User:Dr Gangrene/Interwar

The interwar period was marked by several things. Doubts about its status and survival as an independent sovereign state, situated between major world powers. Grappling with far-reaching questions such as the survival of the monarchy. The search for a new economic partner. Having to fight for economic survival in the post-war uncertainty and dealing with the Great Depression after the Wall Street Crash. A new dimension of politics with universal suffrage. The rise of new ideologies and bitter political struggles. Increasing international tensions with Nazi Germany's expansionist foreign policy. Societal and demographic changes

Foreign relations

After the armistice of 11 November 1918, German troops left the country, making way for the Allied armies which passed through Luxembourg to occupy the Rhineland. Allied forces were stationed in Luxembourg for six months, in order to maintain supply lines. This military presence was to prove a useful instrument for maintaining internal order. During the revolutionary period of January 1919, the government appealed to French troops to re-establish public order.

On the international stage, the government faced hostility towards the Grand Duchess. On 23 December 1918, the French government refused to receive the Luxembourgish ministers in Paris. Émile Reuter, Auguste Liesch and Nicolas Welter returned to Luxembourg with empty hands, where the troubles continued.

New economic partner

Germany's defeat in the war rendered Luxembourg's existing treaties obsolete. Under Allied pressure, on 19 December 1918 the Luxembourg government renounced its membership of the Zollverein, and ended German rights to its railways. As it was not capable of living in isolation for any length of time, Luxembourg had to find a new economic partner. Already in 1917, it had formed a commission to study the economic problems caused by the war and its consequences. The steel industry and farmers strongly preferred France as an economic partner. Only wine-growers were in favour of partnering with Belgium, where they could sell their products more easily. On 21 February 1919, the Reuter government started simultaneous talks with France and Belgium.

Negotiations with the Belgians were only undertaken with the intention of putting additional pressure on France, as a bargaining tool. However, negotiations with the French did not progress. The Reuter government decided to put the matter to a referendum. It was hoped that the voice of the people would make an impression, at a time when the war's victors were re-drawing the map of Europe according to principles of Wilsonian self-determination. On 28 September 1919, 73% of Luxembourgish electors voted in favour of an economic union with France.

However, the Luxembourgish government had to wait several more months before the French laid their cards on the table. On 10 May, the French ambassador informed the Luxembourgish government that his country had no intention of forming an economic union, and advised it to turn towards Belgium. Having succeeded in concluding a military pact with Belgium, France had no further need of Luxembourg. Since the beginning of the war, the Belgian authorities had shown annexationist tendencies towards the Grand Duchy. After the French announcement, the Luxembourgish government re-started negotiations with Belgium. These were slow-going, but resulted on 25 July 1921 in a treaty on a customs and monetary union between the two countries: the Belgium–Luxembourg Economic Union, which came into force in March 1922. This stipulated the abolition of customs barriers between the two countries, a common external tariff, a common trade policy led by Belgium and a currency association. The Belgian franc became the common currency, while Luxembourg however retained its right to print Luxembourgish notes. The economic union was never a perfect one, as the treaty did not require the harmonisation of tax systems.

Luxembourg's exit from the customs union with Germany brought about a profound restructuring of the Luxembourgish economy. Until 1918, it was mostly German money that circulated in Luxembourg, while Luxembourgish francs only played a small role. The government took advantage of its exit from the Zollverein to create a proper national currency, a symbol of its sovereignty. The government also had the intention of creating a monetary union with Luxembourg's new economic partner. This partner's currency would be legal tender in the Grand Duchy. The currency question occupied a central place in the negotiations which led to the Belgium–Luxembourg Economic Union. In 1921, the Grand Duchy borrowed 175 million Belgian francs.

League of Nations

Before World War I, Luxembourg had not led a real foreign policy, feeling bound by its neutral status and solidly anchored in the German sphere of influence. The violation of its neutrality in 1914 and the questioning of its independence during 1918-1919 showed the Luxembourgish government that it was necessary to play a role on the international stage. Luxembourg was not invited to the Paris Peace Conference and was not one of the founding members of the League of Nations established by the Treaty of Versailles. From 1919, the Reuter government took steps to have the Grand Duchy admitted to the League of Nations. Luxembourg's unarmed neutrality seemed at first to present an obstacle to its admission, as the League's charter provided for the passage of troops over member states' territory, and the participation in economic and financial sanctions against a hypothetical belligerent. At the same time, the United Kingdom considered that the small size of Luxembourg's territory was a problem. The Reuter government succeeded in overcoming these objections, partly by hinting at the possibility of a revision of the Luxembourgish Constitution. On 16 December 1920, a session of the League of Nations in Geneva voted unanimously to have Luxembourg admitted. Later, the Luxembourgish government, conscious of the population's attachment to the principle of neutrality, let the constitutional revision drag on; it would never come into force.

Railways

After the war, Luxembourgish railways also changed hands. After the armistice, French military authorities occupied the main network. The lines of Guillaume-Luxembourg were exploited for the benefit of the French state, as were the Chemins de fer d’Alsace et de Lorraine. On 19 December 1918, the Luxembourgish government withdrew from its railway treaty with Germany. However, Belgium was also interested in making use of the main Luxembourgish network. France agreed to withdraw if the Belgian and Luxembourgish governments reached an agreement, but continued to exploit Guillaume-Luxembourg in the meantime. The UEBL treaty stipulated that the question of railways be dealt with. In May 1924, Reuter signed a treaty with Belgium which required the unification of the Guillaume-Luxembourg and Prince-Henri networks under a Board of Directors where Belgian representatives would have a majority. On 20 January 1925, the Chamber of Deputies, moved by anti-Belgian feelings, rejected the treaty, provoking a government crisis. ARBED, which feared the influence of the Société Générale de Belgique on Luxembourgish railways, had also opposed the government's plans.

At the risk of provoking a break-up of the UEBL, Pierre Prüm sought a rapprochement with France. When he had only just taken office, the prime minister was received in Paris. On 9 October 1925, an agreement was reached with the Direction Générale des Chemins de fer d’Alsace et de Lorraine. This agreement gave France the provisional right to the Guillaume-Luxembourg network.

During the Prüm government's time in office, the Locarno Treaties were also signed. Although they came about without Luxembourgish participation, they marked an important date in the evolution of the Grand Duchy's defence policy. The fact that France and Germany guaranteed the inviolability of national borders, and agreed not to use war, consolidated Luxembourg's international situation. Pierre Prüm made use of Locarno Treaties' possibilities for international arbitration, to start talks with the Belgian and French governments. These would only conclude under the next government.

Active foreign policy: assuring security, maintaining neutrality

After World War I, the main priority of Luxembourgish foreign policy was to assure the security of the Grand Duchy in the new organisation of Europe. Situated as it was between the two great military powers of the continent, France and Germany, the country would risk seeing its existence endangered in the event of a new conflict between its neighbours. The warming of Franco-German relations since the Locarno Conference in 1925 was a positive sign. The Locarno Treaties provided for countries' security to be guaranteed by the development of procedures to resolve international differences peacefully. The Luxembourgish government profited from these dispositions to conclude a number of treaties of conciliation and arbitration with other countries. It signed treaties with Belgium and France in 1927; Spain and Poland in 1928; Portugal, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia and the United States in 1929; Romania in 1930 and, finally, Italy and Norway in 1932.

Joseph Bech instituted a policy of maintaining a more active presence on the international scene. He regularly participated in meetings of the League of Nations in Geneva, was present at the Conference on Disarmament in The Hague in 1932, and took part in meetings of the Oslo Alliance, which contained the smaller states, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. From 1927, the Grand Duchy ratified most of the treaties signed under the auspices of the League of Nations. The Luxembourgish government also joined the Pact of Paris, in which the signatory countries agreed to renounce war as an instrument of policy, and the plan of Aristide Briand, who proposed a federal European union in 1930. In a note in 1937, Bech explained Luxembourg's interest in participating in the Concert of Nations: "Before the war, neutrality was synonymous with total abstention. Since the creation of the League of Nations, the situation has changed. The small countries have, thanks to Geneva, a podium from which their voice can be hear from afar. Whatever may be the flaws of this institution, it constitutes for the small states, whether they are armed or disarmed like us, the sole safeguard against abuses of power."

Luxembourg's active participation in the work of the League of Nations did not mean that it was abandoning neutrality, however. For the politicians of the inter-war period, maintaining this regime seemed the only means of guaranteeing the security of the country and avoiding being caught up in a war. Joseph Bech took every opportunity to underline that "the collaboration which it [the Grand Duchy] may bring to the great work of Geneva shall not constitute a modification of of its constitutional and conventional policy of neutrality".

Maintaining the UEBL

When he arrived at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bech was confronted with the worrying deterioration of Belgo-Luxembourgish relations. The Belgium–Luxembourg Economic Union (UEBL), concluded in 1921, had got off to a bad start. On the Luxembourgish side, the memory of Belgian annexationism was still alive. On the Belgian side, the Prüm government's overtly displayed sympathies for the French had caused displeasure. During his whole time in office, the foreign minister tried to re-establish these relations with Belgium.

The economic fluctuations of the inter-war period sorely put the UEBL to the test. Above all, the monetary policy of the Belgian partners caused constant concerns to the Luxembourgish government.

From 1930, the international crisis triggered by the Wall Street Crash of 1929, also affected Luxembourg and Belgium. Production and exports started to collapse. The crisis inevitably had repercussions for the functioning of the UEBL, as it provoked a return to protectionism in all countries. Belgium and Luxembourg each put in place protective measures without notifying the other: a quota for certain products, import licences, etc. An economic border was established again between the two countries. The rapid degradation of bilateral relations forced the two governments to start negotiations. On 23 May 1935, a group of treaties were signed in Brussels, which provided a solution to the deadlock. These agreements reaffirmed the principle at the root of the UEBL, namely free trade between the two countries, and instituted an administrative commission, composed in equal measure of Luxembourgers and Belgians, which became an essential instrument for Belgo-Luxembourgish cooperation. The agreements of 1935 also dealt with a number of monetary questions, and put a cap on the circulation of Luxembourgish currency in the Grand Duchy. During the negotiations, the Luxembourgish government succeeded in obtaining numerous concessions for agriculture in the Grand Duchy. Joseph Bech, who was also the Minister for Agriculture, wanted to protect this sector, which remained one of the pillars of Luxembourgish society (employing 30% of the active population in 1935) and which was the main electoral base of the Party of the Right. However, these protective measures were to postpone necessary structural reforms, and made it all the more difficult to adapt to the international market.

Relations with Nazi Germany: growing tensions

The remilitarisation of the Rhineland, from 1936, reduced the safety buffer between France and Germany to the small territory of Luxembourg. The presence of foreign troops in the Grand Duchy in case of a Franco-German war once again became a probability. The other Western neighbour of Germany, Belgium, reacted by pulling out from the military agreement with France, and by adopting a "policy of free hands". The Luxembourgish government also sought safety in a policy of neutrality. To consolidate the international position of Luxembourg, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Joseph Bech, imagined a diplomatic operation: the signatory states to the Treaty of London of 1867 were to reaffirm the perpetual neutrality of Luxembourg by a common declaration. However, Belgium and the United Kingdom equivocated. In the absence of a multilateral agreement, Bech tried to obtain a simultaneous undertaking from France and Germany. While Germany had no problem in expressing towards Luxembourg all the promises that had been requested, France hesitated to commit itself. The French headquarters wanted to retain a right of passage across the Grand Duchy in case of German aggression. Thus, in spring 1939, with the spectre of war hovering over Europe, the government did not succeed in obtaining any formal guarantees. A surprise invasion without a reaction from the other powers became probable.

In this context, in 1939 the commemoration of the centenary of independence, in which the whole of Luxembourgish society participated, became a reaction against the German threat. The government skilfully used the commemoration festivities to demonstrate to European public opinion the country's desire for independence. The commemoration succeeded in reconciling Luxembourgish society after it had been divided by the referendum of 1937, and reinforced national sentiments in the face of the external threat.

Hitler's rise to power in Germany marked the beginning of a new era of tension in Europe. Hitler's foreign policy plans, namely the unification of all Germans and all Germanic minorities from various European countries into a "Greater Germany" and the conquest of "living space" (Lebensraum) to be achieved by expanding into the rich lands of Poland and Ukraine, would inevitably lead to a new conflagration in Europe.

The Grand Duchy, surrounded by its powerful neighbours, viewed the looming threat of war with concern. Certainly, its independence and territorial integrity had been recognised by the great powers in the Treaties of London of 1839 and again in 1867. For too long, the geographical location and strategic importance of the fortress of Luxembourg had subjected the country to formidable foreign competitions. The danger of a war between France and Germany in 1867 over Luxembourg showed the need for the complete independence of Luxembourg and its neutrality under the guarantee of the great powers. However, this neutrality seemed to hold little value against the thinly veiled threats of the Nazi leaders who, despite the words of appeasement towards the Luxembourgish government, considered Luxembourg to be historically German territory. There was also the precedent that Germany had invaded Luxembourg in 1914, ignoring its neutral status. This raised questions as to how Hitler could be trusted, a man who throughout his career violated multiple existing treaties.

As a member of the League of Nations, Luxembourg thought itself safe from foreign designs, as Article 10 of the League of Nations charter reaffirmed the formal recognition of the territorial integrity and political independence of its member states. But when, in March 1936, Nazi Germany denounced the Locarno agreements, the principle of collective security was gradually abandoned by all states. While the great powers sought to ensure their security through a policy of alliances, small states sought to protect themselves through a policy of independence and neutrality.

Thus, the Luxembourgish government resumed its own negotiations with Germany and France to obtain guarantees of non-intervention in the event of armed conflict. Arduous talks took place in 1938 and 1939, both in Berlin and Paris. However, they did not result in the signing of agreements due to the Czechoslovak (October 1938) and Polish (September 1939) crises. Nevertheless, these talks had the merit of clarifying the policy of respect and guarantee that Germany and France intended to practice regarding the independence of the Grand Duchy. Despite the assurances given by Luxembourg's two neighbours, the fears of the Luxembourgish government had by no means completely disappeared. Indeed, it was scarcely imaginable that in the event of war between France and Germany, Luxembourg would remain out of the war. The country formed a convenient invasion corridor towards France. Moreover, it was served by an admirable road and rail network and was a major producer of steel, which in the event of conflict, was not to be underestimated.

Throughout the period mentioned, bilateral relations between Germany and the Grand Duchy remained very tense. It was understood that, for its own defence, Luxembourg had only its neutrality status, which the government attempted to scrupulously respect.

Trade unions and politics

From 1930, Europe was suffering the effects of the world economic crisis, and Luxembourg was not spared. However, the unemployment numbers in Luxembourg were kept at a tolerable level, at least until 1933, as since the 1920s boom large numbers of foreign workers had been brought in; when the downturn came, they were the first to be laid off, and were removed to their home countries. Consequently, they did not appear in Luxembourg's unemployment statistics. This situation applied particularly to the steel industry. In 1929, foreign workers made up 29,9% of the working population, but by 1939 this was down to 19,1%.

The Bech government (1926-1937) stood for a classic liberal economic policy and declined to intervene in the employment market in any way; it rebuffed the Workers' Party's suggestions of a mimimum wage, unemployment insurance, or public investments programme. In 1932, Luxembourgers also started to be laid off, and the number of unemployed was estimated at 2,000. At the same time, due to pay decreases and unpaid furloughs, workers' purchasing power declined, so that businesses also suffered from the crisis. These developments had consequences both for politics and trade unions.

Communist successes

In 1928, the Communist Party of Luxembourg (KPL) had 200 members, hardly any of them Luxembourgish. For this reason, the government had never taken specific measures against the KPL. The depression after 1929 led to an upswing in the party's fortunes, which took place first at the trade union level. From the 1920s, the Communist International saw social democrats as the main enemy of the revolutionary working classes (whom the Communists believed they represented). Based on this, the KPL founded the Revolutionäre Gewerkschaftsopposition (RGO), the "Revolutionary Trade Union Opposition", to counter the socialist trade unions, especially the Luxembourg Mining and Metalworkers' Union (LBMIAV). The RGO achieved success especially with the miners, who were traditionally the most militant.

The rise of National Socialism in Germany, Clerical fascism in Austria, and rise of fascist movements in parliamentary democracies such as Belgium, France and elsewhere led the Comintern to change attitudes. Assuming that splitting the workers' movement would enable fascism, Communists embraced the popular front policy. The RGO in Luxembourg was disbanded in August 1934.

At the Chamber elections of 3 June 1934, a Communist Deputy was elected for the first time, Zénon Bernard, and the KPL only just missed out on a second seat, with 7,2% of the votes in the South constituency. This came as a shock both to the government and the Worker's Party.

The Bech government reacted harshly to the KPL's success. Bech, who as also the Education Minister, first dismissed two teachers, who were KPL members. On 27 November 1934, the election of Bernard was declared invalid, and the seat allocated to the Workers' Party.

In the local elections of October 1934, the Communists had taken seats in several communal councils. In Esch the KPL (with only one seat) even held the power to tip the scales. The KPL, following the popular front tactic, declared its intent to support a minority mayoral government of the Workers' Party. The Interior Minister Dumont however refused to appoint the mayor under these circumstances.

The need to create a legal basis to act against the KPL was becoming more and more urgent. An order law had first been proposed by Bech in 1933, and this was discussed at length by the government parties. The planned law was only shelved when in July 1935 the Workers' Party, Party of the Right and the Radical-Liberals agreed to a local coalition in Esch under the Worker's Party. Zénon Bernard was the sole councilmember in opposition.

It is highly likely that the Workers' Party in this way deliberately prevented the introduction of an order law (for a while). The trade union wing around Pierre Krier that dominated the Workers' Party was at this time not interested in a polarisation of the political fronts. The free (socialist) unions, on a reformist course, sought legal recognition by the public authorities and the right to negotiate as social partners with business owners over pay and working conditions. The Workers' Party and free trade unions therefore rejected outright any cooperation with the KPL in the 1930s.

In December 1934 the free trade unions and the Luxembourg Confederation of Christian Trade Unions agreed to establish a trade union Wages Commission for major industry. The goals of this cooperation were to achieve recognition as negotiating partners with employers, being able to engage in collective bargaining and collective agreements, and pay demands. In 1935 the unions went on the offensive with a demand for a minimum wage of 250 francs per week.

The employers' association refused any talks. The trade unions, whose presidents, Pierre Krier (LBMIAV) and Jean-Baptiste Rock (LCGB), were Deputies, now demanded a legal basis for their negotiation demands. There had been several parliamentary initiatives in this direction, including one by Pierre Dupong (Right Party). But it was only at the end of 1935 that the government was willing to debate it in the Chamber. A bill was drafted for the introduction of collective agreements. At the end of the discussions in the plenary (December 1935), Prime Minister Bech, after several previous attempts to delay, dropped one last bombshell. He requested the adjournment of the discussion due to alleged differences of opinion within the government coalition. The industrial lobby had indeed exerted such strong pressure, especially on the Radical Liberals, whose president was ARBED director Alphonse Nickels, that Bech once again backed down. The government won the subsequent vote of confidence.

The response from the trade unions came soon. In January 1936, a mass demonstration of 20,000-40,000 took place in the capital despite the freezing cold. To assess this success, it is important to know that as of January 1935, major industry employed 17,511 people. However, they found broad support, even among the middle class. Such a show of power came as a complete surprise to the Right, as they had always assumed that the trade unions were only strong as long as they did not need to show their strength.

In January 1938, the Chamber of Deputies once again debated the collective bargaining law. However, the provision that was supposed to introduce collective agreements was not passed by the (right-wing) majority in the Chamber. A "Conseil National du Travail" (National Labour Council) was established by grand-ducal decree, composed of representatives from employers, the government, and trade unions, which was to act as an arbitrator in collective labour disputes. In this respect, the trade unions were at least implicitly recognised as negotiating partners.

A logical consequence was that in March 1936, the Penal Code was finally amended, which had until then criminalised the formation of trade unions and any call for strikes.

The further development was strongly influenced by the neighbouring countries. In May 1936, the Popular Front won the parliamentary elections in France, and a large wave of strikes began to enforce social demands, affecting Lorraine in particular. In the Luxembourgish mines, which extended partly into French territory, secondary strikes took place to prevent the supply of Luxembourgish ore to French plants. In June, the Blum government was formed in Paris, and the "Matignon agreements" were concluded, providing for wage increases. Soon, the 40-hour workweek, paid holidays, and the right of collective bargaining were introduced. The French labour movement's achievements ignited a similar dynamic of demands in the Luxembourg worker milieu, which had close contact with colleagues in Lorraine.

In Luxembourg, negotiations for the miners were scheduled for early July. Since they had ended inconclusively on 9 July, the unions decided to call a strike for the first time in years. The strike vote on 11 July yielded a 99% approval rate. On 14 July, the strike commenced everywhere. The work stoppage was used to discuss the acceptance of the compromise. The strikers accepted the government's proposal, which closely approached the maximum demands of the unions. Thus, the first collective agreement in the Luxembourg heavy industry was reached, despite the lack of a legal basis. This resulted in a wage increase of 6%, the introduction of minimum wages, and the indexation of wages (which had previously only been applied to civil servants).

Following this breakthrough in mining, the industry could no longer fundamentally oppose collective bargaining negotiations. By 1939, approximately 60 such agreements had been concluded.

Order law

Throughout this entire period of intense social conflict, the project for an order law remained in the drawer. Bech resurrected it at the end of 1936. On 20 October 1936, the Luxemburger Wort. once again called for a ban on the KPL. At the opening of the parliamentary session, Bech demanded swift adoption of the order law. It remained on the parliamentary agenda until its vote on 23 April 1937.

An explicit connection between the events on the social front in the first half of 1936 and Bech's renewed initiative cannot be proven in the sources. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Bech randomly resurrected the project just a few months later. Bech belonged to the socio-reactionary wing of the Right Party and had always been an avowed enemy of the trade unions. Like his coalition partner, he was very close to the leading circles of big industry. Furthermore, he was not a man for public appearances or grand speeches where he would have disclosed his motives. He preferred conversations in small circles with some notables of his class.

The breakthrough achieved by the unions in 1936 inspired them to new demands for 1937: a 40-hour work week, extension of paid vacation, increase in pensions, tax reform, etc. The positive economic situation since late 1936, thanks to the Luxembourg steel sector's deliveries to the German armaments industry, gave them new momentum. However, the employers were not interested in such demands. An order law would not only be a useful weapon in general in the social struggle but could also help further improve relations with the German Reich. This was understandable due to the steel industry's dependence on exports; a quarter of steel exports went to Germany in 1936. Furthermore, the right-wing parties and the industrial employers were deterred by the developments in France, which had significantly contributed to the social policy successes in Luxembourg.

Society

Luxembourgish population and demographic problems

In 1930, the number of inhabitants of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg reached the record figure of 299,782. Five years later, the 1935 census recorded for the first time in the demographic evolution of contemporary Luxembourg a decline: the population decreased by nearly 3,000 compared to the 1930 census. This general demographic decline is explained by the significant decrease in the number of foreigners (55,831 foreigners in 1930, 38,369 in 1935, a decrease of 17,382), while the number of Luxembourgers increased by 14,382. The most significant demographic declines mainly affected the industrial cities of the Esch canton (examples: Rumelange-19.4%; Differdange-9.32%; Dudelange-7.4%; Esch-sur-Alzette-6.5%). While in 1930, the Esch canton still accounted for more than a third of the total population of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, this third was no longer reached in 1935. The explanation for this demographic regression lies mainly in the severity of the great global economic crisis. From the beginning of 1931, albeit with some delay compared to neighboring countries, the economic crisis hit Luxembourg. It also reveals "the fragility of the national economy, which depends primarily on the steel market situation." Exporting almost all of its production to an international market in full recession, the Luxembourg steel industry saw its production capacity decrease by about 40% (1930-36). It is therefore hardly surprising that the crisis was also reflected in the decline in jobs in the steel industry. In 1929, the Luxembourg steel and mining industry employed 28,938 workers; in 1935, the workforce barely exceeded 17,500. However, this impressive decline did not result in a high percentage of unemployment.

The explanation for this specifically Luxembourgish socio-economic phenomenon lies in the significant percentage of foreign workers employed in the Luxembourgish industry: in 1930 the share of foreign workers in the total workforce exceeded 40%; by 1937, it had decreased to only 22%. The economic crisis therefore primarily affected foreign workers. Laid off, with no real prospects of reemployment, they left the country. Thus, it is indeed the significant percentage of foreign workers that played "a safety valve function". According to the German geographer H. Quasten, this safety valve was expressly created by Luxembourgish social legislation: "Most foreigners could only work in the Grand Duchy on the basis of a 'work permit' that had to be renewed annually. Luxembourgish workers were protected from foreign competition."

The use of foreign labour as a safety valve therefore largely explains why the native Luxembourgish population was less severely affected than the populations of neighbouring countries. It is also worth noting that the exodus of foreign workers (especially Italians) significantly strengthened the socio-cultural homogeneity of the Luxembourgish working class. In 1929, 65% of the workers employed in the national territory were of Luxembourgish origin; by 1937, this had increased to 80%. There was, then, a structural change in the mid-1930s of paramount importance both in the Luxembourgish working class and in society as a whole.

Rural exodus

In addition to this exodus of foreign workers, there is a second exodus that has already been influencing the demographic and social structures of the Luxembourgish population since the end of the 19th century: rural exodus. Between 1931 and 1935, the cantons where emigration far exceeded immigration are, in order of importance: Clervaux 4004, Rodange 3559, Wiltz 3154, Echternach 3023, Grevenmacher 2973, Capellen 2564, Diekirch 1974, Mersch 1945, Kemich 1613, Luxembourg-campagne 1013, and Vianden 904. As the canton of Esch also experienced a significant demographic decline, the City of Luxembourg was the only geographical entity whose population had increased (1931-1935: +7.34%). There was notably an increase in the number of foreigners by 1200. But it should be emphasised, on the other hand, that during the same period the capital attracted 2800 people from the Luxembourgish countryside. Thus, in the midst of an economic crisis, the rural population persists in leaving the countryside in favour of the city and even in favour of the canton of Esch! Therefore, only the capital and the canton of Esch can note an increase in population due to migration. The total population of the City of Luxembourg and the canton of Esch constitutes, despite the departure of foreign workers from the industrial centers of the Upper Alzette, more than 52% of the total population of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. In other words, the bipolarization of Luxembourgish society: Canton of Esch (industrial center) and City of Luxembourg-Countryside, could not be called into question by the economic crisis.

Migration

The years 1919-1922 were marked by unemployment, strikes, and lockouts. The economy picked up again in late 1923, leading to a few years of prosperity (1924-1929). With the high economic activity, the Italians returned. They numbered 14,050 in 1930 compared to 10,138 just before World War I. Although they were more numerous, they did not regain their predominant position in the steel industry: while in 1913, 54.8% of Italians worked in the steel industry, they accounted for only 25.2% in 1930. The decline in the proportion of foreign workers in the steel industry was indeed a general phenomenon.

The decline of foreigners in the steel industry was compensated by their rise in the building and crafts sector. These post-war years were also marked by bitter internal disputes that tore apart the Italian community following the rise to power of fascism in Italy. According to a 1924 police report, "almost all Italians arriving in the country belong to the Communist party." On one hand, these were people fleeing their homeland because of their political beliefs, and on the other hand, there were those who were expelled from France and Belgium because of their political activities. Communist elements were in a position of strength and took reprisal actions against the fascists. The Luxembourg authorities were concerned about this escalation of violence and the activities of a secret society called "la cravate rouge" (the red tie). The government showed vigour towards the communists, with the most active ones being expelled. It was more lenient towards the fascists because the steel industry and construction sectors were beginning to have an increasing need for Italian labour. It was necessary to avoid displeasing the new government in Rome for fear that it would prohibit emigration to Luxembourg.

Society and social structures

In 1935, 30.2% of the workforce were engaged in agriculture (primary sector), and 43.2% were employed in industry (secondary sector), accounting for more than 2/3 of the workforce. The previous professional census, conducted in 1907, estimated the agricultural workforce at 43.2% and the secondary sector workforce at 38.4%. Between 1907 and 1935, the secondary sector (industrial) surpassed agriculture "which, despite the nearly 20% increase in population, saw a considerable decrease in its relative share, and even its absolute numbers." During this 30-year phase, the secondary sector certainly surpassed agriculture, but quantitative progression proved to be quite slow (+4.8% in 30 years). The rural and working-class worlds thus seem to dominate quantitatively Luxembourgish society in the 1930s. The former had been in socio-economic decline since the end of the 19th century, while the latter had just been strongly shaken by the economic crisis.

The tertiary sector had been underdeveloped at the end of the 19th century, and was developing at the beginning of the 20th century (18.4%). It grew considerably between 1907 and 1935. By the mid-1930s, 25% of the workforce were engaged in "services" (18.2% in trade, transport, hotels, and cafés; 6.8% in public and private services); the number of civil servants and employees increased from 5,500 to 18,382 in 28 years.

The strengthening of the tertiary sector, which sociologically determined the emergence of the middle classes, deserves some explanation. Economist C. Hemmer explains the increase in the distributive function by "the progressive concentration of the population in urban centres." This phenomenon, according to him, "led to a proliferation of retail stores and beverage outlets." Hemmer also emphasises that the development of tourism during the interwar period "caused a progressive multiplication of hotels, restaurants, and guesthouses." To explain the numerical increase in "white-collar workers," Gilbert Trausch identifies the following factors: "due to the late establishment of the Luxembourgish state, the establishment and expansion of administrative services largely occurred in the 20th century. The extent of industrialisation, the rise of education, the increasingly interventionist policy of the state ... require a continuous growth of services."

The rural world

In 1938, the number of main agricultural farms was 12,038. In 1934, 45% of farmers owned one horse, while 30% owned two. 80% of farmer-operators worked alone or were assisted by family members. These figures confirm the predominance of small family farms in rural society. However, the small family farm, the cornerstone of the rural world between the wars, was in crisis. Several factors contributed to this: the world economic crisis, poor profitability, and archaic agrarian structures largely explain the persistence of rural exodus, despite the strengthening of the protection regime for Luxembourgish agriculture by a benevolent government. And it is the young who leave... abandoning a declining world for a world in crisis!

The working world

Young rural dwellers were leaving their villages for industrial centres, yet they often remain in close contact with the old world. German geographers Quasten and Schmithüsen, as well as historian Gilbert Trausch, emphasise the importance of accessory farms as a link between the industrial world and the Luxembourgish countryside. A significant portion of workers from Luxembourgish rural areas owned small plots of land, typically less than 2 hectares. These farms were very common in the industrial region of the country (Esch canton). According to Gilbert Trausch, "a solid core of worker-farmers" had formed there. In cases where the worker gave up their accessory farm, they seemed to prefer renting out their land rather than selling it outright. The phenomenon of land ownership in the Luxembourgish working class constitutes, according to H. Quasten, a specifically Luxembourgish socio-economic characteristic. Quasten claims that: "the most important features of an industrial proletariat -propertylessness, high number of children-, were never exhibited by the industrial population of the Minett." This statement thus attempts to challenge the phenomenon of proletarianisation of the Luxembourgish working class. An enticing assertion... but dangerous due to its overly exclusive nature. The socio-economic complexity of the working class world therefore remains an open problem for Luxembourgish historical research. At present, we can only affirm that behind the unifying term of "working world" lies a great diversity of conditions.

Conclusion

The two socio-economic pillars of Luxembourgish society in the 1930s were the rural world and the working world. One was in full decline, the other in full crisis; both the rural world and the working world were indeed the two major "sick men" of Luxembourgish society in the 1930s. While farmers seemed to benefit from the financial support of a benevolent government, the working world, on the other hand, constituted a socially marginalised and politically dominated class. It was only around the mid-1930s that the working world timidly began its social and political integration into Luxembourgish society:

1. The departure of foreign workers during the economic crisis years favoured the socio-cultural consolidation of the working world.
2. The major struggles jointly led by the two main unions (socialist and Christian) for union freedoms and to obtain a collective contract system (major demonstration on 12 January 1936) simultaneously strengthened the socio-political cohesion of the working world.

It was thus both socio-cultural homogeneity and socio-political cohesion that enabled the working world to emerge from its isolation. Despite the significance of these upheavals, Luxembourgish society overall presented an image of a sick, stagnant, and blocked society. Such was the social framework in which the referendum of 6 June 1937 took place.

Bibliography and further reading

• Blau, Lucien (April 1988). "Le nationalisme dans l'entre-deux-guerres" (PDF). Forum (in French). No. 102. pp. 8ff.
• Dormal, Michel (1 January 2015). "„Sturmfluten der parlamentarischen Inkompetenz" Die Kritik des Parlamentarismus nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg". Hémecht (in German). 67 (1): 43ff.
• Grosbois, Thierry (1 April 2015). "Le gouvernement luxembourgeois en exil face à la persécution et l'extermination des Juifs 1939-1945". Hémecht (in French). 67 (2): 155ff.
• Hoffmann, Serge (2002). "Les relations germano-luxembourgeoises durant les années 30" (PDF). Ons Stad (in French) (71): 2–4.
• Kayser, Steve (June 2006). "La neutralité du Luxembourg de 1918 à 1945" [Luxembourg's neutrality from 1918 to 1945] (PDF). Forum (in French) (257): 36–39. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 January 2019. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
• Lentz, Marc; Pauly, Michel (June 1987). "Der sozialpolitische Kontext des "Maulkorb"-Gesetzes: Die Arbeiterbewegung im Aufbruch" (PDF). Forum. No. 97.
• Mary, Julien (1 October 2011), "La politique du Luxembourg au sein de la Société des Nations", Hémecht (in French), vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 405–450, retrieved 28 October 2023
• Scuto, Denis (2012). "Entre solidarité et concurrence: Syndicalisme ouvrier luxembourgeois et immigrants dans l'entre-deux-guerres". Mutations. Mémoires et Perspectives du Bassin Minier (in French) (4): 47–64.
• Thewes, Guy (2011). Les gouvernements du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg depuis 1848 (PDF) (in French). Luxembourg: Le Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg - Service information et presse. ISBN 978-2-87999-212-9.
• Thilman, Daniel (1 July 2017). "La participation des Juifs au Luxembourg à la vie politique dans l'entre-deux-guerres". Hémecht (in French). 69 (3–4): 437ff.
• Trausch, Gilbert (1 January 1975). "Le Luxembourg entre la France et la Belgique (1914-1922)". Hémecht (in French). 27 (1): 7ff.
• Trausch, Gilbert (1 October 1981). "L'immigration italienne au Luxembourg des origines (1890) à la grande crise de 1929". Hémecht. 33 (4): 443ff.
• Trausch, Gilbert (1 July 1984). "Du Zollverein à l'Union Economique Belgo-Luxembourgeoise (1914-1922)". Hémecht (in French). 36 (4): 343ff.
• Wey, Claude (June 1987). "La société luxembourgeoise 1930-1937" (PDF). Forum. No. 97. pp. 13ff.