation served for the Allies as leverage against the Reich to negotiate favourable peace terms. After the signing of the Versailles Treaty, the Rhineland Occupation was intended to fulfil two purposes: first, to give the Allies, peculiarly France and Belgium, security against a renewed German attack, and second, to ensure the payment of extensive reparations. However, the security and reparation questions were fiercely contested betwixt the Allies and the German language government. In consequence, further territories on the right depository financial institution of the Rhine and the Ruhr valley were occupied. The remaining French and British armies of occupation finally evacuated the Rhineland in 1930 after the security and the reparation issue had been plain solved with the adoption of the Locarno Treaty and the Immature Plan.

However, only six years subsequently the Nazi regime openly violated these agreements past remilitarising the Rhineland. This was the beginning of a series of violations of international law by the Nazis, which ultimately led to the outbreak of the Second World State of war. Not least due to this concatenation of events, the occupation of the Rhineland is today largely absent from the collective memory of Deutschland, Belgium, French republic, Britain, and the Usa and the Nazi occupation of Europe and the Allied Occupation of Frg later on the 2nd Globe War, which was more eventful and in the long term more influential, overshadows whatever memories of the Rhineland Occupation. Therefore, the presence of Centrolineal armies in the Rhineland afterwards the Offset World State of war is often understood just every bit a prelude to Hitler and the 2nd Globe War, and thus regarded as a minor episode in European history.

The current state of research

Picture 1: Map showing the duration of the occupation in each region. Red hachure: Area occupied until 1926. Light-green hachure: Occupied until 1929. Yellow hachure: Occupied until 1930. Dotted areas: additionally occupied territories by French and Belgian troops between 1920-25.

The existing historiography primarily looks at the occupation through the lens of international politics during the interbellum period. In this perspective, the Rhineland Occupation is perceived as an loonshit in which both differences between the Allies and the German language government as well equally inter-Centrolineal differences on the interpretation of the Versailles Treaty were fought out. Furthermore, almost scholars describe the occupation of the Rhineland as a story of Franco-German language conflict. This perspective is quite valid since the French occupiers in many respects pursued their unaccomplished state of war objective of establishing 'the Rhine as a natural border of French republic' during the occupation. They supported Rhenish separatists and implemented a pro-French cultural policy (pénétration pacifique) in the occupied territory with the aim of partitioning the Rhineland from the rest of Frg. In 1923 French troops occupied the entire Ruhr valley to destabilise the government and economic system. In the aforementioned year, they also took over the American occupation zone around Koblenz when the US-regime decided to withdraw their troops due to internal pressures at home and in protestation confronting the French policy. On the High german side, the conduct of the French occupiers nurtured radical nationalist movements and triggered passive, and in some cases trigger-happy resistance among the local population, which in turn led to a tightening of French occupation practices. Racism against African soldiers serving in the French Army during the Rhineland Occupation spurred farther conflict. German nationalists, supported past the authorities, launched a racist propaganda campaign (Schwarze Schmach), which finer depicted the white Rhenish population, especially the women, as victims of the black colonial troops of the French regular army. In lite of these political, economical and cultural conflicts, most existing studies argue that the Centrolineal occupation of the Rhineland after the First World War can be best described as the continuation of war by other means, which destabilised the Weimar Republic and paved the style for the outbreak of the Second World State of war.

New perspectives on the Rhineland Occupation

Picture 2: Formal group photograph of officers from the British and French army of occupation and 2 civilian representatives of the Inter-Allied Rhineland Loftier Commission. Cologne, 27 April 1920.

However, there are still many neglected enquiry perspectives, which may requite a more than nuanced view on the Rhineland occupation. Commencement, three 1000000 of the six million Rhinelanders lived under Belgian, British, or American occupation administration after the end of the Showtime World War. British and American policy towards Germany during the interbellum was, nevertheless, more lenient and thus differed considerably from the French approach, which is often mistakenly seen as representative of broader occupation dynamics at the time. One might therefore expect considerable differences in the quotidian ruling practices of the occupying powers and the daily experience of occupation by the population. Little is known, however, about the ruling techniques of the dissimilar occupiers and the daily interactions and common perceptions of occupiers and occupied in the Belgian, British and American zones. Furthermore, the fact that the Rhineland Occupation was a melange of war machine and ceremonious occupation has so far hardly been taken into business relationship. The occupation started in Dec 1918 equally a purely military one. American and British diplomats, however, demanded the introduction of inter-allied civil government structures in order to weaken the political influence of the French army in the Rhineland. Hence, the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission (IARC) was established equally supreme civil administrative authority after the signing of the Versailles Treaty. The personnel of the IARC consisted of Centrolineal diplomats and ceremonious servants, who were responsible for legislation, administration, and jurisdiction. Withal, the commanders of the Allied occupation armies even so had the authority to enact ordinances regarding questions of daily life, such as issuing instructions on billeting, requisition, traffic, and the containment of prostitution. The military also kept its influence on jurisdiction, since officers served as judges in occupation courts. Still, so far at that place has been little inquiry on the relations between the civil and military authorities. Hence, information technology is non generally known to what extent these multiple regime structures influenced the determination making of the Allied occupiers and their interactions with local authorities.

Furthermore, and perhaps surprisingly, no attempt has so far been made to consider the Rhineland occupation in the broad perspective of imperial regimes, although the occupation took place during the height of European colonialism and purple expansion. The thinking and interim of many of the Centrolineal officers and officials was influenced past regal service ideologies and their previous experiences in colonial service. For case, the French president of the IARC, Paul Tirard, had gear up the colonial administration of the French Protectorate of Morocco in 1912 and advocated the in a higher place-mentioned strategy of pénétration pacifique in the African country. However, systematic research on the biographies of Allied occupation personnel, their socialisation, mind-set, and service ideologies, is still to exist desired – this is especially truthful for the lower ranking officials of the occupation administration.

Picture 3: British soldiers baby-sit the harbour in Cologne. Armed civilians, who were policing the town (probably members of the local workers' and soldiers' council), are standing nearby. half-dozen December 1918.

Moreover, it is important to remember that the Centrolineal armies marched into Germany during the form of the German Revolution 1918/xix. The commencement years of the newly founded Weimar Republic were overshadowed by undersupply, inflation, political extremism, and mass violence, while at the aforementioned fourth dimension accompanied by democratisation and the breakthrough of mass politics. Demands for workers participation were paralleled by mass strikes and caused fearfulness of a 'High german October Revolution' amid the suburbia. Due to the loss of the war and the French ambitions on the Rhine, a complete reorganisation of the state structures in the Rhineland was also within the realms of possibility. However, very piddling is hitherto known about how the occupiers on the ground were coping with this political and socially contingent situation, without existence able to directly control the entire country. Research on the disharmonize direction of the occupiers, with regard to attempted coups, strikes, and public protest may give some indication of how occupation every bit a organization of rule functions in areas that are undergoing socio-political crisis, democratisation, and modernisation.

Furthermore, the position of German women changed as they gained more power in both club and government after the First Globe State of war just the evolution of the gender order in the occupied territories has not been explored (except for some studies on the Schwarze Schmach). Enquiry on the various forms of encounters between the occupiers and German women, their regulation by the occupation government, and the broader public discourse on romantic and sexual relationships between occupiers and occupiers may offer greater insights into social and cultural change under the peculiar conditions of occupation.

Finally, no attempt has then far been made to place the Rhineland Occupation in a broader framework of the history of occupation by questioning connections between previous and subsequent military machine occupations. To what extent, for example, did the military occupations that took place during the First World War or the German occupation of French republic 1870-73 in the course of the German-Franco War influence the grade, legal framework, and ruling practices of the Rhineland Occupation? Furthermore, one might explore to what extent the experience of the Rhineland Occupation influenced the Allied Occupation of Frg later on the Second World War.

In conclusion, further research on the Allied Rhineland Occupation can aggrandize the land of enquiry on the history of European occupations and as well provide new insights into the dilemma between post-war reconciliation/stabilisation on the 1 hand and retribution/reparation on the other hand, while shedding light on the peculiar dynamics of occupation every bit a system of rule. If such inquiry is undertaken, the notion that the Allied Rhineland Occupation was a pocket-sized episode in European history might undergo radical alter amongst both historians and the broader public.

References

Eye de recherches relations internationales de l'Université de Metz (ed.), Problème de la Rhénanie. Dice Rheinfrage nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg, Metz 1975.

Dieter Breuer & Gertrude Cepl-Kaufmann (eds), 'Deutscher Rhein – fremder Rosse Tränke?' Symbolische Kämpfe um das Rheinland nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg, Essen 2005.

Peter Neckband, The Propaganda War in the Rhineland: Weimar Germany, Race and Occupation after World State of war I, London 2013.

Gerd Krumeich & Joachim Schröder (eds), Der Schatten des Weltkriegs: Die Ruhrbesetzung 1923, Essen 2004.

Benedikt Neuwöhner, Georg Mölich, Maike Schmidt (eds), Die Besatzung des Rheinlandes 1918 bis 1930: Alliierte Herrschaft und Alltagsbeziehungen nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg, Bielefeld 2020.

Martin Schlemmer, 'Los von Berlin'. Die Rheinstaatbestrebungen nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg, Köln 2007.

Hans-Ludwig Selbach, Katholische Kirche und französische Rheinlandpolitik nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg: Nationale, regionale und kirchliche Interessen zwischen Rhein, Saar und Ruhr (1918–1924), Krefeld 2013.

Franziska Wein, Deutschlands Strom – Frankreichs Grenze: Geschichte und Propaganda am Rhein 1919–1930, Essen 1992.

Iris Wigger, Dice 'Schwarze Schmach am Rhein': Rassistische Diskriminierung zwischen Geschlecht, Klasse, Nation und Rasse, Münster 2007.

David G. Williamson, The British in Interwar Federal republic of germany: The reluctant occupiers, 1918–1930, London 2017.

Photo credits:

Cover picture: High german women at the barrier on the Dusseldorf Road near the Reisholz entering a business firm to exist searched past British WAAC Officers for contraband, ane June 1919; © Imperial War Museum, Q 7676.

Benedikt Neuwöhner is Research Associate in the History of the Rhine-Maas Region at the University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany