Winning the Peace: The British in Occupied Germany, 1945–1948 is a welcome addition to the revival of interest in the Allied occupations of Germany at the end of the Second World War. In particular, Christopher Knowles intends to recover the British occupation, which is often overshadowed by predominant concern in scholarship and popular memory with the American zones. Yet he disavows any intent to provide a full history of the British occupation, adopting a narrower scope. In part that is a product of his focus on “the transition from war to peace” (5), but it is even more a product of the biographical approach he adopts—an attempt to portray the transition through the perspective of twelve individuals, taking into account their prior experiences and attitudes, as well as their confrontation with the reality of defeated Germany.
This biographical approach provides the structure of the book. Part one, “Physical Reconstruction: The Military Governors and Army Generals,” focuses on Bernard Montgomery; Brian Robertson, who would also become military governor; Alex Bishop, who held several posts, including that of regional commissioner for North Rhine-Westphalia; and Sholto Douglas, Montgomery's immediate successor, who heartily disliked his time in Germany. The focus on the transition to peace is immediately obvious in the account of Montgomery, who surprised some by the speed of his commitment to reconstruction and his formulation of a new directive that became effective in September 1945. Knowles's account explores the wider motives behind Montgomery's attitudes and actions, emphasizing the importance of the experience and idea of empire, as well as the commitment of Montgomery, Robertson and Bishop to the moral renewal of Germany. Montgomery and Robertson also drew on the experience of the British participation in the occupation of the Rhineland at the end of the First World War. The practical exigencies of the occupation, especially the food crisis, are given due attention, but it is these wider considerations, especially of empire and moral vision, that Knowles chooses to emphasize and that his biographical approach brings out to such good effect. By the same token, the analysis issues in a portrayal of Douglas as a very different kind of military governor: a pragmatist with few of the idealistic traits of the other three.
Part two, “Political Renewal: Civilian Diplomats and Administrators,” moves the focus to the second tier of the administration of military government. Here Harold Ingrams, who became head of the Administration and Local Government section of the Control Commission, preserves the link with the theme of empire. Ingrams was a colonial official who believed in the superiority of British institutions, especially the practices of British local government, which he also associated with the virtues of Christianity. Knowles provides an interesting account of the limits of men like Ingrams to impose their vision and of the success of the Germans subject to them in so many ways in defending their own preferences and traditions. Austen Albu and Allan Flanders came from a very different background, both being committed international socialists. They provide Knowles with the opportunity for suggesting that German exile socialists had more influence than is commonly assumed. Of the two, Albu receives more attention, though both are presented as frustrated by the limits of their influence and as pessimistic about the future as they left Germany. Although they facilitated the increasing assumption of authority by German politicians, their own experience was that of “outsiders in what was effectively a Military Government” (100). The fourth figure at this level, Henry Vaughan Berry, brought yet a different set of experiences. He had background in the occupation of the Rhineland and in the empire but also in the business world. Berry could look back on his time as regional commissioner in Hamburg with satisfaction, and, on his death, he was favorably remembered by Helmut Schmidt. Yet Berry's undoubted success also came at the price of glossing over the legacy of the Third Reich—and British devastation of much of Hamburg. Among this group, the blend of recurrent themes, diverse backgrounds and experiences helps to produce a fine-grained impression of the experience of military government in an occupied country.
For part three, “Personal Reconciliation: Young Men with No Adult Experience but War,” Knowles selected John Chaloner, Michael Howard, Jan Thexton, and Michael Palliser as representatives of the “young officers.” As Knowles acknowledges, these men left less trace in archives, a deficiency he seeks to remedy by drawing on wider sources. That inevitably produces some imbalance compared to the presentation of the older and more senior figures. Nevertheless, he draws some clear general conclusions, portraying these men as pragmatic, concerned for their own future, but also conscientious. Chaloner receives more attention than the others because of his role in the creation of Der Spiegel and illustrates how much could be achieved by the initiative of even junior figures.
Although the biographical approach produces somewhat uneven results, as the focus moves to the more junior figures, it becomes increasingly interesting and productive. Personal recollections, some of them the product of Knowles's own interviews, enrich this approach, but even without such sources, the biographical method may be worthy of imitation in the study of other occupations and other experiences of the transition from war to peace. Overall, this is a valuable contribution to any reading list devoted to this phase of British-German history or to the study of military occupation.
