The Forms of Collaboration during the Second World War

“Collaboration with an occupying power” – a phrase which, as late as eight decades after this specific concept of “collaboration”, first emerged in relation to the occupation of France, brings feelings of rejection or condemnation to mind. Still, it is not completely clear even today what the meaning of “collaboration” in this sense exactly covers, not only among the lay public, but also in the professional circles of historians and social scientists.

In connection with occupation, the word collaboration suggests something ominous and sinister. It is, to some extent, contaminated politically and ideologically alike, and its meaning is marked by the post-war atmosphere in society as well as political and judicial practices. Therefore, some scientists assume it would be better to not use it as an analytical tool, while others try to continue to interpret and refine it, despite all difficulties. I belong to the latter group and believe that a problem will not disappear by means of rejection of the word which represents it and which, despite all its complexity in terms of content, did become established as denoting a specific form of cooperation with an occupying power. The content of such cooperation, however, needs to be rethought over and over again and solutions proposed to a question which is complicated and intriguing alike – similarly to the riddle of the monstrous Sphinx in Greek mythology, residing on Mount Sfingio near the ancient city of Thebes. I have also taken the challenge, resulting in the offered perspective on the understanding of the concept.

First of all, it should be noted that I view collaboration as a social phenomenon, and accordingly I do not separate its political and ideological aspects from the social sphere, since the actor of collaboration is an individual, a player in the social field, who is an entity complete with their motivations. I am concerned with understanding collaboration as independent social behaviour and action under specific conditions of occupation, and in pursuit of that I have drawn from the “theories of action” of the classical social scientific thinkers, Max Weber and Pierre Bourdieu. My focus is on the motivations behind collaborators’ behaviour and action, which may be, and usually are, layered, confused and sometimes also conflicting in themselves.

In order to better comprehend social behaviours and their motivations, it is necessary to first classify them in relation to Weber’s ideal types. The aim of this study is to explain how to understand the concept of collaboration with the occupying power, place it in the context of other forms of cooperation with an occupier and offer a structure of types of collaboration in connection with the occupations during the Second World War, where the concept of collaboration as a specific term emerged for the first time. I would like to point out that this structure is designed as open, so further types of collaboration and forms of cooperation can be added, and they can possibly be further differentiated within themselves. I do not expect to succeed in identifying all of them – in this regard, the study is intended to initiate a dialogue heading in a certain direction.

The result will be the types of collaboration as “ideal type” constructions, and it will only be possible with the use of them as an analytical instrument to better interpret the motivations shaping the social behaviour and action of the concrete collaborating individuals, who always need to be studied as individualities in their uniqueness. For most of the presented collaboration types there will be examples of collaborating persons whose social behaviour and motivation may be quite close to a relevant type of collaboration, or references to communities or organizations where such individuals may be looked for. These examples, however, must necessarily be seen as just illustrations in support of interpretation and understanding of types of collaboration.

Although the text whose introductory pages are now opened was inspired by sociological theories, it remains essentially historical in character, or more exactly, in an interdisciplinary way, it incorporates subjects between the two areas of study, at the intersection of humanities and social sciences. This is required by the theoretical and methodological needs of the study and enabled by the creative potential of its author; in this connection I should outline my background. On a long-term basis I have been concerned with media history and my specialism is journalistic collaboration in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. I work at the Department of Media Studies and Journalism within the Faculty of Social Studies of Masaryk University, Brno, and the curricula of both the institutions embrace social scientific work. I graduated in history but completed my postgraduate study at the department of sociology. In short, one might say I am a historian with a social scientific “trail” resulting from my postgraduate study and place of work, where my viewpoint as a historian has been consistently enriched by a social scientific perspective.

My understanding of “collaboration with the occupying power”, however, has not only been profoundly influenced by my profession and area of interest, but also by the history of my homeland. With its area and population, it is a medium-sized Central European country which, when still together with Slovakia in the 20th century it was part of the common state of Czechoslovakia, had deep and tragic experience of occupations by a foreign power, first by the Germans and later by the Soviets. Sometimes we say, with some exaggeration, that in the last century it was as if our country was being ground between the millstones by two powers with whom ours was incommensurate. In other words, I belong to a community whose historical consciousness has been formed by a still very alive experience of occupations. Because of that, the feelings of its members are naturally closer to those who are the objects of history and have to react to external pressures, rather than to its agents who triumphantly and self-assuredly remake the surrounding world in their image, while oftentimes engaging in violence, oppression and subjugation. The culture of this perspective, understandably, also had a formative influence on me, the result of which may be a greater empathy towards those defeated and momentarily powerless.

Frequent references to the history and realities of Central Europe, mainly those relating to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, are also due to my Czech origin. German Nazis changed the Czech part of dismantled Czechoslovakia into this unlawful and illegitimate formation following the occupation of what remained of the Czech lands on 15 March 1939 – unquestionably the most tragic day in modern Czech history preceding by six months the outbreak of the cataclysm of war. It was from the history of the Protectorate where I gained insights into the phenomenon of collaboration with the occupying power, and so I naturally use more examples from its history to illustrate the proposed theses than I draw from the history of other countries under occupation. The former examples are accompanied by explanatory notes for the reader to better understand the historical background of the country, which probably only a minority are deeply acquainted with.

In the conclusion of this opening chapter I would like to outline the structure of this study, which consists of five parts. The chapter following the foreword briefly describes the theoretical foundations of the text: first the two “theories of action” by Max Weber and Pierre Bourdieu, and then the following, more extensive segment introducing publications that deal with collaboration which inspired me to write this book. The next chapter discusses the methodological aspects of the study, including the goals, research questions and method of work. The treatise itself then deals with collaboration and its relationship to modernity, nationalism and loyalty. It analyses occupation as the trigger factor of collaboration, proposes the patterns of kinds of cooperation with the occupying power, and lastly brings a wide spectrum of collaboration types. My theses are summarized in the concluding chapter of the publication, followed by a discussion about these conclusions. Discussion in the broader sense of the word is what I primarily aim for – how to understand the concept of collaboration with the occupying power, in the context of which the proposed pattern of collaboration types is only an instrument of cognition, not an end in itself.

1.1. Social Behaviour and Action

With regard to my understanding of the cooperation of members of an occupied society with the occupying power – and in its context also collaboration – as a specific activity of not only political, but above all social character, some opening remarks should be given about social behaviour and action. Indeed, the two categories sometimes tend to be confused or merged.

Behaviour is basically a response by any entity, that is, also by people, to a change in the environment or situation in which they find themselves, social behaviour is then a response which means that behaviour has a specific meaning also for other social actors, while an individual takes account of the existence of other social agents, whether those physically present or, in the mediated form, represented by the existence of a concrete material and spiritual culture. Expression of a socially relevant behaviour is a response trying to change the external environment, in particular relationships with the other involved actors or relationships between them.

Social behaviour may also be viewed from the perspective of predominant moral assessment in the context of society, within collective or group behaviour. In that respect different types of behaviour can be observed: social, which is beneficial for the community, asocial, which disregards the community interests, or antisocial, which tends to be actively hostile toward the community. We can also talk of societal behaviour expressing a social mission, or altruistic behaviour concentrating on selfless assistance to others.

Social action, on the other hand, is a conscious activity oriented toward a concrete goal, and thus associated with a meaning attached to it by actors themselves, and their motivation for taking it. As stated by Max Weber (1864–1920), action means human behaviour (no matter whether it be outer or inner action, omitting or passive endurance), in so far as one or more actors associate such behaviour with some subjective meaning.¹ Social action, as a goal-oriented activity, presupposes analysis of the initial situation, anticipation of the result and a plan to achieve it, startup motivation and continuous social learning in social interaction. It is also associated with expecting a response from other relevant individuals and reference groups.

Action and its meaning are extremely important to one of the founding fathers of sociology, Max Weber, who divides the meaning of action into actual and subjective – this being of essential importance to sociology. This field of science does not try to seek a normatively correct and valid meaning of action like ethics, aesthetics and in particular law, but it tries to be an “understanding science” seeking to identify and understand the meaning attached to action by agents themselves.

Central to the Weberian approach is the rational aspect, while it is the rational element of action which presents both the benefit and the weakness of such an approach. This is because people do not always act rationally as to a large extent their activities arise from the spheres below the level of consciousness; they also act as “biological beings”, mainly where they are endangered in their effort to preserve their physical existence, which is biologically “natural” to them. Considering the forms of cooperation with the occupying power and collaboration during the Second World War, a question arises as to what reaction of the occupied is still grounded in rationality. For societies experiencing occupations like those established by the Nazis and Fascists, which employ extreme violence posing a direct physical threat to an individual amidst omnipresent psychological terror, the result is a general fear of the subjugated, at times growing into panic. Trying to identify and understand their reactions only at the level of “rationally constructed” social action would be limiting, so we need to talk about social action and behaviour. The fear of the occupied is thus, in my opinion, present as a constant factor influencing their reactions, not only those immediate and affective, but also those “thought through”, oriented toward a goal, i.e. rationally anchored.

Despite its rationalizing tendency, I consider Max Weber’s theory of social action to be sound enough to provide a basis for this thesis, which aims to identify the forms of cooperation of those occupied with the occupiers, and in this context concentrates on its crucial form, i.e. collaboration, and within it on the distinction between the individual types of collaborative action, in the Weberian sense conceived as ideal types. In my opinion, it is possible to gain insight into the actions of social actors, who during the Second World War found themselves on the trajectory of collaboration in their occupied countries, by exploring the motivations underlying their actions,² and in this respect Weber’s theory of social action provides an irreplaceable theoretical basis.