Conclusion to Part I

Summary

Amidst this variety of fluid, evolving, and conflicting responses to occupation, most of which were justified by appeals to patriotism, it is tempting to conclude that patriotism per se actually had no impact on political choices – at least not under extreme conditions such as wartime occupation by totalitarian powers. And certainly, be it at the best of times or the worst of times, the indivisible national solidarity towards which patriotism strives can never be more than a mirage that glimmers on the horizon of popular anticipation. Yet it is just that pursuit of unattainable visions – be they of national unity, of social equality, or of “freedom and justice for all” – that fashions so much of political debate and public opinion. And on closer examination, what the comparative analysis of this part’s four cases reveals is how evolving military, economic, and geopolitical conditions helped define the ever-shifting parameters of the patriotically plausible. What was patriotically plausible depended heavily on exogenous circumstances, as the powerful tides of global war repeatedly reshaped the landscape of expectations. But it also, in turn, helped determine the relative viability at any given time of competing political agendas and ambitions within the occupied lands.