George Paxton – Nonviolent Resistance to the Nazis

But what about World War II? It is the ultimate trump card in any debate on the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance (and, not entirely by accident, also the title of an IFOR brochure on this very question). (1) It was President Obama’s main defense for his justification of the use of force in his acceptance speech of the Nobel Peace Prize. It was one of the main stumbling blocks for Martin Luther King towards embracing non-violence and it is the standard reaction of most people involved in government and the military to suggestions of implementing forms of nonviolent civil defense. The implication, of course, is that the Nazi regime was so abhorrent, it could only be stopped by sheer force. The other side of the coin, though, is that if one could argue successfully that some forms of nonviolent resistance did prove viable during WOII, it would follow that these strategies would be effective under most circumstances.  

That was what the War Resisters’ International set out to demonstrate when they, in 1952, embarked on the idea to put together a book on accounts of nonviolent resistance during the WOII. Although the WRI succeeded in amassing some first-class examples, the amount of material collected was deemed insufficient to be published as a book. (2) Others followed suit, such as Gene Sharp in his 1958 Peace News Pamphlet Tyranny Could Not Quell Them, in which he detailed the successful non-cooperation campaign by the teachers of Nrway, the aforementioned IFOR brochure, Jacques Sémelin’s Unarmed Against Hitler: Civilian Resistance in Europe 1939-1943, and a host of monographs. (3).

For his recent book Nonviolent Resistance to the Nazis George Paxton, trustee of the Gandhi Foundation and author of several books and articles on Gandhi, collected an impressive amount of existing research and combined it into “a perspective on the Nazi era which is rarely put forward”, that is, he looked both at accounts of rescuing persecuted Jews and at acts that have been much less thoroughly studied, which he describes as “nonviolent resistance by the people on their own behalf”. (4) Roughly a third of his book is devoted to a nation-by-nation account of various forms of nonviolent resistance, another third to fourteen case studies, some of them well-known, other much less so, and the last third to an analysis of the accounts he has presented. The first two parts provide a treasure trove of information (although for a second edition it would be tremendously helpful if the author were able to include more references to the sources he has used, so that the reader can conduct his own research), but it is the last part where the book comes into its own. Here he discusses, among many other things, the potential of nonviolent resistance, what makes people potential resisters and rescuers, what makes countries more prone to nonviolent resistance, and what may a Gandhian style of nonviolent resistance have looked like.

On the assumption that what worked during WOII will work under most circumstances, the great number of examples in Paxton’s book show that many forms of nonviolent resistance have at least the potential of being a viable strategy. To list just a view of the best known examples, who all bear witness to the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance: the rescue of most of the Danish Jews by the citizens of Denmark, the way the Norwegian teachers obstructed the implementation of a fascist curriculum, the Rosenstrasse protests by the women of Berlin who managed to rescue their Jewish husbands, André and Magda Trocmé’s resistance work in Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, the people of Assisi and the rescue of thousands of Italian Jews, Sophie Scholl and the White Rose, or, more generally, the widespread use of symbols of resistance, et cetera. Equally important, perhaps, is that these strategies tended to confuse the Nazi occupiers. B.H. Liddel-Hart, who had interviewed many Nazi generals responsible for the German occupation throughout Eastern and Western Europe, observed that “Other [nonviolent] forms of resistance baffled them – and all the more in proportion as the methods were subtle and concealed. It was a relief to them when resistance became violent and when nonviolent forms were mixed with guerrilla action, thus making it easier to combine drastic repressive action against both at the same time”. (5) 

That nonviolent methods can be effective against violent-authoritarian regimes has already been shown by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, who concluded, based on their study of 323 campaigns from the period between 1900 and 2006, that nonviolent campaigns are twice as often successful as violent ones, on average draw four times as many participants and are more likely to lead to stable democratic regimes. (6) Whether nonviolent methods alone would have been sufficient to bring down a Nazi-type regime is harder to answer. As George Paxton reminds us, it is important to take into account that a good deal of nonviolent resistance that took place during WOII was of a pragmatic nature, that people simply used whatever method was available, and that little was known about past examples of the successful application of forms of nonviolent resistance. A greater awareness of these might have resulted in a wider use of such strategies. It is of course impossible to say if that would have made any difference, yet, as Paxton states, “Without the cooperation of a large proportion of a occupied nation a regime is unstable and in the long-run it will collapse”. Therefore, a consistent use of a strategy of social, economic and political noncooperation – “nonviolent coercion”, as Gene Sharp has put it – combined with the Gandhian principle of trying to convert the opponent by recognizing his or her humanity, might be a tool that is sufficiently powerful to slowdown or stop a Nazi-type regime in its tracks. 

In order to learn more about what it takes for people to become rescuers or resisters, Paxton has tried to discern some common characteristics. Although there is no clear-cut distinction between resisters and rescuers, generally speaking resisters tended to be motivated by strong convictions, either of a religious or a political nature – the religious group that was staunchest in its resistance were Jehovah Witnesses, and the politically motivated were most likely to be either communists or patriots –, whereas rescuers were more likely to have been triggered by empathy. Yet a willingness to help was not enough in itself, certain other requirements were needed as well, such as sufficient space for a hiding place, the ability to procure extra food or to keep a clear head under stress. Therefore, rescuers who hid Jews tended to have larger homes and often had a larger network of likeminded people (the majority of rescuers were called upon to help by people from their network). Also, quite a few were from the ‘helping’ professions, such as doctors, nurses, teachers and social workers, or they happened to be well positioned to help, as was the case with some diplomats who were able to provide passports and other travel documents to people in need. Next, many rescuers seem to have shared some characteristics in their upbringing, such as a nurturing home, altruistic parents, a certain tolerance for people who differed from themselves and the encouragement of independence of thought. But then again, some rescuers were of a very strict religious background in which there had been very little room for any of the above.

When it comes to nations’ aptitude for nonviolent resistance it is even riskier to come up with common traits, for the simple reason that the Nazis treated different countries differently. Eastern Europe was supposed to provide Lebensraum (i.e. the indigenous people were supposed to make place for German colonists so as to solve Germany’s raging agricultural crisis), whereas, for instance, Scandinavia and Holland were looked upon as kindred people and thus treated less harshly. Nevertheless, countries with a strong democratic tradition and a well developed civil society seem to have been somewhat more inclined towards non-cooperation. The same goes for countries that were more ethnically homogenous or that had a tradition of tolerance and a lack of anti-Semitism. Yet, the success of most forms of nonviolent resistance also heavily depended on such practicalities as the availability of money through governments-in-exile and international organizations outside the country and the close proximity of neutral and non-occupied countries where Jews could be brought to safety.

In the final part of the book George Paxton speculates on what a resistance based on Gandhian principles may have looked like. His two major conclusions are that where the resistance was mired in secrecy, a Gandhian-style resistance would have been conducted as openly as possible, in part because open nonviolent resistance might have persuaded bystanders into action, in part because of the effect the courage displayed would have had on the Nazis, but also because he firmly believed in the unity of ends and means. The second is that the devilish progression of stages in the Nazi attempt to eliminate all Jews might have been brought to a halt sooner, though no doubt still at a tremendous cost of lives. As one of Gandhi’s main principles was to never allow oneself to be humiliated, people might have drawn the line when the first measures against Jews and political opponents were taken. But then again, this would all have taken tremendous courage in a situation in which few people realized what the devastating end result would be.

Whether or not nonviolent resistance alone would have been sufficient to bring down the Nazi regime is impossible to say. But for all the people who reject the idea out of hand, George Paxton has provided them with lots of food for thought. And in doing so his book offers a great service. 

(1) But What About World War II? (Amsterdam: International fellowship of Reconciliation, 1980).
(2) See elsewhere on this site: www.satyagrahafoundation.org/report-on-nonviolent-resistance-in-the-district-of-chambon-sur-legion-haute-loire-france-during-the-war-1939-1945/
(3) Gene Sharp, Tyranny Could not Quell Them (London: Peace News, 1958); Jacques Sémelin, Unarmed Against Hitler: Civilian Resistance in Europe 1939-1943 (London: Praeger, 1993).
(4) George Paxton, Nonviolent Resistance to the Nazis (London: YouCaxton Publications, 2016), p. 1.
(5) B.H. Liddel-Hart, “Lessons from Resistance Movements: Guerrilla and Nonviolent,” in Adam Roberts, ed., Civilian Resistance as a National Defence (Harrisburg: Stackpole Books, 1968), p. 205. 
(6) Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).