User:Dr Gangrene/Luxembourg Resistance and conflicts

On 2 August 1946, Sûreté officers arrested Robert Winter, Émile Krieps, Rudy Ensch, and Jean Juttel, who were all released later the same day. Also arrested was Albert Wingert, who was accused of "Attentat und Komplott gegen die Staatsform, innere Gefährdung der Staatssicherheit", and received an interdiction de communiquer. Wingert was kept for 9 days in solitary confinement. After 3 months of investigation against him, his case too was closed. On 10 October 1946 an ordonnance de non-lieu in his case was ordered.

The Unteradjustant of the Sûreté, Jean Wictor, who had been a policeman during the occupation, wrote reports about the activities of Wingert. Wictor was also personally criticised several times by Resistance members.

Krieps, Juttel and Winter had all been key witnesses in the Gomand trial, against Bech, Bodson and Dupong.

COPIED TO BELOW

Around this time, in Resistance circles there was severe criticism of the political insignificance of the Resistance. In pubs and at meetings of the Resistance groups, criticism was uttered against the direction of political developments, especially by Wingert, who attacked the clientelism and Vetternwirtschaft of the parties; the watering-down of the term "Resistance", the way the épuration was being carried out, the sterile hyperpatriotism of some groups of the Resistance.

In the 1970s, former Justice minister Victor Bodson declared that the talk of the Putsch had been rubbish, and the foreign minister Bech had given the instruction to arrest the "Putschists".

THe "Putschists" were not well treated in the press. The nation as a whole wanted to move on, and turn their back on the war. The population want to return to the pre-war time. The Resistants and former concentration camp inmates disapproved of the process of normalisation, they had hoped for a new beginning, instead of a restauration. The Putsch affair is therefore also the end of a "malaise" felt in Resistance circles felt from mid 1945 to Sep 1946, which was much mentioned in the press at the time.

The state had not included the Resistants, but collaborators and opportunists had a good life; they dominated the economy, and the government administration.

Luxembourgish liberation was on 10 September 1944. For a short while, the Unio'n maintained order, arresting many collaborators, and taking care of supplying the population with food.

Return of the government in exile was on 23 September 1944.

Pierre Dupong was heavily criticised by the Unio'n. The Unio'n movements wanted to be more closely involved in politics, and represented in government. This criticism somewhat abated when Unio'n-friendly politicians were included in the government. But criticism still remained.

One forum for this criticism was the Consultative Assembly from February 1945 onwards.

The government wanted to have a forum for public opinion, and a body before which to justify its policies and to legitimate them.

Various themes were discussed in the Assembly, including épuration.

The épuration trials started on 9 April 1945. Apart from criminal trials, there were also disciplinary procedures, agaisnt civil servants. Some in the Consultative Assembly criticised that it was the "small" collaborators who were investigated. Membership in the VdB was also a prickly issue.

The Resistants in general were unhappy with the apparent lenience shown towards collaborators, and épuration. At the same time, the government was trying to portray the whole country as one of Resistants, which watered down the role of the actual, active Resistants.

The PM, Pierre Dupong, is quoted as saying that 95% of Luxembourgers had been Resistants.

This stretched the definition of "Resistant" to mean nothing.

But Dupongs views became widespread in the population. (The active Resistants were a minority)

This provoked widespread criticism, voiced at informational meetings of the Luxemburger Batterie, on the failures of the gov't in exile, meetings which took place on 4 July, 8 July (in Esch), 15 July, and 16 July.

The Esch assembly resulted in a resolution sponsored by the representatives of several Resistance organisations, which claimed (amongst other things) the Luxembourgish government had no legitimacy, also condemning the government for its actions against L'Indépendant.

The Indépendant, founded by Norbert Gomand and Charles Gordian Troeller. These two had helped Luxembourgish wartime refugees in Franco's Spain, to get to the United Kingdom.

They criticised the gov't in exile for doing little to help these refugees.

On 30 August 1945, Thoss, Dupont, and Goman were accused of slander against the government, for what they had said at the above-mentioned meetings. The trial would last until March 1947. 114 witnesses were called.

On 29 March 1947, Gomand was sentenced to pay a fine.

On 21 October 1945, national elections took place, which resulted in a National Union government of all the parties. There was still discontent among former Resistance members, who believed the former government-in-exile lacked legitimacy, and vehement criticism of the political circumstances was voiced at public meetings an in pubs. However, there was now no parliamentary opposition, so criticism was articulated outside the parliament. The government tended to react very sensitively to this criticism, as seen in their reaction to the so-called Putsch.

The celebrations after the war in Luxembourg were a lively expression of national joy an patriotic unity. If the mood was slightly dampened by attacks on the collaborators, the authorities rapidy brought this under control, and after the Ardennes offensive, there began a period of material and moral reconstruction, which was to lead to a normalisation again. Grand Duchess Charlotte was to return in April 1945, which was to signal the start of a series of patriotic celebrations, which had their highpoint in 1946. But the cleavages in society were to become apparent soon.

The government in exile was, after its return, exposed to hefty criticism: foremost, it was the representatives of the Resistance, who objected to the fact of the pre-war politicians trying to return to Luxmebourg and to continue the business of government as before the war. The legitimacy of Pierre Dupong's government was called into question, as it governed for months without a legislature and then with the pseudo-representative Consultative Assembly, and because it did not take sufficient account of the Resistance's interests.

The Resistance groups, some of them highly politicised, formed a sort of non-parliamentary opposition.

They included Albert Wingert, who had been in concentration camp. He remained a vehement critic of the government, who was not quieted by the first post-war elections in October 1945, resulting in a National Union government.

One of the most controversial topics after the war was the épuration question.

One side thought the collaborators could hardly be punished strongly enough, others believed it was more important to punish the worst of the worst.

This debate was also led inside the parties themselves, and in the political groups on the left and the right, people were unsure how to treat party members and functionaries who had cooperated with the enemy.

In the newly founded CSV, Pierre Dupong propagated the view that the party should be open to all those who agreed with the CSV's fundamental beliefs. There was to be no wide-ranging cleanup within the CSV:

...

With the rebirth of the conservative and socialist parties, the political landscape from before the war did not seem to have changed much. Yet the Union'n, as a political umbrella group, developed into competition for the established parties. There were (futile) talks and negotiations between the Unio'n and the large political parties, regarding possible cooperation.

The political new beginning in Luxembourg was also difficult because large parts of the population harboured suspicions towards the parties. This was partly due to the partisan political disputes of the pre-war time, and the experience of the war. Some even had dreams of a party-less state.

The CSV, as heir of the Party of the Right, tried to spread a most positive portrayal and interpretation of its ministers' actions, such that the government's decision to leave the country in the war was a visionary and historic one. It was portrayed as well-thought out decision, which was a starting shot for the resistance of the Luxembourgish people.

The lack of unity after the war was illustrated by the plurality of the forms and locations of commemoration of the war. In the 1950s, the forms of commemoration had already been cemented: the veterans of the 2 World Wars gathered at the Monument du Souvenir, the Resistants gathered at the Musée de la Résistance, and the concentration camp inmates gathered at the "Hinzerter Kreuz". There was no central commemorative location until the erection of the Monument de la Solidarité in 1971. Equally, there was no common commemoration day. From 1946, the country had a Journée de Commémoration Nationale. This was fixed to be at the same time as an event which never actually occurred, namely the planned census of 10 Octobe 1941, which had been cancelled. The decision to have the commemoration day then was a politically intelligent one, as the Personenstandsaufnahme was an act more of passive Resistance than of active Resistance, and thus one with which most Luxembourgers could identify. The majority of Luxembourgers had only been able to resist passively under the occupation, whilst it was a small minority which engaged in printing leaflets or engaging in armed Resistance.

The establishment of this national day of commemoration did not prevent the occurrence of other individual events, organised "from bottom up", by survivors and veterans organisations. Several of these organisations had formed after the war and tried to keep the memory of their deeds alive.

On 1 September 1945, there had been large-scale commemorative events for the 3rd anniversary of the strike of 1942, but this soon lost significance and was only celebrated locally. Similarly, 10 September, the day of Liberation, was only celebrated at a few round anniversaries (such as 1954). The public interest in these official celebrations tended to subside dramatically in the 1950s already.

Resistance in the post-war period
If Luxembourg was liberated on 10 September 1944, there was still a level of chaos for several weeks, and a power vacuum. The war was still ongoing, but there were acts of revenge against collborators, and random arrests. The Grand Duchess and for a while the government were still in exile, the civil administration and the forces of law and order were barely functional. In this transitional period, the Unio'n took over various state duties, such as restoring order, arresting collaborators, supplying the population.

In late September 1944 the government returned and many now saw the work of the Resistance and the Unio'n as over and expected to see the Resistants return to their livelihoods. Some Resistants however, including many in the Unio'n, were not satisfied with this, but hoped to be able to play a political role now. Having put their own lives in danger in the fight against the occupying forces, they now hoped to be able to join in the work of the reconstruction and to realise the political goals formulated during the war. In 1944 the Unio'n published a political programme. But most of the concepts for the future remained works of fantasy, such as the question of reparations and annexation, which showed itself as unrealistic.

The Unio'n saw itself as morally legitimate, and in October 1944 demanded to be consulted in all matters by the government, which was initially declined by Dupong. But the government, running into criticism, was forced to compromise by including Resistance representatives in the Assemblée Consultative. The Unio'n was also allowed to appoint one of two lay judges in a special court set up in November 1944 to try war crimes.

COPIED TO BELOW

At the same time, the Resistance's political ambitions were sometimes contradictory. In the first months after Liberation, the Unio'n and Communists seemed to be operating in tandem, in order to put more pressure on the government. But this marriage of convenience did not last, and there were soon accusations on the left that the Unio'n was a reactionary and corporatist organisation, which included xenophobic elements.

Similarly, a leaflet of the PI-MEN organisation in spring 1945 declared that there were several collaborators in the Resistance, who had only discovered their patriotism after the Liberation. Profiteers, speculators and others had put on the badge of the Resistance. They also condemned the political ambitions of the Unio'n.

Albert Wingert also criticised the Unio'n in 1947, and brought up the corporatist ideas already discussed during the war. Wingert's condemnation was also personal: when arrested in 1946, he had not been supported by the Unio'n or the LPPD. This case made clear how little of the solidarity of the Resistance was left.

By 1947 the Unio'n had started to exercise political influence through the Groupement démocratique, which later became the Democratic Party.

The Resistance organisations after 1945 did not then show a unified front. Their political differences were too great and their visions for the future too divergent.

COPIED TO BELOW

This should not surprise, as there was also no unified Resistance during the war. The different organisations came from different political directions, and had various regional and social roots. The creation of a unified umbrella organisation occurred quite late. After their actual goal, the lifting of the nazi occupation, had been establshed, there was no common ground any more.

The majority of Luxembourgers felt gratitude and respect for the Resistants, but also desired a return to normality.

The establishment of an Assemblée consultative, the re-establishment of the political parties, then elections and formation of a government, caused the political climate to quieten down.

THe much-vaunted poltiical ambitions of the Resistance came to little as former Resistance members either left politics or joined the various political parties.

THe portrayal of Luxembourger as a people unified in Resistance, covered up the disparity of the groups, and the different forms of Resistance, also their poltiical backgrounds and goals for after the war. They were unified only in the last months before the liberation.

COPIED TO BELOW

The lack of unity in the war victims is illustrated by the establishment of a Centre de Documentation et de Recherche sur la Résistance and a Centre de Documentation et de Recherche sur L'enrôlement de force.

Rob Roemen
With a lack of party-political activity during the war in the Grand Duchy, only the exiled ministers, Dupong, Bech, Krier, and Bodson, had political influence. Their attitude towards Luxembourgers seeking refuge was highly controversial.

The government-in-exile's attitude caused Henri Koch-Kent and Mac Schleich, presenter of the BBC Luxembourgish programme in London, to found the Association des Luxembourgeois en Grande-Betagne, which soon had 300 members, Luxembourgers who had fled the country, forced conscripts in the Wehrmacht who had defected. This Association was active in its criticism of the government and accused it of treason.

Pierre Dupon tried to intimidate the Association, by removing Schleich from his BBC post an as secretary of the Association, which failed. Émile Krieps, also in the Allied armed forces, joined in the Association's criticism, that the government had left the population in Luxembourg to its own devices and failed to aid those seeking refuge abroad.

Robert Winter would, like Émile Krieps, later feel the wrath for getting on the wrong side of the government. While stationed in Holland with the British troops during the war, Winter, an officer, was asked to meet Bech in Brussels. There, he was asked to provide the 200-300 troops in the British army serve as an escort for the Luxembourgish government-in-exile when it returned to the Grand Duchy. Winter refused, stating that he served the Allies, not the Luxembourgish government, and this earned him the wrath of the ministers.

Albert Wingert, not an officer, had also been a long-time critic of the government.

There was much scepticism among the Resistance towards the government returning from exile in September 1944. The expansion of the government in February 1945, with the inclusion of Robert Als and Guillaume Konsbrück, unratified by a legislature, enraged the Resistance, and the Unio'n announced an end to its cooperation with the government.

In February 1945, at the urging of the Unio'n, an Assemblée Consultative was set up. It included 37 Deputies from before the war whose mandates were extended, and an additional 30 appointed members, several from the Resistance. One of the purposes of the Assembly was to legitimate the previously exiled, and recently expanded, government.

Dupong tried to justify the government's 1940 flight in a report during the intense debates, but received harsh criticism from the opposition. Many emphasised that a new national union government needed to be formed, more informed on the state of the country and the people than the exiled govenrment, which had no contact with the people. The climate in the Assembly was bitter. There was little cooperation, and suspicions and attacks on the opposition were often heard.

On 16 August 1945, the Assembly finished its work. Until then, passionate debates over épuration, the membership in the VdB, and parliamentary responsibility in the early years of the occupation had taken place.

The National Union government soon ran into trouble in the year 1946.

It soon became clear that the lack of a parliementary opposition was a problem for the democratic functioning of society. In this situation, an extra-parliamentary oposition formed itself.

Gomand trial
Like several others, the Resistance members Norbert Goman, Raymond Dupont and Léon Thoss had been vehement critics of the government in exile. As their criticisms were printed in the newspaper L'Indépendant, founded in 1945, the ministers Dupong, Bech and Bodson started a court case against them for libel. The trial was mainly directed against Gomand, the editor of L'Indépendant, and started in early 1946. For several months, a total of 114 witness were heard, many of whom confirmed the allegations that the government had failed to assist Luxembourgish refugees abroad during the war.

Lieutenant Émile Krieps was called as a witness on the second day of the trial, on 5 April 1946, as the first witness. He stated that in January 1943, Victor Bodson was in Portugal, with a mission to help the Luxembourgers who were in the Spanish concentration camp at Miranda de Ebro. On 2 June the same year, Charles Gordian Troeller, managed to help about 30 young Luxembourgers from this camp into Portugal, from where they could travel to Britain. Bodson, on the other hand, managed to help not a single refugee.

Furthermore, he added that many Luxembourgers had left the country, in order to fight in the Allied armies, but instead only got as far as southern France, because of a lack of support from the exiled government.

Those Luxembourgers who did help their countrymen who were in hiding, included Gomand, the communist minister Dr Marx, and the episcopal official, Joseph Reckinger. Krieps added that the government-in-exile should have fought more intensely and from earlier on for the evacuation of Luxembourgers who wanted to go abroad, and they should have instructed their diplomatic representatives in France to give the Luxembourgers false papers for traveling.

He also stated that 15 Luxembourgers had been found in hiding and captured by the Germans, because their government had not helped them and they had languished in occupied Europe. He accused the government of a gross failure in this regard. Like others, he himseld had had to remain for a long while in Miranda de Ebro, because Bodson had written to the Belgian consul that the Luxembourgers in the camp were merely jeunes étourdis and aventuriers, so that the Belgian officials had then ceased all aid to the Luxembourgers.

By not introducing a general military service obligation, the governmment had caused problems for the réfractaires. They were treated by the Germans as either deserters from the Wehrmacht or "free game". Robert Winter was also a witness. He stated that in London, he made contact with Bech, suggesting that the Luxembourgers in Spain and France should be helped, and describing their living conditions. Bech declined to do anything, as the travel to Britain for these people would be too expensive. Another piece of evidence in the trial was a telegram from Bech to the Dutch consul in Madrid, with the words "Cessez tout secours aux Luxembourgeois". The testimony of Krieps, Winter and other witnesses received very little attention in the two biggest newspapers, the Luxemburger Wort and the Tageblatt.

The trial ended on 29 March 1947, with the sentencing of Gomand to a large fine.

Putsch
These were arrested early in the morning by the Sureté on 2 August 1946. They were accused of planning an armed coup against the Dupong government. Initially the arrests were meant to be secret, but Henri Koch-Kent rapdily informed the Associated Press.
 * Major Rudy Ensch
 * Lieutenant Jean Juttel
 * Lieutenant Émile Krieps
 * Lieutenant Robert Winter
 * Albert Wingert, teacher in Schifflange

Joseph Bech, announed to the diplomatic corps that a "mob of subversive elements" had been arrested, "subversive" in his vocabulary being the same as "communist".

The only Luxembougish newspaper to include this news on 2 August was the Tageblatt, with a small announcement. The Justice Ministry under Bodson released a communiqué on 3 August.

The officers were soon released by the investigating judge, whereas Wingert was kept in solitary confinement for 9 days, because the secret policeman Jean Wictor, a protégé of Bodson, had incriminated Wingert in a highly fanciful report. But the accusations proved to be groundless.

On 2 August 1946, Sûreté officers arrested Robert Winter, Émile Krieps, Rudy Ensch, and Jean Juttel, who were all released later the same day. Also arrested was Albert Wingert, who was accused of "Attentat und Komplott gegen die Staatsform, innere Gefährdung der Staatssicherheit", and received an interdiction de communiquer. Wingert was kept for 9 days in solitary confinement. After 3 months of investigation against him, his case too was closed. On 10 October 1946 an ordonnance de non-lieu in his case was ordered.

The Unteradjustant of the Sûreté, Jean Wictor, who had been a policeman during the occupation, wrote reports about the activities of Wingert. Wictor was also personally criticised several times by Resistance members.

Krieps, Juttel and Winter had all been key witnesses in the Gomand trial, against Bech, Bodson and Dupong.

Émile Krieps, also in the Allied armed forces, joined in the Association's criticism, that the government had left the population in Luxembourg to its own devices and failed to aid those seeking refuge abroad.

Robert Winter would, like Émile Krieps, later feel the wrath for getting on the wrong side of the government. While stationed in Holland with the British troops during the war, Winter, an officer, was asked to meet Bech in Brussels. There, he was asked to provide the 200-300 troops in the British army serve as an escort for the Luxembourgish government-in-exile when it returned to the Grand Duchy. Winter refused, stating that he served the Allies, not the Luxembourgish government, and this earned him the wrath of the ministers.

Albert Wingert, not an officer, had also been a long-time critic of the government.

The "Putschists" were not well treated in the press. The nation as a whole wanted to move on, and turn their back on the war. The population want to return to the pre-war time. The Resistants and former concentration camp inmates disapproved of the process of normalisation, they had hoped for a new beginning, instead of a restauration. The Putsch affair is therefore also the end of a "malaise" felt in Resistance circles felt from mid 1945 to Sep 1946, which was much mentioned in the press at the time.

In the 1970s, former Justice minister Victor Bodson declared that the talk of the Putsch had been rubbish, and the foreign minister Bech had given the instruction to arrest the "Putschists".

Administrative commission
The government commission was abolished by the Gauleiter on 23 December 1940. For six months, it transmitted without flinching the directives of the German Zivilverwaltung.

Unlike the Belgian government ministers, the Luxembourgish government left the country with no instructions for how it was to be administered in their absence. The government's secretary-general, Albert Wehrer, in agreement with Émile Reuter, the president of the Chamber, gathered the country's parliamentarians, who approved a resolution creating a Government Commission, soon renamed the Administrative Commission. This granted the Commission the same sweeping powers which the government had awarded itself through the laws of 29 August and 28 September 1939 -- specifically, powers to legislate without the Chamber's approval, and to postpone elections.

After the French surrender, Wehrer and Reuter took the view that Luxembourg should collaborate with Germany in order to maintain its sovereignty. In order to shore up the Commission's legitimacy, in July they attempted to persuade the German government to let them send a delegation to meet the Grand Duchess in Portugal, where she was in exile. However, the appointment of Gustav Simon as head of the civil administration in July 1940 was to put a stop to these plans, as it signalled the Third Reich's intent to annex Luxembourg. The members of the Administrative Commission, however, decided to remain in office, as they believed they could influence and soften German occupation policy in doing so. In practice, however, the Commission was reduced more and more to the role of a transmission channel for Nazi policy, including its anti-Semitic policies. The Commission was abolished by the Gauleiter on 23 December 1940.

In September 1940, the German civil administration demanded that the Administrative Commission make a list of school pupils who were Jewish, who were to be excluded from education. On 6 September, the Commission then sent a circular out to local authorities, ordering them to establish such lists. It did not specify how they were to go about this, and the execution of this policy varied from one area to another, and from school to school. Some schools did the absolute minimum: they replied that they had demanded that Jewish pupils make themselves known, and no-one having done so, left it at that. The headteacher of the "Industrial and Commercial School" stated that he had personally told Jewish students the news of their expulsion, but did not give their names. Yet other schools reported how many Jews they had excluded, and gave their names.

Another example shows that the Commission was not above taking initiative. On 9 November 1940, the civil administration ordered the administrative commission to determine the number of Polish Jews in Luxembourg. The latter replied on 21 November that their number was 480, and that this number had been derived from examining the first names and surnames of those listed in the immigration police's files, as these contained no rubrics for religion or ethnicity.

Economy
According to one historian: "In a sense, one can reckon that on 10 May 1940, it was not the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg that the Wehrmacht invaded, but ARBED." From the 1920s, ARBED had become a powerful multinational, with branches in many countries other than Luxembourg, which sold its products all over the world. There was a high degree of interdependence between Germany and Luxembourg when it came to steel production. Just before the war, Luxembourg imported 90% of its coke, an essential fuel for the blast furnaces, from Germany; by 1938, Luxembourg was exporting 47,22% of its iron and steel products to Nazi Germany, where these were badly needed to the Nazis' rearmament programme.
 * COPIED TO "Luxembourgish Collaboration" article, incorporate into "German occcupation ..." article and "Steel industry in Luxembourg".

Luxembourgish iron ore reserves would make Germany self-sufficient in steel production; in the short term then, it was necessary for Nazi Germany to take possession of Luxembourg.

In the medium term, the Germans intended to combine the Luxembourgish steel and mining industries with those of Lorraine and the Saar. From the first months of the occupation, then, the Germans tried hard to bring the Luxembourgish steel companies under their control: Hadir, Ougreé-Marihaye and ARBED.

On 2 July 1940 Otto Steinbrinck, the Plenipotentiary for the Iron and Steel Industry in Luxembourg, Belgium and Northern France, called a meeting of the above companies. These agreed to collaborate, with the exception of Hadir, which mostly had French shareholders. Its steel plant in Differdange, and its mines, were then confiscated and handed over to the Vereinigte Stahlwerke. Ougrée-Marihaye, despite its willingness to cooperate, had to put the management of its Luxembourgish plant under two Germans. ARBED was the only steel company to maintain its pre-war board of directors.

Several political and economic actors in the Reich had plans for ARBED, but ultimately, it was the Gauleiter who determined its fate. He was intent on keeping the company intact, as it made the otherwise mostly rural Gau Moselland an industrial heavyweight.

In terms of production levels, after the catastrophic results of 1940 due to the invasion, steel production levels soon resumed but at a reduced rate. Luxembourgish steel factories no longer received a sufficient supply of coke, since the Germans believed it was more efficient to process Swedish ore, which had a higher iron content than Luxembourgish ore. However, when Nazi Germany moved to a strategy of total war, involving the mobilisation of all resources, the Armaments Minister Albert Speer ensured that from February 1942, Luxembourgish steel factories could work properly. Production increased steadily from mid-1942, and wartime production reached its peak in early 1944, when it also reached pre-war levels.

The production level of Luxembourgish heavy industry was neither held up by passive resistance on the part of the workers, nor obstruction by the management. This shatters Aloyse Meyer's post-war argument when defending himself against accusations of collaboration. Another argument, that Luxembourgish managers had no room for manoeuver in the face of the omnipotent occcupation authorities, also seems doubtful: Luxembourgish managers remained in their posts until the general strike of 1942. The Luxembourgish board of directors of ARBED remained in place until March 1942, when it was replaced by a board consisting of three Germans and two Luxembourgers, including Aloyse Meyer, the managing director.

The latter was never made totally powerless: Like the Gauleiter, Meyer wanted to avoid ARBED being broken up, which made them allies in a sense. It was the Gauleiter who ensured that Meyer was named as head of the Luxembourgish section of the Wirtschaftsgruppe Eisen schaffende Industrie, and a member of the board of directors of the Reichsgruppe Eisen, a semi-public body which coordinated steel production from May 1942, and as president of the Gauwirtschaftskammer Moselland.

Jacques Maas has termed the attitude of ARBED one of "survival-collaboration" (collaboration-survie).

Tendencies in Resistance
The Unio'n, after its founding, soon came up with a political programme for the post-war country. It advocated a parliamentary monarchy, with a nationalist Luxembourgish people's government. The country should have a constitution based on Christian-Social principles, and it called for a parliament based not on parties, but on the professional groups. The Unio'n wanted to join in the rebuilding of Luxembourg, and to be involved in the decision-making bodies.

COPIED TO BELOW

"The" Resistance never really existed. What did exist were several Resistance organisations. The war did not unify the country any more than it had been previously, although more people became conscious of their national identity, and several collective victories, such as the strike of 1942 and the failed referendum of 1941 proved that cooperation was possible. The Resistance was above all a regional phenomenon: each organisation had its geographical fief, and there was none that operated across the whole country.

At the broadest level, one may distinguish two tendencies in the Resistance, one left-wing (PCL) and one right-wing (LVL, LPL Clervaux, Unio'n). At the same time, there were also organisations that had no particular political programme, which mostly occupied themselves with practical matters; as well as a large number of resistants, who were not affiliated to any organisation.

The PCL got entangled in contradictions, and had to take ideological turns at the whim of international affairs, unlike those of a party with ideological certainty. Its loyalty to Moscow, made it hesitate for a long time before taking up hostilities against the German occupier. Even if from May 1942, it advocated the policy of the popular front against the fascists, it had other political goals in mind, and it continued to see the social democrats as a political rival. At the same time, for the PCL the fight against the German occupiers was only seen as the first step towards a radical change of the social and political landscape.

The PCL was not the only organisation whose political goals kept it from cooperating with other groups. The admission policy of the LVL, stated that membership was forbidden to anyone who was a communist or a "drunkard".

The right-wing Resistance groups, were generally to be found in the north, and were based with the rural communities. Religious motivations were a significant factor for them, and they followed a "Marian cult" devoted to Grand Duchess Charlotte.

At the same time, the LVL adopted the anti-Semitism of the Nazi occupiers, the Unio'n called for a Lebensraum (living space) for the Luxembourgish people in terms similar to those found in Mein Kampf, which may indicate that Nazi propaganda had an effect even on the Resistance.

For the organised Resistance, the prime motive appears to have been not a desire for liberty or a democratic ideal, but nationalism, albeit influenced by socialism for those on the left, or by anti-parliamentary corporatism on the right. If there was one characteristic which was common to all Resistance movements, then, whether on the left or the right, it was this nationalism. This appears in the Resistance organisations interpretation of history: an emphasis on the "Luxembourgish" emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, a glorification of John the Blind and the participants in the peasant war known as the Kleppelkrich, attacks on the "foreign domination" from 1443 to 1839.

COPIED TO "Luxembourg Resistance"

Resistance post-war and political ambitions
Soon after its founding, the Unio'n came up with a political programme for the post-war country. It advocated a parliamentary monarchy, with a nationalist Luxembourgish people's government. The country should have a constitution based on Christian-Social principles, and it called for a parliament based not on parties, but on the professional groups. The Unio'n wanted to join in the rebuilding of Luxembourg, and to be involved in the decision-making bodies.

While Luxembourg was liberated on 10 September 1944, there was still a level of chaos for several weeks, and a power vacuum. The war was still ongoing, but there were acts of revenge against collaborators, and random arrests. The Grand Duchess and, briefly, the government were still in exile, while the civil administration and the forces of law and order were barely functional. In this transitional period, the Unio'n took over various state duties, such as restoring order, arresting collaborators, supplying the population. In late September, the government returned and many now saw the work of the Resistance and the Unio'n as over, expecting to see the Resistants return to their livelihoods.

The government in exile was exposed to hefty criticism on its return in September 1944. Foremost, it was the representatives of the Resistance, who objected to the fact of the pre-war politicians trying to return to Luxembourg and to continue the business of government as before the war. The legitimacy of Pierre Dupong's government was called into question, as it governed for months without a legislature and later with the pseudo-representative Consultative Assembly, and because it did not take sufficient account of the Resistance's interests.

Some Resistants, including many in the Unio'n, were not satisfied with being excluded from government after hostilities. They hoped to continue to be able to play a political role. Having put their own lives in danger in the fight against the occupying forces, they now expected to be able to join in the work of the reconstruction, and to realise the political goals formulated during the war.  

The Unio'n saw itself as morally legitimate, and in October 1944 demanded to be consulted in all matters by the government, which was initially declined by Pierre Dupong.

The expansion of the government in February 1945, with the inclusion of Robert Als and Guillaume Konsbrück, unratified by a legislature, enraged the Resistance, and the Unio'n announced an end to its cooperation with the government. The government, running into criticism, was soon forced to compromise by including Resistance representatives in the Consultative Assembly. The Unio'n was also allowed to appoint one of two lay judges in a special court set up in November 1944 to try war crimes.

Pierre Dupong was heavily criticised by the Unio'n. The Unio'n movements wanted to be more closely involved in politics, and represented in government. This criticism somewhat abated when Unio'n-friendly politicians were included in the government. But criticism still remained.

One forum for the criticism was the Consultative Assembly from February 1945 onwards. In February 1945, at the urging of the Unio'n, an Assemblée Consultative was set up. It included 37 Deputies from before the war whose mandates were extended, and an additional 30 appointed members, several from the Resistance. One of the purposes of the Assembly was to legitimate the previously exiled, and recently expanded, government. Various themes were discussed in the Assembly, including épuration. The épuration trials started on 9 April 1945. Apart from criminal trials, there were also disciplinary procedures, agaisnt civil servants. Some in the Consultative Assembly criticised that it was the "small" collaborators who were investigated. Membership in the VdB was also a prickly issue.

Dupong tried to justify the government's 1940 flight in a report during the intense debates, but received harsh criticism from the opposition. Many emphasised that a new national union government needed to be formed, more informed on the state of the country and the people than the exiled govenrment, which had no contact with the people. The climate in the Assembly was bitter. There was little cooperation, and suspicions and attacks on the opposition were often heard.

Around this time (1945-1946), in Resistance circles there was severe criticism of the political insignificance of the Resistance. In pubs and at meetings of the Resistance groups, criticism was uttered against the direction of political developments, especially by Albert Wingert, who attacked the clientelism and Vetternwirtschaft of the parties; the watering-down of the term "Resistance", the way the épuration was being carried out, the sterile hyperpatriotism of some groups of the Resistance. The state had not included the Resistants, but collaborators and opportunists had a good life; they dominated the economy, and the government administration. The Resistants in general were unhappy with the apparent lenience shown towards collaborators, and épuration.

The Resistance groups, some of them highly politicised, formed a sort of non-parliamentary opposition.

At the same time, the government was trying to portray the whole country as one of Resistants, which watered down the role of the actual, active Resistants. The PM, Pierre Dupong, is quoted as saying that 95% of Luxembourgers had been Resistants. This stretched the definition of "Resistant" to mean nothing. But Dupong's views became widespread in the population. (The active Resistants were a minority)

This provoked widespread criticism, voiced at informational meetings of the Luxemburger Batterie, on the failures of the government in exile, meetings which took place on 4 July, 8 July (in Esch), 15 July, and 16 July.

On 16 August 1945, the Assembly finished its work. Until then, passionate debates over épuration, the membership in the VdB, and parliamentary responsibility in the early years of the occupation had taken place.

The National Union government soon ran into trouble in the year 1946.

It soon became clear that the lack of a parliementary opposition was a problem for the democratic functioning of society. In this situation, an extra-parliamentary oposition formed itself.

On 21 October 1945, national elections took place, which resulted in a National Union government of all the parties. There was still discontent among former Resistance members, who believed the former government-in-exile lacked legitimacy, and vehement criticism of the political circumstances was voiced at public meetings and in pubs. However, there was now no parliamentary opposition, so criticism was articulated outside the parliament. The government tended to react very sensitively to this criticism, as seen in their reaction to the so-called Putsch.

The government wanted to have a forum for public opinion, and a body before which to justify its policies and to legitimate them.

' Various themes were discussed in the Assembly, including épuration''. '''

' The épuration'' trials started on 9 April 1945. Apart from criminal trials, there were also disciplinary procedures, against civil servants. Some in the Consultative Assembly criticised that it was the "small" collaborators who were investigated. Membership in the VdB was also a prickly issue. '''

Contradictions among Resistance
At the same time, the Resistance's political ambitions were sometimes contradictory. While the Unio'n and Communists seemed to be operating in tandem In the first months after the Liberation, in order to put more pressure on the government, this marriage of convenience did not last: soon there were accusations on the left that the Unio'n was a reactionary and corporatist organisation, which included xenophobic elements.

Similarly, a leaflet of the PI-MEN organisation in spring 1945 declared that there were several collaborators in the Resistance, who had only discovered their patriotism after the Liberation: they alleged that profiteers, speculators and others had put on the badge of the Resistance after the war's end. They also condemned the political ambitions of the Unio'n.

Albert Wingert also criticised the Unio'n in 1947, and brought up the corporatist ideas already discussed during the war. Wingert's condemnation was also personal: when arrested in 1946, he had not been supported by the Unio'n or the LPPD. This case made clear how little of the solidarity of the Resistance was left.

The Resistance organisations after 1945 did not then show a unified front. Their political differences were too great and their visions for the future too divergent. This should not surprise, as there was also no unified Resistance during the war. The different organisations came from different political directions, and had various regional and social roots. The creation of a unified umbrella organisation occurred quite late, in 1944. After their actual goal, the lifting of the Nazi occupation, had been established, there was no common ground any more.

While the majority of Luxembourgers certainly felt gratitude and respect for the Resistants, they also desired a return to normality. The establishment of an Assemblée consultative, the re-establishment of the political parties, then elections and formation of a government, caused the political climate to quieten down.

The much-vaunted poltiical ambitions of the Resistance came to little as former Resistance members either left politics or joined the various political parties. By 1947 the Unio'n had started to exercise political influence through the Groupement démocratique, which later became the Democratic Party.

The portrayal of Luxembourgers as a people unified in Resistance, covered up the disparity of the groups, and the different forms of Resistance, as well as their political backgrounds and goals for after the war. They were unified only in the last months before the liberation.

But most of the concepts for the future contained in the Resistance's political programmes remained works of fantasy, such as the question of reparations and annexation, which showed itself as unrealistic.

General

 * Weiss, Fabrice. "Les instituteurs en Moselle et au Luxembourg de 1940 à 1944". In: Schirmann, Sylvain. Annexion et nazification en Europe, actes du Colloque de Metz, 7-8 novembre 2003. Colloque sur l'Europe, et particulièrement la Grande Région, dans la tourmente des années 1930 et 1940. p. 189-209

Putsch

 * Kayser, Marc; Limpach, Marc. "Überlegungen zu 'Putschaffäre' und zur luxemburgischen 'Nachkriegsmalaise'". In: forum, No. 251 (November 2005). p. 36-42


 * Schoentgen, Marc. "Innenpolitische Konflikte und Erinnerungskultur in der Nachkriegszeit." In: forum, No. 251 (November 2005). p. 47-51
 * Koch-Kent, Henri. Putsch in Luxemburg? Ein Schildbürgerstreich. Luxembourg 1980
 * Blaschette, J. La relance de la vie politique au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg après la Deuxième guerre mondiale. Luxembourg 1976.
 * Roemen, Rob. "Als die Regierung ihre Kritiker einsperren ließ". In: forum, No. 251 (November 2005). p. 29-35
 * Seimetz, René. "Vergessen, verraten und missverstanden: Zeugenaussagen und Innenansichten aus der Gefühlswelt der KZ-Heimkehrer". In: forum, No. 251 (November 2005). p. 43-46
 * Kayser, Marc; Limpach, Marc. "Luxemburger Resistenz und demokratischer Antifaschismus". In: forum, No. 244 (March 2005). p. 47-51
 * Wehenkel, Henri. "Albert Wingert, l'héros à l'eau de rose." In: forum, No. 243 (February 2005). p. 45-47

Resistance

 * Pauly, Michel. "Nichts Neues von den Luxemburger Resistenz-Historikern". In: forum, No. 216 (May 2003). p. 66
 * Majerus, Benoît. "Le débat existe bel et bien ... A propos des actes du colloque 'Les courants politiques et la Résistance: continuités ou ruptures?'" In: forum, No. 227 (June 2003). p. 60-63
 * Dostert, Paul. "La résistance luxembourgeoise (1940-1944)". In: Ons Stad, No. 71 (2002). p. 12-15
 * Wehenkel, Henri. "L'intérêt d'un colloque: Réflexions à propos du colloque d'Esch dur la Résistance". In: forum, No. 218 (July 2002). p. 47-49

Collaboration

 * Artuso, Vincent. "La collaboration au Luxembourg : un cas unique en son genre". In: forum, No. 278 (July 2008). p. 52-54
 * Artuso, Vincent. "Double jeu". In: forum, No. 304 (February 2011). p. 26-28
 * Artuso, Vincent. "Des excuses, mais au nom de qui ? L’administration luxembourgeoise et la Shoah". In: forum, No. 322 (October 2012). p. 9-11
 * Schoentgen, Marc. "'Heim ins Reich'? Die ARBED-Konzernleitung während der deutschen Besatzung 1940-1944: zwischen Kollaboration und Widerstand". In: forum, No. 304 (Feruary 2011). p. 29-35
 * Wehenkel, Henri. "La collaboration impossible". In: forum, No. 257 (June 2006). p. 52-54
 * Wehenkel, Henri. "L’aventure historique de Vincent Artuso: Compte-rendu de La collaboration au Luxembourg durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1940-1945)". In: forum, No. 332 (September 2013). p. 57-62

Shoah

 * Clesse, René. "Shoah in Luxemburg". In: Ons Stad, No. 71 (2002). p. 18-19
 * Clesse, René. "'Die Natur ist gnädiger als die Menschen'". In: Ons Stad, No. 36 (1991). p. 22-25
 * Artuso, Vincent. "Des excuses, mais au nom de qui ? L’administration luxembourgeoise et la Shoah". In: forum, No. 322 (October 2012). p. 9-11