Occupiers and occupied

Until now, the question of the relationship between occupiers and occupied has not formed the subject of comprehensive study. This is a highly emotive question. The historiography of the issue was initially constructed by the survivors and witnesses, with the overriding aim of exonerating the populations and authorities of the occupied territories. Suspicion had been so strong; the invective and the "Bosches of the Nord" insult were so prevalent that it was necessary to erase the shame of the defeat and the occupation in order to restore the nation’s trust. The reconstruction started with the creation of a myth and of a patriotic, stain-free image of the occupied zone. How far was this true in reality? At the end of the War, the Bishop of Lille, Monseigneur Charost, hastened to denounce German crimes and to highlight his own role in resisting the occupation. The law professor, Fritz Herms, one of those tasked with preparing the German defence during the Treaty of Versailles negotiations and later the negotiations on reparations, in vain produced evidence of the sympathies and thanks extended to the German authorities by the very same Monseigneur Charost. In his book Lille vergewahltig?, he also produced numerous accounts of good conduct on the part of the German occupiers, signed by the mayors of numerous French municipalities. The sincerity of these statements is questionable, however, as they were probably obtained under threat just before the German troops evacuated. Nevertheless, the question merits consideration and deeper examination, although avoiding over-application of the models of the Second World War, where the terms of collaboration and resistance have taken an another dimension. The attitude of the mayors - Charles Delesalle in Lille, for example - has not really been studied, and the stance taken by industrialists has sometimes been shied away from. The attitude of doctors has not been comprehensively studied, either (see the file on doctors in 1916).