Prager WISOHIM | Prague ESHP | 2011 | Bd./Vol. 14 | 2011
Occupied Germany after the First World War
Jaromír Soukup, Britové v Porýní: Britská okupace Kolín‑
ské zóny v letech 1918–1926 [Brits in the Rhineland: British
Occupation of the Köln­‑Zone in Years 1918–1926], Praha:
Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy v Praze 2011, 207 p.
For the Czech public, the history of Germany is a very well known topic, and a number
of respected studies and books have been written by Czech authors about it. How‑
ever, it must be said that these historians concentrated rather on the pre­‑war Germany
and on the period of the so­‑called Third Reich, even though they also mentioned the
perspective of international relations and economic aspects. The stress on the Ger‑
man history after 1933 is understandable when one considers the importance of this
period and its malign influence on the life of the “first” Czechoslovak Republic, but
with a deeper perspective of the complicated flow of world events, and with a special
emphasis on the influence on our country, it often leads to a rather distorted view, void
of any perspective. I am speaking about laymen, who are flooded with a production of
cheap books, sometimes with bizarre titles. On the other hand, it must be said that the
Czech historiography itself still owes its share to Weimar Germany, as it certainly was
one of the neuralgic points of the political, economic, and social cultural space after the
First World War.
A couple of weeks ago, a new book came out in the Fontes book series published by
the Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. This must be welcomed
for the two following reasons: firstly, this publication confirms the active approach of
history departments and the Faculty in general towards young researchers; secondly,
the work by historian Jaromír Soukup to a certain extent rectifies the deficit that the
Czech historiography has had towards Weimar Germany.
The title of Soukup’s book tells exactly what the topic of his work is. However, it must
be noted that the text touches the global level as well. This global level can be divided
into several partial topics, which are presented from the point of view of all interested
countries – Germany (both before and after occupation), Great Britain, France, and
the USA. The points of view of these countries have always been (and will always be)
a result of the international, geopolitical and economic goals, but also of the momen‑
tary balances of power. In this respect, Great Britain bet on the perennial tradition
of the balance of power, a strategy which it didn’t abandon in the 1920s and 1930s.
The British engagement in the European matters was rather forced and transient,
and the primary goal of the British was to compensate for the power of dominant, and
154
more Europe­‑bound, France. The French position, however, was paradoxical, despite
its ‘continental citizenship”, since in the years immediately after the WWI its politics
towards the neighbouring country in the East was naturally harsh, confrontational,
unforgiving and nationalism­‑driven. Jaromír Soukup neatly analyses the problem of
the French­‑British unity in the German question and by means of a number of particu‑
lar examples he shows the fragility of this bond, which was also a sign of the general
fragility of the Versailles Treaty, or the Versailles System in general. This matter offers
interesting perspectives of the development of the sustainable common stand of the
British and the French towards Germany, with respect to the things to come, the intro‑
duction of the new partners (the USA) and its climax in the late 1930s.
Economic and social aspects of the post­‑war Europe are also integral parts of the
explored topics. The French and British interests were the same predominantly in the
key question of the reparations, and also in the question of the renewal of the German
industry, which the island state considered a necessary condition of its own economic
prosperity. France, on the other hand, perceived this question as a further jeopardy
of its own security. Soukup follows the movement of the key commodities of heavy
industry (coal mining and production of steel), which were distributed within the
framework of the reparations paid by Germany, and also within the framework of the
supplies of the particular companies of both above mentioned countries. He also men‑
tions the double sidedness of the evaluation of reasons for setting up the mechanism of
sanctions, or the negative reception of the sanctions, predominantly by British compa‑
nies. France started to abandon this strategy which in the long run could be lethal for it
after the failure of the so­‑called Ruhr crisis. The effect of this crisis was a considerable
financial burden, the only “success” being a targeted financial, economic, social and
food collapse of Germany.
Soukup also mentions the gradual signs of the integration efforts especially in the
area of heavy industry, where the effect of the reparations was a “voluntary” agree‑
ment of the representatives of the German heavy industry and the French­‑Belgian
Inter­‑Allied Mission for Control of Factories and Mines1. This was a totally different
approach than during the foundation of the French­‑Belgian Railway Administration
Company on the occupied area (Régie), which was executed only on the basis of a de‑
cree.2
Another area where the allies could not reach agreement the analysis of which Ja‑
romír Soukup presents in his work was the problem of the integrity of the German
territory. The British policy was motivated by the effort to eliminate the influence of
the dominant French interest which preferred to separate the Ruhr area from the rest
of the empire and to occupy the key resource and production areas. The author men‑
tions the tools by which France meant to reach this goal, from the French support of
separatist movements (the declaration of the Rhenish Republic) to the introduction
of a new currency.3
1/ Jaromír Soukup, Britové v Porýní: Britská okupace Kolínské zóny v letech 1918–1926…, pp. 153–154.
2/ Ibid., p. 135.
3/ Ibid., p. 155.
155
In the matter of the adjustment of the system of reparations, Soukup sees the break‑
ing point in the willingness of the American president, which was partly motivated by
the pressure from the national business elite, to actively enter the European matters.4
This was a key point for the realization of the so­‑called Dawes Plan, which enabled to
relieve the system of German reparations by means of help of foreign investments,
though this was only a temporary matter.
The social conditions in all parts of the German empire almost precisely copied those
of the British occupation zone, so the overall view of the problem of the post­‑war Germa‑
ny would not be complete without mentioning everyday problems of German citizens,
the burden of the food and economic scarcity, unemployment, regulations of public life,
revolutionary and separatist tendencies, the effect of the sanctions and different con‑
cepts of occupation on public life. Last but not least, Soukup also succeeded to ­analyse
specific features of the British­‑German relationship, especially dealing of British sol‑
diers and clerks with German citizens5. By this he adds to the discussion of the difficult
analysis of the view of the British towards the Germans and the other way round;
an analysis which is difficult predominantly from the point of view of methodology.
The chapter, or parts of chapters, must also be mentioned where the author deals
shortly but distinctly with hierarchy, foundation, personal (national) matters, decid‑
ing procedures or the power of various political and economic councils, inter­‑allied
controlling committees, conferences or missions6. Soukup makes it clear that a lot of
protocols and provisions were passed despite the British disagreement.
A rich and varied bibliography (including unpublished archive sources from Brit‑
ish and German archives, editions of sources, memoirs, contemporary literature and
press) and specific features of particular sources always enable the author to adjust
the style of his text according to the presented topic, provided he abides the “law of
historian’s work”. By this, he can add to the plasticity of the text. Jaromír Soukup made
use of this strategy, and the change of his style can be best seen in the passages dealing
with purely diplomatic matters or in chapters dealing with everyday life, which are
based on memoirs and contemporary literature. Using the words of the late Professor
Vladimír Nálevka, these passages “smell with mankind and authenticity”. One could
certainly object – and I am aware of that – that the character of diplomatic dispatches
or reports is different from the nature of diary entries or memoirs, but the presented
work, which is predominantly based on foreign sources, shows that the author has
great linguistic and stylistic skills. By using “everyday topics”, the author also accentu‑
ates the nowadays prevailing trend of withdrawing from the purely political history,
which in modern historiography no longer presents the primary “narrative” element,
but “only” its integral part.
I have no serious objections to the book as a whole, since I believe it is necessary to
respect the subjective choice of the author in the question of the layout and contents
4/ Ibid., p. 167.
5/ E.g. the 19 provisions published by Herbert Plumer under a somewhat problematic title „Hut ab“ (pp. 63–4),
or a notoriously well known „chocolate formula“ joke (p. 66).
6/ Ibid., pp. 27–31; 44; 51–54.
156
of the text, and also in the matter of bibliography. I also consider the methodological
approach very useful, since cannot but be based on the chronological background.
The Fontes book series has a classic format and graphics, and its fifth volume stands
to its high standard.
Aleš Bříza
157